{"document_id": "013251b4-e7c9-4ea3-a1ab-1c374fc35cf8", "source_id": "b3f70291c8120e2132ebf3c4", "source": "Academic", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01234", "final_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01234", "artifact_sha256": "8ba0943dd2ddd39b54f13038736fd167808c7c334d737a16de6ab94d6b3961e4", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 40166, "title": "[2401.01234] Mixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach", "language": "en", "text_length": 4288, "characters": 4288, "text": "[2401.01234] Mixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nStatistics > Methodology\narXiv:2401.01234\n(stat)\n[Submitted on 2 Jan 2024]\nTitle:\nMixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach\nAuthors:\nJinqing Li\n,\nJun Ma\nView a PDF of the paper titled Mixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach, by Jinqing Li and Jun Ma\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nAbstract:\nSurvival analysis can sometimes involve individuals who will not experience the event of interest, forming what is known as the cured group. Identifying such individuals is not always possible beforehand, as they provide only right-censored data. Ignoring the presence of the cured group can introduce bias in the final model. This paper presents a method for estimating a semiparametric additive hazards model that accounts for the cured fraction. Unlike regression coefficients in a hazard ratio model, those in an additive hazard model measure hazard differences. The proposed method uses a primal-dual interior point algorithm to obtain constrained maximum penalized likelihood estimates of the model parameters, including the regression coefficients and the baseline hazard, subject to certain non-negativity constraints.\nComments:\n28 pages\nSubjects:\nMethodology (stat.ME)\nCite as:\narXiv:2401.01234\n[stat.ME]\n(or\narXiv:2401.01234v1\n[stat.ME]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.01234\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nSubmission history\nFrom: Jinqing Li [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nTue, 2 Jan 2024 15:02:42 UTC (109 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled Mixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach, by Jinqing Li and Jun Ma\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\nstat.ME\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2024-01\nChange to browse by:\nstat\nReferences & Citations\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "segments": [{"segment_id": "60a1ebe4-c594-419b-b248-7e00c8d92f52", "document_id": "013251b4-e7c9-4ea3-a1ab-1c374fc35cf8", "ordinal": 0, "text": "[2401.01234] Mixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nStatistics > Methodology\narXiv:2401.01234\n(stat)\n[Submitted on 2 Jan 2024]\nTitle:\nMixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach\nAuthors:\nJinqing Li\n,\nJun Ma\nView a PDF of the paper titled Mixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach, by Jinqing Li and Jun Ma\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nAbstract:\nSurvival analysis can sometimes involve individuals who will not experience the event of interest, forming what is known as the cured group. Identifying such individuals is not always possible beforehand, as they provide only right-censored data. Ignoring the presence of the cured group can introduce bias in the final model. This paper presents a method for estimating a semiparametric additive hazards model that accounts for the cured fraction. Unlike regression coefficients in a hazard ratio model, those in an additive hazard model measure hazard differences. The proposed method uses a primal-dual interior point algorithm to obtain constrained maximum penalized likelihood estimates of the model parameters, including the regression coefficients and the baseline hazard, subject to certain non-negativity constraints.\nComments:\n28 pages\nSubjects:\nMethodology (stat.ME)\nCite as:\narXiv:2401.01234\n[stat.ME]\n(or\narXiv:2401.01234v1\n[stat.ME]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.01234\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nSubmission history\nFrom: Jinqing Li [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nTue, 2 Jan 2024 15:02:42 UTC (109 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled Mixture cure semiparametric additive hazard models under partly interval censoring -- a penalized likelihood approach, by Jinqing Li and Jun Ma\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\nstat.ME\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2024-01\nChange to browse by:\nstat\nReferences & Citations\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4288, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 650}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "0244e7e7-4cbc-485b-86fe-dca250123949", "source_id": "18d81835c8db1f4a91f41174", "source": "ARIN", "source_url": "https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/", "final_url": "https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/", "artifact_sha256": "b2244d4f850c602fbe9ec7c3981be88be9eccfaf7dee281e239fe7148a61a422", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 26320, "title": "Welcome to ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers", "language": "en-us", "text_length": 5725, "characters": 5725, "text": "Welcome to ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nHome\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nEstablished in December 1997, the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is a nonprofit, member-based organization that supports the operation and growth of the Internet.\nARIN accomplishes this by carrying out its core service, which is the management and distribution of Internet number resources such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs). ARIN manages these resources within its service region, which comprises Canada, the United States, and many Caribbean and North Atlantic countries. ARIN also coordinates policy development by the community and advances the Internet through informational outreach. The following video provides an introduction to ARIN.\nOrganization Structure and Staff\nARIN is structured to operate as a service organization that is responsive to the needs of the public it serves. It is organized and driven by the users in the community and is thus able to keep in step with their requirements. The ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council oversee and direct the President & CEO as well as the ARIN staff. A\nfull staff list and organizational chart\nis available.\nOur Region\nARIN’s geographical service area includes all of the countries in\nour region\n, which comprises Canada, the United States, and many Caribbean and North Atlantic countries.\nARIN Board of Trustees\nThe Board of Trustees\nmaintains authority over the scope, mission, and, along with the President & CEO, strategic direction and fiscal oversight of ARIN. The President & CEO, along with ARIN staff, executes the strategic direction through the operational management of ARIN. The Board also has oversight authority of the nomination, appointment, and election of individuals to Board committees and similar roles.\nAdvisory Council\nThe Advisory Council\nserves in an advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on Internet number resource policy and related matters. Adhering to the procedures in the\nPolicy Development Process\n, the Advisory Council forwards consensus-based policy proposals to the Board for ratification.\nNRO Number Council\nThe Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC)\nadvises the NRO Executive Council on proposed global number resource policies. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the NRO NC performs the role of the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC).\nCareers\nIf you are passionate about helping the Internet grow, look no further than a\ncareer at ARIN\n! ARIN is always on the lookout for talented, motivated, and energetic individuals who enjoy working in a collaborative environment.\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nRelated\nNew to ARIN\nAcronym Guide\nCorporate Documentation\nGreen Initiatives at ARIN\nNetwork Abuse\nMedia Information Center\nBlog\nLearn More About ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nARIN Value Statements\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "segments": [{"segment_id": "1d99daae-bd39-4aa1-a81a-7b4a1989b9bb", "document_id": "0244e7e7-4cbc-485b-86fe-dca250123949", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Welcome to ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nHome\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nEstablished in December 1997, the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is a nonprofit, member-based organization that supports the operation and growth of the Internet.\nARIN accomplishes this by carrying out its core service, which is the management and distribution of Internet number resources such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs). ARIN manages these resources within its service region, which comprises Canada, the United States, and many Caribbean and North Atlantic countries. ARIN also coordinates policy development by the community and advances the Internet through informational outreach. The following video provides an introduction to ARIN.\nOrganization Structure and Staff\nARIN is structured to operate as a service organization that is responsive to the needs of the public it serves. It is organized and driven by the users in the community and is thus able to keep in step with their requirements. The ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council oversee and direct the President & CEO as well as the ARIN staff. A\nfull staff list and organizational chart\nis available.\nOur Region\nARIN’s geographical service area includes all of the countries in\nour region\n, which comprises Canada, the United States, and many Caribbean and North Atlantic countries.\nARIN Board of Trustees\nThe Board of Trustees\nmaintains authority over the scope, mission, and, along with the President & CEO, strategic direction and fiscal oversight of ARIN. The President & CEO, along with ARIN staff, executes the strategic direction through the operational management of ARIN. The Board also has oversight authority of the nomination, appointment, and election of individuals to Board committees and similar roles.\nAdvisory Council\nThe Advisory Council\nserves in an advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on Internet number resource policy and related matters. Adhering to the procedures in the\nPolicy Development Process\n, the Advisory Council forwards consensus-based policy proposals to the Board for ratification.\nNRO Number Council\nThe Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC)\nadvises the NRO Executive Council on proposed global number resource policies. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the NRO NC performs the role of the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC).\nCareers\nIf you are passionate about helping the Internet grow, look no further than a\ncareer at ARIN\n! ARIN is always on the lookout for talented, motivated, and energetic individuals who enjoy working in a collaborative environment.\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nRelated\nNew to ARIN\nAcronym Guide\nCorporate Documentation\nGreen Initiatives at ARIN\nNetwork Abuse\nMedia Information Center\nBlog\nLearn More About ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nARIN Value Statements\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5725, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 833}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "04b83cae-9b3b-4838-8e24-608f5f007a43", "source_id": "76a56df61ca260d5731acb58", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/now-2012-02-25-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/now-2012-02-25-en", "artifact_sha256": "2548a44e7e5ae6370849f4176786a5387f8c5b6d40a7626c3e2d9b9c788e7d42", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 73804, "title": "What's Going on Now? - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 13092, "characters": 13092, "text": "What's Going on Now? - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nWhat's Going on Now?\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nItaliano\n日本語\n한국어\nPortuguês\nPусский\n中文\nAt any given time, ICANN is likely to be reviewing a number of different elements of the Internet's system. On top of that, due to the ever-changing nature of the Internet itself, ICANN is frequently changing and reviewing its structure and processes in order to keep it up to speed.\nPublic Comments\nOne of the easiest ways to review what is going on at this very moment is to check out what is currently undergoing a public comment period. All substantial policy changes - including drafts of documents - are put out for public comment, where any interested observer can make their views known. These public comments period can all be viewed at one webpage found at\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment\n.\nOn that page, you will see all open comment forums, those recently closed, upcoming forums and an archive of forums. An explanation of each forum is given, together with relevant links to other resources. All comments sent to ICANN are published and a summary/analysis of the comments carried out at the end of the period.\nSupporting Organisations\nOn either side of the public comment forums are ICANN's supporting organisations and advisory committees, who are responsible for originating ideas and proposals, as well as commenting on others', and ultimately seeing policies through to their conclusion - approval by the ICANN Board. Each constituency has its own website, which details what it is currently reviewing, as well as what is coming up, and what was recently decided upon (the\nfull structure is here\n).\nBlog\nFor timely events and other issues that crop up by which is unlikely to form part of a formal decision-making process, ICANN also has\na blog\n. Staff and key individuals in the ICANN community post news, reviews and simply interesting information on the blog, which is open to all and which welcomes comments from across the Internet.\nICANN Board\nThe ICANN Board is the body ultimately responsible for making decisions. The Board typically meets once a month, with details of upcoming meetings and their agenda (when available) all available on a\nsingle webpage\n. That page also provide lengthy minutes of past meetings and transcripts in the case of public Board meetings.\nAnnouncements and Meetings\nAll formal announcements made by the organisation are put on its own\nAnnouncements webpage\n, with a news alert service sending out automated emails every time there is a new piece of news. And finally, there are\nICANN public meetings\n, which take place over a week and see the ICANN community come together at locations across the world in order to discuss issues face-to-face.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "83472845-6ca0-447a-a78e-47ecea24ef64", "document_id": "04b83cae-9b3b-4838-8e24-608f5f007a43", "ordinal": 0, "text": "What's Going on Now? - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nWhat's Going on Now?\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nItaliano\n日本語\n한국어\nPortuguês\nPусский\n中文\nAt any given time, ICANN is likely to be reviewing a number of different elements of the Internet's system. On top of that, due to the ever-changing nature of the Internet itself, ICANN is frequently changing and reviewing its structure and processes in order to keep it up to speed.\nPublic Comments\nOne of the easiest ways to review what is going on at this very moment is to check out what is currently undergoing a public comment period. All substantial policy changes - including drafts of documents - are put out for public comment, where any interested observer can make their views known. These public comments period can all be viewed at one webpage found at\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment\n.\nOn that page, you will see all open comment forums, those recently closed, upcoming forums and an archive of forums. An explanation of each forum is given, together with relevant links to other resources. All comments sent to ICANN are published and a summary/analysis of the comments carried out at the end of the period.\nSupporting Organisations\nOn either side of the public comment forums are ICANN's supporting organisations and advisory committees, who are responsible for originating ideas and proposals, as well as commenting on others', and ultimately seeing policies through to their conclusion - approval by the ICANN Board. Each constituency has its own website, which details what it is currently reviewing, as well as what is coming up, and what was recently decided upon (the\nfull structure is here\n).\nBlog\nFor timely events and other issues that crop up by which is unlikely to form part of a formal decision-making process, ICANN also has\na blog\n. Staff and key individuals in the ICANN community post news, reviews and simply interesting information on the blog, which is open to all and which welcomes comments from across the Internet.\nICANN Board\nThe ICANN Board is the body ultimately responsible for making decisions. The Board typically meets once a month, with details of upcoming meetings and their agenda (when available) all available on a\nsingle webpage\n. That page also provide lengthy minutes of past meetings and transcripts in the case of public Board meetings.\nAnnouncements and Meetings\nAll formal announcements made by the organisation are put on its own\nAnnouncements webpage\n, with a news alert service sending out automated emails every time there is a new piece of news. And finally, there are\nICANN public meetings\n, which take place over a week and see the ICANN community come together at locations across the world in order to discuss issues face-to-face.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 13092, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1827}}], "published_at": "2012-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2012-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2012-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "04e00423-321d-489e-a5b7-775137dfa002", "source_id": "7ac04ea181b9ffb956af4b2a", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/news/blog", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/blogs", "artifact_sha256": "050a2999d0ddb6cd15e71b12c89a849cc705a7e319a0d462aca1f2120ffe745d", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 432159, "title": "ICANN Blogs", "language": "en", "text_length": 8292, "characters": 8292, "text": "ICANN Blogs\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN Blogs\nRead ICANN Blogs to stay informed of the latest policymaking activities, regional events, and more.\nSubscribe\nICANN.org Home\nAnnouncements\nBlogs\nEngagement Calendar\nFollow Us on Social\nMedia Resources\nICANN Blogs\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within Blogs.\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nRegion(s)\nAfrica\nAsia/Australia/Pacific\nEurope\nLatin America/Caribbean\nNorth America\nAuthor(s)\nAaron, Greg\nAbdul Rahim, Rinalia\nAbed, Andre\nAbley, Joe\nAbuhamad, Grace\nAbusitta, Nora\nAgopian, Eleeza\nAgrawal, Anupam\nAina, Alain\nAkanho, Yazid\nAkbulut, Seda\nAkplogan, Adiel\nAldawodi, Sawsan\nAllison, Lauren\nAlMeshal, Ali\nAlvarez, Carlos\nAlvarez, Eduardo\nAmpofo, Henrietta\nAntoniello, Nicolás\nArends, Roy\nArias, Francisco\nAshcraft, Damon\nAshton-Hart, Nick\nAtallah, Akram\nAtohoun, Yaovi\nAustin, Donna\nAw, Fiona\nBagley, Drew\nBaker, Fred\nBakhat Masood, Ahmed\nBaril, Jean-Francois\nBarrett, Alan\nBarrett, Kerry-Ann\nBarrett, Tom\nBatayneh, Fahd\nBaulch, Josh\nBeccalli, Andrea\nBeckstrom, Rod\nBen Jemaa, Tijani\nBennett, Susanna\nBickers, Geoff\nBladel, James\nBlanchet, Marc\nBlumenthal, Don\nBotsyoe, Lily\nBotterman, Maarten\nBrent, Doug\nBryce, Jennifer\nBuchanan, Jordyn\nBuckley, Kristy\nBunton, Graeme\nBurnette, Stacy\nBurns, Duncan\nBurr, Becky\nCalvez, Xavier\nCaplis, Sara\nCarter, Jordan\nCarver, Mandy\nCastillo-Sojo, Leticia\nCatapano, Joe\nCaton, Justin\nCerf, Vint\nCetraro, Francesco\nChalaby, Cherine\nChapman, Chris\nCheadle, Sam\nChehadé, Fadi\nChen, Joyce\nChoudhury, Amrita\nChulani, Mukesh\nChyn Tan, Yien\nClay, Barbara Ann\nColas-Adeshina, Isabelle\nCole, Tim\nConrad, David\nConte, Steve\nCornell, Carole\nCosterton, Sally\nCrain, John\nCrocker, Steve\nCrépin-Leblond, Olivier\nCurran, John\nCute, Brian\nCWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs\nDam, Tina\nDammak, Rafik\nDaniels, Albert\nDans, Alex\nData, Ajay\nDatysgeld, Mark\nDavies, Kim\nDawson, Christian\nDe La Parra, Rodrigo\nDeerhake, Stephen\nDeutsch, Sarah\nDickinson, Samantha\nDisspain, Chris\nDoherty, Jessie\nDoria, Avri\nDouma Lange, Janice\nDunn, Jeffrey\nDurand, Alain\nEnger, Kimberly\nEPDP Leadership Team\nErwin, Jared\nEscalera, Deborah\nEsmat, Baher\nFarrell, Maria\nFerrali, Laurent\nField, Elizabeth\nFink, Daniel\nForrest, Heather\nFowlie, Frank\nFuhr, Lise\nGannon, James\nGarside, Simon\nGasster, Liz\nGerich, Elise\nGift, Chris\nGoldstein, Steve\nGraham, Michael\nGrogan, Allen\nGupta, Samiran\nGurnick, Larisa\nGutterman, Brian\nHedlund, Jamie\nHernandez Ganan, Carlos\nHickson, Nigel\nHinojosa, Pablo\nHirano, Marilia\nHoffman, Paul\nHoffmann, Lars\nHolland, Byron\nHousley, Russ\nHuang, Haoran\nHuberman, David\nHussain, Sarmad\nHyeYoung Kang, Kelly\nICANN Blog\nICANN Board\nICG Chair and Vice-Chairs​\nIgnacio Estrada, Miguel\nInne, Anne-Rachel\nIsmail , Manal\nJacobsen, Ole\nJeffrey, John\nJones, Patrick\nKamel, Tarek\nKane, Pat\nKapin, Laureen\nKarklins, Janis\nKing, Tanzanica\nKleinrock, Leonard\nKnigge, Michael\nKonings, Marika\nKooarmornpatana, Pitinan\nKoole, James\nKorczyński, Prof. Maciej\nKoubaa, Khaled\nKulikova, Alexandra\nKäo, Merike\nLaHatte, Chris\nLamb, Richard\nLangdon-Orr, Cheryl\nLarson, Matt\nLawrence, Jon\nLentz, Karen\nLevins, Paul\nLewis, Edward\nLindqvist, Kurtis\nLipinski, Lynn\nLiu, Conglun\nLloyd, Siôn\nLow, Jia-Rong\nLänsipuro, Yrjö\nMadi, Luna\nMaemura, Akinori\nMagaziner, Ira\nMalthouse, Jacob\nManderson, Terry\nMarby, Göran\nMari, Nora\nMarkovski, Veni\nMcCarthy, Kieren\nMcConachie, Andrew\nMcFadyen, Rachel\nMcGilley, Becky\nMcGilley, Rebecca\nMcGinty, Giose\nMcKnight, Glenn\nMendez, Eduardo\nMetalitz, Steven\nMichel, Denise\nMilam, Margie\nMitchell, Keith\nMochu, Natalia\nMockapetris, Paul\nMohan, Ram\nMohr, Susan\nMondini, Christopher\nMorris, Jacqueline\nMosquera, Sabrina\nMoss, Jeff\nMuchene, Paul\nMulberry, Karen\nNamazi, Cyrus\nNash, Becky\nNeuman, Jeffrey\nNewell Cohen, Sally\nNguyen, Trang\nNordling, Olof\nNoveck, Beth\nO'Neil, Erin\nObonyo, Leonard\nOchieng, Bob\nOffice of the Ombudsman\nOlive, David\nOloyede, Abdulkarim\nOluoch, Elizabeth\nOsterweil, Eric\nPapac, Krista\nPavez, Andres\nPayne, Susan\nPeake, Adam\nPensky, Gianina\nPeregrine, Nathalie\nPeters-Allgood, Melissa\nPetzer, Gary\nPierre Dandjinou, Sagbo\nPinzon, Scott\nPiscitello, Dave\nPlexida, Elena\nPodduturi, Anil\nPolito, Julio\nPritz, Kurt\nQayyum, Amir\nQuaynor, Nii\nQuinzy, Michaela\nRamaj, Ergys\nRangan, Ashwin\nRasmussen, Rod\nRattray, Greg\nRDS-WHOIS2 Leadership\nRegnauld, Phil\nReyes, Carlos\nRickert, Thomas\nRidout, Pallavi\nRoberts, Mike\nRobinson, Shayna\nRobinson, Jonathan\nRodriguez, Christina\nRodriguez, Pablo\nRose, Amanda\nRuffolo, Riccardo\nSadowsky, George\nSagiroglu, Seher\nSahel, Jean-Jacques\nSarras, Naela\nSattler, Tobias\nSaucedo, Rodrigo\nScartezini, Vanda\nSchilling, Bryan\nSchittek, Gabriella\nSchoer, Natalie\nSchwartz, Craig\nSegall, Mark\nSeppia, Giovanni\nSerad, Maguy\nSexton, Jane\nShambley, Charla\nShipman Wentworth, Sally\nSinghal, Amitabh\nSinha, Tripti\nSokolova, Nadia\nSoto, Alberto\nSudowski, Jay\nSwinehart, Theresa\nSánchez, León\nTajalizadehkhoob, Samaneh, Ph.D.\nTaylor, Emily\nTeo, Liana\nThe Africa Team\nThe Independent Review Process Community Representatives Group\nThe Language Services Team\nThe Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR2) Review Team\nThorne, Nick\nTomasso, Nick\nTouton, Louis\nTrengrove, Jim\nTrepykhalin, Alexey\nUllrich, Heidi\nValente, Karla\nVan Gelder, Stéphane\nVardanyan, Siranush\nVegoda, Leo\nVerd, Brad\nVilardo, María\nVivanco, Silvia\nVocea, Save\nVyorst, David\nWali, Nitin\nWaye, Herb\nWeinstein, Russ\nWhite, Brad\nWibawa, Angela\nWijayatunga, Champika\nWillett, Christine\nWilson, Kevin\nWilson, Paul\nWolfe, Jen\nWong, Kelvin\nWong, Mary\nYakushev, Michael\nYee, Kenn\nYilmaz, Filiz\nYu-Chuang, Kuek\nZacharias, Dimitris\nZhang, Jian-Chuan\nZheng, Song\nZuck, Jonathan\nZupke, Mike\nAshley Heineman and Peter Koch\nTripti Sinha and Sally Costerton\nApply\nClear\nMore Search Options\n1-10 of 2361 results\nBuilding on Momentum: ICANN's FY27 Middle East Regional Implementation Plan\nBy\nBaher Esmat\n29 July 2026\nICANN at WSIS Forum 2026: Advancing Global Internet Cooperation\nBy\nAlexey Trepykhalin\n28 July 2026\nPreparing for the Root Zone KSK Rollover: What You Need to Know\nBy\nRoy Arends\n27 July 2026\nImportant Reminders and Updates for 2026 Round Applicants\nBy\nTheresa Swinehart\n27 July 2026\nUnsure How to Handle Challenging Behavior in the Community? Start Here\nBy\nElizabeth Field\n22 July 2026\nAnticipating Emerging Risks and Advancing DNS Resilience\nBy\nRam Mohan\n20 July 2026\nICANN Grant Program Completes First Interim Reporting Period\nBy\nShayna Robinson\n13 July 2026\nBeyond the Fellowship: Continuing My ICANN Journey\nBy\nLily Botsyoe\n29 June 2026\nCelebrating ICANN Working Group Chairs and Vice Chairs\nBy\nTripti Sinha\n25 June 2026\nCall for Participation: ICANN’s Law Enforcement Authentication Input Group\nBy\nEleeza Agopian\n25 June 2026\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n...\n237\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n...\n237\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "2668e076-e35a-4175-a98f-c7f022e1f6cf", "document_id": "04e00423-321d-489e-a5b7-775137dfa002", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Blogs\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN Blogs\nRead ICANN Blogs to stay informed of the latest policymaking activities, regional events, and more.\nSubscribe\nICANN.org Home\nAnnouncements\nBlogs\nEngagement Calendar\nFollow Us on Social\nMedia Resources\nICANN Blogs\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within Blogs.\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nRegion(s)\nAfrica\nAsia/Australia/Pacific\nEurope\nLatin America/Caribbean\nNorth America\nAuthor(s)\nAaron, Greg\nAbdul Rahim, Rinalia\nAbed, Andre\nAbley, Joe\nAbuhamad, Grace\nAbusitta, Nora\nAgopian, Eleeza\nAgrawal, Anupam\nAina, Alain\nAkanho, Yazid\nAkbulut, Seda\nAkplogan, Adiel\nAldawodi, Sawsan\nAllison, Lauren\nAlMeshal, Ali\nAlvarez, Carlos\nAlvarez, Eduardo\nAmpofo, Henrietta\nAntoniello, Nicolás\nArends, Roy\nArias, Francisco\nAshcraft, Damon\nAshton-Hart, Nick\nAtallah, Akram\nAtohoun, Yaovi\nAustin, Donna\nAw, Fiona\nBagley, Drew\nBaker, Fred\nBakhat Masood, Ahmed\nBaril, Jean-Francois\nBarrett, Alan\nBarrett, Kerry-Ann\nBarrett, Tom\nBatayneh, Fahd\nBaulch, Josh\nBeccalli, Andrea\nBeckstrom, Rod\nBen Jemaa, Tijani\nBennett, Susanna\nBickers, Geoff\nBladel, James\nBlanchet, Marc\nBlumenthal, Don\nBotsyoe, Lily\nBotterman, Maarten\nBrent, Doug\nBryce, Jennifer\nBuchanan, Jordyn\nBuckley, Kristy\nBunton, Graeme\nBurnette, Stacy\nBurns, Duncan\nBurr, Becky\nCalvez, Xavier\nCaplis, Sara\nCarter, Jordan\nCarver, Mandy\nCastillo-Sojo, Leticia\nCatapano, Joe\nCaton, Justin\nCerf, Vint\nCetraro, Francesco\nChalaby, Cherine\nChapman, Chris\nCheadle, Sam\nChehadé, Fadi\nChen, Joyce\nChoudhury, Amrita\nChulani, Mukesh\nChyn Tan, Yien\nClay, Barbara Ann\nColas-Adeshina, Isabelle\nCole, Tim\nConrad, David\nConte, Steve\nCornell, Carole\nCosterton, Sally\nCrain, John\nCrocker, Steve\nCrépin-Leblond, Olivier\nCurran, John\nCute, Brian\nCWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs\nDam, Tina\nDammak, Rafik\nDaniels, Albert\nDans, Alex\nData, Ajay\nDatysgeld, Mark\nDavies, Kim\nDawson, Christian\nDe La Parra, Rodrigo\nDeerhake, Stephen\nDeutsch, Sarah\nDickinson, Samantha\nDisspain, Chris\nDoherty, Jessie\nDoria, Avri\nDouma Lange, Janice\nDunn, Jeffrey\nDurand, Alain\nEnger, Kimberly\nEPDP Leadership Team\nErwin, Jared\nEscalera, Deborah\nEsmat, Baher\nFarrell, Maria\nFerrali, Laurent\nField, Elizabeth\nFink, Daniel\nForrest, Heather\nFowlie, Frank\nFuhr, Lise\nGannon, James\nGarside, Simon\nGasster, Liz\nGerich, Elise\nGift, Chris\nGoldstein, Steve\nGraham, Michael\nGrogan, Allen\nGupta, Samiran\nGurnick, Larisa\nGutterman, Brian\nHedlund, Jamie\nHernandez Ganan, Carlos\nHickson, Nigel\nHinojosa, Pablo\nHirano, Marilia\nHoffman, Paul\nHoffmann, Lars\nHolland, Byron\nHousley, Russ\nHuang, Haoran\nHuberman, David\nHussain, Sarmad\nHyeYoung Kang, Kelly\nICANN Blog\nICANN Board\nICG Chair and Vice-Chairs​\nIgnacio Estrada, Miguel\nInne, Anne-Rachel\nIsmail , Manal\nJacobsen, Ole\nJeffrey, John\nJones, Patrick\nKamel, Tarek\nKane, Pat\nKapin, Laureen\nKarklins, Janis\nKing, Tanzanica\nKleinrock, Leonard\nKnigge, Michael\nKonings, Marika\nKooarmornpatana, Pitinan\nKoole, James\nKorczyński, Prof. Maciej\nKoubaa, Khaled\nKulikova, Alexandra\nKäo, Merike\nLaHatte, Chris\nLamb, Richard\nLangdon-Orr, Cheryl\nLarson, Matt\nLawrence, Jon\nLentz, Karen\nLevins, Paul\nLewis, Edward\nLindqvist, Kurtis\nLipinski, Lynn\nLiu, Conglun\nLloyd, Siôn\nLow, Jia-Rong\nLänsipuro, Yrjö\nMadi, Luna\nMaemura, Akinori\nMagaziner, Ira\nMalthouse, Jacob\nManderson, Terry\nMarby, Göran\nMari, Nora\nMarkovski, Veni\nMcCarthy, Kieren\nMcConachie, Andrew\nMcFadyen, Rachel\nMcGilley, Becky\nMcGilley, Rebecca\nMcGinty, Giose\nMcKnight, Glenn\nMendez, Eduardo\nMetalitz, Steven\nMichel, Denise\nMilam, Margie\nMitchell, Keith\nMochu, Natalia\nMockapetris, Paul\nMohan, Ram\nMohr, Susan\nMondini, Christopher\nMorris, Jacqueline\nMosquera, Sabrina\nMoss, Jeff\nMuchene, Paul\nMulberry, Karen\nNamazi, Cyrus\nNash, Becky\nNeuman, Jeffrey\nNewell Cohen, Sally\nNguyen, Trang\nNordling, Olof\nNoveck, Beth\nO'Neil, Erin\nObonyo, Leonard\nOchieng, Bob\nOffice of the Ombudsman\nOlive, David\nOloyede, Abdulkarim\nOluoch, Elizabeth\nOsterweil, Eric\nPapac, Krista\nPavez, Andres\nPayne, Susan\nPeake, Adam\nPensky, Gianina\nPeregrine, Nathalie\nPeters-Allgood, Melissa\nPetzer, Gary\nPierre Dandjinou, Sagbo\nPinzon, Scott\nPiscitello, Dave\nPlexida, Elena\nPodduturi, Anil\nPolito, Julio\nPritz, Kurt\nQayyum, Amir\nQuaynor, Nii\nQuinzy, Michaela\nRamaj, Ergys\nRangan, Ashwin\nRasmussen, Rod\nRattray, Greg\nRDS-WHOIS2 Leadership\nRegnauld, Phil\nReyes, Carlos\nRickert, Thomas\nRidout, Pallavi\nRoberts, Mike\nRobinson, Shayna\nRobinson, Jonathan\nRodriguez, Christina\nRodriguez, Pablo\nRose, Amanda\nRuffolo, Riccardo\nSadowsky, George\nSagiroglu, Seher\nSahel, Jean-Jacques\nSarras, Naela\nSattler, Tobias\nSaucedo, Rodrigo\nScartezini, Vanda\nSchilling, Bryan\nSchittek, Gabriella\nSchoer, Natalie\nSchwartz, Craig\nSegall, Mark\nSeppia, Giovanni\nSerad, Maguy\nSexton, Jane\nShambley, Charla\nShipman Wentworth, Sally\nSinghal, Amitabh\nSinha, Tripti\nSokolova, Nadia\nSoto, Alberto\nSudowski, Jay\nSwinehart, Theresa\nSánchez, León\nTajalizadehkhoob, Samaneh, Ph.D.\nTaylor, Emily\nTeo, Liana\nThe Africa Team\nThe Independent Review Process Community Representatives Group\nThe Language Services Team\nThe Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR2) Review Team\nThorne, Nick\nTomasso, Nick\nTouton, Louis\nTrengrove, Jim\nTrepykhalin, Alexey\nUllrich, Heidi\nValente, Karla\nVan Gelder, Stéphane\nVardanyan, Siranush\nVegoda, Leo\nVerd, Brad\nVilardo, María\nVivanco, Silvia\nVocea, Save\nVyorst, David\nWali, Nitin\nWaye, Herb\nWeinstein, Russ\nWhite, Brad\nWibawa, Angela\nWijayatunga, Champika\nWillett, Christine\nWilson, Kevin\nWilson, Paul\nWolfe, Jen\nWong, Kelvin\nWong, Mary\nYakushev, Michael\nYee, Kenn\nYilmaz, Filiz\nYu-Chuang, Kuek\nZacharias, Dimitris\nZhang, Jian-Chuan\nZheng, Song\nZuck, Jonathan\nZupke, Mike\nAshley Heineman and Peter Koch\nTripti Sinha and Sally Costerton\nApply\nClear\nMore Search Options\n1-10 of 2361 results\nBuilding on Momentum: ICANN's FY27 Middle East Regional Implementation Plan\nBy\nBaher Esmat\n29 July 2026\nICANN at WSIS Forum 2026: Advancing Global Internet Cooperation\nBy\nAlexey Trepykhalin\n28 July 2026\nPreparing for the Root Zone KSK Rollover: What You Need to Know\nBy\nRoy Arends\n27 July 2026\nImportant Reminders and Updates for 2026 Round Applicants\nBy\nTheresa Swinehart\n27 July 2026\nUnsure How to Handle Challenging Behavior in the Community? Start Here\nBy\nElizabeth Field\n22 July 2026\nAnticipating Emerging Risks and Advancing DNS Resilience\nBy\nRam Mohan\n20 July 2026\nICANN Grant Program Completes First Interim Reporting Period\nBy\nShayna Robinson\n13 July 2026\nBeyond the Fellowship: Continuing My ICANN Journey\nBy\nLily Botsyoe\n29 June 2026\nCelebrating ICANN Working Group Chairs and Vice Chairs\nBy\nTripti Sinha\n25 June 2026\nCall for Participation: ICANN’s Law Enforcement Authentication Input Group\nBy\nEleeza Agopian\n25 June 2026\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n...\n237\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n...\n237\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 8292, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1148}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "065f00f2-2a4e-4fba-b84a-bc1af08742b1", "source_id": "8500de0b715d0c6033596f3e", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/government-engagement/wsis20-outreach-network", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/government-engagement/wsis20-outreach-network", "artifact_sha256": "94868526ad4e0c3d8fb5bee5f2bbcecaf05a81628008221790031865ee777365", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 351652, "title": "WSIS+20 Outreach Network", "language": "en", "text_length": 11593, "characters": 11593, "text": "WSIS+20 Outreach Network\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGovernment and IGO Engagement\nStay up-to-date on the latest government and intergovernmental organization engagement information by subscribing to ICANN News.\nSubscribe\nGE Home\nGE Publications\nThird Party Contributions\nReports to the GAC\nGAC\nInternet Governance Network\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nThe World Summit on the Information Society: 20-year review (WSIS+20) Outreach Network brings together like-minded stakeholders to facilitate coordinated efforts leading up to the WSIS+20 negotiations in 2025.\nThe WSIS+20 Outreach Network aims to provide rationale to the U.N. Member States, all stakeholders, and the general public for why the WSIS+20 Review Process should result in (among other goals) preserving the current multistakeholder model of Internet governance and extending the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) mandate.\nGoals\nThe WSIS+20 Outreach Network will inform its members, as well as all relevant stakeholders, about latest developments in Internet governance and will:\nEngage in discussions on how to preserve and continue to evolve the multistakeholder model of Internet governance for the good of all Internet users.\nProvide space for stakeholders to share information on what they are doing to keep the Internet open, secure, and interoperable.\nPromote the IGF as a platform for all stakeholders – governments, technical community, civil society, businesses, academia, individual users, and others – to come together on equal footing to discuss issues related to the Internet.\nBring together the collective voices of its members to safeguard the distinctive role of the technical community.\nWhy Now?\nFostering meaningful connections is more crucial than ever. Explore our outreach network to understand why now is the time to engage, collaborate, and leverage the collective expertise of members dedicated to making a positive impact globally.\nReport: Footprints of 20 Years of the Internet Governance Forum\nA look at 20 years of the IGF—and why it matters now.\nReport: Footprints of 20 Years of the Internet Governance Forum\nA look at 20 years of the IGF—and why it matters now.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nBackground\nThe U.N. General Assembly Resolution 56/183 (21 December 2001) endorsed the holding of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in two phases. The first phase took place in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003 and the second phase took place in Tunis, from 16 to 18 November 2005.\nThe objective of the first phase was to develop and foster a clear statement of political will and take concrete steps to establish the foundations for an Information Society for all, reflecting all the different interests at stake. This phase ended with the acceptance of\nThe Geneva Declaration of Principles and Geneva Plan of Action\n.\nThe objective of the second phase was to put Geneva's Plan of Action into motion as well as to find solutions and reach agreements in the fields of Internet governance, financing mechanisms, and follow-up and implementation of the Geneva and Tunis documents. It ended with the\nTunis Commitment and Tunis Agenda for the Information Society\n.\nIn 2015 at the United Nations there was a review of the WSIS, called WSIS+10 Review which resulted in the publication of the WSIS+10 Outcome Document.\nThe technical community participated in the discussions at the WSIS in both phases, and provided diplomats at the U.N. with technical information about the functioning of the Internet through seminars and briefings, organized by ICANN in 2014 and 2015. It is expected that the WSIS+20 Review will again discuss issues that touch on ICANN’s mission in particular, and more generally - on issues related to the technical functioning of the Internet.\nRole of the WSIS+20 Outreach Network Members\nThe WSIS+20 Outreach Network aims to support facilitating and leveraging the power of collective collaboration to effectively address challenges to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.\nMembers can actively participate by sharing news and information about events of interest, how to participate, key messages, etc.\nDuring the Geopolitical session at ICANN79, ICANN’s Government and Intergovernmental Organizations Team provided a\nslide presentation\non the WSIS+20 Outreach Network; among the topics covered was an explanation of what the network is not: It is not a new structure within ICANN, or a new working group, and it will not produce common statements or positions.\nCritical for the successful outcome of the WSIS+20 effort will be showcasing the positive outcomes of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and actively engaging with all governments that will be negotiating the WSIS+20 outcome document.\nResources\nArticles, blogs, and external resources from ICANN and the Community\nICANN Insights\nInternet Governance\nICANN's Commitment to WSIS+20: Progress and Opportunities\n5 February 2025\nGlobal Digital Compact Endorsement: ICANN’s Position\n19 December 2024\nICANN Forum Insights: WSIS+20 Review and the Future of Internet Governance\n21 October 2024\nKey Takeaways from the U.N. Global Digital Compact Process\n4 October 2024\nICANN Voices Support for an Open, Global, and Interoperable Internet\n23 August 2024\nInternet Governance and the Global Digital Compact: ICANN's Observations\nJuly 2024\nICANN's World Summit on the Information Society 20-Year Review Outreach Efforts\n2 April 2024\nThe Global Digital Compact: A Top-Down Attempt to Minimize the Role of the Technical Community\nAugust 2023\nU.N. Secretary General Policy Report: Considerations for the ICANN Community\nJune 2023\nWSIS+20 Review Process - Information for the Broader ICANN Community\nMarch 2023\nICANN's Multistakeholder Model\nEnhancing the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model of governance – Next Steps\nhttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/enhancing-effectiveness-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-04jun20-en.pdf\nDigital Inclusivity, Technological Development, and Innovation\nCoalition for Digital Africa\nhttps://coalitionfordigitalafrica.africa/\nNew gTLD Program: Next Round\nNext Round of New gTLDs\nUniversal Acceptance\nhttps://www.icann.org/ua\nUniversal Acceptance Steering Group\nhttps://www.icann.org/uasg-en\nDNS Security\nDNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\nhttps://www.icann.org/dns-security-threat\nKnowledge-sharing and Instantiation Norms for DNS and Naming Security (KINDNS)\nhttps://kindns.org/\nICANN Publications\nGovernment Engagement\nhttps://www.icann.org/en/government-engagement/publications\nOffice of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO)\nhttps://www.icann.org/octo/publications\nCommunity Insights\nThe Internet Ecosystem\nJoint Statement from A Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism (TCCM): Our concerns on the Global Digital Compact process & potential outcomes, August 2024\nNet Effects: An Evidence-Led Exploration of IGF Impact\nDNS Research Federation, March 2024\nWhy We Need Multistakeholder Internet Governance\nCentr, February 2024\nThe Global Digital Compact: Lessons Learned from the Submissions of the Multistakeholder Internet Community\nauDA, January 2024\nWebinar Recordings\nTwo webinars are held per topic to allow wider participation from various time zones. Speakers at each webinar may vary.\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the Global Digital Compact Zero Draft\nWebinar 1: 17 April 2024 | 14:00 UTC\nWebinar 2: 18 April 2024 | 01:00 UTC\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the Global Digital Compact Revision 1\nWebinar 1: 21 May 2024 | 13:00 UTC\nWebinar 2: 22 May 2024 | 01:00 UTC\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the Global Digital Compact Revision 2\nWebinar 1: 1 July 2024 | 12:00 UTC\nWebinar 2: 2 July | 00:00 UTC\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the Global Digital Compact Revision 3\nWebinar 1: 15 July 2024 | 15:00 UTC\nWebinar 2: 16 July 2024 | 00:00 UTC\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Session on the GDC Next Steps and WSIS+20 Outlook\nWebinar: 4 December 2024\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the WSIS+20 Zero Draft\nWebinar 1: 3 September 2025 |1200 UTC\nWebinar 2: 4 September 2025 | 0100 UTC\nHow to Engage\nWe invite interested individuals and organizations from around the world to join in this effort.\nSubscribe here\nThe mailing list facilitates communication and information exchange about WSIS+20. Subscribers are invited to actively participate, collaborate, share resources, and advocate in upholding the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.\nKnowledge Hub\nFact sheets\nTopic\nDate posted\nInternet Governance\n.\nThis factsheet outlines how Internet governance works as a shared global effort involving technical experts, policymakers, and civil society. It highlights ICANN’s technical role, the importance of inclusive collaboration, and how platforms like the Internet Governance Forum help support a secure, open, and resilient Internet.\n31 March 2025\nNotable Achievements of the Multistakeholder Model\n. This fact sheet highlights the notable achievements of the Multistakeholder Model (MSM) of Internet governance, which ensures that the Internet remains open, secure, and accessible for all. It covers key aspects such as public accountability, adaptability during the COVID-19 pandemic, support for developing countries, and the success of the IANA stewardship transition, emphasizing the power of collaboration and consensus-building across diverse global stakeholders.\n21 October 2024\nThe Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance\n. This fact sheet aims to inform stakeholders about the principles, benefits, and real-world applications of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.\n5 Sep 2024\nWSIS Fact Sheet\n. The WSIS+20 Review, organized by the U.N. General Assembly in late 2025, aims to evaluate the progress made since the WSIS+10 Review. Issues discussed may include a review of the multistakeholder model for Internet governance, which could have significant implications for global digital cooperation, as well as for ICANN and the broader technical community's role.\n14 Aug 2024\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a612e469-beb7-43b7-a1a6-22be1c66d1c1", "document_id": "065f00f2-2a4e-4fba-b84a-bc1af08742b1", "ordinal": 0, "text": "WSIS+20 Outreach Network\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGovernment and IGO Engagement\nStay up-to-date on the latest government and intergovernmental organization engagement information by subscribing to ICANN News.\nSubscribe\nGE Home\nGE Publications\nThird Party Contributions\nReports to the GAC\nGAC\nInternet Governance Network\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nThe World Summit on the Information Society: 20-year review (WSIS+20) Outreach Network brings together like-minded stakeholders to facilitate coordinated efforts leading up to the WSIS+20 negotiations in 2025.\nThe WSIS+20 Outreach Network aims to provide rationale to the U.N. Member States, all stakeholders, and the general public for why the WSIS+20 Review Process should result in (among other goals) preserving the current multistakeholder model of Internet governance and extending the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) mandate.\nGoals\nThe WSIS+20 Outreach Network will inform its members, as well as all relevant stakeholders, about latest developments in Internet governance and will:\nEngage in discussions on how to preserve and continue to evolve the multistakeholder model of Internet governance for the good of all Internet users.\nProvide space for stakeholders to share information on what they are doing to keep the Internet open, secure, and interoperable.\nPromote the IGF as a platform for all stakeholders – governments, technical community, civil society, businesses, academia, individual users, and others – to come together on equal footing to discuss issues related to the Internet.\nBring together the collective voices of its members to safeguard the distinctive role of the technical community.\nWhy Now?\nFostering meaningful connections is more crucial than ever. Explore our outreach network to understand why now is the time to engage, collaborate, and leverage the collective expertise of members dedicated to making a positive impact globally.\nReport: Footprints of 20 Years of the Internet Governance Forum\nA look at 20 years of the IGF—and why it matters now.\nReport: Footprints of 20 Years of the Internet Governance Forum\nA look at 20 years of the IGF—and why it matters now.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nBackground\nThe U.N. General Assembly Resolution 56/183 (21 December 2001) endorsed the holding of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in two phases. The first phase took place in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003 and the second phase took place in Tunis, from 16 to 18 November 2005.\nThe objective of the first phase was to develop and foster a clear statement of political will and take concrete steps to establish the foundations for an Information Society for all, reflecting all the different interests at stake. This phase ended with the acceptance of\nThe Geneva Declaration of Principles and Geneva Plan of Action\n.\nThe objective of the second phase was to put Geneva's Plan of Action into motion as well as to find solutions and reach agreements in the fields of Internet governance, financing mechanisms, and follow-up and implementation of the Geneva and Tunis documents. It ended with the\nTunis Commitment and Tunis Agenda for the Information Society\n.\nIn 2015 at the United Nations there was a review of the WSIS, called WSIS+10 Review which resulted in the publication of the WSIS+10 Outcome Document.\nThe technical community participated in the discussions at the WSIS in both phases, and provided diplomats at the U.N. with technical information about the functioning of the Internet through seminars and briefings, organized by ICANN in 2014 and 2015. It is expected that the WSIS+20 Review will again discuss issues that touch on ICANN’s mission in particular, and more generally - on issues related to the technical functioning of the Internet.\nRole of the WSIS+20 Outreach Network Members\nThe WSIS+20 Outreach Network aims to support facilitating and leveraging the power of collective collaboration to effectively address challenges to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.\nMembers can actively participate by sharing news and information about events of interest, how to participate, key messages, etc.\nDuring the Geopolitical session at ICANN79, ICANN’s Government and Intergovernmental Organizations Team provided a\nslide presentation\non the WSIS+20 Outreach Network; among the topics covered was an explanation of what the network is not: It is not a new structure within ICANN, or a new working group, and it will not produce common statements or positions.\nCritical for the successful outcome of the WSIS+20 effort will be showcasing the positive outcomes of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and actively engaging with all governments that will be negotiating the WSIS+20 outcome document.\nResources\nArticles, blogs, and external resources from ICANN and the Community\nICANN Insights\nInternet Governance\nICANN's Commitment to WSIS+20: Progress and Opportunities\n5 February 2025\nGlobal Digital Compact Endorsement: ICANN’s Position\n19 December 2024\nICANN Forum Insights: WSIS+20 Review and the Future of Internet Governance\n21 October 2024\nKey Takeaways from the U.N. Global Digital Compact Process\n4 October 2024\nICANN Voices Support for an Open, Global, and Interoperable Internet\n23 August 2024\nInternet Governance and the Global Digital Compact: ICANN's Observations\nJuly 2024\nICANN's World Summit on the Information Society 20-Year Review Outreach Efforts\n2 April 2024\nThe Global Digital Compact: A Top-Down Attempt to Minimize the Role of the Technical Community\nAugust 2023\nU.N. Secretary General Policy Report: Considerations for the ICANN Community\nJune 2023\nWSIS+20 Review Process - Information for the Broader ICANN Community\nMarch 2023\nICANN's Multistakeholder Model\nEnhancing the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model of governance – Next Steps\nhttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/enhancing-effectiveness-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-04jun20-en.pdf\nDigital Inclusivity, Technological Development, and Innovation\nCoalition for Digital Africa\nhttps://coalitionfordigitalafrica.africa/\nNew gTLD Program: Next Round\nNext Round of New gTLDs\nUniversal Acceptance\nhttps://www.icann.org/ua\nUniversal Acceptance Steering Group\nhttps://www.icann.org/uasg-en\nDNS Security\nDNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\nhttps://www.icann.org/dns-security-threat\nKnowledge-sharing and Instantiation Norms for DNS and Naming Security (KINDNS)\nhttps://kindns.org/\nICANN Publications\nGovernment Engagement\nhttps://www.icann.org/en/government-engagement/publications\nOffice of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO)\nhttps://www.icann.org/octo/publications\nCommunity Insights\nThe Internet Ecosystem\nJoint Statement from A Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism (TCCM): Our concerns on the Global Digital Compact process & potential outcomes, August 2024\nNet Effects: An Evidence-Led Exploration of IGF Impact\nDNS Research Federation, March 2024\nWhy We Need Multistakeholder Internet Governance\nCentr, February 2024\nThe Global Digital Compact: Lessons Learned from the Submissions of the Multistakeholder Internet Community\nauDA, January 2024\nWebinar Recordings\nTwo webinars are held per topic to allow wider participation from various time zones. Speakers at each webinar may vary.\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the Global Digital Compact Zero Draft\nWebinar 1: 17 April 2024 | 14:00 UTC\nWebinar 2: 18 April 2024 | 01:00 UTC\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the Global Digital Compact Revision 1\nWebinar 1: 21 May 2024 | 13:00 UTC\nWebinar 2: 22 May 2024 | 01:00 UTC\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the Global Digital Compact Revision 2\nWebinar 1: 1 July 2024 | 12:00 UTC\nWebinar 2: 2 July | 00:00 UTC\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the Global Digital Compact Revision 3\nWebinar 1: 15 July 2024 | 15:00 UTC\nWebinar 2: 16 July 2024 | 00:00 UTC\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Session on the GDC Next Steps and WSIS+20 Outlook\nWebinar: 4 December 2024\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network: Interactive Sessions on the WSIS+20 Zero Draft\nWebinar 1: 3 September 2025 |1200 UTC\nWebinar 2: 4 September 2025 | 0100 UTC\nHow to Engage\nWe invite interested individuals and organizations from around the world to join in this effort.\nSubscribe here\nThe mailing list facilitates communication and information exchange about WSIS+20. Subscribers are invited to actively participate, collaborate, share resources, and advocate in upholding the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.\nKnowledge Hub\nFact sheets\nTopic\nDate posted\nInternet Governance\n.\nThis factsheet outlines how Internet governance works as a shared global effort involving technical experts, policymakers, and civil society. It highlights ICANN’s technical role, the importance of inclusive collaboration, and how platforms like the Internet Governance Forum help support a secure, open, and resilient Internet.\n31 March 2025\nNotable Achievements of the Multistakeholder Model\n. This fact sheet highlights the notable achievements of the Multistakeholder Model (MSM) of Internet governance, which ensures that the Internet remains open, secure, and accessible for all. It covers key aspects such as public accountability, adaptability during the COVID-19 pandemic, support for developing countries, and the success of the IANA stewardship transition, emphasizing the power of collaboration and consensus-building across diverse global stakeholders.\n21 October 2024\nThe Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance\n. This fact sheet aims to inform stakeholders about the principles, benefits, and real-world applications of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.\n5 Sep 2024\nWSIS Fact Sheet\n. The WSIS+20 Review, organized by the U.N. General Assembly in late 2025, aims to evaluate the progress made since the WSIS+10 Review. Issues discussed may include a review of the multistakeholder model for Internet governance, which could have significant implications for global digital cooperation, as well as for ICANN and the broader technical community's role.\n14 Aug 2024\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11593, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1671}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "0985d352-cd3e-4e33-ac07-b48bd1f1d39a", "source_id": "822ba885563137ef2631daf9", "source": "UNESCO", "source_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/internet-governance", "final_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/internet-governance", "artifact_sha256": "97e5bd6a9528fc2e3381f08002a216ad056c0e6c36bc9fb071fbccb930f8e592", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 275368, "title": "Internet Governance | UNESCO", "language": "en", "text_length": 5286, "characters": 5286, "text": "Internet Governance | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nUNESCO\nMain navigation\nWho we are\nAbout us\nAbout us\nMember States Profiles\nMember States Profiles\nGlobal presence\nGlobal presence\nPartners\nPartners\nWhat we do\nPeople we serve\nPeople we serve\nCore functions\nCore functions\nObjectives\nObjectives\nProgrammes\nProgrammes\nNews\nNewsroom\nNewsroom\nCalendar\nCalendar\nInternational days and more\nInternational days and more\nStay updated\nStay updated\nResources\nLegal texts\nLegal texts\nSites navigator\nSites navigator\nMultimedia\nMultimedia\nLearning Hub\nLearning Hub\nPublications\nPublications\nDocuments\nDocuments\nGlobal reports\nGlobal reports\nData and indicators\nData and indicators\nMember States Portal\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nShutterstock\nShutterstock\nInternet Governance\nInternet governance is the complementary development and application by governments, the private sector, civil society and the technical community, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and activities that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. For UNESCO, Internet Governance is a central issue because of Internet’s potential to foster sustainable human development and the building of inclusive knowledge societies, and enhancing the free flow of information and ideas throughout the world.\nThe Organization therefore advocates an open, transparent and inclusive approach to Internet Governance based on the principle of openness, encompassing the\nfreedom of expression\n, respect for human rights and privacy, universal access and technical interoperability. Ethics and also the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity in cyberspace are other key concerns of the Organisation. All of these elements are essential for UNESCO to fulfill its mandate and mission entrusted to it by Member States.\nThe World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) held in 2003 and 2005, resulted in the creation of the multistakeholder Internet Governance Forum – an annual forum in which international agencies, governments, Internet professionals, business and civil society organizations can explore, on equal footing, the development on the Internet and its interaction with other area of public policy.\nAll the information regarding the mandate of the IGF, the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group members, and the meetings are available on\nIGF website\n.\nInternet Governance Forum (IGF)\nDiscover\nInternet Governance Glossary (IGG)\nDiscover\nInternet Universality Indicators\nDiscover\nEvents\nEvent\nCat VII – Seminar and training\nPresentation of the World Trends Report in Freedom of Expression and Media Development 2022/2025 in Sweden\n19 March 2026\nEvent\nCat IV – International Congress\nThe International Conference on Digital Platform Governance 2026\n11 February 2026 - 13 February 2026\nEvent\nCat VIII - Symposia\nCatalyzing Biodiversity Conservation and Social Transformation: Research Evidence from UNESCO Biosphere Reserves\n11 September 2025 - 12 September 2025\nEvent\nCat VIII - Symposia\nUNESCO Conference on Capacity Building on AI and Digital Transformation in the Public Sector\n4 June 2025 - 5 June 2025\nLoad more\nNews\nNews\nUNESCO convenes workshop on safeguarding children and youth online\n30 April 2026\nNews\nUNESCO Director-General Khaled El-Enany appoints the first members of his new senior management team\n30 January 2026\nNews\nUNESCO Statement on Internet Shutdowns\n20 January 2026\nNews\nPan-African Media Councils Summit Endorses Human Rights-based and Multistakeholder Digital Governance\n28 July 2025\nLoad more\nPublications\nWhat if we all governed the Internet? Advancing multistakeholder participation in Internet governance\nVan der Spuy, Anri\nUNESCO\n2017\nAvailable in...\nEnglish\nInternet Governance Forum (IGF): the first two years\nDoria, Avri\nInternet Governance Forum. Secretariat\nInternet Governance Forum Meeting\nKleinwächter, Wolfgang\nInternet Governance Forum Meeting\n2008\nPub. with the assistance of UNESCO\nAvailable in...\nEnglish\nGet involved\nCareers\nFellowships\nPrizes\nVisit us\nOrganize your event\nUNESCO Shop\nSubscribe to our newsletters\nNetworks\nAssociated Schools (ASPnet)\nClubs and Associations\nCities Platform\nChairs and UNITWIN Programme\nField Offices\nGoodwill Ambassadors\nInstitutes and Centres\nPartners\nUNEVOC\nYouth\nSpecialized websites\nWorld Heritage\nIntangible Cultural Heritage\nIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission\nInternational Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences\nInternational Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development\nInternational Year of Glaciers’ Preservation\nVirtual Museum of Stolen Cultural Objects\nDive into Heritage\nUNESCO Datahub\nUNESCO Digital Library\nTerms of use\nUNESCO name and logo\nFAQ\nReport fraud, abuse, misconduct\nScam alert\nPreventing harassment at UNESCO events\nPolicies\nProtection of human rights (Procedure 104)\nPrivacy Notice\nAccess to information\nEnvironmental and Social Policies\nStakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM)\nQuery list\nFollow us\nInstagram\nLinkedIn\nYouTube\nX\nTikTok\nFacebook\nWhatsApp\nUNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment.\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "segments": [{"segment_id": "4cc637b6-65c2-4a72-9efc-908fd87ac7f5", "document_id": "0985d352-cd3e-4e33-ac07-b48bd1f1d39a", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Internet Governance | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nUNESCO\nMain navigation\nWho we are\nAbout us\nAbout us\nMember States Profiles\nMember States Profiles\nGlobal presence\nGlobal presence\nPartners\nPartners\nWhat we do\nPeople we serve\nPeople we serve\nCore functions\nCore functions\nObjectives\nObjectives\nProgrammes\nProgrammes\nNews\nNewsroom\nNewsroom\nCalendar\nCalendar\nInternational days and more\nInternational days and more\nStay updated\nStay updated\nResources\nLegal texts\nLegal texts\nSites navigator\nSites navigator\nMultimedia\nMultimedia\nLearning Hub\nLearning Hub\nPublications\nPublications\nDocuments\nDocuments\nGlobal reports\nGlobal reports\nData and indicators\nData and indicators\nMember States Portal\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nShutterstock\nShutterstock\nInternet Governance\nInternet governance is the complementary development and application by governments, the private sector, civil society and the technical community, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and activities that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. For UNESCO, Internet Governance is a central issue because of Internet’s potential to foster sustainable human development and the building of inclusive knowledge societies, and enhancing the free flow of information and ideas throughout the world.\nThe Organization therefore advocates an open, transparent and inclusive approach to Internet Governance based on the principle of openness, encompassing the\nfreedom of expression\n, respect for human rights and privacy, universal access and technical interoperability. Ethics and also the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity in cyberspace are other key concerns of the Organisation. All of these elements are essential for UNESCO to fulfill its mandate and mission entrusted to it by Member States.\nThe World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) held in 2003 and 2005, resulted in the creation of the multistakeholder Internet Governance Forum – an annual forum in which international agencies, governments, Internet professionals, business and civil society organizations can explore, on equal footing, the development on the Internet and its interaction with other area of public policy.\nAll the information regarding the mandate of the IGF, the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group members, and the meetings are available on\nIGF website\n.\nInternet Governance Forum (IGF)\nDiscover\nInternet Governance Glossary (IGG)\nDiscover\nInternet Universality Indicators\nDiscover\nEvents\nEvent\nCat VII – Seminar and training\nPresentation of the World Trends Report in Freedom of Expression and Media Development 2022/2025 in Sweden\n19 March 2026\nEvent\nCat IV – International Congress\nThe International Conference on Digital Platform Governance 2026\n11 February 2026 - 13 February 2026\nEvent\nCat VIII - Symposia\nCatalyzing Biodiversity Conservation and Social Transformation: Research Evidence from UNESCO Biosphere Reserves\n11 September 2025 - 12 September 2025\nEvent\nCat VIII - Symposia\nUNESCO Conference on Capacity Building on AI and Digital Transformation in the Public Sector\n4 June 2025 - 5 June 2025\nLoad more\nNews\nNews\nUNESCO convenes workshop on safeguarding children and youth online\n30 April 2026\nNews\nUNESCO Director-General Khaled El-Enany appoints the first members of his new senior management team\n30 January 2026\nNews\nUNESCO Statement on Internet Shutdowns\n20 January 2026\nNews\nPan-African Media Councils Summit Endorses Human Rights-based and Multistakeholder Digital Governance\n28 July 2025\nLoad more\nPublications\nWhat if we all governed the Internet? Advancing multistakeholder participation in Internet governance\nVan der Spuy, Anri\nUNESCO\n2017\nAvailable in...\nEnglish\nInternet Governance Forum (IGF): the first two years\nDoria, Avri\nInternet Governance Forum. Secretariat\nInternet Governance Forum Meeting\nKleinwächter, Wolfgang\nInternet Governance Forum Meeting\n2008\nPub. with the assistance of UNESCO\nAvailable in...\nEnglish\nGet involved\nCareers\nFellowships\nPrizes\nVisit us\nOrganize your event\nUNESCO Shop\nSubscribe to our newsletters\nNetworks\nAssociated Schools (ASPnet)\nClubs and Associations\nCities Platform\nChairs and UNITWIN Programme\nField Offices\nGoodwill Ambassadors\nInstitutes and Centres\nPartners\nUNEVOC\nYouth\nSpecialized websites\nWorld Heritage\nIntangible Cultural Heritage\nIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission\nInternational Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences\nInternational Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development\nInternational Year of Glaciers’ Preservation\nVirtual Museum of Stolen Cultural Objects\nDive into Heritage\nUNESCO Datahub\nUNESCO Digital Library\nTerms of use\nUNESCO name and logo\nFAQ\nReport fraud, abuse, misconduct\nScam alert\nPreventing harassment at UNESCO events\nPolicies\nProtection of human rights (Procedure 104)\nPrivacy Notice\nAccess to information\nEnvironmental and Social Policies\nStakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM)\nQuery list\nFollow us\nInstagram\nLinkedIn\nYouTube\nX\nTikTok\nFacebook\nWhatsApp\nUNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment.\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5286, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 749}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "0abfd298-0e0c-49d0-ba44-ae915c561495", "source_id": "3ae0dbe2a18f031a0cdc2b48", "source": "UNESCO", "source_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information", "final_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information", "artifact_sha256": "3ae0dbe2a18f031a0cdc2b48eba117682ddbd1027605cab84c607270e068e02b", "content_type": "text/html; charset=UTF-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 320486, "title": "UNESCO Communication and Information", "language": "en", "text_length": 5099, "characters": 5099, "text": "Communication & Information | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nРусский\nالعربية\n中文\nUNESCO\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nChetan Soni\nChetan Soni\nCommunication & Information\nUpholding Information as a Public Good\nHome\nAbout\nAbout\nPrizes\nEmir Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah Prize\nGuillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize\nJikji Memory of the World Prize\nDays\n13 February - World Radio Day\n3 May - World Press Freedom Day\n28 September - International Day for Universal Access to Information\n27 October - World Day for Audiovisual Heritage\n2 November - International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists\nWeeks\n24-31 October - Global Media and Information Literacy Week\nDecades\n2022-2032 - International Decade of Indigenous Languages\nWho's Who\nInternational Cooperation\nInformation for All Programme\nInternational Programme for the Development of Communication\nGlobal Media Defence Fund\nInstitutes and Centres\nFreedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists\nPartners to Promote Freedom of Expression\nNorms & Conventions\nDeclarations\nAbuja Declaration on Global Financing for Media and Information Literacy\nDeclaration of Windhoek on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press\nDubai Declaration on Open Educational Resources (OER)\nThe Tashkent Declaration on Universal Access to Information\nRecommendations\nMultilingualism/Access to Cyberspace\nPreservation/Access to Documentary Heritage\nOpen Educational Resources (OER)\nOur Expertise\nResources\nOnline Courses\nPublications\nIndicators\nInternet Universality Indicators\nMedia Development Indicators\nUNESCO Journalists's Safety Indicators\nData Center\nUNESCO’s Communication and Information Sector (CI Sector) empowers key actors to safeguard fundamental human rights, both in online and off-line spaces, focusing on the following fields:\nCall for applications: Indigenous Language Data Commons Incubator\nDiscover\nFreedom of expression and the safety of journalists\nDiscover\nMedia development and media in emergencies\nDiscover\nMedia and information literacy and digital competencies\nDiscover\nUniversal access to information and digital inclusion\nDiscover\nDigital policies and digital transformation\nDiscover\nDocumentary heritage - Memory of the World programme\nDiscover\nUNESCO & CLEMI / Réseau Canopé\nGrowing up in a connected world\nA Global Resources for families on Media and Information Literacy\nDiscover\nNEW - What you need to know about communication and information and why it matters\nPENDING Text from Akané  + NEW PAGE TO BE CREATED modèle ED https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-education-and-why-it-matters?hub=343\nRead more\n13_Phunkod/Shutterstock.com\nNews\nArticle\nRuling on the Digital Frontier: Kenyan Judges and Judicial Officers Trained on Human Rights-Based Approaches to Digital Platform Governance\n7 August 2026\nNews\nUNESCO welcomes Pope Leo XIV for a day of reflection on artificial intelligence, education and peace\n6 August 2026\nNews\nWe Can Re-imagine AI Ethics Through the Yoruba Concept of Omoluabi\n6 August 2026\nArticle\nExpressions of Interest (EOI) for Community Radio Partnership\n6 August 2026\nLoad more\nPress Releases\nPress release\nUNESCO Director-General condemns the killing of journalist Mohammad Aydah in Yemen\n29 July 2026\nPress release\nUNESCO Director-General condemns the killing of journalist Alejandro Leyva Aguilar in Mexico\n28 July 2026\nPress release\nUNESCO Director-General condemns the killing of journalist Josué Martínez Contreras in Mexico\n23 July 2026\nPress release\nUNESCO Director-General condemns the killing of journalist Manuel Alejandro Moreno Serna (aka. Alex Serna) in Mexico\n15 July 2026\nLoad more\nKey facts\n1,800+\njournalists killed since 1993\n570\nMemory of the World inscriptions\non the International Register since 1995\n139\nUN Member States\nhave adopted various Access to Information legal guarantees\n70%\nof World’s languages in danger of disappearing\nNearly 73%\nof women surveyed have experienced online violence\n12%\nof AI researchers globally are women\n86%\nimpunity for crimes committed against journalists\nNearly 66%\nof the World’s population is online\nCalendar\nEvent\nCat IV – International Congress\nGlobal Media and Information Literacy Week 2026\n26 October 2026\nEvent\nCat VII – Seminar and training\nLinguistic Diversity and Language Rights: The Power of Being Understood\n30 September 2026\nEvent\nCat IV – International Congress\nInternational Day for Universal Access to Information 2026\n28 September 2026\nEvent\nCat VII – Seminar and training\nBuilding Data Commons for Indigenous Languages and Cultures\n6 August 2026\nLoad more\nPublications\nLatest titles\nPublication\nAssessing Internet development in Kyrgyzstan\n15 June 2026\nPublication\nProtecting Critical Voices\n28 April 2026\nPublication\nDocumentary heritage for intercultural dialogue\n7 October 2025\nPublication\nPreserving documentary heritage in AlUla\n7 October 2025\nLoad more\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "segments": [], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:34.187439+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "0ad751f1-c938-4b63-ae94-4731b38d3f04", "source_id": "d3b4397cfb3a8a16424ec64f", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1410", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1410/", "artifact_sha256": "d3b4397cfb3a8a16424ec64fcec041f410b8fe6c6eba9f6b591b9506239d6836", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 341075, "title": "RFC 1410: IAB Official Protocol Standards", "language": "en", "text_length": 75461, "characters": 75461, "text": "RFC 1410: IAB Official Protocol Standards | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1410\n:\nIAB Official Protocol Standards\nJ. Postel\n,\nEd.\nHistoric\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n1500\n.\nNetwork Working Group                        Internet Architecture Board\nRequest for Comments: 1410                             J. Postel, Editor\nObsoletes: RFCs\n1360\n,\n1280\n,\n1250\n,                             March 1993\n1100\n,\n1083\n,\n1130\n,\n1140\n,\n1200\nSTD: 1\n\n\n                    IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS\n\n\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in\n   the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).\n   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n\n   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n1\n.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n2\n.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n5\n3\n.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.1\n.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.2\n.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.3\n.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.4\n.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n4\n.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n7\n4.1\n.  Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . .\n8\n4.1.1\n.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n8\n4.1.2\n.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.3\n.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.4\n.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.5\n.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.6\n.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.2\n.  Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . .\n9\n4.2.1\n.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.2\n.  Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.3\n.  Elective Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.4\n.  Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.5\n.  Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5\n.  The Standards Track  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5.1\n.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5.2\n.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n12\n6\n.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1\n.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1.1\n.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1.2\n.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n21\n6.2\n.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n22\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 1]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n6.3\n.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .\n24\n6.4\n.  Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n25\n6.5\n.  Proposed Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n25\n6.6\n.  Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n27\n6.7\n.  Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\n6.8\n.  Informational Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n29\n6.9\n.  Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n30\n7\n.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n31\n7.1\n.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n31\n7.1.1\n.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . .\n31\n7.1.2\n.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .\n31\n7.1.3\n.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact  . . . . .\n32\n7.2\n.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .\n33\n7.3\n.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .\n34\n7.4\n.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .\n34\n7.5\n.  Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . . . . .\n35\n8\n.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n35\n9\n.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n35\nIntroduction\n\n   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series\n   is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.\n   Sections\n6.2\n-\n6.9\ncontain the lists of protocols in each stage of\n   standardization.  Finally come pointers to references and contacts\n   for further information.\n\n   This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be\n   sure the copy you are reading is current.  Current copies may be\n   obtained from the Network Information Center or from the Internet\n   Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of\n   this memo).  Do not use this edition after 31-July-93.\n\n   See\nSection 6.1\nfor a description of recent changes.  In the official\n   lists in sections\n6.2\n-\n6.9\n, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol\n   denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one\n   protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of\n   this document.\n1\n.  The Standardization Process\nThe Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that\n   define standards for the Internet protocol suite.  See\nRFC-1358\nfor\n   the charter of the IAB and\nRFC-1160\nfor an explanation of the role\n   and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force\n   (IRTF).  Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG\n   and IRSG, respectively.  The IAB provides these standards with the\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 2]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\ngoal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this\n   co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols\n   are increasingly in general commercial use.  The definitive\n   description of the Internet standards process is found in\nRFC-1310\n.\n\n   The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization\n   activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force.\n\n   Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a\n   series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft\n   standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and\n   testing.  When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD\n   number (see\nRFC-1311\n).  At each step, the Internet Engineering\n   Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for\n   advancement of the protocol and the IAB must ratify it.  If a\n   recommendation is not ratified, the protocol is remanded to the IETF\n   for further work.\n\n   To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to\n   standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 6\n   months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard\n   and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.\n\n   It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted\n   to draft standard without at least two independent implementations\n   (and the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard\n   to standard generally requires operational experience and\n   demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the\n   recommendation of the IESG).\n\n   In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision\n   concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee\n   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the\n   purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.\n\n   Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step\n   since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization\n   (it puts the protocol \"on the standards track\").  Advancement to\n   draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless\n   major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is\n   likely to be advanced to standard in six months.\n\n   Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise\n   unused.  Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with\n   the designation \"historic\".\n\n   Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 3]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nearly protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs\n   document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.  The\n   protocols are designated \"experimental\" in this memorandum.  They\n   appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as\n   evidence of their standardization.\n\n   Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards\n   organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be\n   recommended for use in the Internet.  The specifications of such\n   protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the\n   Internet community.  These protocols are labeled \"informational\" in\n   this memorandum.\n\n   In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development\n   and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the\n   research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of\n   other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.  The\n   IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC\n   series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for\n   standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance\n   the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved\n   this step.\n\n   A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the\n   approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols\n   have become very important to the Internet community even though they\n   have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.\n   However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process\n   be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize\n   interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements\n   from arising).  The IAB reserves the use of the terms \"standard\",\n   \"draft standard\", and \"proposed standard\" in any RFC or other\n   publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the\n   IAB has approved.\n\n   In addition to a state (like \"Proposed Standard\"), a protocol is also\n   assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.  The\n   possible requirement levels (\"Required\", \"Recommended\", \"Elective\",\n   \"Limited Use\", and \"Not Recommended\") are defined in\nSection 4.2\n.\n   When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed\n   standard, draft standard, or standard state (see\nSection 5\n), the\n   status shown in\nSection 6\nis the current status.  For a proposed or\n   draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the\n   eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.\n\n   Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is\n   because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,\n   gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.  The\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 4]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nrequirement level shown in this document is only a one word label,\n   which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation\n   requirements for a protocol in all situations.  For some protocols,\n   this document contains an additional status paragraph (an\n   applicability statement).  In addition, more detailed status\n   information is contained in separate requirements documents (see\nSection 3\n).\n2\n.  The Request for Comments Documents\nThe documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working\n   notes of the \"Network Working Group\", that is the Internet research\n   and development community.  A document in this series may be on\n   essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be\n   anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.\n\n   Notice:\n\n      All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify\n      standards.\n\n   Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions\n   must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact\n   information at the end of this memo, and see\nRFC 1111\n).\n\n   While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical\n   review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC\n   Editor, as appropriate.\n\n   The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from\n   informational documents of general interests to specifications of\n   standard Internet protocols.  In cases where submission is intended\n   to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard\n   protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the\n   approval of both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing\n   experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before\n   publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant\n   IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments\n   to the author.  See\nSection 5.1\nfor more detail.\n\n   Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is\n   never revised or re-issued with the same number.  There is never a\n   question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.\n   However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be\n   improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.  It\n   is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a\n   particular protocol.  This \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\" memo is\n   the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 5]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nspecification of each protocol.\n\n   The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI\n   International, and a number of other sites.  For more information\n   about obtaining RFCs, see Sections\n7.4\nand\n7.5\n.\n3\n.  Other Reference Documents\nThere are three other reference documents of interest in checking the\n   current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These\n   are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host\n   Requirements.  Note that these documents are revised and updated at\n   different times; in case of differences between these documents, the\n   most recent must prevail.\n\n   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,\n   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in\nSection 3.4\n.\n3.1\n.  Assigned Numbers\nThis document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the\n   various protocols.  For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,\n   Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.\n   Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as\nRFC-1340\n.\n\n   Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network\n   numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was\n   most recently issued as\nRFC-1166\n.\n3.2\n.  Gateway Requirements\nThis document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and\n   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway\n   Requirements is\nRFC-1009\n.  A working group of the IETF is actively\n   preparing a revision.\n3.3\n.  Host Requirements\nThis pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that\n   apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any\n   ambiguities.  Host Requirements was issued as\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n.\n3.4\n.  The MIL-STD Documents\nThe Internet community specifications for IP (\nRFC-791\n) and TCP (\nRFC-\n793\n) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe\n   exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols\n   specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 6]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nthe IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style\n   and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of\n   documents be used together, along with\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n.\n\n   The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and\n   Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,\n   854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the\n   current Internet specification for FTP is\nRFC-959\n(as modified by\nRFC-1123\n).\n\n   Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.  The Gateway\n   Requirements (\nRFC-1009\n) and Host Requirements (\nRFC-1122\n,\nRFC-1123\n)\n   take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.\n\n          Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777\n          Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778\n          File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780\n          Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781\n          Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782\n\n   These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms\n   Center.  Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;\n   however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if\n   possible.\n\n          Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015\n          5801 Tabor Ave\n          Philadelphia, PA 19120\n          Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)\n                 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)\n4\n.  Explanation of Terms\nThere are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is\n   the \"maturity level\" or STATE of standardization, one of \"standard\",\n   \"draft standard\", \"proposed standard\", \"experimental\",\n   \"informational\" or \"historic\".  The second is the \"requirement level\"\n   or STATUS of this protocol, one of \"required\", \"recommended\",\n   \"elective\", \"limited use\", or \"not recommended\".\n\n   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word\n   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an\n   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,\n   should be consulted.\n\n   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,\n   it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also\n   notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 7]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nreaches the standard state.\n\n   At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.\n   Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following\n   proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).  A new protocol\n   is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or\n   the (experimental, not recommended) cell.\n\n                             S T A T U S\n                     Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not\n                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |\n       S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |\n       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |     |     |\n       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Info    |     |     |     |     |     |\n       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Expr    |     |     |     | XXX |     |\n       E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Hist    |     |     |     |     | XXX |\n                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n\n   What is a \"system\"?\n\n      Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few\n      protocols are used in both.  The definitions of the terms below\n      will refer to a \"system\" which is either a host or a gateway (or\n      both).  It should be clear from the context of the particular\n      protocol which types of systems are intended.\n4.1\n.  Definitions of Protocol State\nEvery protocol listed in this document is assigned to a \"maturity\n   level\" or STATE of standardization: \"standard\", \"draft standard\",\n   \"proposed standard\", \"experimental\", or \"historic\".\n\n   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol\n\n      The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for\n      the Internet.  These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see\nRFC-\n1311\n).  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and\n      above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)\n      network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do\n      IP on particular types of networks.\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 8]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol\n\n      The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible\n      Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment\n      are desired.  Comments and test results should be submitted to the\n      IAB.  There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft\n      Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.\n\n   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol\n\n      These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for\n      standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by\n      several groups is desirable.  Revision of the protocol\n      specification is likely.\n\n   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol\n\n      A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it\n      is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of\n      the protocol with the developer of the protocol.\n\n      Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as\n      part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational\n      service offering.  While they may be proposed as a service\n      protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,\n      draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a\n      protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that\n      the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for\n      operational use.\n\n   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol\n\n      Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,\n      or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, may\n      be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community\n      as informational protocols.\n\n   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol\n\n      These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in\n      the Internet either because they have been superseded by later\n      developments or due to lack of interest.\n4.2\n.  Definitions of Protocol Status\nThis document lists a \"requirement level\" or STATUS for each\n      protocol.  The status is one of \"required\", \"recommended\",\n      \"elective\", \"limited use\", or \"not recommended\".\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 9]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n4.2.1.  Required Protocol\n\n      A system must implement the required protocols.\n\n   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol\n\n      A system should implement the recommended protocols.\n\n   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol\n\n      A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The\n      general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,\n      you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols\n      in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail\n      protocols, and several routing protocols.\n\n   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol\n\n      These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be\n      because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited\n      functionality, or historic state.\n\n   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol\n\n      These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be\n      because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or\n      experimental or historic state.\n5\n.  The Standards Track\nThis section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC\n   Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling and\n   publishing of protocols as standards.\n5.1\n.  The RFC Processing Decision Table\nHere is the current decision table for processing submissions by the\n   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the\n   status they want it to have.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 10]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n+==========================================================+\n      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |\n      +==========================================================+\n      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |\n      | Status       |          |          |          |          |\n      +==========================================================+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      | Standard     |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |\n      | or           |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |\n      | Draft        |          |          |          |          |\n      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |\n      | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |\n      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |\n      | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |\n      | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|\n      | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |\n      | Paper        |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +==========================================================+\n\n      (1) Publish.\n\n      (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying\n          Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.\n\n      (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do\n          Refer (4).\n\n      (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see\n          the document again only after approval by the IESG and the\n          IAB.\n\n      (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no concerns are raised in\n          two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve\n          the concerns or do Refer (4).\n\n      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 11]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nis needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or\n          not.\n\n   Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor\n   changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.\n\n   The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for\n   forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns\n   in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor.  Documents from\n   Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same\n   way as documents from \"other\".\n5.2\n.  The Standards Track Diagram\nThere is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called\n   the standards track.  Actually, only the changes of state are\n   significant to the progression along the standards track, though the\n   status assignments may be changed as well.\n\n   The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,\n   those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.  A\n   protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for\n   several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum\n   four months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term\n   state for many years.\n\n   A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation\n   of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to\n   another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by\n   action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to\n   either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.\n\n   Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is\n   made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability\n   (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although\n   a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then\n   is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.  So\n   the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1.  At any time the\n   STATUS decision may be revisited.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 12]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n|\n         +<----------------------------------------------+\n         |                                               ^\n         V    0                                          |    4\n   +-----------+                                   +===========+\n   |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |\n   +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+\n                                   |                     |\n                                   V    1                |\n                             +-----------+               V\n                             | proposed  |-------------->+\n                        +--->+-----+-----+               |\n                        |          |                     |\n                        |          V    2                |\n                        +<---+-----+-----+               V\n                             | draft std |-------------->+\n                        +--->+-----+-----+               |\n                        |          |                     |\n                        |          V    3                |\n                        +<---+=====+=====+               V\n                             | standard  |-------------->+\n                             +=====+=====+               |\n                                                         |\n                                                         V    5\n                                                   +=====+=====+\n                                                   | historic  |\n                                                   +===========+\n\n   The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can\n   only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and\n   only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least\n   six months.\n\n   The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by\n   action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after\n   the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months.\n\n   Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for\n   standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).\n   This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted\n   to enter the standards track after further work.  There are other\n   paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve\n   IAB action.\n\n   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes\n   historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is\n   in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and\n   becomes historic (state 5).\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 13]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n6\n.  The Protocols\nSub\nsection 6.1\nlists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections\n6.2\n- 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state.\n6.1\n.  Recent Changes\n6.1.1\n.  New RFCs:\n1436 - The Internet Gopher Protocol\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1435 - IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU Discovery\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1434 - Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1433 - Directed ARP\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1432 - Recent Internet Books\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1431 - DUA Metrics\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1430 - A Strategic Plan for Deploying an Internet X.500 Directory\n             Service\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1429 - Listserv Distribute Protocol\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 14]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n1428 - Transition of Internet Mail from Just-Send-8 to 8bit-\n             SMTP/MIME\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1427 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1426 - SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1425 - SMTP Service Extensions\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1424 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part IV:\n             Key Certification and Related Services\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1423 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III:\n             Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1422 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II:\n             Certificate-Based Key Management\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1421 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I:\n             Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1420 - SNMP over IPX\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1419 - SNMP over AppleTalk\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 15]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n1418 - SNMP over OSI\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1417 - NADF Standing Documents: A Brief Overview\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1416 - Telnet Authentication Option\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1415 - FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1414 - Identification MIB\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1413 - Identification Protocol\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1412 - Telnet Authentication: SPX\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1411 - Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 4\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1410 - This memo.\n\n      1409 - Telnet Authentication Option\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1408 - Telnet Environment Option\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1407 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3/E3 Interface\n             Type\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 16]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n1406 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 and E1 Interface\n             Types\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1405 - Mapping between X.400(1984/1988) and Mail-11 (DECnet mail)\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1404 - A Model for Common Operational Statistics\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1403 - BGP OSPF Interaction\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1402 - There's Gold in them thar Networks! or Searching for\n             Treasure in all the Wrong Places\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1401 - Correspondence between the IAB and DISA on the use of DNS\n             throughout the Internet\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1400 - Not yet issued.\n\n      1399 - Not yet issued.\n\n      1398 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like\n             Interface Types\n\n             A Draft Standard protocol.\n\n      1397 - Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Versions Of\n             The Border Gateway Protocol\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 17]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n1396 - The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working\n             Group (POISED), Steve Crocker, Chair\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1395 - BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions\n\n             This is a status report.\n\n      1394 - Relationship of Telex Answerback Codes to Internet Domains\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1393 - Traceroute Using an IP Option\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1392 - Internet Users' Glossary\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1391 - The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet\n             Engineering Task Force\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1390 - Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks\n\n             A full Standard protocol.\n\n      1389 - RIP Version 2 MIB Extension\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1388 - RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1387 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 18]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n1386 - The US Domain\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1385 - EIP: The Extended Internet Protocol A Framework for\n             Maintaining Backward Compatibility\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1384 - Naming Guidelines for Directory Pilots\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1383 - An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1382 - SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1381 - SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1380 - IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1379 - Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1378 - The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1377 - The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 19]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n1376 - The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1375 - Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1374 - IP and ARP on HIPPI\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1373 - PORTABLE DUAs\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1372 - Telnet Remote Flow Control Option\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1371 - Choosing a \"Common IGP\" for the IP Internet (The IESG's\n             Recommendation to the IAB)\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1370 - Applicability Statement for OSPF\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1369 - Implementation Notes and Experience for The Internet\n             Ethernet MIB\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1368 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater\n             Devices\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1367 - Schedule for IP Address Space Management Guidelines\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 20]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n1366 - Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1365 - An IP Address Extension Proposal\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1364 - BGP OSPF Interaction\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1363 - A Proposed Flow Specification\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1362 - Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1334 - PPP Authentication Protocols\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n6.1.2\n.  Other Changes:\nThe following are changes to protocols listed in the previous\n   edition.\n\n      1305 - Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification,\n             Implementation and Analysis\n\n             Elevated to Draft Standard.\n\n      1230 - IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n\n      1212 - Concise MIB Definitions\n\n             Elevated to full Standard.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 21]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n1191 - Path MTU Discovery\n\n             Elevated to Draft Standard.\n\n      1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols\n             for the Internet (CMOT and CMIP)\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n6.2\n.  Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                      Status    RFC STD *\n========   =====================================     ======== ==== === =\n--------   IAB Official Protocol Standards           Req      1360   1\n--------   Assigned Numbers                          Req      1340   2\n--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Req      1122   3\n--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Req      1123   3\n--------   Gateway Requirements                      Req      1009   4\nIP         Internet Protocol                         Req       791   5\n            as amended by:--------\n--------     IP Subnet Extension                     Req       950   5\n--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Req       919   5\n--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Req       922   5\nICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Req       792   5\nIGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Rec      1112   5\nUDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Rec       768   6\nTCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Rec       793   7\nTELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Rec   854,855   8\nFTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Rec       959   9\nSMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Rec       821  10\nMAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Rec       822  11\nCONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Rec      1049  11\nNTPV2      Network Time Protocol (Version 2)         Rec      1119  12\nDOMAIN     Domain Name System                        Rec 1034,1035  13\nDNS-MX     Mail Routing and the Domain System        Rec       974  14\nSNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Rec      1157  15\nSMI        Structure of Management Information       Rec      1155  16\nConcise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions                  Rec      1212  16 *\nMIB-II     Management Information Base-II            Rec      1213  17\nEGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Rec       904  18\nNETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Ele 1001,1002  19\nECHO       Echo Protocol                             Rec       862  20\nDISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Ele       863  21\nCHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Ele       864  22\nQUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Ele       865  23\nUSERS      Active Users Protocol                     Ele       866  24\nDAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Ele       867  25\nTIME       Time Server Protocol                      Ele       868  26\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 22]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nTFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol            Ele      1350  33\nRIP        Routing Information Protocol              Ele      1058  34\nTP-TCP     ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP   Ele      1006  35 *\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards\n   general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution\n   than broadcasting for many applications.  The host interface has been\n   standardized in\nRFC-1112\n; however, multicast-routing gateways are in\n   the experimental stage and are not widely available.  An Internet\n   host should support all of\nRFC-1112\n, except for the IGMP protocol\n   itself which is optional; see\nRFC-1122\nfor more details.  Even\n   without IGMP, implementation of\nRFC-1112\nwill provide an important\n   advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.  It\n   is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and\n   gateways at some future date.\n\n   SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that\n   all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  At the current\n   time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (\nRFC-1213\n),\n   and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (\nRFC-1157\n).\n\n   RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented\n   and used in the Internet.  However, both implementors and users\n   should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a\n   routing protocol.  The IETF is currently developing several\n   candidates for a new standard \"open\" routing protocol with better\n   properties than RIP.  The IAB urges the Internet community to track\n   these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is\n   standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.\n\n   TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,\n   there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the\n   TCP/IP protocols.  The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating\n   strategies for interoperation.\nRFC-1006\nprovides one interoperation\n   mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI\n   applications.  Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented\n   applications in this mode should use the procedure described in\nRFC-\n1006\n.  In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the\n   Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols\n   in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications\n   across the Internet using full OSI protocol \"stacks\".\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 23]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n6.3\n.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols\nAll Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.\n\nProtocol   Name                                    State    RFC   STD *\n========   =====================================   =====   =====  === =\nIP-FDDI    Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std    1390    36 *\nIP-HIPPI   IP and ARP on HIPPI                      Prop   1374       *\nIP-X.25    X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode         Prop   1356\nIP-FR      Multiprotocol over Frame Relay           Prop   1294\nIP-SMDS    IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service       Prop   1209\nIP-ARCNET  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Prop   1201\nARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Std     826    37\nRARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Std     903    38\nIP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Std BBN1822\nIP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Std     907\nIP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Std     894\nIP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Std     895\nIP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Std    1042\nIP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Std     891\nIP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel        Std    1044\nIP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Std    1051\nIP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Std    1055\nIP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Std    1088\nIP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Std    1132\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   It is expected that a system will support one or more physical\n   networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate\n   protocols from the above list must be supported.  That is, it is\n   elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for\n   the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be\n   supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.  See\n   also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific\n   information on network-specific (\"link layer\") protocols.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 24]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n6.4\n.  Draft Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nETHER-MIB  Ethernet MIB                             Elective       1398*\nNTPV3      Network Time Protocol (Version 3)        Elective       1305*\nIP-MTU     Path MTU Discovery                       Elective       1191*\nFINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective       1288\nBGP3       Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)        Elective  1267,1268\nOSPF2      Open Shortest Path First Routing V2      Elective       1247\nPOP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective       1225\nIP-FDDI    Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks       Elective       1188\nPPP        Point to Point Protocol                  Elective       1171\nBOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                      Recommended 951,1395*\nNICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective        954\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial\n   lines, which are a type of physical network.  It is anticipated that\n   PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state\n   in the future.\n6.5\n.  Proposed Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nSMTP-SIZE  SMTP Service Ext for Message Size        Elective       1427*\nSMTP-8BIT  SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport   Elective       1426*\nSMTP-EXT   SMTP Service Extensions                  Elective       1425*\nPEM-KEY    PEM - Key Certification                  Elective       1424*\nPEM-ALG    PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers Elective       1423*\nPEM-CKM    PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management   Elective       1422*\nPEM-ENC    PEM - Message Encryption and Auth        Elective       1421*\nSNMP-IPX   SNMP over IPX                            Elective       1420*\nSNMP-AT    SNMP over AppleTalk                      Elective       1419*\nSNMP-OSI   SNMP over OSI                            Elective       1418*\nFTP-FTAM   FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification           Elective       1415*\nIDENT-MIB  Identification MIB                       Elective       1414*\nIDENT      Identification MIB                       Elective       1413*\nDS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 Interface Type                    Elective       1407*\nDS1/E1-MIB DS1/E1 Interface Type                    Elective       1406*\nBGP-OSPF   BGP OSPF Interaction                     Elective       1403*\n--------   Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3     Elective       1397*\nRIP2-MIB   RIP Version 2 MIB Extension              Elective       1389*\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 25]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nRIP2       RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info.  Elective       1388*\nSNMP-X.25  SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer Elective       1382*\nSNMP-LAPB  SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB         Elective       1381*\nPPP-ATCP   PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol           Elective       1378*\nPPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol  Elective       1377*\nPP-DNCP    PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol     Elective       1376*\n802.3-MIB  IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB                  Elective       1368*\nBGP-OSPF   BGP OSPF Interaction                     Elective       1364*\nTABLE-MIB  IP Forwarding Table MIB                  Elective       1354\nSNMP-PARTY-MIB Administration of SNMP               Elective       1353\nSNMP-SEC   SNMP Security Protocols                  Elective       1352\nSNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model                Elective       1351\nTOS        Type of Service in the Internet          Elective       1349\n-------    Representation of Non-ASCII Text         Elective       1342\nMIME       Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions    Elective       1341\nPPP-AUTH   PPP Authentication                       Elective       1334*\nPPP-LINK   PPP Link Quality Monitoring              Elective       1333\nPPP-IPCP   PPP Control Protocol                     Elective       1332\nPPP        Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)            Elective       1331\n-------    X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading           Elective       1328\n-------    Mapping between X.400(1988)              Elective       1327\nTCP-EXT    TCP Extensions for High Performance      Elective       1323\n-------    Def. Man. Objs Parallel-printer-like     Elective       1318\n-------    Def. Man Objs RS-232-like                Elective       1317\n-------    Def. Man. Objs. Character Stream         Elective       1316\nFRAME-MIB  Management Information Base for Frame    Elective       1315\nNETFAX     File Format for the Exchange of Images   Elective       1314\nSIP-MIB    SIP Interface Type MIB                   Elective       1304\nIARP       Inverse Address Resolution Protocol      Elective       1293\nDECNET-MIB DECNET MIB                               Elective       1289\nBRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB                               Elective       1286\nFDDI-MIB   FDDI-MIB                                 Elective       1285\nETHER-MIB  Ethernet MIB                             Elective       1284\n-------    Encoding Network Addresses               Elective       1277\n-------    Replication and Distributed Operations   Elective       1276\n-------    COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema         Elective       1274\nRMON-MIB   Remote Network Monitoring MIB            Elective       1271\nBGP-MIB    Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3)  Elective       1269\nICMP-ROUT  ICMP Router Discovery Messages           Elective       1256\nOSPF-MIB   OSPF Version 2 MIB                       Elective       1253\nIPSO       DoD Security Options for IP              Elective       1108\nAT-MIB     Appletalk MIB                            Elective       1243\nOSI-UDP    OSI TS on UDP                            Elective       1240\nSTD-MIBs   Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs     Elective       1239\nOSI-NSAP   Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation       Elective       1237\nIPX-IP     Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets    Elective       1234\nDS3-MIB    DS3 Interface Objects                    Elective       1233\nDS1-MIB    DS1 Interface Objects                    Elective       1232\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 26]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n802.5-MIB  IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB                Elective       1231\nGINT-MIB   Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB  Elective       1229\nPPP-EXT    PPP Extensions for Bridging              Elective       1220\nOIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II          Elective       1214\nIS-IS      OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments   Elective       1195\nIP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective       1144\nISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473                       Elective       1139\nSUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective       1094\nSUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective       1057\n-------    Mapping Between X.400(1984)              Elective   1026,987\nNNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective        977\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   OSPF -\nRFC 1370\nis an applicability statement for OSPF.\n6.6\n.  Telnet Options\nFor convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both\ntheir state and status.\n\nProtocol   Name                           Number  State Status  RFC STD\n========   =====================================  ===== ====== ==== ====\nTOPT-BIN   Binary Transmission                 0  Std   Rec     856  27\nTOPT-ECHO  Echo                                1  Std   Rec     857  28\nTOPT-RECN  Reconnection                        2  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-SUPP  Suppress Go Ahead                   3  Std   Rec     858  29\nTOPT-APRX  Approx Message Size Negotiation     4  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-STAT  Status                              5  Std   Rec     859  30\nTOPT-TIM   Timing Mark                         6  Std   Rec     860  31\nTOPT-REM   Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    7  Prop  Ele     726\nTOPT-OLW   Output Line Width                   8  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-OPS   Output Page Size                    9  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-OCRD  Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10  Prop  Ele     652\nTOPT-OHT   Output Horizontal Tabstops         11  Prop  Ele     653\nTOPT-OHTD  Output Horizontal Tab Disposition  12  Prop  Ele     654\nTOPT-OFD   Output Formfeed Disposition        13  Prop  Ele     655\nTOPT-OVT   Output Vertical Tabstops           14  Prop  Ele     656\nTOPT-OVTD  Output Vertical Tab Disposition    15  Prop  Ele     657\nTOPT-OLD   Output Linefeed Disposition        16  Prop  Ele     658\nTOPT-EXT   Extended ASCII                     17  Prop  Ele     698\nTOPT-LOGO  Logout                             18  Prop  Ele     727\nTOPT-BYTE  Byte Macro                         19  Prop  Ele     735\nTOPT-DATA  Data Entry Terminal                20  Prop  Ele    1043\nTOPT-SUP   SUPDUP                             21  Prop  Ele     736\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 27]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nTOPT-SUPO  SUPDUP Output                      22  Prop  Ele     749\nTOPT-SNDL  Send Location                      23  Prop  Ele     779\nTOPT-TERM  Terminal Type                      24  Prop  Ele    1091\nTOPT-EOR   End of Record                      25  Prop  Ele     885\nTOPT-TACACS  TACACS User Identification       26  Prop  Ele     927\nTOPT-OM    Output Marking                     27  Prop  Ele     933\nTOPT-TLN   Terminal Location Number           28  Prop  Ele     946\nTOPT-3270  Telnet 3270 Regime                 29  Prop  Ele    1041\nTOPT-X.3   X.3 PAD                            30  Prop  Ele    1053\nTOPT-NAWS  Negotiate About Window Size        31  Prop  Ele    1073\nTOPT-TS    Terminal Speed                     32  Prop  Ele    1079\nTOPT-RFC   Remote Flow Control                33  Prop  Ele    1372*\nTOPT-LINE  Linemode                           34  Draft Ele    1184\nTOPT-XDL   X Display Location                 35  Prop  Ele    1096\nTOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option          36  Prop  Ele    1408*\nTOPT-AUTH  Telnet Authentication Option       37  Exp   Ele    1416*\nTOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List             255  Std   Rec     861  32\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n6.7\n.  Experimental Protocols\nAll Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status.\n\nProtocol   Name                                                     RFC\n========   =====================================                   =====\nDIR-ARP    Directed ARP                                            1433*\nTEL-SPX    Telnet Authentication: SPX                              1412*\nTEL-KER    Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4                      1411*\nMAP-MAIL   X.400 Mapping and Mail-11                               1405*\nTRACE-IP   Traceroute Using an IP Option                           1393*\nDNS-IP     Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing                      1383*\nDNS NSAP   DNS NSAP RRs                                            1348\nRMCP       Remote Mail Checking Protocol                           1339\nMSP2       Message Send Protocol 2                                 1312\nDSLCP      Dynamically Switched Link Control                       1307\n--------   X.500 and Domains                                       1279\nSNMP-OSI   SNMP over OSI                                           1283\nIN-ENCAP   Internet Encapsulation Protocol                         1241\nCLNS-MIB   CLNS-MIB                                                1238\nCFDP       Coherent File Distribution Protocol                     1235\nSNMP-DPI   SNMP Distributed Program Interface                      1228\nSNMP-MUX   SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB                               1227\nIP-AX.25   IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames                        1226\nALERTS     Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts                1224\nMPP        Message Posting Protocol                                1204\nST-II      Stream Protocol                                         1190\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 28]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nSNMP-BULK  Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP                      1187\nDNS-RR     New DNS RR Definitions                                  1183\nNTP-OSI    NTP over OSI Remote Operations                          1165\nEHF-MAIL   Encoding Header Field for Mail                          1154\nDMF-MAIL   Digest Message Format for Mail                          1153\nRDP        Reliable Data Protocol                              908,1151\n--------   Mapping between X.400(88) and\nRFC-822\n1148\nTCP-ACO    TCP Alternate Checksum Option                           1146\n--------   Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822                      1137\nIP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing                    1075\nTCP-LDP    TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths                     1072\nIMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol                   1176,1064\nIMAP3      Interactive Mail Access Protocol                        1203\nVMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol                  1045\nCOOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                                   1004\nNETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol                              998\nIRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol                   938\nAUTH       Authentication Service                                   931\nLDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                                 909\nRLP        Resource Location Protocol                               887\nNVP-II     Network Voice Protocol                              ISI-memo\nPVP        Packet Video Protocol                               ISI-memo\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n6.8\n.  Informational Protocols\nInformation protocols have no status.\n\nProtocol   Name                                                     RFC\n=======    ====================================                    =====\nGOPHER     The Internet Gopher Protocol                            1436*\n-------    Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol          1434*\nLISTSERV   Listserv Distribute Protocol                            1429*\n-------    Replication Requirements                                1275\nPCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                               1056\nMTP        Multicast Transport Protocol                            1301\nSNMP-IPX   SNMP over IPX                                           1298\nBSD Login  BSD Login                                               1282\nDIXIE      DIXIE Protocol Specification                            1249\nIP-X.121   IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN                     1236\nOSI-HYPER  OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel                            1223\nHAP2       Host Access Protocol                                    1221\nSUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers                     1219\nSNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP                        1215\nDAS        Directory Assistance Service                            1202\nMD4        MD4 Message Digest Algorithm                            1186\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 29]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nLPDP       Line Printer Daemon Protocol                            1179\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n6.9\n.  Historic Protocols\nAll Historic protocols have Not Recommended status.\n\nProtocol   Name                                                     RFC\n=======    =====================================                   =====\n802.4-MIP  IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB                                1230*\nCMOT       Common Management Information Services                  1189*\nPPP-INIT   PPP Initial Configuration Options                       1172\nMSP        Message Send Protocol                                   1159\n--------   Mail Privacy: Procedures                                1113\n--------   Mail Privacy: Key Management                            1114\n--------   Mail Privacy: Algorithms                                1115\nNFILE      A File Access Protocol                                  1037\nHOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                                        953\nSFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol                            913\nSUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                                          734\nBGP        Border Gateway Protocol                            1163,1164\nMIB-I      MIB-I                                                   1156\nSGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol                      1028\nHEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol                   1021\nSTATSRV    Statistics Server                                        996\nPOP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2                          937\nRATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol                  916\nHFEP       Host - Front End Protocol                                929\nTHINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                                        914\nHMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                                 869\nGGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                                 823\nRTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                                    818\nCLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol                               778\nMPM        Internet Message Protocol                                759\nNETRJS     Remote Job Service                                       740\nNETED      Network Standard Text Editor                             569\nRJE        Remote Job Entry                                         407\nXNET       Cross Net Debugger                                   IEN-158\nNAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol                            IEN-116\nMUX        Multiplexing Protocol                                 IEN-90\nGRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                                  NIC-24308\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 30]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n7\n.  Contacts\n7.1\n.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts\n7.1.1.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact\n\n   Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially\n   about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board\n   care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.\n\n      Contacts:\n\n         Bob Braden\n         Executive Director of the IAB\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         Braden@ISI.EDU\n\n         A. Lyman Chapin\n         Chair of the IAB\n         Bolt, Beranek & Newman\n         Mail Stop 20/5b\n         150 Cambridge Park Drive\n         Cambridge, MA 02140\n\n         1-617-873-3133\n\n         Lyman@BBN.COM\n\n   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact\n\n      Contacts:\n\n         Phill Gross\n         Chair of the IETF\n         Advanced Network and Services\n         100 Clearbrook Road\n         Elmsford, NY  10523\n\n         1-914-789-5300\n\n         PGross@ANS.NET\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 31]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\nGreg Vaudreuil\n         IESG Secretary\n         Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n         Reston, VA 22091\n\n         1-703-620-8990\n\n         gvaudre@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n         Steve Coya\n         Executive Director of the IETF\n         Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n         Reston, VA 22091\n\n         1-703-620-8990\n\n         scoya@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n\n   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact\n\n      Contact:\n\n         Jon Postel\n         Chair of the IRTF\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         Postel@ISI.EDU\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 32]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n7.2\n.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact\nContact:\n\n         Joyce K. Reynolds\n         Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         IANA@ISI.EDU\n\n   The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet\n   Assigned Numbers Authority.\n\n   Please refer to the document \"Assigned Numbers\" (\nRFC-1340\n) for\n   further information about the status of protocol documents.  There\n   are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and\n   gateways in the Internet, \"Host Requirements\" (\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n)\n   and \"Gateway Requirements\" (\nRFC-1009\n).\n\n      How to obtain the most recent edition of this \"IAB Official\n      Protocol Standards\" memo:\n\n         The file \"in-notes/iab-standards.txt\" may be copied via FTP\n         from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username\n         \"anonymous\" and FTP password \"guest\".\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 33]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n7.3\n.  Request for Comments Editor Contact\nContact:\n\n         Jon Postel\n         RFC Editor\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU\n\n   Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for\n   consideration for publication as RFC.  If you are not familiar with\n   the format or style requirements please request the \"Instructions for\n   RFC Authors\".  In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as\n   a guide.\n7.4\n.  The Network Information Center and\nRequests for Comments Distribution Contact\nContact:\n\n         Network Solutions\n         Attn: Network Information Center\n         14200 Park Meadow Drive\n         Suite 200\n         Chantilly, VA  22021\n\n         Help Desk Hours of Operation: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time\n\n         1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)\n         1-703-802-4535\n         Fax Number: 1-703-802-8376\n\n         NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL\n\n   The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information\n   services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the\n   Requests for Comments (RFC) library.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 34]\nRFC 1410\nIAB Standards                    March 1993\n7.5\n.  Sources for Requests for Comments\nDetails on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending\n   an EMAIL message to \"rfc-info@ISI.EDU\" with the message body \"help:\n   ways_to_get_rfcs\".  For example:\n\n           To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU\n           Subject: getting rfcs\n\n           help: ways_to_get_rfcs\n8\n.  Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not addressed in this memo.\n9\n.  Author's Address\nJon Postel\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA 90292\n\n   Phone: 310-822-1511\n   Fax:   310-823-6714\n\n   Email: Postel@ISI.EDU\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 35]\nRFC\n1410\n: IAB Official Protocol Standards\nHistoric\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n1500\nInternet Official Protocol Standards", "segments": [], "published_at": "1993-03-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1993-03-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1993-03-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:18.914479+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "0b011cea-f032-44a6-a6c3-faf0a05381b6", "source_id": "b5cc63e1d6374910df1877e4", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://ccnso.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/ccnso", "artifact_sha256": "7f16af66126ecca78ff2b92ddbe3663066f169f0e7f6dfdce529758266b489e1", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 376433, "title": "Country Code Names Support Organization (ccNSO)", "language": "en", "text_length": 11058, "characters": 11058, "text": "Country Code Names Support Organization (ccNSO)\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nThe ccNSO is a body within the ICANN structure created for and by ccTLD managers.\nSubscribe\nccNSO Home\nNews and Events\nActivities\nccNSO Members\nccNSO Council\nResources\nCountry Code Names Support Organization (ccNSO)\nLatest ccNSO Announcements\nICANN87 ccTLD News: Call for Speakers Now Open\nThe ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC) invites proposals for the ccTLD News Session at the ICANN87 Annual General Meeting, held 17-22 October 2026 in Bali, Indonesia.\n30 July 2026\nJoin the ccNSO Continuous Improvement Program Webinar\nJoin the 6 August webinar, when the ccNSO proposes a framework to support continuous improvement..\n28 July 2026\nCall for nominations: ICANN Board Seat 12\nThe current term of Byron Holland, the Director appointed by the ccNSO to ICANN Board Seat 12, will end at ICANN90. The nomination period for this position is open until 13 August 2026 .\n22 July 2026\nICANN87 ccTLD News: Call for Speakers Now Open\nThe ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC) invites proposals for the ccTLD News Session at the ICANN87 Annual General Meeting, held 17-22 October 2026 in Bali, Indonesia.\n30 July 2026\nJoin the ccNSO Continuous Improvement Program Webinar\nJoin the 6 August webinar, when the ccNSO proposes a framework to support continuous improvement..\n28 July 2026\nCall for nominations: ICANN Board Seat 12\nThe current term of Byron Holland, the Director appointed by the ccNSO to ICANN Board Seat 12, will end at ICANN90. The nomination period for this position is open until 13 August 2026 .\n22 July 2026\nMore Announcements\nLatest ccNSO Events and Activities\nICANN87 ccNSO Session Highlights\nNavigate the ccNSO-related meetings and discussions during ICANN87, held 17-22 October in Bali, Indonesia.\nREAD MORE\nccNSO Activity Update Brief\nAn snapshot of activities across ccNSO committees and working groups, and related ICANN initiatives. Stay informed on current status, next steps, and priority focus areas.\nREAD MORE\nICANN87 ccNSO Session Highlights\nNavigate the ccNSO-related meetings and discussions during ICANN87, held 17-22 October in Bali, Indonesia.\nREAD MORE\nccNSO Activity Update Brief\nAn snapshot of activities across ccNSO committees and working groups, and related ICANN initiatives. Stay informed on current status, next steps, and priority focus areas.\nREAD MORE\nView ccNSO Council Meetings\nView ccNSO Activities\nAbout the ccNSO\nAlejandra Reynoso\nChair\nWelcome from the Chair\nThe Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nis a part of the ICANN multistakeholder community. The ccNSO was created in 2003 for and by\ncountry code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers\nto serve as a platform for ccTLDs to meet and discuss issues of concern to ccTLDs from a global perspective.\nWhat Does the ccNSO Do?\nDevelops Policies\n– It develops global policies within the scope of the ccNSO as stated in Annex C of the ICANN Bylaws, and recommends them to the ICANN Board. For example, retirement of ccTLDs.\nProvides a Platform for ccTLD Managers\n– It brings together ccTLD Managers from around the world to share their experiences, discuss topical issues, and coordinate efforts.\nCollaborates with Other Stakeholders\n– It works together with other stakeholders and communities within the ICANN structure.\nHow Is the Work of the ccNSO Organized?\nThe work of the ccNSO is organized into several key structures to ensure effective decision-making and collaboration among country code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\n1. ccNSO Members\nccNSO membership\nis open to all ccTLD Managers, but joining is voluntary.\nMembers participate in policy discussions, working groups, and voting on key issues.\n2. ccNSO Council\nEnsures the daily operations of the ccNSO.\nIt has 15 elected members (3 from each of the 5 ICANN geographic regions) and 3 members appointed by the ICANN’s Nominating Committee (NomCom).\nThe Council\ndetermines the work and direction of the ccNSO based on the feedback from members, oversees the policy development processes, leads and participates in working groups, and represents ccTLD interests within ICANN.\n3. Working Groups and Committees\nThe ccNSO creates\nworking groups (WGs) and Committees\nto deal with specific topics, such as policy development or governance of the ccNSO.\n4. ccNSO Secretariat\nA support team that helps with all the aspects of the work of the ccNSO.\nGet in touch for inquiries, support, or more information about the ccNSO:\n[email protected]\n5. ccNSO Participation in ICANN's Empowered Community\nThe ccNSO is a\nDecisional Participant\nin the Empowered Community (EC), which has oversight powers over ICANN.\nIt can approve or reject key ICANN decisions, such as budget changes or bylaw amendments.\n6. ccNSO Meetings and Engagement\nThe ccNSO holds\nregular meetings during ICANN events\nand online to discuss key issues.\nIt provides forums, webinars, and reports to keep members informed and engaged.\nThis structure ensures the ccNSO effectively represents ccTLD interests while contributing to ICANN’s overall governance.\nccNSO at a Glance\nThe Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is a key part of ICANN, bringing together country code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers from around the world. Whether you are new to the ccNSO or just looking to get more involved, this page will help you navigate our community and resources.\nGet Involved\nJoin Working Groups\n– Participate in policy development and operational discussions.\nSubscribe to the ccNSO Newsletter\n– Stay updated on ccNSO news and developments.\nAttend Meetings\n– Join ccNSO sessions at ICANN meetings to engage with the community, or share your own experiences. Keep an eye out for the call for presentation proposals!\nUse the\nccNSO mailing lists\nto consult with fellow ccNSO members.\nConsult the\nccNSO libraries\non topics such as abuse or universal acceptance.\nIf you have any questions or need help getting started, feel free to\ncontact us\n.\nccNSO Newcomer’s Corner\nGet to know our community and resources.\nCommittees and Working Groups\nDiscover the ccNSO's working groups and committees, their roles,
and ongoing initiatives.\nccNSO Members\nExplore the ccNSO membership.\nccNSO Council\nKnow about the ccNSO Council, its members, roles, decisions, and meeting information.\nNewsletter\nStay informed about ccNSO news and developments.\nDeveloping Policy\nLearn about the ccNSO's policy development
process and its role in shaping global policies.\nDecisional Participant\nHelp to shape ICANN decisions, representing ccTLDs in the Empowered Community.\nccNSO Resources\nExplore resources: newcomers information, ccNSO governance, email lists and newsletter, surveys, travel support,
and more.\nccNSO Newcomer’s Corner\nGet to know our community and resources.\nCommittees and Working Groups\nDiscover the ccNSO's working groups and committees, their roles,
and ongoing initiatives.\nccNSO Members\nExplore the ccNSO membership.\nccNSO Council\nKnow about the ccNSO Council, its members, roles, decisions, and meeting information.\nNewsletter\nStay informed about ccNSO news and developments.\nDeveloping Policy\nLearn about the ccNSO's policy development
process and its role in shaping global policies.\nDecisional Participant\nHelp to shape ICANN decisions, representing ccTLDs in the Empowered Community.\nccNSO Resources\nExplore resources: newcomers information, ccNSO governance, email lists and newsletter, surveys, travel support,
and more.\nTimeline and History\nSince its creation in 2003, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) has served as a forum for country code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers from around the world to collaborate and address matters of global relevance. Over the years, the ccNSO has evolved in line with its responsibilities under the ICANN Bylaws—developing policies related to ccTLDs, promoting information-sharing, and contributing to ICANN’s multistakeholder model. This timeline takes you through the key moments in the ccNSO’s journey—highlighting the collaborations, decisions, and milestones.\nShow Text Version\n20 years of the ccNSO\n1999\nFirst ICANN meeting in Singapore\nCreation of wwTLD\n2003\nICANN Board adopts the Bylaws to include ccNSO\n2004\nFormation of the ccNSO\nFirst ccNSO Council meeting\n2005\nFirst ccNSO PDP\n2006\nFirst exchange of letters between ICANN and ccTLDs\n2007\nccNSO got a website\nLaunch of ccPDP2\nFast Track Process\n2008\nRules and guidelines of the ccNSO\n2009\nFast Track Launched\n2010\n1st Organisational review of the ccNSO\n2011\nFramework of Interpretation started\nStudy on the use of country names as TLDs\n2013\n10 Years ccNSO\n2014\nIANA Stewardship Transition process started\nccNSO gets actively involved in ICANN accountability discussions\n2015\nccNSO supports IANA Stewardship transition\n2016\nccNSO supports CCWG Accountability WS1\nNew ICANN Bylaws come into force\n2017\nccPDP 3 Issue report adopted\nFirst Fundamental Bylaw changed\n2018\n2nd Organisational review of the ccNSO\n2020\nccPDP 4 launched\nAll Council meetings open to the public\n2022\nIDN ccTLDs can join the ccNSO\nNew Rules adopted!\n2023\nccNSO Today!\n173 members\n15 Councillors\nActive Working Groups\nTechnical Working Group – since 2006\nStrategic and Operational Planning Committee – since 2009\nMeeting Planning Committee – since 2009\nTLD-OPS – since 2009\nGuidelines Review Committee – since 2014\nInternet Governance Liaison Committee – since 2018\nDNS Abuse Standing Committee – since 2022\nClick to open the full PDF.\nView Timeline and History\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "109f12aa-1985-433d-8a0c-13630a56fca5", "document_id": "0b011cea-f032-44a6-a6c3-faf0a05381b6", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Country Code Names Support Organization (ccNSO)\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nThe ccNSO is a body within the ICANN structure created for and by ccTLD managers.\nSubscribe\nccNSO Home\nNews and Events\nActivities\nccNSO Members\nccNSO Council\nResources\nCountry Code Names Support Organization (ccNSO)\nLatest ccNSO Announcements\nICANN87 ccTLD News: Call for Speakers Now Open\nThe ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC) invites proposals for the ccTLD News Session at the ICANN87 Annual General Meeting, held 17-22 October 2026 in Bali, Indonesia.\n30 July 2026\nJoin the ccNSO Continuous Improvement Program Webinar\nJoin the 6 August webinar, when the ccNSO proposes a framework to support continuous improvement..\n28 July 2026\nCall for nominations: ICANN Board Seat 12\nThe current term of Byron Holland, the Director appointed by the ccNSO to ICANN Board Seat 12, will end at ICANN90. The nomination period for this position is open until 13 August 2026 .\n22 July 2026\nICANN87 ccTLD News: Call for Speakers Now Open\nThe ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC) invites proposals for the ccTLD News Session at the ICANN87 Annual General Meeting, held 17-22 October 2026 in Bali, Indonesia.\n30 July 2026\nJoin the ccNSO Continuous Improvement Program Webinar\nJoin the 6 August webinar, when the ccNSO proposes a framework to support continuous improvement..\n28 July 2026\nCall for nominations: ICANN Board Seat 12\nThe current term of Byron Holland, the Director appointed by the ccNSO to ICANN Board Seat 12, will end at ICANN90. The nomination period for this position is open until 13 August 2026 .\n22 July 2026\nMore Announcements\nLatest ccNSO Events and Activities\nICANN87 ccNSO Session Highlights\nNavigate the ccNSO-related meetings and discussions during ICANN87, held 17-22 October in Bali, Indonesia.\nREAD MORE\nccNSO Activity Update Brief\nAn snapshot of activities across ccNSO committees and working groups, and related ICANN initiatives. Stay informed on current status, next steps, and priority focus areas.\nREAD MORE\nICANN87 ccNSO Session Highlights\nNavigate the ccNSO-related meetings and discussions during ICANN87, held 17-22 October in Bali, Indonesia.\nREAD MORE\nccNSO Activity Update Brief\nAn snapshot of activities across ccNSO committees and working groups, and related ICANN initiatives. Stay informed on current status, next steps, and priority focus areas.\nREAD MORE\nView ccNSO Council Meetings\nView ccNSO Activities\nAbout the ccNSO\nAlejandra Reynoso\nChair\nWelcome from the Chair\nThe Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nis a part of the ICANN multistakeholder community. The ccNSO was created in 2003 for and by\ncountry code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers\nto serve as a platform for ccTLDs to meet and discuss issues of concern to ccTLDs from a global perspective.\nWhat Does the ccNSO Do?\nDevelops Policies\n– It develops global policies within the scope of the ccNSO as stated in Annex C of the ICANN Bylaws, and recommends them to the ICANN Board. For example, retirement of ccTLDs.\nProvides a Platform for ccTLD Managers\n– It brings together ccTLD Managers from around the world to share their experiences, discuss topical issues, and coordinate efforts.\nCollaborates with Other Stakeholders\n– It works together with other stakeholders and communities within the ICANN structure.\nHow Is the Work of the ccNSO Organized?\nThe work of the ccNSO is organized into several key structures to ensure effective decision-making and collaboration among country code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\n1. ccNSO Members\nccNSO membership\nis open to all ccTLD Managers, but joining is voluntary.\nMembers participate in policy discussions, working groups, and voting on key issues.\n2. ccNSO Council\nEnsures the daily operations of the ccNSO.\nIt has 15 elected members (3 from each of the 5 ICANN geographic regions) and 3 members appointed by the ICANN’s Nominating Committee (NomCom).\nThe Council\ndetermines the work and direction of the ccNSO based on the feedback from members, oversees the policy development processes, leads and participates in working groups, and represents ccTLD interests within ICANN.\n3. Working Groups and Committees\nThe ccNSO creates\nworking groups (WGs) and Committees\nto deal with specific topics, such as policy development or governance of the ccNSO.\n4. ccNSO Secretariat\nA support team that helps with all the aspects of the work of the ccNSO.\nGet in touch for inquiries, support, or more information about the ccNSO:\n[email protected]\n5. ccNSO Participation in ICANN's Empowered Community\nThe ccNSO is a\nDecisional Participant\nin the Empowered Community (EC), which has oversight powers over ICANN.\nIt can approve or reject key ICANN decisions, such as budget changes or bylaw amendments.\n6. ccNSO Meetings and Engagement\nThe ccNSO holds\nregular meetings during ICANN events\nand online to discuss key issues.\nIt provides forums, webinars, and reports to keep members informed and engaged.\nThis structure ensures the ccNSO effectively represents ccTLD interests while contributing to ICANN’s overall governance.\nccNSO at a Glance\nThe Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is a key part of ICANN, bringing together country code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers from around the world. Whether you are new to the ccNSO or just looking to get more involved, this page will help you navigate our community and resources.\nGet Involved\nJoin Working Groups\n– Participate in policy development and operational discussions.\nSubscribe to the ccNSO Newsletter\n– Stay updated on ccNSO news and developments.\nAttend Meetings\n– Join ccNSO sessions at ICANN meetings to engage with the community, or share your own experiences. Keep an eye out for the call for presentation proposals!\nUse the\nccNSO mailing lists\nto consult with fellow ccNSO members.\nConsult the\nccNSO libraries\non topics such as abuse or universal acceptance.\nIf you have any questions or need help getting started, feel free to\ncontact us\n.\nccNSO Newcomer’s Corner\nGet to know our community and resources.\nCommittees and Working Groups\nDiscover the ccNSO's working groups and committees, their roles,
and ongoing initiatives.\nccNSO Members\nExplore the ccNSO membership.\nccNSO Council\nKnow about the ccNSO Council, its members, roles, decisions, and meeting information.\nNewsletter\nStay informed about ccNSO news and developments.\nDeveloping Policy\nLearn about the ccNSO's policy development
process and its role in shaping global policies.\nDecisional Participant\nHelp to shape ICANN decisions, representing ccTLDs in the Empowered Community.\nccNSO Resources\nExplore resources: newcomers information, ccNSO governance, email lists and newsletter, surveys, travel support,
and more.\nccNSO Newcomer’s Corner\nGet to know our community and resources.\nCommittees and Working Groups\nDiscover the ccNSO's working groups and committees, their roles,
and ongoing initiatives.\nccNSO Members\nExplore the ccNSO membership.\nccNSO Council\nKnow about the ccNSO Council, its members, roles, decisions, and meeting information.\nNewsletter\nStay informed about ccNSO news and developments.\nDeveloping Policy\nLearn about the ccNSO's policy development
process and its role in shaping global policies.\nDecisional Participant\nHelp to shape ICANN decisions, representing ccTLDs in the Empowered Community.\nccNSO Resources\nExplore resources: newcomers information, ccNSO governance, email lists and newsletter, surveys, travel support,
and more.\nTimeline and History\nSince its creation in 2003, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) has served as a forum for country code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers from around the world to collaborate and address matters of global relevance. Over the years, the ccNSO has evolved in line with its responsibilities under the ICANN Bylaws—developing policies related to ccTLDs, promoting information-sharing, and contributing to ICANN’s multistakeholder model. This timeline takes you through the key moments in the ccNSO’s journey—highlighting the collaborations, decisions, and milestones.\nShow Text Version\n20 years of the ccNSO\n1999\nFirst ICANN meeting in Singapore\nCreation of wwTLD\n2003\nICANN Board adopts the Bylaws to include ccNSO\n2004\nFormation of the ccNSO\nFirst ccNSO Council meeting\n2005\nFirst ccNSO PDP\n2006\nFirst exchange of letters between ICANN and ccTLDs\n2007\nccNSO got a website\nLaunch of ccPDP2\nFast Track Process\n2008\nRules and guidelines of the ccNSO\n2009\nFast Track Launched\n2010\n1st Organisational review of the ccNSO\n2011\nFramework of Interpretation started\nStudy on the use of country names as TLDs\n2013\n10 Years ccNSO\n2014\nIANA Stewardship Transition process started\nccNSO gets actively involved in ICANN accountability discussions\n2015\nccNSO supports IANA Stewardship transition\n2016\nccNSO supports CCWG Accountability WS1\nNew ICANN Bylaws come into force\n2017\nccPDP 3 Issue report adopted\nFirst Fundamental Bylaw changed\n2018\n2nd Organisational review of the ccNSO\n2020\nccPDP 4 launched\nAll Council meetings open to the public\n2022\nIDN ccTLDs can join the ccNSO\nNew Rules adopted!\n2023\nccNSO Today!\n173 members\n15 Councillors\nActive Working Groups\nTechnical Working Group – since 2006\nStrategic and Operational Planning Committee – since 2009\nMeeting Planning Committee – since 2009\nTLD-OPS – since 2009\nGuidelines Review Committee – since 2014\nInternet Governance Liaison Committee – since 2018\nDNS Abuse Standing Committee – since 2022\nClick to open the full PDF.\nView Timeline and History\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11058, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1665}}], "published_at": "2026-07-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\n30 July 2026\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "0b1c1160-4e5e-4a90-a3e6-1aba01a98d74", "source_id": "3a2187895f2a47f6b046e061", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/help", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/help", "artifact_sha256": "d58ee630080180d6ef3e3c4dcc853540ac9d08979a8e3921170c5b2adde08623", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 322381, "title": "I Need Help", "language": "en", "text_length": 6178, "characters": 6178, "text": "I Need Help\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nI Need Help\nDo you have a question, concern, or complaint? The information listed here will help direct you to the right answer or appropriate contact.\nSubscribe\nHelp Home\nI Need Help With a Domain Name\nDomain Name Holder Resources\nOmbuds\nI Need Help\nAre you having trouble with your domain name? Do you need to report unfair treatment by the ICANN organization (org)? Or maybe you have a request for information? Explore this page to help you get your answer or connect you to the right contact.\nWhere Can I Go for Specific Issues?\nIf you know the type of issue you’re experiencing, choose from one of the categories below to get the most relevant information. If you’re unsure, you can connect with an ICANN live operator.\nLearn About Domain Names\nI Need Help With a Domain Name\nI Need to Talk with Someone\nAccredited Registrar Help\nRegistry Operator Help\nICANN Ombuds\nLearn About Domain Names\nI Need Help With a Domain Name\nI Need to Talk with Someone\nAccredited Registrar Help\nRegistry Operator Help\nICANN Ombuds\nWhat If I Have a Complaint?\nComplaints filed with the appropriate team get resolved more quickly, so read below to determine which option best suits your needs.\nContractual Compliance Complaints\nIf your complaint relates to a company that manages domain names registrations - also known as registrars and registry operators - this is where you’ll want to start. Common complaints in this category include: registrars’ investigations of abusive domain names, domain name renewal or transfer requests, and issues related to the public display of domain name registration information. ICANN can’t help you with issues related to web content, spam, or Internet access.\nFile a domain name complaint\nUniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Provider Complaints\nIf your complaint relates to a URS Provider, this is where you’ll want to start. Parties are encouraged to first attempt to resolve the issue directly with the applicable URS\nProvider\n. Providers may have designated contacts or published guidance to assist with inquiries or concerns. If you believe a URS Provider has not complied with the URS\nRules or Procedure\n, and the issue remains unresolved after contacting the Provider, you may submit a complaint to ICANN. Complaints should include the nature of the reported non-compliance, the specific URS Rule or Procedure involved, the relevant URS case number and information, the details of the parties involved, and any supporting documentation.\nFile a URS Provider complaint\nOffice of the Ombuds\nInternet community members who feel that they’ve been treated unfairly by ICANN org staff, the ICANN Board, or an ICANN community group can engage the Ombuds to investigate the matter and facilitate a resolution. Ombuds investigations are confidential and independent of ICANN.\nContact the Ombuds\nComplaints Office\nThe Complaints Office handles complaints regarding ICANN org that don't fall into an existing complaints mechanism, such as\nContractual Compliance\n,\nRequest for Reconsideration\n, and the\nOmbuds\n. This may include complaints about how a request has been handled, a process that appears to be broken, insufficient handling of an issue, or something that may be an indication of a systemic issue.\nSubmit a complaint\nAdditional Stakeholder Resources\nICANN has a process available to request publication of documents not already publicly available.\nDocumentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)\nAny person or entity can request information contained in documents concerning ICANN's operational activities that have not already been published. These documents must be within ICANN's control. Certain types of sensitive information are excluded.\nSee more information on DIDP\nIf you believe you have been harmed by an ICANN org or Board action that was not taken properly, ICANN has two mechanisms to hold ICANN accountable.\nReconsideration Requests\nAny person or entity materially and adversely affected by an ICANN Board or org action or inaction that was taken outside of established ICANN process, without consideration of material information, or as a result of reliance on inaccurate information, may request the Board to reconsider that action or inaction. Note that simply disliking an action or inaction is not grounds for reconsideration.\nSee more information on reconsideration requests\nIndependent Review Process (IRP)\nAny person or entity materially and adversely affected by an ICANN Board or org action or inaction that is believed to be inconsistent with ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may seek an independent review of that action or inaction.\nSee more information on IRP\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "cfcd1623-82dd-4cad-9a5d-ffdbe5f36910", "document_id": "0b1c1160-4e5e-4a90-a3e6-1aba01a98d74", "ordinal": 0, "text": "I Need Help\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nI Need Help\nDo you have a question, concern, or complaint? The information listed here will help direct you to the right answer or appropriate contact.\nSubscribe\nHelp Home\nI Need Help With a Domain Name\nDomain Name Holder Resources\nOmbuds\nI Need Help\nAre you having trouble with your domain name? Do you need to report unfair treatment by the ICANN organization (org)? Or maybe you have a request for information? Explore this page to help you get your answer or connect you to the right contact.\nWhere Can I Go for Specific Issues?\nIf you know the type of issue you’re experiencing, choose from one of the categories below to get the most relevant information. If you’re unsure, you can connect with an ICANN live operator.\nLearn About Domain Names\nI Need Help With a Domain Name\nI Need to Talk with Someone\nAccredited Registrar Help\nRegistry Operator Help\nICANN Ombuds\nLearn About Domain Names\nI Need Help With a Domain Name\nI Need to Talk with Someone\nAccredited Registrar Help\nRegistry Operator Help\nICANN Ombuds\nWhat If I Have a Complaint?\nComplaints filed with the appropriate team get resolved more quickly, so read below to determine which option best suits your needs.\nContractual Compliance Complaints\nIf your complaint relates to a company that manages domain names registrations - also known as registrars and registry operators - this is where you’ll want to start. Common complaints in this category include: registrars’ investigations of abusive domain names, domain name renewal or transfer requests, and issues related to the public display of domain name registration information. ICANN can’t help you with issues related to web content, spam, or Internet access.\nFile a domain name complaint\nUniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Provider Complaints\nIf your complaint relates to a URS Provider, this is where you’ll want to start. Parties are encouraged to first attempt to resolve the issue directly with the applicable URS\nProvider\n. Providers may have designated contacts or published guidance to assist with inquiries or concerns. If you believe a URS Provider has not complied with the URS\nRules or Procedure\n, and the issue remains unresolved after contacting the Provider, you may submit a complaint to ICANN. Complaints should include the nature of the reported non-compliance, the specific URS Rule or Procedure involved, the relevant URS case number and information, the details of the parties involved, and any supporting documentation.\nFile a URS Provider complaint\nOffice of the Ombuds\nInternet community members who feel that they’ve been treated unfairly by ICANN org staff, the ICANN Board, or an ICANN community group can engage the Ombuds to investigate the matter and facilitate a resolution. Ombuds investigations are confidential and independent of ICANN.\nContact the Ombuds\nComplaints Office\nThe Complaints Office handles complaints regarding ICANN org that don't fall into an existing complaints mechanism, such as\nContractual Compliance\n,\nRequest for Reconsideration\n, and the\nOmbuds\n. This may include complaints about how a request has been handled, a process that appears to be broken, insufficient handling of an issue, or something that may be an indication of a systemic issue.\nSubmit a complaint\nAdditional Stakeholder Resources\nICANN has a process available to request publication of documents not already publicly available.\nDocumentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)\nAny person or entity can request information contained in documents concerning ICANN's operational activities that have not already been published. These documents must be within ICANN's control. Certain types of sensitive information are excluded.\nSee more information on DIDP\nIf you believe you have been harmed by an ICANN org or Board action that was not taken properly, ICANN has two mechanisms to hold ICANN accountable.\nReconsideration Requests\nAny person or entity materially and adversely affected by an ICANN Board or org action or inaction that was taken outside of established ICANN process, without consideration of material information, or as a result of reliance on inaccurate information, may request the Board to reconsider that action or inaction. Note that simply disliking an action or inaction is not grounds for reconsideration.\nSee more information on reconsideration requests\nIndependent Review Process (IRP)\nAny person or entity materially and adversely affected by an ICANN Board or org action or inaction that is believed to be inconsistent with ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may seek an independent review of that action or inaction.\nSee more information on IRP\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6178, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 946}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "0ef2f869-6df7-4266-9409-dfeec26b2839", "source_id": "402e665b121482ff904fddee", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1491", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1491/", "artifact_sha256": "402e665b121482ff904fddeeafe5d5f4fd3da5c47089c668b61316117127e598", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 185421, "title": "RFC 1491: A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500", "language": "en", "text_length": 34438, "characters": 34438, "text": "RFC 1491: A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500 | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1491\n:\nFYI\n21\n:\nA Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500\nC. Weider\n,\nR. Wright\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                          C. Weider\nRequest for Comments: 1491                           Merit Network, Inc.\nFYI: 21                                                        R. Wright\n                                            Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory\n                                                               July 1993\nA Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\n   This document is the result of a survey asking people to detail their\n   advanced usages of X.500. It is intended to show how various\n   organizations are using X.500 in ways which extend the view of X.500\n   as a \"White Pages\" service.  This RFC is a product of the Integrated\n   Directory Services Working Group of the Application and User Services\n   Areas of the IETF.\n1\n. Introduction\nAs the use of X.500 spreads in the Internet, organizations are\n   finding uses for it which go beyond the \"white pages\" paradigm which\n   has been used to introduce it to new users. Consequently, to document\n   those new uses and to encourage the wider use of X.500, we sent out a\n   survey to obtain \"advanced usages\" of X.500.\n1.1\nThe survey\nThe survey we sent out is included here for two purposes:\n\n   1) completeness, and\n   2) we'd like to encourage anyone who retrieves this document to send\n      us their advanced usage for inclusion in the next revision.\n\n   If you wish to fill this out, please send it to the working group\n   list: IDS@merit.edu.\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 1]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\n_____________________________________________________________________\n\n   Application Name:\n\n   Author(s):\n\n   Company or Institution:\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n\n   If this is a product for public distribution, please give us the\n     Type: FREE, COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, or PROTOTYPE/RESEARCH\n     FREE               - Anyone may obtain this product at zero cost.\n     COMMERCIAL PRODUCT - One may purchase this product.\n     PROTOTYPE/RESEARCH - This product is not yet available, only a\n                          prototype.\n\n   If FREE, please give us:\n     * FTP and/or FTAM address (if available via FTP and/or FTAM):\n\n   If COMMERCIAL, please give us:\n     * Directions to obtain product:\n\n   Availability: (When will product be available?)\n\n   List of platforms product runs on:\n   [The platform list can be general - e.g. UNIX]\n\n   Short Description (< 100 words):\n\n   Full Description (< 1 page):\n\n                   Fig. 1: Advanced Usages Survey Template\n\n   ______________________________________________________________________\n\n\n   This survey went out to the following mailing lists: osi-\n   ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, disi@merit.edu (now ids@merit.edu), and\n   dssig@ics.uci.edu.\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 2]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\n1.2\nDisclaimer\nDescriptions of the advanced usages were written by the implementors,\n   and not by the members of IDS. Although IDS has worked with the\n   description authors to ensure readability, no guarantees can be made\n   regarding the validity of descriptions. Caveat emptor.\n2\n. The Survey Responses\n2.1\nIndex to Responses\nApplication                                                   Page\n2.2.1\nGlobal Time-table Information Service ................\n3\n2.2.2\nPre-Message Security Protocol         ................\n4\n2.2.3\nElectronic Data Interchange           ................\n5\n2.2.4\nNetwork Topology Information          ................\n7\n2.2.4.1\nShared Whois Information Project    ................\n7\n2.2.4.2\nEARN's Network Directory            ................\n8\n2.2.5\nSoft Pages                            ................\n9\n2.2.6\nX-Tel                                 ................\n10\n2.2.7\nXerox Clearinghouse                   ................\n12\n2.2.8\nX.500 Sendmail                        ................\n13\n2.2.9\nTransparent ODA Conversion            ................\n14\n2.2.10\nX.500 and the whois protocol          ................\n16\n2.2.11\nX.400 table handling                  ................\n17\n2.2\nSurvey Responses\n2.2.1\nGlobal Time-table Information Service\nApplication Name: Global Time-table Information Service based on X.500\n\n   Date Received: 7/1/1992\n\n   Date Last Validated: 7/1/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     Jens Hofmann\n     Cuno Lanz\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     Laboratory of Computer Engineering and Networks,\n     Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich)\n     Switzerland\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n     c=CH; a=ARCOM; p=SWITCH; o=ETHZ; ou=TIK; s=Lanz (lanz@tik.ethz.ch)\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 3]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nType:\n     experimental prototype; not public\n\n   FTP address: <none>\n\n   Short Description:\n     This application aims at integrating the time-table information\n     services offered by public transport providers of different scope\n     (local, regional, national or international) into a homogeneous and\n     unified user interface.  X.500 is used to store the information in\n     an autonomous and extensible way.\n\n   Full Description:\n     Most of the public tranport providers offer some kind of time-table\n     information service like printed directory, help-desk, telephone\n     support or PC software. Unfortunately these services have some of\n     the following drawbacks:\n\n         - no automatic update of data (information accuracy)\n         - no global availability (place independency)\n         - no permanent availability (time independency)\n         - no inter-provider service (service integration).\n\n     X.500 may serve as a vehicle to overcome these drawbacks as\n     follows: The public transport providers store the time-table\n     information in a standardized format on locally managed DSAs. There\n     is some kind of special purpose DUA which (1) queries the user for\n     the input parameters (date, time, source and destination station)\n     then (2) searches for the relevant paths by querying the involved\n     DSAs and (3) displays the resulting time-table to the user.\n\n     In a diploma thesis a student is developing a new data model which\n     supports easy selection of source and destination station as well\n     as fast exploring of the time-table information. He is implementing\n     a prototype application onto an existing DUA interface (based on\n     HyperCard and running on Apple Macintosh) which is connected to the\n     world-wide X.500 pilot service over DIXIE protocol.  In order to\n     test the prototype application the time-table information of the\n     Swiss national public transport company and of most of the regional\n     providers around the city of Zurich is included under the branch:\n     c=CH;o=ETH Zurich.\n2.2.2\nPre-Message Security Protocol\nApplication Name:\n     Defense Message System Directory\n\n   Date Recieved: 7/1/1992\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 4]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nDate Last Validated: 7/1/1992\n\n   Author:\n     Bob Cooney\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     The Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Washington\n     and\n     The Defense Information System Agency\n\n   E-mail address for more information:\n     cooney@wnyose.nctsw.navy.mil\n\n   Type:\n     experimental prototype, not public\n\n   FTP address: <none>\n\n   Short Description:\n     The U.S. Navy will build a directory based on X.500 to support the\n     distribution of Pre-Message Security Protocol security keys.\n\n   Long Description:\n     The U.S. Navy has been asked to build a directory service to support\n     the distribution of Pre-Message Security Protocol security keys.\n     The Pre-Message Security Protocol will provide SMTP/X.400 security\n     services for unclassified but sensitive mail on the Defense Data\n     Network.\n\n     The directory will be based on QUIPU. Proof of concept is expected\n     by October 1992, with initial operational capacity by October 1993.\n2.2.3\nElectronic Data Interchange\nApplication Name: An X.500 User Agent for Electronic Data Interchange\n\n   Date Received: 7/10/1992\n\n   Date Last Validated: 7/10/1992\n\n   Author:\n     Neil Weldon\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     Networks Group,\n     Computer Science Dept.,\n     Trinity College Dublin,\n     Ireland\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 5]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\ne-mail address for more information:\n     omahony@cs.tcd.ie\n     nmweldon@vax1.tcd.ie\n\n   Type:\n     Research product and not for public distribution\n\n   FTP address: <none>\n\n   Short Description:\n     The Directory is used to assist in solving the 'first order'\n     problem associated with Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). EDI is\n     the transfer of trade documents between application processes in a\n     processable form.  The 'first order' problem describes the\n     agreements that two organizations must come to regarding\n     capabilities and preferences, before using EDI.\n\n     To solve this problem we defined object types to allow the storage\n     of product catalogues within the Directory, as well as information\n     about the EDI readiness of trading partners: addresses, preferences\n     and EDI capabilities.\n\n   Full Description:\n     Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is the means by which\n     organizations exchange trade related documents between application\n     processes in an format which may be processed electronically.\n\n     Before using EDI an organization must establish a series of goals\n     and objectives, to establish what type of documents they wish to be\n     able to transmit (invoices, purchase orders etc.) and what their\n     communication requirements are. Each of these time consuming and\n     tedious steps is usually done in conjunction with trading partners\n     where these agreements regarding EDI capabilities and preferences\n     must be made.\n\n     To solve this 'first order' problem (the need to come to agreements\n     with other organizations before trading using EDI takes place) we\n     defined object types to allow the storage of product catalogues\n     within the Directory. The Directory may also convey information\n     regarding the EDI readiness of trading partners: addresses,\n     preferences and EDI capabilities.\n\n     Using an experimental User Agent based on Pod which was developed\n     at Brunel in the UK, trade documents may be built up by selecting\n     products from the stored catalogues. These documents are then\n     encoded as an EDI Interchange after the Directory has been queried\n     about addresses, etc.\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 6]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nThe current object types are very basic and may only convey the\n     minimal amount of information necessary. We are now in the process\n     of extending this further to a full product class hierarchy which\n     is being based on information that may be sent within an EDI trade\n     document using the EDI standard document syntax EDIFACT.\n\n     By using the Directory as a repository for product information to\n     aid in EDI the catalogues become available worldwide. They may be\n     replicated at various nodes, and the updating and propagation of\n     changes to slave copies becomes trivial.\n2.2.4\nNetwork Topology Information\nThere are two projects in this area; Merit Network's Shared Whois\n   Information Project, and EARN's Network Directory.\n2.2.4.1\nShared Whois Information Project\nApplication Name: Shared Whois Project\n\n   Date Received: 6/1/1993\n\n   Date Last Validated: 6/1/1993\n\n   Author(s): Sheri Repucci\n\n   Company or Institution: Merit Network, Inc.\n\n   e-mail address for more information: swip@merit.edu\n\n   Availability: June 1993\n\n   Type:\n     experimental prototype, not public\n\n   List of platforms product runs on: UNIX\n\n   Short Description:\n     The Shared Whois Project merges network data held by various\n     organizations.  The principal purpose of merging this data is to\n     find and resolve conflicting network information between the\n     databases.  The longterm goal of this project is to move away from\n     the current model of storing similar and/or duplicate network\n     information in multiple databases and to move to a X.500\n     distributed database model.  To this end, we are working on loading\n     the NSFNET network information into X.500 in anticipation of\n     participating in a distributed database trial.\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 7]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nFull Description:\n     The Shared Whois Project is a collection of programs and shell\n     scripts which collectively merges the network data held by each of\n     the participating organizations.  Currently this includes Merit,\n     the RIPE-NCC and the InterNIC.  The principal purpose of merging\n     this vast quantity of data is to find and resolve conflicting\n     network information between the various databases.  It is our\n     intent to merge this data bi-weekly and thus rapidly reach, and\n     thereafter maintain, a stable set of commonly held network\n     information.\n\n     While there is a common set of information all three of the\n     participants hold in their various databases, additional\n     information unique to the function of each organization is also\n     held.  Furthermore, the resulting set of data created by the merger\n     holds only one entry per network without attempting to combine the\n     variations.  Thus, each entry includes a listing of all databases\n     found to contain information for that network as well as all\n     databases found to be in conflict with the entry held in the\n     resultant set.\n\n     The longterm goal of this project is to move away from the current\n     model of storing similar and/or duplicate network information in\n     multiple databases and to move to a X.500 distributed database\n     model.  To this end, Merit is working to load the NSFNET network\n     information into X.500 in anticipation of participating in a trial\n     with the InterNIC and others on the road to a globally distributed\n     database model.\n2.2.4.2\nEARN's Network Directory\nApplication Name: Ditnet/EARN Network Directory\n\n   Date Received: 7/7/1992\n\n   Date Last Verified: 7/7/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     Peter Sylvester\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     Inria Rocquencourt - France\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n     peter.sylvester@inria.fr\n\n   Type: FREE (data owned by EARN/Bitnet)\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 8]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nShort Description:\n     The EARN/Bitnet Network database consists of descriptions of all\n     participating members, network nodes, adminstrators, and topology\n     information. This database commonly known as BITEARN NODES is being\n     made available through x.500.\n\n   Full Description:\n     A full description of the contents of the EARN/Bitnet database\n     can be found in some EARN internal document which is available\n     as a file BITEARN NODES from any NETSERV in EARN/Bitnet. The\n     contents of this file is mapped into an X.500 subtree containing\n     descriptions of network nodes, adminstrational personnel, and\n     topology information.\n\n     The first version of the directory subtree will be created using a\n     simple textual mapping to a flat directory tree using private\n     attributes.\n2.2.5\nSoft Pages\nApplication Name: Soft Pages\n\n   Date Received: 9/25/1992\n\n   Date Last Validated: 9/25/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     Thomas Johannsen\n     Glenn Mansfield\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     AIC Systems Laboratory,\n     Tohoku University Sendai\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n     spp-support@aic.co.jp\n\n   Type:\n     Intended for public distribution, not yet public\n\n   FTP address: <none>\n\n   Short Description:\n     A file name look-up services for anonymous FTP servers, provides ls\n     -lR information and FTP server address. Additionally, the nearest\n     FTP site (from user's site) which holds the requested file is\n     chosen.\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                     [Page 9]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nFull Description:\n     With the growing of number and size of electronic archives for\n     documents, programs and the like, the problem of finding and\n     retrieving a specific file becomes more and more complex.\n     Furthermore, bandwidth in the Internet is still limited. Users\n     should be encouraged and supported to do local FTP sessions as often\n     as possible instead of getting everything from the other end of the\n     world (i.e., the net).\n\n     The Soft Pages Project combines an Archie-like file look-up service\n     with network configuration knowledge.  A dedicated User Agent gives\n     a suggestion how to retrieve a document in a network traffic\n     optimized manner.\n\n     Basically, Directory information introduced by Soft Pages falls\n     into two parts: A file information part and a network configuration\n     part.\n\n     The file information part describes objects and attributes for file\n     servers and their contents. For each file server, names and\n     attributes of its files are stored and updated periodically. This\n     provides global access to Archie-like information for all\n     registered file servers and, furthermore, opens the way to store\n     document description together with the file name.  Thus, document\n     search is not restricted to file name matches but might be run for\n     keywords as well.\n\n     The network configuration part provides information on networks\n     (subnetworks), nodes and lines in the Internet. Furthermore, IP\n     numbers can be mapped to network and node objects. In order to\n     evaluate file server sites, Internet (site to site) connections are\n     given a cost index and then alternatives are compared by their cost\n     index. Cost index is a calculated parameter representing properties\n     of a connection like speed, average traffic, charges etc. where\n     values for the latter are hold as attributes to line objects.\n\n     If a document is stored at two or more sites, the site with the\n     lowest cost index (which naturally will be the \"nearest\" in network\n     terms) will be chosen for retrieval.  A Soft Pages User Agent\n     basically interacts with the Directory for finding a pointer to the\n     \"best\" copy of a file wanted by a user.\n2.2.6\nX-Tel\nApplication Name: X-Tel's advanced applications\n\n   Date received: 7/1/1992\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 10]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nDate last verified: 7/1/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     Colin Robbins\n     Julian Onions\n     Graeme Lunt\n\n   Company or Institution: X-Tel Services Ltd.\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n     x500@xtel.co.uk\n\n   Type:\n     Commercial Products / Ideas\n\n   Short Description:\n     1) Product Information.  Products that have DUA facilites built in\n     have a \"latest info\" button or other request method.  When\n     \"pressed\" a well known node below the X-Tel part of the tree is\n     read.  The attributes contain descriptions of the latest version of\n     the software, new features etc.  If you decide you would like the\n     new version, a second read obtains the information required for a\n     template order form.\n\n     2) BUG Status.  As above, but obtains details of known bugs in the\n     version of software you are running.  (If only we could find a way\n     of putting fixes in, and automatically updating the software\n     itself!)\n\n     3) X-Terms.  We have a conferencing product, allowing X users to\n     \"talk\" and share windows.  The problem is identifying which X\n     Terminal device a particular user is currently on.  One solution we\n     are using is modify a users directory entry during login to say\n     which X display they have logged into.  The conference can the\n     query the directory, and open windows on the appropriate device.\n     The directory is also used to store details of current conferences,\n     so new delegates can join the conference easily.\n\n     4) Organisation browsing.  There are a rich set of attributes about\n     people and their roles stored in the directory.  We have a special\n     purpose DUA that exploits this information, and presents\n     information on who manages who, who is secretary for who etc.  This\n     is very useful when combined with the search ACL mechanism defined\n     in OSI-DS 21 as different views can be given to different\n     catergories of users.\n\n     5) MHS use of directory.  The directory is use to store MHS routing\n     information (as per the MHS DS working group documents)\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 11]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\n6) Mail Lists.  Details of mailing lists are stored in the\n     directory.  With careful use of access control, users can be given\n     access so that they can subscribe and unsubscribe themselves\n     to/from a list.\n\n     7) Details of restuarants in the Nottingham area are stored in the\n     directory!\n\n     8) We plan to use the directory as a rendevuz for a multi-user\n     adventure game.  Each \"room\" will be a different entry, and modify\n     operations will be used to pick up and put down objects!\n\n     The next two are \"advanced\" features of our DUA, they may not be\n     considered relevant to this document!\n\n     9) Templates.  The directory is used to store template entries.\n     Our DUA then uses this template when adding new users.  Very\n     useful, as a number of default attributes can be set.\n\n     10) Editors.  Special purpose editors for a number of complex\n     attribute syntaxes are built in to our DUAs.  This includes QUIPU\n     ACLs, and X.400 OR Addresses.\n2.2.7\nXerox Clearinghouse\nApplication Name: Clearinghouse Interface\n\n   Date Received: 7/1/1992\n\n   Date Last Validated: 7/1/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     Margaret Avino\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     Xerox Corporation\n\n   e-mail address for more information\n     mavin.cin_ops@xerox.com\n\n   Type:\n     Early Design/Implementation stages\n\n   Short Description:\n     X.500 DSA interface to XNS (Xerox Network Services) Clearinghouse\n     directory to provide access to Xerox Corporation's Clearinghouse via\n     X.500 DUAs.\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 12]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nFull Description:\n     Xerox uses the XNS network protocol suite to provide Mail, Filing,\n     Directory, Authentication, etc. network services for the installed\n     based of 45,000+ Xerox workstations.  The Directory is based on the\n     XNS Clearinghouse protocol which is similar to X.500 in that it\n     contains objects which have properties (attributes) and is a fully\n     distributed, replicatable directory.  The searching capabilities of\n     the Clearinghouse protocol are not as robust as the X.500 search\n     operation and the physical structure of the original database is\n     not amenable to complex searches as it could be if it were stored\n     in a relational database.\n\n     The first piece of this project is to transfer the data into an\n     Oracle relational database and create a new Clearinghouse server\n     which accesses the oracle database and is a full fledged member of\n     the Clearinghouse, sending and receiving updates to other servers\n     using the XNS Clearinghouse protocol.  This will allow powerful SQL\n     queries to be performed on the data which will provide some very\n     desired functionality such as: list all of the Distribution Lists\n     of which this name is a member.\n\n     To build on the new database, we are probing the implementation of\n     an X.500 DSA interface to the Oracle Clearinghouse Directory.  This\n     would allow X.500 DUAs to access the data and utilize the powerful\n     search operations.  It will require the definition of one or more\n     new object classes and several new attributes and some thought\n     about the appropriate schema.\n2.2.8\nX.500 Sendmail\nApplication Name: X.500 Sendmail\n\n   Date Received: 9/25/1992\n\n   Date Last Verified: 9/25/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     Tim Howes\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     University of Michigan\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n     x500@umich.edu\n\n   Type:\n     FREE\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 13]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nFTP address: terminator.cc.umich.edu\n\n   Directions to obtain product:\n     get x500/sendmail-5.65.x500.tar.Z\n\n   Short Description:\n     Modifications to sendmail-5.65 to do X.500 lookups.\n\n   Full Description:\n     We have modified sendmail-5.65 so that it does X.500 lookups,\n     returning the value of a user's rfc822Mailbox attribute. It\n     handles multiple matches by sending a message containing the\n     choices back to the sender.  If the user has no email address in\n     X.500, the sender is sent a message containing postal and phone\n     information on the user. Both exact and approximate matching is\n     supported.\n2.2.9\nTransparent ODA Conversion\nApplication Name: Transparent ODA Conversion\n\n   Date Received: 7/16/1992\n\n   Date Last Verified: 7/16/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     MacFarland Hale (MITRE Open Systems Group)\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     The MITRE Corporation\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n     machale@mitre.org\n\n   Type:\n     Not Yet Available\n\n   Short Description:\n     Plan to use X.500 in conjunction with X.400 and Open Document\n     Architecture (ODA) to provide transparent translation of compound\n     documents between a sender and one or more recipients.\n\n   Full Description:\n     In the future, MITRE would like to combine X.500, X.400 and Open\n     Document Architecture (ODA) to automate the conversion of compound\n     documents in such a way that the users need not know about ODA or\n     even that the conversion is taking place.  This will require new\n     and/or updated X.400 products.\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 14]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nA preferred compound document format (e.g., Microsoft Word,\n     FrameMaker, etc.)  for each user is stored in the X.500 directory.\n     Each X.400 Message Transfer Agent (MTA) host also houses converters\n     between each such format and the Open Document Interchange Format\n     (ODIF).\n\n     A user (sender) creates a document with his or her preferred\n     compound document editor.  Ideally, the editor software will have a\n     link (e.g., button or pull-down menu) to the X.400 User Agent (UA).\n     The user invokes the X.400 UA (either using this link, or outside\n     of the editor software) to send the document as an X.400 message to\n     one or more recipients.  Next, the document may need to be\n     converted to ODIF, and this may be done in one of two ways.\n\n     Preferably, the X.400 MTA will be responsible for the ODIF\n     conversion.  The UA must somehow be told what format the original\n     document is in.  This may be done via the UA invocation from inside\n     the editor, via a UA configuration file, by examining the filename\n     extension, etc.  It then tags the document to indicate the\n     document's original format using one of the body parts:\n     \"Bilaterally Defined\" (body part 14), \"Nationally Defined\" (body\n     part 7) or \"Externally Defined\" (body part 15).  The UA then sends\n     the message, and the MTA interprets the tag to determine the\n     document's format.\n\n     For messages internal to MITRE, the MTA will look up the\n     recipient's preferred document format.  If it is different than the\n     sender's format, the MTA calls the appropriate ODIF converter and\n     sends the message.  If the recipient's preferred format is the same\n     as that of the document being sent, then no conversion is\n     performed.  For messages going outside MITRE, the document is\n     always converted to ODIF.  The user may prevent this by specifying\n     that the enclosed document is not to be converted, in which case\n     the UA simply sends the document in binary form with no special\n     tag.\n\n     Alternatively, the UA may do the conversion.  As above, the UA must\n     be told the document's original format.  The UA may then call the\n     appropriate local ODIF converter, and then send the message.  There\n     are some disadvantages to this approach:\n\n       1) ODIF converters must be purchased for and maintained on many\n          more hosts;\n\n       2) the document is always converted to ODIF (unless the UA\n          accesses the directory, but...);\n\n       3) conversion overhead could be traumatic on a small PC.\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 15]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nAt each recipient host, the X.400 MTA catches the incoming message,\n     recognizing the contents as ODIF.  It then looks up the recipients'\n     preferred compound document formats, calls the appropriate\n     converters to translate the contents, and then delivers the\n     messages to the recipients.  If the incoming message contains one\n     of the format tags described above, then no conversion is performed\n     (since the document is not in ODIF).\n\n     Please note that MITRE is a not-for-profit organization.  We will\n     not produce commercial products to support this scenario, but we\n     are anxious to encourage and work with companies interested in\n     doing so.\n2.2.10\nX.500 and the WHOIS protocol\nApplication Name: Phone Book\n\n   Date Received: 7/15/1992\n\n   Date Last Verified: 7/15/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     Steven Schoch\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     NASA Ames Research Center\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n     schoch@sheba.arc.nasa.gov\n\n   Type:\n     FREE, see Steve\n\n   Short Description:\n     On-line edition of our phone book, using X.500 for storage and\n     retrieval.\n\n   Full Description:\n     Phone Book is a user application which communicates using the\n     Internet WHOIS protocol.  It is listed in the Internet Resources\n     Guide as such.  The latest incarnation, however, does not make use\n     of a flat file -- it gets information from a DUA that performs\n     conversions between information received via DAP and the format that\n     users expect to get back from our Phone Book queries.  The change to\n     X.500 has allowed us to supply additional data such as E-mail\n     address which do not normally appear in the phone book.  The fields\n     supplied in response to a query include:\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 16]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nName\n           Telephone Number\n           Mail Stop\n           Office Number\n           Organizational Affiliation (either a NASA organization code\n                   or a contractor name)\n           E-mail address\n\n   Queries may be made on any of the fields specified, with the office\n   being divided into building and room components.  A sample lookup\n   might be:\n\n   trident:297-->phbook yee\n   Name                        Phone    M/S     Office    Organization\n   --------------------------- -------- ------- --------- ------------\n   Arnold M. Yee                 4-4315 258-6   N258/134  COMPSCICOR\n   Cindy Yee                            226-3   N226/105  CALSPAN\n                                        cyee@ames.arc.nasa.gov\n   David H. Yee                  4-4106 213-8   N213/256  EEF\n                                        david_yee@qmgate.arc.nasa.gov\n   Dr. Helen M C. Yee            4-4769 202A-1  N202A/216 RF\n   Harry Yee                     4-6557 213-2   N213/101F EES\n   Peter Edmond Yee              4-3812 233-18  N233/240  EDC\n                                        yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov\n   Robert Yee                    4-4122 T041-3  TA20/155  SFA\n                                        robert_yee@qmgate.arc.nasa.gov\n2.2.11\nX.400 table handling\nApplication Name: X.400 table handling\n\n   Date Received: 7/15/1992\n\n   Date Last Verified: 7/15/1992\n\n   Author(s):\n     Julian Onions\n     Colin Robbins\n\n   Company or Institution:\n     X-Tel Service Limited,\n     Nottingham, England\n\n   e-mail address for more information:\n     jpo@xtel.co.uk\n\n   Type:\n     FREE, not yet available to the general public\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 17]\nRFC 1491\nX.500 Advanced Usages                 July 1993\nShort Description:\n     Implementation of the work of the IETF MHS-DS group. The goal is to\n     put X.400 tables into X.500 in order to facilitate gateway and\n     routing functions.\n\n   Full Description:\n     See the Internet drafts for MHS-DS. NASA Ames Research Center is\n     participating in the testing and development of the next release of\n     the PP message handling software. The latest update (alpha test)\n     contains usage of X.500 by X.400 for\nRFC 822\n<->X.400 gatewaying, as\n     well as hooks for X.400 intelligent routing. Use of X.500 to\n     eliminate static tables will greatly improve the ability to\n     maintain the information necessary for mail gatewaying and routing,\n     while making it easier to keep this data current and well\n     distributed.\n3\n.  Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\n4\n.   Authors' Addresses\nChris Weider\n   2901 Hubbard, Pod G\n   Ann Arbor, MI 48105\n\n   Phone: (313) 747-2730\n   EMail: clw@merit.edu\n\n\n   Russ Wright\n   Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory\n   1 Cyclotron Road\n   Berkeley, CA 94720\n\n   Phone: (415) 486-6965\n   EMail: wright@lbl.gov\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIntegrated Directory Services Working Group                    [Page 18]\nRFC\n1491\n: A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1993-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1993-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1993-07-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:27.316782+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "101c9a1a-8f99-48bf-bafe-b0c2495dc15a", "source_id": "831d1af606b537dd1caeb8f6", "source": "UNESCO", "source_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics", "final_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics", "artifact_sha256": "dafa77914e1db77995927fbf55e760ed833592677a6af362543679cde9a98665", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 285408, "title": "Ethics of Artificial Intelligence - AI | UNESCO", "language": "en", "text_length": 8384, "characters": 8384, "text": "Ethics of Artificial Intelligence - AI | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nРусский\nالعربية\n中文\nUNESCO\nMain navigation\nWho we are\nAbout us\nAbout us\nMember States Profiles\nMember States Profiles\nGlobal presence\nGlobal presence\nPartners\nPartners\nWhat we do\nPeople we serve\nPeople we serve\nCore functions\nCore functions\nObjectives\nObjectives\nProgrammes\nProgrammes\nNews\nNewsroom\nNewsroom\nCalendar\nCalendar\nInternational days and more\nInternational days and more\nStay updated\nStay updated\nResources\nLegal texts\nLegal texts\nSites navigator\nSites navigator\nMultimedia\nMultimedia\nLearning Hub\nLearning Hub\nPublications\nPublications\nDocuments\nDocuments\nGlobal reports\nGlobal reports\nData and indicators\nData and indicators\nMember States Portal\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nBreadcrumb\nArtificial Intelligence and emerging technologies\nShutterstock\nArtificial Intelligence and emerging technologies\nHome\nOur actions\nSharing knowledge\nFor governments\nFor the judiciary\nFor policy-makers\nFor teachers\nFor students\nBuilding standards\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence\nPromoting inclusion\nAI for gender equality\nDigital Inclusion\nAI and human rights for youth\nGreen digital transformation\nResources\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence\nAI Ethics for the people\nJump to :\nCore values\nGlobal AI Ethics and Governance Observatory\nCore principles: A human rights approach to AI\nAreas of policy action\nResources\nThe rapid developments of artificial intelligence (AI) have created many opportunities globally, such as facilitating healthcare diagnoses and treatment, opening access to more tailored learning, and creating new means to safeguard and protect cultural diversity, among many others.\nHowever, these changes also raise profound ethical concerns. These arise from the way AI systems are developed, designed, deployed, and used, which may lead to reproducing and amplifying biases, contributing to climate degradation, threatening human rights, and more.\nIn November 2021, UNESCO's 193 Member States adopted the first global standard on AI ethics: the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.\nAt its core, it states that AI must respect human rights and human dignity. It is grounded in key principles such as transparency, fairness, environmental sustainability, and human oversight of AI systems, which guide its ethical framework.\nThis Recommendation doesn’t focus only on ethical values and principles but also lays out concrete policy recommendations to help implement them, across policy areas from gender to data to international cooperation.\nRead the full Recommendation\n©UNESCO\nCore values\nCentral to the Recommendation are four core values which lay the foundations of AI systems that work for the good of humanity, individuals, societies and the environment:\n1\nRespecting and promoting human dignity and human rights\n2\nFostering just, peaceful, and interconnected societies\n3\nEnsuring diversity and inclusiveness\n4\nSupporting flourishing of environment and ecosystems\n© Getty Images / ivanastar\nGlobal AI Ethics and Governance Observatory\nThe aim of the Observatory is to provide a global resource for policymakers, regulators, academics, the private sector and civil society to find solutions to the most pressing challenges posed by Artificial Intelligence.\nThe Observatory showcases information about the readiness of countries to adopt AI ethically and responsibly.\nDiscover more\nCore principles: A human rights approach to AI\nTen core principles\nThese principles outline a human- rights centred approach to the ethics of AI. They provide a shared ethical foundation to guide the development, deployment, and governance of artificial intelligence:\n1. Proportionality and do no harm\nThe use of AI systems must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Risk assessment should be used to prevent harms which may result from such uses.\n2. Safety and security\nUnwanted harms (safety risks) as well as vulnerabilities to attack (security risks) should be avoided and addressed by AI actors.\n3. Right to privacy and data protection\nPrivacy must be protected and promoted throughout the AI lifecycle. Adequate data protection frameworks should also be established.\n4. Multi-stakeholder and adaptive governance and collaboration\nInternational law and national sovereignty must be respected in the use of data. Additionally, participation of diverse stakeholders is necessary for inclusive approaches to AI governance.\n5. Responsibility and accountability\nAI systems should be auditable and traceable. There should be oversight, impact assessment, audit and due diligence mechanisms in place to avoid conflicts with human rights norms and threats to environmental wellbeing.\n6. Transparency and explainability\nThe ethical deployment of AI systems depends on their transparency and explainability (T&E). The level of T&E should be appropriate to the context, as there may be tensions between T&E and other principles such as privacy, safety and security.\n7. Human oversight and determination\nMember States should ensure that AI systems do not displace ultimate human responsibility and accountability.\n8. Sustainability\nAI technologies should be assessed against their impacts on sustainability, understood as a set of constantly evolving goals including those set out in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.\n9. Awareness and literacy\nPublic understanding of AI and data should be promoted through open and accessible education, civic engagement, digital skills and AI ethics training, media and information literacy.\n10. Fairness and non-discrimination\nAI actors should promote social justice, fairness, and non-discrimination while taking an inclusive approach to ensure AI’s benefits are accessible to all.\nAreas of policy action\nKey policy areas operationalise the values and principles set out in the Recommendation.\nThe policy actions can guide societies in dealing responsibly with the known and unknown impacts of AI technologies on human beings, societies and the environment and ecosystems, and offers them a basis to accept or reject AI technologies.\nRead more on the Key policy areas\n-\nResources\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence\nUNESCO\n2022\nUNESCO\nAvailable in...\nArabic\nChinese\nEnglish\nFrench\nLithuanian\nMongolian\nPortuguese\nSpanish\nUzbek\nUNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: key facts\nUNESCO\n2023\nUNESCO\nAvailable in...\nEnglish\nRelated items\nSocial and human sciences\nNatural sciences\nCulture\nRespond to Current Global Challenges (AI, Climate Change Biodiversity...)\nArtificial intelligence\nNorms & Standards\nPolicy Advice\nUN & International cooperation\nHigh technology\nInformation technology\nInformation technology (hardware)\nInformation technology (software)\nTechnology\nComputer science\nEthics of science\nScience\nScience and development\nScience and society\nScience policy\nSocial science policy\nSocial sciences\nEthics of artificial intelligence\nEthics\nEthics of technology\nSee more\nadd\nGet involved\nCareers\nFellowships\nPrizes\nVisit us\nOrganize your event\nUNESCO Shop\nSubscribe to our newsletters\nNetworks\nAssociated Schools (ASPnet)\nClubs and Associations\nCities Platform\nChairs and UNITWIN Programme\nField Offices\nGoodwill Ambassadors\nInstitutes and Centres\nPartners\nUNEVOC\nYouth\nSpecialized websites\nWorld Heritage\nIntangible Cultural Heritage\nIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission\nInternational Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences\nInternational Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development\nInternational Year of Glaciers’ Preservation\nVirtual Museum of Stolen Cultural Objects\nDive into Heritage\nUNESCO Datahub\nUNESCO Digital Library\nTerms of use\nUNESCO name and logo\nFAQ\nReport fraud, abuse, misconduct\nScam alert\nPreventing harassment at UNESCO events\nPolicies\nProtection of human rights (Procedure 104)\nPrivacy Notice\nAccess to information\nEnvironmental and Social Policies\nStakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM)\nQuery list\nFollow us\nInstagram\nLinkedIn\nYouTube\nX\nTikTok\nFacebook\nWhatsApp\nUNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment.\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "segments": [{"segment_id": "d1835af2-45c3-418e-877a-488064508735", "document_id": "101c9a1a-8f99-48bf-bafe-b0c2495dc15a", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Ethics of Artificial Intelligence - AI | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nРусский\nالعربية\n中文\nUNESCO\nMain navigation\nWho we are\nAbout us\nAbout us\nMember States Profiles\nMember States Profiles\nGlobal presence\nGlobal presence\nPartners\nPartners\nWhat we do\nPeople we serve\nPeople we serve\nCore functions\nCore functions\nObjectives\nObjectives\nProgrammes\nProgrammes\nNews\nNewsroom\nNewsroom\nCalendar\nCalendar\nInternational days and more\nInternational days and more\nStay updated\nStay updated\nResources\nLegal texts\nLegal texts\nSites navigator\nSites navigator\nMultimedia\nMultimedia\nLearning Hub\nLearning Hub\nPublications\nPublications\nDocuments\nDocuments\nGlobal reports\nGlobal reports\nData and indicators\nData and indicators\nMember States Portal\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nBreadcrumb\nArtificial Intelligence and emerging technologies\nShutterstock\nArtificial Intelligence and emerging technologies\nHome\nOur actions\nSharing knowledge\nFor governments\nFor the judiciary\nFor policy-makers\nFor teachers\nFor students\nBuilding standards\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence\nPromoting inclusion\nAI for gender equality\nDigital Inclusion\nAI and human rights for youth\nGreen digital transformation\nResources\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence\nAI Ethics for the people\nJump to :\nCore values\nGlobal AI Ethics and Governance Observatory\nCore principles: A human rights approach to AI\nAreas of policy action\nResources\nThe rapid developments of artificial intelligence (AI) have created many opportunities globally, such as facilitating healthcare diagnoses and treatment, opening access to more tailored learning, and creating new means to safeguard and protect cultural diversity, among many others.\nHowever, these changes also raise profound ethical concerns. These arise from the way AI systems are developed, designed, deployed, and used, which may lead to reproducing and amplifying biases, contributing to climate degradation, threatening human rights, and more.\nIn November 2021, UNESCO's 193 Member States adopted the first global standard on AI ethics: the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.\nAt its core, it states that AI must respect human rights and human dignity. It is grounded in key principles such as transparency, fairness, environmental sustainability, and human oversight of AI systems, which guide its ethical framework.\nThis Recommendation doesn’t focus only on ethical values and principles but also lays out concrete policy recommendations to help implement them, across policy areas from gender to data to international cooperation.\nRead the full Recommendation\n©UNESCO\nCore values\nCentral to the Recommendation are four core values which lay the foundations of AI systems that work for the good of humanity, individuals, societies and the environment:\n1\nRespecting and promoting human dignity and human rights\n2\nFostering just, peaceful, and interconnected societies\n3\nEnsuring diversity and inclusiveness\n4\nSupporting flourishing of environment and ecosystems\n© Getty Images / ivanastar\nGlobal AI Ethics and Governance Observatory\nThe aim of the Observatory is to provide a global resource for policymakers, regulators, academics, the private sector and civil society to find solutions to the most pressing challenges posed by Artificial Intelligence.\nThe Observatory showcases information about the readiness of countries to adopt AI ethically and responsibly.\nDiscover more\nCore principles: A human rights approach to AI\nTen core principles\nThese principles outline a human- rights centred approach to the ethics of AI. They provide a shared ethical foundation to guide the development, deployment, and governance of artificial intelligence:\n1. Proportionality and do no harm\nThe use of AI systems must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Risk assessment should be used to prevent harms which may result from such uses.\n2. Safety and security\nUnwanted harms (safety risks) as well as vulnerabilities to attack (security risks) should be avoided and addressed by AI actors.\n3. Right to privacy and data protection\nPrivacy must be protected and promoted throughout the AI lifecycle. Adequate data protection frameworks should also be established.\n4. Multi-stakeholder and adaptive governance and collaboration\nInternational law and national sovereignty must be respected in the use of data. Additionally, participation of diverse stakeholders is necessary for inclusive approaches to AI governance.\n5. Responsibility and accountability\nAI systems should be auditable and traceable. There should be oversight, impact assessment, audit and due diligence mechanisms in place to avoid conflicts with human rights norms and threats to environmental wellbeing.\n6. Transparency and explainability\nThe ethical deployment of AI systems depends on their transparency and explainability (T&E). The level of T&E should be appropriate to the context, as there may be tensions between T&E and other principles such as privacy, safety and security.\n7. Human oversight and determination\nMember States should ensure that AI systems do not displace ultimate human responsibility and accountability.\n8. Sustainability\nAI technologies should be assessed against their impacts on sustainability, understood as a set of constantly evolving goals including those set out in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.\n9. Awareness and literacy\nPublic understanding of AI and data should be promoted through open and accessible education, civic engagement, digital skills and AI ethics training, media and information literacy.\n10. Fairness and non-discrimination\nAI actors should promote social justice, fairness, and non-discrimination while taking an inclusive approach to ensure AI’s benefits are accessible to all.\nAreas of policy action\nKey policy areas operationalise the values and principles set out in the Recommendation.\nThe policy actions can guide societies in dealing responsibly with the known and unknown impacts of AI technologies on human beings, societies and the environment and ecosystems, and offers them a basis to accept or reject AI technologies.\nRead more on the Key policy areas\n-\nResources\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence\nUNESCO\n2022\nUNESCO\nAvailable in...\nArabic\nChinese\nEnglish\nFrench\nLithuanian\nMongolian\nPortuguese\nSpanish\nUzbek\nUNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: key facts\nUNESCO\n2023\nUNESCO\nAvailable in...\nEnglish\nRelated items\nSocial and human sciences\nNatural sciences\nCulture\nRespond to Current Global Challenges (AI, Climate Change Biodiversity...)\nArtificial intelligence\nNorms & Standards\nPolicy Advice\nUN & International cooperation\nHigh technology\nInformation technology\nInformation technology (hardware)\nInformation technology (software)\nTechnology\nComputer science\nEthics of science\nScience\nScience and development\nScience and society\nScience policy\nSocial science policy\nSocial sciences\nEthics of artificial intelligence\nEthics\nEthics of technology\nSee more\nadd\nGet involved\nCareers\nFellowships\nPrizes\nVisit us\nOrganize your event\nUNESCO Shop\nSubscribe to our newsletters\nNetworks\nAssociated Schools (ASPnet)\nClubs and Associations\nCities Platform\nChairs and UNITWIN Programme\nField Offices\nGoodwill Ambassadors\nInstitutes and Centres\nPartners\nUNEVOC\nYouth\nSpecialized websites\nWorld Heritage\nIntangible Cultural Heritage\nIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission\nInternational Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences\nInternational Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development\nInternational Year of Glaciers’ Preservation\nVirtual Museum of Stolen Cultural Objects\nDive into Heritage\nUNESCO Datahub\nUNESCO Digital Library\nTerms of use\nUNESCO name and logo\nFAQ\nReport fraud, abuse, misconduct\nScam alert\nPreventing harassment at UNESCO events\nPolicies\nProtection of human rights (Procedure 104)\nPrivacy Notice\nAccess to information\nEnvironmental and Social Policies\nStakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM)\nQuery list\nFollow us\nInstagram\nLinkedIn\nYouTube\nX\nTikTok\nFacebook\nWhatsApp\nUNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment.\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 8384, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1191}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "103a4d04-0e44-4508-957c-2f2018047059", "source_id": "a72275a0b078a08eb8da3ae7", "source": "EU", "source_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies", "final_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies", "artifact_sha256": "b5aa27096c192178150817aa4f10461a63db6337441a1c2d988a700a12b32130", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 48498, "title": "Policies | Shaping Europe’s digital future", "language": "en", "text_length": 1700, "characters": 1700, "text": "Policies | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\nPolicies\nPolicies\nDigital Decade\nRead more\nDigital Society\nCybersecurity\nDigital inclusion\nDigital public services\nGreen digital sector\nLanguage technologies\nMedia and digital culture\nNext Generation Internet\nOnline privacy and safety\nAdvanced Digital Technologies\nAdvanced computing\nElectronic components and semiconductors\nAdvanced digital technologies\nArtificial intelligence\nData and cloud computing\nInternational Cooperation in Digital\nInternational relations\nDigital Economy\nDigital skills\nSupporting industry\nConnectivity\nOnline platforms and e-commerce\nLast update\n22 May 2025\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "segments": [{"segment_id": "868d3be2-1231-42ae-ad8b-401590f8a9ec", "document_id": "103a4d04-0e44-4508-957c-2f2018047059", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Policies | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\nPolicies\nPolicies\nDigital Decade\nRead more\nDigital Society\nCybersecurity\nDigital inclusion\nDigital public services\nGreen digital sector\nLanguage technologies\nMedia and digital culture\nNext Generation Internet\nOnline privacy and safety\nAdvanced Digital Technologies\nAdvanced computing\nElectronic components and semiconductors\nAdvanced digital technologies\nArtificial intelligence\nData and cloud computing\nInternational Cooperation in Digital\nInternational relations\nDigital Economy\nDigital skills\nSupporting industry\nConnectivity\nOnline platforms and e-commerce\nLast update\n22 May 2025\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1700, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 237}}], "published_at": "2025-05-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2025-05-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\n22 May 2025\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "12693785-a53b-4c32-a3cc-a6953da9818d", "source_id": "cfddd97e724470f7822a0008", "source": "UNESCO", "source_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence", "final_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence", "artifact_sha256": "fc5b8e581bd7b144da252ea85dd88bf40d02ccaf161cb86c384672280a2e0739", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 292250, "title": "Artificial Intelligence and emerging technologies | UNESCO", "language": "en", "text_length": 8203, "characters": 8203, "text": "Artificial Intelligence and emerging technologies | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nРусский\nالعربية\n中文\nUNESCO\nMain navigation\nWho we are\nAbout us\nAbout us\nMember States Profiles\nMember States Profiles\nGlobal presence\nGlobal presence\nPartners\nPartners\nWhat we do\nPeople we serve\nPeople we serve\nCore functions\nCore functions\nObjectives\nObjectives\nProgrammes\nProgrammes\nNews\nNewsroom\nNewsroom\nCalendar\nCalendar\nInternational days and more\nInternational days and more\nStay updated\nStay updated\nResources\nLegal texts\nLegal texts\nSites navigator\nSites navigator\nMultimedia\nMultimedia\nLearning Hub\nLearning Hub\nPublications\nPublications\nDocuments\nDocuments\nGlobal reports\nGlobal reports\nData and indicators\nData and indicators\nMember States Portal\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nShutterstock\nShutterstock\nArtificial Intelligence and emerging technologies\nUNESCO is committed to a future where AI and emerging technologies work for the people\nHome\nOur actions\nSharing knowledge\nFor governments\nFor the judiciary\nFor policy-makers\nFor teachers\nFor students\nBuilding standards\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence\nPromoting inclusion\nAI for gender equality\nDigital Inclusion\nAI and human rights for youth\nGreen digital transformation\nResources\nSince its founding at the dawn of the atomic age, UNESCO has helped societies navigate and manage the transformative power of technology – to the benefit of all.\nToday, in an era shaped by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and related breakthrough innovations, UNESCO continues the critical work of ensuring these emerging technologies are developed and deployed in service of equity, opportunity, and inclusivity.\nVideo series: 7 minutes to understand AI\nUNESCO\nOur impact\nHow UNESCO is shaping an ethical digital future.\nGreen Digital Transformation\nWe foster global collaboration to make AI more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient for everyone.\nDigital transformation\nWe promote a human-centered digital transformation, wherein AI, data, and open solutions build capacity, foster inclusion, protect diversity, and drive sustainable, rights-based innovation.\nQuantum computing\nWe are helping the world prepare for the quantum revolution, wherein quantum mechanics helps solve problems too complex for today’s computers, in areas like medicine, encryption, and materials science.\nNeurotechnology\nWe are developing ethical frameworks to ensure these technologies fulfill their promise in health while upholding equity, mental privacy, freedom of thought, and protection of the most vulnerable.\nNatural science\nWe leverage AI to advance innovative, science-based solutions for sustainable development – from managing water and biodiversity to reducing disaster risks and strengthening climate resilience.\nInformation integrity\nAlgorithms and generative AI are reshaping how people access and trust information, with major effects on journalism, expression, and rights. We foster media literacy and inform digital platform governance.\nCulture\nAs AI transforms how culture is created, accessed, managed, and experienced, UNESCO works to ensure AI’s development and use protect and promote cultural diversity, creativity, and access for all.\nGender\nNew technologies risk widening gender gaps, especially when AI learns from biased data. UNESCO’s work on AI and gender guides policymakers and innovators to close these divides.\nEducation\nWe convene leaders, experts, and innovators to address the impact of AI and technology in education, promoting human-centered, inclusive, and equitable approaches to the benefit of all learners.\nBuilding standards together: emerging technology ethics\nUNESCO’s normative recommendations guide the ethical use of technologies, helping ensure they respect human rights, promote fairness, and benefit everyone.\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology\nThe 2025 UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology sets global principles to ensure neurotechnology is developed and used in ways that respect human rights, dignity, and societal well-being.\nRecommendation on the Ethics of AI\nIn 2021, UNESCO adopted the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, guiding its work and helping Member States develop ethically aligned AI policies and capacities.\nPolicy Development: Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAMs)\nUNESCO helps Member States evaluate their readiness for the AI transformation through its Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) program, which helps policymakers identify their policy gaps and develop their national policies and strategies toward the development and deployment of these transformative technologies.\nAs of October 2025, over 75 countries from five continents have initiated or completed to RAM assessments, and policymakers worldwide are further able to draw on the Technology Policy Assistance Facility, developed in cooperation with the South African G20 Presidency.\nReadiness Assessment Methodology\nTechnology Policy Assistance Facility\n© SeventyFour / Shutterstock.com\nKey initiatives\nG20 Technology Policy Assistance Facility\nA G20-backed platform that helps policymakers and stakeholders research, design, and implement ethical, inclusive, and future-ready technology and AI policies.\nGlobal AI Ethics and Governance Observatory\nThe Observatory supports global stakeholders in promoting ethical and responsible AI through research, tools, and best practices.\nReadiness Assessment Methodology (RAM)\nThe RAM program helps governments identify and address gaps in their AI policies, strategies, and legislation, so that AI is deployed ethically and responsibly to the benefit of their their citizens.\nInternet Universality Indicators\nThis tool helps countries assess their Internet landscape, guide evidence-based policies, and foster inclusive, future-ready digital governance.\nUN Global Dialogue on AI Governance\nThe UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance brings together Member States and stakeholders to engage in the meaningful global conversation on AI that the world needs.\nCoordinated by UNESCO and the ITU as the joint UN Secretariat, the Dialogue—mandated by the General Assembly—aims to ensure that AI governance reflects the priorities of all nations, not just the most technologically advanced. International cooperation on AI governance is essential to ensure that AI development benefits all of us.\nMore information\nRegister here\nThumbnail\nplay_arrow\n©UNESCO\nNews and stories\nNews\nUNESCO Peru promotes dialogue on the ethical horizons of artificial intelligence at FIL Lima 2026\n6 August 2026\nNews\nUNESCO welcomes Pope Leo XIV for a day of reflection on artificial intelligence, education and peace\n6 August 2026\nNews\nAI, human rights and rule of law: A global debate in London\n5 August 2026\nNews\nCaribbean Voices Shape the Future of Ethical AI at Regional Summit\n4 August 2026\nLoad more\nGet involved\nCareers\nFellowships\nPrizes\nVisit us\nOrganize your event\nUNESCO Shop\nSubscribe to our newsletters\nNetworks\nAssociated Schools (ASPnet)\nClubs and Associations\nCities Platform\nChairs and UNITWIN Programme\nField Offices\nGoodwill Ambassadors\nInstitutes and Centres\nPartners\nUNEVOC\nYouth\nSpecialized websites\nWorld Heritage\nIntangible Cultural Heritage\nIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission\nInternational Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences\nInternational Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development\nInternational Year of Glaciers’ Preservation\nVirtual Museum of Stolen Cultural Objects\nDive into Heritage\nUNESCO Datahub\nUNESCO Digital Library\nTerms of use\nUNESCO name and logo\nFAQ\nReport fraud, abuse, misconduct\nScam alert\nPreventing harassment at UNESCO events\nPolicies\nProtection of human rights (Procedure 104)\nPrivacy Notice\nAccess to information\nEnvironmental and Social Policies\nStakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM)\nQuery list\nFollow us\nInstagram\nLinkedIn\nYouTube\nX\nTikTok\nFacebook\nWhatsApp\nUNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment.\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "segments": [{"segment_id": "99d29903-436c-4b10-85cd-69aa2ccbbbe9", "document_id": "12693785-a53b-4c32-a3cc-a6953da9818d", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Artificial Intelligence and emerging technologies | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nРусский\nالعربية\n中文\nUNESCO\nMain navigation\nWho we are\nAbout us\nAbout us\nMember States Profiles\nMember States Profiles\nGlobal presence\nGlobal presence\nPartners\nPartners\nWhat we do\nPeople we serve\nPeople we serve\nCore functions\nCore functions\nObjectives\nObjectives\nProgrammes\nProgrammes\nNews\nNewsroom\nNewsroom\nCalendar\nCalendar\nInternational days and more\nInternational days and more\nStay updated\nStay updated\nResources\nLegal texts\nLegal texts\nSites navigator\nSites navigator\nMultimedia\nMultimedia\nLearning Hub\nLearning Hub\nPublications\nPublications\nDocuments\nDocuments\nGlobal reports\nGlobal reports\nData and indicators\nData and indicators\nMember States Portal\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nShutterstock\nShutterstock\nArtificial Intelligence and emerging technologies\nUNESCO is committed to a future where AI and emerging technologies work for the people\nHome\nOur actions\nSharing knowledge\nFor governments\nFor the judiciary\nFor policy-makers\nFor teachers\nFor students\nBuilding standards\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence\nPromoting inclusion\nAI for gender equality\nDigital Inclusion\nAI and human rights for youth\nGreen digital transformation\nResources\nSince its founding at the dawn of the atomic age, UNESCO has helped societies navigate and manage the transformative power of technology – to the benefit of all.\nToday, in an era shaped by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and related breakthrough innovations, UNESCO continues the critical work of ensuring these emerging technologies are developed and deployed in service of equity, opportunity, and inclusivity.\nVideo series: 7 minutes to understand AI\nUNESCO\nOur impact\nHow UNESCO is shaping an ethical digital future.\nGreen Digital Transformation\nWe foster global collaboration to make AI more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient for everyone.\nDigital transformation\nWe promote a human-centered digital transformation, wherein AI, data, and open solutions build capacity, foster inclusion, protect diversity, and drive sustainable, rights-based innovation.\nQuantum computing\nWe are helping the world prepare for the quantum revolution, wherein quantum mechanics helps solve problems too complex for today’s computers, in areas like medicine, encryption, and materials science.\nNeurotechnology\nWe are developing ethical frameworks to ensure these technologies fulfill their promise in health while upholding equity, mental privacy, freedom of thought, and protection of the most vulnerable.\nNatural science\nWe leverage AI to advance innovative, science-based solutions for sustainable development – from managing water and biodiversity to reducing disaster risks and strengthening climate resilience.\nInformation integrity\nAlgorithms and generative AI are reshaping how people access and trust information, with major effects on journalism, expression, and rights. We foster media literacy and inform digital platform governance.\nCulture\nAs AI transforms how culture is created, accessed, managed, and experienced, UNESCO works to ensure AI’s development and use protect and promote cultural diversity, creativity, and access for all.\nGender\nNew technologies risk widening gender gaps, especially when AI learns from biased data. UNESCO’s work on AI and gender guides policymakers and innovators to close these divides.\nEducation\nWe convene leaders, experts, and innovators to address the impact of AI and technology in education, promoting human-centered, inclusive, and equitable approaches to the benefit of all learners.\nBuilding standards together: emerging technology ethics\nUNESCO’s normative recommendations guide the ethical use of technologies, helping ensure they respect human rights, promote fairness, and benefit everyone.\nRecommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology\nThe 2025 UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology sets global principles to ensure neurotechnology is developed and used in ways that respect human rights, dignity, and societal well-being.\nRecommendation on the Ethics of AI\nIn 2021, UNESCO adopted the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, guiding its work and helping Member States develop ethically aligned AI policies and capacities.\nPolicy Development: Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAMs)\nUNESCO helps Member States evaluate their readiness for the AI transformation through its Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) program, which helps policymakers identify their policy gaps and develop their national policies and strategies toward the development and deployment of these transformative technologies.\nAs of October 2025, over 75 countries from five continents have initiated or completed to RAM assessments, and policymakers worldwide are further able to draw on the Technology Policy Assistance Facility, developed in cooperation with the South African G20 Presidency.\nReadiness Assessment Methodology\nTechnology Policy Assistance Facility\n© SeventyFour / Shutterstock.com\nKey initiatives\nG20 Technology Policy Assistance Facility\nA G20-backed platform that helps policymakers and stakeholders research, design, and implement ethical, inclusive, and future-ready technology and AI policies.\nGlobal AI Ethics and Governance Observatory\nThe Observatory supports global stakeholders in promoting ethical and responsible AI through research, tools, and best practices.\nReadiness Assessment Methodology (RAM)\nThe RAM program helps governments identify and address gaps in their AI policies, strategies, and legislation, so that AI is deployed ethically and responsibly to the benefit of their their citizens.\nInternet Universality Indicators\nThis tool helps countries assess their Internet landscape, guide evidence-based policies, and foster inclusive, future-ready digital governance.\nUN Global Dialogue on AI Governance\nThe UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance brings together Member States and stakeholders to engage in the meaningful global conversation on AI that the world needs.\nCoordinated by UNESCO and the ITU as the joint UN Secretariat, the Dialogue—mandated by the General Assembly—aims to ensure that AI governance reflects the priorities of all nations, not just the most technologically advanced. International cooperation on AI governance is essential to ensure that AI development benefits all of us.\nMore information\nRegister here\nThumbnail\nplay_arrow\n©UNESCO\nNews and stories\nNews\nUNESCO Peru promotes dialogue on the ethical horizons of artificial intelligence at FIL Lima 2026\n6 August 2026\nNews\nUNESCO welcomes Pope Leo XIV for a day of reflection on artificial intelligence, education and peace\n6 August 2026\nNews\nAI, human rights and rule of law: A global debate in London\n5 August 2026\nNews\nCaribbean Voices Shape the Future of Ethical AI at Regional Summit\n4 August 2026\nLoad more\nGet involved\nCareers\nFellowships\nPrizes\nVisit us\nOrganize your event\nUNESCO Shop\nSubscribe to our newsletters\nNetworks\nAssociated Schools (ASPnet)\nClubs and Associations\nCities Platform\nChairs and UNITWIN Programme\nField Offices\nGoodwill Ambassadors\nInstitutes and Centres\nPartners\nUNEVOC\nYouth\nSpecialized websites\nWorld Heritage\nIntangible Cultural Heritage\nIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission\nInternational Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences\nInternational Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development\nInternational Year of Glaciers’ Preservation\nVirtual Museum of Stolen Cultural Objects\nDive into Heritage\nUNESCO Datahub\nUNESCO Digital Library\nTerms of use\nUNESCO name and logo\nFAQ\nReport fraud, abuse, misconduct\nScam alert\nPreventing harassment at UNESCO events\nPolicies\nProtection of human rights (Procedure 104)\nPrivacy Notice\nAccess to information\nEnvironmental and Social Policies\nStakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM)\nQuery list\nFollow us\nInstagram\nLinkedIn\nYouTube\nX\nTikTok\nFacebook\nWhatsApp\nUNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment.\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 8203, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1146}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "126f6e12-8df8-4a8d-9e97-57e259c6245d", "source_id": "296d8725988fa1a3600b485a", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://aso.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://aso.icann.org/", "artifact_sha256": "ac300fad4bf9e6faf78a33fc597827fd4bff6ef1fb5fcb58e170895c9fb64f63", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 54792, "title": "The Address Supporting Organization (ASO ICANN) | The Address Supporting Organization", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 2703, "characters": 2703, "text": "The Address Supporting Organization (ASO ICANN) | The Address Supporting Organization\nSkip to main content\nAbout\nAbout the ASO\nHistory\nASO & NRO\nASO & ICANN\nNews\nFAQs\nEvents\nAddress Council\nAbout the AC\nAC Operating Procedures\nAC Members\nAC Meetings\nAC Workplan\nAC Transparency Review\nPolicy\nPolicy\nGlobal Policy\nRegional Policy\nICANN Board\nICANN Board\nICANN Board Appointments\nElections\nNomCom Appointments\nDocuments\nOperational Documents\nMoUs\nHistorical Documents\nPresentations\nGlossary\nICP-2\nContact\nICP-2 Review\nIn October 2023, the NRO Executive Council (EC) asked the ASO AC to establish and manage a process to update the ICP-2 document. This update will be conducted in consultation with each of the RIR and ICANN communities to enhance the RIR system’s accountability to the broader Internet community.\nLearn More\nOur Purpose\nThe ASO is one of ICANN’s three Supporting Organizations (SOs). We review and develop recommendations on Internet Protocol (IP) address policy and advise the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of IP addresses.\nLearn More\nASO AC Meetings\nThe Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) holds monthly teleconferences, which are open to observers.\nLearn More\nDocuments\nYou can find operational procedures, MoUs and historical documents in our document archive.\nDocument Archive\nASO Mailing Lists\nYou can find out more about the ASO AC day to day operations through their open archive mailing list. Additionally, the ASO facilitates public mailing lists for discussion and/or information sharing.\nLearn More\nNews\n28 July 2026\nASO AC delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nRead More\n12 June 2026\nFollow-up Notice to the ASO Community on the Approval Action Decision Period for Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Articles 17 and 18 of the ICANN Bylaws\nRead More\n9 June 2026\nFollow-up Notice to the RIR Community: ICANN Empowered Community Rejection Action Petition\nRead More\nMore News\nOur Responsibilities\n1\nUndertaking a role in the global policy development process (GPDP)\n2\nDefining procedures for the selection of individuals to serve on ICANN bodies\n3\nParticipating in the ICANN Empowered Community\nContact your local Regional Internet Registry\nLearn More\nASO FAQ\nASO MoU\nASO & NRO\nAbout\nAddress Council\nPolicy\nICANN Board\nDocuments\nFAQs\nContact\nCookie Policy\nSearch the Site\nSearch\nSearch\n© 2026\nAddress Supporting Organization.\n|\nPrivacy Statement\n|\nSite by AR Design\nThis website is sponsored and operated by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). This website is not supported or operated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (\nICANN\n)\n×\nSearch the Site\nSearch", "segments": [{"segment_id": "c91bbb87-2014-4d6e-b2ff-06fa3e69b4cb", "document_id": "126f6e12-8df8-4a8d-9e97-57e259c6245d", "ordinal": 0, "text": "The Address Supporting Organization (ASO ICANN) | The Address Supporting Organization\nSkip to main content\nAbout\nAbout the ASO\nHistory\nASO & NRO\nASO & ICANN\nNews\nFAQs\nEvents\nAddress Council\nAbout the AC\nAC Operating Procedures\nAC Members\nAC Meetings\nAC Workplan\nAC Transparency Review\nPolicy\nPolicy\nGlobal Policy\nRegional Policy\nICANN Board\nICANN Board\nICANN Board Appointments\nElections\nNomCom Appointments\nDocuments\nOperational Documents\nMoUs\nHistorical Documents\nPresentations\nGlossary\nICP-2\nContact\nICP-2 Review\nIn October 2023, the NRO Executive Council (EC) asked the ASO AC to establish and manage a process to update the ICP-2 document. This update will be conducted in consultation with each of the RIR and ICANN communities to enhance the RIR system’s accountability to the broader Internet community.\nLearn More\nOur Purpose\nThe ASO is one of ICANN’s three Supporting Organizations (SOs). We review and develop recommendations on Internet Protocol (IP) address policy and advise the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of IP addresses.\nLearn More\nASO AC Meetings\nThe Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) holds monthly teleconferences, which are open to observers.\nLearn More\nDocuments\nYou can find operational procedures, MoUs and historical documents in our document archive.\nDocument Archive\nASO Mailing Lists\nYou can find out more about the ASO AC day to day operations through their open archive mailing list. Additionally, the ASO facilitates public mailing lists for discussion and/or information sharing.\nLearn More\nNews\n28 July 2026\nASO AC delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nRead More\n12 June 2026\nFollow-up Notice to the ASO Community on the Approval Action Decision Period for Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Articles 17 and 18 of the ICANN Bylaws\nRead More\n9 June 2026\nFollow-up Notice to the RIR Community: ICANN Empowered Community Rejection Action Petition\nRead More\nMore News\nOur Responsibilities\n1\nUndertaking a role in the global policy development process (GPDP)\n2\nDefining procedures for the selection of individuals to serve on ICANN bodies\n3\nParticipating in the ICANN Empowered Community\nContact your local Regional Internet Registry\nLearn More\nASO FAQ\nASO MoU\nASO & NRO\nAbout\nAddress Council\nPolicy\nICANN Board\nDocuments\nFAQs\nContact\nCookie Policy\nSearch the Site\nSearch\nSearch\n© 2026\nAddress Supporting Organization.\n|\nPrivacy Statement\n|\nSite by AR Design\nThis website is sponsored and operated by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). This website is not supported or operated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (\nICANN\n)\n×\nSearch the Site\nSearch", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2703, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 420}}], "published_at": "2023-10-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2023-10-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\nIn October 2023,", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "12fb2f62-55b7-48eb-ad0e-e733f36cd472", "source_id": "3e1fdddd23c85a7c37282c3f", "source": "APNIC", "source_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/", "final_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/", "artifact_sha256": "4d9ab5e92e7f528c90c41232d727d62a558af95c22b5ee1f0999d08fef062579", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 77656, "title": "Community – APNIC", "language": "en-AU", "text_length": 3559, "characters": 3559, "text": "Community – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nCommunity\nResource Policies\nDeveloping policies that meet the changing needs of the Asia Pacific Internet industry\nProcess\n|\nPolicy Proposals\n|\nCurrent Policies\nParticipation\nThe APNIC community is open to anyone with an interest in Internet number resources in the Asia Pacific Region.\nElections\n|\nAttend events\n|\nJoin discussions\n|\nCode of Conduct\nCommunity Technical Support\nAPNIC supports infrastructure deployments, Network Operator Groups and represents the community in regional and global forums.\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nAPNIC has an important role in the Internet community as part of the multi-stakeholder management of the global Internet.\nI* Organizations\n|\nAP* Organizations\n|\nIntergovernmental organizations\nSecurity at APNIC\nAPNIC coordinates with several organizations in the region to raise awareness, build capacity, and support Members’ efforts to maintain network security for a stable and secure Internet.\nResource Certification\n|\nDNSSEC\n|\nLEAs\n|\nCERTs\nIPv6@APNIC\nThe IPv6 Program responds to the community’s request for APNIC to support deployment of IPv6 in the Asia Pacific region.\nApply for IPv6\nAPNIC Foundation\nThe APNIC Foundation is a registered charity in Hong Kong which will raise funds, independently from APNIC membership contributions, to support and expand regional Internet development efforts into the future.\nAbout\n|\nChallenges\n|\nHow the Foundation works\nSee also\nAPNIC Conferences\nCommunity demographics\nCommunity Consultations\nSend us feedback\nResource Policies\nFellowship\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nParticipate\nCommunity Technical Support\nSecurity at APNIC\nIPv6@APNIC\nAPNIC Foundation\nAPNIC IPv4 post-exhaustion\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "segments": [{"segment_id": "9a8d9994-fae2-4dd0-a9a5-93b3bce17116", "document_id": "12fb2f62-55b7-48eb-ad0e-e733f36cd472", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Community – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nCommunity\nResource Policies\nDeveloping policies that meet the changing needs of the Asia Pacific Internet industry\nProcess\n|\nPolicy Proposals\n|\nCurrent Policies\nParticipation\nThe APNIC community is open to anyone with an interest in Internet number resources in the Asia Pacific Region.\nElections\n|\nAttend events\n|\nJoin discussions\n|\nCode of Conduct\nCommunity Technical Support\nAPNIC supports infrastructure deployments, Network Operator Groups and represents the community in regional and global forums.\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nAPNIC has an important role in the Internet community as part of the multi-stakeholder management of the global Internet.\nI* Organizations\n|\nAP* Organizations\n|\nIntergovernmental organizations\nSecurity at APNIC\nAPNIC coordinates with several organizations in the region to raise awareness, build capacity, and support Members’ efforts to maintain network security for a stable and secure Internet.\nResource Certification\n|\nDNSSEC\n|\nLEAs\n|\nCERTs\nIPv6@APNIC\nThe IPv6 Program responds to the community’s request for APNIC to support deployment of IPv6 in the Asia Pacific region.\nApply for IPv6\nAPNIC Foundation\nThe APNIC Foundation is a registered charity in Hong Kong which will raise funds, independently from APNIC membership contributions, to support and expand regional Internet development efforts into the future.\nAbout\n|\nChallenges\n|\nHow the Foundation works\nSee also\nAPNIC Conferences\nCommunity demographics\nCommunity Consultations\nSend us feedback\nResource Policies\nFellowship\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nParticipate\nCommunity Technical Support\nSecurity at APNIC\nIPv6@APNIC\nAPNIC Foundation\nAPNIC IPv4 post-exhaustion\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3559, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 513}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "15e8c99b-4ac3-4178-a92f-1417190c7b22", "source_id": "d7935b539cb1ebd21c2fee19", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8890.pdf", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8890.pdf", "artifact_sha256": "d7935b539cb1ebd21c2fee196b8011a6a038fcbc1d99d66530dc0bb6b7fce3af", "content_type": "application/pdf", "extraction_method": "pypdf", "byte_size": 120469, "title": "RFC 8890: The Internet is for End Users", "language": "en", "text_length": 21680, "characters": 21680, "text": "RFC 8890\nThe Internet is for End Users\nAbstract\nThis document explains why the IAB believes that, when there is a conflict between the interests\nof end users of the Internet and other parties, IETF decisions should favor end users. It also\nexplores how the IETF can more effectively achieve this.\nStream: Internet Architecture Board (IAB)\nRFC: 8890\nCategory: Informational\nPublished: August 2020 \nISSN: 2070-1721\nAuthor:  M. Nottingham\nStatus of This Memo \nThis document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational\npurposes.\nThis document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and represents information\nthat the IAB has deemed valuable to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus\nof the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication by the IAB are not\ncandidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback\non it may be obtained at .https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8890\nCopyright Notice \nCopyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights\nreserved.\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF\nDocuments ( ) in effect on the date of publication of this\ndocument. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions\nwith respect to this document.\nhttps://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\nNottingham Informational Page 1\n\nTable of Contents \n1.  Introduction\n2.  Who Are \"End Users\"?\n3.  Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users\n4.  How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users\n4.1.  Engaging the Internet Community\n4.2.  Creating User-Focused Systems\n4.3.  Identifying Negative End-User Impact\n4.4.  Handling Conflicting End-User Needs\n4.5.  Deprioritizing Internal Needs\n5.  IANA Considerations\n6.  Security Considerations\n7.  Informative References\nIAB Members at the Time of Approval\nAcknowledgements\nAuthor's Address\n1. Introduction \nMany who participate in the IETF are most comfortable making what we believe to be purely\ntechnical decisions; our process favors technical merit through our well-known mantra of \"rough\nconsensus and running code.\"\nNevertheless, the running code that results from our process (when things work well) inevitably\nhas an impact beyond technical considerations, because the underlying decisions afford some\nuses while discouraging others. While we believe we are making only technical decisions, in\nreality, we are defining (in some degree) what is possible on the Internet itself.\nThis impact has become significant. As the Internet increasingly mediates essential functions in\nsocieties, it has unavoidably become profoundly political; it has helped people overthrow\ngovernments, revolutionize social orders, swing elections, control populations, collect data about\nindividuals, and reveal secrets. It has created wealth for some individuals and companies while\ndestroying that of others.\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 2\n\nAll of this raises the question: For whom do we go through the pain of gathering rough consensus\nand writing running code?\nAfter all, there are a variety of parties that standards can benefit, such as (but not limited to) end\nusers, network operators, schools, equipment vendors, specification authors, specification\nimplementers, content owners, governments, nongovernmental organizations, social\nmovements, employers, and parents.\nSuccessful specifications will provide some benefit to all the relevant parties because standards\ndo not represent a zero-sum game. However, there are sometimes situations where there is a\nconflict between the needs of two (or more) parties.\nIn these situations, when one of those parties is an \"end user\" of the Internet -- for example, a\nperson using a web browser, mail client, or another agent that connects to the Internet -- the\nInternet Architecture Board argues that the IETF should favor their interests over those of other\nparties.\nSection 2 explains what is meant by \"end users\", Section 3 outlines why IETF work should\nprioritize them, and Section 4 describes how we can do that.\n2. Who Are \"End Users\"? \nIn this document, \"end users\" means human users whose activities IETF standards support,\nsometimes indirectly. Thus, the end user of a protocol to manage routers is not a router\nadministrator; it is the people using the network that the router operates within.\nEnd users are not necessarily a homogenous group; they might have different views of how the\nInternet should work and might occupy several roles, such as a seller, buyer, publisher, reader,\nservice provider, and consumer. An end user might browse the Web, monitor remote equipment,\nplay a game, videoconference with colleagues, send messages to friends, or perform an operation\nin a remote surgery theater. They might be \"at the keyboard\" or represented by software\nindirectly (e.g., as a daemon).\nLikewise, an individual end user might have many interests (e.g., privacy, security, flexibility,\nreachability) that are sometimes in tension.\nA person whose interests we need to consider might not directly be using a specific system\nconnected to the Internet. For example, if a child is using a browser, the interests of that child's\nparents or guardians may be relevant. A person pictured in a photograph may have an interest\nin systems that process that photograph; a person entering a room with sensors that send data to\nthe Internet may have interests that may be involved in our deliberations about how those\nsensor readings are handled.\nWhile such less-direct interactions between people and the Internet may be harder to evaluate,\nthis document's concept of \"end user\" nonetheless includes such people.\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 3\n\n3. Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users \nEven before the IETF was established, the Internet technical community has focused on user\nneeds since at least , which stated that \"One of our goals must be to stimulate the\nimmediate and easy use by a wide class of users.\"\nAnd, while we specialize in technical matters, the IETF is not neutral about the purpose of its\nwork in developing the Internet; in \"A Mission Statement for the IETF\" , the definitions\ninclude:\nThe IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we believe that the\nexistence of the Internet, and its influence on economics, communication, and\neducation, will help us to build a better human society. \nLater, in \"The Scope of the Internet\" ( ), it says:\nThe Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want the Internet to be\nuseful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness. We\nembrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and\nsharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the IETF\ncommunity. These concepts have little to do with the technology that's possible, and\nmuch to do with the technology that we choose to create. \nIn other words, the IETF develops and maintains the Internet to promote the social good. The\nsociety that the IETF is attempting to enhance is composed of end users, along with groups of\nthem forming businesses, governments, clubs, civil society organizations, and other institutions.\nMerely advancing the measurable success of the Internet (e.g., deployment size, bandwidth,\nlatency, number of users) is not an adequate goal; doing so ignores how technology is so often\nused as a lever to assert power over users, rather than empower them.\nBeyond fulfilling the IETF's mission, prioritizing end users can also help to ensure the long-term\nhealth of the Internet and the IETF's relevance to it. Perceptions of capture by vendors or other\nproviders harm both; the IETF's work will (deservedly) lose end users' trust if it prioritizes (or is\nperceived to prioritize) others' interests over them.\nUltimately, the Internet will succeed or fail based upon the actions of its end users, because they\nare the driving force behind its growth to date. Not prioritizing them jeopardizes the network\neffect that the Internet relies upon to provide so much value.\n[RFC0001]\n[RFC3935]\nSection 4.1 of [RFC3935]\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 4\n\n4. How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users \nThere are a few ways that the IAB believes the IETF community can prioritize end users, based\nupon our observations. This is not a complete list.\n4.1. Engaging the Internet Community \nThe IETF community does not have any unique insight into what is \"good for end users\", and it is\nnot uncommon for us to be at a further disadvantage because of our close understanding of\nsome -- but not all -- aspects of the Internet.\nAt the same time, we have a culture of considerable deference to a broader \"Internet\ncommunity\" -- roughly what this document calls end users -- in our decision-making processes.\nMere deference, however, is not adequate; even with the best intentions, we cannot assume that\nour experiences of the Internet are those of all of its end users or that our decisions have a\npositive impact upon them.\nTherefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyze and consider the impacts of the IETF's\nwork, but also a responsibility to consult with that greater Internet community. In particular, we\nshould do so when one of our decisions has a potential impact upon end users.\nThe IETF community faces significant hurdles in doing so. Our work is specialized and often\nesoteric, and processes for developing standards often involve very long timescales. Affected\nparties are rarely technical experts, and they often base their understanding of the Internet upon\nincomplete (and sometimes inaccurate) models. Often, even when we try to engage a broader\naudience, their participation is minimal -- until a change affects someone in a way they don't like.\nSurprising the Internet community is rarely a good outcome.\nGovernment-sponsored individuals sometimes participate in the IETF community. While this is\nwelcome, it should not be taken as automatically representative of end users elsewhere, or even\nall end users in the relevant jurisdiction. Furthermore, what is desirable in one jurisdiction (or at\nleast to its administrators) might be detrimental in others (see Section 4.4).\nWhile some civil society organizations specialize in technology and Internet policy, they rarely\ncan participate broadly, nor are they necessarily representative of the larger Internet\ncommunity. Nevertheless, their understanding of end-user needs is often profound, and they are\nin many ways the best-informed advocates for end-user concerns; they should be considered a\nprimary channel for engaging the broader Internet community.\nA promising approach to help fill these gaps is to identify and engage with specifically affected\ncommunities when making decisions that might affect them, for example, one or more industry\nassociations, user groups, or a set of individuals, though we can't formally ensure that they are\nappropriately representative.\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 5\n\nIn doing so, we should not require them to \"come to us\"; unless a stakeholder community is\nalready engaged in the IETF process effectively, the IETF community should explore how to meet\nwith them on their terms -- take the initiative to contact them, explain our work, and solicit their\nfeedback.\nIn particular, while IAB workshops, BOFs, and Bar BOFs can be an effective mechanism to gather\ninput within our community, they rarely have the visibility into other communities that is\nrequired to solicit input, much less effective participation.\nInstead, an event like a workshop may be more effective if co-located with -- and ideally hosted\nor co-hosted by -- a forum that's familiar to that stakeholder community. We should also raise the\nvisibility of IETF work (or potential IETF work) in such fora through conference talks, panels,\nnewsletter articles, etc.\nFor example, the IAB ESCAPE workshop  solicited input from Internet publishers and\nadvertisers about a proposal that might affect them. While the workshop was considered\nsuccessful, participation might have been improved by identifying an appropriate industry\nforum and working with them to host the event.\nWhen we engage with the Internet community, we should also clearly identify tailored feedback\nmechanisms (e.g., subscribing to a mailing list may not be appropriate) and assure that they are\nwell known in those communities.\nThe Internet Society can be an invaluable partner in these efforts; their focus on the Internet\ncommunity, policy expertise, and resources can help to facilitate discussions with the\nappropriate parties.\nFinally, we should remember that the RFC Series contains Requests For Comments; if there are\nserious implications of our work, we should document them and ask for feedback from the\nInternet community.\n[RFC8752]\n4.2. Creating User-Focused Systems \nWe should pay particular attention to the kinds of architectures we create and whether they\nencourage or discourage an Internet that works for end users.\nFor example, one of the most successful Internet applications is the Web, which uses the HTTP\napplication protocol. One of HTTP's key implementation roles is that of the web browser -- called\nthe \"user agent\" in  and other specifications.\nUser agents act as intermediaries between a service and the end user; rather than downloading\nan executable program from a service that has arbitrary access into the users' system, the user\nagent only allows limited access to display content and run code in a sandboxed environment.\nEnd users are diverse and the ability of a few user agents to represent individual interests\nproperly is imperfect, but this arrangement is an improvement over the alternative -- the need to\ntrust a website completely with all information on your system to browse it.\n[RFC7230]\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 6\n\nDefining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous cycle; it allows multiple\nimplementations, allowing end users to switch between them with relatively low costs (although\nthere are concerns about the complexity of the Web creating barriers to entry for new\nimplementations). This creates an incentive for implementers to consider the users' needs\ncarefully, which are often reflected into the defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has\nmany remaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an opportunity to\nimprove it.\nIn contrast, the Internet of Things (IoT) has not yet seen the broad adoption of a similar role;\nmany current systems require opaque, vendor-specific software or hardware for the user-facing\ncomponent. Perhaps as a result of this, that ecosystem and its end users face serious challenges.\n4.3. Identifying Negative End-User Impact \nAt its best, our work will unambiguously build a better human society. Sometimes, we will\nconsciously be neutral and open-ended, allowing the \"tussle\" among stakeholders to produce a\nrange of results (see  for further discussion).\nAt the very least, however, we must examine our work for negative impact on end users and take\nsteps to mitigate it where encountered. In particular, when we've identified a conflict between\nthe interests of end users and other stakeholders, we should err on the side of protecting end\nusers.\nNote that \"negative impact on end users\" is not defined in this document; that is something that\nthe relevant body (e.g., working group) needs to discuss and come to consensus on. Merely\nasserting that something is harmful is not adequate. The converse is also true, though; it's not\ngood practice to avoid identifying harms, nor is it acceptable to ignore them when brought to our\nattention.\nThe IAB and IETF have already established a body of guidance for situations where this conflict\nis common, including (but not limited to)  on filtering,  and  on\npervasive surveillance,  on host firewalls, and  regarding privacy\nconsiderations.\nMuch of that advice has focused on maintaining the end-to-end properties of a connection \n. This does not mean that our responsibility to end users stops there; decisions might\naffect them in other ways. For example, data collection by various applications even inside\notherwise secure connections is a major problem on the Internet today. Also, inappropriate\nconcentration of power on the Internet has become a concerning phenomenon -- one that\nprotocol design might have some influence upon.\n[TUSSLE]\n[RFC7754] [ RFC7258] [ RFC7624]\n[RFC7288] [RFC6973]\n[RFC3724]\n4.4. Handling Conflicting End-User Needs \nWhen the needs of different end users conflict (for example, two sets of end users both have\nreasonable desires), we again should try to minimize negative impact.\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 7\n\n[RFC0001]\n[RFC3724]\n[RFC3935]\n[RFC6973]\n[RFC7230]\n7. Informative References \n, , , , April 1969, \n. \n, \n, ,\n, March 2004, . \n, , , , \n, October 2004, . \n, , , \n, July 2013, . \n, \n, , , June 2014, \n. \nFor example, when a decision improves the Internet for end users in one jurisdiction, but at the\ncost of potential harm to others elsewhere, that is not a good trade-off. As such, we design the\nInternet for the pessimal environment; if a user can be harmed, they probably will be,\nsomewhere.\nThere may be cases where genuine technical need requires compromise. However, such trade-\noffs are carefully examined and avoided when there are alternate means of achieving the\ndesired goals. If they cannot be, these choices and reasoning ought to be thoroughly documented.\n4.5. Deprioritizing Internal Needs \nThere are several needs that are very visible to us as specification authors but should explicitly\nnot be prioritized over the needs of end users.\nThese include convenience for document editors, IETF process matters, and \"architectural\npurity\" for its own sake.\n5. IANA Considerations \nThis document has no IANA actions.\n6. Security Considerations \nThis document does not have any direct security impact; however, failing to prioritize end users\nmight well affect their security negatively in the long term.\nCrocker, S. \"Host Software\" RFC 1 DOI 10.17487/RFC0001 < https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1>\nKempf, J., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and IAB \"The Rise of the Middle and the Future of\nEnd-to-End: Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture\" RFC 3724\nDOI 10.17487/RFC3724 < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3724>\nAlvestrand, H. \"A Mission Statement for the IETF\" BCP 95 RFC 3935 DOI\n10.17487/RFC3935 < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>\nCooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R.\nSmith \"Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\" RFC 6973 DOI 10.17487/\nRFC6973 < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>\nFielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed. \"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1):\nMessage Syntax and Routing\" RFC 7230 DOI 10.17487/RFC7230\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 8\n\n[RFC7258]\n[RFC7288]\n[RFC7624]\n[RFC7754]\n[RFC8752]\n[TUSSLE]\n, , , \n, , May 2014, \n. \n, , , , \nJune 2014, . \n, \n, , , August 2015, \n. \n, \n, , \n, March 2016, . \n, \n, \n, , March 2020, \n. \n, \n, , August 2002, \n. \nIAB Members at the Time of Approval \nInternet Architecture Board members at the time this document was approved for publication\nwere:\nFarrell, S. and H. Tschofenig \"Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\" BCP 188 RFC\n7258 DOI 10.17487/RFC7258 < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc7258>\nThaler, D. \"Reflections on Host Firewalls\" RFC 7288 DOI 10.17487/RFC7288\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7288>\nBarnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T., Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D.\nBorkmann \"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A Threat\nModel and Problem Statement\" RFC 7624 DOI 10.17487/RFC7624\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624>\nBarnes, R., Cooper, A., Kolkman, O., Thaler, D., and E. Nordmark \"Technical\nConsiderations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering\" RFC 7754 DOI\n10.17487/RFC7754 < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7754>\nThomson, M. and M. Nottingham \"Report from the IAB Workshop on Exploring\nSynergy between Content Aggregation and the Publisher Ecosystem (ESCAPE)\"\nRFC 8752 DOI 10.17487/RFC8752 < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc8752>\nClark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., and R. Braden \"Tussle in Cyberspace:\nDefining Tomorrow's Internet\" DOI 10.1145/633025.633059\n<https://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/Tussle2002.pdf>\nJari Arkko\nAlissa Cooper\nStephen Farrell\nWes Hardaker\nTed Hardie\nChristian Huitema\nZhenbin Li\nErik Nordmark\nMark Nottingham\nMelinda Shore\nJeff Tantsura\nMartin Thomson\nBrian Trammell\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 9\n\nAcknowledgements \nMany discussions influenced this document, both inside and outside of the IETF and IAB. In\nparticular, 's comments regarding the priority of end users at IETF 93 and the\nHTML5 Priority of Constituencies were both influential.\nMany people gave feedback and input, including , , \n, , , , , , and \n.\nEdward Snowden\nHarald Alvestrand Mohamed Boucadair Joe\nHildebrand Lee Howard Russ Housley Niels ten Oever Mando Rachovitsa John Klensin\nEliot Lear\nAuthor's Address \nMark Nottingham\n  Prahran VIC\nAustralia\n mnot@mnot.net Email:\n https://www.mnot.net/ URI:\nRFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users August 2020\nNottingham Informational Page 10", "segments": [], "published_at": "2020-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2020-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "2020-07-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:37:40.171779+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "17288cb2-079d-49ed-94b3-bdef08a55120", "source_id": "9c3aba3c2ff9569fefa7d4fe", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-digital-financial-inclusion-dc-dfi", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-digital-financial-inclusion-dc-dfi", "artifact_sha256": "9f0b404ed99c0078b559f750a4206487c07d076ea1670560b140447ffa9a7eb6", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 94823, "title": "Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion (DC-DFI) | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "language": "en", "text_length": 14262, "characters": 14262, "text": "Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion (DC-DFI) | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nDynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion (DC-DFI)\nIntroduction\nIn today’s interconnected world, financial inclusion has emerged as a critical pillar of sustainable development and equitable growth. The Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion is dedicated to addressing the multifaceted challenges of financial exclusion. This coalition aims to bridge the gap between technological advancements in finance and the segments of society still alienated from these developments, recognizing that access to financial services, facilitated by open and interoperable protocols, offer the potential to connect existing, diverse financial systems and to build new solutions from the ground up. This is the foundation for inclusive economic participation and growth.\nThe Global Challenge of Financial Exclusion\nGlobally, a significant portion of the population remains unbanked or underbanked. This systemic exclusion has profound implications for individuals and communities, particularly in low and middle income economies. The inability to access financial services not only hampers individual prosperity but also impedes broader economic progress and exacerbates inequality. The coalition seeks to shine a light on these disparities and spearhead initiatives to foster inclusive, open, and interoperable financial systems that work for more people. These technologies directly contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goals #8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and #9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). By enabling efficient, accessible, and affordable financial transactions, they foster a conducive environment for decent work opportunities and catalyze innovations in industry and infrastructure.\nThe Digital Divide and Financial Services\nThe digital divide presents a formidable barrier to financial inclusion. While digital financial services offer unprecedented opportunities for inclusion, the lack of access to connectivity and by extension technology, or mechanisms of identifying oneself, continues to exclude vast populations. This gap widens the chasm between the financially included and excluded, making it imperative to address digital access alongside financial services. The coalition recognizes the critical need to integrate digital strategies in its pursuit of financial inclusion.\nSystemic Issues and Regulatory Landscapes\nFinancial exclusion is further compounded by a myriad of systemic issues, including insufficient financial literacy, inadequate infrastructure, and often restrictive or unclear regulatory environments. These barriers prevent the effective implementation and scaling of financial inclusion initiatives. However, the opportunities that interoperable payment protocols present — such as reduced transaction costs, faster processing speeds, and immutability — are substantial and under-explored. The coalition aims to navigate these challenges while maximizing the potential benefits for all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and civil society.\nFinancial Inclusion Communities Must Learn About Internet Governance\nInternet governance processes have been effective because of multistakeholderism: everyone comes together, in good faith, to contribute to the development of standards, protocols, and policies to ensure that the Internet and its many building blocks are available to others on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. While this coalition will advocate for embedding the principles of financial inclusion within the broader framework of Internet governance, it will not seek to disrupt or ignore what the Internet community already does so well. The coalition will promote a technology-agnostic approach that emphasizes universal access, regulatory support for fintech innovations, and the need for robust digital literacy and consumer protection, while acknowledging the importance of the multistakeholder model and the generosity of existing institutions in making available space for this dialogue.\nSetting the Stage for Collaborative Action\nAs we embark on this mission, the coalition’s action plan is centered primarily around responding to one research question:\nHow can the adoption of open, global interoperable payments networks overcome existing barriers and leverage opportunities to enhance financial inclusion across diverse stakeholder groups, and how will this shape the evolution of the Internet and\ndigital economy\nby 2030?\nWe are now organizing a symposium on digital financial inclusion and Internet governance to be held in April in São Paulo as a pre-event to NetMundial +10, which will result in the production of an issue paper that will inform the coalition’s activities throughout 2024. In addition, the Dynamic Coalition will participate in the Responsible Finance Forum in Fortaleza, Brazil in July 2024 as well as the Interledger Summit in Cape Town, South Africa in October 2024.\nThe Interledger Foundation will support this Dynamic Coalition in its inaugural year, and will provide funding to support the various activities.\nWe invite interested stakeholders from across the Internet governance community to join our efforts, and encourage you to contact us for more information or to collaborate with us. It is our vision to work within the existing Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) ecosystem to collaborate with existing Dynamic Coalitions to to address policy areas that are not currently within their charter’s scope, and we also seek to engage with traditionally-excluded communities to provide them a hope within the\nIGF\nstructure for their voices to be heard.\nAction Plan\nParticipation Modalities\nThe coalition operates as a non-hierarchical, independent, and inclusive collective of individuals and organizations dedicated to integrating digital financial inclusion themes, concerns, and solutions within Internet governance and digital policy frameworks. Recognizing the vital role of open, global interoperable payment networks, this coalition is committed to representing the diverse interests and voices of those affected by financial exclusion in Internet governance discussions. The coalition relies on the active participation of its volunteers and has a Chair to provide structured leadership. While the coalition speaks with a unified voice, it acknowledges the diversity of perspectives within its membership and will provide space for dissenting opinions. The coalition will meet virtually once a month, with meeting agendas circulated by the Chair in advance of discussions, and will share written\nupdates on its mailing list and on the community forum of the Interledger website. Furthermore, the coalition shall convene in-person annually at the global\nIGF\nto ensure the coalition’s perspectives are effectively presented in all relevant discussions.\nKey Activities\nTo address the coalition’s goals, it will:\nConduct independent research to understand the impact of interoperable payment protocols on digital financial inclusion. This research will be shared with external stakeholders, including policymakers, to support evidence-informed policymaking.\nEngage with communities at the local, regional, and global levels to understand their specific needs and challenges. This grassroots approach will help tailor the work, and recommendations, of the coalition to ensure our activities are culturally and contextually appropriate and respectful.\nEncourage innovation in financial technologies by proactively engaging with fintech startups and established financial services institutions who are implementing, or could implement, open and interoperable payment protocols.\nEngage with national policymakers in international fora to promote the adoption of ethical, interoperable payment protocols.\nPublish an annual report that highlights our work over the year.\nApril 2024\nSchedule monthly working group meetings.\nChair to draft and publish coalition website.\nChair to undertake literature review and share some relevant summaries of materials with working group members.\nChair to develop meeting agenda and Issues Report with background information for review ahead of formal call in May.\nHold symposium at NetMundial+10 (April 29-30, São Paulo) to raise awareness of coalition and inform preliminary issues paper.\nMay 2024\nCoordinate with guest speakers to preview presentations and refine messaging for clarity + confirm attendance with members\nConduct external engagement at the 20th anniversary of the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (\nWSIS\n+20) and present work of the Dynamic Coalition.\nDynamic Coalition call #1 and #2\nJune 2024\nCoordinate with guest speakers to preview presentations and refine messaging for clarity + confirm attendance with members\nChair to develop meeting agenda and Issues Report with background information for review ahead of formal calls\nDynamic Coalition call #3 and #4\nBegin preparations on initial draft of the annual report.\nJuly 2024\nCoordinate with guest speakers to preview presentations and refine messaging for clarity + confirm attendance with members.\nChair to develop meeting agenda and Issues Report with background information for review ahead of formal call.\nDynamic Coalition call #5\nAugust 2024\nDynamic Coalition takes summer vacation “reading month” and opens public consultation seeking input on annual report.\nSeptember 2024\nUpdate report based on comments received.\nShare updated draft of the final report with coalition.\nDynamic Coalition call #6\nOctober 2024\nUpdate report based on comments received.\nShare updated draft of the final report with coalition.\nDynamic Coalition call #7\nNovember 2024\nSend final report to graphics designer for layout.\nFinalize draft annual report and work on plan for\nIGF\nengagement.\nDynamic Coalition call #8\nDecember 2024\nHold in-person coalition meeting at the UN\nIGF\nin Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to present annual report, and to ensure other\nIGF\nactivities are familiar with the coalition’s work.\nMailing List\nMailing list address:\n[email protected]\nSubscribe to the mailing list:\nhttps://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc-dfi_intgovforum.org\nStakeholders\nGovernment\nNeema K. Lugangira - member of Parliament, Tanzania\nAyobangira Safari - member of Parliament, Democratic Republic of the Congo\nPrivate Sector\nDr Andrés Arauz - The People's Clearinghouse\nDavid Higgins - Mifos Initiative\nDr Stephanie Perrin - Digital Discretion\nCaroline Sinders - Convocation Design + Research\nTechnical Community\nIan Peters - W3C\nJeremiah Lee - Independent Expert\nCivil Society\nAyden Féderline - Interledger Foundation\nSmriti Parsheera - CyberBRICS\nVineel Reddy Pindi - Interledger Foundation\nRaashi Saxena - Accessibility Lab\nNasser Eledroos - Color of Change\nAmali De Silva-Mitchell - Independent Expert\nDr Wei Wang - University of Hong Kong\nAffiliations are listed for identification purposes only. Members participate in the activities of the Dynamic Coalition in their individual capacity.\nDocuments/Reports\nAnnual Report 2025\nAnnual Report 2024\nContacts\nContact Persons:\nAyden Férdeline - Research Fellow, Interledger Foundation - ayden [at] ferdeline [dot] com\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "5c52fe06-343f-48d3-9a04-97345341dd0f", "document_id": "17288cb2-079d-49ed-94b3-bdef08a55120", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion (DC-DFI) | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nDynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion (DC-DFI)\nIntroduction\nIn today’s interconnected world, financial inclusion has emerged as a critical pillar of sustainable development and equitable growth. The Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion is dedicated to addressing the multifaceted challenges of financial exclusion. This coalition aims to bridge the gap between technological advancements in finance and the segments of society still alienated from these developments, recognizing that access to financial services, facilitated by open and interoperable protocols, offer the potential to connect existing, diverse financial systems and to build new solutions from the ground up. This is the foundation for inclusive economic participation and growth.\nThe Global Challenge of Financial Exclusion\nGlobally, a significant portion of the population remains unbanked or underbanked. This systemic exclusion has profound implications for individuals and communities, particularly in low and middle income economies. The inability to access financial services not only hampers individual prosperity but also impedes broader economic progress and exacerbates inequality. The coalition seeks to shine a light on these disparities and spearhead initiatives to foster inclusive, open, and interoperable financial systems that work for more people. These technologies directly contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goals #8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and #9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). By enabling efficient, accessible, and affordable financial transactions, they foster a conducive environment for decent work opportunities and catalyze innovations in industry and infrastructure.\nThe Digital Divide and Financial Services\nThe digital divide presents a formidable barrier to financial inclusion. While digital financial services offer unprecedented opportunities for inclusion, the lack of access to connectivity and by extension technology, or mechanisms of identifying oneself, continues to exclude vast populations. This gap widens the chasm between the financially included and excluded, making it imperative to address digital access alongside financial services. The coalition recognizes the critical need to integrate digital strategies in its pursuit of financial inclusion.\nSystemic Issues and Regulatory Landscapes\nFinancial exclusion is further compounded by a myriad of systemic issues, including insufficient financial literacy, inadequate infrastructure, and often restrictive or unclear regulatory environments. These barriers prevent the effective implementation and scaling of financial inclusion initiatives. However, the opportunities that interoperable payment protocols present — such as reduced transaction costs, faster processing speeds, and immutability — are substantial and under-explored. The coalition aims to navigate these challenges while maximizing the potential benefits for all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and civil society.\nFinancial Inclusion Communities Must Learn About Internet Governance\nInternet governance processes have been effective because of multistakeholderism: everyone comes together, in good faith, to contribute to the development of standards, protocols, and policies to ensure that the Internet and its many building blocks are available to others on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. While this coalition will advocate for embedding the principles of financial inclusion within the broader framework of Internet governance, it will not seek to disrupt or ignore what the Internet community already does so well. The coalition will promote a technology-agnostic approach that emphasizes universal access, regulatory support for fintech innovations, and the need for robust digital literacy and consumer protection, while acknowledging the importance of the multistakeholder model and the generosity of existing institutions in making available space for this dialogue.\nSetting the Stage for Collaborative Action\nAs we embark on this mission, the coalition’s action plan is centered primarily around responding to one research question:\nHow can the adoption of open, global interoperable payments networks overcome existing barriers and leverage opportunities to enhance financial inclusion across diverse stakeholder groups, and how will this shape the evolution of the Internet and\ndigital economy\nby 2030?\nWe are now organizing a symposium on digital financial inclusion and Internet governance to be held in April in São Paulo as a pre-event to NetMundial +10, which will result in the production of an issue paper that will inform the coalition’s activities throughout 2024. In addition, the Dynamic Coalition will participate in the Responsible Finance Forum in Fortaleza, Brazil in July 2024 as well as the Interledger Summit in Cape Town, South Africa in October 2024.\nThe Interledger Foundation will support this Dynamic Coalition in its inaugural year, and will provide funding to support the various activities.\nWe invite interested stakeholders from across the Internet governance community to join our efforts, and encourage you to contact us for more information or to collaborate with us. It is our vision to work within the existing Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) ecosystem to collaborate with existing Dynamic Coalitions to to address policy areas that are not currently within their charter’s scope, and we also seek to engage with traditionally-excluded communities to provide them a hope within the\nIGF\nstructure for their voices to be heard.\nAction Plan\nParticipation Modalities\nThe coalition operates as a non-hierarchical, independent, and inclusive collective of individuals and organizations dedicated to integrating digital financial inclusion themes, concerns, and solutions within Internet governance and digital policy frameworks. Recognizing the vital role of open, global interoperable payment networks, this coalition is committed to representing the diverse interests and voices of those affected by financial exclusion in Internet governance discussions. The coalition relies on the active participation of its volunteers and has a Chair to provide structured leadership. While the coalition speaks with a unified voice, it acknowledges the diversity of perspectives within its membership and will provide space for dissenting opinions. The coalition will meet virtually once a month, with meeting agendas circulated by the Chair in advance of discussions, and will share written\nupdates on its mailing list and on the community forum of the Interledger website. Furthermore, the coalition shall convene in-person annually at the global\nIGF\nto ensure the coalition’s perspectives are effectively presented in all relevant discussions.\nKey Activities\nTo address the coalition’s goals, it will:\nConduct independent research to understand the impact of interoperable payment protocols on digital financial inclusion. This research will be shared with external stakeholders, including policymakers, to support evidence-informed policymaking.\nEngage with communities at the local, regional, and global levels to understand their specific needs and challenges. This grassroots approach will help tailor the work, and recommendations, of the coalition to ensure our activities are culturally and contextually appropriate and respectful.\nEncourage innovation in financial technologies by proactively engaging with fintech startups and established financial services institutions who are implementing, or could implement, open and interoperable payment protocols.\nEngage with national policymakers in international fora to promote the adoption of ethical, interoperable payment protocols.\nPublish an annual report that highlights our work over the year.\nApril 2024\nSchedule monthly working group meetings.\nChair to draft and publish coalition website.\nChair to undertake literature review and share some relevant summaries of materials with working group members.\nChair to develop meeting agenda and Issues Report with background information for review ahead of formal call in May.\nHold symposium at NetMundial+10 (April 29-30, São Paulo) to raise awareness of coalition and inform preliminary issues paper.\nMay 2024\nCoordinate with guest speakers to preview presentations and refine messaging for clarity + confirm attendance with members\nConduct external engagement at the 20th anniversary of the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (\nWSIS\n+20) and present work of the Dynamic Coalition.\nDynamic Coalition call #1 and #2\nJune 2024\nCoordinate with guest speakers to preview presentations and refine messaging for clarity + confirm attendance with members\nChair to develop meeting agenda and Issues Report with background information for review ahead of formal calls\nDynamic Coalition call #3 and #4\nBegin preparations on initial draft of the annual report.\nJuly 2024\nCoordinate with guest speakers to preview presentations and refine messaging for clarity + confirm attendance with members.\nChair to develop meeting agenda and Issues Report with background information for review ahead of formal call.\nDynamic Coalition call #5\nAugust 2024\nDynamic Coalition takes summer vacation “reading month” and opens public consultation seeking input on annual report.\nSeptember 2024\nUpdate report based on comments received.\nShare updated draft of the final report with coalition.\nDynamic Coalition call #6\nOctober 2024\nUpdate report based on comments received.\nShare updated draft of the final report with coalition.\nDynamic Coalition call #7\nNovember 2024\nSend final report to graphics designer for layout.\nFinalize draft annual report and work on plan for\nIGF\nengagement.\nDynamic Coalition call #8\nDecember 2024\nHold in-person coalition meeting at the UN\nIGF\nin Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to present annual report, and to ensure other\nIGF\nactivities are familiar with the coalition’s work.\nMailing List\nMailing list address:\n[email protected]\nSubscribe to the mailing list:\nhttps://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc-dfi_intgovforum.org\nStakeholders\nGovernment\nNeema K. Lugangira - member of Parliament, Tanzania\nAyobangira Safari - member of Parliament, Democratic Republic of the Congo\nPrivate Sector\nDr Andrés Arauz - The People's Clearinghouse\nDavid Higgins - Mifos Initiative\nDr Stephanie Perrin - Digital Discretion\nCaroline Sinders - Convocation Design + Research\nTechnical Community\nIan Peters - W3C\nJeremiah Lee - Independent Expert\nCivil Society\nAyden Féderline - Interledger Foundation\nSmriti Parsheera - CyberBRICS\nVineel Reddy Pindi - Interledger Foundation\nRaashi Saxena - Accessibility Lab\nNasser Eledroos - Color of Change\nAmali De Silva-Mitchell - Independent Expert\nDr Wei Wang - University of Hong Kong\nAffiliations are listed for identification purposes only. Members participate in the activities of the Dynamic Coalition in their individual capacity.\nDocuments/Reports\nAnnual Report 2025\nAnnual Report 2024\nContacts\nContact Persons:\nAyden Férdeline - Research Fellow, Interledger Foundation - ayden [at] ferdeline [dot] com\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 14262, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 11, "word_count": 2041}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "17dcdff4-3844-47d5-bf4f-212141f9dbdd", "source_id": "32c030e7aa51bb90dc347544", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/history/Pages/ITUsHistory.aspx", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/history/Pages/ITUsHistory.aspx", "artifact_sha256": "5046d60009a60df6a3249ee10a8206d3f62943ec68b9edd688ec899f3f14708a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 78556, "title": "Overview of ITU's History (1)", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 5636, "characters": 5636, "text": "Overview of ITU's History (1)\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nOverview of ITU's History (1)\n​ ​\nSearch the History Portal\nImageUrl\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nHistory of ITU Portal\nShare\nHistory of ITU Portal\nSite Map\nExplore the Digital Collections\nDiscover ITU's History\nFocus on Areas of Work\nOverview of ITU's History article\nITU Library and Archives\nSend feedback\n​​\nPage Content 20\n​\nPersistent Identifier for this page\nPage Content 20 Title Hyperlink\nhttp://handle.itu.int/11.1004/020.2000/s.​210\nPage Content 2\nFor a century and a half since 1865, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been at the centre of advances in communications – from telegraphy through to the modern world of satellites, mobile phones and the Internet.\nThe story of ITU is one of international cooperation, among governments, private companies and other stakeholders. The continuing mission is to achieve the best practical solutions for integrating new technologies as they develop, and to spread their benefits to all.\nTable of Contents\nPage Content 3\n​(1) From telegraph to telephone\n(2) Radio\n(3) Keeping up with progress\n(4) Television\n(5) Space and satellites\n(6) The Internet\n(7) Mobile connectivity\n(8) Development to bridge the digital divide\n(9) Global meeting place\n(10) Serving the modern world\n(11) Looking forward\n​​​​\nDownload a PDF version of the Overview of ITU's History article\nPage Content\nFrom telegraph to telephone\n​​​​​​​​\nSee also:\nPre-1865 International Telegraph Agreements\nThe First Internat​ional Telegraph Conference (Par​is, 1865)\nFor thousands of years, the quickest method of sending complex messages over long distances was with a courier on horseback. At the end of the 18th century, Claude Chappe inaugurated a network of visual semaphore stations across France. Then came the electrical revolution. Experiments were conducted in sending electric signals along wires, and in 1839, the world’s first commercial telegraph service opened in London with a system created by\nCharles Whe​atstone\n. In the United States, Samuel Morse used the new Morse code to send his first telegraph message in 1844. Already in 1843, a precursor of the\nfa​​x ma​chine\nfor transmitting images had been patented in the United Kingdom by Alexander Bain.​\nDelegates at the first International Telegraph Conference (Paris, 1865) (Source: ITU)\nTelegraph wires soon linked major towns in many countries. A\nsubmarine telegraph wire\n(coated in protective gutta percha) was laid between Britain and France in 1850, and a regular service inaugurated the following year. In 1858, the\nfirst transatlantic telegraph\ncable was laid. But there was a problem. Where lines crossed national borders, messages had to be stopped and translated into the particular system of the next\njurisdiction.\nTo\nsimplify matters, regional agreements began to be forged, and in Europe, representatives of 20 States gathered in Paris at an\nInternational Telegraph Conference\nto find ways to overcome barriers and make services more efficient. They would create a framework to standardize telegraphy equipment, set uniform operating instructions, and lay down common international tariff and accounting rules.\nThe first Convention of the International Telegraph Union signed in 1865 (Source: ITU)\nOn 17 May 1865, the first\nInternational Telegraph Convention\nwas signed in Paris by its twenty founding members, and the International Telegraph Union (the first incarnation of ITU) was established to supervise subsequent amendments to the agreement. That significant date – 17 May – eventually\nbecame\nWorld Telecommunication and​ Information Society Day\n.\n​​​​​​​​​\n​ITU based in Switzerland\nThe 1868 International Telegraph Conference, in Vienna, decided that ITU would operate from its own bureau in Berne, Switzerland. It began with just three members of staff.\nIn 1948, the headquarter​​s of ITU were moved from Berne to Geneva.\n​\nOnly a decade later, the next leap forward in communications occurred with the patenting of the telephone in 1876. At the International Telegraph Conference held in Berlin in 1885, ITU began to draw up international legislation governing telephony. An article added to the Telegraph Regulations specified five minutes as a unit of charge, and the length of a call was limited to ten minutes if there were other requests to use the telephone line.\nOne of the earliest illustrations of Graham Bell's telephone in 1877 (Source: From Semaphore to Satellite, ITU)\nTelephones meant you could actually speak to another person over long distances, as well as sending Morse code telegraphs. But what if a wire could not reach them, for instance, on a ship? In 1880 at the Royal Society in London,\nDavid Edward Hughes\ndemonstrated what was later to be recognized as wireless signaling. Practical experiments began to be made in the 1890s by such inventors as\nNikola Tesla\n,\nJagadish Chandra Bose\n,\nAlexander Stepanovich Popov\nand Guglielmo Marconi. Radio, known as “wireless telegraphy,” was born.\nInventors of \"wireless telegraphy\" [clockwise from top left] David Edward Hughes, Nikola Tesla, Alexander Stepanovich Popov,\nGuglielmo Marco\nni\n, and Jagadish Chandra Bose.\nnext page\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ff65ff9b-4e64-4013-985d-6ffab8b5552f", "document_id": "17dcdff4-3844-47d5-bf4f-212141f9dbdd", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Overview of ITU's History (1)\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nOverview of ITU's History (1)\n​ ​\nSearch the History Portal\nImageUrl\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nHistory of ITU Portal\nShare\nHistory of ITU Portal\nSite Map\nExplore the Digital Collections\nDiscover ITU's History\nFocus on Areas of Work\nOverview of ITU's History article\nITU Library and Archives\nSend feedback\n​​\nPage Content 20\n​\nPersistent Identifier for this page\nPage Content 20 Title Hyperlink\nhttp://handle.itu.int/11.1004/020.2000/s.​210\nPage Content 2\nFor a century and a half since 1865, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been at the centre of advances in communications – from telegraphy through to the modern world of satellites, mobile phones and the Internet.\nThe story of ITU is one of international cooperation, among governments, private companies and other stakeholders. The continuing mission is to achieve the best practical solutions for integrating new technologies as they develop, and to spread their benefits to all.\nTable of Contents\nPage Content 3\n​(1) From telegraph to telephone\n(2) Radio\n(3) Keeping up with progress\n(4) Television\n(5) Space and satellites\n(6) The Internet\n(7) Mobile connectivity\n(8) Development to bridge the digital divide\n(9) Global meeting place\n(10) Serving the modern world\n(11) Looking forward\n​​​​\nDownload a PDF version of the Overview of ITU's History article\nPage Content\nFrom telegraph to telephone\n​​​​​​​​\nSee also:\nPre-1865 International Telegraph Agreements\nThe First Internat​ional Telegraph Conference (Par​is, 1865)\nFor thousands of years, the quickest method of sending complex messages over long distances was with a courier on horseback. At the end of the 18th century, Claude Chappe inaugurated a network of visual semaphore stations across France. Then came the electrical revolution. Experiments were conducted in sending electric signals along wires, and in 1839, the world’s first commercial telegraph service opened in London with a system created by\nCharles Whe​atstone\n. In the United States, Samuel Morse used the new Morse code to send his first telegraph message in 1844. Already in 1843, a precursor of the\nfa​​x ma​chine\nfor transmitting images had been patented in the United Kingdom by Alexander Bain.​\nDelegates at the first International Telegraph Conference (Paris, 1865) (Source: ITU)\nTelegraph wires soon linked major towns in many countries. A\nsubmarine telegraph wire\n(coated in protective gutta percha) was laid between Britain and France in 1850, and a regular service inaugurated the following year. In 1858, the\nfirst transatlantic telegraph\ncable was laid. But there was a problem. Where lines crossed national borders, messages had to be stopped and translated into the particular system of the next\njurisdiction.\nTo\nsimplify matters, regional agreements began to be forged, and in Europe, representatives of 20 States gathered in Paris at an\nInternational Telegraph Conference\nto find ways to overcome barriers and make services more efficient. They would create a framework to standardize telegraphy equipment, set uniform operating instructions, and lay down common international tariff and accounting rules.\nThe first Convention of the International Telegraph Union signed in 1865 (Source: ITU)\nOn 17 May 1865, the first\nInternational Telegraph Convention\nwas signed in Paris by its twenty founding members, and the International Telegraph Union (the first incarnation of ITU) was established to supervise subsequent amendments to the agreement. That significant date – 17 May – eventually\nbecame\nWorld Telecommunication and​ Information Society Day\n.\n​​​​​​​​​\n​ITU based in Switzerland\nThe 1868 International Telegraph Conference, in Vienna, decided that ITU would operate from its own bureau in Berne, Switzerland. It began with just three members of staff.\nIn 1948, the headquarter​​s of ITU were moved from Berne to Geneva.\n​\nOnly a decade later, the next leap forward in communications occurred with the patenting of the telephone in 1876. At the International Telegraph Conference held in Berlin in 1885, ITU began to draw up international legislation governing telephony. An article added to the Telegraph Regulations specified five minutes as a unit of charge, and the length of a call was limited to ten minutes if there were other requests to use the telephone line.\nOne of the earliest illustrations of Graham Bell's telephone in 1877 (Source: From Semaphore to Satellite, ITU)\nTelephones meant you could actually speak to another person over long distances, as well as sending Morse code telegraphs. But what if a wire could not reach them, for instance, on a ship? In 1880 at the Royal Society in London,\nDavid Edward Hughes\ndemonstrated what was later to be recognized as wireless signaling. Practical experiments began to be made in the 1890s by such inventors as\nNikola Tesla\n,\nJagadish Chandra Bose\n,\nAlexander Stepanovich Popov\nand Guglielmo Marconi. Radio, known as “wireless telegraphy,” was born.\nInventors of \"wireless telegraphy\" [clockwise from top left] David Edward Hughes, Nikola Tesla, Alexander Stepanovich Popov,\nGuglielmo Marco\nni\n, and Jagadish Chandra Bose.\nnext page\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5636, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 865}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "181d29fb-2aac-4816-aa6e-a7413cafd6fb", "source_id": "2e312baf1fa62310fbf941c8", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1454", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1454/", "artifact_sha256": "2e312baf1fa62310fbf941c8201f794c2c23c43bf888d5711c7971624af1f53b", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 177003, "title": "RFC 1454: Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP", "language": "en", "text_length": 34913, "characters": 34913, "text": "RFC 1454: Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1454\n:\nComparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP\nT. Dixon\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                          T. Dixon\nRequest for Comments: 1454                                         RARE\n                                                               May 1993\nComparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\n   This is a slightly edited reprint of RARE Technical Report\n   (RTC(93)004).\n\n   The following is a brief summary of the characteristics of the three\n   main proposals for replacing the current Internet Protocol. It is not\n   intended to be exhaustive or definitive (a brief bibliography at the\n   end points to sources of more information), but to serve as input to\n   the European discussions on these proposals, to be co-ordinated by\n   RARE and RIPE. It should be recognised that the proposals are\n   themselves \"moving targets\", and in so far as this paper is accurate\n   at all, it reflects the position at the 25th IETF meeting in\n   Washington, DC. Comments from Ross Callon and Paul Tsuchiya on the\n   original draft have been incorporated.  Note that for a time the term\n   \"IPv7\" was use to mean the eventual next version of IP, but that the\n   same term was closely associated with a particilar proposal, so the\n   term \"IPng\" is now used to identify the eventual next generation of\n   IP.\n\n   The paper begins with a \"generic\" discussion of the mechanisms for\n   solving problems and achieving particular goals, before discussing\n   the proposals invidually.\n1\n. WHY IS THE CURRENT IP INADEQUATE?\nThe problem has been investigated and formulated by the ROAD group,\n   but briefly reduces to the following:\n\n      - Exhaustion of IP Class B Address Space.\n\n      - Exhaustion of IP Address Space in General.\n\n      - Non-hierarchical nature of address allocation leading to flat\n        routing space.\nDixon                                                           [Page 1]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\nAlthough the IESG requirements for a new Internet Protocol go further\n   than simply routing and addressing issues,  it is these issues that\n   make extension of the current protocol an impractical option.\n   Consequently, most of the discussion and development of the various\n   proposed protocols has concentrated on these specific problems.\n\n   Near term remedies for these problems include the CIDR proposals\n   (which permit the aggregation of Class C networks for routing\n   purposes) and assignment policies which will allocate Class C network\n   numbers in a fashion which CIDR can take advantage of. Routing\n   protocols supporting CIDR are OSPF and BGP4. None of these are pre-\n   requisites for the new IP (IPng), but are necessary to prolong the\n   life of the current Internet long enough to work on longer-term\n   solutions. Ross Callon points out that there are other options for\n   prolonging the life of IP and that some ideas have been distributed\n   on the TUBA list.\n\n   Longer term proposals are being sought which ultimately allow for\n   further growth of the Internet. The timescale for considering these\n   proposals is as follows:\n\n      - Dec 15 Issue selection criteria as RFC.\n\n      - Feb 12 Two interoperable implementations available.\n\n      - Feb 26 Second draft of proposal documents available.\n\n   The (ambitious) target is for a decision to be made at the 26th IETF\n   (Columbus, Ohio in March 1993) on which proposals to pursue.\n\n   The current likely candidates for selection are:\n\n      - PIP ('P' Internet Protocol - an entirely new protocol).\n\n      - TUBA (TCP/UDP with Big Addresses - uses ISO CLNP).\n\n      - SIP (Simple IP - IP with larger addresses and fewer options).\n\n   There is a further proposal from Robert Ullman of which I don't claim\n   to have much knowledge. Associated with each of the candidates are\n   transition plans, but these are largely independent of the protocol\n   itself and contain elements which could be adopted separately, even\n   with IP v4, to further extend the life of current implementations and\n   systems.\nDixon                                                           [Page 2]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\n2\n. WHAT THE PROPOSALS HAVE IN COMMON\n2.1\nLarger Addresses\nAll the proposals (of course) make provision for larger address\n   fields which not only increase the number of addressable systems, but\n   also permit the hierarchical allocation of addresses to facilitate\n   route aggregation.\n2.2\nPhilosophy\nThe proposals also originate from a \"routing implementation\" view of\n   the world - that is to say they focus on the internals of routing\n   within the network and do not primarily look at the network service\n   seen by the end-user, or by applications. This is perhaps inevitable,\n   especially given the tight time constraints for producing\n   interoperable implementations. However, the (few) representatives of\n   real users at the 25th IETF, the people whose support is ultimately\n   necessary to deploy new host implementations, were distinctly\n   unhappy.\n\n   There is an inbuilt assumption in the proposals that IPng is\n   intended to be a universal protocol: that is, that the same network-\n   layer protocol will be used between hosts on the same LAN, between\n   hosts and routers, between routers in the same domain, and between\n   routers in different domains. There are some advantages in defining\n   separate \"access\" and \"long-haul\" protocols, and this is not\n   precluded by the requirements. However, despite the few opportunities\n   for major change of this sort within the Internet, the need for speed\n   of development and low risk have led to the proposals being\n   incremental, rather than radical, changes to well-proven existing\n   technology.\n\n   There is a further unstated assumption that the architecture is\n   targeted at the singly-connected host. It is currently difficult to\n   design IPv4 networks which permit hosts with more than one interface\n   to benefit from increased bandwidth and reliability compared with\n   singly-connected hosts (a consequence of the address belonging to the\n   interface and not the host). It would be preferable if topological\n   constraints such as these were documented. It has been asserted that\n   this is not necessarily a constraint of either the PIP or TUBA\n   proposals, but I believe it is an issue that has not emerged so far\n   amongst the comparative criteria.\nDixon                                                           [Page 3]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\n2.3\nSource Routing\nThe existing IPv4 has provision for source-specified routes, though\n   this is little used [would someone like to contradict me here?],\n   partly because it requires knowledge of the internal structure of the\n   network down to the router level. Source routes are usually required\n   by users when there are policy requirements which make it preferable\n   or imperative that traffic between a source and destination should\n   pass through particular administrative domains. Source routes can\n   also be used by routers within administrative domains to route via\n   particular logical topologies. Source-specified routing requires a\n   number of distinct components:\n\n      a.  The specification by the source of the policy by which the\n          route should be selected.\n\n      b.  The selection of a route appropriate to the policy.\n\n      c.  Marking traffic with the identified route.\n\n      d.  Routing marked traffic accordingly.\n\n   These steps are not wholly independent. The way in which routes are\n   identified in step (c) may constrain the kinds of route which can be\n   selected in previous steps. The destination, inevitably, participates\n   in the specification of source routes either by advertising the\n   policies it is prepared to accept or, conceivably, by a negotiation\n   process.\n\n   All of the proposals mark source routes by adding a chain of (perhaps\n   partially-specified) intermediate addresses to each packet. None\n   specifies the process by which a host might acquire the information\n   needed to  specify these intermediate addresses [not entirely\n   unreasonably at this stage, but further information is expected]. The\n   negative consequences of these decisions are:\n\n      - Packet headers can become quite long, depending on the number of\n        intermediate addresses that must be specified (although there are\n        mechanisms which are currently specified or which can be imagined\n        to specify only the significant portions of intermediate addresses).\n\n      - The source route may have to be re-specified periodically if\n        particular intermediate addresses are no longer reachable.\n\n   The positive consequences are:\n\n      - Inter-domain routers do not have to understand policies, they\n        simply have to mechanically follow the source route.\nDixon                                                           [Page 4]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\n- Routers do not have to store context identifying routes, since\n        the information is specified in each packet header.\n\n      - Route servers can be located anywhere in the network, provided\n        the hosts know how to find them.\n2.4\nEncapsulation\nEncapsulation is the ability to enclose a network-layer packet within\n   another one so that the actual packet can be directed via a path it\n   would not otherwise take to a router that can remove the outermost\n   packet and direct the resultant packet to its destination.\n   Encapsulation requires:\n\n      a.  An indication in the packet that it contains another packet.\n\n      b.  A function in routers which, on receiving such a packet,\n          removes the encapsulation and re-enters the forwarding process.\n\n   All the proposals support encapsulation. Note that it is possible to\n   achieve the effect of source routing by suitable encapsulation by the\n   source.\n2.5\nMulticast\nThe specification of addresses to permit multicast with various\n   scopes can be accomodated by all the proposals. Internet-wide\n   multicast is, of course, for further study!\n2.6\nFragmentation\nAll the proposals support the fragmentation of packets by\n   intermediate routers, though there has been some recent discussion of\n   removing this mechanism from some of the proposals and requiring the\n   use of an MTU-discovery process to avoid the need for fragmentation.\n   Such a decision would effectively preclude the use of transport\n   protocols which use message-count sequence numbering (such as OSI\n   Transport) over the network, as only protocols with byte-count\n   acknowledgement (such as TCP) can deal with MTU reductions during the\n   lifetime of a connection. OSI Transport may not be particularly\n   relevant to the IP community (though it may be of relevance to\n   commercial suppliers providing multiprotocol services), however the\n   consequences for the types of services which may be supported over\n   IPng should be noted.\nDixon                                                           [Page 5]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\n2.7\nThe End of Lifetime as We Know It\nThe old IPv4 \"Time to Live\" field has been recast in every case as a\n   simple hop count, largely on grounds of implementation convenience.\n   Although the old TTL was largely implemented in this fashion anyway,\n   it did serve an architectural purpose in putting an upper bound on\n   the lifetime of a packet in the network. If this field is recast as a\n   hop-count, there must be some other specification of the maximum\n   lifetime of a packet in the network so that a source host can ensure\n   that network-layer fragment ids and transport-layer sequence numbers\n   are never in danger of re-use whilst there is a danger of confusion.\n   There are, in fact, three separate issues here:\n\n      1. Terminating routing loops (solved by hop count).\n\n      2. Bounding lifetime of network-layer packets (a necessity,\n         unspecified so far) to support assumptions by the transport\n         layer.\n\n      3. Permitting the source to place further restrictions on packet\n         lifetime (for example so that \"old\" real-time traffic can be\n         discarded in favour of new traffic in the case of congestion\n         (an optional feature, unspecified so far).\n3\n. WHAT THE PROPOSALS ONLY HINT AT\n3.1\nResource Reservation\nIncreasingly, applications require a certain bandwidth or transit\n   delay if they are to be at all useful (for example, real-time video\n   and audio transport). Such applications need procedures to indicate\n   their requirements to the network and to have the required resources\n   reserved.  This process is in some ways analogous to the selection of\n   a source route:\n\n      a.  The specification by the source of its requirements.\n\n      b.  The confirmation that the requirements can be met.\n\n      c.  Marking traffic with the requirement.\n\n      d.  Routing marked traffic accordingly.\n\n   Traffic which is routed according to the same set of resource\n   requirements is sometimes called a \"flow\". The identification of\n   flows requires a setup process, and it is tempting to suppose that\n   the same process might also be used to set up source routes, however,\n   there are a number of differences:\nDixon                                                           [Page 6]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\n- All the routers on a path must participate in resource\n        reservation and agree to it.\n\n      - Consequently, it is relatively straightforward to maintain\n        context in each router and the identification for flows can be\n        short.\n\n      - The network can choose to reroute on failure.\n\n   By various means, each proposal could carry flow-identification,\n   though this is very much \"for future study\" at present. No setup\n   mechansisms are defined. The process for actually reserving the\n   resources is a higher-order problem. The interaction between source-\n   routing and resource reservation needs further investigation:\n   although the two are distinct and have different implementation\n   constraints, the consequence of having two different mechanisms could\n   be that it becomes difficult to select routes which meet both policy\n   and performance goals.\n3.2\nAddress-Assignment Policies\nIn IPv4, addresses were bound to systems on a long-term basis and in\n   many cases could be used interchangeably with DNS names. It is\n   tacitly accepted that the association of an address with a particular\n   system may be more volatile in IPng. Indeed, one of the proposals,\n   PIP, makes a distinction between the identification of a system (a\n   fixed quantity) and its address, and permits the binding to be\n   altered on the fly. None of the proposals defines bounds for the\n   lifetime of addresses, and the manner in which addresses are assigned\n   is not necessarily bound to a particular proposal. For example,\n   within the larger address space to be provided by IPng, there is a\n   choice to be made of assigning the \"higher order\" part of the\n   hierarchical address in a geographically-related fashion or by\n   reference to service provider. Geographically-based addresses can be\n   constant and easy to assign, but represent a renewed danger of\n   degeneration to \"flat\" addresses within the region of assignment,\n   unless certain topological restrictions are assumed.  Provider-based\n   address assignment results in a change of address (if providers are\n   changed) or multiple addresses (if multiple providers are used).\n   Mobile hosts (depending on the underlying technology) can present\n   problems in both geographic and provider-based schemes.\n\n   Without firm proposals for address-assignment schemes and the\n   consequences for likely address lifetimes, it is impossible to assume\n   that the existing DNS model by which name-to-address bindings can be\n   discovered remains valid.\nDixon                                                           [Page 7]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\nNote that there is an interaction between the mechanism for\n   assignment of addresses and way in which automatic configuration may\n   be deployed.\n3.3\nAutomatic Configuration\nAmongst the biggest (user) bugbears of current IP services is the\n   administrative effort of maintaining basic configuration information,\n   such as assigning names and addresses to hosts, ensuring these are\n   refelected in the DNS, and keeping this information correct. Part of\n   this results from poor implementation (or the blind belief that vi\n   and awk are network management tools). However, a lot of the problems\n   could be alleviated by making this process more automatic. Some of\n   the possibilities (some mutually-exlusive) are:\n\n      - Assigning host addresses from some (relative) invariant, such\n        as a LAN address.\n\n      - Defining a protocol for dynamic assignment of addresses within a\n        subnetwork.\n\n      - Defining \"generic addresses\" by which hosts can without\n        preconfiguration reach necessary local servers (DNS, route\n        servers, etc.).\n\n      - Have hosts determine their name by DNS lookup.\n\n      - Have hosts update their name/address bindings when their\n        configuration changes.\n\n   Whilst a number of the proposals make mention of some of these\n   possibilities, the choice of appropriate solutions depends to some\n   extent on address-assignment policies. Also, dynamic configuration\n   results in some difficult philosopical and practical issues (what\n   exactly is the role of an address?, In what sense is a host \"the same\n   host\" when its address changes?, How do you handle dynamic changes to\n   DNS mappings and how do you authenticate them?).\n\n   The groups involved in the proposals would, I think, see most of\n   these questions outside their scope. It would seem to be a failure in\n   the process of defining and selecting candidates for IPng that\n   \"systemness\" issues like these will probably not be much discussed.\n   This is recognised by the participants, and it is likely that, even\n   when a decision is made, some of these ideas will be revisited by a\n   wider audience.\n\n   It is, however, unlikely that IP will make an impact on proprietary\n   networking systems for the non-technical environment (e.g., Netware,\nDixon                                                           [Page 8]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\nAppletalk), without automatic configuration being taken seriously\n   either in the architecture, or by suppliers. I believe that there are\n   ideas on people's heads of how to address these issues - they simply\n   have not made it onto paper yet.\n3.4\nApplication Interface/Application Protocol Changes\nA number of common application protocols (FTP, RPC, etc.) have been\n   identified which specifically transfer 32-bit IPv4 addresses, and\n   there are doubtless others, both standard and proprietary. There are\n   also many applications which treat IPv4 addresses as simple 32-bit\n   integers. Even applications which use BSD sockets and try to handle\n   addresses opaquely will not understand how to parse or print longer\n   addresses (even if the socket structure is big enough to accommodate\n   them).\n\n   Each proposal, therefore, needs to specify mechanisms to permit\n   existing applications and interfaces to operate in the new\n   environment whilst conversion takes place. It would be useful also,\n   to have (one) specification of a reference programming interface for\n   (TCP and) IPng (which would also operate on IPv4), to allow\n   developers to begin changing applications now. All the proposals\n   specify transition mechansisms from which existing application-\n   compatibility can be inferred. There is no sign yet of a new\n   interface specification independent of chosen protocol.\n3.5\nDNS Changes\nIt is obvious that there has to be a name to address mapping service\n   which supports the new, longer, addresses. All the proposals assume\n   that this service will be provided by DNS, with some suitably-defined\n   new resource record. There is some discussion ongoing about the\n   appropriateness of returning this information along with \"A\" record\n   information in response to certain enquiries, and which information\n   should be requested first. There is a potential tradeoff between the\n   number of queries needed to establish the correct address to use and\n   the potential for breaking existing implementations by returning\n   information that they do not expect.\n\n   There has been heat, but not light, generated by discussion of  the\n   use of DNS for auto-configuration and the scaling (or otherwise) of\n   reverse translations for certain addressing schemes.\nDixon                                                           [Page 9]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\n4\n. WHAT THE PROPOSALS DON'T REALLY MENTION\n4.1\nCongestion Avoidance\nIPv4 offers \"Source Quench\" control messages which may be used by\n   routers to indicate to a source that it is congested and has or may\n   shortly drop packets. TUBA/PIP have a \"congestion encountered\" bit\n   which provides similar information to the destination. None of these\n   specifications offers detailed instructions on how to use these\n   facilities. However, there has been a substantial body of analysis\n   over recent years that suggests that such facilities can be used (by\n   providing information to the transport protocol) not only to signal\n   congestion, but also to minimise delay through the network layer.\n   Each proposal can offer some form of congestion  signalling, but none\n   specifies a mechanism for its use (or an analysis of whether the\n   mechanism is in fact useful).\n\n   As a user of a network service which currently has a discard rate of\n   around 30% and a round-trip-time of up to 2 seconds for a distance of\n   only 500 miles I would be most interested in some proposals for a\n   more graceful degradation of the network service under excess load.\n4.2\nMobile Hosts\nA characteristic of mobile hosts is that they (relatively) rapidly\n   move their physical location and point of attachment to the network\n   topology.  This obviously has signficance for addressing (whether\n   geographical or topological) and routing. There seems to be an\n   understanding of the problem, but so far no detailed specification of\n   a solution.\n4.3\nAccounting\nThe IESG selection criteria require only that proposals do not have\n   the effect of preventing the collection of information that may be of\n   interest for audit or billing purposes. Consequently, none of the\n   proposals  consider potential accounting mechanisms.\n4.4\nSecurity\n\"Network Layer Security Issues are For Further Study\". Or secret.\n\n   However, it would be useful to have it demonstrated that each\n   candidate could be extended to provide a level of security, for\n   example against address-spoofing. This will be particularly\n   important if resource-allocation features will permit certain hosts\n   to claim large chunks of available bandwidth for specialised\n   applications.\nDixon                                                          [Page 10]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\nNote that providing some level of security implies manual\n   configuration of security information within the network and must be\n   considered in relationship to auto-configuration goals.\n5\n. WHAT MAKES THE PROPOSALS DIFFERENT?\nEach proposal is about as different to the others as it is to IPv4 -\n   that is the differences are small in principle, but may have\n   significant effects (extending the size of addresses is only a small\n   difference in principle!). The main distinct characteristics are:\n\n   PIP:\n\n      PIP has an innovative header format that facilitates hierarchical,\n      policy and virtual-circuit routing. It also has \"opaque\" fields in\n      the header whose semantics can be defined differently in different\n      administrative domains and whose use and translation can be\n      negotiated across domain boundaries. No control protocol is yet\n      specified.\n\n   SIP:\n\n      SIP offers a \"minimalist\" approach - removing all little-used\n      fields from the IPv4 header and extending the size of addresses to\n      (only) 64 bits. The control protocol is based on modifications to\n      ICMP. This proposal has the advantages of processing efficiency\n      and familiarity.\n\n   TUBA:\n\n      TUBA is based on CLNP (ISO 8473) and the ES-IS (ISO 9542) control\n      protocol. TUBA provides for the operation of TCP transport and UDP\n      over a CLNP network. The main arguments in favour of TUBA are that\n      routers already exist which can handle the network-layer protocol,\n      that the extensible addresses offer a wide margin of \"future-\n      proofing\" and that there is an opportunity for convergence of\n      standards and products.\n5.1\nPIP\nPIP packet headers contain a set of instructions to the router's\n   forwarding processor to perform certain actions on the packet. In\n   traditional protocols, the contents of certain fields imply certain\n   actions; PIP gives the source the flexibility to write small\n   \"programs\" which direct the routing of packets through the network.\n\n   PIP addresses have an effectively unlimited length: each level in the\n   topological hierarchy of the network contributes part of the address\nDixon                                                          [Page 11]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\nand addresses change as the network topology changes. In a completely\n   hierarchical network topology, the amount of routing information\n   required at each level could be very small. However, in practice,\n   levels of hierarchy will be determined more by commercial and\n   practical factors than by the constraints of any particular routing\n   protocol. A greater advantage is that higher-order parts of the\n   address may be omitted in local exchanges and that lower-order parts\n   may be omitted in source routes, reducing the amount of topological\n   information that host systems are required to know.\n\n   There is an assumption that PIP addresses are liable to change, so a\n   further quantity, the PIP ID, is assigned to systems for the purposes\n   of identification. It isn't clear that this quantity has any purpose\n   which could not equally be served by a DNS name [it is more compact,\n   but equally it does not need to be carried in every packet and\n   requires an additional lookup]. However, the problem does arise of\n   how two potentially-communicating host systems find the correct\n   addresses to use.\n\n   The most complex part of PIP is that the meaning of some of the\n   header fields is determined by mutual agreement within a particular\n   domain. The semantics of specific processing facilities (for example,\n   queuing priority) are registered globally, but the actual use and\n   encoding of requests for these facilities in the packet header can be\n   different in different domains. Border routers between two domains\n   which use different encodings must map  from one encoding to another.\n   Since routers may not only be adjacent physically to other domains,\n   but also via \"tunnels\", the number of different encoding rules a\n   router may need to understand is potentially quite large. Although\n   there is a saving in header space by using such a scheme as opposed\n   to the more familiar \"options\", the cost in the complexity of\n   negotiating the use and encoding of these facilities, together with\n   re-coding the packets at each domain border, is a subject of some\n   concern. Although it may be possible for hosts to \"precompile\" the\n   encoding rules for their local domain, there are many potential\n   implementaion difficulties.\n\n   Although PIP offers the most flexibility of the three proposals, more\n   work needs to be done on \"likely use\" scenarios which make the\n   potential advantages and disadvantages more concrete.\n5.2\nSIP\nSIP is simply IP with larger addresses and fewer options. Its main\n   advantage is that it is even simpler that IPv4 to process. Its main\n   disadvantages are:\nDixon                                                          [Page 12]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\n- It is far from clear that, if 32 bits of address are\n        insufficient, 64 will be enough for the forseeable future;\n\n      - although there are a few \"reserved\" bits in the header, the\n        extension of SIP to support new features is not obvious.\n\n   There's really very little else to say!\n5.3\nTUBA\nThe characteristics of ISO CLNS are reasonably well known: the\n   protocol bears a strong cultural resemblance to IPv4, though with\n   20-byte network-layer addressing. Apart from a spurious \"Not Invented\n   Here\" prejudice, the main argument againt TUBA is that it is rather\n   too like IPv4, offering nothing other than larger, more flexible,\n   addresses.  There is proof-by-example that routers are capable of\n   handling the (very) long addresses efficiently, rather less that the\n   longer headers do not adversely impact network bandwidth.\n\n   There are a number of objections to the proposed control protocol\n   (ISO 9542):\n\n\n      - My early experience is that the process by which routers\n        discover hosts is inefficient and resource consuming for\n        routers - and requires quite fine timer resolution on hosts -\n        if large LANs are to be accomodated reasonably. Proponents of\n        TUBA suggest that recent experience suggests that ARP is no\n        better, but I think this issue needs examination.\n\n      - The \"redirect\" mechanism is based on (effectively) LAN\n        addresses and not network addresses, meaning that local routers\n        can only \"hand-off\" complex routing decisions to other routers\n        on the same LAN.  Equally, redirection schemes (such as that of\n        IPv4) which redirect to network addresses can result in\n        unnecessary extra hops.  Analysis of which solution is better\n        is rather dependent on the scenarios which are constructed.\n\n   To be fair, however, the part of the protocol which provides for\n   router-discovery provides a mechanism, absent from other proposals,\n   by which hosts can locate nearby gateways and potentially\n   automatically configure their addresses.\n6\n. Transition Plans\nIt should be obvious that a transition which permits \"old\" hosts to\n   talk to \"new\" hosts requires:\nDixon                                                          [Page 13]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\nEither:\n\n      (a) That IPng hosts can also use IPv4 or\n      (b) There is translation by an intermediate system\n\n   and either:\n\n      (c) The infrastructure between systems is capable of carrying both\n          IPng and IPv4 or (d) Tunneling or translation is used to carry\n          one protocol within another in parts of the network\n\n   The transition plans espoused by the various proposals are simply\n   different combinations of the above. Experience would tend to show\n   that all these things will in fact happen, regardless of which\n   protocol is chosen.\n\n   One problem of the tunneling/translation process is that there is\n   additional information (the extra address parts) which must be\n   carried across IPv4 tunnels in the network. This can either be\n   carried by adding an extra \"header\" to the data before encapsulation\n   in the IPv4 packet, or by encoding the information as new IPv4 option\n   types. In the former case, it may be difficult to map error messages\n   correctly, since the original packet is truncated before return; in\n   the latter case there is a danger of the packet being discarded (IPv4\n   options are not self-describing and new ones may not pass through\n   IPv4 routers). There is thus the possibility of having to introduce a\n   \"new\" version of IPv4 in order to support IPng tunneling.\n\n   The alternative (in which IPng hosts have two stacks and the\n   infrastructure may or may not support IPng or IPv4) of course\n   requires a mechanism for resolving which protocols to try.\n7\n. Random Comments\nThis is the first fundamental change in the Internet protocols that\n   has occurred since the Internet was manageable as an entity and its\n   development was tied to US government contracts. It was perhaps\n   inevitable that the IETF/IESG/IAB structure would not have evolved to\n   manage a change of this magnitude and it is to be hoped that the new\n   structures that are proposed will be more successful in promoting a\n   (useful) consensus. It is interesting to see that many of the\n   perceived problems of the OSI process (slow progress, factional\n   infighting over trivia, convergence on the lowest-common denominator\n   solution, lack of consideration for the end-user) are in danger of\n   attaching themselves to IPng and it will be interesting to see to\n   what extent these difficulties are an inevitable consequence of wide\n   representation and participation in network design.\nDixon                                                          [Page 14]\nRFC 1454\nComparison of Next Version IP Proposals         May 1993\nIt could be regarded either as a sign of success or failure of the\n   competitive process for the selection of IPng that the three main\n   proposals  have few really significant differences. In this respect,\n   the result of the selection process is not of particular\n   significance, but the process itself is perhaps necessary to repair\n   the social and technical cohesion of the Internet Engineering\n   process.\n8\n. Further Information\nThe main discussion lists for the proposals listed are:\n\n        TUBA:           tuba@lanl.gov\n        PIP:            pip@thumper.bellcore.com\n        SIP:            sip@caldera.usc.edu\n        General:        big-internet@munnari.oz.au\n\n        (Requests to: <list name>-request@<host>)\n\n   Internet-Drafts and RFCs for the various proposals can be found in\n   the usual places.\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Tim Dixon\n   RARE Secretariat\n   Singel 466-468\n   NL-1017AW Amsterdam\n   (Netherlands)\n\n   Phone: +31 20 639 1131 or + 44 91 232 0936\n   EMail: dixon@rare.nl or Tim.Dixon@newcastle.ac.uk\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDixon                                                          [Page 15]\nRFC\n1454\n: Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1993-05-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1993-05-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1993-05-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:22.208264+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "source_id": "46f98bb7de131ba936f1c247", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3935", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935/", "artifact_sha256": "a116d7182bab571620b9f12508d7b7b02a28312732d8b3074cde7e4d22164ad6", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 120644, "title": "RFC 3935: A Mission Statement for the IETF | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 16076, "characters": 16076, "text": "RFC 3935: A Mission Statement for the IETF | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3935\nInfo\nRFC\n3935\n:\nBCP\n95\n:\nA Mission Statement for the IETF\nH. Alvestrand\nBest Current Practice\nNetwork Working Group H. Alvestrand\nRequest for Comments: 3935 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 95 October 2004\nCategory: Best Current Practice\nA Mission Statement for the IETF\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the\nterms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission\nstatement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a\nmission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led\nto this point.\n1\n. Mission Statement\nThe goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.\n\nThe mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant\ntechnical and engineering documents that influence the way people\ndesign, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the\nInternet work better. These documents include protocol standards,\nbest current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.\n\nThe IETF will pursue this mission in adherence to the following\ncardinal principles:\n\nOpen process - any interested person can participate in the work,\nknow what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the\nissue. Part of this principle is our commitment to making our\ndocuments, our WG mailing lists, our attendance lists, and our\nmeeting minutes publicly available on the Internet.\n\nTechnical competence - the issues on which the IETF produces its\ndocuments are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to\nspeak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\ntechnically competent input from any source. Technical competence\nalso means that we expect IETF output to be designed to sound\nnetwork engineering principles - this is also often referred to as\n\"engineering quality\".\n\nVolunteer Core - our participants and our leadership are people who\ncome to the IETF because they want to do work that furthers the\nIETF's mission of \"making the Internet work better\".\n\nRough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the\ncombined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-\nworld experience in implementing and deploying our specifications.\n\nProtocol ownership - when the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or\nfunction, it accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the\nprotocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on\nthe Internet. Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a\nprotocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control over\nit, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet.\n2\n. Definition of Terms\nMission: What an organization sets out to do. This is in contrast to\nits goal (which is what it hopes to achieve by fulfilling its\nmission), and to its activities (which is what specific actions it\ntakes to achieve its mission).\n\nThe Internet: A large, heterogeneous collection of interconnected\nsystems that can be used for communication of many different types\nbetween any interested parties connected to it. The term includes\nboth the \"core Internet\" (ISP networks) and \"edge Internet\"\n(corporate and private networks, often connected via firewalls,\nNAT boxes, application layer gateways and similar devices). The\nInternet is a truly global network, reaching into just about every\ncountry in the world.\nThe IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we\nbelieve that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on\neconomics, communication, and education, will help us to build a\nbetter human society.\n\nStandard: As used here, the term describes a specification of a\nprotocol, system behaviour or procedure that has a unique\nidentifier, and where the IETF has agreed that \"if you want to do\nthis thing, this is the description of how to do it\". It does not\nimply any attempt by the IETF to mandate its use, or any attempt\nto police its usage - only that \"if you say that you are doing\nthis according to this standard, do it this way\". The benefit of\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\na standard to the Internet is in interoperability - that multiple\nproducts implementing a standard are able to work together in\norder to deliver valuable functions to the Internet's users.\n\nParticipants: Individuals who participate in the process are the\nfundamental unit of the IETF organization and the IETF's work.\nThe IETF has found that the process works best when focused around\npeople, rather than around organizations, companies, governments\nor interest groups. That is not to say that these other entities\nare uninteresting - but they are not what constitutes the IETF.\n\nQuality: In this context, the ability to express ideas with enough\nclarity that they can be understood in the same way by all people\nbuilding systems to conform to them, and the ability (and\nwillingness) to describe the properties of the system well enough\nto understand important consequences of its design, and to ensure\nthat those consequences are beneficial to the Internet as a whole.\nIt also means that the specifications are designed with adherence\nto sound network engineering principles, so that use for its\nintended purpose is likely to be effective and not harmful to the\nInternet as a whole.\n\nRelevant: In this context, useful to some group of people who have to\nmake decisions that affect the Internet, including, but not\nlimited to, hardware and software implementors, network builders,\nnetwork operators, and users of the Internet. Note that it does\nnot mean \"correct\" or \"positive\" - a report of an experiment that\nfailed, or a specification that clearly says why you should not\nuse it in a given situation, can be highly relevant - for deciding\nwhat NOT to do. A part of being relevant is being timely - very\noften, documents delivered a year after core decisions have been\ntaken are far less useful than documents that are available to the\ndecision-makers at decision time.\n3\n. The Need for a Mission Statement\nThe IETF has to make decisions. And in some cases, people acting on\nbehalf of the IETF have to make decisions without consulting the\nentire IETF first.\n\nThere are many reasons for this, including the near-impossibility of\ngetting an informed consensus opinion on a complex subject out of a\ncommunity of several thousand people in a short time.\n\nHaving a defined mission is one of the steps we can take in order to\nevaluate alternatives: Does this help or hinder the mission, or is it\northogonal to it? If there are limited resources, are there things\nthat they could be invested in that help the mission better?\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\n(Another step is to choose leaders that we trust to exercise their\ngood judgement and do the right thing. But we're already trying to\ndo that.)\n4\n. Issues with Scoping the IETF's Mission\n4.1\n. The Scope of the Internet\nA very difficult issue in discussing the IETF's mission has been the\nscope of the term \"for the Internet\". The Internet is used for many\nthings, many of which the IETF community has neither interest nor\ncompetence in making standards for.\n\nThe Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want\nthe Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment\nto openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as\ndecentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of\nresources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of\nthe IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the\ntechnology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that\nwe choose to create.\n\nAt the same time, it is clear that many of the IETF-defined\ntechnologies are useful not only for the Internet, but also for\nnetworks that have no direct relation to the Internet itself.\n\nIn attempting to resolve the question of the IETF's scope, perhaps\nthe fairest balance is struck by this formulation: \"protocols and\npractices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected\nto have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to\nform part of the infrastructure of the Internet.\"\n\nIn addition to this constraint, we are also constrained by the\nprinciple of competence: Where we do not have, and cannot gather, the\ncompetence needed to make technically sound standards, we should not\nattempt to take the leadership.\n4.2\n. The Balance Between Research, Invention and Adoption\nThe IETF has traditionally been a community for experimentation with\nthings that are not fully understood, standardization of protocols\nfor which some understanding has been reached, and publication of\n(and refinement of) protocols originally specified outside the IETF\nprocess.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\nAll of these activities have in common that they produce documents -\nbut the documents should be judged by very different criteria when\nthe time to publish comes around, and it's not uncommon to see people\nconfused about what documents are in which category.\n\nIn deciding whether or not these activities should be done within the\nIETF, one should not chiefly look at the type of activity, but the\npotential benefit to the Internet - an experiment that yields\ninformation about the fact that an approach is not viable might be of\ngreater benefit to the Internet than publishing a standard that is\ntechnically competent, but only useful in a few special cases.\n\nFor research of an essentially unbounded nature, with unknown\nprobability of success, it may be more relevant to charter a research\ngroup than a standards group. For activities with a bounded scope -\nsuch as specifying several alternative protocols to the point where\nexperiments can identify the better one for standardization - the\nIETF's working group mechanism may be an appropriate tool.\n4.3\n. The Balance Between Mission and Procedures\nThe mission is intended to state what the IETF is trying to achieve.\nThere are many methods that can be chosen to achieve these outcomes -\nfor instance, the appeals procedure is defined so that we can detect\ncases where our fundamental principles of technical competence and\nopen process has been violated; it is not itself a fundamental value.\n\nSimilarly, the question of what body in the IETF declares that a\ndocument is ready for publication is entirely outside the mission\nstatement; we can imagine changing that without in any way impacting\nwhat the IETF mission is - even though it may significantly impact\nthe ability to achieve that mission.\n4.4\n. The Reach of the Internet\nThe Internet is a global phenomenon. The people interested in its\nevolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of\nlife. The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough\nconsensus and individual participation, and needs to be open to\ncompetent input from any source. The IETF uses the English language\nfor its work is because of its utility for working in a global\ncontext.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\n4.5\n. Protocol Ownership\nA problem akin to the problem of deciding on the area of the IETF's\ncompetence arises when a protocol that is clearly in the IETF's scope\nis used both on and off the Internet - the premier example is of\ncourse the Internet Protocol itself.\n\nSometimes the IETF defines standards that ultimately see the most use\noutside the global Internet. The IETF, having defined the standard,\nwill continue to provide the necessary administration of that\nprotocol.\n\nSometimes the IETF leverages standards that are defined and\nmaintained by other organizations; we continue to work with those\norganizations on their standards and do not attempt to take them\nover.\n5\n. Security Considerations\nConsidering security is one of the core principles of sound network\nengineering for the Internet. Apart from that, it's not relevant to\nthis memo.\n6\n. Acknowledgements\nThis document is a result of many hours of debate, countless reviews,\nand limitless emails. As such, any acknowledgements section is bound\nto be incomplete.\n\nAmong the many who provided input were the current members of the\nIESG (Alex Zinin, Allison Mankin, Bert Wijnen, Bill Fenner, David\nKessens, Jon Peterson, Margaret Wasserman, Russ Housley, Scott\nHollenbeck, Steve Bellovin, Ted Hardie, Thomas Narten) and recent\nIESG members (Ned Freed, Randy Bush, Erik Nordmark), as well as\nmultiple IAB members, and many members from the community, including\nJames Polk, John Klensin, Pekka Savola, Paul Hoffman, Eliot Lear,\nJonne Soininen, Fred Baker, Dean Anderson, John Leslie, Susan Harris,\nand many others. Special thanks go to Leslie Daigle, the IAB chair.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\nHarald Tveit Alvestrand\nCisco Systems\nWeidemanns vei 27\nTrondheim 7043\nNO\n\nEMail: harald@alvestrand.no\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\n\nThis document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions\ncontained in\nBCP 78\n, and except as set forth therein, the authors\nretain all their rights.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein are provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS\nOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,\nINCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE\nINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nIntellectual Property\n\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has\nmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information\non the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can\nbe found in\nBCP 78\nand\nBCP 79\n.\n\nCopies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any\nassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an\nattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of\nsuch proprietary rights by implementers or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at\nhttp://www.ietf.org/ipr\n.\n\nThe IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights that may cover technology that may be required to implement\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-\nipr@ietf.org.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC\n3935\n: A Mission Statement for the IETF\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n1\nIn this section\n1. Mission Statement\n2. Definition of Terms\n3. The Need for a Mission Statement\n4. Issues with Scoping the IETF's Mission\n4.1. The Scope of the Internet\n4.2. The Balance Between Research, Invention and Adoption\n4.3. The Balance Between Mission and Procedures\n4.4. The Reach of the Internet\n4.5. Protocol Ownership\n5. Security Considerations\n6. Acknowledgements\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "cd8ac928-3578-46b4-be74-3f9eb6f9da7f", "document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 3935: A Mission Statement for the IETF | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3935\nInfo\nRFC\n3935\n:\nBCP\n95\n:\nA Mission Statement for the IETF\nH. Alvestrand\nBest Current Practice\nNetwork Working Group H. Alvestrand\nRequest for Comments: 3935 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 95 October 2004\nCategory: Best Current Practice\nA Mission Statement for the IETF\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the\nterms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission\nstatement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a\nmission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led\nto this point.\n1\n. Mission Statement\nThe goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.\n\nThe mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant\ntechnical and engineering documents that influence the way people\ndesign, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the\nInternet work better. These documents include protocol standards,\nbest current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.\n\nThe IETF will pursue this mission in adherence to the following\ncardinal principles:\n\nOpen process - any interested person can participate in the work,\nknow what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the\nissue. Part of this principle is our commitment to making our\ndocuments, our WG mailing lists, our attendance lists, and our\nmeeting minutes publicly available on the Internet.\n\nTechnical competence - the issues on which the IETF produces its\ndocuments are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to\nspeak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\ntechnically competent input from any source. Technical competence\nalso means that we expect IETF output to be designed to sound\nnetwork engineering principles - this is also often referred to as\n\"engineering quality\".", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2255, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 368}}, {"segment_id": "e1e8c266-80a7-460e-b1c4-146f58b5d310", "document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "ordinal": 1, "text": "Volunteer Core - our participants and our leadership are people who\ncome to the IETF because they want to do work that furthers the\nIETF's mission of \"making the Internet work better\".\n\nRough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the\ncombined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-\nworld experience in implementing and deploying our specifications.\n\nProtocol ownership - when the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or\nfunction, it accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the\nprotocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on\nthe Internet. Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a\nprotocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control over\nit, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet.\n2\n. Definition of Terms\nMission: What an organization sets out to do. This is in contrast to\nits goal (which is what it hopes to achieve by fulfilling its\nmission), and to its activities (which is what specific actions it\ntakes to achieve its mission).\n\nThe Internet: A large, heterogeneous collection of interconnected\nsystems that can be used for communication of many different types\nbetween any interested parties connected to it. The term includes\nboth the \"core Internet\" (ISP networks) and \"edge Internet\"\n(corporate and private networks, often connected via firewalls,\nNAT boxes, application layer gateways and similar devices). The\nInternet is a truly global network, reaching into just about every\ncountry in the world.\nThe IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we\nbelieve that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on\neconomics, communication, and education, will help us to build a\nbetter human society.\n\nStandard: As used here, the term describes a specification of a\nprotocol, system behaviour or procedure that has a unique\nidentifier, and where the IETF has agreed that \"if you want to do\nthis thing, this is the description of how to do it\". It does not\nimply any attempt by the IETF to mandate its use, or any attempt\nto police its usage - only that \"if you say that you are doing\nthis according to this standard, do it this way\". The benefit of\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\na standard to the Internet is in interoperability - that multiple\nproducts implementing a standard are able to work together in\norder to deliver valuable functions to the Internet's users.", "char_start": 2257, "char_end": 4695, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 408}}, {"segment_id": "8deb5cb1-951c-41ad-91fc-cfbee804dd1c", "document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "ordinal": 2, "text": "Participants: Individuals who participate in the process are the\nfundamental unit of the IETF organization and the IETF's work.\nThe IETF has found that the process works best when focused around\npeople, rather than around organizations, companies, governments\nor interest groups. That is not to say that these other entities\nare uninteresting - but they are not what constitutes the IETF.\n\nQuality: In this context, the ability to express ideas with enough\nclarity that they can be understood in the same way by all people\nbuilding systems to conform to them, and the ability (and\nwillingness) to describe the properties of the system well enough\nto understand important consequences of its design, and to ensure\nthat those consequences are beneficial to the Internet as a whole.\nIt also means that the specifications are designed with adherence\nto sound network engineering principles, so that use for its\nintended purpose is likely to be effective and not harmful to the\nInternet as a whole.\n\nRelevant: In this context, useful to some group of people who have to\nmake decisions that affect the Internet, including, but not\nlimited to, hardware and software implementors, network builders,\nnetwork operators, and users of the Internet. Note that it does\nnot mean \"correct\" or \"positive\" - a report of an experiment that\nfailed, or a specification that clearly says why you should not\nuse it in a given situation, can be highly relevant - for deciding\nwhat NOT to do. A part of being relevant is being timely - very\noften, documents delivered a year after core decisions have been\ntaken are far less useful than documents that are available to the\ndecision-makers at decision time.\n3\n. The Need for a Mission Statement\nThe IETF has to make decisions. And in some cases, people acting on\nbehalf of the IETF have to make decisions without consulting the\nentire IETF first.", "char_start": 4697, "char_end": 6567, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 314}}, {"segment_id": "6b8cf0b5-a074-40d5-bf5a-4742262e1a5b", "document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "ordinal": 3, "text": "There are many reasons for this, including the near-impossibility of\ngetting an informed consensus opinion on a complex subject out of a\ncommunity of several thousand people in a short time.\n\nHaving a defined mission is one of the steps we can take in order to\nevaluate alternatives: Does this help or hinder the mission, or is it\northogonal to it? If there are limited resources, are there things\nthat they could be invested in that help the mission better?\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\n(Another step is to choose leaders that we trust to exercise their\ngood judgement and do the right thing. But we're already trying to\ndo that.)\n4\n. Issues with Scoping the IETF's Mission\n4.1\n. The Scope of the Internet\nA very difficult issue in discussing the IETF's mission has been the\nscope of the term \"for the Internet\". The Internet is used for many\nthings, many of which the IETF community has neither interest nor\ncompetence in making standards for.\n\nThe Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want\nthe Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment\nto openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as\ndecentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of\nresources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of\nthe IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the\ntechnology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that\nwe choose to create.\n\nAt the same time, it is clear that many of the IETF-defined\ntechnologies are useful not only for the Internet, but also for\nnetworks that have no direct relation to the Internet itself.\n\nIn attempting to resolve the question of the IETF's scope, perhaps\nthe fairest balance is struck by this formulation: \"protocols and\npractices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected\nto have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to\nform part of the infrastructure of the Internet.\"", "char_start": 6569, "char_end": 8556, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 332}}, {"segment_id": "ba06d9e9-545f-44d0-9e61-c66c9ac0cda8", "document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "ordinal": 4, "text": "In addition to this constraint, we are also constrained by the\nprinciple of competence: Where we do not have, and cannot gather, the\ncompetence needed to make technically sound standards, we should not\nattempt to take the leadership.\n4.2\n. The Balance Between Research, Invention and Adoption\nThe IETF has traditionally been a community for experimentation with\nthings that are not fully understood, standardization of protocols\nfor which some understanding has been reached, and publication of\n(and refinement of) protocols originally specified outside the IETF\nprocess.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\nAll of these activities have in common that they produce documents -\nbut the documents should be judged by very different criteria when\nthe time to publish comes around, and it's not uncommon to see people\nconfused about what documents are in which category.\n\nIn deciding whether or not these activities should be done within the\nIETF, one should not chiefly look at the type of activity, but the\npotential benefit to the Internet - an experiment that yields\ninformation about the fact that an approach is not viable might be of\ngreater benefit to the Internet than publishing a standard that is\ntechnically competent, but only useful in a few special cases.\n\nFor research of an essentially unbounded nature, with unknown\nprobability of success, it may be more relevant to charter a research\ngroup than a standards group. For activities with a bounded scope -\nsuch as specifying several alternative protocols to the point where\nexperiments can identify the better one for standardization - the\nIETF's working group mechanism may be an appropriate tool.\n4.3\n. The Balance Between Mission and Procedures\nThe mission is intended to state what the IETF is trying to achieve.\nThere are many methods that can be chosen to achieve these outcomes -\nfor instance, the appeals procedure is defined so that we can detect\ncases where our fundamental principles of technical competence and\nopen process has been violated; it is not itself a fundamental value.", "char_start": 8558, "char_end": 10663, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 341}}, {"segment_id": "7ca49352-526f-4286-a604-3df61cdb097e", "document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "ordinal": 5, "text": "Similarly, the question of what body in the IETF declares that a\ndocument is ready for publication is entirely outside the mission\nstatement; we can imagine changing that without in any way impacting\nwhat the IETF mission is - even though it may significantly impact\nthe ability to achieve that mission.\n4.4\n. The Reach of the Internet\nThe Internet is a global phenomenon. The people interested in its\nevolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of\nlife. The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough\nconsensus and individual participation, and needs to be open to\ncompetent input from any source. The IETF uses the English language\nfor its work is because of its utility for working in a global\ncontext.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\n4.5\n. Protocol Ownership\nA problem akin to the problem of deciding on the area of the IETF's\ncompetence arises when a protocol that is clearly in the IETF's scope\nis used both on and off the Internet - the premier example is of\ncourse the Internet Protocol itself.\n\nSometimes the IETF defines standards that ultimately see the most use\noutside the global Internet. The IETF, having defined the standard,\nwill continue to provide the necessary administration of that\nprotocol.\n\nSometimes the IETF leverages standards that are defined and\nmaintained by other organizations; we continue to work with those\norganizations on their standards and do not attempt to take them\nover.\n5\n. Security Considerations\nConsidering security is one of the core principles of sound network\nengineering for the Internet. Apart from that, it's not relevant to\nthis memo.\n6\n. Acknowledgements\nThis document is a result of many hours of debate, countless reviews,\nand limitless emails. As such, any acknowledgements section is bound\nto be incomplete.", "char_start": 10665, "char_end": 12517, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 307}}, {"segment_id": "4c710b41-3002-4936-b050-1819e121b967", "document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "ordinal": 6, "text": "Among the many who provided input were the current members of the\nIESG (Alex Zinin, Allison Mankin, Bert Wijnen, Bill Fenner, David\nKessens, Jon Peterson, Margaret Wasserman, Russ Housley, Scott\nHollenbeck, Steve Bellovin, Ted Hardie, Thomas Narten) and recent\nIESG members (Ned Freed, Randy Bush, Erik Nordmark), as well as\nmultiple IAB members, and many members from the community, including\nJames Polk, John Klensin, Pekka Savola, Paul Hoffman, Eliot Lear,\nJonne Soininen, Fred Baker, Dean Anderson, John Leslie, Susan Harris,\nand many others. Special thanks go to Leslie Daigle, the IAB chair.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\nHarald Tveit Alvestrand\nCisco Systems\nWeidemanns vei 27\nTrondheim 7043\nNO\n\nEMail: harald@alvestrand.no\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3935\nIETF Mission Statement October 2004\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\n\nThis document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions\ncontained in\nBCP 78\n, and except as set forth therein, the authors\nretain all their rights.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein are provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS\nOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,\nINCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE\nINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nIntellectual Property\n\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has\nmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information\non the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can\nbe found in\nBCP 78\nand\nBCP 79\n.", "char_start": 12519, "char_end": 14554, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 321}}, {"segment_id": "86f1fa13-5f51-4cf9-be5b-4de1ffb7ab87", "document_id": "188b234f-abf6-48b5-8d07-59f852018b7c", "ordinal": 7, "text": "Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any\nassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an\nattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of\nsuch proprietary rights by implementers or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at\nhttp://www.ietf.org/ipr\n.\n\nThe IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights that may cover technology that may be required to implement\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-\nipr@ietf.org.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC\n3935\n: A Mission Statement for the IETF\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n1\nIn this section\n1. Mission Statement\n2. Definition of Terms\n3. The Need for a Mission Statement\n4. Issues with Scoping the IETF's Mission\n4.1. The Scope of the Internet\n4.2. The Balance Between Research, Invention and Adoption\n4.3. The Balance Between Mission and Procedures\n4.4. The Reach of the Internet\n4.5. Protocol Ownership\n5. Security Considerations\n6. Acknowledgements\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 14556, "char_end": 16076, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 237}}], "published_at": "2004-10-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2004-10-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 3935 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 95 October 2004", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "1b63a5cb-58d5-42a6-9538-10b6982c35b5", "source_id": "582b12a5a01eac81c8316800", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7258", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258/", "artifact_sha256": "10dd51e4f38ddc09405658acaea1a7135a9e9b19ab2f46a6862e7dc16c88257a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 118173, "title": "RFC 7258: Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 12977, "characters": 12977, "text": "RFC 7258: Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 7258\nInfo\nRFC\n7258\n:\nBCP\n188\n:\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\nS. Farrell\n,\nH. Tschofenig\nBest Current Practice\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Farrell\nRequest for Comments: 7258 Trinity College Dublin\nBCP: 188 H. Tschofenig\nCategory: Best Current Practice ARM Ltd.\nISSN: 2070-1721 May 2014\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\nAbstract\n\nPervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated\nin the design of IETF protocols, where possible.\n\nStatus of This Memo\n\nThis memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.\n\nThis document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force\n(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has\nreceived public review and has been approved for publication by the\nInternet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on\nBCPs is available in\nSection 2 of RFC 5741\n.\n\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata,\nand how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258\n.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n\nThis document is subject to\nBCP 78\nand the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttp://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect\nto this document. Code Components extracted from this document must\ninclude Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of\nthe Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as\ndescribed in the Simplified BSD License.\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\n1\n. Pervasive Monitoring Is a Widespread Attack on Privacy\nPervasive Monitoring (PM) is widespread (and often covert)\nsurveillance through intrusive gathering of protocol artefacts,\nincluding application content, or protocol metadata such as headers.\nActive or passive wiretaps and traffic analysis, (e.g., correlation,\ntiming or measuring packet sizes), or subverting the cryptographic\nkeys used to secure protocols can also be used as part of pervasive\nmonitoring. PM is distinguished by being indiscriminate and very\nlarge scale, rather than by introducing new types of technical\ncompromise.\n\nThe IETF community's technical assessment is that PM is an attack on\nthe privacy of Internet users and organisations. The IETF community\nhas expressed strong agreement that PM is an attack that needs to be\nmitigated where possible, via the design of protocols that make PM\nsignificantly more expensive or infeasible. Pervasive monitoring was\ndiscussed at the technical plenary of the November 2013 IETF meeting\n[\nIETF88Plenary\n] and then through extensive exchanges on IETF mailing\nlists. This document records the IETF community's consensus and\nestablishes the technical nature of PM.\n\nThe term \"attack\" is used here in a technical sense that differs\nsomewhat from common English usage. In common English usage, an\nattack is an aggressive action perpetrated by an opponent, intended\nto enforce the opponent's will on the attacked party. The term is\nused here to refer to behavior that subverts the intent of\ncommunicating parties without the agreement of those parties. An\nattack may change the content of the communication, record the\ncontent or external characteristics of the communication, or through\ncorrelation with other communication events, reveal information the\nparties did not intend to be revealed. It may also have other\neffects that similarly subvert the intent of a communicator.\n[\nRFC4949\n] contains a more complete definition for the term \"attack\".\nWe also use the term in the singular here, even though PM in reality\nmay consist of a multifaceted set of coordinated attacks.\n\nIn particular, the term \"attack\", used technically, implies nothing\nabout the motivation of the actor mounting the attack. The\nmotivation for PM can range from non-targeted nation-state\nsurveillance, to legal but privacy-unfriendly purposes by commercial\nenterprises, to illegal actions by criminals. The same techniques to\nachieve PM can be used regardless of motivation. Thus, we cannot\ndefend against the most nefarious actors while allowing monitoring by\nother actors no matter how benevolent some might consider them to be,\nsince the actions required of the attacker are indistinguishable from\nother attacks. The motivation for PM is, therefore, not relevant for\nhow PM is mitigated in IETF protocols.\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\n2\n. The IETF Will Work to Mitigate Pervasive Monitoring\n\"Mitigation\" is a technical term that does not imply an ability to\ncompletely prevent or thwart an attack. Protocols that mitigate PM\nwill not prevent the attack but can significantly change the threat.\n(See the diagram on page 24 of\nRFC 4949\nfor how the terms \"attack\"\nand \"threat\" are related.) This can significantly increase the cost\nof attacking, force what was covert to be overt, or make the attack\nmore likely to be detected, possibly later.\n\nIETF standards already provide mechanisms to protect Internet\ncommunications and there are guidelines [\nRFC3552\n] for applying these\nin protocol design. But those standards generally do not address PM,\nthe confidentiality of protocol metadata, countering traffic\nanalysis, or data minimisation. In all cases, there will remain some\nprivacy-relevant information that is inevitably disclosed by\nprotocols. As technology advances, techniques that were once only\navailable to extremely well-funded actors become more widely\naccessible. Mitigating PM is therefore a protection against a wide\nrange of similar attacks.\n\nIt is therefore timely to revisit the security and privacy properties\nof our standards. The IETF will work to mitigate the technical\naspects of PM, just as we do for protocol vulnerabilities in general.\nThe ways in which IETF protocols mitigate PM will change over time as\nmitigation and attack techniques evolve and so are not described\nhere.\n\nThose developing IETF specifications need to be able to describe how\nthey have considered PM, and, if the attack is relevant to the work\nto be published, be able to justify related design decisions. This\ndoes not mean a new \"pervasive monitoring considerations\" section is\nneeded in IETF documentation. It means that, if asked, there needs\nto be a good answer to the question \"Is pervasive monitoring relevant\nto this work and if so, how has it been considered?\"\n\nIn particular, architectural decisions, including which existing\ntechnology is reused, may significantly impact the vulnerability of a\nprotocol to PM. Those developing IETF specifications therefore need\nto consider mitigating PM when making architectural decisions.\nGetting adequate, early review of architectural decisions including\nwhether appropriate mitigation of PM can be made is important.\nRevisiting these architectural decisions late in the process is very\ncostly.\n\nWhile PM is an attack, other forms of monitoring that might fit the\ndefinition of PM can be beneficial and not part of any attack, e.g.,\nnetwork management functions monitor packets or flows and anti-spam\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\nmechanisms need to see mail message content. Some monitoring can\neven be part of the mitigation for PM, for example, certificate\ntransparency [\nRFC6962\n] involves monitoring Public Key Infrastructure\nin ways that could detect some PM attack techniques. However, there\nis clear potential for monitoring mechanisms to be abused for PM, so\nthis tension needs careful consideration in protocol design. Making\nnetworks unmanageable to mitigate PM is not an acceptable outcome,\nbut ignoring PM would go against the consensus documented here. An\nappropriate balance will emerge over time as real instances of this\ntension are considered.\n\nFinally, the IETF, as a standards development organisation, does not\ncontrol the implementation or deployment of our specifications\n(though IETF participants do develop many implementations), nor does\nthe IETF standardise all layers of the protocol stack. Moreover, the\nnon-technical (e.g., legal and political) aspects of mitigating\npervasive monitoring are outside of the scope of the IETF. The\nbroader Internet community will need to step forward to tackle PM, if\nit is to be fully addressed.\n\nTo summarise: current capabilities permit some actors to monitor\ncontent and metadata across the Internet at a scale never before\nseen. This pervasive monitoring is an attack on Internet privacy.\nThe IETF will strive to produce specifications that mitigate\npervasive monitoring attacks.\n3\n. Process Note\nIn the past, architectural statements of this sort, e.g., [\nRFC1984\n]\nand [\nRFC2804\n], have been published as joint products of the Internet\nEngineering Steering Group (IESG) and the Internet Architecture Board\n(IAB). However, since those documents were published, the IETF and\nIAB have separated their publication \"streams\" as described in\n[\nRFC4844\n] and [\nRFC5741\n]. This document was initiated after\ndiscussions in both the IESG and IAB, but is published as an IETF-\nstream consensus document, in order to ensure that it properly\nreflects the consensus of the IETF community as a whole.\n4\n. Security Considerations\nThis document is entirely about privacy. More information about the\nrelationship between security and privacy threats can be found in\n[\nRFC6973\n].\nSection 5.1.1 of [RFC6973]\nspecifically addresses\nsurveillance as a combined security-privacy threat.\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\n5\n. Acknowledgements\nWe would like to thank the participants of the IETF 88 technical\nplenary for their feedback. Thanks in particular to the following\nfor useful suggestions or comments: Jari Arkko, Fred Baker, Marc\nBlanchet, Tim Bray, Scott Brim, Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Benoit\nClaise, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins, Avri Doria,\nWesley Eddy, Adrian Farrel, Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Phillip\nHallam-Baker, Ted Hardie, Sam Hartmann, Paul Hoffman, Bjoern\nHoehrmann, Russ Housley, Joel Jaeggli, Stephen Kent, Eliot Lear,\nBarry Leiba, Ted Lemon, Subramanian Moonesamy, Erik Nordmark, Pete\nResnick, Peter Saint-Andre, Andrew Sullivan, Sean Turner, Nicholas\nWeaver, Stefan Winter, and Lloyd Wood. Additionally, we would like\nto thank all those who contributed suggestions on how to improve\nInternet security and privacy or who commented on this on various\nIETF mailing lists, such as the ietf@ietf.org and the\nperpass@ietf.org lists.\n6\n. Informative References\n[\nIETF88Plenary\n]\nIETF, \"IETF 88 Plenary Meeting Materials\", November 2013,\n<\nhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/\n>.\n\n[\nRFC1984\n] IAB, IESG, Carpenter, B., and F. Baker, \"IAB and IESG\nStatement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet\",\nRFC 1984\n, August 1996.\n\n[\nRFC2804\n] IAB and IESG, \"IETF Policy on Wiretapping\",\nRFC 2804\n, May\n2000.\n\n[\nRFC3552\n] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, \"Guidelines for Writing RFC\nText on Security Considerations\",\nBCP 72\n,\nRFC 3552\n, July\n2003.\n\n[\nRFC4844\n] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, \"The RFC\nSeries and RFC Editor\",\nRFC 4844\n, July 2007.\n\n[\nRFC4949\n] Shirey, R., \"Internet Security Glossary, Version 2\",\nRFC\n4949\n, August 2007.\n\n[\nRFC5741\n] Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, \"RFC Streams, Headers,\nand Boilerplates\",\nRFC 5741\n, December 2009.\n\n[\nRFC6962\n] Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, \"Certificate\nTransparency\",\nRFC 6962\n, June 2013.\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\n[\nRFC6973\n] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,\nMorris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, \"Privacy\nConsiderations for Internet Protocols\",\nRFC 6973\n, July\n2013.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nStephen Farrell\nTrinity College Dublin\nDublin 2\nIreland\n\nPhone: +353-1-896-2354\nEMail: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie\n\nHannes Tschofenig\nARM Ltd.\n6060 Hall in Tirol\nAustria\n\nEMail: Hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net\nURI:\nhttp://www.tschofenig.priv.at\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC\n7258\n: Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Pervasive Monitoring Is a Widespread Attack on Privacy\n2. The IETF Will Work to Mitigate Pervasive Monitoring\n3. Process Note\n4. Security Considerations\n5. Acknowledgements\n6. Informative References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ec190add-b803-4c98-9be5-7a3a78b57301", "document_id": "1b63a5cb-58d5-42a6-9538-10b6982c35b5", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 7258: Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 7258\nInfo\nRFC\n7258\n:\nBCP\n188\n:\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\nS. Farrell\n,\nH. Tschofenig\nBest Current Practice\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Farrell\nRequest for Comments: 7258 Trinity College Dublin\nBCP: 188 H. Tschofenig\nCategory: Best Current Practice ARM Ltd.\nISSN: 2070-1721 May 2014\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\nAbstract\n\nPervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated\nin the design of IETF protocols, where possible.\n\nStatus of This Memo\n\nThis memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.\n\nThis document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force\n(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has\nreceived public review and has been approved for publication by the\nInternet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on\nBCPs is available in\nSection 2 of RFC 5741\n.\n\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata,\nand how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258\n.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n\nThis document is subject to\nBCP 78\nand the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttp://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect\nto this document. Code Components extracted from this document must\ninclude Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of\nthe Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as\ndescribed in the Simplified BSD License.\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\n1\n. Pervasive Monitoring Is a Widespread Attack on Privacy\nPervasive Monitoring (PM) is widespread (and often covert)\nsurveillance through intrusive gathering of protocol artefacts,\nincluding application content, or protocol metadata such as headers.\nActive or passive wiretaps and traffic analysis, (e.g., correlation,\ntiming or measuring packet sizes), or subverting the cryptographic\nkeys used to secure protocols can also be used as part of pervasive\nmonitoring. PM is distinguished by being indiscriminate and very\nlarge scale, rather than by introducing new types of technical\ncompromise.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2510, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 384}}, {"segment_id": "ac3b53e4-38d4-4972-b597-946513d31f3c", "document_id": "1b63a5cb-58d5-42a6-9538-10b6982c35b5", "ordinal": 1, "text": "The IETF community's technical assessment is that PM is an attack on\nthe privacy of Internet users and organisations. The IETF community\nhas expressed strong agreement that PM is an attack that needs to be\nmitigated where possible, via the design of protocols that make PM\nsignificantly more expensive or infeasible. Pervasive monitoring was\ndiscussed at the technical plenary of the November 2013 IETF meeting\n[\nIETF88Plenary\n] and then through extensive exchanges on IETF mailing\nlists. This document records the IETF community's consensus and\nestablishes the technical nature of PM.\n\nThe term \"attack\" is used here in a technical sense that differs\nsomewhat from common English usage. In common English usage, an\nattack is an aggressive action perpetrated by an opponent, intended\nto enforce the opponent's will on the attacked party. The term is\nused here to refer to behavior that subverts the intent of\ncommunicating parties without the agreement of those parties. An\nattack may change the content of the communication, record the\ncontent or external characteristics of the communication, or through\ncorrelation with other communication events, reveal information the\nparties did not intend to be revealed. It may also have other\neffects that similarly subvert the intent of a communicator.\n[\nRFC4949\n] contains a more complete definition for the term \"attack\".\nWe also use the term in the singular here, even though PM in reality\nmay consist of a multifaceted set of coordinated attacks.\n\nIn particular, the term \"attack\", used technically, implies nothing\nabout the motivation of the actor mounting the attack. The\nmotivation for PM can range from non-targeted nation-state\nsurveillance, to legal but privacy-unfriendly purposes by commercial\nenterprises, to illegal actions by criminals. The same techniques to\nachieve PM can be used regardless of motivation. Thus, we cannot\ndefend against the most nefarious actors while allowing monitoring by\nother actors no matter how benevolent some might consider them to be,\nsince the actions required of the attacker are indistinguishable from\nother attacks. The motivation for PM is, therefore, not relevant for\nhow PM is mitigated in IETF protocols.\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\n2\n. The IETF Will Work to Mitigate Pervasive Monitoring\n\"Mitigation\" is a technical term that does not imply an ability to\ncompletely prevent or thwart an attack. Protocols that mitigate PM\nwill not prevent the attack but can significantly change the threat.\n(See the diagram on page 24 of\nRFC 4949\nfor how the terms \"attack\"\nand \"threat\" are related.) This can significantly increase the cost\nof attacking, force what was covert to be overt, or make the attack\nmore likely to be detected, possibly later.", "char_start": 2512, "char_end": 5324, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 448}}, {"segment_id": "26633076-215b-4cfa-bd7a-0b15cda6675e", "document_id": "1b63a5cb-58d5-42a6-9538-10b6982c35b5", "ordinal": 2, "text": "IETF standards already provide mechanisms to protect Internet\ncommunications and there are guidelines [\nRFC3552\n] for applying these\nin protocol design. But those standards generally do not address PM,\nthe confidentiality of protocol metadata, countering traffic\nanalysis, or data minimisation. In all cases, there will remain some\nprivacy-relevant information that is inevitably disclosed by\nprotocols. As technology advances, techniques that were once only\navailable to extremely well-funded actors become more widely\naccessible. Mitigating PM is therefore a protection against a wide\nrange of similar attacks.\n\nIt is therefore timely to revisit the security and privacy properties\nof our standards. The IETF will work to mitigate the technical\naspects of PM, just as we do for protocol vulnerabilities in general.\nThe ways in which IETF protocols mitigate PM will change over time as\nmitigation and attack techniques evolve and so are not described\nhere.\n\nThose developing IETF specifications need to be able to describe how\nthey have considered PM, and, if the attack is relevant to the work\nto be published, be able to justify related design decisions. This\ndoes not mean a new \"pervasive monitoring considerations\" section is\nneeded in IETF documentation. It means that, if asked, there needs\nto be a good answer to the question \"Is pervasive monitoring relevant\nto this work and if so, how has it been considered?\"\n\nIn particular, architectural decisions, including which existing\ntechnology is reused, may significantly impact the vulnerability of a\nprotocol to PM. Those developing IETF specifications therefore need\nto consider mitigating PM when making architectural decisions.\nGetting adequate, early review of architectural decisions including\nwhether appropriate mitigation of PM can be made is important.\nRevisiting these architectural decisions late in the process is very\ncostly.", "char_start": 5326, "char_end": 7222, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 286}}, {"segment_id": "9abc503f-e632-4370-9e96-5097bae291b9", "document_id": "1b63a5cb-58d5-42a6-9538-10b6982c35b5", "ordinal": 3, "text": "While PM is an attack, other forms of monitoring that might fit the\ndefinition of PM can be beneficial and not part of any attack, e.g.,\nnetwork management functions monitor packets or flows and anti-spam\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\nmechanisms need to see mail message content. Some monitoring can\neven be part of the mitigation for PM, for example, certificate\ntransparency [\nRFC6962\n] involves monitoring Public Key Infrastructure\nin ways that could detect some PM attack techniques. However, there\nis clear potential for monitoring mechanisms to be abused for PM, so\nthis tension needs careful consideration in protocol design. Making\nnetworks unmanageable to mitigate PM is not an acceptable outcome,\nbut ignoring PM would go against the consensus documented here. An\nappropriate balance will emerge over time as real instances of this\ntension are considered.\n\nFinally, the IETF, as a standards development organisation, does not\ncontrol the implementation or deployment of our specifications\n(though IETF participants do develop many implementations), nor does\nthe IETF standardise all layers of the protocol stack. Moreover, the\nnon-technical (e.g., legal and political) aspects of mitigating\npervasive monitoring are outside of the scope of the IETF. The\nbroader Internet community will need to step forward to tackle PM, if\nit is to be fully addressed.\n\nTo summarise: current capabilities permit some actors to monitor\ncontent and metadata across the Internet at a scale never before\nseen. This pervasive monitoring is an attack on Internet privacy.\nThe IETF will strive to produce specifications that mitigate\npervasive monitoring attacks.\n3\n. Process Note\nIn the past, architectural statements of this sort, e.g., [\nRFC1984\n]\nand [\nRFC2804\n], have been published as joint products of the Internet\nEngineering Steering Group (IESG) and the Internet Architecture Board\n(IAB). However, since those documents were published, the IETF and\nIAB have separated their publication \"streams\" as described in\n[\nRFC4844\n] and [\nRFC5741\n]. This document was initiated after\ndiscussions in both the IESG and IAB, but is published as an IETF-\nstream consensus document, in order to ensure that it properly\nreflects the consensus of the IETF community as a whole.\n4\n. Security Considerations\nThis document is entirely about privacy. More information about the\nrelationship between security and privacy threats can be found in\n[\nRFC6973\n].\nSection 5.1.1 of [RFC6973]\nspecifically addresses\nsurveillance as a combined security-privacy threat.\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\n5\n. Acknowledgements\nWe would like to thank the participants of the IETF 88 technical\nplenary for their feedback. Thanks in particular to the following\nfor useful suggestions or comments: Jari Arkko, Fred Baker, Marc\nBlanchet, Tim Bray, Scott Brim, Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Benoit\nClaise, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins, Avri Doria,\nWesley Eddy, Adrian Farrel, Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Phillip\nHallam-Baker, Ted Hardie, Sam Hartmann, Paul Hoffman, Bjoern\nHoehrmann, Russ Housley, Joel Jaeggli, Stephen Kent, Eliot Lear,\nBarry Leiba, Ted Lemon, Subramanian Moonesamy, Erik Nordmark, Pete\nResnick, Peter Saint-Andre, Andrew Sullivan, Sean Turner, Nicholas\nWeaver, Stefan Winter, and Lloyd Wood. Additionally, we would like\nto thank all those who contributed suggestions on how to improve\nInternet security and privacy or who commented on this on various\nIETF mailing lists, such as the ietf@ietf.org and the\nperpass@ietf.org lists.\n6\n. Informative References\n[\nIETF88Plenary\n]\nIETF, \"IETF 88 Plenary Meeting Materials\", November 2013,\n<\nhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/\n>.", "char_start": 7224, "char_end": 11025, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 581}}, {"segment_id": "6783d923-eb19-4115-94cc-0a14ad9de3d1", "document_id": "1b63a5cb-58d5-42a6-9538-10b6982c35b5", "ordinal": 4, "text": "[\nRFC1984\n] IAB, IESG, Carpenter, B., and F. Baker, \"IAB and IESG\nStatement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet\",\nRFC 1984\n, August 1996.\n\n[\nRFC2804\n] IAB and IESG, \"IETF Policy on Wiretapping\",\nRFC 2804\n, May\n2000.\n\n[\nRFC3552\n] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, \"Guidelines for Writing RFC\nText on Security Considerations\",\nBCP 72\n,\nRFC 3552\n, July\n2003.\n\n[\nRFC4844\n] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, \"The RFC\nSeries and RFC Editor\",\nRFC 4844\n, July 2007.\n\n[\nRFC4949\n] Shirey, R., \"Internet Security Glossary, Version 2\",\nRFC\n4949\n, August 2007.\n\n[\nRFC5741\n] Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, \"RFC Streams, Headers,\nand Boilerplates\",\nRFC 5741\n, December 2009.\n\n[\nRFC6962\n] Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, \"Certificate\nTransparency\",\nRFC 6962\n, June 2013.\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 7258\nPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014\n[\nRFC6973\n] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,\nMorris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, \"Privacy\nConsiderations for Internet Protocols\",\nRFC 6973\n, July\n2013.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nStephen Farrell\nTrinity College Dublin\nDublin 2\nIreland\n\nPhone: +353-1-896-2354\nEMail: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie\n\nHannes Tschofenig\nARM Ltd.\n6060 Hall in Tirol\nAustria\n\nEMail: Hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net\nURI:\nhttp://www.tschofenig.priv.at\nFarrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC\n7258\n: Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Pervasive Monitoring Is a Widespread Attack on Privacy\n2. The IETF Will Work to Mitigate Pervasive Monitoring\n3. Process Note\n4. Security Considerations\n5. Acknowledgements\n6. Informative References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 11027, "char_end": 12977, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 302}}], "published_at": "2014-05-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2014-05-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 7258 Trinity College Dublin\nBCP: 188 H. Tschofenig\nCategory: Best Current Practice ARM Ltd.\nISSN: 2070-1721 May 2014", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "1dbc1d0c-6289-4391-89d7-b77856cce1d5", "source_id": "9333faf764f264a62bce5907", "source": "UN", "source_url": "https://www.un.org/techenvoy/", "final_url": "https://www.un.org/digital-emerging-technologies/", "artifact_sha256": "10d9377a86314f929bcaf201cd920395c6b6d3f48a0343fb3fc39bc73537ee63", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 65868, "title": "Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies |", "language": "en", "text_length": 2541, "characters": 2541, "text": "Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies |\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\nToggle navigation\nLanguage:\nعربي\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nOffice for Digital and Emerging Technologies\nSearch form\nA-Z Site Index\nSearch\nToggle navigation\nHome\nGlobal Digital Compact\nEndorse the Global Digital Compact\nUN Digital Cooperation Portal\nAI Governance\nIndependent International Scientific Panel on AI\nGlobal Dialogue on AI Governance\nAI Governance for Humanity Lab\nHLAB on Artificial Intelligence (2023–2024)\nDigital Public Infrastructure\nEvents\nPast Events\nIndia AI Impact Summit (February 2026)\nBuilding the Commons (December 2025)\nUN Digital Cooperation Day (September 2025)\nSTI Forum Action Day (May 2025)\nUN Open Source Week 2026 (June 2026)\nUN Digital Cooperation Day (September 2026)\nAbout\nContact\nNews and Resources\nHomepage\nYour browser does not support the video tag.\n→ Just released:\nPreliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI —\nRead it now\nAdvancing Global Technology Cooperation for a Better Future\nThe United Nations Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies (ODET) was established by the General Assembly on 1 January 2025 to advance inclusive, rights-based and multi-stakeholder digital cooperation that respects national priorities and contexts. ODET also serve as the United Nations system-wide focal point for digital issues.\n↓\nexplore more\nWhat ODET Is Working On\nDigital Cooperation Portal\nGlobal Digital Compact\nAI Governance Cooperation\nDigital Public Infrastructure Cooperation\nDigital Transformation\nOpen Source Cooperation\nFeatured Reports\nPreliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI\nReport of the Secretary-General: Innovative Voluntary Financing Options for Artificial Intelligence Capacity-Building\nReference documents\nOverview of consultation process\nStrategic Pathways for AI Capacity Building\nOverview of UN system AI capacity-building activities in the civilian domain\nOverview of AI capacity-building financing announcements 2020–2025\nCase Studies of Existing Innovative Financing Mechanisms and how they could be adapted for AI Capacity Building in LMICs\nGoverning AI for Humanity\nMind the AI Divide\nThe Universal DPI Safeguards Framework\nUN Open Source Week 2025 Conference Report\nStay Up to Date\nLinkedIn\nX\nBluesky\nTech Envoy’s Substack\nNews & Resources\nMailing List\nSign Up for Updates\nDonate\nfacebook\ntwitter\nyoutube\nflickr\ninstagram\nFooter\nA-Z Site Index\nContact\nCopyright\nFAQ\nFraud Alert\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use", "segments": [{"segment_id": "94eb8480-0b3f-4c35-b3ed-1e914df5a880", "document_id": "1dbc1d0c-6289-4391-89d7-b77856cce1d5", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies |\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\nToggle navigation\nLanguage:\nعربي\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nOffice for Digital and Emerging Technologies\nSearch form\nA-Z Site Index\nSearch\nToggle navigation\nHome\nGlobal Digital Compact\nEndorse the Global Digital Compact\nUN Digital Cooperation Portal\nAI Governance\nIndependent International Scientific Panel on AI\nGlobal Dialogue on AI Governance\nAI Governance for Humanity Lab\nHLAB on Artificial Intelligence (2023–2024)\nDigital Public Infrastructure\nEvents\nPast Events\nIndia AI Impact Summit (February 2026)\nBuilding the Commons (December 2025)\nUN Digital Cooperation Day (September 2025)\nSTI Forum Action Day (May 2025)\nUN Open Source Week 2026 (June 2026)\nUN Digital Cooperation Day (September 2026)\nAbout\nContact\nNews and Resources\nHomepage\nYour browser does not support the video tag.\n→ Just released:\nPreliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI —\nRead it now\nAdvancing Global Technology Cooperation for a Better Future\nThe United Nations Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies (ODET) was established by the General Assembly on 1 January 2025 to advance inclusive, rights-based and multi-stakeholder digital cooperation that respects national priorities and contexts. ODET also serve as the United Nations system-wide focal point for digital issues.\n↓\nexplore more\nWhat ODET Is Working On\nDigital Cooperation Portal\nGlobal Digital Compact\nAI Governance Cooperation\nDigital Public Infrastructure Cooperation\nDigital Transformation\nOpen Source Cooperation\nFeatured Reports\nPreliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI\nReport of the Secretary-General: Innovative Voluntary Financing Options for Artificial Intelligence Capacity-Building\nReference documents\nOverview of consultation process\nStrategic Pathways for AI Capacity Building\nOverview of UN system AI capacity-building activities in the civilian domain\nOverview of AI capacity-building financing announcements 2020–2025\nCase Studies of Existing Innovative Financing Mechanisms and how they could be adapted for AI Capacity Building in LMICs\nGoverning AI for Humanity\nMind the AI Divide\nThe Universal DPI Safeguards Framework\nUN Open Source Week 2025 Conference Report\nStay Up to Date\nLinkedIn\nX\nBluesky\nTech Envoy’s Substack\nNews & Resources\nMailing List\nSign Up for Updates\nDonate\nfacebook\ntwitter\nyoutube\nflickr\ninstagram\nFooter\nA-Z Site Index\nContact\nCopyright\nFAQ\nFraud Alert\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2541, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 361}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "1ea6edba-d43e-4fc3-a384-02816cc3b6f5", "source_id": "51080cfe68df0714d1bf3a4f", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/fellowships", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram", "artifact_sha256": "9563efd2fa4ce319fafe56014c6d1c6419b0b33cfc21efaf924948655e3b7a35", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 81518, "title": "ICANN Fellowship Program - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 16900, "characters": 16900, "text": "ICANN Fellowship Program - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Fellowship Program\nAbout\n|\nEligibility\n|\nRequirements\n|\nApply\n|\nDates & Deadlines\n|\nProgram Status\n|\nImportant Links\nAbout\nThe goal of the ICANN Fellowship Program is to strengthen the representation of the multistakeholder model by fostering opportunities for individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities to become active participants in the ICANN community.\nFellows are exposed to the workings of the ICANN community, are assigned a mentor, and receive training across different areas of knowledge and skill building before, during, and after an\nICANN Public Meeting\n. Travel assistance to attend the meeting is also provided.\nFellowship participants come from a variety of backgrounds. Check out program\nparticipants\nand\nstatistics\nfor more information.\nEligibility\nCandidates from all regions and sectors are welcome to apply to the ICANN Fellowship Program.\nParticipants of the Fellowship Program must:\nBe at least 21 years of age\nBe interested in, or already engaged in, the various components of ‌ICANN‍'s work in policy building, the operation of the Domain Name System and the security and stability of the global Internet\nComplete mandatory ‌ICANN‍ Learn course(s); learn more\nhere\nNOT be involved in or associated with other ICA‌NN supported travel programs at time of selection\nPolicy Forum applicants must have successfully completed an ICA‍NN Fellowship\nHave previously received no more than two fellowships; second and third time fellows must prove their involvement and engagement in one of the\nICANN communities\n(learn more\nhere\n)\nReturning fellows will be considered for the Tarek Kamel Fellowship Recognition. The award recognizes outstanding contributions of fellows in furthering ICANN's capacity development efforts in their respective regions. Learn more\nhere\n.\nA selected Fellow, who lives or works in African region with technical background will be considered for Paul Muchene Fellow Award. The Paul Muchene Fellow Award is a tribute to Paul Muchene, an ICANN Fellowship Program participant and ICANN organization staff member who passed away in August 2022. To learn more\nhere\n.\nFor more information, please see the program's\nTerms & Conditions\nand\nSelection Criteria\n.\nRequirements\nFellowship recipients are expected to:\nEngage in\nFellowship Program Mentoring\nprocesses\nComplete additional required ICANN Learn courses\nAttend the ICANN Public Meeting and required activities, including but not limited to ICANN Fellowship sessions during the ICANN Meeting\nNetwork and interact with program alumni and community members\nComplete the post-meeting survey\nParticipants are encouraged to actively contribute to ICANN policy development processes and Fellowship alumni network upon completion of the Fellowship Program.\nApply\nThe Fellowship application round for ICANN88 Community Forum is now\nopen\n. The deadline for submission is 21 August, 2026 at 23:59 UTC Time.\nPlease note, that you need an ICANN Account in order to apply for the Fellowship Program.\nIf ICANN meeting is held virtually, the Fellowship Program will also be held virtually.\nICANN87 Annual General Meeting Fellowship Program Successful Candidates Announced – The\nfollowing individuals\nhad been selected to participate at the ICANN87 Annual General Meeting to be held from 17-22 October, 2026 in Bali, Indonesia.\nFor more information please see program's\nFrequently Asked Questions\n,\nTerms & Conditions\n,\nSelection Criteria\nand\nSelection Committee\n.\nApplication Dates & Deadlines\nICANN Meeting\nICANN Region\nMeeting Dates\nOpening of application round\nClosing of application round\nAnnouncement of selected Fellows\nICANN87 Annual General Meeting in Bali, Indonesia\nAsia Pacific\n17-22 October 2026\n19 March 2026 at 23:59 UTC\nClosed\n18 June 2026 at 23:59 UTC\nICANN88 Community Forum in Lisbon, Portugal\nEurope\n13-18 March 2027\n21 July 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n21 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n10 November 2026 at 23:59 UTC\nICANN89 Policy Forum in Vancouver, Canada *\nNorth America\n14-17 June 2027\n5 November 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n5 December 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n14 February 2027 at 23:59 UTC\n* Only those who have successfully completed an ICANN Fellowship Program (Fellowship Program Alumni) are eligible to apply for a Policy Forum fellowship.\nCurrent Program Status\nThe Fellowship application round for ICANN88 Community Forum is now\nopen\n. The deadline for submission is 21 August, 2026 at 23:59 UTC Time.\nPlease note, that you need an ICANN Account in order to apply for the Fellowship Program.\nIf ICANN meeting is held virtually, the Fellowship Program will also be held virtually**.\n**Virtual participation will incorporate all of the key elements of the Fellowship Program.\nICANN87 Annual General Meeting Fellowship Program Successful Candidates Announced – The\nfollowing individuals\nhad been selected to participate at the ICANN87 Annual General Meeting to be held from 17-22 October, 2026 in Bali, Indonesia.\nThe Fellowship Program Post-Meeting Report for ICANN85 is available\nhere\n.\nImportant Links\nApply to the Fellowship Program\nSubmit an application during open rounds\nTerms & Conditions\nMore information on the program's Terms & Conditions\nUpcoming Application Dates & Deadlines\nPlanned launch dates for future application round\nFAQs\nCheck out frequently asked questions and answers about the Fellowship Program and Fellowship Application Instructions\nFellowship Selection Criteria\nSee Fellowship selection criteria\nICANN Fellowship Program Mentoring\nMore information about the mentoring process\nFellowship Selection Committee\nMore information about the Fellowship Selection Committee.\nNew Fellowship Program Approach\nMore information about the\ncommunity consultation\nand\npublic comment\nprocess to review the Fellowship Program\nList of Fellowship Participants\nSee list of Fellowship Program participants for each ICANN Meeting\nFellowship Program 10 Year Survey Report\n[PDF, 981 KB]\nCheck out the results of the 10 Year Fellowship Survey with program alumni (28 June 2017)\nProgram Statistics\nCheck out statistics on Fellowship participants\nICANN Fellowship Program Promotional Flyer\nTarek Kamel Fellowship Recognition\nMore information about the Tarek Kamel Fellowship Recognition.\nPaul Muchene Fellow Award\nMore information about the Paul Muchene Fellow Award\nPost-Meeting Reports\nRead reports written by the fellows about their experiences and future plans.\n2021 Fellowship Alumni Survey Report\nCheck out the results of the 2021 Fellowship Alumni Survey (17 February 2022)\nArchive\nFor more information, please contact\n[email protected]\n.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "cd83914a-a33b-47d0-83ba-24c645e963f1", "document_id": "1ea6edba-d43e-4fc3-a384-02816cc3b6f5", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Fellowship Program - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Fellowship Program\nAbout\n|\nEligibility\n|\nRequirements\n|\nApply\n|\nDates & Deadlines\n|\nProgram Status\n|\nImportant Links\nAbout\nThe goal of the ICANN Fellowship Program is to strengthen the representation of the multistakeholder model by fostering opportunities for individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities to become active participants in the ICANN community.\nFellows are exposed to the workings of the ICANN community, are assigned a mentor, and receive training across different areas of knowledge and skill building before, during, and after an\nICANN Public Meeting\n. Travel assistance to attend the meeting is also provided.\nFellowship participants come from a variety of backgrounds. Check out program\nparticipants\nand\nstatistics\nfor more information.\nEligibility\nCandidates from all regions and sectors are welcome to apply to the ICANN Fellowship Program.\nParticipants of the Fellowship Program must:\nBe at least 21 years of age\nBe interested in, or already engaged in, the various components of ‌ICANN‍'s work in policy building, the operation of the Domain Name System and the security and stability of the global Internet\nComplete mandatory ‌ICANN‍ Learn course(s); learn more\nhere\nNOT be involved in or associated with other ICA‌NN supported travel programs at time of selection\nPolicy Forum applicants must have successfully completed an ICA‍NN Fellowship\nHave previously received no more than two fellowships; second and third time fellows must prove their involvement and engagement in one of the\nICANN communities\n(learn more\nhere\n)\nReturning fellows will be considered for the Tarek Kamel Fellowship Recognition. The award recognizes outstanding contributions of fellows in furthering ICANN's capacity development efforts in their respective regions. Learn more\nhere\n.\nA selected Fellow, who lives or works in African region with technical background will be considered for Paul Muchene Fellow Award. The Paul Muchene Fellow Award is a tribute to Paul Muchene, an ICANN Fellowship Program participant and ICANN organization staff member who passed away in August 2022. To learn more\nhere\n.\nFor more information, please see the program's\nTerms & Conditions\nand\nSelection Criteria\n.\nRequirements\nFellowship recipients are expected to:\nEngage in\nFellowship Program Mentoring\nprocesses\nComplete additional required ICANN Learn courses\nAttend the ICANN Public Meeting and required activities, including but not limited to ICANN Fellowship sessions during the ICANN Meeting\nNetwork and interact with program alumni and community members\nComplete the post-meeting survey\nParticipants are encouraged to actively contribute to ICANN policy development processes and Fellowship alumni network upon completion of the Fellowship Program.\nApply\nThe Fellowship application round for ICANN88 Community Forum is now\nopen\n. The deadline for submission is 21 August, 2026 at 23:59 UTC Time.\nPlease note, that you need an ICANN Account in order to apply for the Fellowship Program.\nIf ICANN meeting is held virtually, the Fellowship Program will also be held virtually.\nICANN87 Annual General Meeting Fellowship Program Successful Candidates Announced – The\nfollowing individuals\nhad been selected to participate at the ICANN87 Annual General Meeting to be held from 17-22 October, 2026 in Bali, Indonesia.\nFor more information please see program's\nFrequently Asked Questions\n,\nTerms & Conditions\n,\nSelection Criteria\nand\nSelection Committee\n.\nApplication Dates & Deadlines\nICANN Meeting\nICANN Region\nMeeting Dates\nOpening of application round\nClosing of application round\nAnnouncement of selected Fellows\nICANN87 Annual General Meeting in Bali, Indonesia\nAsia Pacific\n17-22 October 2026\n19 March 2026 at 23:59 UTC\nClosed\n18 June 2026 at 23:59 UTC\nICANN88 Community Forum in Lisbon, Portugal\nEurope\n13-18 March 2027\n21 July 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n21 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n10 November 2026 at 23:59 UTC\nICANN89 Policy Forum in Vancouver, Canada *\nNorth America\n14-17 June 2027\n5 November 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n5 December 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n14 February 2027 at 23:59 UTC\n* Only those who have successfully completed an ICANN Fellowship Program (Fellowship Program Alumni) are eligible to apply for a Policy Forum fellowship.\nCurrent Program Status\nThe Fellowship application round for ICANN88 Community Forum is now\nopen\n. The deadline for submission is 21 August, 2026 at 23:59 UTC Time.\nPlease note, that you need an ICANN Account in order to apply for the Fellowship Program.\nIf ICANN meeting is held virtually, the Fellowship Program will also be held virtually**.\n**Virtual participation will incorporate all of the key elements of the Fellowship Program.\nICANN87 Annual General Meeting Fellowship Program Successful Candidates Announced – The\nfollowing individuals\nhad been selected to participate at the ICANN87 Annual General Meeting to be held from 17-22 October, 2026 in Bali, Indonesia.\nThe Fellowship Program Post-Meeting Report for ICANN85 is available\nhere\n.\nImportant Links\nApply to the Fellowship Program\nSubmit an application during open rounds\nTerms & Conditions\nMore information on the program's Terms & Conditions\nUpcoming Application Dates & Deadlines\nPlanned launch dates for future application round\nFAQs\nCheck out frequently asked questions and answers about the Fellowship Program and Fellowship Application Instructions\nFellowship Selection Criteria\nSee Fellowship selection criteria\nICANN Fellowship Program Mentoring\nMore information about the mentoring process\nFellowship Selection Committee\nMore information about the Fellowship Selection Committee.\nNew Fellowship Program Approach\nMore information about the\ncommunity consultation\nand\npublic comment\nprocess to review the Fellowship Program\nList of Fellowship Participants\nSee list of Fellowship Program participants for each ICANN Meeting\nFellowship Program 10 Year Survey Report\n[PDF, 981 KB]\nCheck out the results of the 10 Year Fellowship Survey with program alumni (28 June 2017)\nProgram Statistics\nCheck out statistics on Fellowship participants\nICANN Fellowship Program Promotional Flyer\nTarek Kamel Fellowship Recognition\nMore information about the Tarek Kamel Fellowship Recognition.\nPaul Muchene Fellow Award\nMore information about the Paul Muchene Fellow Award\nPost-Meeting Reports\nRead reports written by the fellows about their experiences and future plans.\n2021 Fellowship Alumni Survey Report\nCheck out the results of the 2021 Fellowship Alumni Survey (17 February 2022)\nArchive\nFor more information, please contact\n[email protected]\n.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 16900, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 12, "word_count": 2350}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "1ed0ccbe-9827-4087-a92f-47b1d8303e4b", "source_id": "b46f130a84b18dce1afd4c88", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://opendata.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://opendata.icann.org/pages/home-page/", "artifact_sha256": "32cbc9da389c9fb00d3326aeb5eed6f9623e834cd3f50736e2f40c6036b7cf1d", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 61613, "title": "Home Page — ICANN Open Data", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 599, "characters": 599, "text": "Home Page — ICANN Open Data\nBack to ICANN Account\nSEARCH\nHome\nData\nCharts\nAPI\nAbout\nHelp\nBack to ICANN Account\nSearch\nSearch\nOther ICANN sites\nICANN.org\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nAt-Large\nICANN Community Wiki\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nConnect with us\nCONTACT US\nCAREERS AT ICANN\n© 2021 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nCookies Policy\nTerms of Service", "segments": [{"segment_id": "cdbd638d-fd39-4936-99d2-5f27da076bd7", "document_id": "1ed0ccbe-9827-4087-a92f-47b1d8303e4b", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Home Page — ICANN Open Data\nBack to ICANN Account\nSEARCH\nHome\nData\nCharts\nAPI\nAbout\nHelp\nBack to ICANN Account\nSearch\nSearch\nOther ICANN sites\nICANN.org\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nAt-Large\nICANN Community Wiki\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nConnect with us\nCONTACT US\nCAREERS AT ICANN\n© 2021 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nCookies Policy\nTerms of Service", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 599, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 1, "word_count": 86}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "1f836061-0495-497f-9c04-549d8d424c98", "source_id": "5014c46790ff4061b6f8edfd", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en", "artifact_sha256": "41c0a01affa68f48be1df5544f074a29a2244d18bb5da99e95a7f375605307ed", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 80633, "title": "Accountability Mechanisms - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 19138, "characters": 19138, "text": "Accountability Mechanisms - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nAccountability Mechanisms\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nICANN has a proven commitment to accountability and transparency in all of its practices. ICANN considers these principles to be fundamental safeguards in ensuring that its bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model remains effective. The mechanisms through which ICANN achieves accountability and transparency are built into every level of its organization and mandate – beginning with its\nBylaws\n, detailed in its\nAccountability and Transparency Frameworks and Principles\n(adopted by ICANN's Board in 2008) and annually reinforced in its\nStrategic and Operational Plan\n. In order to reinforce its transparency and accountability, ICANN has established accountability mechanisms for review of ICANN actions. While the full texts of the accountability mechanisms are set forth in Articles IV and V of the ICANN Bylaws, the following is summary and illustrative overview of these mechanisms.\nReconsideration Process\nReconsideration is a mechanism provided by\nArticle IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws\nby which any person or entity materially affected by an action (or inaction) of ICANN may request review or reconsideration of that action by the Board.\nAny person or entity may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction (\"Reconsideration Request\") to the extent that the person or entity has been adversely affected by:\none or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); or\none or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or\none or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board's reliance on false or inaccurate material information.\nAbsent a showing of these standards, the reconsideration process is not a mechanism for reconsideration of an action (or inaction) simply because the person or entity does not agree with the action (or inaction).\nAll Reconsideration Requests must be submitted within fifteen days after:\nfor requests challenging Board actions, the date on which information about the challenged Board action is first published in a resolution, unless the posting of the resolution is not accompanied by a rationale. In that instance, the request must be submitted within 15 days from the initial posting of the rationale; or\nfor requests challenging staff actions, the date on which the party submitting the request became aware of, or reasonably should have become aware of, the challenged staff action; or\nfor requests challenging either Board or staff inaction, the date on which the affected person reasonably concluded, or reasonably should have concluded, that action would not be taken in a timely manner.\nReconsideration Requests are reviewed and considered by the Board Governance Committee (\"BGC\"). For all Reconsideration Requests brought regarding staff action or inaction, the BGC shall be delegated the authority by the Board of Directors to make a final determination and recommendation on the matter. Board consideration of the recommendation is not required. As the BGC deems necessary, it may make recommendation to the Board for consideration and action.\nThe BGC shall make a final determination, or a recommendation to the Board within thirty days following its receipt of the Reconsideration Request, unless impractical. In the event that a recommendation is made to the Board by the BGC, the Board shall issue its decision on the recommendation of the BGC within sixty days of receipt of the Reconsideration Request or as soon thereafter as feasible.\nICANN has determined that the reconsideration process can properly be invoked for challenges to expert determinations rendered by panels formed by third party dispute resolution service providers in the New gTLD Program, if the claim is that the Panel failed to follow established policies or processes in reaching the expert determination, or that staff failed to follow its policies or processes in accepting that determination.\nFor more information about ICANN's Reconsideration Process, please visit Article IV of the Bylaws at\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV\n, or the\nReconsideration page\n.\nIndependent Review Process (\"IRP\")\nIn addition to the Reconsideration Process, ICANN has also established a separate process for independent third-party review of Board actions (or inactions) alleged by an affected party to be inconsistent with ICANN's Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws.\nSee\nArticle IV, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws\n.\nAny person materially affected by a decision or action by the Board that he or she asserts is inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for independent review of that decision or action. In order to be materially affected, the person must suffer injury or harm that is directly and causally connected to the Board's alleged violation of the Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation, and not as a result of third parties acting in line with the Board's action.\nAn IRP request must be filed within thirty days of the posting of the minutes of the Board meeting (and the accompanying Board Briefing Materials, if available) that the requesting party contends demonstrates that ICANN violated its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. For IRP requests relating to a BGC determination on a Reconsideration Request, such requests must be filed within thirty days of the posting of the minutes of the BGC meeting in which the determination at issue was made.\nPrior to initiating a request for independent review, the complainant is urged to enter into a period of cooperative engagement with ICANN for the purpose of resolving or narrowing the issues that are contemplated to be brought to the IRP.\nSee\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/cep-11apr13-en.pdf\n.\nFor more information about ICANN's Independent Review Process, please visit Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws at\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV\n, or the\nIndependent Review Process page\n.\nOmbudsman\nThe ICANN Ombudsman is an independent and impartial neutral whose function is to provide an independent internal evaluation of complaints by members of the ICANN community who believe that the ICANN staff, Board or an ICANN constituent body has treated them unfairly for matters which have not otherwise become the subject of the Reconsideration Process or the Independent Review Process. The Ombudsman shall serve as an objective advocate for fairness, and shall seek to evaluate and where possible resolve complaints about unfair or inappropriate treatment by ICANN staff, the Board, or ICANN constituent bodies, clarifying the issues and using conflict resolution tools such as negotiation, facilitation, and \"shuttle diplomacy\" to achieve these results.\nSee\nArticle V of the ICANN Bylaws\n.\nThe Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change or set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission. The Ombudsman does have the power to investigate these events, and to use Alternative Dispute Resolution technique to resolve them. The Ombudsman is authorized to make such reports to the Board as he or she deems appropriate with respect to any particular matter and its resolution or the inability to resolve it.\nFor more information about ICANN's Ombudsman, please visit Article V of the Bylaws at\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#V\nor the\nOmbuds Page\n.\nWhat is the Empowered Community?\nThe Empowered Community is the mechanism through which ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) can organize under California law to legally enforce community powers. The community powers and rules that govern the Empowered Community are defined in the\nICANN\nArticles of Incorporation\nand\nBylaws\n.\nWho can participate in the Empowered Community?\nAll of ICANN's SOs, as well as the At-Large and Governmental ACs, can participate in the Empowered Community including:\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Name Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nHow does the Empowered Community use their powers?\nThe Empowered Community has a process to raise concerns with an action or inaction made by the ICANN Board or organization. This escalation process gives SOs and ACs opportunities to discuss solutions with the ICANN Board.\nFor more information, click\nhere\nfor the Empowered Community webpage.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ec994467-c2ac-4b71-9f61-5cc932a9734c", "document_id": "1f836061-0495-497f-9c04-549d8d424c98", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Accountability Mechanisms - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nAccountability Mechanisms\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nICANN has a proven commitment to accountability and transparency in all of its practices. ICANN considers these principles to be fundamental safeguards in ensuring that its bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model remains effective. The mechanisms through which ICANN achieves accountability and transparency are built into every level of its organization and mandate – beginning with its\nBylaws\n, detailed in its\nAccountability and Transparency Frameworks and Principles\n(adopted by ICANN's Board in 2008) and annually reinforced in its\nStrategic and Operational Plan\n. In order to reinforce its transparency and accountability, ICANN has established accountability mechanisms for review of ICANN actions. While the full texts of the accountability mechanisms are set forth in Articles IV and V of the ICANN Bylaws, the following is summary and illustrative overview of these mechanisms.\nReconsideration Process\nReconsideration is a mechanism provided by\nArticle IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws\nby which any person or entity materially affected by an action (or inaction) of ICANN may request review or reconsideration of that action by the Board.\nAny person or entity may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction (\"Reconsideration Request\") to the extent that the person or entity has been adversely affected by:\none or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); or\none or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or\none or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board's reliance on false or inaccurate material information.\nAbsent a showing of these standards, the reconsideration process is not a mechanism for reconsideration of an action (or inaction) simply because the person or entity does not agree with the action (or inaction).\nAll Reconsideration Requests must be submitted within fifteen days after:\nfor requests challenging Board actions, the date on which information about the challenged Board action is first published in a resolution, unless the posting of the resolution is not accompanied by a rationale. In that instance, the request must be submitted within 15 days from the initial posting of the rationale; or\nfor requests challenging staff actions, the date on which the party submitting the request became aware of, or reasonably should have become aware of, the challenged staff action; or\nfor requests challenging either Board or staff inaction, the date on which the affected person reasonably concluded, or reasonably should have concluded, that action would not be taken in a timely manner.\nReconsideration Requests are reviewed and considered by the Board Governance Committee (\"BGC\"). For all Reconsideration Requests brought regarding staff action or inaction, the BGC shall be delegated the authority by the Board of Directors to make a final determination and recommendation on the matter. Board consideration of the recommendation is not required. As the BGC deems necessary, it may make recommendation to the Board for consideration and action.\nThe BGC shall make a final determination, or a recommendation to the Board within thirty days following its receipt of the Reconsideration Request, unless impractical. In the event that a recommendation is made to the Board by the BGC, the Board shall issue its decision on the recommendation of the BGC within sixty days of receipt of the Reconsideration Request or as soon thereafter as feasible.\nICANN has determined that the reconsideration process can properly be invoked for challenges to expert determinations rendered by panels formed by third party dispute resolution service providers in the New gTLD Program, if the claim is that the Panel failed to follow established policies or processes in reaching the expert determination, or that staff failed to follow its policies or processes in accepting that determination.\nFor more information about ICANN's Reconsideration Process, please visit Article IV of the Bylaws at\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV\n, or the\nReconsideration page\n.\nIndependent Review Process (\"IRP\")\nIn addition to the Reconsideration Process, ICANN has also established a separate process for independent third-party review of Board actions (or inactions) alleged by an affected party to be inconsistent with ICANN's Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws.\nSee\nArticle IV, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws\n.\nAny person materially affected by a decision or action by the Board that he or she asserts is inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for independent review of that decision or action. In order to be materially affected, the person must suffer injury or harm that is directly and causally connected to the Board's alleged violation of the Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation, and not as a result of third parties acting in line with the Board's action.\nAn IRP request must be filed within thirty days of the posting of the minutes of the Board meeting (and the accompanying Board Briefing Materials, if available) that the requesting party contends demonstrates that ICANN violated its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. For IRP requests relating to a BGC determination on a Reconsideration Request, such requests must be filed within thirty days of the posting of the minutes of the BGC meeting in which the determination at issue was made.\nPrior to initiating a request for independent review, the complainant is urged to enter into a period of cooperative engagement with ICANN for the purpose of resolving or narrowing the issues that are contemplated to be brought to the IRP.\nSee\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/cep-11apr13-en.pdf\n.\nFor more information about ICANN's Independent Review Process, please visit Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws at\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV\n, or the\nIndependent Review Process page\n.\nOmbudsman\nThe ICANN Ombudsman is an independent and impartial neutral whose function is to provide an independent internal evaluation of complaints by members of the ICANN community who believe that the ICANN staff, Board or an ICANN constituent body has treated them unfairly for matters which have not otherwise become the subject of the Reconsideration Process or the Independent Review Process. The Ombudsman shall serve as an objective advocate for fairness, and shall seek to evaluate and where possible resolve complaints about unfair or inappropriate treatment by ICANN staff, the Board, or ICANN constituent bodies, clarifying the issues and using conflict resolution tools such as negotiation, facilitation, and \"shuttle diplomacy\" to achieve these results.\nSee\nArticle V of the ICANN Bylaws\n.\nThe Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change or set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission. The Ombudsman does have the power to investigate these events, and to use Alternative Dispute Resolution technique to resolve them. The Ombudsman is authorized to make such reports to the Board as he or she deems appropriate with respect to any particular matter and its resolution or the inability to resolve it.\nFor more information about ICANN's Ombudsman, please visit Article V of the Bylaws at\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#V\nor the\nOmbuds Page\n.\nWhat is the Empowered Community?\nThe Empowered Community is the mechanism through which ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) can organize under California law to legally enforce community powers. The community powers and rules that govern the Empowered Community are defined in the\nICANN\nArticles of Incorporation\nand\nBylaws\n.\nWho can participate in the Empowered Community?\nAll of ICANN's SOs, as well as the At-Large and Governmental ACs, can participate in the Empowered Community including:\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Name Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nHow does the Empowered Community use their powers?\nThe Empowered Community has a process to raise concerns with an action or inaction made by the ICANN Board or organization. This escalation process gives SOs and ACs opportunities to discuss solutions with the ICANN Board.\nFor more information, click\nhere\nfor the Empowered Community webpage.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 19138, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 14, "word_count": 2716}}], "published_at": "2014-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2014-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2014-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "209d642b-6ec7-4761-a16f-ff560b5d6f70", "source_id": "b7f830e6caf5f1c75b6cd658", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/action/Pages/default.aspx", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/action/Pages/default.aspx", "artifact_sha256": "a7d3473c7f99b81523bbe718638d0e15bb8b15d1a60e3bf8e3809ef22ef33320", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 71701, "title": "Key Areas of Action", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 6642, "characters": 6642, "text": "Key Areas of Action\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nKey Areas of Action\nRollup Image\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nITUs Areas of Action\nShare\nAccessibility\nBroadband\nCybersecurity\nDigital Divide\nDigital financial inclusion and digital currency\nEmergency Telecommunications\nEnvironment and climate change\nEntrepreneurship & SMEs\nGender equality\nInternet\nSubmarine Cable Resilience\nYouth and Academia\nAccessibility\nAccessibility to ICTs: Achieving Equitable Communications for Everyone\n15 per cent of the world’s population lives with a disability. This represents about 1 billion people globally. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as mobile phones, satellites or the Internet, are a unique infrastructure that expand access to key public services, promoting digital inclusion. Throughout the world, persons living with disabilities are already benefitting from the advantages of ICT-enabled applications.\nLearn more\n​\nArtificial Intelligence\nAI is expected to play a particularly important role in accelerating progress towards each one of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. Within its mandate, ITU provides a neutral platform for all stakeholders to build a common understanding of the capabilities of AI technologies, facilitating trusted, safe and inclusive development of AI technologies, and equitable access to their benefits. ​\nLearn more\n​\nBroadband\nAffordable, Safe and Resilient Broadband Networks\nWhile much progress has been made globally over the past ten years in expanding access to, and adoption of, broadband infrastructure and services, significant challenges remain in tackling digital inequalities, addressing the current widespread impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in accelerating efforts towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\nLearn more\nEnvironment and climate change\nGreening the digital transition\nITU is at the forefront of enabling environmentally sustainable digital transformation, recognizing the pivotal role of digital technologies in climate action and sustainable development. Working with over 1000 public and private sector members ITU is committed to greening the digital transition while minimizing its environmental impact.\nLearn more\nCybersecurity\nITU Cybersecurity Activities\nA fundamental role of ITU, following the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, is to build confidence and security in the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). At WSIS, Heads of States and world leaders entrusted ITU to be the Facilitator of Action Line C5, \"Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs\nLearn more\nDigital Divide\nConnect the World\nConnect the World aims to mobilize human, financial and technical resources for the implementation of the connectivity targets of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Regional Initiatives adopted by Member States at the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference. ITU and partners are organizing a series of regional Summits to mobilize resources and forge partnerships.\nLearn more\nDigital financial inclusion and digital currency\nSome 1.4 billion people remain without access to financial services. Digital financial inclusion is a critical enabler for poverty reduction and inclusive growth. ITU offers platforms to study cybersecurity challenges for digital finance, the quality of service provided by mobile networks for digital finance, and innovations and regulatory challenges brought about by fintech, digital currencies, blockchain, and artificial intelligence.\nLearn more\nEmergency Telecommunications\nTelecommunications Saves Lives\nDisasters disrupt national economies, severely weaken the poor and vulnerable and are recognized as major impediments to sustainable development and reduction of poverty especially in poor countries. The impact is even worse for those living in remote and isolated areas with no access to basic information and communication facilities that are essential to providing vital alerting information.\nLearn more\nEntrepreneurship & SMEs\nEntrepreneurship, Innovation and SME development\nSmall and medium enterprises (SMEs) have a key role in ensuring economic growth in a sustainable and inclusive manner. They are often the source of innovative ICT-enabled solutions that make a long-lasting impact in global, regional and national economies, and are an important source of new jobs especially for youth. SMEs make up more than 95% of all businesses worldwide, and represent a path out of poverty for many developing countries.”\nLearn more\nGateways to Public Digital Learning\nBuilding the digital foundations for public digital learning platforms\nConnecting a school to the internet is only the first step. Countries also need secure, interoperable digital foundations to turn that connectivity into lasting educational value. The Gateways to Public Digital Learning Initiative, a joint effort of UNESCO, UNICEF and ITU, helps governments design and scale public digital learning platforms that are safe, open and built to last.\nLearn more\nGender equality\nGender equality\nand the empowerment of women and girls through ICTs\nThe information and communication technologies (ICTs) are tools through which gender equality and women's empowerment can be advanced, and are integral to the creation of societies in which both women and men can substantively contribute and participate.\nLearn more\nInternet\nInternet Policy and Governance\nITU's Internet-related activities result from its role as mandated in various resolutions with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of critical Internet resources.\nLearn more\nYouth and Academia\nYouth, Innovation and Academia\nITU's Youth Programme aims to support children and young people from developing countries and those in transition to improve their access, use and knowledge of information and communication technologies (ICTs).\nLearn more\n​​​​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\nPage Content 9\nPage Content 10\nPage Content 6\nPage Content 7\nPage Content 2\nPage Content 3\nPage Content 4\nPage Content 5\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "segments": [{"segment_id": "598a3dfd-8dfc-4189-9790-3b2a96f87e91", "document_id": "209d642b-6ec7-4761-a16f-ff560b5d6f70", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Key Areas of Action\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nKey Areas of Action\nRollup Image\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nITUs Areas of Action\nShare\nAccessibility\nBroadband\nCybersecurity\nDigital Divide\nDigital financial inclusion and digital currency\nEmergency Telecommunications\nEnvironment and climate change\nEntrepreneurship & SMEs\nGender equality\nInternet\nSubmarine Cable Resilience\nYouth and Academia\nAccessibility\nAccessibility to ICTs: Achieving Equitable Communications for Everyone\n15 per cent of the world’s population lives with a disability. This represents about 1 billion people globally. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as mobile phones, satellites or the Internet, are a unique infrastructure that expand access to key public services, promoting digital inclusion. Throughout the world, persons living with disabilities are already benefitting from the advantages of ICT-enabled applications.\nLearn more\n​\nArtificial Intelligence\nAI is expected to play a particularly important role in accelerating progress towards each one of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. Within its mandate, ITU provides a neutral platform for all stakeholders to build a common understanding of the capabilities of AI technologies, facilitating trusted, safe and inclusive development of AI technologies, and equitable access to their benefits. ​\nLearn more\n​\nBroadband\nAffordable, Safe and Resilient Broadband Networks\nWhile much progress has been made globally over the past ten years in expanding access to, and adoption of, broadband infrastructure and services, significant challenges remain in tackling digital inequalities, addressing the current widespread impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in accelerating efforts towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\nLearn more\nEnvironment and climate change\nGreening the digital transition\nITU is at the forefront of enabling environmentally sustainable digital transformation, recognizing the pivotal role of digital technologies in climate action and sustainable development. Working with over 1000 public and private sector members ITU is committed to greening the digital transition while minimizing its environmental impact.\nLearn more\nCybersecurity\nITU Cybersecurity Activities\nA fundamental role of ITU, following the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, is to build confidence and security in the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). At WSIS, Heads of States and world leaders entrusted ITU to be the Facilitator of Action Line C5, \"Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs\nLearn more\nDigital Divide\nConnect the World\nConnect the World aims to mobilize human, financial and technical resources for the implementation of the connectivity targets of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Regional Initiatives adopted by Member States at the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference. ITU and partners are organizing a series of regional Summits to mobilize resources and forge partnerships.\nLearn more\nDigital financial inclusion and digital currency\nSome 1.4 billion people remain without access to financial services. Digital financial inclusion is a critical enabler for poverty reduction and inclusive growth. ITU offers platforms to study cybersecurity challenges for digital finance, the quality of service provided by mobile networks for digital finance, and innovations and regulatory challenges brought about by fintech, digital currencies, blockchain, and artificial intelligence.\nLearn more\nEmergency Telecommunications\nTelecommunications Saves Lives\nDisasters disrupt national economies, severely weaken the poor and vulnerable and are recognized as major impediments to sustainable development and reduction of poverty especially in poor countries. The impact is even worse for those living in remote and isolated areas with no access to basic information and communication facilities that are essential to providing vital alerting information.\nLearn more\nEntrepreneurship & SMEs\nEntrepreneurship, Innovation and SME development\nSmall and medium enterprises (SMEs) have a key role in ensuring economic growth in a sustainable and inclusive manner. They are often the source of innovative ICT-enabled solutions that make a long-lasting impact in global, regional and national economies, and are an important source of new jobs especially for youth. SMEs make up more than 95% of all businesses worldwide, and represent a path out of poverty for many developing countries.”\nLearn more\nGateways to Public Digital Learning\nBuilding the digital foundations for public digital learning platforms\nConnecting a school to the internet is only the first step. Countries also need secure, interoperable digital foundations to turn that connectivity into lasting educational value. The Gateways to Public Digital Learning Initiative, a joint effort of UNESCO, UNICEF and ITU, helps governments design and scale public digital learning platforms that are safe, open and built to last.\nLearn more\nGender equality\nGender equality\nand the empowerment of women and girls through ICTs\nThe information and communication technologies (ICTs) are tools through which gender equality and women's empowerment can be advanced, and are integral to the creation of societies in which both women and men can substantively contribute and participate.\nLearn more\nInternet\nInternet Policy and Governance\nITU's Internet-related activities result from its role as mandated in various resolutions with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of critical Internet resources.\nLearn more\nYouth and Academia\nYouth, Innovation and Academia\nITU's Youth Programme aims to support children and young people from developing countries and those in transition to improve their access, use and knowledge of information and communication technologies (ICTs).\nLearn more\n​​​​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\nPage Content 9\nPage Content 10\nPage Content 6\nPage Content 7\nPage Content 2\nPage Content 3\nPage Content 4\nPage Content 5\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6642, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 961}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "2160fdf7-f971-4c53-9853-f01c24276bea", "source_id": "a2a467fad2582132b336db81", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2826", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2826/", "artifact_sha256": "3f1b7a8af39354b95d3e393ae7410182fce1138d34299ef6042d2786eca877e5", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 112748, "title": "RFC 2826: IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 13109, "characters": 13109, "text": "RFC 2826: IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 2826\nInfo\nRFC\n2826\n:\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root\nInternet Architecture Board\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group Internet Architecture Board\nRequest for Comments: 2826 May 2000\nCategory: Informational\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis memo provides information for the Internet community. It does\nnot specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this\nmemo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.\n\nSummary\n\nTo remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a\nglobally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a\nhierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root.\nThis is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.\nTherefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than\none root in the public DNS. That one root must be supported by a set\nof coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming\nauthority.\n\nPut simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very\nstrong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same\nlink on a web page could end up at different destinations, against\nthe will of the web page designers.\n\nThis does not preclude private networks from operating their own\nprivate name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely\ndefined for the global Internet, they have to fetch that information\nfrom the global DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the\ncoordinated root servers of the global DNS naming hierarchy.\n1\n. Detailed Explanation\nThere are several distinct reasons why the DNS requires a single root\nin order to operate properly.\n1.1\n. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set\nEffective communications between two parties requires two essential\npreconditions:\nIAB Informational [Page 1]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\n- The existence of a common symbol set, and\n\n- The existence of a common semantic interpretation of these\nsymbols.\n\nFailure to meet the first condition implies a failure to communicate\nat all, while failure to meet the second implies that the meaning of\nthe communication is lost.\n\nIn the case of a public communications system this condition of a\ncommon symbol set with a common semantic interpretation must be\nfurther strengthened to that of a unique symbol set with a unique\nsemantic interpretation. This condition of uniqueness allows any\nparty to initiate a communication that can be received and understood\nby any other party. Such a condition rules out the ability to define\na symbol within some bounded context. In such a case, once the\ncommunication moves out of the context of interpretation in which it\nwas defined, the meaning of the symbol becomes lost.\n\nWithin public digital communications networks such as the Internet\nthis requirement for a uniquely defined symbol set with a uniquely\ndefined meaning exists at many levels, commencing with the binary\nencoding scheme, extending to packet headers and payload formats and\nthe protocol that an application uses to interact. In each case a\nvariation of the symbol set or a difference of interpretation of the\nsymbols being used within the interaction causes a protocol failure,\nand the communication fails. The property of uniqueness allows a\nsymbol to be used unambiguously in any context, allowing the symbol\nto be passed on, referred to, and reused, while still preserving the\nmeaning of the original use.\n\nThe DNS fulfills an essential role within the Internet protocol\nenvironment, allowing network locations to be referred to using a\nlabel other than a protocol address. As with any other such symbol\nset, DNS names are designed to be globally unique, that is, for any\none DNS name at any one time there must be a single set of DNS\nrecords uniquely describing protocol addresses, network resources and\nservices associated with that DNS name. All of the applications\ndeployed on the Internet which use the DNS assume this, and Internet\nusers expect such behavior from DNS names. Names are then constant\nsymbols, whose interpretation does not specifically require knowledge\nof the context of any individual party. A DNS name can be passed\nfrom one party to another without altering the semantic intent of the\nname.\n\nSince the DNS is hierarchically structured into domains, the\nuniqueness requirement for DNS names in their entirety implies that\neach of the names (sub-domains) defined within a domain has a unique\nIAB Informational [Page 2]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\nmeaning (i.e., set of DNS records) within that domain. This is as\ntrue for the root domain as for any other DNS domain. The\nrequirement for uniqueness within a domain further implies that there\nbe some mechanism to prevent name conflicts within a domain. In DNS\nthis is accomplished by assigning a single owner or maintainer to\nevery domain, including the root domain, who is responsible for\nensuring that each sub-domain of that domain has the proper records\nassociated with it. This is a technical requirement, not a policy\nchoice.\n1.2\n. Coordination of Updates\nBoth the design and implementations of the DNS protocol are heavily\nbased on the assumption that there is a single owner or maintainer\nfor every domain, and that any set of resources records associated\nwith a domain is modified in a single-copy serializable fashion.\nThat is, even assuming that a single domain could somehow be \"shared\"\nby uncooperating parties, there is no means within the DNS protocol\nby which a user or client could discover, and choose between,\nconflicting definitions of a DNS name made by different parties. The\nclient will simply return the first set of resource records that it\nfinds that matches the requested domain, and assume that these are\nvalid. This protocol is embedded in the operating software of\nhundreds of millions of computer systems, and is not easily updated\nto support a shared domain scenario.\n\nMoreover, even supposing that some other means of resolving\nconflicting definitions could be provided in the future, it would\nhave to be based on objective rules established in advance. For\nexample, zone A.B could declare that naming authority Y had been\ndelegated all subdomains of A.B with an odd number of characters, and\nthat naming authority Z had been delegated authority to define\nsubdomains of A.B with an even number of characters. Thus, a single\nset of rules would have to be agreed to prevent Y and Z from making\nconflicting assignments, and with this train of actions a single\nunique space has been created in any case. Even this would not allow\nmultiple non-cooperating authorities to assign arbitrary sub-domains\nwithin a single domain.\n\nIt seems that a degree of cooperation and agreed technical rules are\nrequired in order to guarantee the uniqueness of names. In the DNS,\nthese rules are established independently for each part of the naming\nhierarchy, and the root domain is no exception. Thus, there must be\na generally agreed single set of rules for the root.\nIAB Informational [Page 3]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\n1.3\n. Difficulty of Relocating the Root Zone\nThere is one specific technical respect in which the root zone\ndiffers from all other DNS zones: the addresses of the name servers\nfor the root zone come primarily from out-of-band information. This\nout-of-band information is often poorly maintained and, unlike all\nother data in the DNS, the out-of-band information has no automatic\ntimeout mechanism. It is not uncommon for this information to be\nyears out of date at many sites.\n\nLike any other zone, the root zone contains a set of \"name server\"\nresource records listing its servers, but a resolver with no valid\naddresses for the current set of root servers will never be able to\nobtain these records. More insidiously, a resolver that has a mixed\nset of partially valid and partially stale out-of-band configuration\ninformation will not be able to tell which are the \"real\" root\nservers if it gets back conflicting answers; thus, it is very\ndifficult to revoke the status of a malicious root server, or even to\nroute around a buggy root server.\n\nIn effect, every full-service resolver in the world \"delegates\" the\nroot of the public tree to the public root server(s) of its choice.\n\nAs a direct consequence, any change to the list of IP addresses that\nspecify the public root zone is significantly more difficult than\nchanging any other aspect of the DNS delegation chain. Thus,\nstability of the system calls for extremely conservative and cautious\nmanagement of the public root zone: the frequency of updates to the\nroot zone must be kept low, and the servers for the root zone must be\nclosely coordinated.\n\nThese problems can be ameliorated to some extent by the DNS Security\nExtensions [\nDNSSEC\n], but a similar out-of-band configuration problem\nexists for the cryptographic signature key to the root zone, so the\nroot zone still requires tight coupling and coordinated management\neven in the presence of DNSSEC.\n2\n. Conclusion\nThe DNS type of unique naming and name-mapping system may not be\nideal for a number of purposes for which it was never designed, such\na locating information when the user doesn't precisely know the\ncorrect names. As the Internet continues to expand, we would expect\ndirectory systems to evolve which can assist the user in dealing with\nvague or ambiguous references. To preserve the many important\nfeatures of the DNS and its multiple record types -- including the\nInternet's equivalent of telephone number portability -- we would\nexpect the result of directory lookups and identification of the\nIAB Informational [Page 4]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\ncorrect names for a particular purpose to be unique DNS names that\nare then resolved normally, rather than having directory systems\n\"replace\" the DNS.\n\nThere is no getting away from the unique root of the public DNS.\n3\n. Security Considerations\nThis memo does not introduce any new security issues, but it does\nattempt to identify some of the problems inherent in a family of\nrecurring technically naive proposals.\n4\n. IANA Considerations\nThis memo is not intended to create any new issues for IANA.\n5\n. References\n[\nDNS-CONCEPTS\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Concepts and\nFacilities\", STD 13,\nRFC 1034\n, November 1987.\n\n[\nDNS-IMPLEMENTATION\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Implementation\nand Specification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, November\n1987.\n\n[\nDNSSEC\n] Eastlake, D., \"Domain Name System Security\nExtensions\",\nRFC 2535\n, March 1999.\n6\n. Author's Address\nInternet Architecture Board\n\nEMail: iab@iab.org\nIAB Informational [Page 5]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\n7\n. Full Copyright Statement\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.\n\nThe limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nIAB Informational [Page 6]\nRFC\n2826\n: IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n1\nIn this section\n1. Detailed Explanation\n1.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set\n1.2. Coordination of Updates\n1.3. Difficulty of Relocating the Root Zone\n2. Conclusion\n3. Security Considerations\n4. IANA Considerations\n5. References\n6. Author's Address\n7. Full Copyright Statement\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "8e6be7d2-1a37-449a-ad75-8e95c2327578", "document_id": "2160fdf7-f971-4c53-9853-f01c24276bea", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 2826: IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 2826\nInfo\nRFC\n2826\n:\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root\nInternet Architecture Board\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group Internet Architecture Board\nRequest for Comments: 2826 May 2000\nCategory: Informational\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis memo provides information for the Internet community. It does\nnot specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this\nmemo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.\n\nSummary\n\nTo remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a\nglobally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a\nhierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root.\nThis is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.\nTherefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than\none root in the public DNS. That one root must be supported by a set\nof coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming\nauthority.\n\nPut simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very\nstrong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same\nlink on a web page could end up at different destinations, against\nthe will of the web page designers.\n\nThis does not preclude private networks from operating their own\nprivate name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely\ndefined for the global Internet, they have to fetch that information\nfrom the global DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the\ncoordinated root servers of the global DNS naming hierarchy.\n1\n. Detailed Explanation\nThere are several distinct reasons why the DNS requires a single root\nin order to operate properly.\n1.1\n. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set\nEffective communications between two parties requires two essential\npreconditions:\nIAB Informational [Page 1]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\n- The existence of a common symbol set, and", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2100, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 347}}, {"segment_id": "0cad7294-7fff-4a77-b277-7d396236a902", "document_id": "2160fdf7-f971-4c53-9853-f01c24276bea", "ordinal": 1, "text": "- The existence of a common semantic interpretation of these\nsymbols.\n\nFailure to meet the first condition implies a failure to communicate\nat all, while failure to meet the second implies that the meaning of\nthe communication is lost.\n\nIn the case of a public communications system this condition of a\ncommon symbol set with a common semantic interpretation must be\nfurther strengthened to that of a unique symbol set with a unique\nsemantic interpretation. This condition of uniqueness allows any\nparty to initiate a communication that can be received and understood\nby any other party. Such a condition rules out the ability to define\na symbol within some bounded context. In such a case, once the\ncommunication moves out of the context of interpretation in which it\nwas defined, the meaning of the symbol becomes lost.\n\nWithin public digital communications networks such as the Internet\nthis requirement for a uniquely defined symbol set with a uniquely\ndefined meaning exists at many levels, commencing with the binary\nencoding scheme, extending to packet headers and payload formats and\nthe protocol that an application uses to interact. In each case a\nvariation of the symbol set or a difference of interpretation of the\nsymbols being used within the interaction causes a protocol failure,\nand the communication fails. The property of uniqueness allows a\nsymbol to be used unambiguously in any context, allowing the symbol\nto be passed on, referred to, and reused, while still preserving the\nmeaning of the original use.\n\nThe DNS fulfills an essential role within the Internet protocol\nenvironment, allowing network locations to be referred to using a\nlabel other than a protocol address. As with any other such symbol\nset, DNS names are designed to be globally unique, that is, for any\none DNS name at any one time there must be a single set of DNS\nrecords uniquely describing protocol addresses, network resources and\nservices associated with that DNS name. All of the applications\ndeployed on the Internet which use the DNS assume this, and Internet\nusers expect such behavior from DNS names. Names are then constant\nsymbols, whose interpretation does not specifically require knowledge\nof the context of any individual party. A DNS name can be passed\nfrom one party to another without altering the semantic intent of the\nname.", "char_start": 2102, "char_end": 4438, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 384}}, {"segment_id": "186f7986-cdf6-4f83-9299-fd3a8a18003e", "document_id": "2160fdf7-f971-4c53-9853-f01c24276bea", "ordinal": 2, "text": "Since the DNS is hierarchically structured into domains, the\nuniqueness requirement for DNS names in their entirety implies that\neach of the names (sub-domains) defined within a domain has a unique\nIAB Informational [Page 2]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\nmeaning (i.e., set of DNS records) within that domain. This is as\ntrue for the root domain as for any other DNS domain. The\nrequirement for uniqueness within a domain further implies that there\nbe some mechanism to prevent name conflicts within a domain. In DNS\nthis is accomplished by assigning a single owner or maintainer to\nevery domain, including the root domain, who is responsible for\nensuring that each sub-domain of that domain has the proper records\nassociated with it. This is a technical requirement, not a policy\nchoice.\n1.2\n. Coordination of Updates\nBoth the design and implementations of the DNS protocol are heavily\nbased on the assumption that there is a single owner or maintainer\nfor every domain, and that any set of resources records associated\nwith a domain is modified in a single-copy serializable fashion.\nThat is, even assuming that a single domain could somehow be \"shared\"\nby uncooperating parties, there is no means within the DNS protocol\nby which a user or client could discover, and choose between,\nconflicting definitions of a DNS name made by different parties. The\nclient will simply return the first set of resource records that it\nfinds that matches the requested domain, and assume that these are\nvalid. This protocol is embedded in the operating software of\nhundreds of millions of computer systems, and is not easily updated\nto support a shared domain scenario.\n\nMoreover, even supposing that some other means of resolving\nconflicting definitions could be provided in the future, it would\nhave to be based on objective rules established in advance. For\nexample, zone A.B could declare that naming authority Y had been\ndelegated all subdomains of A.B with an odd number of characters, and\nthat naming authority Z had been delegated authority to define\nsubdomains of A.B with an even number of characters. Thus, a single\nset of rules would have to be agreed to prevent Y and Z from making\nconflicting assignments, and with this train of actions a single\nunique space has been created in any case. Even this would not allow\nmultiple non-cooperating authorities to assign arbitrary sub-domains\nwithin a single domain.", "char_start": 4440, "char_end": 6881, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 405}}, {"segment_id": "92ec4a73-4656-4e90-af9c-78049fd7569b", "document_id": "2160fdf7-f971-4c53-9853-f01c24276bea", "ordinal": 3, "text": "It seems that a degree of cooperation and agreed technical rules are\nrequired in order to guarantee the uniqueness of names. In the DNS,\nthese rules are established independently for each part of the naming\nhierarchy, and the root domain is no exception. Thus, there must be\na generally agreed single set of rules for the root.\nIAB Informational [Page 3]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\n1.3\n. Difficulty of Relocating the Root Zone\nThere is one specific technical respect in which the root zone\ndiffers from all other DNS zones: the addresses of the name servers\nfor the root zone come primarily from out-of-band information. This\nout-of-band information is often poorly maintained and, unlike all\nother data in the DNS, the out-of-band information has no automatic\ntimeout mechanism. It is not uncommon for this information to be\nyears out of date at many sites.\n\nLike any other zone, the root zone contains a set of \"name server\"\nresource records listing its servers, but a resolver with no valid\naddresses for the current set of root servers will never be able to\nobtain these records. More insidiously, a resolver that has a mixed\nset of partially valid and partially stale out-of-band configuration\ninformation will not be able to tell which are the \"real\" root\nservers if it gets back conflicting answers; thus, it is very\ndifficult to revoke the status of a malicious root server, or even to\nroute around a buggy root server.\n\nIn effect, every full-service resolver in the world \"delegates\" the\nroot of the public tree to the public root server(s) of its choice.\n\nAs a direct consequence, any change to the list of IP addresses that\nspecify the public root zone is significantly more difficult than\nchanging any other aspect of the DNS delegation chain. Thus,\nstability of the system calls for extremely conservative and cautious\nmanagement of the public root zone: the frequency of updates to the\nroot zone must be kept low, and the servers for the root zone must be\nclosely coordinated.", "char_start": 6883, "char_end": 8909, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 346}}, {"segment_id": "f903728c-8114-4d9f-a6cf-738a9386725c", "document_id": "2160fdf7-f971-4c53-9853-f01c24276bea", "ordinal": 4, "text": "These problems can be ameliorated to some extent by the DNS Security\nExtensions [\nDNSSEC\n], but a similar out-of-band configuration problem\nexists for the cryptographic signature key to the root zone, so the\nroot zone still requires tight coupling and coordinated management\neven in the presence of DNSSEC.\n2\n. Conclusion\nThe DNS type of unique naming and name-mapping system may not be\nideal for a number of purposes for which it was never designed, such\na locating information when the user doesn't precisely know the\ncorrect names. As the Internet continues to expand, we would expect\ndirectory systems to evolve which can assist the user in dealing with\nvague or ambiguous references. To preserve the many important\nfeatures of the DNS and its multiple record types -- including the\nInternet's equivalent of telephone number portability -- we would\nexpect the result of directory lookups and identification of the\nIAB Informational [Page 4]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\ncorrect names for a particular purpose to be unique DNS names that\nare then resolved normally, rather than having directory systems\n\"replace\" the DNS.\n\nThere is no getting away from the unique root of the public DNS.\n3\n. Security Considerations\nThis memo does not introduce any new security issues, but it does\nattempt to identify some of the problems inherent in a family of\nrecurring technically naive proposals.\n4\n. IANA Considerations\nThis memo is not intended to create any new issues for IANA.\n5\n. References\n[\nDNS-CONCEPTS\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Concepts and\nFacilities\", STD 13,\nRFC 1034\n, November 1987.\n\n[\nDNS-IMPLEMENTATION\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Implementation\nand Specification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, November\n1987.\n\n[\nDNSSEC\n] Eastlake, D., \"Domain Name System Security\nExtensions\",\nRFC 2535\n, March 1999.\n6\n. Author's Address\nInternet Architecture Board", "char_start": 8911, "char_end": 10809, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 312}}, {"segment_id": "ebfdf04c-2e6e-4c28-99e1-79ec44dfb16c", "document_id": "2160fdf7-f971-4c53-9853-f01c24276bea", "ordinal": 5, "text": "EMail: iab@iab.org\nIAB Informational [Page 5]\nRFC 2826\nIAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000\n7\n. Full Copyright Statement\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.\n\nThe limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nIAB Informational [Page 6]\nRFC\n2826\n: IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n1\nIn this section\n1. Detailed Explanation\n1.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set\n1.2. Coordination of Updates\n1.3. Difficulty of Relocating the Root Zone\n2. Conclusion\n3. Security Considerations\n4. IANA Considerations\n5. References\n6. Author's Address\n7. Full Copyright Statement\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 10811, "char_end": 13109, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 358}}], "published_at": "2000-05-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2000-05-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 2826 May 2000", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "222fa444-7d9d-4e60-aa1f-e703d44adbdc", "source_id": "6820aa019c7585e393b3cd51", "source": "EU", "source_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library", "final_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library", "artifact_sha256": "f40a0937ef1f3c342a348a8043131d81f87180767473c481ea033a09bf32e77f", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 68671, "title": "Library | Shaping Europe’s digital future", "language": "en", "text_length": 4636, "characters": 4636, "text": "Library | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\nLibrary\nLibrary\nSearch Options\nLibrary\nFactsheet / infographic\nPolicy and legislation\nReport / Study\nSpeech\nVideo\nBrochure\nEvent report\nSuccess story\nCall document\nConsultation results\nToggle dropdown\nFrom\nTo\nTopic\nSearch\nSearch Results (3854)\nHighlight\nFactsheet / infographic\n31 July 2026\nEU support for the news media sector\nPolicy and legislation\n20 July 2026\nGuidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems\nReport / Study\n13 July 2026\nSpecial panel report: Child safety online protecting and empowering minors in a digital world\nFactsheet / infographic\n31 July 2026\nFactsheet - EU support for the news media sector\nThe European Commission works to address structural challenges in media sectors and to promote a free, diverse and pluralistic media environment.\nReport / Study\n31 July 2026\nCommission publishes study supporting the Review of the Digital Decade Policy Programme\nThe study on the review of the Digital Decade assessed the Digital Decade’s priorities, targets, indicators and governance framework, providing a basis for the Commission’s forthcoming review.\nCall document\n31 July 2026\nPresentation materials for the call for proposals “Youth-Driven Social Media Design”\nOn 30 July, the Commission organised an information session for the call for proposals “Youth-Driven Social Media Design”.\nReport / Study\n27 July 2026\nGigabit Infrastructure Act (GIA) Key Performance Indicators agreed by Communications Committee (COCOM)\nMember States’ input on these indicators will serve as an important basis for the foreseen Commission report on the GIA, planned for May 2028.\nReport / Study\n27 July 2026\nAnnual country reports on Open Internet from national regulatory authorities (2025-2026)\nThe Commission has published the annual country reports, from National Regulatory Authorities for telecommunications, on the implementation of the provisions on open internet.\nPolicy and legislation\n27 July 2026\nCommission publishes new guidance to support timely Cyber Resilience Act implementation\nIn a clear demonstration of its commitment to simplification and timely implementation, the Commission today published practical guidance to help manufacturers, developers, and businesses of all sizes meet their obligations under the Cyber Resilience Act.\nReport / Study\n24 July 2026\nAssessment of future connectivity needs for precision farming adoption\nThis study explores how connectivity is shaping the adoption of precision farming technologies across Europe. It identifies the challenges and infrastructure needed to support the sector's digital transformation.\nReport / Study\n24 July 2026\nReport on strategies to boost open source reuse\nThe report sets out practical strategies to overcome the barriers that still limit the sharing and reuse of open source software across the public sector.\nReport / Study\n23 July 2026\nNew report finds diverse spectrum needs of Member States and growing demand for the sub-700 MHz frequency band from other sectors\nThe European Commission adopted today a report on the developments in the use of the 470–694 MHz (sub-700 MHz) frequency band, in accordance with Article 7 of the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Decision.\nSuccess story\n22 July 2026\nFrom EU-funded robotics research to industrial innovation: the Generative Bionics success story\nEU-funded robotics research is helping turn scientific excellence into industrial innovation, with Generative Bionics building on the legacy of RobotCub, CoDyCo, and An.Dy projects.\n1\nPage 1\n2\n3\n...\n386\nNext\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "segments": [{"segment_id": "d2a24572-5c28-4cce-acfc-5caed049793f", "document_id": "222fa444-7d9d-4e60-aa1f-e703d44adbdc", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Library | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\nLibrary\nLibrary\nSearch Options\nLibrary\nFactsheet / infographic\nPolicy and legislation\nReport / Study\nSpeech\nVideo\nBrochure\nEvent report\nSuccess story\nCall document\nConsultation results\nToggle dropdown\nFrom\nTo\nTopic\nSearch\nSearch Results (3854)\nHighlight\nFactsheet / infographic\n31 July 2026\nEU support for the news media sector\nPolicy and legislation\n20 July 2026\nGuidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems\nReport / Study\n13 July 2026\nSpecial panel report: Child safety online protecting and empowering minors in a digital world\nFactsheet / infographic\n31 July 2026\nFactsheet - EU support for the news media sector\nThe European Commission works to address structural challenges in media sectors and to promote a free, diverse and pluralistic media environment.\nReport / Study\n31 July 2026\nCommission publishes study supporting the Review of the Digital Decade Policy Programme\nThe study on the review of the Digital Decade assessed the Digital Decade’s priorities, targets, indicators and governance framework, providing a basis for the Commission’s forthcoming review.\nCall document\n31 July 2026\nPresentation materials for the call for proposals “Youth-Driven Social Media Design”\nOn 30 July, the Commission organised an information session for the call for proposals “Youth-Driven Social Media Design”.\nReport / Study\n27 July 2026\nGigabit Infrastructure Act (GIA) Key Performance Indicators agreed by Communications Committee (COCOM)\nMember States’ input on these indicators will serve as an important basis for the foreseen Commission report on the GIA, planned for May 2028.\nReport / Study\n27 July 2026\nAnnual country reports on Open Internet from national regulatory authorities (2025-2026)\nThe Commission has published the annual country reports, from National Regulatory Authorities for telecommunications, on the implementation of the provisions on open internet.\nPolicy and legislation\n27 July 2026\nCommission publishes new guidance to support timely Cyber Resilience Act implementation\nIn a clear demonstration of its commitment to simplification and timely implementation, the Commission today published practical guidance to help manufacturers, developers, and businesses of all sizes meet their obligations under the Cyber Resilience Act.\nReport / Study\n24 July 2026\nAssessment of future connectivity needs for precision farming adoption\nThis study explores how connectivity is shaping the adoption of precision farming technologies across Europe. It identifies the challenges and infrastructure needed to support the sector's digital transformation.\nReport / Study\n24 July 2026\nReport on strategies to boost open source reuse\nThe report sets out practical strategies to overcome the barriers that still limit the sharing and reuse of open source software across the public sector.\nReport / Study\n23 July 2026\nNew report finds diverse spectrum needs of Member States and growing demand for the sub-700 MHz frequency band from other sectors\nThe European Commission adopted today a report on the developments in the use of the 470–694 MHz (sub-700 MHz) frequency band, in accordance with Article 7 of the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Decision.\nSuccess story\n22 July 2026\nFrom EU-funded robotics research to industrial innovation: the Generative Bionics success story\nEU-funded robotics research is helping turn scientific excellence into industrial innovation, with Generative Bionics building on the legacy of RobotCub, CoDyCo, and An.Dy projects.\n1\nPage 1\n2\n3\n...\n386\nNext\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4636, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 692}}], "published_at": "2026-07-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\n31 July 2026\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "22a0c957-0425-4643-a6dc-9075d064d525", "source_id": "c105ecce28f8c69273c932f1", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1207", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1207/", "artifact_sha256": "c105ecce28f8c69273c932f1cfb79c23c2c73364401f91ad65ddf123d20a2bb7", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 192849, "title": "RFC 1207: FYI on Questions and Answers: Answers to Commonly asked 'Experienced Internet User' Questions", "language": "en", "text_length": 32584, "characters": 32584, "text": "RFC 1207: FYI on Questions and Answers: Answers to commonly asked \"experienced Internet user\" questions | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1207\n:\nFYI\n7\n:\nFYI on Questions and Answers: Answers to commonly asked \"experienced Internet user\" questions\nG.S. Malkin\n,\nA.N. Marine\n,\nJ.K. Reynolds\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                          G. Malkin\nRequest for Comments: 1207                            FTP Software, Inc.\nFYI: 7                                                         A. Marine\n                                                                     SRI\n                                                             J. Reynolds\n                                                                     ISI\n                                                           February 1991\nFYI on Questions and Answers\nAnswers to Commonly asked \"Experienced Internet User\" Questions\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This FYI RFC is one of two FYI's called, \"Questions and Answers\"\n   (Q/A), produced by the User Services Working Group of the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force (IETF).  The goal is to document the most\n   commonly asked questions and answers in the Internet.\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify any standard.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction..................................................\n1\n2\n. Acknowledgements..............................................\n3\n3\n. Questions about the Internet..................................\n3\n4\n. Questions About Other Networks and Internets..................\n3\n5\n. Questions About Internet Documentation........................\n4\n6\n. Questions About the Domain Name System (DNS)..................\n4\n7\n. Questions About Network Management............................\n7\n8. Questions about Serial Line Internet Protocol (SLIP) and\n      Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Implementations.................\n9\n9\n. Questions About Routing.......................................\n11\n10\n. Other Protocol and Standards Implementation Questions........\n11\n11\n. Suggested Reading............................................\n12\n12\n. References...................................................\n13\n13\n. Security Considerations......................................\n14\n14\n. Authors' Addresses...........................................\n15\n1\n. Introduction\nDuring the last few months, several people have monitored various\n   major mailing lists and have extracted questions that are important\n   or commonly asked.  This FYI RFC is one of two in a series of FYI's\n   which present the questions and their answers.  The first FYI, FYI 4,\n   presented questions new Internet users commonly ask and their\n   answers.\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 1]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nThe goal of this FYI is to codify the Internet lore so that network\n   operations staff, especially for networks just joining the Internet,\n   will have an accurate and up to date set of references from which to\n   work.  Also, redundancies are moved away from the electronic mailing\n   lists so that the lists' subscribers do not have to read the same\n   queries and answers over and over again.\n\n   Although the questions and their responses are taken from various\n   mailing lists, they are presented here loosely grouped by related\n   topic for ease of reading.  First the question is presented, then the\n   answer (or answers) as it appeared on the mailing list.\n\n   Sometimes the answers are abridged for better use of space.  If a\n   question was not answered on the mailing list, the editors provide an\n   answer.  These answers are not distinguished from the answers found\n   on the lists.  Sometimes, in order to be as complete as possible, the\n   editors provide additional information that was not present in the\n   original answer.  If so, that information falls under the heading\n   \"Additional Information\".\n\n   The answers are as correct as the reviewers can make them.  However,\n   much of this information changes with time.  As the FYI is updated,\n   temporal errors will be corrected.\n\n   Many of the questions are in first person, and the answers were\n   directed to the originator of the question.  These phrasings have not\n   been changed except where necessary for clarity.  References to the\n   correspondents' names have been removed.\n\n   The Q/A mailing lists are maintained by Gary Malkin at FTP.COM.  They\n   are used by a subgroup of the User Services Working Group to discuss\n   the Q/A FYIs.  They include:\n\n   quail@ftp.com           This is a discussion mailing list.  Its\n                           primary use is for pre-release review of\n                           the Q/A FYIs.\n\n   quail-request@ftp.com   This is how you join the quail mailing list.\n\n   quail-box@ftp.com       This is where the questions and answers\n                           will be forwarded-and-stored.  It is\n                           not necessary to be on the quail mailing\n                           list to forward to the quail-box.\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 2]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\n2\n. Acknowledgments\nThe following people deserve thanks for their help and contributions\n   to this FYI Q/A: Jim Conklin (EDUCOM), John C. Klensin (MIT),\n   Professor Kynikos (Special Consultant), Jon Postel (ISI),\n   Marshall Rose (PSI, Inc.), David Sitman (Tel Aviv University),\n   Patricia Smith (Merit), Gene Spafford (Purdue), and\n   James Van Bokkelen (FTP Software, Inc.).\n3\n. Questions about the Internet\n3.1. How do I get statistics regarding the traffic on NSFNET?\n\n      Merit/NSFNET Information Services maintains a variety of\n      statistical data at 'nis.nsf.net' (35.1.1.48) in the 'stats'\n      directory.  Information includes packet counts by NSS and byte\n      counts for type of use (ftp, smtp, telnet, etc.).  Filenames are\n      of the form 'NSFyy-mm.type'.\n\n      Files are available for anonymous ftp; use 'guest' as the\n      password.\n\n      The data in these files represent only traffic which traverses the\n      highest level of the NSFNET, not traffic within a campus or\n      regional network.  Send questions/comments to nsfnet-\n      info@merit.edu.\n4\n. Questions About Other Networks and Internets\n4.1. We have a user who would like to access a machine on\n        \"EARN/BITNET\".  I can't find anything on this in the domain\n        name tables.  Please, what is this, and how do I connect to it?\n\n      There are several machines on the Internet that act as gateways\n      between the Internet and BITNET.  Two examples are UICVM.UIC.EDU\n      and CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU.  You can address a mail message to\n      user%nodename.bitnet@uicvm.uic.edu where the message will be\n      passed from the Internet to BITNET.\n\n      Additional Information:\n\n         These same gateways, known as INTERBIT on the BITNET/EARN side,\n         transfer mail from computers on that network which support SMTP\n         mail headers, onto the Internet.  (Many BITNET/EARN computers\n         still do not support SMTP, which is not a part of the IBM\n         protocol used, and it is not possible to send mail from those\n         computers across the gateways into the Internet, in general.)\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 3]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nBITNET and EARN are the two largest of several cooperating\n         networks which use the IBM RSCS/NJE protocol suite, but are not\n         limited to IBM systems.  These independently administered,\n         interconnected networks function as a single, worldwide network\n         directly connecting more than 3,300 computers in about 1,400,\n         mostly higher-education, organizations worldwide.  This\n         worldwide network supports electronic mail, including mailing\n         lists, sender-initiated file transfer, and short \"interactive\"\n         messages.\n\n         BITNET, frequently used (outside of Europe) to refer to the\n         whole worldwide network, technically refers to that portion in\n         the United States, plus sites in other countries which are\n         connected through the United States and do not have their own\n         separately administered cooperating networks.  More than 550\n         organizations in the U.S.  participate in BITNET.\n\n         EARN is the European Academic Research Network.  EARN links\n         more than 500 institutions in Europe and several surrounding\n         countries.\n\n         BITNET and CSNET merged organizationally on October 1, 1990, to\n         form CREN, the Corporation for Research and Educational\n         Networking.  The two networks remain separate at the\n         operational level level, however.  (EARN and the other\n         Cooperating Networks were not involved in this merger.)\n5\n. Questions About Internet Documentation\n5.1. Where do I get information regarding ordering documents\n        related to GOSIP?\n\n      The complete information as issued by NIST is available online on\n      the NIC.DDN.MIL host as PROTOCOLS:GOSIP-ORDER-INFO.TXT.  The file\n      contains pointers to contact people, ordering addresses, prices,\n      and, in some cases, online pathnames, for various GOSIP related\n      documents.  In addition, the information as of August 1990 was\n      published as an appendix to\nRFC 1169\n, \"Explaining the Role of\n      GOSIP\" [\n1\n].\n6\n. Questions About Domain Name System (DNS)\n6.1. Is there a DNS Query server?\n\n      Actually, what you are looking for is the service that host\n      128.218.1.109 provides on port 5555 - you simply connect to that\n      host at that port, type in a fully qualified domain name and it\n      responds with an internet address and closes the connection.  I\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 4]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nused it when I had a host that still only had /etc/hosts and it\n      did just what I needed - which was basically a manual nslookup.\n\n      However, the vast majority of users will find it simpler to just\n      use a DNS query tool and ask the DNS directly.  This doesn't\n      require much sophistication, and does allow the user to see how\n      short names are expanded at the user's site rather than at\n      128.218.1.109 (wherever that is).  For example, suppose a user\n      wants to find out the address of a fully-qualified domain name\n      \"X.MISKATONIC.EDU\", and also see what host and address are used\n      when \"Z\" is typed as a host name.\n\n      Assuming the user is on a UNIX host and has a copy of the dig\n      program, type:\n\n         dig x.miskatonic.edu\n      and\n         dig z\n\n         and the answers will appear.  You are now on your way to\n         becoming a DNS expert.  There are other UNIX alternatives,\n         e.g., nslookup, and similar programs for non-UNIX systems.\n         Your local DNS guru certainly has one or more of these tools,\n         and although they are often kept from the public, they are\n         really quite easy to use for simple cases.\n\n   6.2. We have been having a frequent BIND failure on both our VAX\n        and Solbourne that is traced to TCP domain queries from an\n        IBM NSMAIN nameserver running in cache mode (UDP queries do\n        not cause this problem, though it is usually a UDP\n        resolution that is active upon the crash -- this resolution\n        is an innocent victim).\n\n        I have discovered that something is trashing the hash areas\n        (sometimes even as it is being recursively used in a\n        resolution).  Also, occasionally the socket/file descriptor\n        for the TCP connection is changed to invalid entries causing\n        a reply write fail (though this is not necessarily fatal,\n        and the rest of the structure is not apparently altered).\n\n        Has any one else had frequent BIND failures (especially\n        major domain sites that have heavy TCP domain loads)?\n\n      In both the case of BIND and the IBM implementation, often called\n      FAL, there are multiple versions, with older versions being truly\n      bad.  Upgrade to recent version before exploring further.\n\n      BIND has always had a problem with polluting its own database.\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 5]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nThese problems have been related to TCP connections, NS RRs with\n      small TTLs, and several other causes.  Experience suggests that\n      the style of bug fixing has often been that of reducing the\n      problem by 90% rather than eliminating it.\n\n      IBM's support for the DNS (outside of UNIX systems) is interesting\n      in its techniques, encouraging in its improvement, but still\n      somewhat depressing when compared to most other DNS software.  IBM\n      also uses terminology that varies somewhat from the usual DNS\n      usage and preserves some archaic syntax, e.g., \"..\".\n\n      The combination of an old BIND and an old IBM server is just plain\n      unpleasant.\n\n   6.3. Is the model used by the domain name system for host names\n        that the owner of a name gets to choose its case?\n\n      The model used by the DNS is that you get to control at a specific\n      point in the name space, and are hence free to select case as you\n      choose, until points where you in turn give away control.  As a\n      practical matter, there are several implementations that don't do\n      the right thing.  IBM implementations often map everything into a\n      single case.\n\n   6.4. According to\nRFC 1034\n[\n2\n], section 4.2.1, one should not have\n        to code glue RR's for name server's names unless they are below\n        the cut.  When I don't put glue RR's in, and do a query for\n        NS records, the \"additional\" field is left blank.  As far as I\n        can tell, all other zones I query for NS records have this\n        filled with the IP addresses of the NS hosts.  Is this required\n        or should I not be concerned that the additional field is empty?\n\n      The protocol says that an empty additional field is not a problem\n      when the name server's name is not \"below\" the cut.\n\n      In practice, putting in the glue where it is not required can\n      cause problems if the servers named in the glue are used for\n      several zones.  This is broken behavior in BIND.  Not putting in\n      glue can cause other problems in BIND, usually when the server\n      name is difficult to resolve.  So, the bottom line is to put glue\n      in only when required, and don't use aliases or anything else\n      tricky when it comes to identifying name servers.\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 6]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\n7\n. Questions About Network Management Implementations\n7.1. In reading the SNMP RFCs [\n3\n,\n4\n,\n5\n,\n6\n] I find mention of\n        authentication of PDUs.  Are there any standards for\n        authentication mechanisms?\n\n      There is a working group of the IETF that is working on this\n      problem.  They are close to a solution, but nothing has yet\n      reached RFC publication yet.  Expect something solid and\n      implementable by October of 1991.\n\n   7.2. Can vendors make their enterprise-specific variables available\n        to users through a standard distribution mechanism?\n\n      Yes.  But before someone submits a MIB, they should check it out\n      themselves.\n\n      On uu.psi.com in pilot/snmp-wg/, there are two files\n\n              mosy-sparc-4.0.3.c\n\n              mosy-sun3-3.5\n\n      The first will run on a Sun-Sparc, the second will run on a Sun-3.\n      After retrieving one of these files in BINARY mode via anonymous FTP,\n      the submittor can run their MIB through it, e.g.,\n\n              % mosy mymib.my\n\n      Once your MIB passes, send it to:\n\n              mib-checker@isi.edu\n\n      If everything is OK, the mib-checker will arrange to have it\n      installed in the /share/ftp/mib directory on venera.isi.edu.\n\n      Note: This processing does not offer an official endorsement.  The\n      documents submitted must not be marked proprietary, confidential,\n      or the like.\n\n   7.3. I have a question regarding those pesky octet strings again.\n        I use the variable-type field of the Response pdu to determine\n        how the result should be displayed to the user.  For example,\n        I convert NetworkAddresses to their dotted decimal format\n        (\"132.243.50.4\").  I convert Object Identifiers into strings\n        (\"1.3.6.1.2....\").\n\n        I would LIKE to just print Octet Strings as strings.  But,\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 7]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nthis causes a problem in such cases as atPhysAddress in\n        which the Octet string contains the 6 byte address instead\n        of a printable ASCII string.  In this case, I would want to\n        display the 6 bytes instead of just trying to print the\n        string.\n\n        MY QUESTION IS: Does anyone have a suggestion as to how I\n        can determine whether I can just print the string or whether\n        I should display the octet bytes.  * Remember: I want to\n        support enterprise specific variables too.\n\n      In general, there is no way that you can tell what is inside an\n      OCTET STRING without knowing something about the object that the\n      OCTET STRING comes from.  In MIB-II [\n6\n], some objects are marked\n      as DisplayString which has the syntax of OCTET STRING but is\n      restricted to characters from the NVT ASCII character set (see the\n      TELNET Specification,\nRFC 854\n[\n7\n], for further information).\n      These objects are:\n\n         sysDescr\n         sysContact\n         sysName\n         sysLocation\n         ifDescr\n\n      If you want to be able to arbitrarily decide how to display the\n      strings, without knowing anything about the object, then you can\n      scan the octets, looking for any octet which is not printable\n      ASCII.  If you find at least one, you can print the entire string,\n      octet by octet, in \"%02x:\" notation.  If all of the octets are\n      printable ASCII, then you can just printf the string.\n\n   7.4. If archived MIBs must be 1155-compatible [\n3\n], it would be nice\n        if those who submit them check them first.  Where are these\n        MIB tools available for public FTP?  Ideally, a simple\n        syntax checker (that didn't actually generate code) would be\n        nice.\n\n      In the ISODE 6.0 release there is a tool called MOSY which\n      recognizes the 1155 syntax and produces a flat ASCII file.  If you\n      can run it through MOSY without problems then you are OK.\n\n   7.5. Suppose I want to create a private MIB object for causing\n        some action to happen, say, do a reset.  Should the syntax\n        or this object specify a value such as:\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 8]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nSyntax:\n            INTEGER {\n               perform reset (1),\n            }\n\n        even though there is only a single value?  Or, is it ok to\n        just allow a Set on this object with any value to perform\n        the desired action?  If the later, how is this specified?\n\n      For our SNMP manageable gizmos and doohickies with similar\n      \"action\" type MIB variables, I've defined two values\n\n            Syntax:\n               INTEGER {\n                  reset(1)\n                  not-reset(2)\n               }\n\n      And defined behavior so that the only valid value that the\n      variable may be set to is \"reset\" (which is returned in the get\n      response PDU) and at all other times a get/getnext will respond\n      with \"not-reset\".\n8\n. Questions about Serial Line Internet Protocol (SLIP) and\nPoint-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Implementations\n8.1. I seem to recall hearing that SLIP [\n8\n] will only run on\n        synchronous serial lines.  Is this true?  ... is there\n        something about SLIP which precludes it's being implemented\n        over async lines?\n\n      Other way around:  SLIP is designed for async lines and is not a\n      good fit on sync lines.  PPP [\n9\n,\n10\n] works on either, and is what\n      you should be implementing if you're implementing something.\n\n   8.2. Since we are very interested in standards in this area,\n        could someone tell me were I can find more information on PPP?\n\n        Also, can this protocol be used in other fields than for the\n        Internet (i.e., telecontrol, telemetering) where we see a\n        profusion of proprietary incompatible and hard to maintain\n        Point-to-Point Protocols?\n\n      PPP was designed to be useful for many protocols besides just IP.\n      Whether it would be useful for your particular application should\n      probably be discussed with the IETF's Point-to-Point Protocol\n      Working Group discussion list.  For general discussion: ietf-\n      ppp@ucdavis.edu.  To subscribe: ietf-ppp-request@ucdavis.edu\nUser Services Working Group                                     [Page 9]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nThe PPP specification is available as\nRFC 1171\n[\n9\n], and a PPP\n      options specification is available as\nRFC 1172\n[\n10\n].\n\n      In UnixWorld of April 1990 (Vol. VII, No. 4, Pg. 85), Howard\n      Baldwin writes:\n\n         \"Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) has just been submitted to the\n         CCITT from the Internet Engineering Task Force.  It specifies a\n         standard for encapsulating Internet Protocol data and other\n         network layer (level three on ISO's OSI Model) protocol\n         information over point-to-point links; it also provides ways to\n         test and configure lines and the upper level protocols on the\n         OSI Model.  The only requirement is a provision of a duplex\n         circuit either dedicated or switched, that can operate in\n         either an asynchronous or synchronous mode, transparent to the\n         data-linklayer frame.\n\n         \"According to Michael Ballard, director of network systems for\n         Telebit, PPP is a direct improvement upon Serial Line Internet\n         Protocol (SLIP), which had neither error correction nor a way\n         to exchange network address.\"\n\n   8.3. Does anyone know if there is a way to run a SLIP program on\n        a IBM computer running SCO Xenix/Unix, with a multi-port\n        serial board?\n\n      SCO TCP/IP for Xenix supports SLIP.  It works.  However, be\n      warned: SCO SLIP works *only* with SCO serial drivers, so it will\n      *not* work with intelligent boards that come with their own\n      drivers.  If you want lots of SLIP ports, you'll need lots of dumb\n      ports, perhaps with a multi-dumb-port board.\n\n      Here's the setup -- SunOS 3.5, with the 4.3BSD TCP, IP & SLIP\n      distributions installed.  Slip is running between the \"ttya\" ports\n      of two Sun 3/60's.  \"ping\", \"rlogin\", etc., works fine, but a NFS\n      mount results in \"server not responding: RPC Timed Out\".\n\n      SunOS 3.5 turns the UDP checksum off, which is legal and works\n      okay over interfaces such as ethernet which has link- level\n      checksumming.  On the other hand, SLIP doesn't perform checksums\n      thus running NFS over SLIP requires you to turn the UDP checksum\n      on.  Otherwise, you'll experience erratic behavior such as the one\n      described above.\nUser Services Working Group                                    [Page 10]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nSave the older kernel and try,\n\n            % adb -k -w /vmunix /dev/kmem udpcksum?w 1\n\n         to patch up the kernel.\n9\n. Questions About Routing\n9.1. Some postings mentioned \"maximum entropy routing\".  Could\n        someone please provide a pointer to on-line or off-line\n        references to this topic?\n\n      Try NYU CSD Technical Report 371: \"Some Comments on Highly Dynamic\n      Network Routing,\" by Herbert J. Bernstein, May 1988.\n10\n. Other Protocol and Standards Implementation Questions\n10.1. Does anyone recognize ethernet type \"80F3\"?  I don't see it\n         in\nRFC 1010\n, but I am seeing it on our net.\n\n      Ethernet type 0x80F3 is used by AppleTalk for address resolution.\n      You must have Macs on your network which are directly connected to\n      Ethernet.  These packets are used by the Mac (generally at\n      startup) to determine a valid AppleTalk node number.\n\n      Additional Information:\nRFC 1010\nis obsolete.  Please consult\nRFC 1060\n[\n11\n], the current\n      \"Assigned Numbers\" (issued March 1990), which does list \"80F3\":\n\n      Ethernet          Exp. Ethernet    Description          References\n      -------------     -------------   -----------           ----------\n      decimal  Hex      decimal  octal\n      33011   80F3        -      -     AppleTalk AARP (Kinetics)[XEROX]\n\n   10.2. Does anyone know the significance of a high value for\n         \"Bad proto\" in the output from netstat on Unix machines using\n         ethernet?  We're seeing values in the tens of thousands out of\n         a few hundred thousand packets sent/received in all.  Some\n         \"Bad proto\" values are negative, too.  (Off the scale?)  Any\n         help would be appreciated.\n\n      This probably indicates that you are getting tens of thousands of\n      broadcast packets from some host or hosts on your network.  You\n      might want to buy or rent a LAN monitor, or install one of the\n      public-domain packages to see what private protocol is guilty.\n      \"FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring\n      and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected Devices\" (RFC\nUser Services Working Group                                    [Page 11]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\n1147, FYI 2), [\n12\n] contains pointers to tools that may help you\n      zero in on the problem.\n\n   10.3. Which RFC would explain the proper way to configure broadcast\n         addresses when using subnets?\n\n      Consult\nRFC 1122\n, \"Requirements for Internet Hosts --\n      Communication Layer\" [\n13\n].\n\n   10.4. Can anyone tell me what .TAR files exactly are?  Is it like\n         ZIP or LZH for the IBM PC's?  IF so, how do I go about getting\n         a compressor/decompressor for .TAR files and what computer\n         does this run on?\n\n      TAR stands for \"Tape ARchive\".  It is a Unix utility which takes\n      files, and directories of files, and creates a single large file.\n      Originally intended to back up directory trees onto tape (hence\n      the name), TAR is also used to combine files for easier electronic\n      file transfer.\n11\n. Suggested Reading\nFor further information about the Internet and its protocols in\n   general, you may choose to obtain copies of the following works:\n\n      Bowers, K., T. LaQuey, J. Reynolds, K. Roubicek, M. Stahl, and A.\n      Yuan, \"Where to Start - A Bibliography of General Internetworking\n      Information\",\nRFC 1175\n, FYI 3, CNRI, U Texas, ISI, BBN, SRI,\n      Mitre, August 1990.\n\n      Braden, R., Editor, \"Requirements for Internet Hosts --\n      Communication Layer\",\nRFC 1122\n, Internet Engineering Task Force,\n      October 1989.\n\n      Braden, R., Editor, \"Requirements for Internet Hosts --\n      Application and Support\",\nRFC 1123\n, Internet Engineering Task\n      Force, October 1989.\n\n      Comer, D., \"Internetworking with TCP/IP: Principles, Protocols,\n      and Architecture\", Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1989.\n\n      Frey, D. and R. Adams, \"!%@:: A Directory of Electronic Mail\n      Addressing and Networks\", O'Reilly and Associates, Newton, MA,\n      August 1989.\n\n      Krol, E., \"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Internet\",\nRFC 1118\n,\n      University of Illinois Urbana, September 1989.\nUser Services Working Group                                    [Page 12]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nLaQuey, T, Editor, \"Users' Directory of Computer Networks\",\n      Digital Press, Bedford, MA, 1990.\n\n      Malkin, G., and A. Marine, \"FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers\n      to Commonly asked \"New Internet User\" Questions\",\nRFC 1206\n, FYI 4,\n      FTP Software, Inc., SRI, February 1991.\n\n      Postel, J., Editor, \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\",\nRFC 1140\n,\n      Internet Activities Board, May 1990.\n\n      Quarterman, J., \"Matrix: Computer Networks and Conferencing\n      Systems Worldwide\", Digital Press, Bedford, MA, 1989.\n\n      Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\",\nRFC 1060\n,\n      USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1990.\n\n      Socolofsky, T., and C. Kale, \"A TCP/IP Tutorial\",\nRFC 1180\n, Spider\n      Systems Limited, January 1991.\n\n      Stevens, W., \"UNIX Network Programming\", ISBN 0-13-949876-1,\n      Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.\n\n      Stine, R., Editor, \"FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog:\n      Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and\n      Interconnected Devices\"\nRFC 1147\n, FYI 2, Sparta, Inc., April 1990.\n12\n.  References\n[\n1\n] Cerf, V., and K. Mills, \"Explaining the Role of GOSIP\",\nRFC 1169\n,\n       IAB, NIST, August 1990.\n\n   [\n2\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities\",\nRFC\n1034\n, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987.\n\n   [\n3\n] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, \"Structure and Identification of\n       Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets\",\nRFC 1155\n,\n       Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990.\n\n   [\n4\n] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, \"Management Information Base for\n       Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets\",\nRFC 1156\n, Hughes\n       LAN Systems, Performance Systems International, May 1990.\n\n   [\n5\n] Case, J., M. Fedor, M. Schoffstall, and J. Davin, \"A Simple\n       Network Management Protocol (SNMP)\",\nRFC 1157\n, SNMP Research,\n       Performance Systems International, Performance Systems\n       International, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990.\n\n   [\n6\n] Rose, M., Editor, \"Management Information Base for Network\nUser Services Working Group                                    [Page 13]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\nManagement of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II\",\nRFC 1158\n,\n       Performance Systems International, May 1990.\n\n   [\n7\n] Postel, J., and J. Reynolds, \"TELNET Protocol Specification\",\nRFC\n854\n, USC/Information Sciences Institute, May 1983.\n\n   [\n8\n] Romkey, J., \"A Nonstandard for Transmission of IP Datagrams over\n       Serial Lines: SLIP\",\nRFC 1055\n, June 1988.\n\n   [\n9\n] Perkins, D., \"The Point-to-Point Protocol: A Proposal for Multi-\n       Protocol Transmission of Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links\",\nRFC 1171\n, CMU, July 1990.\n\n  [\n10\n] Perkins, D., and R. Hobby, \"The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)\n       Initial Configuration Options\", CMU, UC Davis, July 1990.\n\n  [\n11\n] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\",\nRFC 1060\n,\n       USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1990.\n\n  [\n12\n] Stine, R., Editor, \"FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog:\n       Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and\n       Interconnected Devices\"\nRFC 1147\n, FYI 2, Sparta, Inc., April\n       1990.\n\n  [\n13\n] Braden, R., Editor, \"Requirements for Internet Hosts --\n       Communication Layer\",\nRFC 1122\n, Internet Engineering Task Force,\n       October 1989.\n13\n. Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\nUser Services Working Group                                    [Page 14]\nRFC 1207\nFYI Q/A - for Experienced Internet Users   February 1991\n14\n. Authors' Addresses\nGary Scott Malkin\n   FTP Software, Inc.\n   26 Princess Street\n   Wakefield, MA 01880\n\n   Phone:  (617) 246-0900\n   EMail:  gmalkin@ftp.com\n\n\n   April N. Marine\n   SRI International\n   Network Information Systems Center\n   333 Ravenswood Avenue, EJ294\n   Menlo Park, CA 94025\n\n   Phone:  (415) 859-5318\n   EMail:  APRIL@nic.ddn.mil\n\n\n   Joyce K. Reynolds\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n   Phone:  (213) 822-1511\n   EMail:  jkrey@isi.edu\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nUser Services Working Group                                    [Page 15]\nRFC\n1207\n: FYI on Questions and Answers: Answers to commonly asked \"experienced Internet user\" questions\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1991-02-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1991-02-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1991-02-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:52.783632+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "23334896-a3bc-4303-9950-b7e52ccf276f", "source_id": "19f9863fc198107931416eef", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/closed-proceedings?page=1&sort-param=closed-date&sort-direction=desc", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/closed-proceedings?page=1&sort-param=closed-date&sort-direction=desc", "artifact_sha256": "de788520c7a5df0bc02bf4bddc39469353540da1b2a9c2c16ac15192f927c291", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 364755, "title": "Public Comment Closed Proceedings", "language": "en", "text_length": 5103, "characters": 5103, "text": "Public Comment Closed Proceedings\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nPublic Comment Closed Proceedings\nSearch for Closed Public Comment proceedings and submissions by category, date, or keyword(s).\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within closed Public Comment proceedings.\nTo view closed Public Comment proceedings published before September 2021,\nclick here\n.\nCategory\nGovernance\nOperations\nPolicy\nReviews\nTechnical\nOther\nStart date\nEnd date\nApply\nClear\nClosed Public Comment Proceedings\nIf you are searching for a closed Public Comment proceeding that was published before September 2021,\nclick here\n.\nMore Search Options\nDownload results to .csv file\n1-20 of 125 results\nProceedings\nReport\nSubmissions\nClose Date\nDraft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation (CPE)\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 146.14 KB)\n12\n13 May 2026\nDraft Guidelines for Advancing UA Adoption\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 236.82 KB)\n37\n12 May 2026\nProposed Root KSK Algorithm Rollover\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 157.3 KB)\n11\n4 May 2026\nStandard Bylaws Amendment – Transition Article on Specific Reviews\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 83.08 KB)\n13\n20 Apr 2026\nFundamental Bylaws Amendments on IANA-Related Reviews and CSC Charter Update\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 137.71 KB)\n9\n13 Apr 2026\nName Collision Procedure Documentation\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 191.61 KB)\n4\n9 Apr 2026\nICANN FY27–31 Operating & Financial Plan, ICANN/IANA FY27 Op Plans & Budgets\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 803.83 KB)\n8\n2 Apr 2026\nDraft PTI FY27 Operating Plan and Budget\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 189.02 KB)\n3\n2 Apr 2026\nName Collision IPv6 Research Study\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 147.3 KB)\n12\n16 Mar 2026\nLatin Script Diacritics PDP Initial Report\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 287.87 KB)\n15\n9 Mar 2026\nICANN Office of Ombuds Framework and Process\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 156.88 KB)\n11\n24 Feb 2026\nProposed Updates to the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 349.26 KB)\n4\n17 Feb 2026\nProposed Next Round Base gTLD Registry Agreement - Spec 14 (Variant TLDs)\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 132.61 KB)\n5\n12 Feb 2026\nProposed GNSO Process for ICANN Board to Reverse Adoption of GNSO Policy Recs\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 151.35 KB)\n11\n11 Feb 2026\nString Similarity Evaluation Guidelines for New gTLD Program: 2026 Round\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 200.87 KB)\n6\n5 Feb 2026\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS) Policy Alignment Analysis\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 244.34 KB)\n13\n20 Jan 2026\nTimeline for Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure of Nonpublic Registration Data\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 114.37 KB)\n12\n14 Jan 2026\nICANN Public Meeting Proposed Dates for 2029–2033\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 52.61 KB)\n8\n22 Dec 2025\nProposed Next Round Base gTLD Registry Agreement - Public Comment 2 of 2\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 240.97 KB)\n18\n22 Dec 2025\nUpdated GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charter Amendment Process\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 50 KB)\n4\n19 Dec 2025\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n...\n7\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "aada0a7f-92ae-4760-8771-4d0b7cdcfe65", "document_id": "23334896-a3bc-4303-9950-b7e52ccf276f", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Public Comment Closed Proceedings\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nPublic Comment Closed Proceedings\nSearch for Closed Public Comment proceedings and submissions by category, date, or keyword(s).\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within closed Public Comment proceedings.\nTo view closed Public Comment proceedings published before September 2021,\nclick here\n.\nCategory\nGovernance\nOperations\nPolicy\nReviews\nTechnical\nOther\nStart date\nEnd date\nApply\nClear\nClosed Public Comment Proceedings\nIf you are searching for a closed Public Comment proceeding that was published before September 2021,\nclick here\n.\nMore Search Options\nDownload results to .csv file\n1-20 of 125 results\nProceedings\nReport\nSubmissions\nClose Date\nDraft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation (CPE)\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 146.14 KB)\n12\n13 May 2026\nDraft Guidelines for Advancing UA Adoption\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 236.82 KB)\n37\n12 May 2026\nProposed Root KSK Algorithm Rollover\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 157.3 KB)\n11\n4 May 2026\nStandard Bylaws Amendment – Transition Article on Specific Reviews\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 83.08 KB)\n13\n20 Apr 2026\nFundamental Bylaws Amendments on IANA-Related Reviews and CSC Charter Update\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 137.71 KB)\n9\n13 Apr 2026\nName Collision Procedure Documentation\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 191.61 KB)\n4\n9 Apr 2026\nICANN FY27–31 Operating & Financial Plan, ICANN/IANA FY27 Op Plans & Budgets\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 803.83 KB)\n8\n2 Apr 2026\nDraft PTI FY27 Operating Plan and Budget\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 189.02 KB)\n3\n2 Apr 2026\nName Collision IPv6 Research Study\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 147.3 KB)\n12\n16 Mar 2026\nLatin Script Diacritics PDP Initial Report\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 287.87 KB)\n15\n9 Mar 2026\nICANN Office of Ombuds Framework and Process\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 156.88 KB)\n11\n24 Feb 2026\nProposed Updates to the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 349.26 KB)\n4\n17 Feb 2026\nProposed Next Round Base gTLD Registry Agreement - Spec 14 (Variant TLDs)\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 132.61 KB)\n5\n12 Feb 2026\nProposed GNSO Process for ICANN Board to Reverse Adoption of GNSO Policy Recs\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 151.35 KB)\n11\n11 Feb 2026\nString Similarity Evaluation Guidelines for New gTLD Program: 2026 Round\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 200.87 KB)\n6\n5 Feb 2026\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS) Policy Alignment Analysis\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 244.34 KB)\n13\n20 Jan 2026\nTimeline for Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure of Nonpublic Registration Data\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 114.37 KB)\n12\n14 Jan 2026\nICANN Public Meeting Proposed Dates for 2029–2033\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 52.61 KB)\n8\n22 Dec 2025\nProposed Next Round Base gTLD Registry Agreement - Public Comment 2 of 2\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 240.97 KB)\n18\n22 Dec 2025\nUpdated GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charter Amendment Process\nShow description\nReport\n(pdf, 50 KB)\n4\n19 Dec 2025\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n...\n7\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5103, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 771}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "24bd3d65-1b2f-44fa-8ce2-2f6911dee44e", "source_id": "c7b20a2de323c6e8220290db", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/presidents-corner", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/ceo-corner", "artifact_sha256": "860bf05c43ce90078ee3637f57bd157638bb745c5308183471fe243080b00f87", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 332280, "title": "CEO Corner", "language": "en", "text_length": 7864, "characters": 7864, "text": "CEO Corner\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nCEO Corner\nGain insight into the work ICANN does and stay up to date on the organization’s latest achievements with this collection of reports, blogs, and Organizational Objectives.\nSubscribe\nCEO Corner Home\nCEO Reports to the Board\nCEO’s Latest Blogs\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nCEO Corner\nKurt Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist is the ICANN President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and he regularly communicates the organization’s milestones, activities, and progress toward established goals and objectives. In this collection of reports, blogs, and Organizational Objectives, readers can learn more about ICANN and stay up to date on its latest initiatives from the perspective of the organization’s leader.\nGet a high-level and comprehensive look at how the organization works by viewing the Organizational Objectives and the CEO’s regular Reports to the Board and blogs. Check back often to stay informed about the latest from ICANN.\nOrganizational Objectives and CEO Reports to the Board\nOne of the most important aspects of any organization’s operations is setting goals. By clearly defining what it hopes to achieve, an organization can stay focused and on track.\nEach year, the ICANN CEO works with the ICANN Board and the org’s Executive team to set goals for the organization. These goals are developed with the needs of the organization and the challenges the ICANN ecosystem faces in mind, and they help guide the org as it continues its work. Once the goals are set, the CEO regularly reports back to the Board on the org’s progress, allowing for course corrections when necessary and the celebrating of successes along the way.\nLearn more about how ICANN org is working to meet its mission by reviewing the Organizational Objectives and CEO Reports to the Board.\nOrganizational Objectives\nView the newest objectives for a comprehensive overview of current activities and initiatives.\nREAD MORE\nLatest CEO Report to the Board\nView the latest report for insight into the challenges and opportunities facing ICANN as well as the progress made.\nREAD MORE\nAll CEO Reports to the Board\nBrowse the library of past reports to understand how the organization has adapted over time to meet changing needs.\nREAD MORE\nOrganizational Objectives\nView the newest objectives for a comprehensive overview of current activities and initiatives.\nREAD MORE\nLatest CEO Report to the Board\nView the latest report for insight into the challenges and opportunities facing ICANN as well as the progress made.\nREAD MORE\nAll CEO Reports to the Board\nBrowse the library of past reports to understand how the organization has adapted over time to meet changing needs.\nREAD MORE\nCEO’s Latest Blogs\ngTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems Technical Study Group Underway\nBy\nKurtis Lindqvist\n9 June 2026\nICANN FY27 Organizational Objectives Align Efforts on Priority Issues\nBy\nKurtis Lindqvist\n3 June 2026\nA Look Back at ICANN85\nBy\nKurtis Lindqvist\n26 March 2026\nMore Blogs from the CEO\nKurtis Lindqvist\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nRead biography\nKurtis Lindqvist\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nKurt Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist is a seasoned technology executive and business leader who became President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on 9 December 2024. With more than 30 years of experience in engineering and business development of Internet service providers, Internet Exchange Points, and global network carriers, Lindqvist has dedicated his career to advancing the stability, security, and accessibility of the Internet.\nPrior to joining ICANN, Lindqvist served as CEO of the London Internet Exchange (LINX), a leading operator of worldwide interconnection services, from 2019 to 2024. Prior to this, he was CEO of Netnod from 2002 to 2015. Lindqvist also chaired the European Internet Exchange Association (Euro-IX) from 2003 to 2020, which underscores his long-standing leadership in Internet infrastructure organizations.\nLindqvist has been a leading voice in Internet governance (IG) and technical development. He served on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and led working groups within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and RIPE, where his efforts helped shape critical Internet standards and policies. Additionally, he has advised the Swedish government on IG, broadband policy, and other key areas, fostering collaboration between public and private sectors.\nLindqvist studied Computer Science at Uppsala University, Sweden, and holds an Executive MBA from the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland.\nKurtis Lindqvist\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nRead biography\nKurtis Lindqvist\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nKurt Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist is a seasoned technology executive and business leader who became President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on 9 December 2024. With more than 30 years of experience in engineering and business development of Internet service providers, Internet Exchange Points, and global network carriers, Lindqvist has dedicated his career to advancing the stability, security, and accessibility of the Internet.\nPrior to joining ICANN, Lindqvist served as CEO of the London Internet Exchange (LINX), a leading operator of worldwide interconnection services, from 2019 to 2024. Prior to this, he was CEO of Netnod from 2002 to 2015. Lindqvist also chaired the European Internet Exchange Association (Euro-IX) from 2003 to 2020, which underscores his long-standing leadership in Internet infrastructure organizations.\nLindqvist has been a leading voice in Internet governance (IG) and technical development. He served on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and led working groups within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and RIPE, where his efforts helped shape critical Internet standards and policies. Additionally, he has advised the Swedish government on IG, broadband policy, and other key areas, fostering collaboration between public and private sectors.\nLindqvist studied Computer Science at Uppsala University, Sweden, and holds an Executive MBA from the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f0297783-a44f-4450-b975-8e139d8ae038", "document_id": "24bd3d65-1b2f-44fa-8ce2-2f6911dee44e", "ordinal": 0, "text": "CEO Corner\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nCEO Corner\nGain insight into the work ICANN does and stay up to date on the organization’s latest achievements with this collection of reports, blogs, and Organizational Objectives.\nSubscribe\nCEO Corner Home\nCEO Reports to the Board\nCEO’s Latest Blogs\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nCEO Corner\nKurt Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist is the ICANN President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and he regularly communicates the organization’s milestones, activities, and progress toward established goals and objectives. In this collection of reports, blogs, and Organizational Objectives, readers can learn more about ICANN and stay up to date on its latest initiatives from the perspective of the organization’s leader.\nGet a high-level and comprehensive look at how the organization works by viewing the Organizational Objectives and the CEO’s regular Reports to the Board and blogs. Check back often to stay informed about the latest from ICANN.\nOrganizational Objectives and CEO Reports to the Board\nOne of the most important aspects of any organization’s operations is setting goals. By clearly defining what it hopes to achieve, an organization can stay focused and on track.\nEach year, the ICANN CEO works with the ICANN Board and the org’s Executive team to set goals for the organization. These goals are developed with the needs of the organization and the challenges the ICANN ecosystem faces in mind, and they help guide the org as it continues its work. Once the goals are set, the CEO regularly reports back to the Board on the org’s progress, allowing for course corrections when necessary and the celebrating of successes along the way.\nLearn more about how ICANN org is working to meet its mission by reviewing the Organizational Objectives and CEO Reports to the Board.\nOrganizational Objectives\nView the newest objectives for a comprehensive overview of current activities and initiatives.\nREAD MORE\nLatest CEO Report to the Board\nView the latest report for insight into the challenges and opportunities facing ICANN as well as the progress made.\nREAD MORE\nAll CEO Reports to the Board\nBrowse the library of past reports to understand how the organization has adapted over time to meet changing needs.\nREAD MORE\nOrganizational Objectives\nView the newest objectives for a comprehensive overview of current activities and initiatives.\nREAD MORE\nLatest CEO Report to the Board\nView the latest report for insight into the challenges and opportunities facing ICANN as well as the progress made.\nREAD MORE\nAll CEO Reports to the Board\nBrowse the library of past reports to understand how the organization has adapted over time to meet changing needs.\nREAD MORE\nCEO’s Latest Blogs\ngTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems Technical Study Group Underway\nBy\nKurtis Lindqvist\n9 June 2026\nICANN FY27 Organizational Objectives Align Efforts on Priority Issues\nBy\nKurtis Lindqvist\n3 June 2026\nA Look Back at ICANN85\nBy\nKurtis Lindqvist\n26 March 2026\nMore Blogs from the CEO\nKurtis Lindqvist\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nRead biography\nKurtis Lindqvist\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nKurt Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist is a seasoned technology executive and business leader who became President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on 9 December 2024. With more than 30 years of experience in engineering and business development of Internet service providers, Internet Exchange Points, and global network carriers, Lindqvist has dedicated his career to advancing the stability, security, and accessibility of the Internet.\nPrior to joining ICANN, Lindqvist served as CEO of the London Internet Exchange (LINX), a leading operator of worldwide interconnection services, from 2019 to 2024. Prior to this, he was CEO of Netnod from 2002 to 2015. Lindqvist also chaired the European Internet Exchange Association (Euro-IX) from 2003 to 2020, which underscores his long-standing leadership in Internet infrastructure organizations.\nLindqvist has been a leading voice in Internet governance (IG) and technical development. He served on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and led working groups within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and RIPE, where his efforts helped shape critical Internet standards and policies. Additionally, he has advised the Swedish government on IG, broadband policy, and other key areas, fostering collaboration between public and private sectors.\nLindqvist studied Computer Science at Uppsala University, Sweden, and holds an Executive MBA from the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland.\nKurtis Lindqvist\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nRead biography\nKurtis Lindqvist\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nKurt Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist is a seasoned technology executive and business leader who became President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on 9 December 2024. With more than 30 years of experience in engineering and business development of Internet service providers, Internet Exchange Points, and global network carriers, Lindqvist has dedicated his career to advancing the stability, security, and accessibility of the Internet.\nPrior to joining ICANN, Lindqvist served as CEO of the London Internet Exchange (LINX), a leading operator of worldwide interconnection services, from 2019 to 2024. Prior to this, he was CEO of Netnod from 2002 to 2015. Lindqvist also chaired the European Internet Exchange Association (Euro-IX) from 2003 to 2020, which underscores his long-standing leadership in Internet infrastructure organizations.\nLindqvist has been a leading voice in Internet governance (IG) and technical development. He served on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and led working groups within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and RIPE, where his efforts helped shape critical Internet standards and policies. Additionally, he has advised the Swedish government on IG, broadband policy, and other key areas, fostering collaboration between public and private sectors.\nLindqvist studied Computer Science at Uppsala University, Sweden, and holds an Executive MBA from the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 7864, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1164}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "25f206be-b4ee-400b-ac03-1e4dc983ca07", "source_id": "e4b563641c921bf9910036d4", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9364.pdf", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9364.pdf", "artifact_sha256": "e4b563641c921bf9910036d496fad63625b2e67730e3596708b3f31a876caa0c", "content_type": "application/pdf", "extraction_method": "pypdf", "byte_size": 161543, "title": "RFC 9364: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", "language": "en", "text_length": 20845, "characters": 20845, "text": "RFC 9364\nDNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\nAbstract\nThis document describes the DNS Security Extensions (commonly called \"DNSSEC\") that are\nspecified in RFCs 4033, 4034, and 4035, as well as a handful of others. One purpose is to introduce\nall of the RFCs in one place so that the reader can understand the many aspects of DNSSEC. This\ndocument does not update any of those RFCs. A second purpose is to state that using DNSSEC for\norigin authentication of DNS data is the best current practice. A third purpose is to provide a\nsingle reference for other documents that want to refer to DNSSEC.\nStream:\nRFC:\nBCP:\nCategory:\nPublished:\nISSN:\nAuthor:\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\n9364\n237\nBest Current Practice\nFebruary 2023 \n2070-1721\n P. Hoffman\nICANN\nStatus of This Memo \nThis memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.\nThis document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the\nconsensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for\npublication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is\navailable in Section 2 of RFC 7841.\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback\non it may be obtained at .https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9364\nCopyright Notice \nCopyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights\nreserved.\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF\nDocuments ( ) in effect on the date of publication of this\ndocument. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions\nhttps://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 1\n\nwith respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include\nRevised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are\nprovided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.\nTable of Contents \n1.  Introduction\n1.1.  DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice\n1.2.  Implementing DNSSEC\n2.  DNSSEC Core Documents\n2.1.  Addition to the DNSSEC Core\n3.  Additional Cryptographic Algorithms and DNSSEC\n4.  Extensions to DNSSEC\n5.  Additional Documents of Interest\n6.  IANA Considerations\n7.  Security Considerations\n8.  References\n8.1.  Normative References\n8.2.  Informative References\nAcknowledgements\nAuthor's Address\n1. Introduction \nThe core specification for what we know as DNSSEC (the combination of , ,\nand ) describes a set of protocols that provide origin authentication of DNS data. \n updates and extends those core RFCs but does not fundamentally change the way that\nDNSSEC works.\nThis document lists RFCs that should be considered by someone creating an implementation of,\nor someone deploying, DNSSEC as it is currently standardized. Although an effort was made to be\nthorough, the reader should not assume this list is comprehensive. It uses terminology from\nthose documents without defining that terminology. It also points to the relevant IANA registry\ngroups that relate to DNSSEC. It does not, however, point to standards that rely on zones needing\nto be signed by DNSSEC, such as DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) .\n[RFC4033] [RFC4034]\n[RFC4035]\n[RFC6840]\n[RFC6698]\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 2\n\n1.1. DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice \nUsing the DNSSEC set of protocols is the best current practice for adding origin authentication of\nDNS data. To date, no Standards Track RFCs offer any other method for such origin\nauthentication of data in the DNS.\nMore than 15 years after the DNSSEC specification was published, it is still not widely deployed.\nRecent estimates are that fewer than 10% of the domain names used for websites are signed, and\nonly around a third of queries to recursive resolvers are validated. However, this low level of\ndeployment does not affect whether using DNSSEC is a best current practice; it just indicates that\nthe value of deploying DNSSEC is often considered lower than the cost. Nonetheless, the\nsignificant deployment of DNSSEC beneath some top-level domains (TLDs) and the near-\nuniversal deployment of DNSSEC for the TLDs in the DNS root zone demonstrate that DNSSEC is\napplicable for implementation by both ordinary and highly sophisticated domain owners.\n1.2. Implementing DNSSEC \nDevelopers of validating resolvers and authoritative servers, as well as operators of validating\nresolvers and authoritative servers, need to know the parts of the DNSSEC protocol that would\naffect them. They should read the DNSSEC core documents and probably at least be familiar with\nthe extensions. Developers will probably need to be very familiar with the algorithm documents\nas well.\nAs a side note, some of the DNSSEC-related RFCs have significant errata, so reading the RFCs\nshould also include looking for the related errata.\n2. DNSSEC Core Documents \nWhat we refer to as \"DNSSEC\" is the third iteration of the DNSSEC specification;  was\nthe first, and  was the second. Earlier iterations have not been deployed on a\nsignificant scale. Throughout this document, \"DNSSEC\" means the protocol initially defined in \n, , and .\nThe three initial core documents generally cover different topics:\n is an overview of DNSSEC, including how it might change the resolution of DNS\nqueries. \n specifies the DNS resource records used in DNSSEC. It obsoletes many RFCs about\nearlier versions of DNSSEC. \n covers the modifications to the DNS protocol incurred by DNSSEC. These include\nsigning zones, serving signed zones, resolving in light of DNSSEC, and authenticating\nDNSSEC-signed data. \n[RFC2065]\n[RFC2535]\n[RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035]\n• [RFC4033]\n• [RFC4034]\n• [RFC4035]\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 3\n\nAt the time this set of core documents was published, someone could create a DNSSEC\nimplementation of signing software, of a DNSSEC-aware authoritative server, and/or of a\nDNSSEC-aware recursive resolver from the three core documents, plus a few older RFCs\nspecifying the cryptography used. Those two older documents are the following:\n defines how to use the DSA signature algorithm (although it refers to other\ndocuments for the details). DSA was thinly implemented and can safely be ignored by\nDNSSEC implementations. \n defines how to use the RSA signature algorithm (although refers to other\ndocuments for the details). RSA is still among the most popular signing algorithms for\nDNSSEC. \nIt is important to note that later RFCs update the core documents. As just one example, \nchanges how TTL values are calculated in DNSSEC processing.\n• [RFC2536]\n• [RFC3110]\n[RFC9077]\n2.1. Addition to the DNSSEC Core \nAs with any major protocol, developers and operators discovered issues with the original core\ndocuments over the years.  is an omnibus update to the original core documents and\nthus itself has become a core document. In addition to covering new requirements from new\nDNSSEC RFCs, it describes many important security and interoperability issues that arose during\nthe deployment of the initial specifications, particularly after the DNS root was signed in 2010. It\nalso lists some errors in the examples of the core specifications.\n brings a few additions into the core of DNSSEC. It makes NSEC3  as much a\npart of DNSSEC as NSEC is. It also makes the SHA-256 and SHA-512 hash functions defined in \n and  part of the core.\n[RFC6840]\n[RFC6840] [RFC5155]\n[RFC4509] [RFC5702]\n3. Additional Cryptographic Algorithms and DNSSEC \nCurrent cryptographic algorithms typically weaken over time as computing power improves and\nnew cryptoanalysis emerges. Two new signing algorithms have been adopted by the DNSSEC\ncommunity: Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)  and Edwards-curve\nDigital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) . ECDSA and EdDSA have become very popular\nsigning algorithms in recent years. The GOST signing algorithm  was also adopted\nbut has seen very limited use, likely because it is a national algorithm specific to a very small\nnumber of countries.\nImplementation developers who want to know which algorithms to implement in DNSSEC\nsoftware should refer to . Note that this specification is only about what algorithms\nshould and should not be included in implementations, i.e., it is not advice about which\nalgorithms zone operators should or should not use for signing, nor which algorithms recursive\nresolver operators should or should not use for validation.\n[RFC6605]\n[RFC8080]\n[GOST-SIGN]\n[RFC8624]\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 4\n\n4. Extensions to DNSSEC \nThe DNSSEC community has extended the DNSSEC core and the cryptographic algorithms, both\nin terms of describing good operational practices and in new protocols. Some of the RFCs that\ndescribe these extensions include the following:\n describes a method to help resolvers update their DNSSEC trust anchors in an\nautomated fashion. This method was used in 2018 to update the DNS root trust anchor. \n is a compendium of operational practices that may not be obvious from reading\njust the core specifications. \n describes using the CDS and CDNSKEY resource records to help automate the\nmaintenance of DS records in the parents of signed zones. \n extends  by showing how to do initial setup of trusted relationships\nbetween signed parent and child zones. \n describes how a validating resolver can emit fewer queries in signed zones that\nuse NSEC and NSEC3 for negative caching. \n updates  with respect to the TTL fields in signed records. \n• [RFC5011]\n• [RFC6781]\n• [RFC7344]\n• [RFC8078] [RFC7344]\n• [RFC8198]\n• [RFC9077] [RFC8198]\n5. Additional Documents of Interest \nThe documents listed above constitute the core of DNSSEC, the additional cryptographic\nalgorithms, and the major extensions to DNSSEC. This section lists some additional documents\nthat someone interested in implementing or operating DNSSEC might find of value:\n \"describes how to construct DNSSEC NSEC resource records that cover a smaller\nrange of names than called for by . By generating and signing these records on\ndemand, authoritative name servers can effectively stop the disclosure of zone contents\notherwise made possible by walking the chain of NSEC records in a signed zone\". \n \"specifies a way for validating end-system resolvers to signal to a server which\ndigital signature and hash algorithms they support\". \n \"provides additional background commentary and some context for the NSEC and\nNSEC3 mechanisms used by DNSSEC to provide authenticated denial-of-existence responses\".\nThis background is particularly important for understanding NSEC and NSEC3 usage. \n \"describes the issues surrounding the timing of events in the rolling of a key in a\nDNSSEC-secured zone\". \n \"defines Negative Trust Anchors (NTAs), which can be used to mitigate DNSSEC\nvalidation failures by disabling DNSSEC validation at specified domains\". \n \"describes the format and publication mechanisms IANA has used to distribute\nthe DNSSEC trust anchors\". \n \"describes problems that a Validating DNS resolver, stub-resolver, or application\nmight run into within a non-compliant infrastructure\". \n• [RFC4470]\n[RFC4034]\n• [RFC6975]\n• [RFC7129]\n• [RFC7583]\n• [RFC7646]\n• [RFC7958]\n• [RFC8027]\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 5\n\n[RFC3110]\n[RFC4033]\n8. References \n8.1. Normative References \n, \n, , , May 2001, \n. \n, , , , and , \n, , , March 2005, \n. \n \"specifies two different ways for validating resolvers to signal to a server which\nkeys are referenced in their chain of trust\". \n contains lists of terminology used when talking about DNS; Sections 10 and 11\ncover DNSSEC. \n \"specifies a mechanism that will allow an end user and third parties to determine\nthe trusted key state for the root key of the resolvers that handle that user's DNS queries\". \n \"presents deployment models that accommodate this scenario [when each DNS\nprovider independently signs zone data with their own keys] and describes these key-\nmanagement requirements\". \n \"provides guidance on setting NSEC3 parameters based on recent operational\ndeployment experience\". \nThere will certainly be other RFCs related to DNSSEC that are published after this one.\n• [RFC8145]\n• [RFC8499]\n• [RFC8509]\n• [RFC8901]\n• [RFC9276]\n6. IANA Considerations \nIANA already has three registry groups that relate to DNSSEC:\nDNSSEC algorithm numbers \nDNSSEC NSEC3 parameters \nDNSSEC DS RRtype digest algorithms \nThe rules for the DNSSEC algorithm registry were set in the core RFCs and updated by ,\n, and .\nThis document does not update or create any registry groups or registries.\n• \n• \n• \n[RFC6014]\n[RFC6725] [RFC9157]\n7. Security Considerations \nAll of the security considerations from all of the RFCs referenced in this document apply here.\nEastlake 3rd, D.\"RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System\n(DNS)\"RFC 3110DOI 10.17487/RFC3110 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/\ninfo/rfc3110>\nArends, R.Austein, R.Larson, M.Massey, D. S. Rose\"DNS Security\nIntroduction and Requirements\"RFC 4033DOI 10.17487/RFC4033\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 6\n\n[RFC4034]\n[RFC4035]\n[RFC4509]\n[RFC5155]\n[RFC5702]\n[RFC6840]\n[GOST-SIGN]\n[RFC2065]\n[RFC2535]\n[RFC2536]\n[RFC4470]\n[RFC5011]\n, , , , and , \n, , , March 2005, \n. \n, , , , and , \n, , \n, March 2005, . \n, \n, , , May 2006, \n. \n, , , and , \n, , , March\n2008, . \n, \n, , , October 2009, \n. \n and , \n, , , February 2013, \n. \n8.2. Informative References \n, , and , \n, \n, , 30 November\n2022, . \n and , , \n, , January 1997, \n. \n, , , \n, March 1999, . \n, , \n, , March 1999, \n. \n and , \n, , , April 2006, \n. \n, , \n, , , September 2007, \n. \nArends, R.Austein, R.Larson, M.Massey, D. S. Rose\"Resource Records for\nthe DNS Security Extensions\"RFC 4034DOI 10.17487/RFC4034\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>\nArends, R.Austein, R.Larson, M.Massey, D. S. Rose\"Protocol\nModifications for the DNS Security Extensions\"RFC 4035DOI 10.17487/\nRFC4035 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>\nHardaker, W.\"Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource\nRecords (RRs)\"RFC 4509DOI 10.17487/RFC4509 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc4509>\nLaurie, B.Sisson, G.Arends, R. D. Blacka\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed\nAuthenticated Denial of Existence\"RFC 5155DOI 10.17487/RFC5155\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>\nJansen, J.\"Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource\nRecords for DNSSEC\"RFC 5702DOI 10.17487/RFC5702 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5702>\nWeiler, S., Ed.D. Blacka, Ed.\"Clarifications and Implementation Notes for\nDNS Security (DNSSEC)\"RFC 6840DOI 10.17487/RFC6840\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6840>\nBelyavsky, D.Dolmatov, V., Ed.B. Makarenko, Ed.\"Use of GOST 2012\nSignature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC\"\nWork in ProgressInternet-Draft, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-13\n<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-13>\nEastlake 3rd, D.C. Kaufman\"Domain Name System Security Extensions\"\nRFC 2065DOI 10.17487/RFC2065 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc2065>\nEastlake 3rd, D.\"Domain Name System Security Extensions\"RFC 2535DOI\n10.17487/RFC2535 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2535>\nEastlake 3rd, D.\"DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)\"RFC\n2536DOI 10.17487/RFC2536 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc2536>\nWeiler, S. J. Ihren\"Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line\nSigning\"RFC 4470DOI 10.17487/RFC4470 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc4470>\nStJohns, M.\"Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC) Trust Anchors\"STD\n74RFC 5011DOI 10.17487/RFC5011 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc5011>\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 7\n\n[RFC6014]\n[RFC6605]\n[RFC6698]\n[RFC6725]\n[RFC6781]\n[RFC6975]\n[RFC7129]\n[RFC7344]\n[RFC7583]\n[RFC7646]\n[RFC7958]\n[RFC8027]\n, , \n, , November 2010, \n. \n and , \n, , , April 2012, \n. \n and , \n, , \n, August 2012, . \n, , \n, , August 2012, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , December 2012, \n. \n and , \n, , , July 2013, \n. \n and , , \n, , February 2014, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , September 2014, \n. \n, , , and , \n, , , October 2015, \n. \n, , , , and , \n, , , \nSeptember 2015, . \n, , , and , \n, , , August 2016, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , , November 2016, \n. \nHoffman, P.\"Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC\"RFC\n6014DOI 10.17487/RFC6014 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc6014>\nHoffman, P. W.C.A. Wijngaards\"Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm\n(DSA) for DNSSEC\"RFC 6605DOI 10.17487/RFC6605 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6605>\nHoffman, P. J. Schlyter\"The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities\n(DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA\"RFC 6698DOI 10.17487/\nRFC6698 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>\nRose, S.\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry Updates\"\nRFC 6725DOI 10.17487/RFC6725 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc6725>\nKolkman, O.Mekking, W. R. Gieben\"DNSSEC Operational Practices,\nVersion 2\"RFC 6781DOI 10.17487/RFC6781 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc6781>\nCrocker, S. S. Rose\"Signaling Cryptographic Algorithm Understanding in\nDNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\"RFC 6975DOI 10.17487/RFC6975\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6975>\nGieben, R. W. Mekking\"Authenticated Denial of Existence in the DNS\"RFC\n7129DOI 10.17487/RFC7129 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc7129>\nKumari, W.Gudmundsson, O.G. Barwood\"Automating DNSSEC Delegation\nTrust Maintenance\"RFC 7344DOI 10.17487/RFC7344 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7344>\nMorris, S.Ihren, J.Dickinson, J. W. Mekking\"DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing\nConsiderations\"RFC 7583DOI 10.17487/RFC7583 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7583>\nEbersman, P.Kumari, W.Griffiths, C.Livingood, J. R. Weber\"Definition\nand Use of DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors\"RFC 7646DOI 10.17487/RFC7646\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7646>\nAbley, J.Schlyter, J.Bailey, G. P. Hoffman\"DNSSEC Trust Anchor\nPublication for the Root Zone\"RFC 7958DOI 10.17487/RFC7958\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7958>\nHardaker, W.Gudmundsson, O.S. Krishnaswamy\"DNSSEC Roadblock\nAvoidance\"BCP 207RFC 8027DOI 10.17487/RFC8027 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8027>\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 8\n\n[RFC8078]\n[RFC8080]\n[RFC8145]\n[RFC8198]\n[RFC8499]\n[RFC8509]\n[RFC8624]\n[RFC8901]\n[RFC9077]\n[RFC9157]\n[RFC9276]\n and , \n, , , March 2017, \n. \n and , \n, , , February 2017, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , April\n2017, . \n, , and , \n, , , July 2017, \n. \n, , and , , , \n, , January 2019, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , December 2018, \n. \n and , \n, , , June 2019, \n. \n, , , , and , \n, , , September 2020, \n. \n, , , \n, July 2021, . \n, , , \n, December 2021, . \n and , , \n, , , August 2022, \n. \nGudmundsson, O.P. Wouters\"Managing DS Records from the Parent via\nCDS/CDNSKEY\"RFC 8078DOI 10.17487/RFC8078 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc8078>\nSury, O. R. Edmonds\"Edwards-Curve Digital Security Algorithm (EdDSA) for\nDNSSEC\"RFC 8080DOI 10.17487/RFC8080 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc8080>\nWessels, D.Kumari, W. P. Hoffman\"Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in\nDNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\"RFC 8145DOI 10.17487/RFC8145\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8145>\nFujiwara, K.Kato, A. W. Kumari\"Aggressive Use of DNSSEC-Validated\nCache\"RFC 8198DOI 10.17487/RFC8198 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/\ninfo/rfc8198>\nHoffman, P.Sullivan, A. K. Fujiwara\"DNS Terminology\"BCP 219RFC\n8499DOI 10.17487/RFC8499 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc8499>\nHuston, G.Damas, J. W. Kumari\"A Root Key Trust Anchor Sentinel for\nDNSSEC\"RFC 8509DOI 10.17487/RFC8509 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc8509>\nWouters, P. O. Sury\"Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage\nGuidance for DNSSEC\"RFC 8624DOI 10.17487/RFC8624 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8624>\nHuque, S.Aras, P.Dickinson, J.Vcelak, J. D. Blacka\"Multi-Signer DNSSEC\nModels\"RFC 8901DOI 10.17487/RFC8901 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc8901>\nvan Dijk, P.\"NSEC and NSEC3: TTLs and Aggressive Use\"RFC 9077DOI\n10.17487/RFC9077 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9077>\nHoffman, P.\"Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC\"RFC 9157DOI 10.17487/\nRFC9157 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9157>\nHardaker, W.V. Dukhovni\"Guidance for NSEC3 Parameter Settings\"BCP\n236RFC 9276DOI 10.17487/RFC9276 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/\ninfo/rfc9276>\nAcknowledgements \nThe DNS world owes a depth of gratitude to the authors and other contributors to the core\nDNSSEC documents and to the notable DNSSEC extensions.\nIn addition, the following people made significant contributions to early draft versions of this\ndocument:  and .Ben SchwartzDuane Wessels\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 9\n\nAuthor's Address \nPaul Hoffman\nICANN\n paul.hoffman@icann.org Email:\nRFC 9364 DNSSEC February 2023\nHoffman Best Current Practice Page 10", "segments": [], "published_at": "2023-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2023-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "2023-07-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:37:40.972110+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "278f2ea4-1635-401a-8ca4-f77ca789a49b", "source_id": "bebbc4ed8027a65f45d5b472", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/news", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/announcements", "artifact_sha256": "b40b8f9f84c9c84e3628f0f01447e067a3886423ad12259160fcffe2f2ccbcb0", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 308750, "title": "ICANN Announcements", "language": "en", "text_length": 3722, "characters": 3722, "text": "ICANN Announcements\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN Announcements\nRead ICANN Announcements to stay informed of the latest policymaking activities, regional events, and more.\nSubscribe\nICANN.org Home\nAnnouncements\nBlogs\nEngagement Calendar\nFollow Us on Social\nMedia Resources\nICANN Announcements\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within Announcements.\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nRegion(s)\nAfrica\nAsia/Australia/Pacific\nEurope\nLatin America/Caribbean\nNorth America\nApply\nClear\nMore Search Options\n1-20 of 4303 results\nICANN Adjusts Evaluation Fee Payment Timeline for 2026 Round Applicants\n7 August 2026\nICANN Request for Proposal: Event Sponsorship Management\n7 August 2026\nICANN Provides Update on Community’s Continuous Improvement Program Progress\n6 August 2026\nICANN Request for Proposal: Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution\n5 August 2026\nICANN Publishes String Similarity Evaluation Data and Guidelines\n30 July 2026\nLast Call: Nominations for Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building\n28 July 2026\nICANN Releases Updated Root KSK Rollover Guide for the Community\n27 July 2026\nICANN87 Community Childcare Grants Program: Apply Now\n27 July 2026\nICANN88 Fellowship Application Round Now Open\n21 July 2026\nReminder: ICANN 2026 Round New gTLD Application Window Closes 12 August\n13 July 2026\nICANN 2026 Round Registry Service Provider Evaluation Program Closes 12 August\n8 July 2026\nICANN Announces NextGen@ICANN87 Participants\n8 July 2026\nRegistration for ICANN87 in Bali, Indonesia, Is Now Open\n6 July 2026\nIANA Satisfaction Survey Shows Strong Support and Continued Trust\n2 July 2026\nJoin the ICANN Webinars: Review of Reviews Draft Report\n1 July 2026\nICANN Seeks Input on IGO and INGO Curative Rights Implementation\n30 June 2026\nICANN Opens Nomination Period for Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building\n30 June 2026\nICANN Review of Reviews CCG Seeks Feedback on Draft Report\n26 June 2026\nICANN Publishes Updated Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation\n24 June 2026\nICANN Announces Recipients of the ICANN87 Fellowship\n18 June 2026\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n...\n216\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n...\n216\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "93413fba-a4ee-41d9-b6fa-5b72f57671e5", "document_id": "278f2ea4-1635-401a-8ca4-f77ca789a49b", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Announcements\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN Announcements\nRead ICANN Announcements to stay informed of the latest policymaking activities, regional events, and more.\nSubscribe\nICANN.org Home\nAnnouncements\nBlogs\nEngagement Calendar\nFollow Us on Social\nMedia Resources\nICANN Announcements\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within Announcements.\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nRegion(s)\nAfrica\nAsia/Australia/Pacific\nEurope\nLatin America/Caribbean\nNorth America\nApply\nClear\nMore Search Options\n1-20 of 4303 results\nICANN Adjusts Evaluation Fee Payment Timeline for 2026 Round Applicants\n7 August 2026\nICANN Request for Proposal: Event Sponsorship Management\n7 August 2026\nICANN Provides Update on Community’s Continuous Improvement Program Progress\n6 August 2026\nICANN Request for Proposal: Governance, Risk, and Compliance Solution\n5 August 2026\nICANN Publishes String Similarity Evaluation Data and Guidelines\n30 July 2026\nLast Call: Nominations for Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building\n28 July 2026\nICANN Releases Updated Root KSK Rollover Guide for the Community\n27 July 2026\nICANN87 Community Childcare Grants Program: Apply Now\n27 July 2026\nICANN88 Fellowship Application Round Now Open\n21 July 2026\nReminder: ICANN 2026 Round New gTLD Application Window Closes 12 August\n13 July 2026\nICANN 2026 Round Registry Service Provider Evaluation Program Closes 12 August\n8 July 2026\nICANN Announces NextGen@ICANN87 Participants\n8 July 2026\nRegistration for ICANN87 in Bali, Indonesia, Is Now Open\n6 July 2026\nIANA Satisfaction Survey Shows Strong Support and Continued Trust\n2 July 2026\nJoin the ICANN Webinars: Review of Reviews Draft Report\n1 July 2026\nICANN Seeks Input on IGO and INGO Curative Rights Implementation\n30 June 2026\nICANN Opens Nomination Period for Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building\n30 June 2026\nICANN Review of Reviews CCG Seeks Feedback on Draft Report\n26 June 2026\nICANN Publishes Updated Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation\n24 June 2026\nICANN Announces Recipients of the ICANN87 Fellowship\n18 June 2026\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n...\n216\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\n...\n216\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3722, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 544}}], "published_at": "2026-08-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-08-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\n7 August 2026\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "28390ebf-7e9a-4a6f-b474-9d5159d71554", "source_id": "1fd21c93c9932e80292bc112", "source": "Academic", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.01234", "final_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.01234", "artifact_sha256": "e25a8deed6bc8d57148a01cce2f6d896ab6eae49284d29c5df04e6b4844f2510", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 41172, "title": "[2301.01234] AmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing", "language": "en", "text_length": 4426, "characters": 4426, "text": "[2301.01234] AmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing\nSkip to main content\narXiv is now an independent nonprofit!\nLearn more\n×\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nComputer Science > Robotics\narXiv:2301.01234\n(cs)\n[Submitted on 1 Jan 2023]\nTitle:\nAmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing\nAuthors:\nDmytro Humeniuk\n,\nFoutse Khomh\n,\nGiuliano Antoniol\nView a PDF of the paper titled AmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing, by Dmytro Humeniuk and 1 other authors\nView PDF\nAbstract:\nThorough testing of safety-critical autonomous systems, such as self-driving cars, autonomous robots, and drones, is essential for detecting potential failures before deployment. One crucial testing stage is model-in-the-loop testing, where the system model is evaluated by executing various scenarios in a simulator. However, the search space of possible parameters defining these test scenarios is vast, and simulating all combinations is computationally infeasible. To address this challenge, we introduce AmbieGen, a search-based test case generation framework for autonomous systems. AmbieGen uses evolutionary search to identify the most critical scenarios for a given system, and has a modular architecture that allows for the addition of new systems under test, algorithms, and search operators. Currently, AmbieGen supports test case generation for autonomous robots and autonomous car lane keeping assist systems. In this paper, we provide a high-level overview of the framework's architecture and demonstrate its practical use cases.\nComments:\n17 pages, 10 figures\nSubjects:\nRobotics (cs.RO)\n; Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE)\nCite as:\narXiv:2301.01234\n[cs.RO]\n(or\narXiv:2301.01234v1\n[cs.RO]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.01234\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nSubmission history\nFrom: Dmytro Humeniuk [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nSun, 1 Jan 2023 23:42:32 UTC (1,117 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled AmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing, by Dmytro Humeniuk and 1 other authors\nView PDF\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\ncs.RO\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2023-01\nChange to browse by:\ncs\ncs.NE\nReferences & Citations\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ab8f1a4b-e222-436f-b579-e47e262d51cf", "document_id": "28390ebf-7e9a-4a6f-b474-9d5159d71554", "ordinal": 0, "text": "[2301.01234] AmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing\nSkip to main content\narXiv is now an independent nonprofit!\nLearn more\n×\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nComputer Science > Robotics\narXiv:2301.01234\n(cs)\n[Submitted on 1 Jan 2023]\nTitle:\nAmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing\nAuthors:\nDmytro Humeniuk\n,\nFoutse Khomh\n,\nGiuliano Antoniol\nView a PDF of the paper titled AmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing, by Dmytro Humeniuk and 1 other authors\nView PDF\nAbstract:\nThorough testing of safety-critical autonomous systems, such as self-driving cars, autonomous robots, and drones, is essential for detecting potential failures before deployment. One crucial testing stage is model-in-the-loop testing, where the system model is evaluated by executing various scenarios in a simulator. However, the search space of possible parameters defining these test scenarios is vast, and simulating all combinations is computationally infeasible. To address this challenge, we introduce AmbieGen, a search-based test case generation framework for autonomous systems. AmbieGen uses evolutionary search to identify the most critical scenarios for a given system, and has a modular architecture that allows for the addition of new systems under test, algorithms, and search operators. Currently, AmbieGen supports test case generation for autonomous robots and autonomous car lane keeping assist systems. In this paper, we provide a high-level overview of the framework's architecture and demonstrate its practical use cases.\nComments:\n17 pages, 10 figures\nSubjects:\nRobotics (cs.RO)\n; Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE)\nCite as:\narXiv:2301.01234\n[cs.RO]\n(or\narXiv:2301.01234v1\n[cs.RO]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.01234\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nSubmission history\nFrom: Dmytro Humeniuk [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nSun, 1 Jan 2023 23:42:32 UTC (1,117 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled AmbieGen: A Search-based Framework for Autonomous Systems Testing, by Dmytro Humeniuk and 1 other authors\nView PDF\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\ncs.RO\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2023-01\nChange to browse by:\ncs\ncs.NE\nReferences & Citations\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4426, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 669}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "29952683-89c9-48ee-93a4-f395f43d3573", "source_id": "d14d0d7236c1e18e4643e6b9", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2026-first-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting-0", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2026-first-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting-0", "artifact_sha256": "bfbadb35ea0de52a1c70d8d5db693e04ebbec619a60cc5dd696c544968f1f4e1", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 153557, "title": "IGF 2026 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "language": "en", "text_length": 14504, "characters": 14504, "text": "IGF 2026 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting\nDocuments & Records\nAgenda\nRegistration, Venue & Travel Information\n*List continuously updated\nMeeting Videos\nDay 1 Morning\n|\nDay 1 Afternoon\n|\nDay 2 Morning\n|\nDay 2 Afternoon\n|\nDay 3\nWelcome Message - Junhua Li, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs\nMeeting Documents\nUpdate on Youth Track\nUpdate on NRIs\nIGF Programme Architecture\nIGF 2025 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF Workshop Evaluation Process 2026\nHost Country Presentation on Overarching Themes\nIGF Themes & Subthemes 2006-2025\nIGF 2026 Draft MAG Timeline\nIGF 2025 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2025 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2025 Taking Stock Inputs\nIGF 2026 Call for Thematic Inputs: Results\nOutcomes of Virtual MAG Meetings I–III\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Implementing the IGF Permanent Mandate - Summary Report (April 2026)\nWritten Inputs from Organizations\nRIPE NCC\nUN Economic Commission on Africa (UN ECA)\nInternet Society (ISOC)\nOECD:\nRecommendation on Quantum Technologies\n|\nAI Policy Toolkit\n|\n2026 Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework\n|\n2026 Going Digital Measurement Roadmap\n|\nGrowing Up in the Social Media Age\nYouthDIG\nInternet Society Colombia\nFirst\nIGF\n2026 Open Consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (\nMAG\n) Meeting\nDRAFT AGENDA\n24-26 June 2026 | UN Office at Nairobi (UNON) & Online\nLIVESTREAM LINK:\nhttps://youtube.com/@igf/live\nTargeted Outputs of Day 1\nGather community input on the overall direction of\nIGF\n2026 and programme priorities.\nDiscuss strategic priorities for\nIGF\n2026, including in the context of\nWSIS\n+20, implementation of the Global Digital Compact, Global Dialogue on AI Governance and other major governance processes.\nIdentify considerations to inform subsequent\nMAG\ndiscussions on programme development.\nInput Documents (*continuously updated)\nHost Country Presentation on Overarching Themes\nIGF 2026 Draft MAG Timeline\nIGF 2025 Taking Stock Inputs\nIGF Themes & Subthemes 2006-2025\nIGF 2026 Call for Thematic Inputs: Results\nOutcomes of Virtual MAG Meetings I–III\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Implementing the IGF Permanent Mandate - Summary Report (April 2026)\nDay 1 – 24 June 2026 (Open Consultations)\nMt. Kilimanjaro Room, UNON – 09:30-12:30 |\nConference Room 10, UNON – 14:00-17:00\nTime (EAT)\nAgenda Item\n09:30 – 10:15\nOpening statements and adoption of the agenda\nWelcome by\nMAG\nChair and adoption of the agenda\nWelcome by Host Country Co-Chair and Alternates\nWelcome by UN DESA\nHost Country update on preparations, followed by Q&A\n10:15 – 10:30\nIGF\n2025 stocktaking and considerations for\nIGF\n2026\nIGF\nSecretariat summary of stocktaking inputs and key lessons for 2026\n10:30 – 10:45\nShort break\n10:45 – 12:30\nInputs on\nIGF\n2026 programme, including in the context of\nWSIS\n+20, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), Global Dialogue on AI Governance and other major digital governance processes\nInterventions from\nIGF\npartner organizations and relevant UN entities on opportunities for alignment between the\nIGF\n2026 programme and their respective workstreams, priorities and implementation activities\nOpen discussion on how the\nIGF\n2026 programme can reflect the role of the\nIGF\necosystem in implementation and follow-up of above processes\n12:30 – 14:00\nLunch\n14:00 – 15:30\nIGF\n2026 overarching theme\nHost Country overarching theme suggestions and priorities\nOpen discussion on\nIGF\n2026 overarching theme\n15:30 – 15:45\nShort break\n15:45 – 16:50\nStrategic priorities for\nIGF\n2026\nOpen discussion on programme priorities, emerging issues and strategic objectives for\nIGF\n2026\nDiscussion of relevant recommendations emerging from the April 2026 Expert Group Meeting (EGM), including strengthening coherence across the\nIGF\necosystem, enhancing linkages between annual, intersessional and\nNRI\nactivities, capacity development, and strengthening the\nIGF\n's contribution to implementation of\nWSIS\n+20, GDC, Global Dialogue on AI Governance, and other digital governance processes\n16:50 – 17:00\nObjectives for the next two days, summing up and closing\nTargeted Outputs of Day 2\nConfirm outcomes of\nMAG\nvirtual meetings, including\nMAG\n-approved intersessional policy activities and working groups.\nAgree on programme architecture for\nIGF\n2026.\nConsider relevant EGM recommendations concerning programme design, ecosystem coherence, capacity development and stakeholder engagement.\nDiscuss possible approaches to a Government Dialogue component at\nIGF\n2026, taking into account recommendations from the April 2026 EGM.\nReview public calls and evaluation processes.\nInput Documents (*continuously updated)\nUpdate on Youth Track\nUpdate on NRIs\nIGF 2025 Call for Session Proposals\n​​​​​​​\n​​​​​​​\nIGF 2025 Call for Village Booths\n​​​​​​​\n​​​​​​​\nIGF 2025 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF Programme Architecture\nIGF Themes & Subthemes 2006-2025\nIGF 2026 Call for Thematic Inputs: Results\nOutcomes of Virtual MAG Meetings I–III\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Implementing the IGF Permanent Mandate – Summary Report (April 2026)\nDay 2 – 25 June 2026 (\nMAG\nMeeting)\nConference Room 10, UNON\nTime (EAT)\nAgenda Item\n09:30 – 09:45\nOpening of the\nMAG\nmeeting and recap from the Open Consultations\n09:45 – 10:00\nConfirmation of outcomes of virtual\nMAG\nmeetings\nMAG\n-approved intersessional policy activities\nMAG\nWorking Groups\n10:00 – 10:30\nMAG\n-approved intersessional policy activities and\nMAG\nWorking Groups\nDiscussion of work plans and coordination mechanisms\n10:30 – 10:45\nShort Break\n10:45 – 11:45\nLeveraged collaboration with and between\nIGF\nDynamic Coalitions (DCs), National and Regional\nIGF\nInitiatives (\nNRIs\n) and capacity development initiatives\nUpdates from Dynamic Coalitions\nUpdates from\nNRIs\nUpdates from Youth Track\n11:45 – 12:30\nOverall programme structure and flow\nProgramme architecture and thematic organization\nSession types, with view to streamlining/simplification\n12:30 – 14:00\nLunch\n14:00 – 15:00\nOverall programme structure and flow (cont’d.)\nIntegration of intersessional work,\nNRIs\n, youth, parliamentary track, judiciary and business engagement activities\nConsideration of EGM recommendations on strengthening coherence across the\nIGF\necosystem, including stronger integration of intersessional work,\nNRIs\nand capacity development activities into the annual meeting programme – taking into account updates from DCs and\nNRIs\n15:00 – 15:30\nGovernment Dialogue at\nIGF\n2026\nDiscussion of EGM recommendations on enhanced government engagement through adaptation of existing programme formats\nPossible objectives, format and relationship to existing high-level and ministerial activities\n15:30 – 15:45\nShort break\n15:45 – 16:50\nReview of\nIGF\npublic calls and preparation for\nIGF\n2026 calls\nCall for Session Proposals\nCall for Village Booth Proposals\nCall for Remote Hub Proposals\n16:50 – 17:00\nRecap of consensus, next steps and closing\nTargeted Outputs of Day 3\nEndorse the Call for Sessions package.\nAgree on session evaluation procedures.\nDiscuss strategic priorities for\nIGF\n2026 cycle.\nPrepare for the September 2026 Open Consultations and\nMAG\nMeeting.\nInput Documents (*continuously updated)\nIGF 2025 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF Workshop Evaluation Process 2026\nIGF 2026 Draft Timeline\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Implementing the IGF Permanent Mandate – Summary Report (April 2026)\nDay 3 – 26 June 2026 (\nMAG\nMeeting)\nConference Room 10, UNON\nTime (EAT)\nAgenda Item\n09:30 – 09:40\nReview of the agenda and meeting goals\n09:40 – 10:30\nCall for Session Proposals and evaluation procedures\nReview and endorsement of evaluation criteria and processes\n10:30 – 10:45\nShort break\n10:45 – 12:30\nStrategic priorities for\nIGF\n2026 cycle\nDiscussion of priorities for the remainder of the\nMAG\ncycle\nReview of relevant EGM recommendations related to impact, including policy impacts through ‘Policy Labs’, and the development of more actionable and policy-relevant\nIGF\noutcomes\n12:30 – 14:00\nLunch\n14:00 – 15:00\nPreparing for the next phase of programme development\nTimeline and milestones leading to the September Open Consultations and\nMAG\nMeeting\n15:00 – 15:15\nReview of decisions and action items\n15:15 – 15:30\nNext steps and meeting closure\nClosing remarks from the Host Country Chairs and\nMAG\nChair\nParticipants wishing to attend the\nIGF\n2026 First Open Consultations and\nMAG\nMeeting\n, taking place\n24-26 June 2026\nat the\nUnited Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON), Kenya\n&\nOnline\n, are kindly requested to register in advance through the official registration platform (INDICO).\nBoth onsite and fully online participants must use this platform.\nFor those participating onsite, once the registration request has been approved, you can\ncollect your badge\nto access UNON at the\nPass & ID Unit (next to the Visitors Pavilion)\nat the\nmain entrance\n, located directly across from the U.S. Embassy on United Nations Avenue. Collection hours on the meeting days are\n8.00 - 16.00 EAT\n. Please bring your valid official Passport / ID document issued by a UN member state.\nThe\nZoom link\nwill be shared with all registered participants. The meeting can also be\nlivestreamed\nvia this link:\nhttps://youtube.com/@igf/live\nRegistration for Onsite & Online Participants\nhttps://indico.un.org/event/1024132/\nVenue & Hours\nThe meeting takes place at\nUNON\nfrom\nWednesday 24 June to Friday 26 June\naccording to the following standard\nhours on each day\n: Morning session, 9.30 - 12.30 EAT | Lunch break, 12.30 - 14.00 EAT | Afternoon session, 14.00 - 17.00 EAT (*Friday afternoon session may adjourn earlier)\nThe\nrooms\nfor the meeting will be as follows: Wednesday 24 June morning - Mt. Kilimanjaro Room | Wednesday 24 June afternoon through Friday 26 June - Conference Room 10\nFor a\nmap of the venue\n, please see\nhere\n.\nFor\ntransport options to UNON\nand\ndining & coffee facilities\nonsite, kindly see\nhere\n.\nAccommodation\nParticipants are responsible for arranging their own accommodation. A list of hotels and guesthouses recommended by UNON and the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) is available here:\nhttps://dcs.unon.org/en/hotels-guesthouses\nTravel and Entry Requirements\nParticipants are encouraged to review travel and entry requirements for Kenya well in advance of their departure.\nMost travellers are required to obtain a Kenya Electronic Travel Authorisation (eTA) before travelling. The eTA is a digital travel authorisation issued by the Government of Kenya that determines a traveller’s eligibility to travel to Kenya and is generally required prior to boarding a flight. Participants are strongly encouraged to apply for their eTA as early as possible to avoid delays.\n*Kenya Electronic Travel Authorisation (eTA)*\nhttps://etakenya.go.ke/\nAdditional information on eligibility requirements and the application process is available through the official eTA portal.\nGeneral Travel Information for Kenya\nParticipants are also encouraged to consult the UNON General Travel Information for Kenya document, which contains practical information on entry requirements, airport arrival procedures, transportation, health considerations, currency, communications, weather conditions and other useful guidance for visitors to Nairobi:\nhttps://dcs.unon.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/kenya_general_travel_i...\nParticipants are advised to make travel and accommodation arrangements as early as possible. Information contained in the above resources should be reviewed carefully prior to travel.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "c479d03f-fae8-4368-9e47-a9f7465c13a5", "document_id": "29952683-89c9-48ee-93a4-f395f43d3573", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IGF 2026 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting\nDocuments & Records\nAgenda\nRegistration, Venue & Travel Information\n*List continuously updated\nMeeting Videos\nDay 1 Morning\n|\nDay 1 Afternoon\n|\nDay 2 Morning\n|\nDay 2 Afternoon\n|\nDay 3\nWelcome Message - Junhua Li, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs\nMeeting Documents\nUpdate on Youth Track\nUpdate on NRIs\nIGF Programme Architecture\nIGF 2025 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF Workshop Evaluation Process 2026\nHost Country Presentation on Overarching Themes\nIGF Themes & Subthemes 2006-2025\nIGF 2026 Draft MAG Timeline\nIGF 2025 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2025 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2025 Taking Stock Inputs\nIGF 2026 Call for Thematic Inputs: Results\nOutcomes of Virtual MAG Meetings I–III\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Implementing the IGF Permanent Mandate - Summary Report (April 2026)\nWritten Inputs from Organizations\nRIPE NCC\nUN Economic Commission on Africa (UN ECA)\nInternet Society (ISOC)\nOECD:\nRecommendation on Quantum Technologies\n|\nAI Policy Toolkit\n|\n2026 Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework\n|\n2026 Going Digital Measurement Roadmap\n|\nGrowing Up in the Social Media Age\nYouthDIG\nInternet Society Colombia\nFirst\nIGF\n2026 Open Consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (\nMAG\n) Meeting\nDRAFT AGENDA\n24-26 June 2026 | UN Office at Nairobi (UNON) & Online\nLIVESTREAM LINK:\nhttps://youtube.com/@igf/live\nTargeted Outputs of Day 1\nGather community input on the overall direction of\nIGF\n2026 and programme priorities.\nDiscuss strategic priorities for\nIGF\n2026, including in the context of\nWSIS\n+20, implementation of the Global Digital Compact, Global Dialogue on AI Governance and other major governance processes.\nIdentify considerations to inform subsequent\nMAG\ndiscussions on programme development.\nInput Documents (*continuously updated)\nHost Country Presentation on Overarching Themes\nIGF 2026 Draft MAG Timeline\nIGF 2025 Taking Stock Inputs\nIGF Themes & Subthemes 2006-2025\nIGF 2026 Call for Thematic Inputs: Results\nOutcomes of Virtual MAG Meetings I–III\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Implementing the IGF Permanent Mandate - Summary Report (April 2026)\nDay 1 – 24 June 2026 (Open Consultations)\nMt. Kilimanjaro Room, UNON – 09:30-12:30 |\nConference Room 10, UNON – 14:00-17:00\nTime (EAT)\nAgenda Item\n09:30 – 10:15\nOpening statements and adoption of the agenda\nWelcome by\nMAG\nChair and adoption of the agenda\nWelcome by Host Country Co-Chair and Alternates\nWelcome by UN DESA\nHost Country update on preparations, followed by Q&A\n10:15 – 10:30\nIGF\n2025 stocktaking and considerations for\nIGF\n2026\nIGF\nSecretariat summary of stocktaking inputs and key lessons for 2026\n10:30 – 10:45\nShort break\n10:45 – 12:30\nInputs on\nIGF\n2026 programme, including in the context of\nWSIS\n+20, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), Global Dialogue on AI Governance and other major digital governance processes\nInterventions from\nIGF\npartner organizations and relevant UN entities on opportunities for alignment between the\nIGF\n2026 programme and their respective workstreams, priorities and implementation activities\nOpen discussion on how the\nIGF\n2026 programme can reflect the role of the\nIGF\necosystem in implementation and follow-up of above processes\n12:30 – 14:00\nLunch\n14:00 – 15:30\nIGF\n2026 overarching theme\nHost Country overarching theme suggestions and priorities\nOpen discussion on\nIGF\n2026 overarching theme\n15:30 – 15:45\nShort break\n15:45 – 16:50\nStrategic priorities for\nIGF\n2026\nOpen discussion on programme priorities, emerging issues and strategic objectives for\nIGF\n2026\nDiscussion of relevant recommendations emerging from the April 2026 Expert Group Meeting (EGM), including strengthening coherence across the\nIGF\necosystem, enhancing linkages between annual, intersessional and\nNRI\nactivities, capacity development, and strengthening the\nIGF\n's contribution to implementation of\nWSIS\n+20, GDC, Global Dialogue on AI Governance, and other digital governance processes\n16:50 – 17:00\nObjectives for the next two days, summing up and closing\nTargeted Outputs of Day 2\nConfirm outcomes of\nMAG\nvirtual meetings, including\nMAG\n-approved intersessional policy activities and working groups.\nAgree on programme architecture for\nIGF\n2026.\nConsider relevant EGM recommendations concerning programme design, ecosystem coherence, capacity development and stakeholder engagement.\nDiscuss possible approaches to a Government Dialogue component at\nIGF\n2026, taking into account recommendations from the April 2026 EGM.\nReview public calls and evaluation processes.\nInput Documents (*continuously updated)\nUpdate on Youth Track\nUpdate on NRIs\nIGF 2025 Call for Session Proposals\n​​​​​​​\n​​​​​​​\nIGF 2025 Call for Village Booths\n​​​​​​​\n​​​​​​​\nIGF 2025 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF Programme Architecture\nIGF Themes & Subthemes 2006-2025\nIGF 2026 Call for Thematic Inputs: Results\nOutcomes of Virtual MAG Meetings I–III\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Implementing the IGF Permanent Mandate – Summary Report (April 2026)\nDay 2 – 25 June 2026 (\nMAG\nMeeting)\nConference Room 10, UNON\nTime (EAT)\nAgenda Item\n09:30 – 09:45\nOpening of the\nMAG\nmeeting and recap from the Open Consultations\n09:45 – 10:00\nConfirmation of outcomes of virtual\nMAG\nmeetings\nMAG\n-approved intersessional policy activities\nMAG\nWorking Groups\n10:00 – 10:30\nMAG\n-approved intersessional policy activities and\nMAG\nWorking Groups\nDiscussion of work plans and coordination mechanisms\n10:30 – 10:45\nShort Break\n10:45 – 11:45\nLeveraged collaboration with and between\nIGF\nDynamic Coalitions (DCs), National and Regional\nIGF\nInitiatives (\nNRIs\n) and capacity development initiatives\nUpdates from Dynamic Coalitions\nUpdates from\nNRIs\nUpdates from Youth Track\n11:45 – 12:30\nOverall programme structure and flow\nProgramme architecture and thematic organization\nSession types, with view to streamlining/simplification\n12:30 – 14:00\nLunch\n14:00 – 15:00\nOverall programme structure and flow (cont’d.)\nIntegration of intersessional work,\nNRIs\n, youth, parliamentary track, judiciary and business engagement activities\nConsideration of EGM recommendations on strengthening coherence across the\nIGF\necosystem, including stronger integration of intersessional work,\nNRIs\nand capacity development activities into the annual meeting programme – taking into account updates from DCs and\nNRIs\n15:00 – 15:30\nGovernment Dialogue at\nIGF\n2026\nDiscussion of EGM recommendations on enhanced government engagement through adaptation of existing programme formats\nPossible objectives, format and relationship to existing high-level and ministerial activities\n15:30 – 15:45\nShort break\n15:45 – 16:50\nReview of\nIGF\npublic calls and preparation for\nIGF\n2026 calls\nCall for Session Proposals\nCall for Village Booth Proposals\nCall for Remote Hub Proposals\n16:50 – 17:00\nRecap of consensus, next steps and closing\nTargeted Outputs of Day 3\nEndorse the Call for Sessions package.\nAgree on session evaluation procedures.\nDiscuss strategic priorities for\nIGF\n2026 cycle.\nPrepare for the September 2026 Open Consultations and\nMAG\nMeeting.\nInput Documents (*continuously updated)\nIGF 2025 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF Workshop Evaluation Process 2026\nIGF 2026 Draft Timeline\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Implementing the IGF Permanent Mandate – Summary Report (April 2026)\nDay 3 – 26 June 2026 (\nMAG\nMeeting)\nConference Room 10, UNON\nTime (EAT)\nAgenda Item\n09:30 – 09:40\nReview of the agenda and meeting goals\n09:40 – 10:30\nCall for Session Proposals and evaluation procedures\nReview and endorsement of evaluation criteria and processes\n10:30 – 10:45\nShort break\n10:45 – 12:30\nStrategic priorities for\nIGF\n2026 cycle\nDiscussion of priorities for the remainder of the\nMAG\ncycle\nReview of relevant EGM recommendations related to impact, including policy impacts through ‘Policy Labs’, and the development of more actionable and policy-relevant\nIGF\noutcomes\n12:30 – 14:00\nLunch\n14:00 – 15:00\nPreparing for the next phase of programme development\nTimeline and milestones leading to the September Open Consultations and\nMAG\nMeeting\n15:00 – 15:15\nReview of decisions and action items\n15:15 – 15:30\nNext steps and meeting closure\nClosing remarks from the Host Country Chairs and\nMAG\nChair\nParticipants wishing to attend the\nIGF\n2026 First Open Consultations and\nMAG\nMeeting\n, taking place\n24-26 June 2026\nat the\nUnited Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON), Kenya\n&\nOnline\n, are kindly requested to register in advance through the official registration platform (INDICO).\nBoth onsite and fully online participants must use this platform.\nFor those participating onsite, once the registration request has been approved, you can\ncollect your badge\nto access UNON at the\nPass & ID Unit (next to the Visitors Pavilion)\nat the\nmain entrance\n, located directly across from the U.S. Embassy on United Nations Avenue. Collection hours on the meeting days are\n8.00 - 16.00 EAT\n. Please bring your valid official Passport / ID document issued by a UN member state.\nThe\nZoom link\nwill be shared with all registered participants. The meeting can also be\nlivestreamed\nvia this link:\nhttps://youtube.com/@igf/live\nRegistration for Onsite & Online Participants\nhttps://indico.un.org/event/1024132/\nVenue & Hours\nThe meeting takes place at\nUNON\nfrom\nWednesday 24 June to Friday 26 June\naccording to the following standard\nhours on each day\n: Morning session, 9.30 - 12.30 EAT | Lunch break, 12.30 - 14.00 EAT | Afternoon session, 14.00 - 17.00 EAT (*Friday afternoon session may adjourn earlier)\nThe\nrooms\nfor the meeting will be as follows: Wednesday 24 June morning - Mt. Kilimanjaro Room | Wednesday 24 June afternoon through Friday 26 June - Conference Room 10\nFor a\nmap of the venue\n, please see\nhere\n.\nFor\ntransport options to UNON\nand\ndining & coffee facilities\nonsite, kindly see\nhere\n.\nAccommodation\nParticipants are responsible for arranging their own accommodation. A list of hotels and guesthouses recommended by UNON and the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) is available here:\nhttps://dcs.unon.org/en/hotels-guesthouses\nTravel and Entry Requirements\nParticipants are encouraged to review travel and entry requirements for Kenya well in advance of their departure.\nMost travellers are required to obtain a Kenya Electronic Travel Authorisation (eTA) before travelling. The eTA is a digital travel authorisation issued by the Government of Kenya that determines a traveller’s eligibility to travel to Kenya and is generally required prior to boarding a flight. Participants are strongly encouraged to apply for their eTA as early as possible to avoid delays.\n*Kenya Electronic Travel Authorisation (eTA)*\nhttps://etakenya.go.ke/\nAdditional information on eligibility requirements and the application process is available through the official eTA portal.\nGeneral Travel Information for Kenya\nParticipants are also encouraged to consult the UNON General Travel Information for Kenya document, which contains practical information on entry requirements, airport arrival procedures, transportation, health considerations, currency, communications, weather conditions and other useful guidance for visitors to Nairobi:\nhttps://dcs.unon.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/kenya_general_travel_i...\nParticipants are advised to make travel and accommodation arrangements as early as possible. Information contained in the above resources should be reviewed carefully prior to travel.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 14504, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 11, "word_count": 2173}}], "published_at": "2026-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "IGF 2026 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "notes": "Year found in title: 'IGF 2026 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)'"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "2a23ad60-9ec5-4d6e-ba45-c403cc25d3d2", "source_id": "6295b6499cdc228c9a9c69d0", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1436", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1436/", "artifact_sha256": "6295b6499cdc228c9a9c69d0bc95236367f07d6154ee7b998cc4aad6116fb76f", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 188500, "title": "RFC 1436: The Internet Gopher Protocol", "language": "en", "text_length": 36227, "characters": 36227, "text": "RFC 1436: The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol) | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1436\n:\nThe Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)\nF. Anklesaria\n,\nM. McCahill\n,\nP. Lindner\n,\nD. Johnson\n,\nD. Torrey\n,\nB. Alberti\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                     F. Anklesaria\nRequest for Comments: 1436                                  M. McCahill\n                                                             P. Lindner\n                                                             D. Johnson\n                                                              D. Torrey\n                                                             B. Alberti\n                                                University of Minnesota\n                                                             March 1993\nThe Internet Gopher Protocol\n(a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\n   The Internet Gopher protocol is designed for distributed document\n   search and retrieval.  This document describes the protocol, lists\n   some of the implementations currently available, and has an overview\n   of how to implement new client and server applications.  This\n   document is adapted from the basic Internet Gopher protocol document\n   first issued by the Microcomputer Center at the University of\n   Minnesota in 1991.\n\nIntroduction\n\n   gopher  n.  1. Any of various short tailed, burrowing mammals of the\n   family Geomyidae, of North America.  2. (Amer. colloq.) Native or\n   inhabitant of Minnesota: the Gopher State.  3. (Amer. colloq.) One\n   who runs errands, does odd-jobs, fetches or delivers documents for\n   office staff.  4. (computer tech.) software following a simple\n   protocol for burrowing through a TCP/IP internet.\n\n   The Internet Gopher protocol and software follow a client-server\n   model.  This protocol assumes a reliable data stream; TCP is assumed.\n   Gopher servers should listen on port 70 (port 70 is assigned to\n   Internet Gopher by IANA).  Documents reside on many autonomous\n   servers on the Internet.  Users run client software on their desktop\n   systems, connecting to a server and sending the server a selector (a\n   line of text, which may be empty) via a TCP connection at a well-\n   known port.  The server responds with a block of text terminated by a\n   period on a line by itself and closes the connection.  No state is\n   retained by the server.\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 1]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nWhile documents (and services) reside on many servers, Gopher client\n   software presents users with a hierarchy of items and directories\n   much like a file system.  The Gopher interface is designed to\n   resemble a file system since a file system is a good model for\n   organizing documents and services; the user sees what amounts to one\n   big networked information system containing primarily document items,\n   directory items, and search items (the latter allowing searches for\n   documents across subsets of the information base).\n\n   Servers return either directory lists or documents.  Each item in a\n   directory is identified by a type (the kind of object the item is),\n   user-visible name (used to browse and select from listings), an\n   opaque selector string (typically containing a pathname used by the\n   destination host to locate the desired object), a host name (which\n   host to contact to obtain this item), and an IP port number (the port\n   at which the server process listens for connections). The user only\n   sees the user-visible name.  The client software can locate and\n   retrieve any item by the trio of selector, hostname, and port.\n\n   To use a search item, the client submits a query to a special kind of\n   Gopher server: a search server.  In this case, the client sends the\n   selector string (if any) and the list of words to be matched. The\n   response yields \"virtual directory listings\" that contain items\n   matching the search criteria.\n\n   Gopher servers and clients exist for all popular platforms.  Because\n   the protocol is so sparse and simple, writing servers or clients is\n   quick and straightforward.\n1\n.  Introduction\nThe Internet Gopher protocol is designed primarily to act as a\n   distributed document delivery system.  While documents (and services)\n   reside on many servers, Gopher client software presents users with a\n   hierarchy of items and directories much like a file system.  In fact,\n   the Gopher interface is designed to resemble a file system since a\n   file system is a good model for locating documents and services.  Why\n   model a campus-wide information system after a file system?  Several\n   reasons:\n\n      (a) A hierarchical arrangement of information is familiar to many\n      users.  Hierarchical directories containing items (such as\n      documents, servers, and subdirectories) are widely used in\n      electronic bulletin boards and other campus-wide information\n      systems. People who access a campus-wide information server will\n      expect some sort of hierarchical organization to the information\n      presented.\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 2]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\n(b) A file-system style hierarchy can be expressed in a simple\n      syntax.  The syntax used for the internet Gopher protocol is\n      easily understandable, and was designed to make debugging servers\n      and clients easy.  You can use Telnet to simulate an internet\n      Gopher client's requests and observe the responses from a server.\n      Special purpose software tools are not required.  By keeping the\n      syntax of the pseudo-file system client/server protocol simple, we\n      can also achieve better performance for a very common user\n      activity: browsing through the directory hierarchy.\n\n      (c) Since Gopher originated in a University setting, one of the\n      goals was for departments to have the option of publishing\n      information from their inexpensive desktop machines, and since\n      much of the information can be presented as simple text files\n      arranged in directories, a protocol modeled after a file system\n      has immediate utility.  Because there can be a direct mapping from\n      the file system on the user's desktop machine to the directory\n      structure published via the Gopher protocol, the problem of\n      writing server software for slow desktop systems is minimized.\n\n      (d) A file system metaphor is extensible.  By giving a \"type\"\n      attribute to items in the pseudo-file system, it is possible to\n      accommodate documents other than simple text documents.  Complex\n      database services can be handled as a separate type of item.  A\n      file-system metaphor does not rule out search or database-style\n      queries for access to documents.  A search-server type is also\n      defined in this pseudo-file system.  Such servers return \"virtual\n      directories\" or list of documents matching user specified\n      criteria.\n2\n.  The internet Gopher Model\nA detailed BNF rendering of the internet Gopher syntax is available\n   in the appendix...but a close reading of the appendix may not be\n   necessary to understand the internet Gopher protocol.\n\n   In essence, the Gopher protocol consists of a client connecting to a\n   server and sending the server a selector (a line of text, which may\n   be empty) via a TCP connection.  The server responds with a block of\n   text terminated with a period on a line by itself, and closes the\n   connection.  No state is retained by the server between transactions\n   with a client. The simple nature of the protocol stems from the need\n   to implement servers and clients for the slow, smaller desktop\n   computers (1 MB Macs and DOS machines), quickly, and efficiently.\n\n   Below is a simple example of a client/server interaction; more\n   complex interactions are dealt with later.  Assume that a \"well-\n   known\" Gopher server (this may be duplicated, details are discussed\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 3]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nlater) listens at a well known port for the campus (much like a\n   domain-name server).  The only configuration information the client\n   software retains is this server's name and port number (in this\n   example that machine is rawBits.micro.umn.edu and the port 70). In\n   the example below the F character denotes the TAB character.\n\n Client:          {Opens connection to rawBits.micro.umn.edu at port 70}\n\n Server:          {Accepts connection but says nothing}\n\n Client: <CR><LF> {Sends an empty line: Meaning \"list what you have\"}\n\n Server:          {Sends a series of lines, each ending with CR LF}\n 0About internet GopherFStuff:About usFrawBits.micro.umn.eduF70\n 1Around University of MinnesotaFZ,5692,AUMFunderdog.micro.umn.eduF70\n 1Microcomputer News & PricesFPrices/Fpserver.bookstore.umn.eduF70\n 1Courses, Schedules, CalendarsFFevents.ais.umn.eduF9120\n 1Student-Staff DirectoriesFFuinfo.ais.umn.eduF70\n 1Departmental PublicationsFStuff:DP:FrawBits.micro.umn.eduF70\n                    {.....etc.....}\n .                  {Period on a line by itself}\n                    {Server closes connection}\n\n\n   The first character on each line tells whether the line describes a\n   document, directory, or search service (characters '0', '1', '7';\n   there are a handful more of these characters described later).  The\n   succeeding characters up to the tab form a user display string to be\n   shown to the user for use in selecting this document (or directory)\n   for retrieval.  The first character of the line is really defining\n   the type of item described on this line. In nearly every case, the\n   Gopher client software will give the users some sort of idea about\n   what type of item this is (by displaying an icon, a short text tag,\n   or the like).\n\n   The characters following the tab, up to the next tab form a selector\n   string that the client software must send to the server to retrieve\n   the document (or directory listing).  The selector string should mean\n   nothing to the client software; it should never be modified by the\n   client.  In practice, the selector string is often a pathname or\n   other file selector used by the server to locate the item desired.\n   The next two tab delimited fields denote the domain-name of the host\n   that has this document (or directory), and the port at which to\n   connect.  If there are yet other tab delimited fields, the basic\n   Gopher client should ignore them.  A CR LF denotes the end of the\n   item.\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 4]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nIn the example, line 1 describes a document the user will see as\n   \"About internet Gopher\".  To retrieve this document, the client\n   software must send the retrieval string: \"Stuff:About us\" to\n   rawBits.micro.umn.edu at port 70.  If the client does this, the\n   server will respond with the contents of the document, terminated by\n   a period on a line by itself.  A client might present the user with a\n   view of the world something like the following list of items:\n\n\n      About Internet Gopher\n      Around the University of Minnesota...\n      Microcomputer News & Prices...\n      Courses, Schedules, Calendars...\n      Student-Staff Directories...\n      Departmental Publications...\n\n\n\n   In this case, directories are displayed with an ellipsis and files\n   are displayed without any.  However, depending on the platform the\n   client is written for and the author's taste, item types could be\n   denoted by other text tags or by icons.  For example, the UNIX\n   curses-based client displays directories with a slash (/) following\n   the name; Macintosh clients display directories alongside an icon of\n   a folder.\n\n   The user does not know or care that the items up for selection may\n   reside on many different machines anywhere on the Internet.\n\n   Suppose the user selects the line \"Microcomputer News & Prices...\".\n   This appears to be a directory, and so the user expects to see\n   contents of the directory upon request that it be fetched.  The\n   following lines illustrate the ensuing client-server interaction:\n\n\n    Client:           (Connects to pserver.bookstore.umn.edu at port 70)\n    Server:           (Accepts connection but says nothing)\n    Client: Prices/   (Sends the magic string terminated by CRLF)\n    Server:           (Sends a series of lines, each ending with CR LF)\n    0About PricesFPrices/AboutusFpserver.bookstore.umn.eduF70\n    0Macintosh PricesFPrices/MacFpserver.bookstore.umn.eduF70\n    0IBM PricesFPrices/IckFpserver.bookstore.umn.eduF70\n    0Printer & Peripheral PricesFPrices/PPPFpserver.bookstore.umn.eduF70\n                      (.....etc.....)\n    .                 (Period on a line by itself)\n                      (Server closes connection)\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 5]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\n3\n. More details\n3.1\nLocating services\nDocuments (or other services that may be viewed ultimately as\n   documents, such as a student-staff phonebook) are linked to the\n   machine they are on by the trio of selector string, machine domain-\n   name, and IP port.  It is assumed that there will be one well-known\n   top-level or root server for an institution or campus.  The\n   information on this server may be duplicated by one or more other\n   servers to avoid a single point of failure and to spread the load\n   over several servers.  Departments that wish to put up their own\n   departmental servers need to register the machine name and port with\n   the administrators of the top-level Gopher server, much the same way\n   as they register a machine name with the campus domain-name server.\n   An entry which points to the departmental server will then be made at\n   the top level server.  This ensures that users will be able to\n   navigate their way down what amounts to a virtual hierarchical file\n   system with a well known root to any campus server if they desire.\n\n   Note that there is no requirement that a department register\n   secondary servers with the central top-level server; they may just\n   place a link to the secondary servers in their own primary servers.\n   They may indeed place links to any servers they desire in their own\n   server, thus creating a customized view of thethe Gopher information\n   universe; links can of course point back at the top-level server.\n   The virtual (networked) file system is therefore an arbitrary graph\n   structure and not necessarily a rooted tree.  The top-level node is\n   merely one convenient, well-known point of entry.  A set of Gopher\n   servers linked in this manner may function as a campus-wide\n   information system.\n\n   Servers may of course point links at other than secondary servers.\n   Indeed servers may point at other servers offering useful services\n   anywhere on the internet.  Viewed in this manner, Gopher can be seen\n   as an Internet-wide information system.\n3.2\nServer portability and naming\nIt is recommended that all registered servers have alias names\n   (domain name system CNAME) that are used by Gopher clients to locate\n   them.  Links to these servers should use these alias names rather\n   than the primary names.  If information needs to be moved from one\n   machine to another, a simple change of domain name system alias\n   (CNAME) allows this to occur without any reconfiguration of clients\n   in the field.  In short, the domain name system may be used to re-map\n   a server to a new address.  There is nothing to prevent secondary\n   servers or services from running on otherwise named servers or ports\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 6]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nother than 70, however these should be reachable via a primary\n   server.\n3.3\nContacting server administrators\nIt is recommended that every server administrator have a document\n   called something like: \"About Bogus University's Gopher server\" as\n   the first item in their server's top level directory.  In this\n   document should be a short description of what the server holds, as\n   well as name, address, phone, and an e-mail address of the person who\n   administers the server.  This provides a way for users to get word to\n   the administrator of a server that has inaccurate information or is\n   not running correctly.  It is also recommended that administrators\n   place the date of last update in files for which such information\n   matters to the users.\n3.4\nModular addition of services\nThe first character of each line in a server-supplied directory\n   listing indicates whether the item is a file (character '0'), a\n   directory (character '1'), or a search (character '7').  This is the\n   base set of item types in the Gopher protocol.  It is desirable for\n   clients to be able to use different services and speak different\n   protocols (simple ones such as finger; others such as CSO phonebook\n   service, or Telnet, or X.500 directory service) as needs dictate.\n   CSO phonebook service is a client/server phonebook system typically\n   used at Universities to publish names, e-mail addresses, and so on.\n   The CSO phonebook software was developed at the University of\n   Illinois and is also sometimes refered to as ph or qi.  For example,\n   if a server-supplied directory listing marks a certain item with type\n   character '2', then it means that to use this item, the client must\n   speak the CSO protocol.  This removes the need to be able to\n   anticipate all future needs and hard-wire them in the basic Internet\n   Gopher protocol; it keeps the basic protocol extremely simple.  In\n   spite of this simplicity, the scheme has the capability to expand and\n   change with the times by adding an agreed upon type-character for a\n   new service.  This also allows the client implementations to evolve\n   in a modular fashion, simply by dropping in a module (or launching a\n   new process) for some new service.  The servers for the new service\n   of course have to know nothing about Internet Gopher; they can just\n   be off-the shelf CSO, X.500, or other servers.  We do not however,\n   encourage arbitrary or machine-specific proliferation of service\n   types in the basic Gopher protocol.\n\n   On the other hand, subsets of other document retrieval schemes may be\n   mapped onto the Gopher protocol by means of \"gateway-servers\".\n   Examples of such servers include Gopher-to-FTP gateways, Gopher-to-\n   archie gateways, Gopher-to-WAIS gateways, etc.  There are a number of\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 7]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nadvantages of such mechanisms. First, a relatively powerful server\n   machine inherits both the intelligence and work, rather than the more\n   modest, inexpensive desktop system that typically runs client\n   software or basic server software.  Equally important, clients do not\n   have to be modified to take advantage of a new resource.\n3.5\nBuilding clients\nA client simply sends the retrieval string to a server if it wants to\n   retrieve a document or view the contents of a directory.  Of course,\n   each host may have pointers to other hosts, resulting in a \"graph\"\n   (not necessarily a rooted tree) of hosts.  The client software may\n   save (or rather \"stack\") the locations that it has visited in search\n   of a document.  The user could therefore back out of the current\n   location by unwinding the stack.  Alternatively, a client with\n   multiple-window capability might just be able to display more than\n   one directory or document at the same time.\n\n   A smart client could cache the contents of visited directories\n   (rather than just the directory's item descriptor), thus avoiding\n   network transactions if the information has been previously\n   retrieved.\n\n   If a client does not understand what a say, type 'B' item (not a core\n   item) is, then it may simply ignore the item in the directory\n   listing; the user never even has to see it.  Alternatively, the item\n   could be displayed as an unknown type.\n\n   Top-level or primary servers for a campus are likely to get more\n   traffic than secondary servers, and it would be less tolerable for\n   such primary servers to be down for any long time.  So it makes sense\n   to \"clone\" such important servers and construct clients that can\n   randomly choose between two such equivalent primary servers when they\n   first connect (to balance server load), moving to one if the other\n   seems to be down.  In fact, smart client implementations do this\n   clone server and load balancing.  Alternatively, it may make sense to\n   have the domain name system return one of a set of redundant of\n   server's IP address to load balance betwen redundant sets of\n   important servers.\n3.6\nBuilding ordinary internet Gopher servers\nThe retrieval string sent to the server might be a path to a file or\n   directory.  It might be the name of a script, an application or even\n   a query that generates the document or directory returned.  The basic\n   server uses the string it gets up to but not including a CR-LF or a\n   TAB, whichever comes first.\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 8]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nAll intelligence is carried by the server implementation rather than\n   the protocol.  What you build into more exotic servers is up to you.\n   Server implementations may grow as needs dictate and time allows.\n3.7\nSpecial purpose servers\nThere are two special server types (beyond the normal Gopher server)\n   also discussed below:\n\n      1.  A server directory listing can point at a CSO nameserver (the\n      server returns a type character of '2') to allow a campus\n      student-staff phonebook lookup service.  This may show up on the\n      user's list of choices, perhaps preceded by the icon of a phone-\n      book.  If this item is selected, the client software must resort\n      to a pure CSO nameserver protocol when it connects to the\n      appropriate host.\n\n      2.  A server can also point at a \"search server\" (returns a first\n      character of '7').  Such servers may implement campus network (or\n      subnet) wide searching capability.  The most common search servers\n      maintain full-text indexes on the contents of text documents held\n      by some subset of Gopher servers.  Such a \"full-text search\n      server\" responds to client requests with a list of all documents\n      that contain one or more words (the search criteria).  The client\n      sends the server the selector string, a tab, and the search string\n      (words to search for). If the selector string is empty, the client\n      merely sends the search string.  The server returns the equivalent\n      of a directory listing for documents matching the search criteria.\n      Spaces between words are usually implied Boolean ANDs (although in\n      different implementations or search types, this may not\n      necessarily be true).\n\n   The CSO addition exists for historical reasons: at time of design,\n   the campus phone-book servers at the University of Minnesota used the\n   CSO protocol and it seemed simplest to just engulf them.  The index-\n   server is however very much a Gopher in spirit, albeit with a slight\n   twist in the meaning of the selector-string.  Index servers are a\n   natural place to incorperate gateways to WAIS and WHOIS services.\n3.7.1\nBuilding CSO-servers\nA CSO Nameserver implementation for UNIX and associated documentation\n   is available by anonymous ftp from uxa.cso.uiuc.edu.  We do not\n   anticipate implementing it on other machines.\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti         [Page 9]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\n3.7.2\nBuilding full-text search servers\nA full-text search server is a special-purpose server that knows\n   about the Gopher scheme for retrieving documents.  These servers\n   maintain a full-text index of the contents of plain text documents on\n   Gopher servers in some specified domain.  A Gopher full-text search\n   server was implemented using several NeXTstations because it was easy\n   to take advantage of the full-text index/search engine built into the\n   NeXT system software.  A search server for generic UNIX systems based\n   on the public domain WAIS search engine, is also available and\n   currently an optional part of the UNIX gopher server.  In addition,\n   at least one implementation of the gopher server incorperates a\n   gateway to WAIS servers by presenting the WAIS servers to gopherspace\n   as full-text search servers.  The gopher<->WAIS gateway servers does\n   the work of translating from gopher protocol to WAIS so unmodified\n   gopher clients can access WAIS servers via the gateway server.\n\n   By using several index servers (rather than a monolithic index\n   server) indexes may be searched in parallel (although the client\n   software is not aware of this).  While maintaining full-text indexes\n   of documents distributed over many machines may seem a daunting task,\n   the task can be broken into smaller pieces (update only a portion of\n   the indexes, search several partial indexes in parallel) so that it\n   is manageable.  By spreading this task over several small, cheap (and\n   fast) workstations it is possible to take advantage of fine-grain\n   parallelism.  Again, the client software is not aware of this. Client\n   software only needs to know that it can send a search string to an\n   index server and will receive a list of documents that contain the\n   words in the search string.\n3.8\nItem type characters\nThe client software decides what items are available by looking at\n   the first character of each line in a directory listing.  Augmenting\n   this list can extend the protocol.  A list of defined item-type\n   characters follows:\n\n   0   Item is a file\n   1   Item is a directory\n   2   Item is a CSO phone-book server\n   3   Error\n   4   Item is a BinHexed Macintosh file.\n   5   Item is DOS binary archive of some sort.\n       Client must read until the TCP connection closes.  Beware.\n   6   Item is a UNIX uuencoded file.\n   7   Item is an Index-Search server.\n   8   Item points to a text-based telnet session.\n   9   Item is a binary file!\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti        [Page 10]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nClient must read until the TCP connection closes.  Beware.\n   +   Item is a redundant server\n   T   Item points to a text-based tn3270 session.\n   g   Item is a GIF format graphics file.\n   I   Item is some kind of image file.  Client decides how to display.\n\n   Characters '0' through 'Z' are reserved.  Local experiments should\n   use other characters.  Machine-specific extensions are not\n   encouraged.  Note that for type 5 or type 9 the client must be\n   prepared to read until the connection closes.  There will be no\n   period at the end of the file; the contents of these files are binary\n   and the client must decide what to do with them based perhaps on the\n   .xxx extension.\n3.9\nUser display strings and server selector strings\nUser display strings are intended to be displayed on a line on a\n   typical screen for a user's viewing pleasure.  While many screens can\n   accommodate 80 character lines, some space is needed to display a tag\n   of some sort to tell the user what sort of item this is.  Because of\n   this, the user display string should be kept under 70 characters in\n   length.  Clients may truncate to a length convenient to them.\n4\n.   Simplicity is intentional\nAs far as possible we desire any new features to be carried as new\n   protocols that will be hidden behind new document-types.  The\n   internet Gopher philosophy is:\n\n      (a) Intelligence is held by the server.  Clients have the option\n      of being able to access new document types (different, other types\n      of servers) by simply recognizing the document-type character.\n      Further intelligence to be borne by the protocol should be\n      minimized.\n\n      (b) The well-tempered server ought to send \"text\" (unless a file\n      must be transferred as raw binary).  Should this text include\n      tabs, formfeeds, frufru?  Probably not, but rude servers will\n      probably send them anyway.  Publishers of documents should be\n      given simple tools (filters) that will alert them if there are any\n      funny characters in the documents they wish to publish, and give\n      them the opportunity to strip the questionable characters out; the\n      publisher may well refuse.\n\n      (c) The well-tempered client should do something reasonable with\n      funny characters received in text; filter them out, leave them in,\n      whatever.\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti        [Page 11]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nAppendix\n\n   Paul's NQBNF (Not Quite BNF) for the Gopher Protocol.\n\n   Note:  This is modified BNF (as used by the Pascal people) with a few\n          English modifiers thrown in.  Stuff enclosed in '{}' can be\n          repeated zero or more times.  Stuff in '[]' denotes a set of\n          items.  The '-' operator denotes set subtraction.\n\n\nDirectory Entity\n\nCR-LF     ::= ASCII Carriage Return Character followed by Line Feed\n              character.\n\nTab       ::= ASCII Tab character.\n\nNUL       ::= ASCII NUL character.\n\nUNASCII   ::= ASCII - [Tab CR-LF NUL].\n\nLastline  ::= '.'CR-LF.\n\nTextBlock ::= Block of ASCII text not containing Lastline pattern.\n\nType      ::= UNASCII.\n\nRedType   ::= '+'.\n\nUser_Name ::= {UNASCII}.\n\nSelector  ::= {UNASCII}.\n\nHost      ::= {{UNASCII - ['.']} '.'} {UNASCII - ['.']}.\n\nNote: This is a Fully Qualified Domain Name as defined in\nRFC 1034\n.\n      (e.g., gopher.micro.umn.edu)  Hosts that have a CR-LF\n      TAB or NUL in their name get what they deserve.\n\nDigit     ::= '0' | '1' | '2' | '3' | '4' | '5' | '6' | '7' | '8' | '9' .\n\nDigitSeq  ::= digit {digit}.\n\nPort      ::= DigitSeq.\n\nNote: Port corresponds the the TCP Port Number, its value should\n      be in the range [0..65535]; port 70 is officially assigned\n      to gopher.\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti        [Page 12]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nDirEntity ::= Type User_Name Tab Selector Tab Host Tab Port CR-LF\n          {RedType User_Name Tab Selector Tab Host Tab Port CR-LF}\n\n\n\nNotes:\n\n   It is *highly* recommended that the User_Name field contain only\n   printable characters, since many different clients will be using\n   it.  However if eight bit characters are used, the characters\n   should conform with the ISO Latin1 Character Set.  The length of\n   the User displayable line should be less than 70 Characters; longer\n   lines may not fit across some screens.\n\n   The Selector string should be no longer than 255 characters.\n\n\nMenu Entity\n\nMenu      ::= {DirEntity} Lastline.\n\n\nMenu Transaction  (Type 1 item)\n\nC: Opens Connection\nS: Accepts Connection\nC: Sends Selector String\nS: Sends Menu Entity\n\n   Connection is closed by either client or server (typically server).\n\n\nTextfile Entity\n\nTextFile  ::= {TextBlock} Lastline\n\nNote:  Lines beginning with periods must be prepended with an extra\n     period to ensure that the transmission is not terminated early.\n     The client should strip extra periods at the beginning of the line.\n\n\nTextFile Transaction (Type 0 item)\n\nC: Opens Connection.\nS: Accepts connection\nC: Sends Selector String.\nS: Sends TextFile Entity.\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti        [Page 13]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nConnection is closed by either client or server (typically server).\n\nNote:  The client should be prepared for the server closing the\n       connection without sending the Lastline.  This allows the\n       client to use fingerd servers.\n\n\nFull-Text Search Transaction (Type 7 item)\n\nWord      ::= {UNASCII - ' '}\nBoolOp ::= 'and' | 'or' | 'not' | SPACE\nSearchStr ::= Word {{SPACE BoolOp} SPACE Word}\n\nC: Opens Connection.\nC: Sends Selector String, Tab, Search String.\nS: Sends Menu Entity.\n\nNote:  In absence of 'and', 'or', or 'not' operators, a SPACE is\n       regarded as an implied 'and' operator.  Expression is evaluated\n       left to right.  Further, not all search engines or search\n       gateways currently implemented have the boolean operators\n       implemented.\n\nBinary file Transaction (Type 9 or 5 item)\n\nC: Opens Connection.\nS: Accepts connection\nC: Sends Selector String.\nS: Sends a binary file and closes connection when done.\n\n\nSyntactic Meaning for Directory Entities\n\n\nThe client should interpret the type field as follows:\n0\nThe item is a TextFile Entity.\nClient should use a TextFile Transaction.\n1\nThe item is a Menu Entity.\nClient should use a Menu Transaction.\n2\nThe information applies to a CSO phone book entity.\nClient should talk CSO protocol.\n3\nSignals an error condition.\n4\nItem is a Macintosh file encoded in BINHEX format\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti        [Page 14]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\n5\nItem is PC-DOS binary file of some sort.\nClient gets to decide.\n6\nItem is a uuencoded file.\n7\nThe information applies to a Index Server.\nClient should use a FullText Search transaction.\n8\nThe information applies to a Telnet session.\nConnect to given host at given port. The name to login as at this\nhost is in the selector string.\n9\nItem is a binary file.\nClient must decide what to do with it.\n\n+   The information applies to a duplicated server.  The information\n    contained within is a duplicate of the primary server.  The primary\n    server is defined as the last DirEntity that is has a non-plus\n    \"Type\" field.  The client should use the transaction as defined by\n    the primary server Type field.\n\ng   Item is a GIF graphic file.\n\nI   Item is some kind of image file.  Client gets to decide.\n\nT   The information applies to a tn3270 based telnet session.\n    Connect to given host at given port. The name to login as at this\n    host is in the selector string.\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\n   Farhad Anklesaria\n   Computer and Information Services, University of Minnesota\n   Room 152 Shepherd Labs\n   100 Union Street SE\n   Minneapolis, MN 55455\n\n   Phone: (612) 625 1300\n   EMail: fxa@boombox.micro.umn.edu\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti        [Page 15]\nRFC 1436\nGopher                       March 1993\nMark McCahill\n   Computer and Information Services, University of Minnesota\n   Room 152 Shepherd Labs\n   100 Union Street SE\n   Minneapolis, MN 55455\n\n   Phone: (612) 625 1300\n   EMail: mpm@boombox.micro.umn.edu\n\n\n   Paul Lindner\n   Computer and Information Services, University of Minnesota\n   Room 152 Shepherd Labs\n   100 Union Street SE\n   Minneapolis, MN 55455\n\n   Phone: (612) 625 1300\n   EMail: lindner@boombox.micro.umn.edu\n\n\n   David Johnson\n   Computer and Information Services, University of Minnesota\n   Room 152 Shepherd Labs\n   100 Union Street SE\n   Minneapolis, MN 55455\n\n   Phone: (612) 625 1300\n   EMail: dmj@boombox.micro.umn.edu\n\n\n   Daniel Torrey\n   Computer and Information Services, University of Minnesota\n   Room 152 Shepherd Labs\n   100 Union Street SE\n   Minneapolis, MN 55455\n\n   Phone: (612) 625 1300\n   EMail: daniel@boombox.micro.umn.edu\n\n\n   Bob Alberti\n   Computer and Information Services, University of Minnesota\n   Room 152 Shepherd Labs\n   100 Union Street SE\n   Minneapolis, MN 55455\n\n   Phone: (612) 625 1300\n   EMail: alberti@boombox.micro.umn.edu\n\n\n\nAnklesari, McCahill, Lindner, Johnson, Torrey & Alberti        [Page 16]\nRFC\n1436\n: The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1993-03-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1993-03-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1993-03-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:20.564490+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "2bd58815-3bcb-46d7-b126-2f6932c134f5", "source_id": "309440eb94ba18a7527bd51b", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation", "artifact_sha256": "8823160da42c6e2a84cb41cb45b0db1a0330b53f40fe7ab80929403e49f0369b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 79842, "title": "Implement Policy -  - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 14731, "characters": 14731, "text": "Implement Policy - - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nImplementing Policy at ICANN\nICANN coordinates the Internet's unique identifiers – domain names and IP addresses – across the world and defines policies for how these identifiers should run (\nlearn more\n).\nPolicies for generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are developed within the Generic Names Supporting Organization's (GNSO)\nPolicy Development Processes\n(PDPs). Once the policy recommendations emerging from these PDPs are adopted by the ICANN Board, ICANN's Global Domains & Strategy (GDS) implements them according to guidelines established in the\nConsensus Policy Implementation Framework (v2018)\n(CPIF).\nOn this page, you will find information about:\nHow Policy is implemented\nCurrent implementation projects\nPolicy Status Reports\nPolicy Effective Dates\nResources\nHow is Policy Implemented?\nThe CPIF is a five-stage process designed to make implementations predictable and transparent. During each implementation project, GDS staff consults with the wider community by:\nAssembling a team of volunteer experts—an Implementation Review Team (IRT), in the relevant subject matter to provide advice and support.\nConducting public comment periods on proposed implementation plans and/or Consensus Policies.\nConsolidated Scorecards\nICANN org publishes this Consolidated Scorecard periodically to help the community track work through different phases. This resource brings together information about community-developed policy and other outcomes in one place.\nFor status updates on community policy development, please view the scorecards\nhere\n.\nImplementation Projects In Progress\nImplementation Project\nExpected Completion Date\nExpedited Policy Development Process for Internationalized Domain Names\n2026\nIGO-INGO Curative Rights\n2026\nPrivacy and Proxy Services Accreditation\n2027\nRights Protection Mechanisms Implementation\n2026\nImplementation Projects In Queue\nProject\nccPDP3 Policy Implementation\nEPDP Phase 2A on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data\nGNSO Internationalized Domain Names EPDP Phase 2\nTransfer Policy Review\nTranslation and Transliteration of Contact Information\nPolicy Recommendations Pending Board Action\nProject\nccNSO Policy Development Process 4 (ccPDP4) (De-) selection of IDN ccTLD Strings\nPolicy Development Processes\nThe following are GNSO PDPs currently in progress which may result in consensus policy recommendations. If the ICANN Board adopts these policy recommendations, they will become implementation projects to be carried out by GDS staff:\nProject\nExpected Completion Date\nLatin Script Diacritics Policy Development Process\n2026\nDNS Abuse Mitigation Policy Development Process\n1\n2027\nPre-Meeting Briefings\nFor the latest Policy Research and Stakeholder Programs (PRSP) Pre-ICANN Update Briefing, please view the briefing\nhere\n.\nPolicy Effective Dates\nPolicies developed within the GNSO and implemented by GDS affect many companies and organizations in the domain name industry. ICANN has committed to simplifying implementation via the\nPolicy Change Calendar Initiative\n[PDF, 166 KB], which aims to provide contracted parties with a consistent, predictable timetable for updating their operations to meet new policy requirements.\nSince May 2015, GDS has worked to bundle the announcement and effective dates for related policies. Policies within a bundle are announced together, which triggers a window of at least six months for contracted parties to update their operations to ensure compliance with the new policies. Effective dates are the same for all policies in a bundle, which are noted in the announcement.\nPolicy Status Reports\nPer the mandate of the \"Support and Review\" phase of the CPIF, ICANN org and the GNSO Council periodically produce and review Policy Status Reports in order to assess the effectiveness and impact of an implemented Consensus Policy.\nPolicy Status Report: Expired Domain Deletion Policy and Expired Registration Recovery Policy\n(August 2025)\nPolicy Status Report: Policy Status Report: GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Recommendations\n(February 7, 2025)\nPolicy Status Report: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)\n(July 13, 2022)\nPolicy Status Report: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy\n(March 2019)\nResources\nAdopted Consensus Policies\nRepository and archive of implementation documents\nContact Information\nFor questions or comments please contact:\n[email protected]\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "aad9d76b-9a01-4e3c-9f51-4d182b4fc4cf", "document_id": "2bd58815-3bcb-46d7-b126-2f6932c134f5", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Implement Policy - - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nImplementing Policy at ICANN\nICANN coordinates the Internet's unique identifiers – domain names and IP addresses – across the world and defines policies for how these identifiers should run (\nlearn more\n).\nPolicies for generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are developed within the Generic Names Supporting Organization's (GNSO)\nPolicy Development Processes\n(PDPs). Once the policy recommendations emerging from these PDPs are adopted by the ICANN Board, ICANN's Global Domains & Strategy (GDS) implements them according to guidelines established in the\nConsensus Policy Implementation Framework (v2018)\n(CPIF).\nOn this page, you will find information about:\nHow Policy is implemented\nCurrent implementation projects\nPolicy Status Reports\nPolicy Effective Dates\nResources\nHow is Policy Implemented?\nThe CPIF is a five-stage process designed to make implementations predictable and transparent. During each implementation project, GDS staff consults with the wider community by:\nAssembling a team of volunteer experts—an Implementation Review Team (IRT), in the relevant subject matter to provide advice and support.\nConducting public comment periods on proposed implementation plans and/or Consensus Policies.\nConsolidated Scorecards\nICANN org publishes this Consolidated Scorecard periodically to help the community track work through different phases. This resource brings together information about community-developed policy and other outcomes in one place.\nFor status updates on community policy development, please view the scorecards\nhere\n.\nImplementation Projects In Progress\nImplementation Project\nExpected Completion Date\nExpedited Policy Development Process for Internationalized Domain Names\n2026\nIGO-INGO Curative Rights\n2026\nPrivacy and Proxy Services Accreditation\n2027\nRights Protection Mechanisms Implementation\n2026\nImplementation Projects In Queue\nProject\nccPDP3 Policy Implementation\nEPDP Phase 2A on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data\nGNSO Internationalized Domain Names EPDP Phase 2\nTransfer Policy Review\nTranslation and Transliteration of Contact Information\nPolicy Recommendations Pending Board Action\nProject\nccNSO Policy Development Process 4 (ccPDP4) (De-) selection of IDN ccTLD Strings\nPolicy Development Processes\nThe following are GNSO PDPs currently in progress which may result in consensus policy recommendations. If the ICANN Board adopts these policy recommendations, they will become implementation projects to be carried out by GDS staff:\nProject\nExpected Completion Date\nLatin Script Diacritics Policy Development Process\n2026\nDNS Abuse Mitigation Policy Development Process\n1\n2027\nPre-Meeting Briefings\nFor the latest Policy Research and Stakeholder Programs (PRSP) Pre-ICANN Update Briefing, please view the briefing\nhere\n.\nPolicy Effective Dates\nPolicies developed within the GNSO and implemented by GDS affect many companies and organizations in the domain name industry. ICANN has committed to simplifying implementation via the\nPolicy Change Calendar Initiative\n[PDF, 166 KB], which aims to provide contracted parties with a consistent, predictable timetable for updating their operations to meet new policy requirements.\nSince May 2015, GDS has worked to bundle the announcement and effective dates for related policies. Policies within a bundle are announced together, which triggers a window of at least six months for contracted parties to update their operations to ensure compliance with the new policies. Effective dates are the same for all policies in a bundle, which are noted in the announcement.\nPolicy Status Reports\nPer the mandate of the \"Support and Review\" phase of the CPIF, ICANN org and the GNSO Council periodically produce and review Policy Status Reports in order to assess the effectiveness and impact of an implemented Consensus Policy.\nPolicy Status Report: Expired Domain Deletion Policy and Expired Registration Recovery Policy\n(August 2025)\nPolicy Status Report: Policy Status Report: GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Recommendations\n(February 7, 2025)\nPolicy Status Report: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)\n(July 13, 2022)\nPolicy Status Report: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy\n(March 2019)\nResources\nAdopted Consensus Policies\nRepository and archive of implementation documents\nContact Information\nFor questions or comments please contact:\n[email protected]\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 14731, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1981}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "source_id": "3aeea1ff90858ed85e184865", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026/", "artifact_sha256": "0b3c8545b9d7820294da60548cb84586de28ac05dd6336a63cfc81313e372c0c", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 419661, "title": "RFC 2026: The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 81111, "characters": 81111, "text": "RFC 2026: The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 2026\nInfo\nRFC\n2026\n:\nBCP\n9\n:\nThe Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\nS. Bradner\nBest Current Practice\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n3667\n,\nRFC\n3668\n,\nRFC\n3932\n,\nRFC\n3978\n,\nRFC\n3979\n,\nRFC\n5378\n,\nRFC\n5657\n,\nRFC\n5742\n,\nRFC\n6410\n,\nRFC\n7100\n,\nRFC\n7127\n,\nRFC\n7475\n,\nRFC\n8179\n,\nRFC\n8789\n,\nRFC\n9282\n.\nNetwork Working Group S. Bradner\nRequest for Comments: 2026 Harvard University\nBCP: 9 October 1996\nObsoletes:\n1602\nCategory: Best Current Practice\nThe Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo documents the process used by the Internet community for\nthe standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the\nstages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a\ndocument between stages and the types of documents used during this\nprocess. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and\ncopyright issues associated with the standards process.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n. INTRODUCTION....................................................\n2\n1.1\nInternet Standards...........................................\n3\n1.2\nThe Internet Standards Process...............................\n3\n1.3\nOrganization of This Document................................\n5\n2\n. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.........................\n5\n2.1\nRequests for Comments (RFCs).................................\n5\n2.2\nInternet-Drafts..............................................\n7\n3\n. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................\n8\n3.1\nTechnical Specification (TS).................................\n8\n3.2\nApplicability Statement (AS).................................\n8\n3.3\nRequirement Levels...........................................\n9\n4\n. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK...................................\n10\n4.1\nStandards Track Maturity Levels.............................\n11\n4.1.1\nProposed Standard.......................................\n11\n4.1.2\nDraft Standard..........................................\n12\n4.1.3\nInternet Standard.......................................\n13\n4.2\nNon-Standards Track Maturity Levels.........................\n13\n4.2.1\nExperimental............................................\n13\n4.2.2\nInformational...........................................\n14\n4.2.3\nProcedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs......\n14\n4.2.4\nHistoric................................................\n15\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n5\n. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs...............................\n15\n5.1\nBCP Review Process..........................................\n16\n6\n. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS.................................\n17\n6.1\nStandards Actions...........................................\n17\n6.1.1\nInitiation of Action....................................\n17\n6.1.2\nIESG Review and Approval................................\n17\n6.1.3\nPublication.............................................\n18\n6.2\nAdvancing in the Standards Track............................\n19\n6.3\nRevising a Standard.........................................\n20\n6.4\nRetiring a Standard.........................................\n20\n6.5\nConflict Resolution and Appeals.............................\n21\n6.5.1\nWorking Group Disputes...................................\n21\n6.5.2\nProcess Failures.........................................\n22\n6.5.3\nQuestions of Applicable Procedure........................\n22\n6.5.4\nAppeals Procedure........................................\n23\n7\n. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................\n23\n7.1\nUse of External Specifications..............................\n24\n7.1.1\nIncorporation of an Open Standard.......................\n24\n7.1.2\nIncorporation of a Other Specifications.................\n24\n7.1.3\nAssumption..............................................\n25\n8\n. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................\n25\n9\n. VARYING THE PROCESS.............................................\n26\n9.1\nThe Variance Procedure.......................................\n26\n9.2\nExclusions...................................................\n27\n10\n. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................\n27\n10.1\n. General Policy............................................\n27\n10.2\nConfidentiality Obligations...............................\n28\n10.3\n. Rights and Permissions....................................\n28\n10.3.1\n. All Contributions......................................\n28\n10.3.2\n. Standards Track Documents..............................\n29\n10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and\nNon-discriminatory Terms................................\n30\n10.4\n. Notices...................................................\n30\n11\n. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................\n32\n12\n. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................\n32\n13\n. REFERENCES.....................................................\n33\n14\n. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS...........................................\n33\n15\n. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS...............................................\n34\nAPPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................\n35\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n1\n. INTRODUCTION\nThis memo documents the process currently used by the Internet\ncommunity for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The\nInternet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society\nthat is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by\nthe Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering\nSteering Group (IESG).\n1.1\nInternet Standards\nThe Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of\nautonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host\ncommunication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and\nprocedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many\nisolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to the\nglobal Internet but use the Internet Standards.\n\nThe Internet Standards Process described in this document is\nconcerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are\nused in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the\nTCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or\nstandardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet\nStandards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol\nor procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the\nprotocol itself.\n\nIn general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable\nand well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,\nindependent, and interoperable implementations with substantial\noperational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is\nrecognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.\n1.2\nThe Internet Standards Process\nIn outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is\nstraightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development\nand several iterations of review by the Internet community and\nrevision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the\nappropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the\nprocess is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating\nspecifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider\nthe interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of\nestablishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty\nof evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the\nInternet community.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThe goals of the Internet Standards Process are:\no technical excellence;\no prior implementation and testing;\no clear, concise, and easily understood documentation;\no openness and fairness; and\no timeliness.\n\nThe procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,\nopen, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to\nbe flexible.\n\no These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and\nobjective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet\nStandards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and\ncomment by all interested parties. At each stage of the\nstandardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed\nand its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic\nmailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide\non-line directories.\n\no These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting\ngenerally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification\nmust be implemented and tested for correct operation and\ninteroperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in\nincreasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as\nan Internet Standard.\n\no These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to\nthe wide variety of circumstances that occur in the\nstandardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to\nbe vital in achieving the goals listed above.\n\nThe goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior\nimplementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested\nparties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the\nother hand, today's rapid development of networking technology\ndemands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards\nProcess is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process\nis believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing\ntechnical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard,\nor openness and fairness.\n\nFrom its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain,\nan evolving system whose participants regularly factor new\nrequirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users\nof the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and\nservices that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution\nas a major tenet of Internet philosophy.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThe procedures described in this document are the result of a number\nof years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and\nincreasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n1.3\nOrganization of This Document\nSection 2\ndescribes the publications and archives of the Internet\nStandards Process.\nSection 3\ndescribes the types of Internet\nstandard specifications.\nSection 4\ndescribes the Internet standards\nspecifications track.\nSection 5\ndescribes Best Current Practice\nRFCs.\nSection 6\ndescribes the process and rules for Internet\nstandardization.\nSection 7\nspecifies the way in which externally-\nsponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by\nother standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet\nStandards Process.\nSection 8\ndescribes the requirements for notices\nand record keeping\nSection 9\ndefines a variance process to allow\none-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document\nSection 10\npresents the rules that are required to protect\nintellectual property rights in the context of the development and\nuse of Internet Standards.\nSection 11\nincludes acknowledgments of\nsome of the people involved in creation of this document.\nSection 12\nnotes that security issues are not dealt with by this document.\nSection 13\ncontains a list of numbered references.\nSection 14\ncontains definitions of some of the terms used in this document.\nSection 15\nlists the author's email and postal addresses.\nAppendix A\ncontains a list of frequently-used acronyms.\n2\n. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS\n2.1\nRequests for Comments (RFCs)\nEach distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification\nis published as part of the \"Request for Comments\" (RFC) document\nseries. This archival series is the official publication channel for\nInternet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB,\nand Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of\nInternet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other\nInternet document-retrieval systems.\n\nThe RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of\nthe original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see\nAppendix A\nfor glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of\ntopics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of\nnew research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC\npublication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the\ngeneral direction of the IAB.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThe rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [\n5\n].\nEvery RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available\nin other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material\n(such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII\nversion, and it may be formatted differently.\n\n*********************************************************\n* *\n* A stricter requirement applies to standards-track *\n* specifications: the ASCII text version is the *\n* definitive reference, and therefore it must be a *\n* complete and accurate specification of the standard, *\n* including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. *\n* *\n*********************************************************\n\nThe status of Internet protocol and service specifications is\nsummarized periodically in an RFC entitled \"Internet Official\nProtocol Standards\" [\n1\n]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and\nother helpful information for each Internet protocol or service\nspecification (see\nsection 3\n).\n\nSome RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD'\nsubseries of the RFC series [\n4\n]. When a specification has been\nadopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label\n\"STDxxx\", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC\nseries. (see\nsection 4.1.3\n)\n\nSome RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about\nstatements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to\nperform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form\nthe specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the\nadditional label \"BCPxxx\", but it keeps its RFC number and its place\nin the RFC series. (see\nsection 5\n)\n\nNot all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet\nshould or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards\ntrack specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet\nstandardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published\ndirectly as \"Experimental\" or \"Informational\" RFCs at the discretion\nof the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see\nsection 4.2\n).\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n********************************************************\n* *\n* It is important to remember that not all RFCs *\n* are standards track documents, and that not all *\n* standards track documents reach the level of *\n* Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs *\n* which describe current practices have been given *\n* the review and approval to become BCPs. See *\n*\nRFC-1796\n[\n6\n] for further information. *\n* *\n********************************************************\n2.2\nInternet-Drafts\nDuring the development of a specification, draft versions of the\ndocument are made available for informal review and comment by\nplacing them in the IETF's \"Internet-Drafts\" directory, which is\nreplicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving\nworking document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating\nthe process of review and revision.\n\nAn Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained\nunchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months\nwithout being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is\nsimply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an\nInternet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same\nspecification, restarting the six-month timeout period.\n\nAn Internet-Draft is NOT a means of \"publishing\" a specification;\nspecifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in\nthe previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are\nsubject to change or removal at any time.\n\n********************************************************\n* *\n* Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft *\n* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- *\n* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *\n* with an Internet-Draft. *\n* *\n********************************************************\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 8]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nNote: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification\nthat may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the\nphrase \"Work in Progress\" without referencing an Internet-Draft.\nThis may also be done in a standards track document itself as long\nas the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a\ncomplete and understandable document with or without the reference to\nthe \"Work in Progress\".\n3\n. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS\nSpecifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into\none of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and\nApplicability Statement (AS).\n3.1\nTechnical Specification (TS)\nA Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service,\nprocedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of\nthe relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more\nparameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self-\ncontained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications\nby reference to other documents (which might or might not be Internet\nStandards).\n\nA TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent\nfor its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently\nspecific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that\neffect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use\nwithin the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the\nparticular context in which the TS is incorporated by different\nsystem configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement.\n3.2\nApplicability Statement (AS)\nAn Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what\ncircumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular\nInternet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not\nInternet Standards, as discussed in\nSection 7\n.\n\nAn AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they\nare to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges\nof TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be\nimplemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use\nof a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see\nsection\n3.3\n).\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 9]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nAn AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted\n\"domain of applicability\", such as Internet routers, terminal\nservers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram-\nbased database servers.\n\nThe broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification,\ncommonly called a \"requirements document\", for a particular class of\nInternet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts.\n\nAn AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track\nthan any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see\nsection 4.1\n).\nFor example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS\nat the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at\nthe Standard level.\n3.3\nRequirement Levels\nAn AS shall apply one of the following \"requirement levels\" to each\nof the TSs to which it refers:\n\n(a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by\nthe AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example,\nIP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the\nTCP/IP Protocol Suite.\n\n(b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not\nrequired for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally\naccepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain\nof applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to\ninclude the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs\nin their products, and should omit them only if the omission is\njustified by some special circumstance. For example, the TELNET\nprotocol should be implemented by all systems that would benefit\nfrom remote access.\n\n(c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional\nwithin the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS\ncreates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a\nparticular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user\nmay decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For\nexample, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an\nenvironment where the DECNET protocol is used.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 10]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nAs noted in\nsection 4.1\n, there are TSs that are not in the\nstandards track or that have been retired from the standards\ntrack, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective.\nTwo additional \"requirement level\" designations are available for\nthese TSs:\n\n(d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use\nonly in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage\nof a protocol with the \"Experimental\" designation should generally\nbe limited to those actively involved with the experiment.\n\n(e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate\nfor general use is labeled \"Not Recommended\". This may be because\nof its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic\nstatus.\n\nAlthough TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a\nstandards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related\nTSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed\nspecifically and exclusively for some particular domain of\napplicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a\nsingle specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In\nsuch cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately\ndistributing the information among several documents just to preserve\nthe formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply\nto more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a\nmodular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs.\n\nThe \"Official Protocol Standards\" RFC (STD1) lists a general\nrequirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this\nsection. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more\ndetailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular\nprotocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found\nin appropriate ASs.\n4\n. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK\nSpecifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve\nthrough a set of maturity levels known as the \"standards track\".\nThese maturity levels -- \"Proposed Standard\", \"Draft Standard\", and\n\"Standard\" -- are defined and discussed in\nsection 4.1\n. The way in\nwhich specifications move along the standards track is described in\nsection 6\n.\n\nEven after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard,\nfurther evolution often occurs based on experience and the\nrecognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of\nInternet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 11]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nStandards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to\nindicate the status of \"retired\" Internet Standards. A set of\nmaturity levels is defined in\nsection 4.2\nto cover these and other\nspecifications that are not considered to be on the standards track.\n4.1\nStandards Track Maturity Levels\nInternet specifications go through stages of development, testing,\nand acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages\nare formally labeled \"maturity levels\".\n\nThis section describes the maturity levels and the expected\ncharacteristics of specifications at each level.\n4.1.1\nProposed Standard\nThe entry-level maturity for the standards track is \"Proposed\nStandard\". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a\nspecification onto the standards track at the \"Proposed Standard\"\nlevel.\n\nA Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved\nknown design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received\nsignificant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community\ninterest to be considered valuable. However, further experience\nmight result in a change or even retraction of the specification\nbefore it advances.\n\nUsually, neither implementation nor operational experience is\nrequired for the designation of a specification as a Proposed\nStandard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will\nusually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard\ndesignation.\n\nThe IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience\nprior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that\nmaterially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies\nbehavior that may have significant operational impact on the\nInternet.\n\nA Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with\nrespect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may\nwaive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance\nto the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and\nnecessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 12]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nImplementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature\nspecifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain\nexperience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.\nHowever, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if\nproblems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying\nimplementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive\nenvironment is not recommended.\n4.1.2\nDraft Standard\nA specification from which at least two independent and interoperable\nimplementations from different code bases have been developed, and\nfor which sufficient successful operational experience has been\nobtained, may be elevated to the \"Draft Standard\" level. For the\npurposes of this section, \"interoperable\" means to be functionally\nequivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in\nwhich they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology\nis required for implementation, the separate implementations must\nalso have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.\nElevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating\na strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.\n\nThe requirement for at least two independent and interoperable\nimplementations applies to all of the options and features of the\nspecification. In cases in which one or more options or features\nhave not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable\nimplementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard\nlevel only if those options or features are removed.\n\nThe Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific\nimplementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet\nStandard status along with documentation about testing of the\ninteroperation of these implementations. The documentation must\ninclude information about the support of each of the individual\noptions and features. This documentation should be submitted to the\nArea Director with the protocol action request. (see\nSection 6\n)\n\nA Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite\nstable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an\nimplementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or\nmore widespread field experience, since it is possible for\nimplementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate\nunforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production\nenvironments.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 13]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nA Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification,\nand changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems\nencountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to\ndeploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive\nenvironment.\n4.1.3\nInternet Standard\nA specification for which significant implementation and successful\noperational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the\nInternet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be\nreferred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of\ntechnical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified\nprotocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet\ncommunity.\n\nA specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a\nnumber in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.\n4.2\nNon-Standards Track Maturity Levels\nNot every specification is on the standards track. A specification\nmay not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended\nfor eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards\ntrack. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent\nInternet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.\n\nSpecifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with\none of three \"off-track\" maturity levels: \"Experimental\",\n\"Informational\", or \"Historic\". The documents bearing these labels\nare not Internet Standards in any sense.\n4.2.1\nExperimental\nThe \"Experimental\" designation typically denotes a specification that\nis part of some research or development effort. Such a specification\nis published for the general information of the Internet technical\ncommunity and as an archival record of the work, subject only to\neditorial considerations and to verification that there has been\nadequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An\nExperimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet\nresearch effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working\nGroup, or it may be an individual contribution.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 14]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n4.2.2\nInformational\nAn \"Informational\" specification is published for the general\ninformation of the Internet community, and does not represent an\nInternet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational\ndesignation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a\nvery broad range of responsible informational documents from many\nsources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification\nthat there has been adequate coordination with the standards process\n(see\nsection 4.2.3\n).\n\nSpecifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet\ncommunity and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards\nProcess by any of the provisions of\nsection 10\nmay be published as\nInformational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the\nconcurrence of the RFC Editor.\n4.2.3\nProcedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs\nUnless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents\nintended to be published with Experimental or Informational status\nshould be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will\npublish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already\nbeen so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts\nthey will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are\neasily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this\npublication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor\nis expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial\nsuitability of a document for publication with Experimental or\nInformational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in\nthe expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet\nactivity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for\nRFCs.\n\nTo ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational\ndesignations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards\nProcess, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor\nwill refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or\nInformational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,\nmay be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the\nIETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document\nwithin a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be\npublished as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a\ncontribution to the Internet Standards Process.\n\nIf (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the\nIETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines\nto do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 15]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nsomething that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an\nestablished IETF effort, the document may still be published as an\nExperimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG\nmay insert appropriate \"disclaimer\" text into the RFC either in or\nimmediately following the \"Status of this Memo\" section in order to\nmake the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.\n\nDocuments proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF\nWorking Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using\nthe process described in\nsection 6.1.1\n.\n4.2.4\nHistoric\nA specification that has been superseded by a more recent\nspecification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is\nassigned to the \"Historic\" level. (Purists have suggested that the\nword should be \"Historical\"; however, at this point the use of\n\"Historic\" is historical.)\n\nNote: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on\nother standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity\nlevel or on non standards track specifications other than referenced\nspecifications from other standards bodies. (See\nSection 7\n.)\n5\n. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs\nThe BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to\nstandardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A\nBCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as\nstandards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF\ncommunity can define and ratify the community's best current thinking\non a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way\nto perform some operations or IETF process function.\n\nHistorically Internet standards have generally been concerned with\nthe technical specifications for hardware and software required for\ncomputer communication across interconnected networks. However,\nsince the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great\nvariety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user\nservice requires that the operators and administrators of the\nInternet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.\nWhile these guidelines are generally different in scope and style\nfrom protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process\nfor consensus building.\n\nWhile it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are\ncomposed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the\ntechnical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 16]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nthemselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders\nin the Internet technical community, these entities should have an\noutlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to\nraise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a\nstatement of architectural principle, or to communicate their\nthoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly\nstructured way for these management entities to insert proposals into\nthe consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the\ncommunity's view of that issue.\n\nFinally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the\nIETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards\nProcess and is published as a BCP.\n5.1\nBCP Review Process\nUnlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs\nare not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage\nstandards track and instead generally only make sense for full and\nimmediate instantiation.\n\nThe BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP\nis submitted to the IESG for review, (see\nsection 6.1.1\n) and the\nexisting review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF\nAnnounce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the\ndocument, the process ends and the document is published. The\nresulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the\nIETF.\n\nSpecifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must\nundergo the procedures outlined in sections\n6.1\n, and\n6.4\nof this\ndocument. The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures\nin\nsection 6.5\n.\n\nBecause BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived\nat more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care.\nSpecifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger\nInformational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable\nfor a content different from Informational RFCs.\n\nA specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been\napproved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while\nretaining its RFC number(s).\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 17]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n6\n. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS\nThe mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of\nthe IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the\nstandards track or the movement of a standards-track specification\nfrom one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably\nobjective criteria (described below and in\nsection 4\n) are available\nto guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto,\nalong, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee\nof elevation to or progression along the standards track for any\nspecification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG\nconcerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for\nelevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential\ncomponent of the decision-making process.\n6.1\nStandards Actions\nA \"standards action\" -- entering a particular specification into,\nadvancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must\nbe approved by the IESG.\n6.1.1\nInitiation of Action\nA specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet\nstandards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see\nsection 2.2\n) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC.\nIt shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less\nthan two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a\nrecommendation for action may be initiated.\n\nA standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF\nWorking group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,\ncopied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not\nassociated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to\nthe IESG.\n6.1.2\nIESG Review and Approval\nThe IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to\nit according to\nsection 6.1.1\nsatisfies the applicable criteria for\nthe recommended action (see sections\n4.1\nand\n4.2\n), and shall in\naddition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity\nof the specification is consistent with that expected for the\nmaturity level to which the specification is recommended.\n\nIn order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these\ndeterminations, particularly when the specification is considered by\nthe IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 18]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\non the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may,\nat its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the\nspecification.\n\nThe IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG\nconsideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the\ngeneral Internet community. This \"Last-Call\" notification shall be\nvia electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a\nLast-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as\ndirected in the Last-Call announcement.\n\nThe Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except in\nthose cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by\nan IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be no\nshorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the community\ninterest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may\ndecide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a\ncurrent Last-Call period.\n\nThe IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the\nspecification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to\nconsider the specification for publication in a different category\nthan that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last-\nCall is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view.\nThe IESG could also decide to change the publication category based\non the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a\nspecification being published at a \"higher\" level than the original\nLast-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the\nIESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend\nthe formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant\ncontroversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not\noriginating from an IETF Working Group.\n\nIn a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the\nIESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve\nthe standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via\nelectronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.\n6.1.3\nPublication\nIf a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC\nEditor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the\nspecification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be\nremoved from the Internet-Drafts directory.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 19]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nAn official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall\nappear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This\nshall constitute the \"publication of record\" for Internet standards\nactions.\n\nThe RFC Editor shall publish periodically an \"Internet Official\nProtocol Standards\" RFC [\n1\n], summarizing the status of all Internet\nprotocol and service specifications.\n6.2\nAdvancing in the Standards Track\nThe procedure described in\nsection 6.1\nis followed for each action\nthat attends the advancement of a specification along the standards\ntrack.\n\nA specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at\nleast six (6) months.\n\nA specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least\nfour (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred,\nwhichever comes later.\n\nThese minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for\ncommunity review without severely impacting timeliness. These\nintervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the\ncorresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC\npublication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the\naction.\n\nA specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it\nadvances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall\ndetermine the scope and significance of the revision to the\nspecification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the\nrecommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant\nrevision may require that the specification accumulate more\nexperience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally,\nif the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG\nmay recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re-\nentering the standards track at the beginning.\n\nChange of status shall result in republication of the specification\nas an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at\nall in the specification since the last publication. Generally,\ndesired changes will be \"batched\" for incorporation at the next level\nin the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next\nstandards action on the specification will not always be possible or\ndesirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a\ntechnical error that does not represent a change in overall function\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 20]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nof the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such\ncases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with\na new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum\ntime-at-level clock.\n\nWhen a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet\nStandard level but has remained at the same maturity level for\ntwenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter\nuntil the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of\nthe standardization effort responsible for that specification and the\nusefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG\nshall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,\nat the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification\nat the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This\ndecision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the\nIETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an\nopportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a\nlegitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an\nadministrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.\n6.3\nRevising a Standard\nA new version of an established Internet Standard must progress\nthrough the full Internet standardization process as if it were a\ncompletely new specification. Once the new version has reached the\nStandard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which\nwill be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both\nversions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements\nof an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between\nthe previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the\ntext of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an\nApplicability Statement; see\nsection 3.2\n).\n6.4\nRetiring a Standard\nAs the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new\nStandard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one\nor more existing standards track specifications for the same function\nshould be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other\nreason that an existing standards track specification should be\nretired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old\nspecification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued\nwith the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any\nother standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can\noriginate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other\ninterested party.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 21]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n6.5\nConflict Resolution and Appeals\nDisputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As\nmuch as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be\nmade, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when\neven the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to\nagree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts\nmust be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This\nsection specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with\nInternet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal\nprocesses whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards\nProcess participants ordinarily reach consensus.\n6.5.1\nWorking Group Disputes\nAn individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or\nnot) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or\nher belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been\nadequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group\nhas made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality\nand/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant\njeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group\nprocess; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two\ntypes of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by\nthe same process of review.\n\nA person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall\nalways first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),\nwho may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working\nGroup as a whole) in the discussion.\n\nIf the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the\nparties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area\nDirector(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered.\nThe Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute.\n\nIf the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of\nthe parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The\nIESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a\nmanner of its own choosing.\n\nIf the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the\nparties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the\ndecision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and\nattempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 22]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThe IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or\nnot the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with\nrespect to all questions of technical merit.\n6.5.2\nProcess Failures\nThis document sets forward procedures required to be followed to\nensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and\nthe technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the\nprincipal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that\nis charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been\nfollowed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action\nhave been met.\n\nIf an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in\nthis process, that person should first discuss the issue with the\nISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant\nthen the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along\nwith input from the complainant, and determine whether any further\naction is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the\ncomplaint to the IETF.\n\nShould the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG\nreview, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review\nthe situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own\nchoosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.\n\nIf circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be\nannulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG\ndecision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,\nor make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,\nhowever, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which\nonly the IESG is empowered to make.\n\nThe IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or\nnot the Internet standards procedures have been followed.\n6.5.3\nQuestions of Applicable Procedure\nFurther recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures\nthemselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are\nclaimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the\nrights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.\nClaims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of\nTrustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge\nsuch an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of\nacknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the\nTrustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 23]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nsituation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on\nthe outcome of its review.\n\nThe Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final\nwith respect to all aspects of the dispute.\n6.5.4\nAppeals Procedure\nAll appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the\nfacts of the dispute.\n\nAll appeals must be initiated within two months of the public\nknowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.\n\nAt all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies\nresponsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define\nthe specific procedures they will follow in the process of making\ntheir decision.\n\nIn all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute,\nand the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must\nbe accomplished within a reasonable period of time.\n\n[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not\nestablish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered\n\"reasonable\" in all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a\npremium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately\nforegoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of\na latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be\nreached.]\n7\n. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS\nMany standards groups other than the IETF create and publish\nstandards documents for network protocols and services. When these\nexternal specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is\ndesirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to\nestablish Internet Standards relating to these external\nspecifications.\n\nThere are two categories of external specifications:\n\n(1) Open Standards\n\nVarious national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI,\nISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service\nspecifications that are similar to Technical Specifications\ndefined here. National and international groups also publish\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 24]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n\"implementors' agreements\" that are analogous to Applicability\nStatements, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail\nconcerned with the practical application of their standards. All\nof these are considered to be \"open external standards\" for the\npurposes of the Internet Standards Process.\n\n(2) Other Specifications\n\nOther proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used\nin the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if\nthey were a \"standards\". Such a specification is not generally\ndeveloped in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is\ncontrolled by the vendor, vendors, or organization that produced\nit.\n7.1\nUse of External Specifications\nTo avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the\nInternet community will not standardize a specification that is\nsimply an \"Internet version\" of an existing external specification\nunless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made.\nHowever, there are several ways in which an external specification\nthat is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet\nmay be adopted for Internet use.\n7.1.1\nIncorporation of an Open Standard\nAn Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external\nstandard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards\nincorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set \"ASCII\" [\n2\n].\nWhenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available\nonline.\n7.1.2\nIncorporation of Other Specifications\nOther proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to\na version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the\nrequirements of\nsection 10\n. If the other proprietary specification\nis not widely and readily available, the IESG may request that it be\npublished as an Informational RFC.\n\nThe IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary\nspecification over technically equivalent and competing\nspecification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification\n\"required\" or \"recommended\".\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 25]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n7.1.3\nAssumption\nAn IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and\ndevelop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1)\nthe specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with\nthe requirements of\nsection 10\n, and (2) change control has been\nconveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for\nthe specification or for specifications derived from the original\nspecification.\n8\n. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING\nEach of the organizations involved in the development and approval of\nInternet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a\npublicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to\nthe extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part\nof the Internet Standards Process. For purposes of this section, the\norganizations involved in the development and approval of Internet\nStandards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working\nGroups, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees.\n\nFor IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by\nelectronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be made\nsufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested\nparties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain\n(or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to\nsupport the participation of any interested individual. In the case\nof a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda\nthat specifies the standards- related issues that will be discussed.\n\nThe formal record of an organization's standards-related activity\nshall include at least the following:\n\no the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent\nto a charter);\no complete and accurate minutes of meetings;\no the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; and\no all written contributions from participants that pertain to the\norganization's standards-related activity.\n\nAs a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards\nProcess activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the\nresponsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working\nGroup is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must\nmake a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and\nincluded in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair is\nresponsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and\naccurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 26]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nhave been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts\ndirectories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole\npurpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards\nactivity and thus are not retrievable except in special\ncircumstances.\n9\n. VARYING THE PROCESS\nThis document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which\nInternet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product\nof the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in\nsection\n5\n). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to\nbe replaced.\n\nWhile, when published, this document represents the community's view\nof the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be\nmet, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it\ncannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to\ntime there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a new\nversion. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are\nused for any other BCP.\n\nIn addition, there may be situations where following the procedures\nleads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be\nsituations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases\nit may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described\nbelow.\n9.1\nThe Variance Procedure\nUpon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if\nno Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc\ncommittee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or\nadvance it within, the standards track even though some of the\nrequirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG\nmay approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines\nthat the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to\noutweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from\nnoncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising\nthis discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical\nmerit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the\ngoals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance,\n(c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral\nand precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's\nability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In\ndetermining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to\nlimit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this document\nand to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 27]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\ndetermines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet\ncommunity.\n\nThe proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the\nprecise provision of this document which is causing the need for a\nvariance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including\nconsideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph.\nThe proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG\nshall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to\nallow for community comment upon the proposal.\n\nIn a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the\nIESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve\nthe proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via\nelectronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance\nis approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request\nthat it be published as a BCP.\n\nThis variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some\nprovision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes\nto this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP\nprocess.\n\nThe appeals process in\nsection 6.5\napplies to this process.\n9.2\nExclusions\nNo use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt\nany proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or\nconsensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings\nand mailing list discussions.\n\nSpecifically, the following sections of this document must not be\nsubject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3\n(first sentence), 6.5 and 9.\n10\n. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS\n10.1\n. General Policy\nIn all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the\nintention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at\nlarge, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 28]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n10.2\nConfidentiality Obligations\nNo contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality\nor any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part\nof the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of\nany confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution.\n10.3\n. Rights and Permissions\nIn the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in\nvarious forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the\ndissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand\nany intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions.\n10.3.1\n. All Contributions\nBy submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the\ncontribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions\non his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he\nrepresents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the\ncontribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in\naddition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the\nactual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was\nmade aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on\nhis own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and\nany known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.\n\nl. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to\ncopyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may\nbe subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he\nrepresents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in\nthe contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive,\nroyalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the\nIETF under any copyrights in the contribution. This license\nincludes the right to copy, publish and distribute the\ncontribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are\nbased on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the\nlicense to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the\nlicense of the original contribution.\n\n2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty\nto publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution.\n\n3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and\naddress(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he\nrepresents (if any).\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 29]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n4. The contributor represents that contribution properly acknowledge\nmajor contributors.\n\n5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and the\nowners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that\nno information in the contribution is confidential and that the\nISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any\ninformation in the contribution.\n\n6. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of\nany proprietary or intellectual property rights in the\ncontribution that are reasonably and personally known to the\ncontributor. The contributor does not represent that he\npersonally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and\nintellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization\nhe represents (if any) or third parties.\n\n7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the\ncontributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and\nagreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the\ncontributor.\n\nBy ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet\nSociety warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and\nfree access to IETF documents for which license and right have\nbeen assigned according to the procedures set forth in this\nsection, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is\nperpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its\nsuccessors or assigns.\n10.3.2\n. Standards Track Documents\n(A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on\nthe standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the\nIESG shall not advance the specification without including in the\ndocument a note indicating the existence of such rights, or\nclaimed rights. Where implementations are required before\nadvancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by\nstatement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with\nany such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the\npurpose of showing the adequacy of the specification.\n(B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the\nexistence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed\ncopyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the\nfulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no\nposition on the validity or scope of any such rights.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 30]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n(C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the\nIETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the claimant\nof such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG\nof the relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any\nparty will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and\ndistribute the technology or works when implementing, using or\ndistributing technology based upon the specific specification(s)\nunder openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms.\nThe Working Group proposing the use of the technology with respect\nto which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IETF\nExecutive Director in this effort. The results of this procedure\nshall not affect advancement of a specification along the\nstandards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a\ndelay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The\nresults will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director,\nand made available. The IESG may also direct that a summary of\nthe results be included in any RFC published containing the\nspecification.\n10.3.3\nDetermination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms\nThe IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance\nof reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a\ntechnology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the\nnormal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to\nverify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated\nimplementations of the specification that are required to advance\nfrom Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by\ndifferent organizations or individuals or if the \"significant\nimplementation and successful operational experience\" required to\nadvance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the\nassumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree,\nnon-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the\nLast-Call period.\n10.4\n. Notices\n(A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice:\n\n\"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of\nany intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed\nto pertain to the implementation or use of the technology\ndescribed in this document or the extent to which any license\nunder such rights might or might not be available; neither does\nit represent that it has made any effort to identify any such\nrights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to\nrights in standards-track and standards-related documentation\ncan be found in\nBCP-11\n. Copies of claims of rights made\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 31]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\navailable for publication and any assurances of licenses to\nbe made available, or the result of an attempt made\nto obtain a general license or permission for the use of such\nproprietary rights by implementors or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.\"\n\n(B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its\nattention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any\nintellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards.\nFor this purpose, each standards document shall include the\nfollowing invitation:\n\n\"The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its\nattention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or\nother proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be\nrequired to practice this standard. Please address the\ninformation to the IETF Executive Director.\"\n\n(C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included\nin all ISOC standards-related documentation:\n\n\"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights\nReserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and\nfurnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or\notherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be\nprepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in\npart, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above\ncopyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such\ncopies and derivative works. However, this document itself may\nnot be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright\nnotice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet\norganizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing\nInternet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights\ndefined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or\nas required to translate it into languages other than English.\n\nThe limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will\nnot be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or\nassigns.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 32]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided\non an \"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR\nIMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE\nOF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY\nIMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A\nPARTICULAR PURPOSE.\"\n\n(D) Where the IESG is aware at the time of publication of\nproprietary rights claimed with respect to a standards track\ndocument, or the technology described or referenced therein, such\ndocument shall contain the following notice:\n\n\"The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights\nclaimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained\nin this document. For more information consult the online list\nof claimed rights.\"\n11\n. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nThere have been a number of people involved with the development of\nthe documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years.\nThe process was first described in\nRFC 1310\nthen revised in\nRFC 1602\nbefore the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors).\nSpecific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill\nGross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions,\nto Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to\nAndy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for their\nreviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and\nto John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive input\non the final version.\n\nIn addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of\nthe IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various\nincarnations of the POISED Working Group.\n12\n. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 33]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n13\n. REFERENCES\n[\n1\n] Postel, J., \"Internet Official Protocol Standards\", STD 1,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1996.\n\n[\n2\n] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for\nInformation Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.\n\n[\n3\n] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\", STD 2,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.\n\n[\n4\n] Postel, J., \"Introduction to the STD Notes\",\nRFC 1311\n,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.\n\n[\n5\n] Postel, J., \"Instructions to RFC Authors\",\nRFC 1543\n,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.\n\n[\n6\n] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker \"Not All RFCs are\nStandards\",\nRFC 1796\n, April 1995.\n14\n. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS\nIETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists\nof Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An\nArea is managed by one or two Area Directors.\nArea Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors\nalong with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering\nSteering Group (IESG).\nFile Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used to\ntransfer files in a TCP/IP network.\ngopher - An Internet application used to interactively select and\nretrieve files in a TCP/IP network.\nInternet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists\nin the management of the IETF standards process.\nInternet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of the\nIETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible\nfor the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the\nstandards approval board for the IETF.\ninteroperable - For the purposes of this document, \"interoperable\"\nmeans to be able to interoperate over a data communications path.\nLast-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of\nconsensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.\n(see\nsection 6.1.2\n)\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 34]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nonline - Relating to information made available over the Internet.\nWhen referenced in this document material is said to be online\nwhen it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using\nstandard Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or\nthe WWW.\nWorking Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a\nspecific specification, set of specifications or topic.\n15\n. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS\nScott O. Bradner\nHarvard University\nHolyoke Center, Room 813\n1350 Mass. Ave.\nCambridge, MA 02138\nUSA\n\nPhone: +1 617 495 3864\nEMail: sob@harvard.edu\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 35]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nAPPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS\n\nANSI: American National Standards Institute\nARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency\nAS: Applicability Statement\nFTP: File Transfer Protocol\nASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange\nITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the\nInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN\ntreaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT.\nIAB: Internet Architecture Board\nIANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nIEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers\nICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol\nIESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group\nIETF: Internet Engineering Task Force\nIP: Internet Protocol\nIRSG Internet Research Steering Group\nIRTF: Internet Research Task Force\nISO: International Organization for Standardization\nISOC: Internet Society\nMIB: Management Information Base\nOSI: Open Systems Interconnection\nRFC: Request for Comments\nTCP: Transmission Control Protocol\nTS: Technical Specification\nWWW: World Wide Web\n\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 36]\nRFC\n2026\n: The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n18\nIn this section\n1. INTRODUCTION\n1.1 Internet Standards\n1.2 The Internet Standards Process\n1.3 Organization of This Document\n2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS\n2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs)\n2.2 Internet-Drafts\n3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS\n3.1 Technical Specification (TS)\n3.2 Applicability Statement (AS)\n3.3 Requirement Levels\n4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK\n4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels\n4.1.1 Proposed Standard\n4.1.2 Draft Standard\n4.1.3 Internet Standard\n4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels\n4.2.1 Experimental\n4.2.2 Informational\n4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs\n4.2.4 Historic\n5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs\n5.1 BCP Review Process\n6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS\n6.1 Standards Actions\n6.1.1 Initiation of Action\n6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval\n6.1.3 Publication\n6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track\n6.3 Revising a Standard\n6.4 Retiring a Standard\n6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals\n6.5.1 Working Group Disputes\n6.5.2 Process Failures\n6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure\n6.5.4 Appeals Procedure\n7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS\n7.1 Use of External Specifications\n7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard\n7.1.2 Incorporation of Other Specifications\n7.1.3 Assumption\n8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING\n9. VARYING THE PROCESS\n9.1 The Variance Procedure\n9.2 Exclusions\n10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS\n10.1. General Policy\n10.2 Confidentiality Obligations\n10.3. Rights and Permissions\n10.3.1. All Contributions\n10.3.2. Standards Track Documents\n10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms\n10.4. Notices\n11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS\n13. REFERENCES\n14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS\n15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a96ba0c1-68e1-4d1b-a1c4-4ea665706ef6", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 2026: The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 2026\nInfo\nRFC\n2026\n:\nBCP\n9\n:\nThe Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\nS. Bradner\nBest Current Practice\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n3667\n,\nRFC\n3668\n,\nRFC\n3932\n,\nRFC\n3978\n,\nRFC\n3979\n,\nRFC\n5378\n,\nRFC\n5657\n,\nRFC\n5742\n,\nRFC\n6410\n,\nRFC\n7100\n,\nRFC\n7127\n,\nRFC\n7475\n,\nRFC\n8179\n,\nRFC\n8789\n,\nRFC\n9282\n.\nNetwork Working Group S. Bradner\nRequest for Comments: 2026 Harvard University\nBCP: 9 October 1996\nObsoletes:\n1602\nCategory: Best Current Practice\nThe Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo documents the process used by the Internet community for\nthe standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the\nstages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a\ndocument between stages and the types of documents used during this\nprocess. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and\ncopyright issues associated with the standards process.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n. INTRODUCTION....................................................\n2\n1.1\nInternet Standards...........................................\n3\n1.2\nThe Internet Standards Process...............................\n3\n1.3\nOrganization of This Document................................\n5\n2\n. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS.........................\n5\n2.1\nRequests for Comments (RFCs).................................\n5\n2.2\nInternet-Drafts..............................................\n7\n3\n. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS................................\n8\n3.1\nTechnical Specification (TS).................................\n8\n3.2\nApplicability Statement (AS).................................\n8\n3.3\nRequirement Levels...........................................\n9\n4\n. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK...................................\n10\n4.1\nStandards Track Maturity Levels.............................\n11\n4.1.1\nProposed Standard.......................................\n11\n4.1.2\nDraft Standard..........................................\n12\n4.1.3\nInternet Standard.......................................\n13\n4.2\nNon-Standards Track Maturity Levels.........................\n13\n4.2.1\nExperimental............................................\n13\n4.2.2\nInformational...........................................\n14\n4.2.3\nProcedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs......\n14\n4.2.4\nHistoric................................................\n15\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n5\n. Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs...............................\n15\n5.1\nBCP Review Process..........................................\n16\n6\n. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS.................................\n17\n6.1\nStandards Actions...........................................\n17\n6.1.1\nInitiation of Action....................................\n17\n6.1.2\nIESG Review and Approval................................\n17\n6.1.3\nPublication.............................................\n18\n6.2\nAdvancing in the Standards Track............................\n19\n6.3\nRevising a Standard.........................................\n20\n6.4\nRetiring a Standard.........................................\n20\n6.5\nConflict Resolution and Appeals.............................\n21\n6.5.1\nWorking Group Disputes...................................\n21\n6.5.2\nProcess Failures.........................................\n22\n6.5.3\nQuestions of Applicable Procedure........................\n22\n6.5.4\nAppeals Procedure........................................\n23\n7\n. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................\n23\n7.1\nUse of External Specifications..............................\n24\n7.1.1\nIncorporation of an Open Standard.......................\n24\n7.1.2\nIncorporation of a Other Specifications.................\n24\n7.1.3\nAssumption..............................................\n25\n8\n. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING......................................\n25\n9\n. VARYING THE PROCESS.............................................\n26\n9.1\nThe Variance Procedure.......................................\n26\n9.2\nExclusions...................................................\n27\n10\n. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................\n27\n10.1\n. General Policy............................................\n27\n10.2\nConfidentiality Obligations...............................\n28\n10.3\n. Rights and Permissions....................................\n28\n10.3.1\n. All Contributions......................................\n28\n10.3.2\n. Standards Track Documents..............................\n29\n10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and\nNon-discriminatory Terms................................\n30\n10.4\n. Notices...................................................\n30\n11\n. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................\n32\n12\n. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................\n32\n13\n. REFERENCES.....................................................\n33\n14\n. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS...........................................\n33\n15\n. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS...............................................\n34\nAPPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................\n35\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n1\n. INTRODUCTION\nThis memo documents the process currently used by the Internet\ncommunity for the standardization of protocols and procedures. The\nInternet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society\nthat is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by\nthe Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering\nSteering Group (IESG).\n1.1\nInternet Standards\nThe Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of\nautonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host\ncommunication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and\nprocedures defined by Internet Standards. There are also many\nisolated interconnected networks, which are not connected to the\nglobal Internet but use the Internet Standards.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6268, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 653}}, {"segment_id": "3a30eb24-9bef-468d-8db1-847d61531eab", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 1, "text": "The Internet Standards Process described in this document is\nconcerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are\nused in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the\nTCP/IP protocol suite. In the case of protocols developed and/or\nstandardized by non-Internet organizations, however, the Internet\nStandards Process normally applies to the application of the protocol\nor procedure in the Internet context, not to the specification of the\nprotocol itself.\n\nIn general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable\nand well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,\nindependent, and interoperable implementations with substantial\noperational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is\nrecognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.\n1.2\nThe Internet Standards Process\nIn outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is\nstraightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development\nand several iterations of review by the Internet community and\nrevision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the\nappropriate body (see below), and is published. In practice, the\nprocess is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating\nspecifications of high technical quality; (2) the need to consider\nthe interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of\nestablishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty\nof evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the\nInternet community.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThe goals of the Internet Standards Process are:\no technical excellence;\no prior implementation and testing;\no clear, concise, and easily understood documentation;\no openness and fairness; and\no timeliness.\n\nThe procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,\nopen, and objective; to reflect existing (proven) practice; and to\nbe flexible.", "char_start": 6270, "char_end": 8217, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 288}}, {"segment_id": "ee50045d-a3f1-4ee6-8298-2f8da027b584", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 2, "text": "o These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and\nobjective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet\nStandards. They provide ample opportunity for participation and\ncomment by all interested parties. At each stage of the\nstandardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed\nand its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic\nmailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide\non-line directories.\n\no These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting\ngenerally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification\nmust be implemented and tested for correct operation and\ninteroperability by multiple independent parties and utilized in\nincreasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as\nan Internet Standard.\n\no These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to\nthe wide variety of circumstances that occur in the\nstandardization process. Experience has shown this flexibility to\nbe vital in achieving the goals listed above.\n\nThe goal of technical competence, the requirement for prior\nimplementation and testing, and the need to allow all interested\nparties to comment all require significant time and effort. On the\nother hand, today's rapid development of networking technology\ndemands timely development of standards. The Internet Standards\nProcess is intended to balance these conflicting goals. The process\nis believed to be as short and simple as possible without sacrificing\ntechnical excellence, thorough testing before adoption of a standard,\nor openness and fairness.\n\nFrom its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to remain,\nan evolving system whose participants regularly factor new\nrequirements and technology into its design and implementation. Users\nof the Internet and providers of the equipment, software, and\nservices that support it should anticipate and embrace this evolution\nas a major tenet of Internet philosophy.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThe procedures described in this document are the result of a number\nof years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and\nincreasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n1.3\nOrganization of This Document\nSection 2\ndescribes the publications and archives of the Internet\nStandards Process.\nSection 3\ndescribes the types of Internet\nstandard specifications.\nSection 4\ndescribes the Internet standards\nspecifications track.\nSection 5\ndescribes Best Current Practice\nRFCs.\nSection 6\ndescribes the process and rules for Internet\nstandardization.\nSection 7\nspecifies the way in which externally-\nsponsored specifications and practices, developed and controlled by\nother standards bodies or by others, are handled within the Internet\nStandards Process.\nSection 8\ndescribes the requirements for notices\nand record keeping\nSection 9\ndefines a variance process to allow\none-time exceptions to some of the requirements in this document\nSection 10\npresents the rules that are required to protect\nintellectual property rights in the context of the development and\nuse of Internet Standards.\nSection 11\nincludes acknowledgments of\nsome of the people involved in creation of this document.\nSection 12\nnotes that security issues are not dealt with by this document.\nSection 13\ncontains a list of numbered references.\nSection 14\ncontains definitions of some of the terms used in this document.\nSection 15\nlists the author's email and postal addresses.\nAppendix A\ncontains a list of frequently-used acronyms.\n2\n. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS\n2.1\nRequests for Comments (RFCs)\nEach distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification\nis published as part of the \"Request for Comments\" (RFC) document\nseries. This archival series is the official publication channel for\nInternet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB,\nand Internet community. RFCs can be obtained from a number of\nInternet hosts using anonymous FTP, gopher, World Wide Web, and other\nInternet document-retrieval systems.", "char_start": 8219, "char_end": 12394, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 616}}, {"segment_id": "515567a7-2729-4864-a6de-c6ba90693af6", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 3, "text": "The RFC series of documents on networking began in 1969 as part of\nthe original ARPA wide-area networking (ARPANET) project (see\nAppendix A\nfor glossary of acronyms). RFCs cover a wide range of\ntopics in addition to Internet Standards, from early discussion of\nnew research concepts to status memos about the Internet. RFC\npublication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the\ngeneral direction of the IAB.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThe rules for formatting and submitting an RFC are defined in [\n5\n].\nEvery RFC is available in ASCII text. Some RFCs are also available\nin other formats. The other versions of an RFC may contain material\n(such as diagrams and figures) that is not present in the ASCII\nversion, and it may be formatted differently.\n\n*********************************************************\n* *\n* A stricter requirement applies to standards-track *\n* specifications: the ASCII text version is the *\n* definitive reference, and therefore it must be a *\n* complete and accurate specification of the standard, *\n* including all necessary diagrams and illustrations. *\n* *\n*********************************************************\n\nThe status of Internet protocol and service specifications is\nsummarized periodically in an RFC entitled \"Internet Official\nProtocol Standards\" [\n1\n]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and\nother helpful information for each Internet protocol or service\nspecification (see\nsection 3\n).\n\nSome RFCs document Internet Standards. These RFCs form the 'STD'\nsubseries of the RFC series [\n4\n]. When a specification has been\nadopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label\n\"STDxxx\", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC\nseries. (see\nsection 4.1.3\n)\n\nSome RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about\nstatements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to\nperform some operations or IETF process function. These RFCs form\nthe specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the\nadditional label \"BCPxxx\", but it keeps its RFC number and its place\nin the RFC series. (see\nsection 5\n)", "char_start": 12396, "char_end": 14562, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 348}}, {"segment_id": "51466b65-eaf9-40db-980c-a99a247e68c7", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 4, "text": "Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet\nshould or will become Internet Standards or BCPs. Such non-standards\ntrack specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet\nstandardization. Non-standards track specifications may be published\ndirectly as \"Experimental\" or \"Informational\" RFCs at the discretion\nof the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see\nsection 4.2\n).\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n********************************************************\n* *\n* It is important to remember that not all RFCs *\n* are standards track documents, and that not all *\n* standards track documents reach the level of *\n* Internet Standard. In the same way, not all RFCs *\n* which describe current practices have been given *\n* the review and approval to become BCPs. See *\n*\nRFC-1796\n[\n6\n] for further information. *\n* *\n********************************************************\n2.2\nInternet-Drafts\nDuring the development of a specification, draft versions of the\ndocument are made available for informal review and comment by\nplacing them in the IETF's \"Internet-Drafts\" directory, which is\nreplicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving\nworking document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating\nthe process of review and revision.\n\nAn Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained\nunchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months\nwithout being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is\nsimply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an\nInternet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same\nspecification, restarting the six-month timeout period.\n\nAn Internet-Draft is NOT a means of \"publishing\" a specification;\nspecifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in\nthe previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are\nsubject to change or removal at any time.", "char_start": 14564, "char_end": 16549, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 303}}, {"segment_id": "14278f56-30f2-46f2-a619-8c1e69ca4024", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 5, "text": "********************************************************\n* *\n* Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft *\n* be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- *\n* for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *\n* with an Internet-Draft. *\n* *\n********************************************************\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 8]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nNote: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification\nthat may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the\nphrase \"Work in Progress\" without referencing an Internet-Draft.\nThis may also be done in a standards track document itself as long\nas the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a\ncomplete and understandable document with or without the reference to\nthe \"Work in Progress\".\n3\n. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS\nSpecifications subject to the Internet Standards Process fall into\none of two categories: Technical Specification (TS) and\nApplicability Statement (AS).\n3.1\nTechnical Specification (TS)\nA Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service,\nprocedure, convention, or format. It may completely describe all of\nthe relevant aspects of its subject, or it may leave one or more\nparameters or options unspecified. A TS may be completely self-\ncontained, or it may incorporate material from other specifications\nby reference to other documents (which might or might not be Internet\nStandards).\n\nA TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general intent\nfor its use (domain of applicability). Thus, a TS that is inherently\nspecific to a particular context shall contain a statement to that\neffect. However, a TS does not specify requirements for its use\nwithin the Internet; these requirements, which depend on the\nparticular context in which the TS is incorporated by different\nsystem configurations, are defined by an Applicability Statement.\n3.2\nApplicability Statement (AS)\nAn Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what\ncircumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a particular\nInternet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs that are not\nInternet Standards, as discussed in\nSection 7\n.", "char_start": 16551, "char_end": 18749, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 333}}, {"segment_id": "35eec5d5-d0d4-4362-90f2-20e825e682d3", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 6, "text": "An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they\nare to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges\nof TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be\nimplemented. An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use\nof a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see\nsection\n3.3\n).\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 9]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nAn AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a restricted\n\"domain of applicability\", such as Internet routers, terminal\nservers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets, or datagram-\nbased database servers.\n\nThe broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance specification,\ncommonly called a \"requirements document\", for a particular class of\nInternet systems, such as Internet routers or Internet hosts.\n\nAn AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards track\nthan any standards-track TS on which the AS relies (see\nsection 4.1\n).\nFor example, a TS at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS\nat the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not by an AS at\nthe Standard level.\n3.3\nRequirement Levels\nAn AS shall apply one of the following \"requirement levels\" to each\nof the TSs to which it refers:\n\n(a) Required: Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified by\nthe AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance. For example,\nIP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet systems using the\nTCP/IP Protocol Suite.\n\n(b) Recommended: Implementation of the referenced TS is not\nrequired for minimal conformance, but experience and/or generally\naccepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability in the domain\nof applicability of the AS. Vendors are strongly encouraged to\ninclude the functions, features, and protocols of Recommended TSs\nin their products, and should omit them only if the omission is\njustified by some special circumstance. For example, the TELNET\nprotocol should be implemented by all systems that would benefit\nfrom remote access.", "char_start": 18751, "char_end": 20784, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 329}}, {"segment_id": "aed8f576-62f8-41ed-a2a8-2221e9393df8", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 7, "text": "(c) Elective: Implementation of the referenced TS is optional\nwithin the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS\ncreates no explicit necessity to apply the TS. However, a\nparticular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular user\nmay decide that it is a necessity in a specific environment. For\nexample, the DECNET MIB could be seen as valuable in an\nenvironment where the DECNET protocol is used.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 10]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nAs noted in\nsection 4.1\n, there are TSs that are not in the\nstandards track or that have been retired from the standards\ntrack, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective.\nTwo additional \"requirement level\" designations are available for\nthese TSs:\n\n(d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use\nonly in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage\nof a protocol with the \"Experimental\" designation should generally\nbe limited to those actively involved with the experiment.\n\n(e) Not Recommended: A TS that is considered to be inappropriate\nfor general use is labeled \"Not Recommended\". This may be because\nof its limited functionality, specialized nature, or historic\nstatus.\n\nAlthough TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice a\nstandards-track document may combine an AS and one or more related\nTSs. For example, Technical Specifications that are developed\nspecifically and exclusively for some particular domain of\napplicability, e.g., for mail server hosts, often contain within a\nsingle specification all of the relevant AS and TS information. In\nsuch cases, no useful purpose would be served by deliberately\ndistributing the information among several documents just to preserve\nthe formal AS/TS distinction. However, a TS that is likely to apply\nto more than one domain of applicability should be developed in a\nmodular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs.", "char_start": 20786, "char_end": 22728, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 309}}, {"segment_id": "faec516e-6285-479c-87bd-d4cdd911b25e", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 8, "text": "The \"Official Protocol Standards\" RFC (STD1) lists a general\nrequirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this\nsection. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more\ndetailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular\nprotocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found\nin appropriate ASs.\n4\n. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK\nSpecifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve\nthrough a set of maturity levels known as the \"standards track\".\nThese maturity levels -- \"Proposed Standard\", \"Draft Standard\", and\n\"Standard\" -- are defined and discussed in\nsection 4.1\n. The way in\nwhich specifications move along the standards track is described in\nsection 6\n.\n\nEven after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard,\nfurther evolution often occurs based on experience and the\nrecognition of new requirements. The nomenclature and procedures of\nInternet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 11]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nStandards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to\nindicate the status of \"retired\" Internet Standards. A set of\nmaturity levels is defined in\nsection 4.2\nto cover these and other\nspecifications that are not considered to be on the standards track.\n4.1\nStandards Track Maturity Levels\nInternet specifications go through stages of development, testing,\nand acceptance. Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages\nare formally labeled \"maturity levels\".\n\nThis section describes the maturity levels and the expected\ncharacteristics of specifications at each level.\n4.1.1\nProposed Standard\nThe entry-level maturity for the standards track is \"Proposed\nStandard\". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a\nspecification onto the standards track at the \"Proposed Standard\"\nlevel.", "char_start": 22730, "char_end": 24621, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 284}}, {"segment_id": "b9a7a1c1-98f3-479d-8ba4-d4286dc86e76", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 9, "text": "A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved\nknown design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received\nsignificant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community\ninterest to be considered valuable. However, further experience\nmight result in a change or even retraction of the specification\nbefore it advances.\n\nUsually, neither implementation nor operational experience is\nrequired for the designation of a specification as a Proposed\nStandard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will\nusually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard\ndesignation.\n\nThe IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience\nprior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that\nmaterially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies\nbehavior that may have significant operational impact on the\nInternet.\n\nA Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with\nrespect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may\nwaive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance\nto the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and\nnecessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 12]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nImplementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature\nspecifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain\nexperience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.\nHowever, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if\nproblems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying\nimplementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive\nenvironment is not recommended.\n4.1.2\nDraft Standard\nA specification from which at least two independent and interoperable\nimplementations from different code bases have been developed, and\nfor which sufficient successful operational experience has been\nobtained, may be elevated to the \"Draft Standard\" level. For the\npurposes of this section, \"interoperable\" means to be functionally\nequivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in\nwhich they are used. If patented or otherwise controlled technology\nis required for implementation, the separate implementations must\nalso have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.\nElevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating\na strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.", "char_start": 24623, "char_end": 27116, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 360}}, {"segment_id": "f8fd829f-59f4-4e1d-901b-9913ee4cdd01", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 10, "text": "The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable\nimplementations applies to all of the options and features of the\nspecification. In cases in which one or more options or features\nhave not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable\nimplementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard\nlevel only if those options or features are removed.\n\nThe Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific\nimplementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet\nStandard status along with documentation about testing of the\ninteroperation of these implementations. The documentation must\ninclude information about the support of each of the individual\noptions and features. This documentation should be submitted to the\nArea Director with the protocol action request. (see\nSection 6\n)\n\nA Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite\nstable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an\nimplementation. A Draft Standard may still require additional or\nmore widespread field experience, since it is possible for\nimplementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate\nunforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production\nenvironments.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 13]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nA Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification,\nand changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems\nencountered. In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to\ndeploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive\nenvironment.\n4.1.3\nInternet Standard\nA specification for which significant implementation and successful\noperational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the\nInternet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be\nreferred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of\ntechnical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified\nprotocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet\ncommunity.", "char_start": 27118, "char_end": 29162, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 303}}, {"segment_id": "9d786322-3976-4303-9a10-0aa0449c52a1", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 11, "text": "A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a\nnumber in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.\n4.2\nNon-Standards Track Maturity Levels\nNot every specification is on the standards track. A specification\nmay not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended\nfor eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards\ntrack. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent\nInternet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.\n\nSpecifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with\none of three \"off-track\" maturity levels: \"Experimental\",\n\"Informational\", or \"Historic\". The documents bearing these labels\nare not Internet Standards in any sense.\n4.2.1\nExperimental\nThe \"Experimental\" designation typically denotes a specification that\nis part of some research or development effort. Such a specification\nis published for the general information of the Internet technical\ncommunity and as an archival record of the work, subject only to\neditorial considerations and to verification that there has been\nadequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An\nExperimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet\nresearch effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working\nGroup, or it may be an individual contribution.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 14]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n4.2.2\nInformational\nAn \"Informational\" specification is published for the general\ninformation of the Internet community, and does not represent an\nInternet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational\ndesignation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a\nvery broad range of responsible informational documents from many\nsources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification\nthat there has been adequate coordination with the standards process\n(see\nsection 4.2.3\n).", "char_start": 29164, "char_end": 31106, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 289}}, {"segment_id": "3121f7da-f787-4006-8981-958646f80e19", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 12, "text": "Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet\ncommunity and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards\nProcess by any of the provisions of\nsection 10\nmay be published as\nInformational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the\nconcurrence of the RFC Editor.\n4.2.3\nProcedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs\nUnless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents\nintended to be published with Experimental or Informational status\nshould be submitted directly to the RFC Editor. The RFC Editor will\npublish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already\nbeen so published. In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts\nthey will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are\neasily recognizable. The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this\npublication for comments before proceeding further. The RFC Editor\nis expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial\nsuitability of a document for publication with Experimental or\nInformational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in\nthe expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet\nactivity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for\nRFCs.\n\nTo ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational\ndesignations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards\nProcess, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor\nwill refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or\nInformational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,\nmay be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the\nIETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document\nwithin a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be\npublished as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a\ncontribution to the Internet Standards Process.", "char_start": 31108, "char_end": 32975, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 295}}, {"segment_id": "dc06c3a9-df30-4c1a-aca5-de95038b2e55", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 13, "text": "If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the\nIETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines\nto do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 15]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nsomething that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an\nestablished IETF effort, the document may still be published as an\nExperimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG\nmay insert appropriate \"disclaimer\" text into the RFC either in or\nimmediately following the \"Status of this Memo\" section in order to\nmake the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.\n\nDocuments proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF\nWorking Groups go through IESG review. The review is initiated using\nthe process described in\nsection 6.1.1\n.\n4.2.4\nHistoric\nA specification that has been superseded by a more recent\nspecification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is\nassigned to the \"Historic\" level. (Purists have suggested that the\nword should be \"Historical\"; however, at this point the use of\n\"Historic\" is historical.)\n\nNote: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on\nother standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity\nlevel or on non standards track specifications other than referenced\nspecifications from other standards bodies. (See\nSection 7\n.)\n5\n. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs\nThe BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to\nstandardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A\nBCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as\nstandards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF\ncommunity can define and ratify the community's best current thinking\non a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way\nto perform some operations or IETF process function.", "char_start": 32977, "char_end": 34889, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 310}}, {"segment_id": "7add10ce-b1a3-4e7f-b43c-91f032dc9f15", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 14, "text": "Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with\nthe technical specifications for hardware and software required for\ncomputer communication across interconnected networks. However,\nsince the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great\nvariety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user\nservice requires that the operators and administrators of the\nInternet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.\nWhile these guidelines are generally different in scope and style\nfrom protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process\nfor consensus building.\n\nWhile it is recognized that entities such as the IAB and IESG are\ncomposed of individuals who may participate, as individuals, in the\ntechnical work of the IETF, it is also recognized that the entities\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 16]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nthemselves have an existence as leaders in the community. As leaders\nin the Internet technical community, these entities should have an\noutlet to propose ideas to stimulate work in a particular area, to\nraise the community's sensitivity to a certain issue, to make a\nstatement of architectural principle, or to communicate their\nthoughts on other matters. The BCP subseries creates a smoothly\nstructured way for these management entities to insert proposals into\nthe consensus-building machinery of the IETF while gauging the\ncommunity's view of that issue.\n\nFinally, the BCP series may be used to document the operation of the\nIETF itself. For example, this document defines the IETF Standards\nProcess and is published as a BCP.\n5.1\nBCP Review Process\nUnlike standards-track documents, the mechanisms described in BCPs\nare not well suited to the phased roll-in nature of the three stage\nstandards track and instead generally only make sense for full and\nimmediate instantiation.", "char_start": 34891, "char_end": 36786, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 287}}, {"segment_id": "6caacaac-7f18-47b1-bedf-b5700ff28bb5", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 15, "text": "The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP\nis submitted to the IESG for review, (see\nsection 6.1.1\n) and the\nexisting review process applies, including a Last-Call on the IETF\nAnnounce mailing list. However, once the IESG has approved the\ndocument, the process ends and the document is published. The\nresulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the\nIETF.\n\nSpecifically, a document to be considered for the status of BCP must\nundergo the procedures outlined in sections\n6.1\n, and\n6.4\nof this\ndocument. The BCP process may be appealed according to the procedures\nin\nsection 6.5\n.\n\nBecause BCPs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived\nat more quickly than standards, BCPs require particular care.\nSpecifically, BCPs should not be viewed simply as stronger\nInformational RFCs, but rather should be viewed as documents suitable\nfor a content different from Informational RFCs.\n\nA specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been\napproved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while\nretaining its RFC number(s).\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 17]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n6\n. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS\nThe mechanics of the Internet Standards Process involve decisions of\nthe IESG concerning the elevation of a specification onto the\nstandards track or the movement of a standards-track specification\nfrom one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably\nobjective criteria (described below and in\nsection 4\n) are available\nto guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto,\nalong, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee\nof elevation to or progression along the standards track for any\nspecification. The experienced collective judgment of the IESG\nconcerning the technical quality of a specification proposed for\nelevation to or advancement in the standards track is an essential\ncomponent of the decision-making process.\n6.1\nStandards Actions\nA \"standards action\" -- entering a particular specification into,\nadvancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must\nbe approved by the IESG.\n6.1.1\nInitiation of Action\nA specification that is intended to enter or advance in the Internet\nstandards track shall first be posted as an Internet-Draft (see\nsection 2.2\n) unless it has not changed since publication as an RFC.\nIt shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less\nthan two weeks, that permits useful community review, after which a\nrecommendation for action may be initiated.", "char_start": 36788, "char_end": 39373, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 416}}, {"segment_id": "bba96e66-7e05-407a-9945-bb22422d4b14", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 16, "text": "A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the IETF\nWorking group responsible for a specification to its Area Director,\ncopied to the IETF Secretariat or, in the case of a specification not\nassociated with a Working Group, a recommendation by an individual to\nthe IESG.\n6.1.2\nIESG Review and Approval\nThe IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to\nit according to\nsection 6.1.1\nsatisfies the applicable criteria for\nthe recommended action (see sections\n4.1\nand\n4.2\n), and shall in\naddition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity\nof the specification is consistent with that expected for the\nmaturity level to which the specification is recommended.\n\nIn order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these\ndeterminations, particularly when the specification is considered by\nthe IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 18]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\non the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may,\nat its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the\nspecification.\n\nThe IESG will send notice to the IETF of the pending IESG\nconsideration of the document(s) to permit a final review by the\ngeneral Internet community. This \"Last-Call\" notification shall be\nvia electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a\nLast-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as\ndirected in the Last-Call announcement.\n\nThe Last-Call period shall be no shorter than two weeks except in\nthose cases where the proposed standards action was not initiated by\nan IETF Working Group, in which case the Last-Call period shall be no\nshorter than four weeks. If the IESG believes that the community\ninterest would be served by allowing more time for comment, it may\ndecide on a longer Last-Call period or to explicitly lengthen a\ncurrent Last-Call period.", "char_start": 39375, "char_end": 41314, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 314}}, {"segment_id": "81d3405a-b0f1-4067-b611-77e045c300f9", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 17, "text": "The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the\nspecification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to\nconsider the specification for publication in a different category\nthan that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last-\nCall is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view.\nThe IESG could also decide to change the publication category based\non the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a\nspecification being published at a \"higher\" level than the original\nLast-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the\nIESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend\nthe formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant\ncontroversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not\noriginating from an IETF Working Group.\n\nIn a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the\nIESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve\nthe standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via\nelectronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.\n6.1.3\nPublication\nIf a standards action is approved, notification is sent to the RFC\nEditor and copied to the IETF with instructions to publish the\nspecification as an RFC. The specification shall at that point be\nremoved from the Internet-Drafts directory.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 19]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nAn official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall\nappear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This\nshall constitute the \"publication of record\" for Internet standards\nactions.\n\nThe RFC Editor shall publish periodically an \"Internet Official\nProtocol Standards\" RFC [\n1\n], summarizing the status of all Internet\nprotocol and service specifications.\n6.2\nAdvancing in the Standards Track\nThe procedure described in\nsection 6.1\nis followed for each action\nthat attends the advancement of a specification along the standards\ntrack.", "char_start": 41316, "char_end": 43305, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 315}}, {"segment_id": "864bb3a4-f5a9-4bc4-8991-63ca4f11ce15", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 18, "text": "A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at\nleast six (6) months.\n\nA specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level for at least\nfour (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting has occurred,\nwhichever comes later.\n\nThese minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for\ncommunity review without severely impacting timeliness. These\nintervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the\ncorresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC\npublication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the\naction.\n\nA specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it\nadvances through the standards track. At each stage, the IESG shall\ndetermine the scope and significance of the revision to the\nspecification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the\nrecommended action. Minor revisions are expected, but a significant\nrevision may require that the specification accumulate more\nexperience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally,\nif the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG\nmay recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re-\nentering the standards track at the beginning.\n\nChange of status shall result in republication of the specification\nas an RFC, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at\nall in the specification since the last publication. Generally,\ndesired changes will be \"batched\" for incorporation at the next level\nin the standards track. However, deferral of changes to the next\nstandards action on the specification will not always be possible or\ndesirable; for example, an important typographical error, or a\ntechnical error that does not represent a change in overall function\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 20]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nof the specification, may need to be corrected immediately. In such\ncases, the IESG or RFC Editor may be asked to republish the RFC (with\na new number) with corrections, and this will not reset the minimum\ntime-at-level clock.", "char_start": 43307, "char_end": 45379, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 329}}, {"segment_id": "013eebcc-db5a-4674-928d-d4c9018f6d55", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 19, "text": "When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet\nStandard level but has remained at the same maturity level for\ntwenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter\nuntil the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of\nthe standardization effort responsible for that specification and the\nusefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG\nshall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,\nat the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification\nat the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This\ndecision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the\nIETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an\nopportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a\nlegitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an\nadministrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.\n6.3\nRevising a Standard\nA new version of an established Internet Standard must progress\nthrough the full Internet standardization process as if it were a\ncompletely new specification. Once the new version has reached the\nStandard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which\nwill be moved to Historic status. However, in some cases both\nversions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the requirements\nof an installed base. In this situation, the relationship between\nthe previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the\ntext of the new version or in another appropriate document (e.g., an\nApplicability Statement; see\nsection 3.2\n).\n6.4\nRetiring a Standard\nAs the technology changes and matures, it is possible for a new\nStandard specification to be so clearly superior technically that one\nor more existing standards track specifications for the same function\nshould be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other\nreason that an existing standards track specification should be\nretired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old\nspecification(s) to Historic. This recommendation shall be issued\nwith the same Last-Call and notification procedures used for any\nother standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can\noriginate from a Working Group, an Area Director or some other\ninterested party.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 21]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n6.5\nConflict Resolution and Appeals\nDisputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As\nmuch as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be\nmade, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when\neven the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to\nagree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts\nmust be resolved by a process of open review and discussion. This\nsection specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with\nInternet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal\nprocesses whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards\nProcess participants ordinarily reach consensus.\n6.5.1\nWorking Group Disputes\nAn individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or\nnot) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or\nher belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been\nadequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group\nhas made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality\nand/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant\njeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group\nprocess; the latter is an assertion of technical error. These two\ntypes of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by\nthe same process of review.", "char_start": 45381, "char_end": 49112, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 590}}, {"segment_id": "ddab91d5-0cb4-4ea5-8220-9e4fee45091b", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 20, "text": "A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall\nalways first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),\nwho may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working\nGroup as a whole) in the discussion.\n\nIf the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the\nparties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area\nDirector(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered.\nThe Area Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute.\n\nIf the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s) any of\nthe parties involved may then appeal to the IESG as a whole. The\nIESG shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a\nmanner of its own choosing.\n\nIf the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the\nparties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal the\ndecision to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and\nattempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 22]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThe IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or\nnot the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with\nrespect to all questions of technical merit.\n6.5.2\nProcess Failures\nThis document sets forward procedures required to be followed to\nensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and\nthe technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the\nprincipal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that\nis charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been\nfollowed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action\nhave been met.\n\nIf an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in\nthis process, that person should first discuss the issue with the\nISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant\nthen the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along\nwith input from the complainant, and determine whether any further\naction is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the\ncomplaint to the IETF.", "char_start": 49114, "char_end": 51221, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 362}}, {"segment_id": "3e77abc4-f01f-4ebd-b053-4cf304440a80", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 21, "text": "Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG\nreview, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review\nthe situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own\nchoosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.\n\nIf circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be\nannulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG\ndecision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,\nor make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,\nhowever, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which\nonly the IESG is empowered to make.\n\nThe IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or\nnot the Internet standards procedures have been followed.\n6.5.3\nQuestions of Applicable Procedure\nFurther recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures\nthemselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are\nclaimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the\nrights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.\nClaims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of\nTrustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge\nsuch an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of\nacknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the\nTrustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 23]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nsituation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on\nthe outcome of its review.\n\nThe Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final\nwith respect to all aspects of the dispute.\n6.5.4\nAppeals Procedure\nAll appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the\nfacts of the dispute.", "char_start": 51223, "char_end": 53037, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 313}}, {"segment_id": "847f4d55-daea-4003-82e0-2d482485a872", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 22, "text": "All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public\nknowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.\n\nAt all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies\nresponsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define\nthe specific procedures they will follow in the process of making\ntheir decision.\n\nIn all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute,\nand the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must\nbe accomplished within a reasonable period of time.\n\n[NOTE: These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not\nestablish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered\n\"reasonable\" in all cases. The Internet Standards Process places a\npremium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately\nforegoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of\na latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be\nreached.]\n7\n. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS\nMany standards groups other than the IETF create and publish\nstandards documents for network protocols and services. When these\nexternal specifications play an important role in the Internet, it is\ndesirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to\nestablish Internet Standards relating to these external\nspecifications.\n\nThere are two categories of external specifications:\n\n(1) Open Standards\n\nVarious national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI,\nISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service\nspecifications that are similar to Technical Specifications\ndefined here. National and international groups also publish\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 24]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n\"implementors' agreements\" that are analogous to Applicability\nStatements, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail\nconcerned with the practical application of their standards. All\nof these are considered to be \"open external standards\" for the\npurposes of the Internet Standards Process.", "char_start": 53039, "char_end": 55048, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 295}}, {"segment_id": "46e85dd2-a712-4eaf-9855-b1065083c85a", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 23, "text": "(2) Other Specifications\n\nOther proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used\nin the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as if\nthey were a \"standards\". Such a specification is not generally\ndeveloped in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is\ncontrolled by the vendor, vendors, or organization that produced\nit.\n7.1\nUse of External Specifications\nTo avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the\nInternet community will not standardize a specification that is\nsimply an \"Internet version\" of an existing external specification\nunless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made.\nHowever, there are several ways in which an external specification\nthat is important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet\nmay be adopted for Internet use.\n7.1.1\nIncorporation of an Open Standard\nAn Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external\nstandard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards\nincorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set \"ASCII\" [\n2\n].\nWhenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available\nonline.\n7.1.2\nIncorporation of Other Specifications\nOther proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to\na version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the\nrequirements of\nsection 10\n. If the other proprietary specification\nis not widely and readily available, the IESG may request that it be\npublished as an Informational RFC.\n\nThe IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary\nspecification over technically equivalent and competing\nspecification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification\n\"required\" or \"recommended\".\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 25]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n7.1.3\nAssumption\nAn IETF Working Group may start from an external specification and\ndevelop it into an Internet specification. This is acceptable if (1)\nthe specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with\nthe requirements of\nsection 10\n, and (2) change control has been\nconveyed to IETF by the original developer of the specification for\nthe specification or for specifications derived from the original\nspecification.\n8\n. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING\nEach of the organizations involved in the development and approval of\nInternet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a\npublicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to\nthe extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part\nof the Internet Standards Process. For purposes of this section, the\norganizations involved in the development and approval of Internet\nStandards includes the IETF, the IESG, the IAB, all IETF Working\nGroups, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees.", "char_start": 55050, "char_end": 57827, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 419}}, {"segment_id": "980ff34a-6ad0-4751-a8e9-04aa84f25188", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 24, "text": "For IETF and Working Group meetings announcements shall be made by\nelectronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list and shall be made\nsufficiently far in advance of the activity to permit all interested\nparties to effectively participate. The announcement shall contain\n(or provide pointers to) all of the information that is necessary to\nsupport the participation of any interested individual. In the case\nof a meeting, for example, the announcement shall include an agenda\nthat specifies the standards- related issues that will be discussed.\n\nThe formal record of an organization's standards-related activity\nshall include at least the following:\n\no the charter of the organization (or a defining document equivalent\nto a charter);\no complete and accurate minutes of meetings;\no the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists; and\no all written contributions from participants that pertain to the\norganization's standards-related activity.\n\nAs a practical matter, the formal record of all Internet Standards\nProcess activities is maintained by the IETF Secretariat, and is the\nresponsibility of the IETF Secretariat except that each IETF Working\nGroup is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must\nmake a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and\nincluded in the archives. Also, the Working Group chair is\nresponsible for providing the IETF Secretariat with complete and\naccurate minutes of all Working Group meetings. Internet-Drafts that\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 26]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nhave been removed (for any reason) from the Internet-Drafts\ndirectories shall be archived by the IETF Secretariat for the sole\npurpose of preserving an historical record of Internet standards\nactivity and thus are not retrievable except in special\ncircumstances.\n9\n. VARYING THE PROCESS\nThis document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which\nInternet Standards and related documents are made is itself a product\nof the Internet Standards Process (as a BCP, as described in\nsection\n5\n). It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to\nbe replaced.", "char_start": 57829, "char_end": 59975, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 335}}, {"segment_id": "03e7f611-4369-485e-8864-d8e907fd4d7c", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 25, "text": "While, when published, this document represents the community's view\nof the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be\nmet, to allow for the best possible Internet Standards and BCPs, it\ncannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to\ntime there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a new\nversion. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are\nused for any other BCP.\n\nIn addition, there may be situations where following the procedures\nleads to a deadlock about a specific specification, or there may be\nsituations where the procedures provide no guidance. In these cases\nit may be appropriate to invoke the variance procedure described\nbelow.\n9.1\nThe Variance Procedure\nUpon the recommendation of the responsible IETF Working Group (or, if\nno Working Group is constituted, upon the recommendation of an ad hoc\ncommittee), the IESG may enter a particular specification into, or\nadvance it within, the standards track even though some of the\nrequirements of this document have not or will not be met. The IESG\nmay approve such a variance, however, only if it first determines\nthat the likely benefits to the Internet community are likely to\noutweigh any costs to the Internet community that result from\nnoncompliance with the requirements in this document. In exercising\nthis discretion, the IESG shall at least consider (a) the technical\nmerit of the specification, (b) the possibility of achieving the\ngoals of the Internet Standards Process without granting a variance,\n(c) alternatives to the granting of a variance, (d) the collateral\nand precedential effects of granting a variance, and (e) the IESG's\nability to craft a variance that is as narrow as possible. In\ndetermining whether to approve a variance, the IESG has discretion to\nlimit the scope of the variance to particular parts of this document\nand to impose such additional restrictions or limitations as it\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 27]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\ndetermines appropriate to protect the interests of the Internet\ncommunity.", "char_start": 59977, "char_end": 62081, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 343}}, {"segment_id": "687dc315-8a33-405f-999d-fae05c03080a", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 26, "text": "The proposed variance must detail the problem perceived, explain the\nprecise provision of this document which is causing the need for a\nvariance, and the results of the IESG's considerations including\nconsideration of points (a) through (d) in the previous paragraph.\nThe proposed variance shall be issued as an Internet Draft. The IESG\nshall then issue an extended Last-Call, of no less than 4 weeks, to\nallow for community comment upon the proposal.\n\nIn a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the\nIESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve\nthe proposed variance, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via\nelectronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. If the variance\nis approved it shall be forwarded to the RFC Editor with a request\nthat it be published as a BCP.\n\nThis variance procedure is for use when a one-time waving of some\nprovision of this document is felt to be required. Permanent changes\nto this document shall be accomplished through the normal BCP\nprocess.\n\nThe appeals process in\nsection 6.5\napplies to this process.\n9.2\nExclusions\nNo use of this procedure may lower any specified delays, nor exempt\nany proposal from the requirements of openness, fairness, or\nconsensus, nor from the need to keep proper records of the meetings\nand mailing list discussions.\n\nSpecifically, the following sections of this document must not be\nsubject of a variance: 5.1, 6.1, 6.1.1 (first paragraph), 6.1.2, 6.3\n(first sentence), 6.5 and 9.\n10\n. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS\n10.1\n. General Policy\nIn all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the\nintention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at\nlarge, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 28]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n10.2\nConfidentiality Obligations\nNo contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality\nor any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part\nof the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of\nany confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution.\n10.3\n. Rights and Permissions\nIn the course of standards work, the IETF receives contributions in\nvarious forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the\ndissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand\nany intellectual property rights (IPR) relating to the contributions.\n10.3.1\n. All Contributions\nBy submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the\ncontribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions\non his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he\nrepresents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the\ncontribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in\naddition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the\nactual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was\nmade aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on\nhis own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and\nany known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.", "char_start": 62083, "char_end": 65220, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 501}}, {"segment_id": "2626d55a-eab8-4f0f-9b4d-4d880b4a4b9b", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 27, "text": "l. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to\ncopyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may\nbe subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he\nrepresents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in\nthe contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive,\nroyalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the\nIETF under any copyrights in the contribution. This license\nincludes the right to copy, publish and distribute the\ncontribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are\nbased on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the\nlicense to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the\nlicense of the original contribution.\n\n2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty\nto publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution.\n\n3. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and\naddress(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he\nrepresents (if any).\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 29]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n4. The contributor represents that contribution properly acknowledge\nmajor contributors.\n\n5. The contribuitor, the organization (if any) he represents and the\nowners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that\nno information in the contribution is confidential and that the\nISOC and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any\ninformation in the contribution.\n\n6. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of\nany proprietary or intellectual property rights in the\ncontribution that are reasonably and personally known to the\ncontributor. The contributor does not represent that he\npersonally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and\nintellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization\nhe represents (if any) or third parties.", "char_start": 65222, "char_end": 67115, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 289}}, {"segment_id": "ccc06ce8-351f-4fb3-b26b-704cc125e2f3", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 28, "text": "7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the\ncontributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and\nagreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the\ncontributor.\n\nBy ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet\nSociety warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and\nfree access to IETF documents for which license and right have\nbeen assigned according to the procedures set forth in this\nsection, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is\nperpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its\nsuccessors or assigns.\n10.3.2\n. Standards Track Documents\n(A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on\nthe standards track, and brought to the attention of the IESG, the\nIESG shall not advance the specification without including in the\ndocument a note indicating the existence of such rights, or\nclaimed rights. Where implementations are required before\nadvancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by\nstatement of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with\nany such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the\npurpose of showing the adequacy of the specification.\n(B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the\nexistence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed\ncopyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the\nfulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no\nposition on the validity or scope of any such rights.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 30]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n(C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the\nIETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the claimant\nof such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG\nof the relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any\nparty will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and\ndistribute the technology or works when implementing, using or\ndistributing technology based upon the specific specification(s)\nunder openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms.\nThe Working Group proposing the use of the technology with respect\nto which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IETF\nExecutive Director in this effort. The results of this procedure\nshall not affect advancement of a specification along the\nstandards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a\ndelay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The\nresults will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director,\nand made available. The IESG may also direct that a summary of\nthe results be included in any RFC published containing the\nspecification.\n10.3.3\nDetermination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms\nThe IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance\nof reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a\ntechnology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the\nnormal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards to\nverify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated\nimplementations of the specification that are required to advance\nfrom Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by\ndifferent organizations or individuals or if the \"significant\nimplementation and successful operational experience\" required to\nadvance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the\nassumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree,\nnon-discriminatory. This assumption may be challenged during the\nLast-Call period.\n10.4\n. Notices\n(A) Standards track documents shall include the following notice:", "char_start": 67117, "char_end": 70828, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 568}}, {"segment_id": "b169d368-a4ae-425b-806d-38a275b8feb8", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 29, "text": "\"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of\nany intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed\nto pertain to the implementation or use of the technology\ndescribed in this document or the extent to which any license\nunder such rights might or might not be available; neither does\nit represent that it has made any effort to identify any such\nrights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to\nrights in standards-track and standards-related documentation\ncan be found in\nBCP-11\n. Copies of claims of rights made\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 31]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\navailable for publication and any assurances of licenses to\nbe made available, or the result of an attempt made\nto obtain a general license or permission for the use of such\nproprietary rights by implementors or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.\"\n\n(B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its\nattention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any\nintellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards.\nFor this purpose, each standards document shall include the\nfollowing invitation:\n\n\"The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its\nattention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or\nother proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be\nrequired to practice this standard. Please address the\ninformation to the IETF Executive Director.\"\n\n(C) The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included\nin all ISOC standards-related documentation:\n\n\"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights\nReserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and\nfurnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or\notherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be\nprepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in\npart, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above\ncopyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such\ncopies and derivative works. However, this document itself may\nnot be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright\nnotice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet\norganizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing\nInternet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights\ndefined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or\nas required to translate it into languages other than English.", "char_start": 70830, "char_end": 73287, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 385}}, {"segment_id": "d5d05545-42f4-4dd4-8eb9-88955e925d44", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 30, "text": "The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will\nnot be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or\nassigns.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 32]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided\non an \"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR\nIMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE\nOF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY\nIMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A\nPARTICULAR PURPOSE.\"\n\n(D) Where the IESG is aware at the time of publication of\nproprietary rights claimed with respect to a standards track\ndocument, or the technology described or referenced therein, such\ndocument shall contain the following notice:\n\n\"The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights\nclaimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained\nin this document. For more information consult the online list\nof claimed rights.\"\n11\n. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nThere have been a number of people involved with the development of\nthe documents defining the IETF Standards Process over the years.\nThe process was first described in\nRFC 1310\nthen revised in\nRFC 1602\nbefore the current effort (which relies heavily on its predecessors).\nSpecific acknowledgments must be extended to Lyman Chapin, Phill\nGross and Christian Huitema as the editors of the previous versions,\nto Jon Postel and Dave Crocker for their inputs to those versions, to\nAndy Ireland, Geoff Stewart, Jim Lampert, and Dick Holleman for their\nreviews of the legal aspects of the procedures described herein, and\nto John Stewart, Robert Elz and Steve Coya for their extensive input\non the final version.\n\nIn addition much of the credit for the refinement of the details of\nthe IETF processes belongs to the many members of the various\nincarnations of the POISED Working Group.\n12\n. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 33]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\n13\n. REFERENCES\n[\n1\n] Postel, J., \"Internet Official Protocol Standards\", STD 1,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1996.", "char_start": 73289, "char_end": 75529, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 357}}, {"segment_id": "2f7ecd16-d2d2-44d8-99c5-cfd877c31a0b", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 31, "text": "[\n2\n] ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for\nInformation Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.\n\n[\n3\n] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\", STD 2,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.\n\n[\n4\n] Postel, J., \"Introduction to the STD Notes\",\nRFC 1311\n,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1992.\n\n[\n5\n] Postel, J., \"Instructions to RFC Authors\",\nRFC 1543\n,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1993.\n\n[\n6\n] Huitema, C., J. Postel, and S. Crocker \"Not All RFCs are\nStandards\",\nRFC 1796\n, April 1995.\n14\n. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS\nIETF Area - A management division within the IETF. An Area consists\nof Working Groups related to a general topic such as routing. An\nArea is managed by one or two Area Directors.\nArea Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The Area Directors\nalong with the IETF Chair comprise the Internet Engineering\nSteering Group (IESG).\nFile Transfer Protocol (FTP) - An Internet application used to\ntransfer files in a TCP/IP network.\ngopher - An Internet application used to interactively select and\nretrieve files in a TCP/IP network.\nInternet Architecture Board (IAB) - An appointed group that assists\nin the management of the IETF standards process.\nInternet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) - A group comprised of the\nIETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible\nfor the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF and is the\nstandards approval board for the IETF.\ninteroperable - For the purposes of this document, \"interoperable\"\nmeans to be able to interoperate over a data communications path.\nLast-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of\nconsensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.\n(see\nsection 6.1.2\n)\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 34]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nonline - Relating to information made available over the Internet.\nWhen referenced in this document material is said to be online\nwhen it is retrievable without restriction or undue fee using\nstandard Internet applications such as anonymous FTP, gopher or\nthe WWW.\nWorking Group - A group chartered by the IESG and IAB to work on a\nspecific specification, set of specifications or topic.\n15\n. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS\nScott O. Bradner\nHarvard University\nHolyoke Center, Room 813\n1350 Mass. Ave.\nCambridge, MA 02138\nUSA", "char_start": 75531, "char_end": 77862, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 384}}, {"segment_id": "8f137539-4ea5-4cf3-b7c3-fcbeca1adc5e", "document_id": "2cc1ad9e-e403-49aa-bd3e-2f20b84c6228", "ordinal": 32, "text": "Phone: +1 617 495 3864\nEMail: sob@harvard.edu\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 35]\nRFC 2026\nInternet Standards Process October 1996\nAPPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS\n\nANSI: American National Standards Institute\nARPA: (U.S.) Advanced Research Projects Agency\nAS: Applicability Statement\nFTP: File Transfer Protocol\nASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange\nITU-T: Telecommunications Standardization sector of the\nInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN\ntreaty organization; ITU-T was formerly called CCITT.\nIAB: Internet Architecture Board\nIANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nIEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers\nICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol\nIESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group\nIETF: Internet Engineering Task Force\nIP: Internet Protocol\nIRSG Internet Research Steering Group\nIRTF: Internet Research Task Force\nISO: International Organization for Standardization\nISOC: Internet Society\nMIB: Management Information Base\nOSI: Open Systems Interconnection\nRFC: Request for Comments\nTCP: Transmission Control Protocol\nTS: Technical Specification\nWWW: World Wide Web\n\nBradner Best Current Practice [Page 36]\nRFC\n2026\n: The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n18\nIn this section\n1. INTRODUCTION\n1.1 Internet Standards\n1.2 The Internet Standards Process\n1.3 Organization of This Document\n2. INTERNET STANDARDS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS\n2.1 Requests for Comments (RFCs)\n2.2 Internet-Drafts\n3. INTERNET STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS\n3.1 Technical Specification (TS)\n3.2 Applicability Statement (AS)\n3.3 Requirement Levels\n4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK\n4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels\n4.1.1 Proposed Standard\n4.1.2 Draft Standard\n4.1.3 Internet Standard\n4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels\n4.2.1 Experimental\n4.2.2 Informational\n4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs\n4.2.4 Historic\n5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs\n5.1 BCP Review Process\n6. THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS\n6.1 Standards Actions\n6.1.1 Initiation of Action\n6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval\n6.1.3 Publication\n6.2 Advancing in the Standards Track\n6.3 Revising a Standard\n6.4 Retiring a Standard\n6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals\n6.5.1 Working Group Disputes\n6.5.2 Process Failures\n6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure\n6.5.4 Appeals Procedure\n7. EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS\n7.1 Use of External Specifications\n7.1.1 Incorporation of an Open Standard\n7.1.2 Incorporation of Other Specifications\n7.1.3 Assumption\n8. NOTICES AND RECORD KEEPING\n9. VARYING THE PROCESS\n9.1 The Variance Procedure\n9.2 Exclusions\n10. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS\n10.1. General Policy\n10.2 Confidentiality Obligations\n10.3. Rights and Permissions\n10.3.1. All Contributions\n10.3.2. Standards Track Documents\n10.3.3 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms\n10.4. Notices\n11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n12. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS\n13. REFERENCES\n14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS\n15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 77864, "char_end": 81111, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 434}}], "published_at": "1996-10-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1996-10-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 2026 Harvard University\nBCP: 9 October 1996", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3245651f-adf3-44a9-b352-260af873e11c", "source_id": "bc264186b388311d7ab3a4bf", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://gac.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://gac.icann.org/", "artifact_sha256": "a9a2933bffdef09f82be6465dd87bdfb87e92a2040b8a717e83924f7acfb37ef", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 81657, "title": "Governmental Advisory Committee Official Web Presence", "language": "en", "text_length": 4049, "characters": 4049, "text": "Governmental Advisory Committee Official Web Presence\nSkip to navigation (Press Enter)\nSkip to main content (Press Enter)\nEN\nHOME\nNews\n`\nAbout the GAC\nGAC Advice\nMeetings & Records\nWork Efforts\nGet Involved\nAbout the GAC\nRole of the GAC\nOperating Principles\nLeadership\nGAC Members\nLEARN MORE\nLEARN MORE\nLearn More About the DNS\nFind Clarification of Terminology\nLearn More About Policy Development\nGAC Advice\nCommuniqués\nCorrespondence\nItemized Advice\nPrinciples & Guidelines\nLEARN MORE\nLEARN MORE\nTrack Board Resolutions\nExplore Topics & Work Efforts Driving GAC Advice\nLearn More About Policy Development\nMeetings & Records\nCalendar\nICANN Meeting Agendas\nICANN Meeting Minutes\nLEARN MORE\nLEARN MORE\nAttending Your First GAC Meeting\nTravel Assistance\nGuidelines For High Level Government Meetings\nWork Efforts\nTopics\nActivities\nGAC Working Groups\nLEARN MORE\nLEARN MORE\n>\nLearn More About Policy Development\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nSEARCH\nLOGIN\n|\nJOIN THE GAC\nHOME\nNews\nAbout the GAC\nRole of the GAC\nOperating Principles\nLeadership\nGAC Members\nLEARN MORE\nLearn More About the DNS\nFind Clarification of Terminology\nLearn More About Policy Development\nGAC Advice\nCommuniqués\nCorrespondence\nPublic Comments\nItemized Advice\nPrinciples & Guidelines\nLEARN MORE\nTrack Board Resolutions\nExplore Topics & Work Efforts Driving GAC Advice\nLearn More About Policy Development\nMeetings & Records\nCalendar\nICANN Meeting Agendas\nICANN Meeting Minutes\nLEARN MORE\nAttending Your First GAC Meeting\nTravel Assistance\nGuidelines For High Level Government Meetings\nWork Efforts\nTopics\nActivities\nGAC Working Groups\nLEARN MORE\nLearn More About Policy Development\nSEARCH\nGAC WEBSITE SEARCH\nSEARCH\nICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nThe GAC serves as the voice of Governments and International Governmental Organizations in ICANN's multistakeholder representative structure.\nThe GAC constitutes the voice of Governments and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) in ICANN's multistakeholder structure. Created under the ICANN Bylaws, the GAC is an advisory committee to the ICANN Board. The GAC's key role is to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements.\nImpact\nFor more than two decades, the GAC has consistently provided information and advice to the ICANN Board and community through\n85 Communiqués\n, numerous community public comments and many pieces of direct correspondence.\nLearn about the role of the GAC\nCurrent Work\nGAC participants offer the views of governments and IGOs on many substantive policy topics and operational matters impacting the work of ICANN.\nLearn about these work efforts, including\nGAC Working Groups\nand other\nActivities\n.\nMembership\nThere are 184 Member governments and 41 Observer organizations in the GAC. The roster of GAC Member representatives is constantly evolving. New government Members are always welcome.\nMeet Our\nMembers and Observers and their representatives\nupcoming meetings\nThere are no meetings to show\nSee the GAC Calendar\nNews\nICANN86 Seville Communique\nICANN85 GAC Minutes.pdf\nICANN84 Dublin Meeting Minutes\nSee all GAC News & Notifications\nInterested in joining the GAC?\nLearn More\nICANN\nICANN.org (Homepage)\nThe ICANN Board\nICANN Ombudsman\nCOMMUNITY\nASO\nAt-large\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNomCom\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nLEGAL\nPrivacy Policy\nCookies Policy\nTerms of Service\nHELP\nSite Map\nICANN Glossary\nICANN Global Support\nCONNECT WITH US\nContact The GAC\n© 2021 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nA note about our privacy policies and terms of service:\nWe have updated our privacy policies and certain website terms of service to provide greater transparency,\npromote simplification, and align with recent changes in privacy laws applicable to us.\nLearn more\n.\nThis site uses cookies to deliver an efficient user experience and to help us see how the site is used.\nLearn more\n.\nOK", "segments": [{"segment_id": "80d11934-2309-4ae4-8a48-c7615513af75", "document_id": "3245651f-adf3-44a9-b352-260af873e11c", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Governmental Advisory Committee Official Web Presence\nSkip to navigation (Press Enter)\nSkip to main content (Press Enter)\nEN\nHOME\nNews\n`\nAbout the GAC\nGAC Advice\nMeetings & Records\nWork Efforts\nGet Involved\nAbout the GAC\nRole of the GAC\nOperating Principles\nLeadership\nGAC Members\nLEARN MORE\nLEARN MORE\nLearn More About the DNS\nFind Clarification of Terminology\nLearn More About Policy Development\nGAC Advice\nCommuniqués\nCorrespondence\nItemized Advice\nPrinciples & Guidelines\nLEARN MORE\nLEARN MORE\nTrack Board Resolutions\nExplore Topics & Work Efforts Driving GAC Advice\nLearn More About Policy Development\nMeetings & Records\nCalendar\nICANN Meeting Agendas\nICANN Meeting Minutes\nLEARN MORE\nLEARN MORE\nAttending Your First GAC Meeting\nTravel Assistance\nGuidelines For High Level Government Meetings\nWork Efforts\nTopics\nActivities\nGAC Working Groups\nLEARN MORE\nLEARN MORE\n>\nLearn More About Policy Development\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nSEARCH\nLOGIN\n|\nJOIN THE GAC\nHOME\nNews\nAbout the GAC\nRole of the GAC\nOperating Principles\nLeadership\nGAC Members\nLEARN MORE\nLearn More About the DNS\nFind Clarification of Terminology\nLearn More About Policy Development\nGAC Advice\nCommuniqués\nCorrespondence\nPublic Comments\nItemized Advice\nPrinciples & Guidelines\nLEARN MORE\nTrack Board Resolutions\nExplore Topics & Work Efforts Driving GAC Advice\nLearn More About Policy Development\nMeetings & Records\nCalendar\nICANN Meeting Agendas\nICANN Meeting Minutes\nLEARN MORE\nAttending Your First GAC Meeting\nTravel Assistance\nGuidelines For High Level Government Meetings\nWork Efforts\nTopics\nActivities\nGAC Working Groups\nLEARN MORE\nLearn More About Policy Development\nSEARCH\nGAC WEBSITE SEARCH\nSEARCH\nICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nThe GAC serves as the voice of Governments and International Governmental Organizations in ICANN's multistakeholder representative structure.\nThe GAC constitutes the voice of Governments and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) in ICANN's multistakeholder structure. Created under the ICANN Bylaws, the GAC is an advisory committee to the ICANN Board. The GAC's key role is to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements.\nImpact\nFor more than two decades, the GAC has consistently provided information and advice to the ICANN Board and community through\n85 Communiqués\n, numerous community public comments and many pieces of direct correspondence.\nLearn about the role of the GAC\nCurrent Work\nGAC participants offer the views of governments and IGOs on many substantive policy topics and operational matters impacting the work of ICANN.\nLearn about these work efforts, including\nGAC Working Groups\nand other\nActivities\n.\nMembership\nThere are 184 Member governments and 41 Observer organizations in the GAC. The roster of GAC Member representatives is constantly evolving. New government Members are always welcome.\nMeet Our\nMembers and Observers and their representatives\nupcoming meetings\nThere are no meetings to show\nSee the GAC Calendar\nNews\nICANN86 Seville Communique\nICANN85 GAC Minutes.pdf\nICANN84 Dublin Meeting Minutes\nSee all GAC News & Notifications\nInterested in joining the GAC?\nLearn More\nICANN\nICANN.org (Homepage)\nThe ICANN Board\nICANN Ombudsman\nCOMMUNITY\nASO\nAt-large\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNomCom\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nLEGAL\nPrivacy Policy\nCookies Policy\nTerms of Service\nHELP\nSite Map\nICANN Glossary\nICANN Global Support\nCONNECT WITH US\nContact The GAC\n© 2021 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nA note about our privacy policies and terms of service:\nWe have updated our privacy policies and certain website terms of service to provide greater transparency,\npromote simplification, and align with recent changes in privacy laws applicable to us.\nLearn more\n.\nThis site uses cookies to deliver an efficient user experience and to help us see how the site is used.\nLearn more\n.\nOK", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4049, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 611}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "341d1007-c91d-45be-a08f-d72bd674d146", "source_id": "97d7df09545b49a25c87d2a3", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/geneva/", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/geneva/", "artifact_sha256": "757bf5dc09f76107a9fde374287fcc79981efad82a04f0c1bf3be28fa56e8263", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 14817, "title": "World Summit on the Information Society", "language": null, "text_length": 2785, "characters": 2785, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nFIRST PHASE, GENEVA : THE\nSUMMIT\nWorld Summit on\nthe Information Society, First Phase:\n10-12 December 2003\nThe World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is held in two phases. The\nfirst phase\nof WSIS took place in Geneva hosted by the Government of Switzerland from\n10 to 12 December 2003.\nThe\nobjective of the first phase was to develop and foster a clear statement of\npolitical will and take concrete steps to establish the foundations for an\nInformation Society for all, reflecting all the different interests at\nstake.\nAt\nthe Geneva Phase of WSIS\nnearly\n50 Heads of state/government and\nVice-Presidents\n, 82 Ministers, and 26 Vice-Ministers and Heads of\ndelegation as well as high-level representatives from international\norganizations, private sector, and civil society provided political support\nto the\nWSIS\nDeclaration of Principles and Plan of\nAction\nthat were\nadopted on 12 December 2003\n. More than\n11,000\nparticipants from 175 countries\nattended the Summit and related events.\nQuick Links:\nDeclaration of Principles and Plan of\nAction\nList\nof speakers\nGeneral Debate\nStatements\nHigh level\nroundtables\nSummit\nEvents\n: Multi-stakeholder events held in conjunction with the Summit\nFinal\nReport\nAll documents\nand contributions\nInvitation letters\nCivil Society\nDeclaration\n: handed out to the President of the Summit at the last Plenary meeting on 12 December 2003\nParticipants\nFinal\nlist of participants\nParticipants\nfinder\nWebcast\narchives\nNewsroom\nDocuments by Category\nOfficial\nDocuments\n: Declaration of Principles, Plan of Action, agenda, Rules\nof Procedure...\nAdministrative\nDocuments\n: information for participants, time management plan,\nannotated agenda...\nContributions\n: documents with inputs from the different stakeholders:\nGovernments\nEntities\nwith standing invitation from UNGA\nInternational\norganizations\nNGOs\nand Civil Society entities\nITU\nsector members and business entities\nMiscellaneous\ninputs submitted by non-accredited entities\nStatements by Session\nOpening\nceremony\n(10 December 2003)\nGeneral\nDebate (all sessions)\n:\nPlenary Sessions 1 to 5\nPlenary\nSession 1\n: 10 December 2003 - afternoon\nPlenary\nSession 2\n: 11 December 2003 - morning\nPlenary\nSession 3\n: 11 December 2003 - afternoon\nPlenary\nSession 4\n: 12 December 2003 - morning\nPlenary\nSession 5\n(includes report from multi-stakeholder events): 12 December\n2003 - afternoon\nClosing\nsession\n(12 December 2003)\nClick here\nfor information\nconcerning the\nsecond phase\nof the Summit (Tunis phase)\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2015\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2009-03-31", "segments": [{"segment_id": "773334a2-349a-44b7-ab03-c9c6944bf4a4", "document_id": "341d1007-c91d-45be-a08f-d72bd674d146", "ordinal": 0, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nFIRST PHASE, GENEVA : THE\nSUMMIT\nWorld Summit on\nthe Information Society, First Phase:\n10-12 December 2003\nThe World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is held in two phases. The\nfirst phase\nof WSIS took place in Geneva hosted by the Government of Switzerland from\n10 to 12 December 2003.\nThe\nobjective of the first phase was to develop and foster a clear statement of\npolitical will and take concrete steps to establish the foundations for an\nInformation Society for all, reflecting all the different interests at\nstake.\nAt\nthe Geneva Phase of WSIS\nnearly\n50 Heads of state/government and\nVice-Presidents\n, 82 Ministers, and 26 Vice-Ministers and Heads of\ndelegation as well as high-level representatives from international\norganizations, private sector, and civil society provided political support\nto the\nWSIS\nDeclaration of Principles and Plan of\nAction\nthat were\nadopted on 12 December 2003\n. More than\n11,000\nparticipants from 175 countries\nattended the Summit and related events.\nQuick Links:\nDeclaration of Principles and Plan of\nAction\nList\nof speakers\nGeneral Debate\nStatements\nHigh level\nroundtables\nSummit\nEvents\n: Multi-stakeholder events held in conjunction with the Summit\nFinal\nReport\nAll documents\nand contributions\nInvitation letters\nCivil Society\nDeclaration\n: handed out to the President of the Summit at the last Plenary meeting on 12 December 2003\nParticipants\nFinal\nlist of participants\nParticipants\nfinder\nWebcast\narchives\nNewsroom\nDocuments by Category\nOfficial\nDocuments\n: Declaration of Principles, Plan of Action, agenda, Rules\nof Procedure...\nAdministrative\nDocuments\n: information for participants, time management plan,\nannotated agenda...\nContributions\n: documents with inputs from the different stakeholders:\nGovernments\nEntities\nwith standing invitation from UNGA\nInternational\norganizations\nNGOs\nand Civil Society entities\nITU\nsector members and business entities\nMiscellaneous\ninputs submitted by non-accredited entities\nStatements by Session\nOpening\nceremony\n(10 December 2003)\nGeneral\nDebate (all sessions)\n:\nPlenary Sessions 1 to 5\nPlenary\nSession 1\n: 10 December 2003 - afternoon\nPlenary\nSession 2\n: 11 December 2003 - morning\nPlenary\nSession 3\n: 11 December 2003 - afternoon\nPlenary\nSession 4\n: 12 December 2003 - morning\nPlenary\nSession 5\n(includes report from multi-stakeholder events): 12 December\n2003 - afternoon\nClosing\nsession\n(12 December 2003)\nClick here\nfor information\nconcerning the\nsecond phase\nof the Summit (Tunis phase)\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2015\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2009-03-31", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2785, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 430}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "35f546d9-0e29-49e6-bd26-e6552bbd2e7e", "source_id": "bcdab78e78b4983140e525c2", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/how-2012-02-25-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/how-2012-02-25-en", "artifact_sha256": "649b445c6a855131d5f1e616462cb3c673f2fcbd33fdfb777601bad3c25ff007", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 82626, "title": "How do I participate? - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 19509, "characters": 19509, "text": "How do I participate? - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nHow do I participate?\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nItaliano\n日本語\n한국어\nPortuguês\nPусский\n中文\nIn answer to the question:\nWhat is going on now?\n, a number of resources including the\npublic comment webpage\n, ICANN\nblog\n, and\nmeetings sites\nwere listed.\nEach of these pages also allow for direct and immediate interaction into ICANN's processes. Each public comment box provide a clickable email address where your comments will be sent straight through the public comment forum. All comments made will be reviewed by ICANN staff and included in a summary/analysis at the close of the forum. That summary will then be provided to the body in question and that body will be asked to explicitly refer to it during subsequent discussions.\nThe blog allows any individual to make their point in response to a posting direct to the author and the organisation - and in most cases receive a quick response. So if you wish to make a point or draw ICANN's attention to something you think it may have missed this is a direct route into the process.\nIf you would prefer to make your point in the real world, then the ICANN meetings are free and open to all. At each ICANN meeting, there is a Public Forum session that is specifically set aside for anyone that wishes to raise a point by walking up to the microphone and talking directly to Board members and to the rest of the ICANN Community. The vast majority of the other meetings are also open, and often welcome new and interested members.\nThe Fellowship Program provides a grant of support for up to 50 individuals per ICANN meeting. Successful candidates are members of the Internet community who have met the program's minimum requirements as determined by an independent committee. For more details on this program and how to apply,\ngo here\n.\nYou needn't even physically be at a meeting in order to have your voice heard. Each meeting has its own interactive website that provides a separate webpage for each session during the meeting week. These pages contain the relevance links for all the remote participation services provided including presentations, audio, video streams and live transcriptions (if available). During public meetings that are also open for comments, comments and questions from remote participants are reviewed by someone in the chat room and are read out to the meeting as a whole.\nSupporting organisations and advisory committees\nIf you wish to get more deeply involved in drawing up documents, rather than commenting on the results of others' work, the solution is to join one of ICANN's supporting organisations or advisory committees.\nThere are a number of organisations and committees (the\nfull structure is here\n), and you can join whichever most relates to your input - whether as an ISP, a non-commercial company, or just a member of the public. Other members will help explain how ICANN works and how to make the most of your input.\nThere are three Supporting Organizations and four Advisory Committees, each is explained below with links to their websites where you can find out more about how to join:\nGENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION\n(GNSO)\nThe GNSO is the main policy-making body of ICANN and comprises of four main groups: registries (companies running generic top-level domains (gTLDs) such as VeriSign for dot-com or Afilias for dot-info); registrars (companies that sell registrations of particular domains e.g. icann.org); commercial users of the Internet; and non-commercial users of the Internet.\nThe GNSO is currently undergoing significant change following an extensive\nindependent review process\n. As such the information presented below is liable to change and you should check the GNSO website for the latest information on which body is most suitable for you to join.\nCommercial and Business Users Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe business constituency is the voice of commercial Internet users within ICANN. You can find out more about\nhow to join\non the constituency's website, where you can also follow its work. Membership fees apply, ranging from €160 to €1,000 in 2009.\nNon-Commercial Users Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe Noncommercial Users Constituency is the home for civil society organizations and individuals in ICANN's GNSO. NCUC advocates positions on gTLD-related issues that protect and support noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet. Among its key areas of interest are human rights, freedom of expression, privacy, access to knowledge, diversity and consumer choice, development, and global internet governance. Membership is free of charge, and noncommercial organizations and individuals can fill in an application to join on its\nwebsite\n.\nNot-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)\n(\nexternal site\n)\nNPOC represents the operational concerns related to service delivery of not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations within ICANN. NPOC welcomes members who are not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations. These organizations can join NPOC by either completing the online Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)\nmembership form\nor completing the NPOC\napplication form\n.\ngTLD Registries Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe registries constituency represents those running gTLD registries. You have to be a registry under contract with ICANN to join and members\nmeet bi-weekly\n.\nRegistrars Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe registrars constituency represents companies that register domains for Internet users for a fee. You have to be an ICANN-accredited registrar to join. There is annual membership fee of $500 (as of August 2009). More details on\nhow to join\nare on the constituency's website.\nIntellectual Property Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe IPC represents intellectual property interests within ICANN. To join you can be either an international or national intellectual property organization, a company with a demonstrated interest in intellectual property issues, or an individual with a demonstrated interest in the protection of intellectual property. Each group has its\nown application form\nand fees vary from $75 to $900 (as of August 2009) depending on which group you belong to.\nInternet Service and Connection Providers Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe ISPCP represents Internet service providers and connectivity providers and you must be an ISP or connectivity provider as well as agreement to participate regularly within the ISPCP. Applicants send the secretariat an email\noutlining their credentials\n. Statements, notes and meeting minutes can all be found on the ISPCP's website.\nAT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (\nALAC\n)\nThe ALAC is the body that represents the interests of individual Internet users within ICANN.\nGlobal users are represented through small self-forming groups called At Large Structures (ALSes) who are themselves part of Regional At Large Organizations (RALOs).\nAny group that supports individuals' ability to share their views on ICANN issues, and that meets a few criteria can register to be an At-Large Structure. Examples include: professional societies; academic and research organizations; community networking groups; consumer advocacy groups; Internet Society chapters; Computer user organizations and Internet civil society groups. There is no application or membership fee.\nMore information on the\napplication process\n, including downloadable application forms can be found on the At Large website.\nThe RALOs also have their own regional websites (external sites):\nAfrica\n|\nAsia-Pacific\n|\nEurope\n|\nLatin America\n|\nNorth America\nCOUNTRY CODE NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (\nccNSO\n)\nThe ccNSO represents the managers of country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) such as Britain's dot-uk registry or Germany's dot-de registry. You have to be a ccTLD manager to join. If you are, an\nonline application form\nis available. Membership is free. You can follow the ccNSO's work through its website, for example through its\nCouncil minutes\n.\nGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (\nGAC\n)\nThe GAC represents governments and governmental organizations. You need to be a formally acknowledged representative of a government or interational organization to become a member. You can\nemail the GAC's secretariat\nfor more information.\nADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (\nASO\n)\nThe ASO represents the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) - companies that oversee the allocation of Internet number resources in particular geographic regions. You would need to be an RIR to join the ASO, however you can follow their work online through its\nmailing lists\n.\nSECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (\nSSAC\n)\nThe SSAC advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. It is an invited-members-only organization. The SSAC produces\nreports and advisories\non technical aspects of the Internet's security and stability.\nIf you care about the Internet and how it evolves, your voice will only be heard if you get involved, so please do take advantage of the different ways there are to interact with ICANN. We look forward to seeing you.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "e6327a8d-9806-475a-a7c5-874ecae66b52", "document_id": "35f546d9-0e29-49e6-bd26-e6552bbd2e7e", "ordinal": 0, "text": "How do I participate? - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nHow do I participate?\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nItaliano\n日本語\n한국어\nPortuguês\nPусский\n中文\nIn answer to the question:\nWhat is going on now?\n, a number of resources including the\npublic comment webpage\n, ICANN\nblog\n, and\nmeetings sites\nwere listed.\nEach of these pages also allow for direct and immediate interaction into ICANN's processes. Each public comment box provide a clickable email address where your comments will be sent straight through the public comment forum. All comments made will be reviewed by ICANN staff and included in a summary/analysis at the close of the forum. That summary will then be provided to the body in question and that body will be asked to explicitly refer to it during subsequent discussions.\nThe blog allows any individual to make their point in response to a posting direct to the author and the organisation - and in most cases receive a quick response. So if you wish to make a point or draw ICANN's attention to something you think it may have missed this is a direct route into the process.\nIf you would prefer to make your point in the real world, then the ICANN meetings are free and open to all. At each ICANN meeting, there is a Public Forum session that is specifically set aside for anyone that wishes to raise a point by walking up to the microphone and talking directly to Board members and to the rest of the ICANN Community. The vast majority of the other meetings are also open, and often welcome new and interested members.\nThe Fellowship Program provides a grant of support for up to 50 individuals per ICANN meeting. Successful candidates are members of the Internet community who have met the program's minimum requirements as determined by an independent committee. For more details on this program and how to apply,\ngo here\n.\nYou needn't even physically be at a meeting in order to have your voice heard. Each meeting has its own interactive website that provides a separate webpage for each session during the meeting week. These pages contain the relevance links for all the remote participation services provided including presentations, audio, video streams and live transcriptions (if available). During public meetings that are also open for comments, comments and questions from remote participants are reviewed by someone in the chat room and are read out to the meeting as a whole.\nSupporting organisations and advisory committees\nIf you wish to get more deeply involved in drawing up documents, rather than commenting on the results of others' work, the solution is to join one of ICANN's supporting organisations or advisory committees.\nThere are a number of organisations and committees (the\nfull structure is here\n), and you can join whichever most relates to your input - whether as an ISP, a non-commercial company, or just a member of the public. Other members will help explain how ICANN works and how to make the most of your input.\nThere are three Supporting Organizations and four Advisory Committees, each is explained below with links to their websites where you can find out more about how to join:\nGENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION\n(GNSO)\nThe GNSO is the main policy-making body of ICANN and comprises of four main groups: registries (companies running generic top-level domains (gTLDs) such as VeriSign for dot-com or Afilias for dot-info); registrars (companies that sell registrations of particular domains e.g. icann.org); commercial users of the Internet; and non-commercial users of the Internet.\nThe GNSO is currently undergoing significant change following an extensive\nindependent review process\n. As such the information presented below is liable to change and you should check the GNSO website for the latest information on which body is most suitable for you to join.\nCommercial and Business Users Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe business constituency is the voice of commercial Internet users within ICANN. You can find out more about\nhow to join\non the constituency's website, where you can also follow its work. Membership fees apply, ranging from €160 to €1,000 in 2009.\nNon-Commercial Users Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe Noncommercial Users Constituency is the home for civil society organizations and individuals in ICANN's GNSO. NCUC advocates positions on gTLD-related issues that protect and support noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet. Among its key areas of interest are human rights, freedom of expression, privacy, access to knowledge, diversity and consumer choice, development, and global internet governance. Membership is free of charge, and noncommercial organizations and individuals can fill in an application to join on its\nwebsite\n.\nNot-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)\n(\nexternal site\n)\nNPOC represents the operational concerns related to service delivery of not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations within ICANN. NPOC welcomes members who are not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations. These organizations can join NPOC by either completing the online Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)\nmembership form\nor completing the NPOC\napplication form\n.\ngTLD Registries Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe registries constituency represents those running gTLD registries. You have to be a registry under contract with ICANN to join and members\nmeet bi-weekly\n.\nRegistrars Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe registrars constituency represents companies that register domains for Internet users for a fee. You have to be an ICANN-accredited registrar to join. There is annual membership fee of $500 (as of August 2009). More details on\nhow to join\nare on the constituency's website.\nIntellectual Property Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe IPC represents intellectual property interests within ICANN. To join you can be either an international or national intellectual property organization, a company with a demonstrated interest in intellectual property issues, or an individual with a demonstrated interest in the protection of intellectual property. Each group has its\nown application form\nand fees vary from $75 to $900 (as of August 2009) depending on which group you belong to.\nInternet Service and Connection Providers Constituency\n(\nexternal site\n)\nThe ISPCP represents Internet service providers and connectivity providers and you must be an ISP or connectivity provider as well as agreement to participate regularly within the ISPCP. Applicants send the secretariat an email\noutlining their credentials\n. Statements, notes and meeting minutes can all be found on the ISPCP's website.\nAT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (\nALAC\n)\nThe ALAC is the body that represents the interests of individual Internet users within ICANN.\nGlobal users are represented through small self-forming groups called At Large Structures (ALSes) who are themselves part of Regional At Large Organizations (RALOs).\nAny group that supports individuals' ability to share their views on ICANN issues, and that meets a few criteria can register to be an At-Large Structure. Examples include: professional societies; academic and research organizations; community networking groups; consumer advocacy groups; Internet Society chapters; Computer user organizations and Internet civil society groups. There is no application or membership fee.\nMore information on the\napplication process\n, including downloadable application forms can be found on the At Large website.\nThe RALOs also have their own regional websites (external sites):\nAfrica\n|\nAsia-Pacific\n|\nEurope\n|\nLatin America\n|\nNorth America\nCOUNTRY CODE NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (\nccNSO\n)\nThe ccNSO represents the managers of country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) such as Britain's dot-uk registry or Germany's dot-de registry. You have to be a ccTLD manager to join. If you are, an\nonline application form\nis available. Membership is free. You can follow the ccNSO's work through its website, for example through its\nCouncil minutes\n.\nGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (\nGAC\n)\nThe GAC represents governments and governmental organizations. You need to be a formally acknowledged representative of a government or interational organization to become a member. You can\nemail the GAC's secretariat\nfor more information.\nADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (\nASO\n)\nThe ASO represents the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) - companies that oversee the allocation of Internet number resources in particular geographic regions. You would need to be an RIR to join the ASO, however you can follow their work online through its\nmailing lists\n.\nSECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (\nSSAC\n)\nThe SSAC advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. It is an invited-members-only organization. The SSAC produces\nreports and advisories\non technical aspects of the Internet's security and stability.\nIf you care about the Internet and how it evolves, your voice will only be heard if you get involved, so please do take advantage of the different ways there are to interact with ICANN. We look forward to seeing you.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 19509, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 15, "word_count": 2813}}], "published_at": "2012-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2012-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2012-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "36ba8e04-2c0b-4fc4-b707-cca9b1c9f578", "source_id": "1cfb58ecb1d1ac0c7b95757a", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1375", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1375/", "artifact_sha256": "1cfb58ecb1d1ac0c7b95757af2e6bca68280347fa7b1605519733efa4491eb2f", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 117747, "title": "RFC 1375: Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses", "language": "en", "text_length": 16963, "characters": 16963, "text": "RFC 1375: Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1375\n:\nSuggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses\nP. Robinson\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                        P. Robinson\nRequest for Comments: 1375                        Tansin A. Darcos & Co.\n                                                            October 1992\nSuggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\n   This RFC suggests a change in the method of specifying the IP address\n   to add new classes of networks to be called F, G, H, and K, to reduce\n   the amount of wasted address space, and to increase the available IP\n   address number space, especially for smaller organizations or classes\n   of connectors that do not need or do not want a full Class C IP\n   address.\n\nTable of Contents\n\n   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n1\nSuggestion for new IP address classes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\nCurrent Class C Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n3\nProposed new Class C Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n4\nProposed \"Class F\" address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n4\nProposed \"Class G\" address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n4\nProposed \"Class H\" address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n5\nProposed \"Class K\" address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n5\nOptional selection of routing codes by region  . . . . . . . . .\n5\nSummary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\nNotes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\nSecurity Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n7\nAuthor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n7\nIntroduction\n\n   Currently, IP addresses on the Internet are 32-bit quantities which\n   are generally represented as four decimal numbers from 0 to 255,\n   separated by periods, sometimes called a \"dotted\" decimal number.\n   The current numbering scheme provides in general for three classes of\n   networks in general use (A,B, and C), and two other classes of\n   networks (D, E).\n\n   The Class A networks assign a large address space for the particular\nRobinson                                                        [Page 1]\nRFC 1375\nNew Classes of IP Addresses           October 1992\nnetwork to allow up to 254^3 local machines [\n1\n].  The Class B network\n   assigns a somewhat smaller address space for the particular network\n   to allow up to 254^2 local machines.  The Class C network assigns a\n   still smaller address space for the particular network to allow up to\n   254 local machines.\n\n   This memo proposes to assign part of the unused Class C address space\n   for smaller networks than are currently available.  The term \"Class\n   D\" is used for the \"multicast\" capability and addresses in \"Class E\"\n   are reserved for future use.  Therefore, these new features for which\n   capability is to be added is being referred to as classes F, G, H and\n   K.\n\nSuggestion for new IP address classes\n\n   The most worrisome problem which appears in the literature is the\n   possibility of running out of address space for IP addresses. Various\n   schemes are being suggested such as subrouting, introduction of\n   additional bits, and other possibilities.\n\n   There is an even more serious matter.  In all probability, I suspect\n   that eventually the Internet backbone will either become available to\n   anyone who wants to use it (like public highways) and the costs paid\n   for out of taxes or some other method which gets someone else to pay\n   for it, or eventually the Internet will be fully commercialized and\n   made available to anyone who wants to buy a permanent connection.\n   With the cost of hardware and connections dropping, some Computer\n   Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs) which are currently accessible via\n   telephone call may become accessible via TELNET or FTP.  When a 9600\n   baud connection can be obtained for around the price of a phone line,\n   the demand for internet access will skyrocket.  This almost certain\n   eventual availability to virtually anyone who wants a connection will\n   cause an even greater demand for internet addresses, which will\n   exacerbate this situation.  One problem is in the granularity of IP\n   addressing, in that the smallest possible IP address one may obtain\n   allows for as high as 254 IP addresses.  If someone wanted only to\n   put four or five computers on the Internet, more than 240 addresses\n   are wasted.\n\n   Many smaller installations would probably be interested either in\n   placing their computers and/or servers on the Internet (and perhaps\n   helping to pay the cost of running it) or in being able to access the\n   Internet directly, and perhaps making facilities on their machines\n   available to others; the problem being that IP addresses on Internet\n   are not readily available to small classes of users.  Also, the\n   possibility exists of eventually placing non-computer and output-only\n   devices such as printers, facsimile machines, and visual pagers\n   directly on the Internet to allow people to send a message to a local\nRobinson                                                        [Page 2]\nRFC 1375\nNew Classes of IP Addresses           October 1992\ndevice simply by directing it to a specific internet site as an E-\n   Mail message.\n\n   The scheme proposed by this paper proposes to make a slight change in\n   one of the classes of network address in a manner which should not be\n   a significant problem for implementing, and should not cause a\n   significant hardship as the addresses to use for this purpose are not\n   now allocated anyway, and may draw some of the drain which would have\n   consumed Class C addresses in large quantity into quantities of Class\n   F, H, or K addresses which waste less IP address space.\n\n   This scheme I am proposing is to allow for very small networks (1 or\n   2, 1-7, or 1-15, depending on the number of addresses the\n   administrator of that site thinks he will need), by reconstructing\n   the network address to include what is nominally part of the local\n   address.  If bridges and routers (and other hardware and software) do\n   not assume that only the last 8 bits make up a local address and\n   permit smaller spaces for local addresses, then this method should\n   not cause problems. Sites needing less than a close order of 256 IP\n   addresses could simply apply for 2 or more contiguous blocks of Class\n   F numbers.\n\n   Currently, a Class C address consists of a 32-bit number in which the\n   leftmost 3 bits consist of \"110\" [\n2\n]:\n\n        The third type of address, class C, has a 21-bit network number\n        and a 8-bit local address.  The three highest-order bits are set\n        to 1-1-0.  This allows 2,097,152 class C networks.\n\n                        1                   2                   3\n    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n   |1 1 0|                    NETWORK              | Local Address |\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                        Current Class C Address\n\n   This memo proposes to change Class C addresses to be 4-bit numbers\n   beginning with \"1100\":\n\n   The third type of address, class C, has a 20-bit network number and a\n   8-bit local address.  The four highest-order bits are set to 1-1-0-0,\n   This allows 1,048,576 class C networks.\nRobinson                                                        [Page 3]\nRFC 1375\nNew Classes of IP Addresses           October 1992\n1                   2                   3\n    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n   |1 1 0 0|                  NETWORK              | Local Address |\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                     Proposed new Class C Address\n\n   This memo then proposes to add four new types of addresses, to be\n   referred to as \"Class F\", \"Class G\", \"Class H\", and \"Class K\" [\n3\n].\n   These would all use part of the \"old\" class C address by all using IP\n   addresses that begin with the 4-bit sequence \"1101\".  The Class F\n   addresses would begin with the binary code sequence \"11010\", Class G\n   addresses begin with \"110110\", Class H addresses with \"1101110\", and\n   Class K with \"1101111\".\n\n   Class F addresses will be used for networks having from 1-15 sites\n   [\n4\n], where the number could be expected to exceed 7.  Class F\n   addresses are defined as follows:\n\n   The sixth type of address, class F, has a 23-bit network number, and\n   a 4-bit local address.  The five highest-order bits are set to 1-1-\n   0-1-0.  This allows 16,777,256 class F networks.\n\n                        1                   2                   3\n    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n   |         |                                             | Local |\n   |1 1 0 1 0|                NETWORK                      |Address|\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                      Proposed \"Class F\" address\n\n   Class G is to be defined as follows:\n\n        The seventh type of address, class G, is reserved for future\n        use.  The six highest-order bits are set to 1-1-0-1-1-0.\n\n                        1                   2                   3\n    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n   |           |                                                   |\n   |1 1 0 1 1 0|              Reserved                             |\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                      Proposed \"Class G\" address\n\n   Class H is for small networks which are not expected to exceed 7\nRobinson                                                        [Page 4]\nRFC 1375\nNew Classes of IP Addresses           October 1992\nconnected IP addresses.  Class H is to be defined as follows:\n\n        The eighth type of address, class H, has a 22-bit network\n        number, and a 3-bit local address.  The seven highest-order bits\n        are set to 1-1-0-1-1-1-0.  This allows 4,194,304 Class H\n        addresses [\n5\n].\n\n                        1                   2                   3\n    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n   |             |                                           |Local|\n   |1 1 0 1 1 1 0|              NETWORK                      | Addr|\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                      Proposed \"Class H\" address\n\n   Class K is for sites which either will only have one or two connected\n   addresses [\n6\n].  Class K is to be defined as follows:\n\n        The eighth type of address, class K, has a 25-bit network\n        number, and a 1-bit local address.  The seven highest-order bits\n        are set to 1-1-0-1-1-1-1.  This allows 33,554,432 Class K\n        addresses [\n7\n].\n\n                        1                   2                   3\n    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n   |           |                                                 |*|\n   |1 1 0 1 0 0|              NETWORK                            | |\n   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                       * = Local Address, 1 or 0\n                      Proposed \"Class K\" address\n\nOptional selection of routing codes by region\n\n   Because of the possibility of confusion, some method similar to the\n   international dialing plan might be set up, in which bits 5-8 in\n   Class F, bits 7-10 in Class H, and bits 6-9 in Class K could be used\n   to define what part of the world the particular address is in, in a\n   manner similar to the international telephone dialing system, which\n   uses the first digit of the international telephone number to\n   determine the region being used.  The current method for assigning\n   international dialing codes is:\nRobinson                                                        [Page 5]\nRFC 1375\nNew Classes of IP Addresses           October 1992\n1 North America               6 Oceania, Australia\n      2 Africa                      7 Ex-Soviet Union Countries\n      3 Europe                      8 Asia\n      4 Europe                      9 Mideast\n      5 South America and Mexico\n\n   If a similar method is used, I would recommend assigning 0,1,10 and\n   11 to North America, 8 and 12 to Asia, and leaving 13 through 15 for\n   other areas as needed.  Note that this would simply make some routing\n   choices easier, it is not precisely necessary that this be done,\n   since currently routing is generally done using the shortest path to\n   a site and IP numbers don't really relate to any specific address\n   anywhere in the world.\n\n   The number form of a class F, G, H or K address could still be listed\n   in the standard form n.n.n.n, as long as it is not assumed that the\n   4th chunk number alone identifies a local address and that numbers\n   with the same preceding 3 chunks do not necessarily belong to the\n   same network.\n\nSummary\n\n   In order to make the address space available, even if the method to\n   implement this feature is not presently available, it is suggested\n   that Class F, G, H, and K address space should be taken out of Class\n   C space and reserved for the purpose of allowing smaller-sized\n   networks so that this feature may be made available.  Since Class C\n   addresses currently are only using the equivalent of one Class A\n   number anyway, this should not cause a problem.\n\nNotes\n\n   [\n1\n] Common practice dictates that neither an address 0 nor 255 should\n       be used in any \"dotted\" address.\n\n   [\n2\n] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\", STD 2,\nRFC 1340\n,\n       USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.\n\n   [\n3\n] To prevent confusion, no class \"I\" or \"J\" address was created by\n       this memo.\n\n   [\n4\n] It is expected that if the higher part of the network address\n       occupying the 4-bits to the left of the Class F address are\n       neither 0 nor 15, that a class F site could have 16 machines.  If\n       the 4-bits to the left are all 0, the Class F site must not use\n       number 0.  If the four bits are all 1, the site must not use\n       number 15.\nRobinson                                                        [Page 6]\nRFC 1375\nNew Classes of IP Addresses           October 1992\n[\n5\n] It may be that Class H numbers are more appropriate for classes\n       of addresses that will not have as high a demand for access via\n       Internet addresses such as facsimile machines and pagers.  (The\n       end digit could be used to determine class of service, i.e., 0\n       for tone only, 1 and 2 for numeric only, 3 4 and 5 for\n       alphanumeric, and 6 and 7 for facsimile machines.  Or some\n       combination of these according to the demand.  Remember,\n       Internet won't always be just text messages and file transfers;\n       we may eventually see things like voice telephone calls or voice\n       data being placed to an Internet address just like calls made\n       via the telephone system.  This would require a whole change in\n       the way things are done, but it's always best to look at the\n       future.\n\n   [\n6\n] It is suggested that addresses in this range not be assigned\n       where the 7 bits to the left of the local number are all the\n       same (all 0 or all 1), to allow all Class K addresses to have\n       two local addresses.\n\n   [\n7\n] Different things can be done with different capabilities.  One\n       thought was to set up some group of numbers and use them to\n       indicate systems which are \"gateway\" systems, i.e., the top set\n       of numbers in Class K could indicate that subnets are required\n       after those numbers, similar to the use of an extension number on\n       the switchboard of a large organization.   Another possibility is\n       to assign some of the numbers to specific classes of devices,\n       such as number-only pagers and electronic display devices.\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Paul Robinson\n   Tansin A. Darcos & Company\n   8604 Second Avenue #104\n   Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA\n\n   Phone: 202-310-1011\n   Telex:   6505066432MCI UW\n   E-mail:  TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRobinson                                                        [Page 7]\nRFC\n1375\n: Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-10-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-10-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-10-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:12.015032+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3a065963-b46e-4c20-be12-625eb8dc469c", "source_id": "232321c48cb0059895191c8a", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/press-releases-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/press-releases-en", "artifact_sha256": "18aa52fe079fb1a5a6a4d90bb88f34b10735537ac4631496caae4f5b5caee77f", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 73135, "title": "ICANN Press Releases | 2026 - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 11671, "characters": 11671, "text": "ICANN Press Releases | 2026 - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Press Releases | 2026\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\n2026\n|\n2025\n|\n2024\n|\n2023\n|\n2022\nPress Release: APIGA Celebrates 10 Years of Developing the Next Generation of Internet Leaders\nSINGAPORE – 27 July 2026\n한국어\nPress Release: ICANN86 Policy Forum Brings Global Internet Community to Seville\nBrussels – 28 May 2026\nPress Release: ICANN Announces Next Major Internet Security Update\nLos Angeles – 20 May 2026\nPress Release: ICANN Opens Application Window for New Generic Top-Level Domains\nLOS ANGELES – 30 April 2026\nPortuguês\nICANN85 in Mumbai Highlights Collaboration to Strengthen a Secure and Resilient Internet\nMumbai, INDIA – 9 March 2026\nICANN Launches Universal Acceptance Curriculum Program, Facilitating a Multilingual Internet\n24 February 2026\nPress Release: ICANN CEO Highlights 2026 Domain Expansion Opportunities During Türkiye Visit\nISTANBUL – 19 February 2026\nTürkçe\nPress Release: ICANN85 in Mumbai: Strengthening the Single, Interoperable Internet for All\nNew Delhi, INDIA – 5 February 2026\nहिंदी\nPress Release: ICANN Nominating Committee Seeks Accomplished Business Leaders for ICANN Board of Directors\nLOS ANGELES – 28 January 2026\nPress Release: ICANN Launches Caribbean Premiere of ICANN Near You in Guyana\nMONTEVIDEO – 28 January 2026\nPortuguês\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "9dd7e4e0-5ee3-4990-9c21-538509b16d9b", "document_id": "3a065963-b46e-4c20-be12-625eb8dc469c", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Press Releases | 2026 - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Press Releases | 2026\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\n2026\n|\n2025\n|\n2024\n|\n2023\n|\n2022\nPress Release: APIGA Celebrates 10 Years of Developing the Next Generation of Internet Leaders\nSINGAPORE – 27 July 2026\n한국어\nPress Release: ICANN86 Policy Forum Brings Global Internet Community to Seville\nBrussels – 28 May 2026\nPress Release: ICANN Announces Next Major Internet Security Update\nLos Angeles – 20 May 2026\nPress Release: ICANN Opens Application Window for New Generic Top-Level Domains\nLOS ANGELES – 30 April 2026\nPortuguês\nICANN85 in Mumbai Highlights Collaboration to Strengthen a Secure and Resilient Internet\nMumbai, INDIA – 9 March 2026\nICANN Launches Universal Acceptance Curriculum Program, Facilitating a Multilingual Internet\n24 February 2026\nPress Release: ICANN CEO Highlights 2026 Domain Expansion Opportunities During Türkiye Visit\nISTANBUL – 19 February 2026\nTürkçe\nPress Release: ICANN85 in Mumbai: Strengthening the Single, Interoperable Internet for All\nNew Delhi, INDIA – 5 February 2026\nहिंदी\nPress Release: ICANN Nominating Committee Seeks Accomplished Business Leaders for ICANN Board of Directors\nLOS ANGELES – 28 January 2026\nPress Release: ICANN Launches Caribbean Premiere of ICANN Near You in Guyana\nMONTEVIDEO – 28 January 2026\nPortuguês\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11671, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1576}}], "published_at": "2026-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "ICANN Press Releases | 2026 - ICANN", "notes": "Year found in title: 'ICANN Press Releases | 2026 - ICANN'"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3a8de59e-bc1c-4c7f-a5ac-25327fa1c936", "source_id": "d5464559e11043ffe096e426", "source": "ISOC", "source_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2024/2024-internet-impact-brief-global-digital-compact/", "final_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2024/2024-internet-impact-brief-global-digital-compact/", "artifact_sha256": "370c9b9d90fd55552b9a73874808756233f3716c5fd81f244f3e6710232ac30f", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 169023, "title": "Page not found - Internet Society", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 2526, "characters": 2526, "text": "Page not found - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\n404: Page not found\nThe page you are looking for doesn’t exist or an other error occurred.\nGo Home\nCan't find what you are looking for?\nSearch\n×\nLatest news\nAdvancing a Connected Future for Indigenous Communities\nConnectivity\nAdvancing a Connected Future for Indigenous Communities\nCommunity-led Internet initiatives are empowering Indigenous communities worldwide through meaningful connectivity, digital inclusion, and self-determined digital futures.\nHow One Alum Helped Build a Community of Internet Leaders\nInternet Governance\nHow One Alum Helped Build a Community of Internet Leaders\nAmged B. Shwedhy, an Internet Society alumnus, has helped bring Internet governance discussions to Libya.\nThe Tribal Broadband Bootcamps Celebrate Their Five-Year Anniversary\nConnectivity\nThe Tribal Broadband Bootcamps Celebrate Their Five-Year Anniversary\nWe celebrate five years of Tribal Broadband Bootcamps, which have given Indigenous people hands-on training in community networks.\nQuestions? Get in touch.\nContact us\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nLinkedIn\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "segments": [{"segment_id": "5ab062cc-0af3-417f-ae5b-52c524c081fd", "document_id": "3a8de59e-bc1c-4c7f-a5ac-25327fa1c936", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Page not found - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\n404: Page not found\nThe page you are looking for doesn’t exist or an other error occurred.\nGo Home\nCan't find what you are looking for?\nSearch\n×\nLatest news\nAdvancing a Connected Future for Indigenous Communities\nConnectivity\nAdvancing a Connected Future for Indigenous Communities\nCommunity-led Internet initiatives are empowering Indigenous communities worldwide through meaningful connectivity, digital inclusion, and self-determined digital futures.\nHow One Alum Helped Build a Community of Internet Leaders\nInternet Governance\nHow One Alum Helped Build a Community of Internet Leaders\nAmged B. Shwedhy, an Internet Society alumnus, has helped bring Internet governance discussions to Libya.\nThe Tribal Broadband Bootcamps Celebrate Their Five-Year Anniversary\nConnectivity\nThe Tribal Broadband Bootcamps Celebrate Their Five-Year Anniversary\nWe celebrate five years of Tribal Broadband Bootcamps, which have given Indigenous people hands-on training in community networks.\nQuestions? Get in touch.\nContact us\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nLinkedIn\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2526, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 373}}], "published_at": "2024-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2024-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "/2024/", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3c7b73d3-5275-4c10-8620-7a7bba7e8f41", "source_id": "b490fbd692700ad602c6b8d6", "source": "ISOC", "source_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/", "final_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/our-work/", "artifact_sha256": "cfb0fa0122d01cd629d406ae16561c650410b7ce31b74f498466667769347e0d", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 280622, "title": "Our Work - Internet Society", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 6652, "characters": 6652, "text": "Our Work - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nOur Work\nOur Work\nWorking for a community-driven, trustworthy Internet for everyone.\nThe Internet is a transformative force. But not everyone benefits from it equally. Around 2 billion people still lack connectivity. And, increasingly, our online safety is threatened by the inability to trust that our personal information is in our control. The stakes have never been higher. That’s why we partner with communities to help people overcome their unique barriers to connectivity, be they geographic, technical, regulatory, or financial.\nAs part of our 2030 Strategy, we are focusing on addressing two critical global challenges facing the Internet:\nLack of trust in the Internet\n. Because everyone deserves an Internet experience that is safe, secure, and protects them online.\nGlobal inequality\n. Because people everywhere need to have access to affordable, reliable, and resilient Internet.\nRead about our activities for the upcoming year in\nour 2026 Action Plan\n.\nThe Issues We Care About\nThe Issues We Care About\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nHow We Succeed\nHow We Succeed\nThrough our Foundation, we invest in projects that advance our mission. In partnership with our global community, we build and deploy infrastructure, provide decision-makers with data to develop, maintain, and protect the Internet, help shape and advocate for policies that impact how the Internet works, and empower future Internet leaders with the skills and expertise they need to succeed.\nCommunity\nOur global community is passionate about developing the Internet’s full potential. Individual, chapter, and organization membership are just a handful of ways to be part of our community.\nAdvocacy\nFrom convening policy leaders, to informing courts through Amicus Brief filings, our localized and collaborative advocacy work helps lower connectivity barriers and create a safer Internet.\nEmpowerment\nWe provide Internet leaders with the expertise they need to make decisions about and for the Internet. We offer individuals and communities trainings to help them connect and be safe online.\nInvesting in the Internet\nFoundation grantees drive change that helps communities overcome challenges, reduce inequalities, and create a more connected world.\nMeasurement\nOn the Pulse platform, we track and measure the state of the Internet: its availability, evolution, and resilience.\nOur Work in Action\nOur Work in Action\n19 June 2026\nFrom Refugee to Digital Leader: How Justin Is Helping to Connect Rhino Camp\n11 June 2026\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity Initiatives Earn Viddy Awards Recognition\n28 May 2026\nFrom Email to Case Study: What We Learned About Connecting Refugee Communities in Just One Year\n23 March 2026\nConnecting Remote Glaciers to Protect Communities in Kyrgyzstan\n29 December 2025\nEncryption Making Africa Safer: Internet Society Hosts Encryption Advocacy Workshop for African Civil Society\n15 December 2025\nLearning to Build and Use the Internet in Rhino Refugee Camp\n9 December 2025\nWhy the UN’s Next Decision on Internet Governance Matters for Everyone\n26 November 2025\nA Once-Overlooked Tool: How Community Networks Connected Haiti and the World\n5 November 2025\n2025 Postel Awardee David Clark, an Architect and Implementer of the Internet\n14 October 2025\nOur Voices Are Making a Difference in the Fight for Strong Encryption\n9 September 2025\nThe Data Dump Dilemma: Why Public Digital Platforms Risk Failing the People They Serve\n5 September 2025\nYour Internet Access Is at Risk. We’re Speaking Up\n18 August 2025\nHow to Achieve Universal Connectivity\n11 August 2025\nWhat Is Internet Resilience?\n8 August 2025\nThe Internet of Wonder: How a Scientific Livestream Became a Cultural Phenomenon\n4 August 2025\nThe Power of Volunteers: Connecting an Indigenous Community in Panama\n1 August 2025\nIs Your IXP at Risk of Becoming a “Zombie”?\n25 July 2025\nA UK Government Order Threatens the Privacy and Security of All Internet Users\n25 July 2025\nEncryption Makes Us Powerful: Internet Society Hosts Encryption Advocacy Workshop for European Civil Society\n22 July 2025\nHow YOU Run the Internet\n15 July 2025\nHow Standard Setters Run the Internet\n8 July 2025\nHow the Technical Community Runs the Internet\n4 July 2025\nFrom Experience to Curiosity\n2 July 2025\nDangerous US Supreme Court Decision for Online Privacy and Security\nBecome a part of the movement.\nBecome a part of the movement.\nReady to join us in our work towards a community-driven, trustworthy Internet for everyone? Become an Internet Society member today.\nJoin Us\nBecome a part of the movement.\nReady to join us in our work towards a community-driven, trustworthy Internet for everyone? Become an Internet Society member today.\nJoin Us\nImage copyright:\n© Sea Nexus Event, © Gustavo Castellanos Echazú, © Stonehouse Photographic, © Sea Nexus Event, © Sea Nexus Event, © Candice Ward/The Internet Society, © Sagar Biswas from Pixabay,\n© Internet Society Zimbabwe Chapter, © Nicolas Olivier, © ITU, © Internet Society, © José Elizeche\nThe copyright of the items displayed in the Our Work in Action feed can be found on their respective pages.\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nPhone\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "segments": [{"segment_id": "5a6f2c90-a21a-4aa7-afb7-1f7fbbcb01b5", "document_id": "3c7b73d3-5275-4c10-8620-7a7bba7e8f41", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Our Work - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nOur Work\nOur Work\nWorking for a community-driven, trustworthy Internet for everyone.\nThe Internet is a transformative force. But not everyone benefits from it equally. Around 2 billion people still lack connectivity. And, increasingly, our online safety is threatened by the inability to trust that our personal information is in our control. The stakes have never been higher. That’s why we partner with communities to help people overcome their unique barriers to connectivity, be they geographic, technical, regulatory, or financial.\nAs part of our 2030 Strategy, we are focusing on addressing two critical global challenges facing the Internet:\nLack of trust in the Internet\n. Because everyone deserves an Internet experience that is safe, secure, and protects them online.\nGlobal inequality\n. Because people everywhere need to have access to affordable, reliable, and resilient Internet.\nRead about our activities for the upcoming year in\nour 2026 Action Plan\n.\nThe Issues We Care About\nThe Issues We Care About\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nHow We Succeed\nHow We Succeed\nThrough our Foundation, we invest in projects that advance our mission. In partnership with our global community, we build and deploy infrastructure, provide decision-makers with data to develop, maintain, and protect the Internet, help shape and advocate for policies that impact how the Internet works, and empower future Internet leaders with the skills and expertise they need to succeed.\nCommunity\nOur global community is passionate about developing the Internet’s full potential. Individual, chapter, and organization membership are just a handful of ways to be part of our community.\nAdvocacy\nFrom convening policy leaders, to informing courts through Amicus Brief filings, our localized and collaborative advocacy work helps lower connectivity barriers and create a safer Internet.\nEmpowerment\nWe provide Internet leaders with the expertise they need to make decisions about and for the Internet. We offer individuals and communities trainings to help them connect and be safe online.\nInvesting in the Internet\nFoundation grantees drive change that helps communities overcome challenges, reduce inequalities, and create a more connected world.\nMeasurement\nOn the Pulse platform, we track and measure the state of the Internet: its availability, evolution, and resilience.\nOur Work in Action\nOur Work in Action\n19 June 2026\nFrom Refugee to Digital Leader: How Justin Is Helping to Connect Rhino Camp\n11 June 2026\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity Initiatives Earn Viddy Awards Recognition\n28 May 2026\nFrom Email to Case Study: What We Learned About Connecting Refugee Communities in Just One Year\n23 March 2026\nConnecting Remote Glaciers to Protect Communities in Kyrgyzstan\n29 December 2025\nEncryption Making Africa Safer: Internet Society Hosts Encryption Advocacy Workshop for African Civil Society\n15 December 2025\nLearning to Build and Use the Internet in Rhino Refugee Camp\n9 December 2025\nWhy the UN’s Next Decision on Internet Governance Matters for Everyone\n26 November 2025\nA Once-Overlooked Tool: How Community Networks Connected Haiti and the World\n5 November 2025\n2025 Postel Awardee David Clark, an Architect and Implementer of the Internet\n14 October 2025\nOur Voices Are Making a Difference in the Fight for Strong Encryption\n9 September 2025\nThe Data Dump Dilemma: Why Public Digital Platforms Risk Failing the People They Serve\n5 September 2025\nYour Internet Access Is at Risk. We’re Speaking Up\n18 August 2025\nHow to Achieve Universal Connectivity\n11 August 2025\nWhat Is Internet Resilience?\n8 August 2025\nThe Internet of Wonder: How a Scientific Livestream Became a Cultural Phenomenon\n4 August 2025\nThe Power of Volunteers: Connecting an Indigenous Community in Panama\n1 August 2025\nIs Your IXP at Risk of Becoming a “Zombie”?\n25 July 2025\nA UK Government Order Threatens the Privacy and Security of All Internet Users\n25 July 2025\nEncryption Makes Us Powerful: Internet Society Hosts Encryption Advocacy Workshop for European Civil Society\n22 July 2025\nHow YOU Run the Internet\n15 July 2025\nHow Standard Setters Run the Internet\n8 July 2025\nHow the Technical Community Runs the Internet\n4 July 2025\nFrom Experience to Curiosity\n2 July 2025\nDangerous US Supreme Court Decision for Online Privacy and Security\nBecome a part of the movement.\nBecome a part of the movement.\nReady to join us in our work towards a community-driven, trustworthy Internet for everyone? Become an Internet Society member today.\nJoin Us\nBecome a part of the movement.\nReady to join us in our work towards a community-driven, trustworthy Internet for everyone? Become an Internet Society member today.\nJoin Us\nImage copyright:\n© Sea Nexus Event, © Gustavo Castellanos Echazú, © Stonehouse Photographic, © Sea Nexus Event, © Sea Nexus Event, © Candice Ward/The Internet Society, © Sagar Biswas from Pixabay,\n© Internet Society Zimbabwe Chapter, © Nicolas Olivier, © ITU, © Internet Society, © José Elizeche\nThe copyright of the items displayed in the Our Work in Action feed can be found on their respective pages.\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nPhone\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6652, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1041}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3e9ed50b-12c2-4718-b653-fbfcb8753c6b", "source_id": "9e229857b3641c02c59450f7", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/management-organization-chart", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/management-org-16mar26-en.pdf", "artifact_sha256": "9e229857b3641c02c59450f769643c94a553f9e34b64067fc54a6bbf2470c1ef", "content_type": "application/pdf", "extraction_method": "pypdf", "byte_size": 3736354, "title": "ICANN Management Organization Chart (March 2026)", "language": "en", "text_length": 1037, "characters": 1037, "text": "1\nPg.Executive Team | As of 16 M arch 2026B\noard of Directors\n\n2\nPg.Executive Team | As of 16 M arch 2026B\noard of DirectorsE\nlizabeth FieldO\nmbudsK\nurtis LindqvistP\nresident and Chief Executive Officer\n\n3\nPg.Executive Team | As of 16 M arch 2026K\nurtis LindqvistPresident and Chief Executive OfficerC\nassia OliveiraDirector, Office of the CEOG\nlobal Communications and Language ServicesSally Newell CohenSVP, Global CommunicationsG\nlobal Domains and StrategyTheresa SwinehartSVP, Global Domains & StrategyG\nlobal Government Engagement and Contractual ComplianceJamie HedlundSVP, Global Government Engagement and ComplianceG\nlobal Human ResourcesGino MarlianiSVP, Global Human ResourcesG\novernanceJohn JeffreyGeneral Counsel and SecretaryO\nffice of the CFOXavier CalvezSVP, Planning & Chief Financial Officer (CFO)O\nffice of the Chief Technology OfficerJohn CrainSVP & Chief Technology OfficerP\nolicy Development SupportRuss WeinsteinSVP, Policy Development SupportS\ntakeholder EngagementSally CostertonSVP, Global Stakeholder Engagement", "segments": [], "published_at": "2026-03-16", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-03-16", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "2026-03-16", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:38:43.558561+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["icann-governance"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3edacad9-c1d3-43a3-923c-5012786a34bb", "source_id": "03c6fa385746bb2998b577c7", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/odp-2021-04-26-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/odp", "artifact_sha256": "3d0abb47608a5db89d12983fab5a557652d2ffbb1c088bd9cd9b421ed18dc014", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 74946, "title": "Operational Design Phase - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 14260, "characters": 14260, "text": "Operational Design Phase - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nOperational Design Phase\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nAbout the Operational Design Phase (ODP)\nDevelopment of the Operational Design Phase (ODP)\nOperational Design Phase Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)\nActive ODPs\nClosed ODPs\nNew gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Phase\nSystem for Standardized Access/Disclosure to Non-Public Registration Data (SSAD) PDP Recommendations\nAbout the Operational Design Phase\nClick\nhere\nto read the Operational Design Phase process paper.\nThe purpose of the Operational Design Phase (ODP) is to perform an assessment of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council policy recommendations, or other ICANN community-provided recommendations the Board deems appropriate, in order to provide the Board with relevant information for its deliberations on whether to approve said recommendations. The ODP Process Paper, linked above, guides the ODP process. Specific to the GNSO Consensus Policy, the ODP improves upon existing processes within the\nConsensus Policy Implementation Framework\n(CPIF) by adding additional transparency and structure to the work the ICANN org performs to assess the operational impact of GNSO Council-approved recommendations.\nAn ODP will be initiated by the Board in cases where the Board identifies that the GNSO policy recommendations, based on their complexity and potential operational impact, warrant such an assessment. A Board request for an ODP directs ICANN org to perform an operational analysis of a given set of GNSO policy recommendations. The ICANN org performs its analysis based on a Board-determined scope and provides the Board with an Operational Design Assessment (ODA), the expected output of the ODP, within a specified timeframe. Once completed, the ICANN org will submit the Operational Design Assessment to the Board for its consideration. In addition to other relevant materials, such as the recommendations themselves and the Bylaws-mandated Public Comment proceeding on the recommendations, the ODA will help the Board decide whether it believes the recommendations are in the best interests of ICANN community or ICANN.\nWhile it is ICANN org that conducts the ODP, ICANN community feedback plays an important role in the process. Throughout the ODP, ICANN org will provide periodic updates on its progress. Progress updates will be provided via a number of platforms, including the icann.org website, webinars, blogs, and dedicated sessions during ICANN meetings, to offer the ICANN community opportunities to ask questions, seek clarification, and provide general feedback. In addition to these progress updates, once ICANN org has reached relevant milestones in its ODP work, it will report its progress to the ICANN community to provide visibility and to seek input on the facts, figures, and assumptions that underpin its analysis. All updates will take place transparently to ensure the ICANN community, Board, and org are aware of the different inputs provided. It is important to note that ICANN community input — like any other part of the ODP — is not a forum to reopen questions settled during the policy development process. Should any questions that pertain to policy arise during the ODP, these will be referred to the GNSO Council, which is encouraged to appoint an ODP liaison to assist in these communications.\nMore information about the ODP's purpose and how it is conducted is detailed in the\nOperational Design Phase - Process Paper\n. While the paper is authoritative in describing the ODP process, ICANN org has also drafted a\nflowchart\nto illustrate how the ODP fits into the\npolicy implementation lifecycle\nand how the community can provide feedback during the ODP process. Development of the ODP process took place in conjunction with the ICANN community over a six-month period. The steps outlining this process are explained\nhere\n.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ab8bdc6b-19db-4bc4-ad0b-bb9f50153d97", "document_id": "3edacad9-c1d3-43a3-923c-5012786a34bb", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Operational Design Phase - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nOperational Design Phase\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nAbout the Operational Design Phase (ODP)\nDevelopment of the Operational Design Phase (ODP)\nOperational Design Phase Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)\nActive ODPs\nClosed ODPs\nNew gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Phase\nSystem for Standardized Access/Disclosure to Non-Public Registration Data (SSAD) PDP Recommendations\nAbout the Operational Design Phase\nClick\nhere\nto read the Operational Design Phase process paper.\nThe purpose of the Operational Design Phase (ODP) is to perform an assessment of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council policy recommendations, or other ICANN community-provided recommendations the Board deems appropriate, in order to provide the Board with relevant information for its deliberations on whether to approve said recommendations. The ODP Process Paper, linked above, guides the ODP process. Specific to the GNSO Consensus Policy, the ODP improves upon existing processes within the\nConsensus Policy Implementation Framework\n(CPIF) by adding additional transparency and structure to the work the ICANN org performs to assess the operational impact of GNSO Council-approved recommendations.\nAn ODP will be initiated by the Board in cases where the Board identifies that the GNSO policy recommendations, based on their complexity and potential operational impact, warrant such an assessment. A Board request for an ODP directs ICANN org to perform an operational analysis of a given set of GNSO policy recommendations. The ICANN org performs its analysis based on a Board-determined scope and provides the Board with an Operational Design Assessment (ODA), the expected output of the ODP, within a specified timeframe. Once completed, the ICANN org will submit the Operational Design Assessment to the Board for its consideration. In addition to other relevant materials, such as the recommendations themselves and the Bylaws-mandated Public Comment proceeding on the recommendations, the ODA will help the Board decide whether it believes the recommendations are in the best interests of ICANN community or ICANN.\nWhile it is ICANN org that conducts the ODP, ICANN community feedback plays an important role in the process. Throughout the ODP, ICANN org will provide periodic updates on its progress. Progress updates will be provided via a number of platforms, including the icann.org website, webinars, blogs, and dedicated sessions during ICANN meetings, to offer the ICANN community opportunities to ask questions, seek clarification, and provide general feedback. In addition to these progress updates, once ICANN org has reached relevant milestones in its ODP work, it will report its progress to the ICANN community to provide visibility and to seek input on the facts, figures, and assumptions that underpin its analysis. All updates will take place transparently to ensure the ICANN community, Board, and org are aware of the different inputs provided. It is important to note that ICANN community input — like any other part of the ODP — is not a forum to reopen questions settled during the policy development process. Should any questions that pertain to policy arise during the ODP, these will be referred to the GNSO Council, which is encouraged to appoint an ODP liaison to assist in these communications.\nMore information about the ODP's purpose and how it is conducted is detailed in the\nOperational Design Phase - Process Paper\n. While the paper is authoritative in describing the ODP process, ICANN org has also drafted a\nflowchart\nto illustrate how the ODP fits into the\npolicy implementation lifecycle\nand how the community can provide feedback during the ODP process. Development of the ODP process took place in conjunction with the ICANN community over a six-month period. The steps outlining this process are explained\nhere\n.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 14260, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1969}}], "published_at": "2021-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2021-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2021-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3f0e2a34-e953-4c2a-b9f1-4af428d0c234", "source_id": "30769fbe6b2d7515fbb9ef61", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings", "artifact_sha256": "849fb103e151f4ea440ba6a65643d765f4ac2458d47d10f15260e2fdabb2f81e", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 482799, "title": "2026 Board Activities and Meetings", "language": "en", "text_length": 8018, "characters": 8018, "text": "2026 Board Activities and Meetings\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nView records of actions and decisions made by the ICANN Board from recent activities and meetings.\nSubscribe\nBoard Activities and Meetings Home\nAbout the Board\nCommittees\nCaucuses and Working Groups\nLatest Board Blogs\nBoard Activities and Meetings\n2026\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nSelect year\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nView guidelines\nfor the posting of Board Briefing materials.\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within Board Activities and Meetings\nDocument Type\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nBoard Briefing Materials\nMinutes\nPreliminary Report\nSecretary's Notice\nCommittee\nAudit Committee of the Board (BAC)\nBoard Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC)\nExecutive Committee of the Board (BEC)\nFinance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nGovernance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nOrganizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC)\nRisk Committee of the Board (BRC)\nStrategic Planning Committee of the Board (SPC)\nTechnical Committee of the Board (BTC)\nPrevious Committees\nBoard Global Relationships Committee\nBoard IANA Committee\nNew gTLD Program Committee\nPublic and Stakeholder Engagement Committee\nBoard Meeting Type\nOrganizational\nRegular\nSpecial\nWorkshops\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nApply\nClear\nMore Search Options\nDownload results to .csv file\nExpand all\n|\nCollapse all\nUpcoming\nNo upcoming meetings.\nAugust 2026\nNo meetings this month.\nJuly 2026\n28 July 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\n20 July 2026\nSpecial Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nPreliminary Report\nJune 2026\n30 June 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n7 June 2026\nICANN Board Seville Workshop: ICANN Board – Public Engagement with GAC\nRecording\nRecording\n7 June 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 1.12 MB)\nMay 2026\n29 May 2026\nMeeting of the Risk Committee of the Board (BRC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n29 May 2026\nSecretary’s Notice of Vacancy in Board Seat 9\nAvailable Documents\nSecretary's Notice\n(pdf, 16.48 KB)\n28 May 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n28 May 2026\nMeeting of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n19 May 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n14 May 2026\nMeeting of the Strategic Planning Committee of the Board (SPC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\n12 May 2026\nMeeting of the Audit Committee of the Board (BAC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n3 May 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 57.03 MB)\n1 May 2026\nICANN Board Manchester Workshop: ICANN Board – Public Virtual Session: The domain industry from the Contracted Parties (CP) perspective\nRecording\nRecording\nApril 2026\n29 April 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n24 April 2026\nMeeting of the Technical Committee of the Board (BTC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n23 April 2026\nSecretary’s Notice of Designation of Board Seat 14 with Supporting Documentation\nAvailable Documents\nSecretary's Notice\n(pdf, 145.3 KB)\n21 April 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n20 April 2026\nMeeting of the Technical Committee of the Board (BTC)\n14 April 2026\nMeeting of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC)\nMarch 2026\n31 March 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n26 March 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n26 March 2026\nSpecial Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nPreliminary Report\n12 March 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 2.79 MB)\n8 March 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n8 March 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 2.52 MB)\nFebruary 2026\n26 February 2026\nMeeting of the Risk Committee of the Board (BRC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n26 February 2026\nSecretary's Notice of Designation of Board Seat 15 with Supporting Documentation\nAvailable Documents\nSecretary's Notice\n(pdf, 124.9 KB)\n24 February 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n23 February 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n23 February 2026\nMeeting of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n19 February 2026\nMeeting of the Strategic Planning Committee of the Board (SPC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n12 February 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n2 February 2026\nMeeting of the Technical Committee of the Board (BTC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\nJanuary 2026\n25 January 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 4.13 MB)\nExecutive Session Board Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 92.04 KB)\n23 January 2026\nICANN Board Singapore Workshop: ICANN Board – Public Engagement with APAC\nRecording\nRecording\n16 January 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n13 January 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\nJump To\nUpcoming\nAugust 2026\nJuly 2026\nJune 2026\nMay 2026\nApril 2026\nMarch 2026\nFebruary 2026\nJanuary 2026\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "0245443b-6e86-4272-860d-c3dc7f3cf7f4", "document_id": "3f0e2a34-e953-4c2a-b9f1-4af428d0c234", "ordinal": 0, "text": "2026 Board Activities and Meetings\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nView records of actions and decisions made by the ICANN Board from recent activities and meetings.\nSubscribe\nBoard Activities and Meetings Home\nAbout the Board\nCommittees\nCaucuses and Working Groups\nLatest Board Blogs\nBoard Activities and Meetings\n2026\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nSelect year\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nView guidelines\nfor the posting of Board Briefing materials.\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within Board Activities and Meetings\nDocument Type\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nBoard Briefing Materials\nMinutes\nPreliminary Report\nSecretary's Notice\nCommittee\nAudit Committee of the Board (BAC)\nBoard Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC)\nExecutive Committee of the Board (BEC)\nFinance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nGovernance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nOrganizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC)\nRisk Committee of the Board (BRC)\nStrategic Planning Committee of the Board (SPC)\nTechnical Committee of the Board (BTC)\nPrevious Committees\nBoard Global Relationships Committee\nBoard IANA Committee\nNew gTLD Program Committee\nPublic and Stakeholder Engagement Committee\nBoard Meeting Type\nOrganizational\nRegular\nSpecial\nWorkshops\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nApply\nClear\nMore Search Options\nDownload results to .csv file\nExpand all\n|\nCollapse all\nUpcoming\nNo upcoming meetings.\nAugust 2026\nNo meetings this month.\nJuly 2026\n28 July 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\n20 July 2026\nSpecial Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nPreliminary Report\nJune 2026\n30 June 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n7 June 2026\nICANN Board Seville Workshop: ICANN Board – Public Engagement with GAC\nRecording\nRecording\n7 June 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 1.12 MB)\nMay 2026\n29 May 2026\nMeeting of the Risk Committee of the Board (BRC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n29 May 2026\nSecretary’s Notice of Vacancy in Board Seat 9\nAvailable Documents\nSecretary's Notice\n(pdf, 16.48 KB)\n28 May 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n28 May 2026\nMeeting of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n19 May 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n14 May 2026\nMeeting of the Strategic Planning Committee of the Board (SPC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\n12 May 2026\nMeeting of the Audit Committee of the Board (BAC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n3 May 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 57.03 MB)\n1 May 2026\nICANN Board Manchester Workshop: ICANN Board – Public Virtual Session: The domain industry from the Contracted Parties (CP) perspective\nRecording\nRecording\nApril 2026\n29 April 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n24 April 2026\nMeeting of the Technical Committee of the Board (BTC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n23 April 2026\nSecretary’s Notice of Designation of Board Seat 14 with Supporting Documentation\nAvailable Documents\nSecretary's Notice\n(pdf, 145.3 KB)\n21 April 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n20 April 2026\nMeeting of the Technical Committee of the Board (BTC)\n14 April 2026\nMeeting of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC)\nMarch 2026\n31 March 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n26 March 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n26 March 2026\nSpecial Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nPreliminary Report\n12 March 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 2.79 MB)\n8 March 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n8 March 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 2.52 MB)\nFebruary 2026\n26 February 2026\nMeeting of the Risk Committee of the Board (BRC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n26 February 2026\nSecretary's Notice of Designation of Board Seat 15 with Supporting Documentation\nAvailable Documents\nSecretary's Notice\n(pdf, 124.9 KB)\n24 February 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n23 February 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n23 February 2026\nMeeting of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n19 February 2026\nMeeting of the Strategic Planning Committee of the Board (SPC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n12 February 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n2 February 2026\nMeeting of the Technical Committee of the Board (BTC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\nJanuary 2026\n25 January 2026\nRegular Meeting of the ICANN Board\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nApproved Resolutions\nMinutes\nBoard Briefing Materials\nBoard Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 4.13 MB)\nExecutive Session Board Papers and Reference Materials\n(pdf, 92.04 KB)\n23 January 2026\nICANN Board Singapore Workshop: ICANN Board – Public Engagement with APAC\nRecording\nRecording\n16 January 2026\nMeeting of the Governance Committee of the Board (BGC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\n13 January 2026\nMeeting of the Finance Committee of the Board (BFC)\nAvailable Documents\nAgenda\nMinutes\nJump To\nUpcoming\nAugust 2026\nJuly 2026\nJune 2026\nMay 2026\nApril 2026\nMarch 2026\nFebruary 2026\nJanuary 2026\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 8018, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1193}}], "published_at": "2026-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "2026 Board Activities and Meetings", "notes": "Year found in title: '2026 Board Activities and Meetings'"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "source_id": "afe8b0cdb71078f8dadb8720", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3777", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777/", "artifact_sha256": "51ecb932c25a5a25d001e96b48a35a2b2b8e1eeac3f6a4fd7d6e85a62623ec2b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 298759, "title": "RFC 3777: IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 68054, "characters": 68054, "text": "RFC 3777: IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3777\nInfo\nRFC\n3777\n:\nIAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\nJ. Galvin\n,\nEd.\nBest Current Practice\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n7437\n.\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n5078\n,\nRFC\n5633\n,\nRFC\n5680\n,\nRFC\n6859\n.\nNetwork Working Group J. Galvin, Ed.\nRequest for Comments: 3777 eList eXpress LLC\nObsoletes:\n2727\nJune 2004\nBCP: 10\nCategory: Best Current Practice\nIAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:\nOperation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\n\nAbstract\n\nThe process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,\nconfirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self-\nconsistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at\nthe time of publication.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n2\n. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n3\n3\n. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n3\n4\n. Nominating Committee Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5\n. Nominating Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n17\n6\n. Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n23\n7\n. Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n24\n8\n. Changes From\nRFC 2727\n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n26\n9\n. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\n10\n. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n29\n11\n. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n29\nA\n. Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n30\nB\n. Nominating Committee Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n31\nAuthor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n33\nFull Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n34\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n1\n. Introduction\nThis document is a revision of and supercedes\nRFC 2727\n[\n2\n]. It is a\ncomplete specification of the process by which members of the IAB and\nIESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled as of the date of its\napproval.\n\nThe following two assumptions continue to be true of this\nspecification.\n\n1. The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Internet Research\nSteering Group (IRSG) are not a part of the process described\nhere.\n\n2. The organization (and re-organization) of the IESG is not a part\nof the process described here.\n\nThe time frames specified here use IETF meetings as a frame of\nreference. The time frames assume that the IETF meets three times\nper calendar year with approximately equal amounts of time between\nthem. The meetings are referred to as the First IETF, Second IETF,\nor Third IETF as needed.\n\nThe next section lists the words and phrases commonly used throughout\nthis document with their intended meaning.\n\nThe majority of this document is divided into four major topics as\nfollows.\n\nGeneral: This a set of rules and constraints that apply to the\nselection and confirmation process as a whole.\n\nNominating Committee Selection: This is the process by which the\nvolunteers who will serve on the committee are recognized.\n\nNominating Committee Operation: This is the set of principles, rules,\nand constraints that guide the activities of the nominating\ncommittee, including the confirmation process.\n\nMember Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting\nmember of the IESG or IAB may be questioned, perhaps resulting in\nthe removal of the sitting member.\n\nA final section describes how this document differs from its\npredecessor:\nRFC 2727\n[\n2\n].\n\nAn appendix of useful facts and practices collected from previous\nnominating committees is also included.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n2\n. Definitions\nThe following words and phrases are commonly used throughout this\ndocument. They are listed here with their intended meaning for the\nconvenience of the reader.\n\ncandidate: A nominee who has been selected to be considered for\nconfirmation by a confirming body.\n\nconfirmed candidate: A candidate that has been reviewed and approved\nby a confirming body.\n\nnominating committee term: The term begins when its members are\nofficially announced, which is expected to be prior to the Third\nIETF to ensure it is fully operational at the Third IETF. The\nterm ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings) after the next\nnominating committee's term begins.\n\nnominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or more\nopen positions of the IESG or IAB.\n\nsitting member: A person who is currently serving a term of\nmembership in the IESG, IAB or ISOC Board of Trustees.\n3\n. General\nThe following set of rules apply to the process as a whole. If\nnecessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is\nincluded.\n\n1. The completion of the annual process is due within 7 months.\n\nThe completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the\nFriday of the week before the First IETF. It is expected to begin\nat least 8 months prior to the Friday of the week before the First\nIETF.\n\nThe process officially begins with the announcement of the Chair\nof the committee. The process officially ends when all confirmed\ncandidates have been announced.\n\nThe annual process is comprised of three major components as\nfollows.\n\n1. The selection and organization of the nominating committee\nmembers.\n\n2. The selection of candidates by the nominating committee.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n3. The confirmation of the candidates.\n\nThere is an additional month set aside between when the annual\nprocess is expected to end and the term of the new candidates is\nto begin. This time may be used during unusual circumstances to\nextend the time allocated for any of the components listed above.\n\n2. The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review\neach open IESG and IAB position and to either nominate its\nincumbent or a superior candidate.\n\nAlthough there is no term limit for serving in any IESG or IAB\nposition, the nominating committee may use length of service as\none of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent.\n\nThe nominating committee does not select the open positions to be\nreviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review.\n\nThe nominating committee will be given the title of the positions\nto be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the\ncandidate that is nominated to fill each position.\n\nIncumbents must notify the nominating committee if they wish to be\nnominated.\n\nThe nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it\npresents its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as\nindicated below.\n\nA superior candidate is one who the nominating committee believes\nwould contribute in such a way as to improve or enhance the body\nto which he or she is nominated.\n\n3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is\nselected to be reviewed each year.\n\nThe intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately\none-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.\nIt is recognized that circumstances may exist that will require\nthe nominating committee to review more or less than one-half of\nthe current positions, e.g., if the IESG or IAB have re-organized\nprior to this process and created new positions, if there are an\nodd number of current positions, or if a member unexpectedly\nresigns.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year term.\n\nThe intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and\nIAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of\none-half of the members each year.\n\nThe term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-\nterm vacancy rules may be less than 2 years, as stated elsewhere\nin this document.\n\nIt is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to\nchoose one or more of the currently open positions to which it may\nassign a term of not more than 3 years in order to ensure the\nideal application of this rule in the future.\n\nIt is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to\nchoose one or more of the currently open positions that share\nresponsibilities with other positions (both those being reviewed\nand those sitting) to which it may assign a term of not more than\n3 years to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at\nthe same time.\n\nAll sitting member terms end during the First IETF meeting\ncorresponding to the end of the term for which they were\nconfirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First\nIETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for which\nthey were confirmed.\n\nFor confirmed candidates of the IESG the terms begin no later than\nwhen the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of\nthe meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day\nof the meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as\ndetermined by the mutual agreement of the currently sitting member\nand the confirmed candidate. A confirmed candidate's term may\noverlap the sitting member's term during the meeting as determined\nby their mutual agreement.\n\nFor confirmed candidates of the IAB the terms overlap with the\nterms of the sitting members for the entire week of the meeting.\n\nFor candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the\nterm begins as soon as possible after the confirmation.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n5. Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented here\nwith four qualifications.\n\nFirst, when there is only one official nominating committee, the\nbody with the mid-term vacancy relegates the responsibility to\nfill the vacancy to it. If the mid-term vacancy occurs during the\nperiod of time that the term of the prior year's nominating\ncommittee overlaps with the term of the current year's nominating\ncommittee, the body with the mid-term vacancy must relegate the\nresponsibility to fill the vacancy to the prior year's nominating\ncommittee.\n\nSecond, if it is the case that the nominating committee is\nreconvening to fill the mid-term vacancy, then the completion of\nthe candidate selection and confirmation process is due within 6\nweeks, with all other time periods otherwise unspecified prorated\naccordingly.\n\nThird, the confirming body has two weeks from the day it is\nnotified of a candidate to reject the candidate, otherwise the\ncandidate is assumed to have been confirmed.\n\nFourth, the term of the confirmed candidate will be either:\n\n1. the remainder of the term of the open position if that\nremainder is not less than one year.\n\n2. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2\nyear term if that remainder is less than one year.\n\nIn both cases a year is the period of time from a First IETF\nmeeting to the next First IETF meeting.\n\n6. All deliberations and supporting information that relates to\nspecific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are\nconfidential.\n\nThe nominating committee and confirming body members will be\nexposed to confidential information as a result of their\ndeliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and\nfrom those who provide requested supporting information. All\nmembers and all other participants are expected to handle this\ninformation in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.\n\nIt is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee\nmembers who have served on prior nominating committees to advise\nthe current committee on deliberations and results of the prior\ncommittee, as necessary and appropriate.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used\nthroughout the process. This model is characterized as follows.\n\n1. The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee of\nthe IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed.\n\nThe IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the\nexpertise desired of the candidates selected for their\nrespective open positions to the Executive Director. The\nsummaries are provided to the nominating committee for its\nconsideration.\n\n2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its\nunderstanding of the IETF community's consensus of the\nqualifications required and advises each confirming body of its\nrespective candidates.\n\n3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they\nmay at their discretion communicate with the nominating\ncommittee, and then consent to some, all, or none of the\ncandidates.\n\nThe sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates.\n\nThe Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB\ncandidates.\n\nThe confirming bodies conduct their review using all\ninformation and any means acceptable to them, including but not\nlimited to the supporting information provided by the\nnominating committee, information known personally to members\nof the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming body,\nthe results of interactions within the confirming bodies, and\nthe confirming bodies interpretation of what is in the best\ninterests of the IETF community.\n\nIf all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the\nnominating committee with respect to those open positions is\ncomplete.\n\nIf some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming\nbody are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate with\nthe nominating committee both to explain the reason why all the\ncandidates were not confirmed and to understand the nominating\ncommittee's rationale for its candidates.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nThe confirming body may reject individual candidates, in which\ncase the nominating committee must select alternate candidates\nfor the rejected candidates.\n\nAny additional time required by the nominating committee should\nnot exceed its maximum time allotment.\n\n4. A confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate\nusing a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming\nbody.\n\nIf a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision\nrule, then confirming a given candidate should require at least\none-half of the confirming body's sitting members to agree to\nthat confirmation.\n\nThe decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by\nasserting consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g., email),\nor by any other mechanism that is used to conduct the normal\nbusiness of the confirming body.\n\nRegardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any\ncandidate that is not confirmed under that rule is considered\nto be rejected.\n\nThe confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable\ntime frame. The results from the confirming body must be\nreported promptly to the nominating committee.\n\n8. The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are currently\nsitting members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an\nopen position being filled by the nominating committee.\n\nThe confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not\nautomatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position\ncurrently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy can not\nexist until, first, the candidate formally resigns from the\ncurrent position and, second, the body with the vacancy formally\ndecides for itself that it wants the nominating committee to fill\nthe mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term vacancy\ndocumented elsewhere in this document.\n\nThe resignation should be effective as of when the term of the new\nposition begins. The resignation may remain confidential to the\nIAB, IESG, and nominating committee until the confirmed candidate\nis announced for the new position. The process, according to\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 8]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nrules set out elsewhere in this document, of filling the seat\nvacated by the confirmed candidate may begin as soon as the\nvacancy is publicly announced.\n\nFilling a mid-term vacancy is a separate and independent action\nfrom the customary action of filling open positions. In\nparticular, a nominating committee must complete its job with\nrespect to filling the open positions and then separately proceed\nwith the task of filling the mid-term vacancy according to the\nrules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this\ndocument.\n\nHowever, the following exception is permitted in the case where\nthe candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member\nof the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the\nannouncements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and\nof the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by\nthat sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time as\nlong as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the\nfollowing order.\n\n* The nominating committee completes the advice and consent\nprocess for the open position being filled by the candidate\ncurrently sitting on the IAB.\n\n* The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current\nposition on the IAB.\n\n* The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the\nnominating committee fill the position.\n\n* The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating\ncommittee of the mid-term vacancy.\n\n* The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the mid-\nterm vacancy.\n\n9. All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used\nby the IETF Secretariat for its announcements, including a notice\non the IETF web site.\n\nAs of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is\nan email message to both the \"ietf\" and the \"ietf-announce\"\nmailing lists.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 9]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n4\n. Nominating Committee Selection\nThe following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating\ncommittee and the selection of its members.\n\n1. The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the\nmembers of the nominating committee is due within 3 months.\n\nThe completion of the selection and organization process is due\nat least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the\nnominating committee is fully operational and available for\ninterviews and consultation during the Third IETF.\n\n2. The term of a nominating committee is expected to be 15 months.\n\nIt is the intent of this rule that the end of a nominating\ncommittee's term overlap by approximately three months the\nbeginning of the term of the next nominating committee.\n\nThe term of a nominating committee begins when its members are\nofficially announced. The term ends at the Third IETF (not three\nmeetings), i.e., the IETF meeting after the next nominating\ncommittee's term begins.\n\nA term is expected to begin at least two months prior to the\nThird IETF to ensure the nominating committee has at least one\nmonth to get organized before preparing for the Third IETF.\n\nA nominating committee is expected to complete any work-in-\nprogress before it is dissolved at the end of its term.\n\nDuring the period of time that the terms of the nominating\ncommittees overlap, all mid-term vacancies are to be relegated to\nthe prior year's nominating committee. The prior year's\nnominating committee has no other responsibilities during the\noverlap period. At all times other than the overlap period there\nis exactly one official nominating committee and it is\nresponsible for all mid-term vacancies.\n\nWhen the prior year's nominating committee is filling a mid-term\nvacancy during the period of time that the terms overlap, the\nnominating committees operate independently. However, some\ncoordination is needed between them. Since the prior year's\nChair is a non-voting advisor to the current nominating committee\nthe coordination is expected to be straightforward.\n\n3. The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting\nvolunteers, 3 liaisons, and an advisor.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 10]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nAny committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to\nparticipate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee.\nThe addition must be approved by the committee according to its\nestablished voting mechanism. Advisors participate as\nindividuals.\n\nAny committee member may propose the addition of a liaison from\nother unrepresented organizations to participate in some or all\nof the deliberations of the committee. The addition must be\napproved by the committee according to its established voting\nmechanism. Liaisons participate as representatives of their\nrespective organizations.\n\nThe Chair is selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this\ndocument.\n\nThe 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated\nelsewhere in this document.\n\nThe IESG and IAB liaisons are selected according to rules stated\nelsewhere in this document.\n\nThe Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a liaison to\nthe nominating committee at its own discretion.\n\nThe Chair of last year's nominating committee serves as an\nadvisor according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.\n\nNone of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection of\ncandidates. They do vote on all other issues before the\ncommittee unless otherwise specified in this document.\n\n4. The Chair of the nominating committee is responsible for ensuring\nthe nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a\ntimely fashion and performs in the best interests of the IETF\ncommunity.\n\nThe Chair must be thoroughly familiar with the rules and guidance\nindicated throughout this document. The Chair must ensure the\nnominating committee completes its assigned duties in a manner\nthat is consistent with this document.\n\nThe Chair must attest by proclamation at a plenary session of the\nFirst IETF that the results of the committee represent its best\neffort and the best interests of the IETF community.\n\nThe Chair does not vote on the selection of candidates.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 11]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n5. The Internet Society President appoints the Chair, who must meet\nthe same requirements for membership in the nominating committee\nas a voting volunteer.\n\nThe nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the time\nnecessary to ensure that the nominating committee completes its\nassigned duties and to perform in the best interests of the IETF\ncommunity in that role.\n\nThe appointment is due no later than the Second IETF meeting to\nensure it can be announced during a plenary session at that\nmeeting. The completion of the appointment is necessary to\nensure the annual process can complete at the time specified\nelsewhere in this document.\n\n6. A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, may\nappoint a temporary substitute for the Chair position.\n\nThere are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise from\ntime to time that could result in a Chair being unavailable to\noversee the activities of the committee. The Chair, in\nconsultation with the Internet Society President, may appoint a\nsubstitute from a pool comprised of the liaisons currently\nserving on the committee and the prior year's Chair or designee.\n\nAny such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the\nChair of any or all responsibility for ensuring the nominating\ncommittee completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion.\n\n7. Liaisons are responsible for ensuring the nominating committee in\ngeneral and the Chair in particular execute their assigned duties\nin the best interests of the IETF community.\n\nLiaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective\norganizations during the deliberations of the committee. They\nshould provide information as requested or when they believe it\nwould be helpful to the committee.\n\nLiaisons from the IESG and IAB are expected to provide\ninformation to the nominating committee regarding the operation,\nresponsibility, and composition of their respective bodies.\n\nLiaisons are expected to convey questions from the committee to\ntheir respective organizations and responses to those questions\nto the committee, as requested by the committee.\n\nLiaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of\nTrustees (if one was appointed) are expected to review the\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 12]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\noperation and executing process of the nominating committee and\nto report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating\ncommittee immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between\nthemselves, liaisons must report it according to the dispute\nresolution process stated elsewhere in this document.\n\nLiaisons from confirming bodies are expected to assist the\ncommittee in preparing the testimony it is required to provide\nwith its candidates.\n\nLiaisons may have other nominating committee responsibilities as\nrequired by their respective organizations or requested by the\nnominating committee, except that such responsibilities may not\nconflict with any other provisions of this document.\n\nLiaisons do not vote on the selection of candidates.\n\n8. The sitting IAB and IESG members each appoint a liaison from\ntheir current membership, someone who is not sitting in an open\nposition, to serve on the nominating committee.\n\n9. An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the\ninvitation that resulted in the appointment.\n\nAdvisors do not vote on the selection of candidates.\n\n10. The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee serves as an\nadvisor to the current committee.\n\nThe prior year's Chair is expected to review the actions and\nactivities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or\nissues to the nominating committee Chair immediately. If they\ncan not resolve the issue between themselves, the prior year's\nChair must report it according to the dispute resolution process\nstated elsewhere in this document.\n\nThe prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed\nof the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all\nprior Chairs if the Chair is unavailable. If the prior year's\nChair is unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a\ndesignation in a timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's\ncommittee may select a designee in consultation with the Internet\nSociety President.\n\nSelecting a prior year's committee member as the designee permits\nthe experience of the prior year's deliberations to be readily\navailable to the current committee. Selecting an earlier prior\nyear Chair as the designee permits the experience of being a\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 13]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nChair as well as that Chair's committee deliberations to be\nreadily available to the current committee.\n\nAll references to \"prior year's Chair\" in this document refer to\nthe person serving in that role, whether it is the actual prior\nyear's Chair or a designee.\n\n11. Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the\nnominating committee in a timely fashion.\n\nEach voting volunteer is expected to participate in all\nactivities of the nominating committee with a level of effort\napproximately equal to all other voting volunteers. Specific\ntasks to be completed are established and managed by the Chair\naccording to rules stated elsewhere in this document.\n\n12. The Chair must establish and announce milestones for the\nselection of the nominating committee members.\n\nThere is a defined time period during which the selection process\nis due to be completed. The Chair must establish a set of\nmilestones which, if met in a timely fashion, will result in the\ncompletion of the process on time.\n\n13. The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be\nreviewed and announces it along with a solicitation for names of\nvolunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on the\nnominating committee.\n\nThe solicitation must permit the community at least 30 days\nduring which they may choose to volunteer to be selected for the\nnominating committee.\n\nThe list of open positions is published with the solicitation to\nfacilitate community members choosing between volunteering for an\nopen position and volunteering for the nominating committee.\n\n14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of\nthe last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.\n\nThe 5 meetings are the five most recent meetings that ended prior\nto the date on which the solicitation for nominating committee\nvolunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.\n\nThe IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that\nvolunteers have met the attendance requirement.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 14]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nVolunteers must provide their full name, email address, and\nprimary company or organization affiliation (if any) when\nvolunteering.\n\nVolunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes\nand procedures, which are readily learned by active participation\nin a working group and especially by serving as a document editor\nor working group chair.\n\n15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting\nmembers of the IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not\nvolunteer to serve on the nominating committee.\n\n16. The Chair announces both the list of the pool of volunteers from\nwhich the 10 voting volunteers will be randomly selected and the\nmethod with which the selection will be completed.\n\nThe announcement should be made at least 1 week prior to the date\non which the random selection will occur.\n\nThe pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated\naccording to the needs of the selection method to be used.\n\nThe announcement must specify the data that will be used as input\nto the selection method. The method must depend on random data\nwhose value is not known or available until the date on which the\nrandom selection will occur.\n\nIt must be possible to independently verify that the selection\nmethod used is both fair and unbiased. A method is fair if each\neligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected. A method is\nunbiased if no one can influence its outcome in favor of a\nspecific outcome.\n\nIt must be possible to repeat the selection method, either\nthrough iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain\nfair and unbiased. This is necessary to replace selected\nvolunteers should they become unavailable after selection.\n\nThe selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.\n\nOne possible selection method is described in\nRFC 2777\n[\n1\n].\n\n17. The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool\nof names of volunteers and announces the members of the\nnominating committee.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 15]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nNo more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may\nbe selected for the nominating committee. The Chair reviews the\nprimary affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in\nturn. If the primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as\ntwo previously selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed\nfrom consideration and the method is repeated to identify the\nnext eligible volunteer.\n\nThere must be at least two announcements of all members of the\nnominating committee.\n\nThe first announcement should occur as soon after the random\nselection as is reasonable for the Chair. The community must\nhave at least 1 week during which any member may challenge the\nresults of the random selection.\n\nThe challenge must be made in writing (email is acceptable) to\nthe Chair. The Chair has 48 hours to review the challenge and\noffer a resolution to the member. If the resolution is not\naccepted by the member, that member may report the challenge\naccording to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in\nthis document.\n\nIf a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the\nlist of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other\nvolunteers have the same affiliation, then the volunteer should\nnotify the Chair who will determine the appropriate action.\n\nDuring at least the 1 week challenge period the Chair must\ncontact each of the members and confirm their willingness and\navailability to serve. The Chair should make every reasonable\neffort to contact each member.\n\n* If the Chair is unable to contact a liaison the problem is\nreferred to the respective organization to resolve. The Chair\nshould allow a reasonable amount of time for the organization\nto resolve the problem and then may proceed without the\nliaison.\n\n* If the Chair is unable to contact an advisor the Chair may\nelect to proceed without the advisor, except for the prior\nyear's Chair for whom the Chair must consult with the Internet\nSociety President as stated elsewhere in this document.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 16]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n* If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer the Chair\nmust repeat the random selection process in order to replace\nthe unavailable volunteer. There should be at least 1 day\nbetween the announcement of the iteration and the selection\nprocess.\n\nAfter at least 1 week and confirming that 10 voting volunteers\nare ready to serve, the Chair makes the second announcement of\nthe members of the nominating committee, which officially begins\nthe term of the nominating committee.\n\n18. The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize\nitself in preparation for completing its assigned duties.\n\nThe committee has approximately one month during which it can\nself-organize. Its responsibilities during this time include but\nare not limited to the following.\n\n* Setting up a regular teleconference schedule.\n\n* Setting up an internal web site.\n\n* Setting up a mailing list for internal discussions.\n\n* Setting up an email address for receiving community input.\n\n* Establishing operational procedures.\n\n* Establishing milestones in order to monitor the progress of\nthe selection process.\n5\n. Nominating Committee Operation\nThe following rules apply to the operation of the nominating\ncommittee. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation\nof each rule is included.\n\nThe rules are organized approximately in the order in which they\nwould be invoked.\n\n1. All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are\nat the discretion of the committee.\n\nExceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the\nnormal operation of the nominating committee. This rule is\nintended to foster the continued forward progress of the\ncommittee.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 17]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nAny member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by\nthe committee. The rule must be approved by the committee\naccording to its established voting mechanism.\n\nAll members of the committee should consider whether the\nexception is worthy of mention in the next revision of this\ndocument and follow-up accordingly.\n\n2. The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be\nconfirmed by their respective confirming body is due within 3\nmonths.\n\nThe completion of the selection process is due at least two\nmonth's prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating\ncommittee has sufficient time to complete the confirmation\nprocess.\n\n3. The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due\nwithin 1 month.\n\nThe completion of the confirmation process is due at least one\nmonth prior to the First IETF.\n\n4. The Chair must establish for the nominating committee a set of\nmilestones for the candidate selection and confirmation process.\n\nThere is a defined time period during which the candidate\nselection and confirmation process must be completed. The Chair\nmust establish a set of milestones which, if met in a timely\nfashion, will result in the completion of the process on time.\nThe Chair should allow time for iterating the activities of the\ncommittee if one or more candidates is not confirmed.\n\nThe Chair should ensure that all committee members are aware of\nthe milestones.\n\n5. The Chair must establish a voting mechanism.\n\nThe committee must be able to objectively determine when a\ndecision has been made during its deliberations. The criteria\nfor determining closure must be established and known to all\nmembers of the nominating committee.\n\n6. At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a\nvote.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 18]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nOnly voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection. For a\ncandidate selection vote a quorum is comprised of at least 7 of\nthe voting volunteers.\n\nAt all other times a quorum is present if at least 75% of the\nnominating committee members are participating.\n\n7. Any member of the nominating committee may propose to the\ncommittee that any other member except the Chair be recalled.\nThe process for recalling the Chair is defined elsewhere in this\ndocument.\n\nThere are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise that\ncould result in one or more members of the committee being\nunavailable to complete their assigned duties, for example health\nconcerns, family issues, or a change of priorities at work. A\ncommittee member may choose to resign for unspecified personal\nreasons. In addition, the committee may not function well as a\ngroup because a member may be disruptive or otherwise\nuncooperative.\n\nRegardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members\ncan not work out their differences between themselves, the entire\ncommittee may be called upon to discuss and review the\ncircumstances. If a resolution is not forthcoming a vote may be\nconducted. A member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all\ncommittee members agree, including the vote of the member being\nrecalled.\n\nIf a liaison member is recalled the committee must notify the\naffected organization and must allow a reasonable amount of time\nfor a replacement to be identified by the organization before\nproceeding.\n\nIf an advisor member other than the prior year's Chair is\nrecalled, the committee may choose to proceed without the\nadvisor. In the case of the prior year's Chair, the Internet\nSociety President must be notified and the current Chair must be\nallowed a reasonable amount of time to consult with the Internet\nSociety President to identify a replacement before proceeding.\n\nIf a single voting volunteer position on the nominating committee\nis vacated, regardless of the circumstances, the committee may\nchoose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own\ndiscretion. In all other cases a new voting member must be\nselected, and the Chair must repeat the random selection process\nincluding an announcement of the iteration prior to the actual\nselection as stated elsewhere in this document.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 19]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nA change in the primary affiliation of a voting volunteer during\nthe term of the nominating committee is not a cause to request\nthe recall of that volunteer, even if the change would result in\nmore than two voting volunteers with the same affiliation.\n\n8. Only the prior year's Chair may request the recall of the current\nChair.\n\nIt is the responsibility of the prior year's Chair to ensure the\ncurrent Chair completes the assigned tasks in a manner consistent\nwith this document and in the best interests of the IETF\ncommunity.\n\nAny member of the committee who has an issue or concern regarding\nthe Chair should report it to the prior year's Chair immediately.\nThe prior year's Chair is expected to report it to the Chair\nimmediately. If they can not resolve the issue between\nthemselves, the prior year's Chair must report it according to\nthe dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.\n\n9. All members of the nominating committee may participate in all\ndeliberations.\n\nThe emphasis of this rule is that no member can be explicitly\nexcluded from any deliberation. However, a member may\nindividually choose not to participate in a deliberation.\n\n10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the\ndesired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and\nthe call for nominees.\n\nThe call for nominees must include a request for comments\nregarding the past performance of incumbents, which will be\nconsidered during the deliberations of the nominating committee.\n\nThe call must request that a nomination include a valid, working\nemail address, a telephone number, or both for the nominee. The\nnomination must include the set of skills or expertise the\nnominator believes the nominee has that would be desirable.\n\n11. Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the\nIETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve\nwill be confirmed by the nominating committee.\n\nA self-nomination is permitted.\n\nNominating committee members are not eligible to be considered\nfor filling any open position by the nominating committee on\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 20]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nwhich they serve. They become ineligible as soon as the term of\nthe nominating committee on which they serve officially begins.\nThey remain ineligible for the duration of that nominating\ncommittee's term.\n\nAlthough each nominating committee's term overlaps with the\nfollowing nominating committee's term, nominating committee\nmembers are eligible for nomination by the following committee if\nnot otherwise disqualified.\n\nMembers of the IETF community who were recalled from any IESG or\nIAB position during the previous two years are not eligible to be\nconsidered for filling any open position.\n\n12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its\nunderstanding of the IETF community's consensus of the\nqualifications required to fill the open positions.\n\nThe intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating\ncommittee consults with a broad base of the IETF community for\ninput to its deliberations. In particular, the nominating\ncommittee must determine if the desired expertise for the open\npositions matches its understanding of the qualifications desired\nby the IETF community.\n\nThe consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if\nall parties to the consultation agree to observe the same\nconfidentiality rules as the nominating committee itself.\n\nA broad base of the community should include the existing members\nof the IAB and IESG, especially sitting members who share\nresponsibilities with open positions, e.g., co-Area Directors,\nand working group chairs, especially those in the areas with open\npositions.\n\nOnly voting volunteer members vote to select candidates.\n\n13. Nominees should be advised that they are being considered and\nmust consent to their nomination prior to being chosen as\ncandidates.\n\nAlthough the nominating committee will make every reasonable\neffort to contact and to remain in contact with nominees, any\nnominee whose contact information changes during the process and\nwho wishes to still be considered should inform the nominating\ncommittee of the changes.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 21]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nA nominee's consent must be written (email is acceptable) and\nmust include a commitment to provide the resources necessary to\nfill the open position and an assurance that the nominee will\nperform the duties of the position for which they are being\nconsidered in the best interests of the IETF community.\n\nConsenting to a nomination must occur prior to a nominee being a\ncandidate and may occur as soon after the nomination as needed by\nthe nominating committee.\n\nConsenting to a nomination must not imply the nominee will be a\ncandidate.\n\nThe nominating committee should help nominees provide\njustification to their employers.\n\n14. The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their\ncandidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position\nand testifying as to how each candidate meets the qualifications\nof an open position.\n\nFor each candidate, the testimony must include a brief statement\nof the qualifications for the position that is being filled,\nwhich may be exactly the expertise that was requested. If the\nqualifications differ from the expertise originally requested a\nbrief statement explaining the difference must be included.\n\nThe testimony may include either or both of a brief resume of the\ncandidate and a brief summary of the deliberations of the\nnominating committee.\n\n15. Confirmed candidates must consent to their confirmation and\nrejected candidates and nominees must be notified before\nconfirmed candidates are announced.\n\nIt is not necessary to notify and get consent from all confirmed\ncandidates together.\n\nA nominee may not know they were a candidate. This permits a\ncandidate to be rejected by a confirming body without the nominee\nknowing about the rejection.\n\nRejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and\nrejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the\nconfirmed candidates.\n\nIt is not necessary to announce all confirmed candidates\ntogether.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 22]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nThe nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed\ncandidates are prepared to serve prior to announcing their\nconfirmation.\n\n16. The nominating committee should archive the information it has\ncollected or produced for a period of time not to exceed its\nterm.\n\nThe purpose of the archive is to assist the nominating committee\nshould it be necessary for it to fill a mid-term vacancy.\n\nThe existence of an archive, how it is implemented, and what\ninformation to archive is at the discretion of the committee.\nThe decision must be approved by a quorum of the voting volunteer\nmembers.\n\nThe implementation of the archive should make every reasonable\neffort to ensure that the confidentiality of the information it\ncontains is maintained.\n6\n. Dispute Resolution Process\nThe dispute resolution process described here is to be used as\nindicated elsewhere in this document. Its applicability in other\ncircumstances is beyond the scope of this document.\n\nThe nominating committee operates under a strict rule of\nconfidentiality. For this reason when process issues arise it is\nbest to make every reasonable effort to resolve them within the\ncommittee. However, when circumstances do not permit this or no\nresolution is forthcoming, the process described here is to be used.\n\nThe following rules apply to the process.\n\n1. The results of this process are final and binding. There is no\nappeal.\n\n2. The process begins with the submission of a request as described\nbelow to the Internet Society President.\n\n3. As soon as the process begins, the nominating committee may\ncontinue those activities that are unrelated to the issue to be\nresolved except that it must not submit any candidates to a\nconfirming body until the issue is resolved.\n\n4. All parties to the process are subject to the same\nconfidentiality rules as each member of the nominating committee.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 23]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n5. The process should be completed within two weeks.\n\nThe process is as follows:\n\n1. The party seeking resolution submits a written request (email is\nacceptable) to the Internet Society President detailing the issue\nto be resolved.\n\n2. The Internet Society President appoints an arbiter to investigate\nand resolve the issue. A self-appointment is permitted.\n\n3. The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort\nto understand both sides of the issue. Since the arbiter is\nsubject to the same confidentiality obligations as all nominating\ncommittee members, all members are expected to cooperate fully\nwith the arbiter and to provide all relevant information to the\narbiter for review.\n\n4. After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue,\nthe arbiter decides on a resolution. Whatever actions are\nnecessary to execute the resolution are immediately begun and\ncompleted as quickly as possible.\n\n5. The arbiter summarizes the issue, the resolution, and the\nrationale for the resolution for the Internet Society President.\n\n6. In consultation with the Internet Society President, the arbiter\nprepares a report of the dispute and its resolution. The report\nshould include all information that in the judgment of the\narbiter does not violate the confidentiality requirements of the\nnominating committee.\n\n7. The Chair includes the dispute report when reporting on the\nactivities of the nominating committee to the IETF community.\n7\n. Member Recall\nThe following rules apply to the recall process. If necessary, a\nparagraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.\n\n1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are\nqualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may\nrequest by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet\nSociety President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member.\n\nAll individual and collective qualifications of nominating\ncommittee eligibility are applicable, including that no more than\ntwo signatories may have the same primary affiliation.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 24]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nEach signature must include a full name, email address, and\nprimary company or organization affiliation.\n\nThe IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each\nsignatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating\ncommittee. A valid petition must be signed by at least 20\nqualified signatories.\n\nThe petition must include a statement of justification for the\nrecall and all relevant and appropriate supporting documentation.\n\nThe petition and its signatories must be announced to the IETF\ncommunity.\n\n2. Internet Society President shall appoint a Recall Committee\nChair.\n\nThe Internet Society President must not evaluate the recall\nrequest. It is explicitly the responsibility of the IETF\ncommunity to evaluate the behavior of its leaders.\n\n3. The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is\nthe nominating committee with the qualifications that both the\nperson being investigated and the parties requesting the recall\nmust not be a member of the recall committee in any capacity.\n\n4. The recall committee operates according to the same rules as the\nnominating committee with the qualification that there is no\nconfirmation process.\n\n5. The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the\njustification for the recall and votes on its findings.\n\nThe investigation must include at least both an opportunity for\nthe member being recalled to present a written statement and\nconsultation with third parties.\n\n6. A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is\nrequired for a recall.\n\n7. If a sitting member is recalled the open position is to be filled\naccording to the mid-term vacancy rules.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 25]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n8\n. Changes From\nRFC 2727\nThis section describes the substantive changes from\nRFC 2727\n, listed\napproximately in the order in which they appear in the document.\n\n1. A section with definitions for words and phrases used throughout\nthe document was inserted.\n\n2. The role of term limits as a selection criterion was clarified.\n\n3. The nominating committee must now be provided with a brief\ndescription of the desirable expertise for each candidate to be\nnominated for each position.\n\n4. Because of the overlapping terms of successive nominating\ncommittees, the specific committee responsible for a mid-term\nvacancy was specified.\n\n5. The characterization of the advice and consent model was revised\nto permit the confirming body to communicate with the nominating\ncommittee during the approval process.\n\n6. A general rule was added to define that all announcements are\nmade with the usual IETF Secretariat mechanism.\n\n7. Details regarding the expected timeline of the selection and\noperation of the committee were made even more explicit. An\nAppendix was added that captures all the details for the\nconvenience of the reader.\n\n8. The term of the nominating committee was extended to\napproximately 15 months such that it explicitly overlaps by\napproximately 3 months the next year's nominating committee's\nterm.\n\n9. The terms voting member and non-voting member were replaced by\nvoting volunteers, liaisons, and advisors. All members vote at\nall times except that only voting volunteers vote on a candidate\nselection.\n\n10. The responsibilities of the Chair, liaisons, advisors, and voting\nvolunteers is now explicitly stated.\n\n11. Processes for recalling members of the committee were added.\n\n12. Liaisons and advisors are no longer required to meet the usual\nrequirements for nominating committee membership.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 26]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n13. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a non-voting\nliaison.\n\n14. The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee were\nchanged to require attendance at 3 out of 5 of the last five\nmeetings, to require volunteers to submit identifying contact\ninformation, and to request that volunteers be familiar with IETF\nprocesses and procedures.\n\n15. Some additional clarification was added to the method used to\nselect volunteers.\n\n16. The process for selecting the 10 voting volunteers had several\nclarifications and additional requirements added, including a\nchallenge process and the requirement to disallow more than two\nvolunteers with the same primary affiliation.\n\n17. Nominations for open positions should include both contact\ninformation and a description of the skills or expertise the\nnominator believes the nominee possesses.\n\n18. Nominees are requested to keep the nominating committee informed\nof changes in their contact information. Editorially, the\ndistinction between a nominee and candidate was emphasized.\n\n19. A description of a testimony to be provided with each candidate\nto a confirming body by the nominating committee is specified.\n\n20. The rules regarding the announcement of confirmed candidates were\nsubstantially rewritten to make it easier to understand.\n\n21. The nominating committee is permitted to keep an archive for the\nduration of its term of the information it collects and produces\nfor its own internal use.\n\n22. A dispute resolution process for addressing process concerns was\nadded.\n\n23. The process for recalling a sitting member of the IAB and IESG\nrequires at least 20 eligible members of the IETF community to\nsign a petition requesting the recall.\n\n24. The section on Security Considerations was expanded.\n\n25.\nAppendix A\n, Oral Tradition, has been added.\n\n26.\nAppendix B\n, Nominating Committee Timeline, has been added as a\nconvenience to the reader.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 27]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n9\n. Acknowledgements\nThere have been a number of people involved with the development of\nthis document over the years as it has progressed from\nRFC 2027\nthrough\nRFC 2282\n[\n3\n] and\nRFC 2727\n[\n2\n] to its current version.\n\nA great deal of credit goes to the first three Nominating Committee\nChairs:\n\n1993 - Jeff Case\n\n1994 - Fred Baker\n\n1995 - John Curran\n\nwho had the pleasure of operating without the benefit of a documented\nprocess. It was their fine work and oral tradition that became the\nfirst version of this document.\n\nOf course we can not overlook the bug discovery burden that each of\nthe Chairs since the first publication have had to endure:\n\n1996 - Guy Almes\n\n1997 - Geoff Huston\n\n1998 - Mike St. Johns\n\n1999 - Donald Eastlake\n\n2000 - Avri Doria\n\n2001 - Bernard Adoba\n\n2002 - Ted T'so\n\n2003 - Phil Roberts\n\nThe bulk of the early credit goes to the members of the POISSON\nWorking Group, previously the POISED Working Group. The prose here\nwould not be what it is were it not for the attentive and insightful\nreview of its members. Specific acknowledgement must be extended to\nScott Bradner and John Klensin, who consistently contributed to the\nimprovement of the first three versions of this document.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 28]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nIn January 2002, a new working group was formed, the Nominating\nCommittee Working Group (nomcom), to revise the\nRFC 2727\nversion.\nThis working group was guided by the efforts of a design team whose\nmembers were as follows:\n\nBernard Adoba\n\nHarald Alvestrand - Chair of the IETF\n\nLeslie Daigle - Chair of the IAB\n\nAvri Doria - Chair of the Working Group\n\nJames Galvin - Editor of the Document\n\nJoel Halpern\n\nThomas Narten\n10\n. Security Considerations\nAny selection, confirmation, or recall process necessarily involves\ninvestigation into the qualifications and activities of prospective\ncandidates. The investigation may reveal confidential or otherwise\nprivate information about candidates to those participating in the\nprocess. Each person who participates in any aspect of the process\nmust maintain the confidentiality of any and all information not\nexplicitly identified as suitable for public dissemination.\n\nWhen the nominating committee decides it is necessary to share\nconfidential or otherwise private information with others, the\ndissemination must be minimal and must include a prior commitment\nfrom all persons consulted to observe the same confidentiality rules\nas the nominating committee itself.\n11\n. Informative References\n[\n1\n] Eastlake, 3rd, D., \"Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee\n(Nomcom) Random Selection\",\nRFC 3797\n, June 2004.\n\n[\n2\n] Galvin, J., \"IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall\nProcess: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\",\nBCP\n10\n,\nRFC 2727\n, February 2000.\n\n[\n3\n] Galvin, J., \"IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall\nProcess: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\",\nBCP\n10\n,\nRFC 2282\n, February 1998.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 29]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nAppendix A\n. Oral Tradition\nOver the years various nominating committees have learned through\noral tradition passed on by liaisons that there are certain\nconsistencies in the process and information considered during\ndeliberations. Some items from that oral tradition are collected\nhere to facilitate its consideration by future nominating committees.\n\n1. It has been found that experience as an IETF Working Group Chair\nor an IRTF Research Group Chair is helpful in giving a nominee\nexperience of what the job of an Area Director involves. It also\nhelps a nominating committee judge the technical, people, and\nprocess management skills of the nominee.\n\n2. No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director,\nexcept the IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area\nDirector of the General Area are set out elsewhere.\n\n3. The strength of the IAB is found in part in the balance of the\ndemographics of its members (e.g., national distribution, years\nof experience, gender, etc.), the combined skill set of its\nmembers, and the combined sectors (e.g., industry, academia,\netc.) represented by its members.\n\n4. There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of\ncontinuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year\naccording to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is\nunderstood by each nominating committee.\n\n5. The number of nominating committee members with the same primary\naffiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of\nimproper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF. Rather\nthan defining precise rules for how to define \"affiliation\", the\nIETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the\nparticipants to make the process work.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 30]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nAppendix B\n. Nominating Committee Timeline\nThis appendix is included for the convenience of the reader and is\nnot to be interpreted as the definitive timeline. It is intended to\ncapture the detail described elsewhere in this document in one place.\nAlthough every effort has been made to ensure the description here is\nconsistent with the description elsewhere, if there are any conflicts\nthe definitive rule is the one in the main body of this document.\n\nThe only absolute in the timeline rules for the annual process is\nthat its completion is due by the First IETF of the year after the\nnominating committee begins its term. This is supported by the fact\nthat the confirmed candidate terms begin during the week of the First\nIETF.\n\nThe overall annual process is designed to be completed in 7 months.\nIt is expected to start 8 months prior to the First IETF. The 7\nmonths is split between three major components of the process as\nfollows.\n\n1. First is the selection and organization of the committee members.\nThree months are allotted for this process.\n\n2. Second is the selection of the candidates by the nominating\ncommittee. Three months are allotted for this process.\n\n3. Third is the confirmation of the candidates by their respective\nconfirming bodies. One month is allotted for this process.\n\nThe following figure captures the details of the milestones within\neach component. For illustrative purposes the figure presumes the\nFriday before the First IETF is March 1.\n\n0. BEGIN 8 Months Prior to First IETF (approx. July 1); Internet\nSociety President appoints the Chair. The appointment must be\ndone no later than the Second IETF or 8 months prior to the First\nIETF, whichever comes first. The Chair must be announced and\nrecognized during a plenary session of the Second IETF.\n\n1. The Chair establishes and announces milestones to ensure the\ntimely selection of the nominating committee members.\n\n2. The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of\nTrustees and requests a liaison. The Chair contacts the prior\nyear's Chair and requests an advisor. The Chair obtains the list\nof IESG and IAB open positions and descriptions from the IETF\nExecutive Director.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 31]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n3. The Chair announces the solicitation for voting volunteer members\nthat must remain open for at least 30 days. The announcement\nmust be done no later than 7 months and 2 weeks prior to the\nFirst IETF (approx. July 15).\n\n4. After the solicitation closes the Chair announces the pool of\nvolunteers and the date of the random selection, which must be at\nleast 1 week in the future. The announcement must be done no\nlater than 6 months and 2 weeks prior to the First IETF (approx.\nAugust 15).\n\n5. On the appointed day the random selection occurs and the Chair\nannounces the members of the committee and the 1 week challenge\nperiod. The announcement must be done no later than 6 months and\n1 week prior to the First IETF (approx. August 22).\n\n6. During the challenge period the Chair contacts each of the\ncommittee members and confirms their availability to participate.\n\n7. After the challenge period closes the Chair announces the members\nof the committee and its term begins. The announcement must be\ndone no later than 6 months prior to the First IETF (approx.\nSeptember 1).\n\n8. The committee has one month during which it is to self-organize\nin preparation for completing its assigned duties. This must be\ndone no later than 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx.\nOctober 1).\n\n9. END the Committee Member Selection Process; BEGIN the Selection\nof Candidates; Time is at least 5 months prior to the First IETF\n(approx. October 1).\n\n10. The Chair establishes and announces the milestones to ensure the\ntimely selection of the candidates, including a call for\nnominations for the open positions. The announcement must be\ndone no later than 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx.\nOctober 1).\n\n11. Over the next 3 months the nominating committee collects input\nand deliberates. It should plan to conduct interviews and other\nconsultations during the Third IETF. The committee is due to\ncomplete its candidate selection no later than 2 months prior to\nthe First IETF (approx. January 1).\n\n12. END the Selection of Candidates; BEGIN the Confirmation of\nCandidates; Time is at least 2 months prior to the First IETF\n(approx. January 1);\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 32]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n13. The committee presents its candidates to their respective\nconfirming bodies. The presentation must be done no later than 2\nmonths prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1).\n\n14. The confirming bodies have 1 month to deliberate and, in\ncommunication with the nominating committee, accept or reject\ncandidates.\n\n15. The Chair announces the confirmed candidates. The announcement\nmust be done no later than 1 month prior to the First IETF\n(approx. February 1).\n\nAuthor's Address\n\nJames M. Galvin (editor)\neList eXpress LLC\n607 Trixsam Road\nSykesville, MD 21784\nUS\n\nPhone: +1 410-549-4619\nFax: +1 410-795-7978\nEMail: galvin+ietf@elistx.com\nURI:\nhttp://www.elistx.com/\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 33]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject\nto the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in\nBCP 78\n, and\nexcept as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein are provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS\nOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,\nINCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE\nINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nIntellectual Property\n\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has\nmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information\non the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be\nfound in\nBCP 78\nand\nBCP 79\n.\n\nCopies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any\nassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an\nattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of\nsuch proprietary rights by implementers or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at\nhttp://www.ietf.org/ipr\n.\n\nThe IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights that may cover technology that may be required to implement\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-\nipr@ietf.org.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 34]\nRFC\n3777\n: IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\nBest Current Practice\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n7437\nIAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n2\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. Definitions\n3. General\n4. Nominating Committee Selection\n5. Nominating Committee Operation\n6. Dispute Resolution Process\n7. Member Recall\n8. Changes From RFC 2727\n9. Acknowledgements\n10. Security Considerations\n11. Informative References\nAppendix A. Oral Tradition\nAppendix B. Nominating Committee Timeline\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "7e7bbf6b-fb98-4423-84a3-37be5cd3bd0d", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 3777: IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3777\nInfo\nRFC\n3777\n:\nIAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\nJ. Galvin\n,\nEd.\nBest Current Practice\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n7437\n.\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n5078\n,\nRFC\n5633\n,\nRFC\n5680\n,\nRFC\n6859\n.\nNetwork Working Group J. Galvin, Ed.\nRequest for Comments: 3777 eList eXpress LLC\nObsoletes:\n2727\nJune 2004\nBCP: 10\nCategory: Best Current Practice\nIAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:\nOperation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\n\nAbstract\n\nThe process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,\nconfirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self-\nconsistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at\nthe time of publication.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n2\n. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n3\n3\n. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n3\n4\n. Nominating Committee Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5\n. Nominating Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n17\n6\n. Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n23\n7\n. Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n24\n8\n. Changes From\nRFC 2727\n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n26\n9\n. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\n10\n. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n29\n11\n. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n29\nA\n. Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n30\nB\n. Nominating Committee Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n31\nAuthor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n33\nFull Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n34\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n1\n. Introduction\nThis document is a revision of and supercedes\nRFC 2727\n[\n2\n]. It is a\ncomplete specification of the process by which members of the IAB and\nIESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled as of the date of its\napproval.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2615, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 653}}, {"segment_id": "5841c27b-d8c6-4284-98fd-e1f4cfd98740", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 1, "text": "The following two assumptions continue to be true of this\nspecification.\n\n1. The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Internet Research\nSteering Group (IRSG) are not a part of the process described\nhere.\n\n2. The organization (and re-organization) of the IESG is not a part\nof the process described here.\n\nThe time frames specified here use IETF meetings as a frame of\nreference. The time frames assume that the IETF meets three times\nper calendar year with approximately equal amounts of time between\nthem. The meetings are referred to as the First IETF, Second IETF,\nor Third IETF as needed.\n\nThe next section lists the words and phrases commonly used throughout\nthis document with their intended meaning.\n\nThe majority of this document is divided into four major topics as\nfollows.\n\nGeneral: This a set of rules and constraints that apply to the\nselection and confirmation process as a whole.\n\nNominating Committee Selection: This is the process by which the\nvolunteers who will serve on the committee are recognized.\n\nNominating Committee Operation: This is the set of principles, rules,\nand constraints that guide the activities of the nominating\ncommittee, including the confirmation process.\n\nMember Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting\nmember of the IESG or IAB may be questioned, perhaps resulting in\nthe removal of the sitting member.\n\nA final section describes how this document differs from its\npredecessor:\nRFC 2727\n[\n2\n].\n\nAn appendix of useful facts and practices collected from previous\nnominating committees is also included.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n2\n. Definitions\nThe following words and phrases are commonly used throughout this\ndocument. They are listed here with their intended meaning for the\nconvenience of the reader.", "char_start": 2617, "char_end": 4443, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 296}}, {"segment_id": "ee700187-e9dc-447f-bd86-3f2a978c6497", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 2, "text": "candidate: A nominee who has been selected to be considered for\nconfirmation by a confirming body.\n\nconfirmed candidate: A candidate that has been reviewed and approved\nby a confirming body.\n\nnominating committee term: The term begins when its members are\nofficially announced, which is expected to be prior to the Third\nIETF to ensure it is fully operational at the Third IETF. The\nterm ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings) after the next\nnominating committee's term begins.\n\nnominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or more\nopen positions of the IESG or IAB.\n\nsitting member: A person who is currently serving a term of\nmembership in the IESG, IAB or ISOC Board of Trustees.\n3\n. General\nThe following set of rules apply to the process as a whole. If\nnecessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is\nincluded.\n\n1. The completion of the annual process is due within 7 months.\n\nThe completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the\nFriday of the week before the First IETF. It is expected to begin\nat least 8 months prior to the Friday of the week before the First\nIETF.\n\nThe process officially begins with the announcement of the Chair\nof the committee. The process officially ends when all confirmed\ncandidates have been announced.\n\nThe annual process is comprised of three major components as\nfollows.\n\n1. The selection and organization of the nominating committee\nmembers.\n\n2. The selection of candidates by the nominating committee.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n3. The confirmation of the candidates.\n\nThere is an additional month set aside between when the annual\nprocess is expected to end and the term of the new candidates is\nto begin. This time may be used during unusual circumstances to\nextend the time allocated for any of the components listed above.", "char_start": 4445, "char_end": 6320, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 321}}, {"segment_id": "c0196ca7-bbde-4534-93cc-3cc73f56833e", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 3, "text": "2. The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review\neach open IESG and IAB position and to either nominate its\nincumbent or a superior candidate.\n\nAlthough there is no term limit for serving in any IESG or IAB\nposition, the nominating committee may use length of service as\none of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent.\n\nThe nominating committee does not select the open positions to be\nreviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review.\n\nThe nominating committee will be given the title of the positions\nto be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the\ncandidate that is nominated to fill each position.\n\nIncumbents must notify the nominating committee if they wish to be\nnominated.\n\nThe nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it\npresents its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as\nindicated below.\n\nA superior candidate is one who the nominating committee believes\nwould contribute in such a way as to improve or enhance the body\nto which he or she is nominated.\n\n3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is\nselected to be reviewed each year.\n\nThe intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately\none-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.\nIt is recognized that circumstances may exist that will require\nthe nominating committee to review more or less than one-half of\nthe current positions, e.g., if the IESG or IAB have re-organized\nprior to this process and created new positions, if there are an\nodd number of current positions, or if a member unexpectedly\nresigns.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year term.\n\nThe intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and\nIAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of\none-half of the members each year.", "char_start": 6322, "char_end": 8235, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 329}}, {"segment_id": "81a14ba8-87ae-4120-b27e-a014dddffe74", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 4, "text": "The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-\nterm vacancy rules may be less than 2 years, as stated elsewhere\nin this document.\n\nIt is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to\nchoose one or more of the currently open positions to which it may\nassign a term of not more than 3 years in order to ensure the\nideal application of this rule in the future.\n\nIt is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to\nchoose one or more of the currently open positions that share\nresponsibilities with other positions (both those being reviewed\nand those sitting) to which it may assign a term of not more than\n3 years to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at\nthe same time.\n\nAll sitting member terms end during the First IETF meeting\ncorresponding to the end of the term for which they were\nconfirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First\nIETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for which\nthey were confirmed.\n\nFor confirmed candidates of the IESG the terms begin no later than\nwhen the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of\nthe meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day\nof the meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as\ndetermined by the mutual agreement of the currently sitting member\nand the confirmed candidate. A confirmed candidate's term may\noverlap the sitting member's term during the meeting as determined\nby their mutual agreement.\n\nFor confirmed candidates of the IAB the terms overlap with the\nterms of the sitting members for the entire week of the meeting.\n\nFor candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the\nterm begins as soon as possible after the confirmation.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n5. Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented here\nwith four qualifications.", "char_start": 8237, "char_end": 10140, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 331}}, {"segment_id": "d9993550-d7ba-42f5-9185-0ac44872038f", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 5, "text": "First, when there is only one official nominating committee, the\nbody with the mid-term vacancy relegates the responsibility to\nfill the vacancy to it. If the mid-term vacancy occurs during the\nperiod of time that the term of the prior year's nominating\ncommittee overlaps with the term of the current year's nominating\ncommittee, the body with the mid-term vacancy must relegate the\nresponsibility to fill the vacancy to the prior year's nominating\ncommittee.\n\nSecond, if it is the case that the nominating committee is\nreconvening to fill the mid-term vacancy, then the completion of\nthe candidate selection and confirmation process is due within 6\nweeks, with all other time periods otherwise unspecified prorated\naccordingly.\n\nThird, the confirming body has two weeks from the day it is\nnotified of a candidate to reject the candidate, otherwise the\ncandidate is assumed to have been confirmed.\n\nFourth, the term of the confirmed candidate will be either:\n\n1. the remainder of the term of the open position if that\nremainder is not less than one year.\n\n2. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2\nyear term if that remainder is less than one year.\n\nIn both cases a year is the period of time from a First IETF\nmeeting to the next First IETF meeting.\n\n6. All deliberations and supporting information that relates to\nspecific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are\nconfidential.\n\nThe nominating committee and confirming body members will be\nexposed to confidential information as a result of their\ndeliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and\nfrom those who provide requested supporting information. All\nmembers and all other participants are expected to handle this\ninformation in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.\n\nIt is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee\nmembers who have served on prior nominating committees to advise\nthe current committee on deliberations and results of the prior\ncommittee, as necessary and appropriate.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used\nthroughout the process. This model is characterized as follows.", "char_start": 10142, "char_end": 12367, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 355}}, {"segment_id": "5f677a6a-94a0-4793-bf05-9f81b159ca6b", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 6, "text": "1. The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee of\nthe IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed.\n\nThe IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the\nexpertise desired of the candidates selected for their\nrespective open positions to the Executive Director. The\nsummaries are provided to the nominating committee for its\nconsideration.\n\n2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its\nunderstanding of the IETF community's consensus of the\nqualifications required and advises each confirming body of its\nrespective candidates.\n\n3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they\nmay at their discretion communicate with the nominating\ncommittee, and then consent to some, all, or none of the\ncandidates.\n\nThe sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates.\n\nThe Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB\ncandidates.\n\nThe confirming bodies conduct their review using all\ninformation and any means acceptable to them, including but not\nlimited to the supporting information provided by the\nnominating committee, information known personally to members\nof the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming body,\nthe results of interactions within the confirming bodies, and\nthe confirming bodies interpretation of what is in the best\ninterests of the IETF community.\n\nIf all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the\nnominating committee with respect to those open positions is\ncomplete.\n\nIf some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming\nbody are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate with\nthe nominating committee both to explain the reason why all the\ncandidates were not confirmed and to understand the nominating\ncommittee's rationale for its candidates.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nThe confirming body may reject individual candidates, in which\ncase the nominating committee must select alternate candidates\nfor the rejected candidates.", "char_start": 12369, "char_end": 14352, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 298}}, {"segment_id": "025dfb32-017b-4a9a-a8f4-8cf459efba92", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 7, "text": "Any additional time required by the nominating committee should\nnot exceed its maximum time allotment.\n\n4. A confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate\nusing a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming\nbody.\n\nIf a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision\nrule, then confirming a given candidate should require at least\none-half of the confirming body's sitting members to agree to\nthat confirmation.\n\nThe decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by\nasserting consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g., email),\nor by any other mechanism that is used to conduct the normal\nbusiness of the confirming body.\n\nRegardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any\ncandidate that is not confirmed under that rule is considered\nto be rejected.\n\nThe confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable\ntime frame. The results from the confirming body must be\nreported promptly to the nominating committee.\n\n8. The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are currently\nsitting members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an\nopen position being filled by the nominating committee.\n\nThe confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not\nautomatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position\ncurrently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy can not\nexist until, first, the candidate formally resigns from the\ncurrent position and, second, the body with the vacancy formally\ndecides for itself that it wants the nominating committee to fill\nthe mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term vacancy\ndocumented elsewhere in this document.\n\nThe resignation should be effective as of when the term of the new\nposition begins. The resignation may remain confidential to the\nIAB, IESG, and nominating committee until the confirmed candidate\nis announced for the new position. The process, according to\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 8]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nrules set out elsewhere in this document, of filling the seat\nvacated by the confirmed candidate may begin as soon as the\nvacancy is publicly announced.", "char_start": 14354, "char_end": 16487, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 342}}, {"segment_id": "c9e06974-9286-4760-b4f2-125d9f7b6cbe", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 8, "text": "Filling a mid-term vacancy is a separate and independent action\nfrom the customary action of filling open positions. In\nparticular, a nominating committee must complete its job with\nrespect to filling the open positions and then separately proceed\nwith the task of filling the mid-term vacancy according to the\nrules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this\ndocument.\n\nHowever, the following exception is permitted in the case where\nthe candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member\nof the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the\nannouncements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and\nof the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by\nthat sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time as\nlong as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the\nfollowing order.\n\n* The nominating committee completes the advice and consent\nprocess for the open position being filled by the candidate\ncurrently sitting on the IAB.\n\n* The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current\nposition on the IAB.\n\n* The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the\nnominating committee fill the position.\n\n* The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating\ncommittee of the mid-term vacancy.\n\n* The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the mid-\nterm vacancy.\n\n9. All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used\nby the IETF Secretariat for its announcements, including a notice\non the IETF web site.\n\nAs of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is\nan email message to both the \"ietf\" and the \"ietf-announce\"\nmailing lists.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 9]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n4\n. Nominating Committee Selection\nThe following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating\ncommittee and the selection of its members.", "char_start": 16489, "char_end": 18357, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 312}}, {"segment_id": "bb3a5560-23d5-4c1f-a09f-4724875b4297", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 9, "text": "1. The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the\nmembers of the nominating committee is due within 3 months.\n\nThe completion of the selection and organization process is due\nat least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the\nnominating committee is fully operational and available for\ninterviews and consultation during the Third IETF.\n\n2. The term of a nominating committee is expected to be 15 months.\n\nIt is the intent of this rule that the end of a nominating\ncommittee's term overlap by approximately three months the\nbeginning of the term of the next nominating committee.\n\nThe term of a nominating committee begins when its members are\nofficially announced. The term ends at the Third IETF (not three\nmeetings), i.e., the IETF meeting after the next nominating\ncommittee's term begins.\n\nA term is expected to begin at least two months prior to the\nThird IETF to ensure the nominating committee has at least one\nmonth to get organized before preparing for the Third IETF.\n\nA nominating committee is expected to complete any work-in-\nprogress before it is dissolved at the end of its term.\n\nDuring the period of time that the terms of the nominating\ncommittees overlap, all mid-term vacancies are to be relegated to\nthe prior year's nominating committee. The prior year's\nnominating committee has no other responsibilities during the\noverlap period. At all times other than the overlap period there\nis exactly one official nominating committee and it is\nresponsible for all mid-term vacancies.\n\nWhen the prior year's nominating committee is filling a mid-term\nvacancy during the period of time that the terms overlap, the\nnominating committees operate independently. However, some\ncoordination is needed between them. Since the prior year's\nChair is a non-voting advisor to the current nominating committee\nthe coordination is expected to be straightforward.", "char_start": 18359, "char_end": 20248, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 304}}, {"segment_id": "9feb17ca-3eb6-4a25-aa6c-58d57945e943", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 10, "text": "3. The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting\nvolunteers, 3 liaisons, and an advisor.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 10]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nAny committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to\nparticipate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee.\nThe addition must be approved by the committee according to its\nestablished voting mechanism. Advisors participate as\nindividuals.\n\nAny committee member may propose the addition of a liaison from\nother unrepresented organizations to participate in some or all\nof the deliberations of the committee. The addition must be\napproved by the committee according to its established voting\nmechanism. Liaisons participate as representatives of their\nrespective organizations.\n\nThe Chair is selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this\ndocument.\n\nThe 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated\nelsewhere in this document.\n\nThe IESG and IAB liaisons are selected according to rules stated\nelsewhere in this document.\n\nThe Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a liaison to\nthe nominating committee at its own discretion.\n\nThe Chair of last year's nominating committee serves as an\nadvisor according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.\n\nNone of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection of\ncandidates. They do vote on all other issues before the\ncommittee unless otherwise specified in this document.\n\n4. The Chair of the nominating committee is responsible for ensuring\nthe nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a\ntimely fashion and performs in the best interests of the IETF\ncommunity.\n\nThe Chair must be thoroughly familiar with the rules and guidance\nindicated throughout this document. The Chair must ensure the\nnominating committee completes its assigned duties in a manner\nthat is consistent with this document.", "char_start": 20250, "char_end": 22144, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 293}}, {"segment_id": "40747685-8a69-492c-84cc-662a4371cefd", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 11, "text": "The Chair must attest by proclamation at a plenary session of the\nFirst IETF that the results of the committee represent its best\neffort and the best interests of the IETF community.\n\nThe Chair does not vote on the selection of candidates.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 11]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n5. The Internet Society President appoints the Chair, who must meet\nthe same requirements for membership in the nominating committee\nas a voting volunteer.\n\nThe nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the time\nnecessary to ensure that the nominating committee completes its\nassigned duties and to perform in the best interests of the IETF\ncommunity in that role.\n\nThe appointment is due no later than the Second IETF meeting to\nensure it can be announced during a plenary session at that\nmeeting. The completion of the appointment is necessary to\nensure the annual process can complete at the time specified\nelsewhere in this document.\n\n6. A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, may\nappoint a temporary substitute for the Chair position.\n\nThere are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise from\ntime to time that could result in a Chair being unavailable to\noversee the activities of the committee. The Chair, in\nconsultation with the Internet Society President, may appoint a\nsubstitute from a pool comprised of the liaisons currently\nserving on the committee and the prior year's Chair or designee.\n\nAny such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the\nChair of any or all responsibility for ensuring the nominating\ncommittee completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion.\n\n7. Liaisons are responsible for ensuring the nominating committee in\ngeneral and the Chair in particular execute their assigned duties\nin the best interests of the IETF community.", "char_start": 22146, "char_end": 23978, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 299}}, {"segment_id": "a809e2a7-0392-4588-8b64-6e6433618df3", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 12, "text": "Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective\norganizations during the deliberations of the committee. They\nshould provide information as requested or when they believe it\nwould be helpful to the committee.\n\nLiaisons from the IESG and IAB are expected to provide\ninformation to the nominating committee regarding the operation,\nresponsibility, and composition of their respective bodies.\n\nLiaisons are expected to convey questions from the committee to\ntheir respective organizations and responses to those questions\nto the committee, as requested by the committee.\n\nLiaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of\nTrustees (if one was appointed) are expected to review the\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 12]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\noperation and executing process of the nominating committee and\nto report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating\ncommittee immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between\nthemselves, liaisons must report it according to the dispute\nresolution process stated elsewhere in this document.\n\nLiaisons from confirming bodies are expected to assist the\ncommittee in preparing the testimony it is required to provide\nwith its candidates.\n\nLiaisons may have other nominating committee responsibilities as\nrequired by their respective organizations or requested by the\nnominating committee, except that such responsibilities may not\nconflict with any other provisions of this document.\n\nLiaisons do not vote on the selection of candidates.\n\n8. The sitting IAB and IESG members each appoint a liaison from\ntheir current membership, someone who is not sitting in an open\nposition, to serve on the nominating committee.\n\n9. An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the\ninvitation that resulted in the appointment.", "char_start": 23980, "char_end": 25804, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 278}}, {"segment_id": "b000791f-e97f-4005-a56f-0db89b13ebdb", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 13, "text": "Advisors do not vote on the selection of candidates.\n\n10. The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee serves as an\nadvisor to the current committee.\n\nThe prior year's Chair is expected to review the actions and\nactivities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or\nissues to the nominating committee Chair immediately. If they\ncan not resolve the issue between themselves, the prior year's\nChair must report it according to the dispute resolution process\nstated elsewhere in this document.\n\nThe prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed\nof the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all\nprior Chairs if the Chair is unavailable. If the prior year's\nChair is unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a\ndesignation in a timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's\ncommittee may select a designee in consultation with the Internet\nSociety President.\n\nSelecting a prior year's committee member as the designee permits\nthe experience of the prior year's deliberations to be readily\navailable to the current committee. Selecting an earlier prior\nyear Chair as the designee permits the experience of being a\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 13]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nChair as well as that Chair's committee deliberations to be\nreadily available to the current committee.\n\nAll references to \"prior year's Chair\" in this document refer to\nthe person serving in that role, whether it is the actual prior\nyear's Chair or a designee.\n\n11. Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the\nnominating committee in a timely fashion.\n\nEach voting volunteer is expected to participate in all\nactivities of the nominating committee with a level of effort\napproximately equal to all other voting volunteers. Specific\ntasks to be completed are established and managed by the Chair\naccording to rules stated elsewhere in this document.", "char_start": 25806, "char_end": 27721, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 312}}, {"segment_id": "4b362666-89df-4c2b-b865-f723cae6a6d4", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 14, "text": "12. The Chair must establish and announce milestones for the\nselection of the nominating committee members.\n\nThere is a defined time period during which the selection process\nis due to be completed. The Chair must establish a set of\nmilestones which, if met in a timely fashion, will result in the\ncompletion of the process on time.\n\n13. The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be\nreviewed and announces it along with a solicitation for names of\nvolunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on the\nnominating committee.\n\nThe solicitation must permit the community at least 30 days\nduring which they may choose to volunteer to be selected for the\nnominating committee.\n\nThe list of open positions is published with the solicitation to\nfacilitate community members choosing between volunteering for an\nopen position and volunteering for the nominating committee.\n\n14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of\nthe last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.\n\nThe 5 meetings are the five most recent meetings that ended prior\nto the date on which the solicitation for nominating committee\nvolunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.\n\nThe IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that\nvolunteers have met the attendance requirement.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 14]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nVolunteers must provide their full name, email address, and\nprimary company or organization affiliation (if any) when\nvolunteering.\n\nVolunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes\nand procedures, which are readily learned by active participation\nin a working group and especially by serving as a document editor\nor working group chair.\n\n15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting\nmembers of the IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not\nvolunteer to serve on the nominating committee.", "char_start": 27723, "char_end": 29627, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 307}}, {"segment_id": "bb7de8aa-2f0f-4f8e-9731-2f25958e04b1", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 15, "text": "16. The Chair announces both the list of the pool of volunteers from\nwhich the 10 voting volunteers will be randomly selected and the\nmethod with which the selection will be completed.\n\nThe announcement should be made at least 1 week prior to the date\non which the random selection will occur.\n\nThe pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated\naccording to the needs of the selection method to be used.\n\nThe announcement must specify the data that will be used as input\nto the selection method. The method must depend on random data\nwhose value is not known or available until the date on which the\nrandom selection will occur.\n\nIt must be possible to independently verify that the selection\nmethod used is both fair and unbiased. A method is fair if each\neligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected. A method is\nunbiased if no one can influence its outcome in favor of a\nspecific outcome.\n\nIt must be possible to repeat the selection method, either\nthrough iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain\nfair and unbiased. This is necessary to replace selected\nvolunteers should they become unavailable after selection.\n\nThe selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.\n\nOne possible selection method is described in\nRFC 2777\n[\n1\n].\n\n17. The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool\nof names of volunteers and announces the members of the\nnominating committee.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 15]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nNo more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may\nbe selected for the nominating committee. The Chair reviews the\nprimary affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in\nturn. If the primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as\ntwo previously selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed\nfrom consideration and the method is repeated to identify the\nnext eligible volunteer.", "char_start": 29629, "char_end": 31546, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 323}}, {"segment_id": "c7694743-05f0-4243-b304-1d0d7bbd6025", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 16, "text": "There must be at least two announcements of all members of the\nnominating committee.\n\nThe first announcement should occur as soon after the random\nselection as is reasonable for the Chair. The community must\nhave at least 1 week during which any member may challenge the\nresults of the random selection.\n\nThe challenge must be made in writing (email is acceptable) to\nthe Chair. The Chair has 48 hours to review the challenge and\noffer a resolution to the member. If the resolution is not\naccepted by the member, that member may report the challenge\naccording to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in\nthis document.\n\nIf a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the\nlist of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other\nvolunteers have the same affiliation, then the volunteer should\nnotify the Chair who will determine the appropriate action.\n\nDuring at least the 1 week challenge period the Chair must\ncontact each of the members and confirm their willingness and\navailability to serve. The Chair should make every reasonable\neffort to contact each member.\n\n* If the Chair is unable to contact a liaison the problem is\nreferred to the respective organization to resolve. The Chair\nshould allow a reasonable amount of time for the organization\nto resolve the problem and then may proceed without the\nliaison.\n\n* If the Chair is unable to contact an advisor the Chair may\nelect to proceed without the advisor, except for the prior\nyear's Chair for whom the Chair must consult with the Internet\nSociety President as stated elsewhere in this document.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 16]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n* If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer the Chair\nmust repeat the random selection process in order to replace\nthe unavailable volunteer. There should be at least 1 day\nbetween the announcement of the iteration and the selection\nprocess.", "char_start": 31548, "char_end": 33463, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 321}}, {"segment_id": "0bbabbe2-82aa-47d5-9f97-eec9ffcb2638", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 17, "text": "After at least 1 week and confirming that 10 voting volunteers\nare ready to serve, the Chair makes the second announcement of\nthe members of the nominating committee, which officially begins\nthe term of the nominating committee.\n\n18. The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize\nitself in preparation for completing its assigned duties.\n\nThe committee has approximately one month during which it can\nself-organize. Its responsibilities during this time include but\nare not limited to the following.\n\n* Setting up a regular teleconference schedule.\n\n* Setting up an internal web site.\n\n* Setting up a mailing list for internal discussions.\n\n* Setting up an email address for receiving community input.\n\n* Establishing operational procedures.\n\n* Establishing milestones in order to monitor the progress of\nthe selection process.\n5\n. Nominating Committee Operation\nThe following rules apply to the operation of the nominating\ncommittee. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation\nof each rule is included.\n\nThe rules are organized approximately in the order in which they\nwould be invoked.\n\n1. All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are\nat the discretion of the committee.\n\nExceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the\nnormal operation of the nominating committee. This rule is\nintended to foster the continued forward progress of the\ncommittee.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 17]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nAny member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by\nthe committee. The rule must be approved by the committee\naccording to its established voting mechanism.\n\nAll members of the committee should consider whether the\nexception is worthy of mention in the next revision of this\ndocument and follow-up accordingly.", "char_start": 33465, "char_end": 35277, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 281}}, {"segment_id": "97eaa20d-33a2-4cbb-aedd-b74e4d1f13ac", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 18, "text": "2. The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be\nconfirmed by their respective confirming body is due within 3\nmonths.\n\nThe completion of the selection process is due at least two\nmonth's prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating\ncommittee has sufficient time to complete the confirmation\nprocess.\n\n3. The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due\nwithin 1 month.\n\nThe completion of the confirmation process is due at least one\nmonth prior to the First IETF.\n\n4. The Chair must establish for the nominating committee a set of\nmilestones for the candidate selection and confirmation process.\n\nThere is a defined time period during which the candidate\nselection and confirmation process must be completed. The Chair\nmust establish a set of milestones which, if met in a timely\nfashion, will result in the completion of the process on time.\nThe Chair should allow time for iterating the activities of the\ncommittee if one or more candidates is not confirmed.\n\nThe Chair should ensure that all committee members are aware of\nthe milestones.\n\n5. The Chair must establish a voting mechanism.\n\nThe committee must be able to objectively determine when a\ndecision has been made during its deliberations. The criteria\nfor determining closure must be established and known to all\nmembers of the nominating committee.\n\n6. At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a\nvote.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 18]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nOnly voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection. For a\ncandidate selection vote a quorum is comprised of at least 7 of\nthe voting volunteers.\n\nAt all other times a quorum is present if at least 75% of the\nnominating committee members are participating.\n\n7. Any member of the nominating committee may propose to the\ncommittee that any other member except the Chair be recalled.\nThe process for recalling the Chair is defined elsewhere in this\ndocument.", "char_start": 35279, "char_end": 37238, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 325}}, {"segment_id": "a43bf998-8dab-485f-85b0-91bdd8c22cab", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 19, "text": "There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise that\ncould result in one or more members of the committee being\nunavailable to complete their assigned duties, for example health\nconcerns, family issues, or a change of priorities at work. A\ncommittee member may choose to resign for unspecified personal\nreasons. In addition, the committee may not function well as a\ngroup because a member may be disruptive or otherwise\nuncooperative.\n\nRegardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members\ncan not work out their differences between themselves, the entire\ncommittee may be called upon to discuss and review the\ncircumstances. If a resolution is not forthcoming a vote may be\nconducted. A member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all\ncommittee members agree, including the vote of the member being\nrecalled.\n\nIf a liaison member is recalled the committee must notify the\naffected organization and must allow a reasonable amount of time\nfor a replacement to be identified by the organization before\nproceeding.\n\nIf an advisor member other than the prior year's Chair is\nrecalled, the committee may choose to proceed without the\nadvisor. In the case of the prior year's Chair, the Internet\nSociety President must be notified and the current Chair must be\nallowed a reasonable amount of time to consult with the Internet\nSociety President to identify a replacement before proceeding.\n\nIf a single voting volunteer position on the nominating committee\nis vacated, regardless of the circumstances, the committee may\nchoose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own\ndiscretion. In all other cases a new voting member must be\nselected, and the Chair must repeat the random selection process\nincluding an announcement of the iteration prior to the actual\nselection as stated elsewhere in this document.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 19]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nA change in the primary affiliation of a voting volunteer during\nthe term of the nominating committee is not a cause to request\nthe recall of that volunteer, even if the change would result in\nmore than two voting volunteers with the same affiliation.", "char_start": 37240, "char_end": 39406, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 354}}, {"segment_id": "3db84d84-5ecc-4e03-98a6-5fffb184aa88", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 20, "text": "8. Only the prior year's Chair may request the recall of the current\nChair.\n\nIt is the responsibility of the prior year's Chair to ensure the\ncurrent Chair completes the assigned tasks in a manner consistent\nwith this document and in the best interests of the IETF\ncommunity.\n\nAny member of the committee who has an issue or concern regarding\nthe Chair should report it to the prior year's Chair immediately.\nThe prior year's Chair is expected to report it to the Chair\nimmediately. If they can not resolve the issue between\nthemselves, the prior year's Chair must report it according to\nthe dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.\n\n9. All members of the nominating committee may participate in all\ndeliberations.\n\nThe emphasis of this rule is that no member can be explicitly\nexcluded from any deliberation. However, a member may\nindividually choose not to participate in a deliberation.\n\n10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the\ndesired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and\nthe call for nominees.\n\nThe call for nominees must include a request for comments\nregarding the past performance of incumbents, which will be\nconsidered during the deliberations of the nominating committee.\n\nThe call must request that a nomination include a valid, working\nemail address, a telephone number, or both for the nominee. The\nnomination must include the set of skills or expertise the\nnominator believes the nominee has that would be desirable.\n\n11. Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the\nIETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve\nwill be confirmed by the nominating committee.\n\nA self-nomination is permitted.\n\nNominating committee members are not eligible to be considered\nfor filling any open position by the nominating committee on\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 20]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nwhich they serve. They become ineligible as soon as the term of\nthe nominating committee on which they serve officially begins.\nThey remain ineligible for the duration of that nominating\ncommittee's term.", "char_start": 39408, "char_end": 41526, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 342}}, {"segment_id": "fae073bb-e494-4474-a0ac-7febac943434", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 21, "text": "Although each nominating committee's term overlaps with the\nfollowing nominating committee's term, nominating committee\nmembers are eligible for nomination by the following committee if\nnot otherwise disqualified.\n\nMembers of the IETF community who were recalled from any IESG or\nIAB position during the previous two years are not eligible to be\nconsidered for filling any open position.\n\n12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its\nunderstanding of the IETF community's consensus of the\nqualifications required to fill the open positions.\n\nThe intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating\ncommittee consults with a broad base of the IETF community for\ninput to its deliberations. In particular, the nominating\ncommittee must determine if the desired expertise for the open\npositions matches its understanding of the qualifications desired\nby the IETF community.\n\nThe consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if\nall parties to the consultation agree to observe the same\nconfidentiality rules as the nominating committee itself.\n\nA broad base of the community should include the existing members\nof the IAB and IESG, especially sitting members who share\nresponsibilities with open positions, e.g., co-Area Directors,\nand working group chairs, especially those in the areas with open\npositions.\n\nOnly voting volunteer members vote to select candidates.\n\n13. Nominees should be advised that they are being considered and\nmust consent to their nomination prior to being chosen as\ncandidates.\n\nAlthough the nominating committee will make every reasonable\neffort to contact and to remain in contact with nominees, any\nnominee whose contact information changes during the process and\nwho wishes to still be considered should inform the nominating\ncommittee of the changes.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 21]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nA nominee's consent must be written (email is acceptable) and\nmust include a commitment to provide the resources necessary to\nfill the open position and an assurance that the nominee will\nperform the duties of the position for which they are being\nconsidered in the best interests of the IETF community.", "char_start": 41528, "char_end": 43720, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 337}}, {"segment_id": "49853559-5696-49b9-bdc8-9658255abf7b", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 22, "text": "Consenting to a nomination must occur prior to a nominee being a\ncandidate and may occur as soon after the nomination as needed by\nthe nominating committee.\n\nConsenting to a nomination must not imply the nominee will be a\ncandidate.\n\nThe nominating committee should help nominees provide\njustification to their employers.\n\n14. The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their\ncandidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position\nand testifying as to how each candidate meets the qualifications\nof an open position.\n\nFor each candidate, the testimony must include a brief statement\nof the qualifications for the position that is being filled,\nwhich may be exactly the expertise that was requested. If the\nqualifications differ from the expertise originally requested a\nbrief statement explaining the difference must be included.\n\nThe testimony may include either or both of a brief resume of the\ncandidate and a brief summary of the deliberations of the\nnominating committee.\n\n15. Confirmed candidates must consent to their confirmation and\nrejected candidates and nominees must be notified before\nconfirmed candidates are announced.\n\nIt is not necessary to notify and get consent from all confirmed\ncandidates together.\n\nA nominee may not know they were a candidate. This permits a\ncandidate to be rejected by a confirming body without the nominee\nknowing about the rejection.\n\nRejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and\nrejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the\nconfirmed candidates.\n\nIt is not necessary to announce all confirmed candidates\ntogether.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 22]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nThe nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed\ncandidates are prepared to serve prior to announcing their\nconfirmation.", "char_start": 43722, "char_end": 45545, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 279}}, {"segment_id": "050c3c16-509b-4c37-b8f0-27a8a712b28a", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 23, "text": "16. The nominating committee should archive the information it has\ncollected or produced for a period of time not to exceed its\nterm.\n\nThe purpose of the archive is to assist the nominating committee\nshould it be necessary for it to fill a mid-term vacancy.\n\nThe existence of an archive, how it is implemented, and what\ninformation to archive is at the discretion of the committee.\nThe decision must be approved by a quorum of the voting volunteer\nmembers.\n\nThe implementation of the archive should make every reasonable\neffort to ensure that the confidentiality of the information it\ncontains is maintained.\n6\n. Dispute Resolution Process\nThe dispute resolution process described here is to be used as\nindicated elsewhere in this document. Its applicability in other\ncircumstances is beyond the scope of this document.\n\nThe nominating committee operates under a strict rule of\nconfidentiality. For this reason when process issues arise it is\nbest to make every reasonable effort to resolve them within the\ncommittee. However, when circumstances do not permit this or no\nresolution is forthcoming, the process described here is to be used.\n\nThe following rules apply to the process.\n\n1. The results of this process are final and binding. There is no\nappeal.\n\n2. The process begins with the submission of a request as described\nbelow to the Internet Society President.\n\n3. As soon as the process begins, the nominating committee may\ncontinue those activities that are unrelated to the issue to be\nresolved except that it must not submit any candidates to a\nconfirming body until the issue is resolved.\n\n4. All parties to the process are subject to the same\nconfidentiality rules as each member of the nominating committee.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 23]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n5. The process should be completed within two weeks.", "char_start": 45547, "char_end": 47402, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 307}}, {"segment_id": "1082ac7b-7560-4f31-aa49-2eb89a57fdb5", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 24, "text": "The process is as follows:\n\n1. The party seeking resolution submits a written request (email is\nacceptable) to the Internet Society President detailing the issue\nto be resolved.\n\n2. The Internet Society President appoints an arbiter to investigate\nand resolve the issue. A self-appointment is permitted.\n\n3. The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort\nto understand both sides of the issue. Since the arbiter is\nsubject to the same confidentiality obligations as all nominating\ncommittee members, all members are expected to cooperate fully\nwith the arbiter and to provide all relevant information to the\narbiter for review.\n\n4. After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue,\nthe arbiter decides on a resolution. Whatever actions are\nnecessary to execute the resolution are immediately begun and\ncompleted as quickly as possible.\n\n5. The arbiter summarizes the issue, the resolution, and the\nrationale for the resolution for the Internet Society President.\n\n6. In consultation with the Internet Society President, the arbiter\nprepares a report of the dispute and its resolution. The report\nshould include all information that in the judgment of the\narbiter does not violate the confidentiality requirements of the\nnominating committee.\n\n7. The Chair includes the dispute report when reporting on the\nactivities of the nominating committee to the IETF community.\n7\n. Member Recall\nThe following rules apply to the recall process. If necessary, a\nparagraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.\n\n1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are\nqualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may\nrequest by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet\nSociety President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member.", "char_start": 47404, "char_end": 49212, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 283}}, {"segment_id": "059087a0-bb6c-4a8a-90ba-4973cc7acfab", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 25, "text": "All individual and collective qualifications of nominating\ncommittee eligibility are applicable, including that no more than\ntwo signatories may have the same primary affiliation.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 24]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nEach signature must include a full name, email address, and\nprimary company or organization affiliation.\n\nThe IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each\nsignatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating\ncommittee. A valid petition must be signed by at least 20\nqualified signatories.\n\nThe petition must include a statement of justification for the\nrecall and all relevant and appropriate supporting documentation.\n\nThe petition and its signatories must be announced to the IETF\ncommunity.\n\n2. Internet Society President shall appoint a Recall Committee\nChair.\n\nThe Internet Society President must not evaluate the recall\nrequest. It is explicitly the responsibility of the IETF\ncommunity to evaluate the behavior of its leaders.\n\n3. The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is\nthe nominating committee with the qualifications that both the\nperson being investigated and the parties requesting the recall\nmust not be a member of the recall committee in any capacity.\n\n4. The recall committee operates according to the same rules as the\nnominating committee with the qualification that there is no\nconfirmation process.\n\n5. The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the\njustification for the recall and votes on its findings.\n\nThe investigation must include at least both an opportunity for\nthe member being recalled to present a written statement and\nconsultation with third parties.\n\n6. A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is\nrequired for a recall.\n\n7. If a sitting member is recalled the open position is to be filled\naccording to the mid-term vacancy rules.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 25]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n8\n. Changes From\nRFC 2727\nThis section describes the substantive changes from\nRFC 2727\n, listed\napproximately in the order in which they appear in the document.", "char_start": 49214, "char_end": 51355, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 339}}, {"segment_id": "e5cd1bbd-19fd-428b-987a-cc034fa0ae8c", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 26, "text": "1. A section with definitions for words and phrases used throughout\nthe document was inserted.\n\n2. The role of term limits as a selection criterion was clarified.\n\n3. The nominating committee must now be provided with a brief\ndescription of the desirable expertise for each candidate to be\nnominated for each position.\n\n4. Because of the overlapping terms of successive nominating\ncommittees, the specific committee responsible for a mid-term\nvacancy was specified.\n\n5. The characterization of the advice and consent model was revised\nto permit the confirming body to communicate with the nominating\ncommittee during the approval process.\n\n6. A general rule was added to define that all announcements are\nmade with the usual IETF Secretariat mechanism.\n\n7. Details regarding the expected timeline of the selection and\noperation of the committee were made even more explicit. An\nAppendix was added that captures all the details for the\nconvenience of the reader.\n\n8. The term of the nominating committee was extended to\napproximately 15 months such that it explicitly overlaps by\napproximately 3 months the next year's nominating committee's\nterm.\n\n9. The terms voting member and non-voting member were replaced by\nvoting volunteers, liaisons, and advisors. All members vote at\nall times except that only voting volunteers vote on a candidate\nselection.\n\n10. The responsibilities of the Chair, liaisons, advisors, and voting\nvolunteers is now explicitly stated.\n\n11. Processes for recalling members of the committee were added.\n\n12. Liaisons and advisors are no longer required to meet the usual\nrequirements for nominating committee membership.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 26]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n13. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a non-voting\nliaison.", "char_start": 51357, "char_end": 53159, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 279}}, {"segment_id": "91467f7d-c243-423b-8cf2-5f90219f1b81", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 27, "text": "14. The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee were\nchanged to require attendance at 3 out of 5 of the last five\nmeetings, to require volunteers to submit identifying contact\ninformation, and to request that volunteers be familiar with IETF\nprocesses and procedures.\n\n15. Some additional clarification was added to the method used to\nselect volunteers.\n\n16. The process for selecting the 10 voting volunteers had several\nclarifications and additional requirements added, including a\nchallenge process and the requirement to disallow more than two\nvolunteers with the same primary affiliation.\n\n17. Nominations for open positions should include both contact\ninformation and a description of the skills or expertise the\nnominator believes the nominee possesses.\n\n18. Nominees are requested to keep the nominating committee informed\nof changes in their contact information. Editorially, the\ndistinction between a nominee and candidate was emphasized.\n\n19. A description of a testimony to be provided with each candidate\nto a confirming body by the nominating committee is specified.\n\n20. The rules regarding the announcement of confirmed candidates were\nsubstantially rewritten to make it easier to understand.\n\n21. The nominating committee is permitted to keep an archive for the\nduration of its term of the information it collects and produces\nfor its own internal use.\n\n22. A dispute resolution process for addressing process concerns was\nadded.\n\n23. The process for recalling a sitting member of the IAB and IESG\nrequires at least 20 eligible members of the IETF community to\nsign a petition requesting the recall.\n\n24. The section on Security Considerations was expanded.\n\n25.\nAppendix A\n, Oral Tradition, has been added.\n\n26.\nAppendix B\n, Nominating Committee Timeline, has been added as a\nconvenience to the reader.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 27]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n9\n. Acknowledgements\nThere have been a number of people involved with the development of\nthis document over the years as it has progressed from\nRFC 2027\nthrough\nRFC 2282\n[\n3\n] and\nRFC 2727\n[\n2\n] to its current version.", "char_start": 53161, "char_end": 55297, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 339}}, {"segment_id": "ea5f54d7-e69d-4909-bfbe-f016c50db502", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 28, "text": "A great deal of credit goes to the first three Nominating Committee\nChairs:\n\n1993 - Jeff Case\n\n1994 - Fred Baker\n\n1995 - John Curran\n\nwho had the pleasure of operating without the benefit of a documented\nprocess. It was their fine work and oral tradition that became the\nfirst version of this document.\n\nOf course we can not overlook the bug discovery burden that each of\nthe Chairs since the first publication have had to endure:\n\n1996 - Guy Almes\n\n1997 - Geoff Huston\n\n1998 - Mike St. Johns\n\n1999 - Donald Eastlake\n\n2000 - Avri Doria\n\n2001 - Bernard Adoba\n\n2002 - Ted T'so\n\n2003 - Phil Roberts\n\nThe bulk of the early credit goes to the members of the POISSON\nWorking Group, previously the POISED Working Group. The prose here\nwould not be what it is were it not for the attentive and insightful\nreview of its members. Specific acknowledgement must be extended to\nScott Bradner and John Klensin, who consistently contributed to the\nimprovement of the first three versions of this document.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 28]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nIn January 2002, a new working group was formed, the Nominating\nCommittee Working Group (nomcom), to revise the\nRFC 2727\nversion.\nThis working group was guided by the efforts of a design team whose\nmembers were as follows:\n\nBernard Adoba\n\nHarald Alvestrand - Chair of the IETF\n\nLeslie Daigle - Chair of the IAB\n\nAvri Doria - Chair of the Working Group\n\nJames Galvin - Editor of the Document\n\nJoel Halpern\n\nThomas Narten\n10\n. Security Considerations\nAny selection, confirmation, or recall process necessarily involves\ninvestigation into the qualifications and activities of prospective\ncandidates. The investigation may reveal confidential or otherwise\nprivate information about candidates to those participating in the\nprocess. Each person who participates in any aspect of the process\nmust maintain the confidentiality of any and all information not\nexplicitly identified as suitable for public dissemination.", "char_start": 55299, "char_end": 57281, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 328}}, {"segment_id": "57c92996-de31-4ad7-a374-a2d1165c64a0", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 29, "text": "When the nominating committee decides it is necessary to share\nconfidential or otherwise private information with others, the\ndissemination must be minimal and must include a prior commitment\nfrom all persons consulted to observe the same confidentiality rules\nas the nominating committee itself.\n11\n. Informative References\n[\n1\n] Eastlake, 3rd, D., \"Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee\n(Nomcom) Random Selection\",\nRFC 3797\n, June 2004.\n\n[\n2\n] Galvin, J., \"IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall\nProcess: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\",\nBCP\n10\n,\nRFC 2727\n, February 2000.\n\n[\n3\n] Galvin, J., \"IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall\nProcess: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\",\nBCP\n10\n,\nRFC 2282\n, February 1998.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 29]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nAppendix A\n. Oral Tradition\nOver the years various nominating committees have learned through\noral tradition passed on by liaisons that there are certain\nconsistencies in the process and information considered during\ndeliberations. Some items from that oral tradition are collected\nhere to facilitate its consideration by future nominating committees.\n\n1. It has been found that experience as an IETF Working Group Chair\nor an IRTF Research Group Chair is helpful in giving a nominee\nexperience of what the job of an Area Director involves. It also\nhelps a nominating committee judge the technical, people, and\nprocess management skills of the nominee.\n\n2. No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director,\nexcept the IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area\nDirector of the General Area are set out elsewhere.\n\n3. The strength of the IAB is found in part in the balance of the\ndemographics of its members (e.g., national distribution, years\nof experience, gender, etc.), the combined skill set of its\nmembers, and the combined sectors (e.g., industry, academia,\netc.) represented by its members.", "char_start": 57283, "char_end": 59255, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 318}}, {"segment_id": "99af75fb-5baa-4c33-9d8c-252a1c217c43", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 30, "text": "4. There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of\ncontinuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year\naccording to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is\nunderstood by each nominating committee.\n\n5. The number of nominating committee members with the same primary\naffiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of\nimproper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF. Rather\nthan defining precise rules for how to define \"affiliation\", the\nIETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the\nparticipants to make the process work.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 30]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nAppendix B\n. Nominating Committee Timeline\nThis appendix is included for the convenience of the reader and is\nnot to be interpreted as the definitive timeline. It is intended to\ncapture the detail described elsewhere in this document in one place.\nAlthough every effort has been made to ensure the description here is\nconsistent with the description elsewhere, if there are any conflicts\nthe definitive rule is the one in the main body of this document.\n\nThe only absolute in the timeline rules for the annual process is\nthat its completion is due by the First IETF of the year after the\nnominating committee begins its term. This is supported by the fact\nthat the confirmed candidate terms begin during the week of the First\nIETF.\n\nThe overall annual process is designed to be completed in 7 months.\nIt is expected to start 8 months prior to the First IETF. The 7\nmonths is split between three major components of the process as\nfollows.\n\n1. First is the selection and organization of the committee members.\nThree months are allotted for this process.\n\n2. Second is the selection of the candidates by the nominating\ncommittee. Three months are allotted for this process.", "char_start": 59257, "char_end": 61079, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 307}}, {"segment_id": "ad613a43-b12f-4ed1-ae84-d9680e3d22f6", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 31, "text": "3. Third is the confirmation of the candidates by their respective\nconfirming bodies. One month is allotted for this process.\n\nThe following figure captures the details of the milestones within\neach component. For illustrative purposes the figure presumes the\nFriday before the First IETF is March 1.\n\n0. BEGIN 8 Months Prior to First IETF (approx. July 1); Internet\nSociety President appoints the Chair. The appointment must be\ndone no later than the Second IETF or 8 months prior to the First\nIETF, whichever comes first. The Chair must be announced and\nrecognized during a plenary session of the Second IETF.\n\n1. The Chair establishes and announces milestones to ensure the\ntimely selection of the nominating committee members.\n\n2. The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of\nTrustees and requests a liaison. The Chair contacts the prior\nyear's Chair and requests an advisor. The Chair obtains the list\nof IESG and IAB open positions and descriptions from the IETF\nExecutive Director.\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 31]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n3. The Chair announces the solicitation for voting volunteer members\nthat must remain open for at least 30 days. The announcement\nmust be done no later than 7 months and 2 weeks prior to the\nFirst IETF (approx. July 15).\n\n4. After the solicitation closes the Chair announces the pool of\nvolunteers and the date of the random selection, which must be at\nleast 1 week in the future. The announcement must be done no\nlater than 6 months and 2 weeks prior to the First IETF (approx.\nAugust 15).\n\n5. On the appointed day the random selection occurs and the Chair\nannounces the members of the committee and the 1 week challenge\nperiod. The announcement must be done no later than 6 months and\n1 week prior to the First IETF (approx. August 22).", "char_start": 61081, "char_end": 62908, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 313}}, {"segment_id": "508c56b9-cf8e-433a-a793-a050fb3b6484", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 32, "text": "6. During the challenge period the Chair contacts each of the\ncommittee members and confirms their availability to participate.\n\n7. After the challenge period closes the Chair announces the members\nof the committee and its term begins. The announcement must be\ndone no later than 6 months prior to the First IETF (approx.\nSeptember 1).\n\n8. The committee has one month during which it is to self-organize\nin preparation for completing its assigned duties. This must be\ndone no later than 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx.\nOctober 1).\n\n9. END the Committee Member Selection Process; BEGIN the Selection\nof Candidates; Time is at least 5 months prior to the First IETF\n(approx. October 1).\n\n10. The Chair establishes and announces the milestones to ensure the\ntimely selection of the candidates, including a call for\nnominations for the open positions. The announcement must be\ndone no later than 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx.\nOctober 1).\n\n11. Over the next 3 months the nominating committee collects input\nand deliberates. It should plan to conduct interviews and other\nconsultations during the Third IETF. The committee is due to\ncomplete its candidate selection no later than 2 months prior to\nthe First IETF (approx. January 1).\n\n12. END the Selection of Candidates; BEGIN the Confirmation of\nCandidates; Time is at least 2 months prior to the First IETF\n(approx. January 1);\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 32]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\n13. The committee presents its candidates to their respective\nconfirming bodies. The presentation must be done no later than 2\nmonths prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1).\n\n14. The confirming bodies have 1 month to deliberate and, in\ncommunication with the nominating committee, accept or reject\ncandidates.\n\n15. The Chair announces the confirmed candidates. The announcement\nmust be done no later than 1 month prior to the First IETF\n(approx. February 1).", "char_start": 62910, "char_end": 64851, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 321}}, {"segment_id": "982444d7-4674-431c-9e50-7a22fe69c2e4", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 33, "text": "Author's Address\n\nJames M. Galvin (editor)\neList eXpress LLC\n607 Trixsam Road\nSykesville, MD 21784\nUS\n\nPhone: +1 410-549-4619\nFax: +1 410-795-7978\nEMail: galvin+ietf@elistx.com\nURI:\nhttp://www.elistx.com/\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 33]\nRFC 3777\nIAB and IESG Selection June 2004\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject\nto the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in\nBCP 78\n, and\nexcept as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein are provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS\nOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,\nINCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE\nINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nIntellectual Property\n\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has\nmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information\non the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be\nfound in\nBCP 78\nand\nBCP 79\n.\n\nCopies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any\nassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an\nattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of\nsuch proprietary rights by implementers or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at\nhttp://www.ietf.org/ipr\n.", "char_start": 64853, "char_end": 66710, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 298}}, {"segment_id": "f210e909-e237-402e-972c-0b85b4f44563", "document_id": "3fca1649-f0be-4c28-b631-5a73bb5bb4cd", "ordinal": 34, "text": "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights that may cover technology that may be required to implement\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-\nipr@ietf.org.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nGalvin Best Current Practice [Page 34]\nRFC\n3777\n: IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\nBest Current Practice\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n7437\nIAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n2\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. Definitions\n3. General\n4. Nominating Committee Selection\n5. Nominating Committee Operation\n6. Dispute Resolution Process\n7. Member Recall\n8. Changes From RFC 2727\n9. Acknowledgements\n10. Security Considerations\n11. Informative References\nAppendix A. Oral Tradition\nAppendix B. Nominating Committee Timeline\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 66712, "char_end": 68054, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 1, "word_count": 195}}], "published_at": "2004-06-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2004-06-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 3777 eList eXpress LLC\nObsoletes:\n2727\nJune 2004", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "3fcdbcfe-4087-41e5-a4cb-bfb8190f5b63", "source_id": "92bcf1ece0b496377d1d14e5", "source": "UN", "source_url": "https://www.un.org/en/desa", "final_url": "https://www.un.org/en/desa", "artifact_sha256": "79e8a56d5fa41ddac221a7c2923cb329eca7a9e1760a9aa018645de9a0fc6e3e", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 122643, "title": "DESA-EN | United Nations", "language": "en", "text_length": 12942, "characters": 12942, "text": "DESA-EN | United Nations\nSkip to main content\nToggle navigation\nWelcome to the United Nations\nالعربية\n中文\nNederlands\nEnglish\nFrançais\nDeutsch\nKreyòl\nहिन्दी\nBahasa Indonesia\nItaliano\nPolski\nPortuguês\nРусский\nEspañol\nKiswahili\nTürkçe\nУкраїнська\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nToggle navigation\nHome\nAbout Us\n»\nLeadership\nAdvisory Board\nPolicy Dialogues\nECESA\n2030 Agenda Task Force\nOrganigramme\nContact Us\nWhat We Do\n»\nIntergovernmental Support\nAnalysis\nCapacity Building\nKey Topics\n»\nClimate Action\nData\nFinancing\nGlobal Partnerships\nHLPF\nLeaving No One Behind\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nStrengthening Institutions\nThought Leadership\nLatest from DESA\nProducts\n»\nPublications\nDatabases\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nWebinars\nStatements\nVideos\nUN DESA Voice\nHighlights Report\n»\n2025\n2023-2024\n2022-2023\n2021-2022\n2020-2021\n2019-2020\n2018-2019\nCalendar\nInternational Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, 10 August\nInternational Youth Day, 12 August\nHigh-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, 7-15 July\nHLPF 2026 Special Events, 7-15 July 2026\nMore Events\nHonouring Indigenous midwives: Advancing rights, ensuring cultural continuity and promoting intergenerational well-being\n6 August 2026 - The 2026 International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples (IDWIP), under the theme \"Honouring Indigenous Midwives: Safeguarding Life and Well-being,\" highlights Indigenous midwifery as a vital expression of self-determination, linking health, culture, spirituality and land. It recognized Indigenous midwives as knowledge holders and custodians of values, responsiblites and practices that ensure the continuity of Indigenous Peoples across generations.\nUN DESA | Broddi Sigurdarson\nGlobal Justice Report examines long-term pathways for equality and sustainability\n4 August 2026 - Last week, Professor Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics presented the recently released\nGlobal Justice Report\nat a webinar hosted by the UN DESA Division for Inclusive Social Development. Produced by the World Inequality Lab, the report lays out an ambitious, quantified roadmap to simultaneously achieve equality, environmental sustainability and human wellbeing by 2100.\nMaking the global tax system work for everyone\n3 August 2026 - What would it take to make the global tax system work for everyone, not just the countries best equipped to navigate it? That question continues to drive negotiations on a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC) at its Fifth session from 3 to 13 August 2026.\nUN-GGIM: Putting geospatial information at the heart of sustainable development\n27 July 2026 - Global geospatial experts are coming to New York the week of 3 to 7 August 2026 for the sixteenth session of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM). Anchored by the\nUnited Nations Integrated Geospatial Information Framework “UN-IGIF”,\nUN-GGIM promotes a country-owned and country-led approach to strengthening national geospatial information management. The objective is not merely to produce better maps, but to establish trusted and interoperable information systems that support national priorities and global commitments.\nMore Stories\nWhat does UN DESA do?\nIntergovernmental support\nBy facilitating major global conferences and summits in the economic, social and environmental fields, as mandated by UN Member States, UN DESA assists countries as they find common ground, set norms, and take decisive steps forward.\nAnalysis\nAs the think tank of the UN, DESA, generates, analyses and compiles a wide range of economic, social and environmental data and statistics to inform and advise Member States and other stakeholders as they take stock of trends and policy options to tackle common problems.\nCapacity-building\nUN DESA assists in translating policy frameworks developed in UN conferences and summits into programmes at the country level and, through technical assistance, supports Member States in building national capacities.\nTowards Sustainable Development for All\nSDGs in Numbers\nUsing the latest data and estimates, the annual Sustainable Development Goals Report provides an overview of the world’s implementation efforts to date, highlighting areas of progress and areas where more action needs to be taken to ensure no one is left behind.\nAcceleration Actions\nThe SDG Acceleration Actions help inspire and mobilize actions around the world to promote the implementation of the SDGs, as well as build resilience and bring inclusive recovery in the context of new realities post COVID-19.\nUN DESA’s Follow-Up to the Decade of Action\nFor the Decade of Action, UN DESA is mobilizing to overcome COVID-19 and other global crises, and preparing for future challenges to help Member States realize the 2030 Agenda.\nSDG Blog\nFrom presidents to grassroots activists and from top UN officials to sport stars, UN DESA’s SDG Blog is where you can find every perspective on the Sustainable Development Goals.\nKey Topics\nLeaving No One Behind\nUN DESA’s work is firmly focused on inclusion of the most vulnerable, giving particular attention to youth, indigenous peoples, older persons and persons with disabilities. Promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women remains a constant guide.\nFinancing Sustainable Development\nInsufficient financing remains one of the greatest bottlenecks that prevents the world from achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. UN DESA helps Member States close the financing gap for sustainable development.\nEnhancing Global Partnerships\nThe achievement of the 2030 Agenda will require an unprecedented level of cooperation and collaboration among all levels of government, civil society, business, foundations, academia, and others, and finding new ways of working.\nData for the SDGs\nNow more than ever, high-quality, trustworthy data from strong national statistical systems are needed to inform evidence-based decision-making and measure the progress towards achieving sustainable development. UN DESA supports countries in every corner of the world to bolster their statistical capacities.\nThought Leadership\nUsing timely, principled and authoritative information to highlight solutions and foster solidarity, UN DESA sets the tone of the global conversation on social and economic issues through its cutting-edge analytical products and policy advice.\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nUN DESA plays a global leadership role in advancing cooperation at the science-policy-society interface, and in multi-stakeholder engagement on science, technology and innovation for the SDGs, areas of work established through the Rio+20 conference and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.\nClimate Action\nThe 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement can serve as a compass to help policy makers meet urgent needs while aligning short-term solutions to medium and long-term climate and sustainable development objectives. UN DESA is moving the needle forward for harnessing synergies across development and climate action.\nStrengthening Institutions\nStrong public institutions are critical for achieving the SDGs ensuring that no one is left behind. UN DESA continues to raise awareness of SDG 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions while also helping countries build the capacity of their public institutions to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and achieve the SDGs.\nHigh-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF)\nEvery year since 2015, nations come together in New York to evaluate their efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs. UN DESA has been supporting them in this critical task.\nUN DESA Products\nPublications\nAs a thought leader for the development-pillar of the UN, DESA publications provide timely analysis on the SDGS and related global socioeconomic issues.\nDatabases\nThe Department’s databases serve as a gateway to a broad range of data and statistics that support evidence-based decision-making, and as a hub for global partnerships and good practices.\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nThe preliminary analyses and insights in our working papers are the foundation of stimulating intellectual discussions on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues relevant to the global development agenda.\nWebinars\nUN DESA’s interactive webinars foster an inclusive global dialogue on the development challenges of our time and strengthen outreach to stakeholders worldwide.\nStatements\nStatements by senior management amplify the global narrative in support of Member States’ efforts to reach the SDGs and leave no one behind.\nUN DESA Voice\nOur monthly newsletter, UN DESA Voice is an insider’s look at the latest news, events and opinions from the home of sustainable development. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to stay in the know about global issues. Sign up now!\nVideos\nTake a look at UN DESA’s latest inspiring interviews and informative explainers or browse our rich archive of videos on delivering sustainable development for all.\nInfographics\nIn here, we do not tell – we show. Explore the wonderful, visual world of sustainable development told through infographics.\nMore from UN DESA\nHarnessing Climate and SDGs Synergies\nUN DESA is moving the needle forward in harnessing synergies across development and climate action. The 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement serve as a compass to help policy makers meet urgent needs while aligning short-term solutions to medium and long-term climate and sustainable development objectives. Together with the UNFCCC and other partners, UN DESA is helping Member States ensure more coherence across Nationally Determined Contributions and National Development Plans, as well as National Adaptation Plans and National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies.\nSustainable Forests\nUN DESA leads global efforts to support the international dialogue on forest policy. The Department helps countries to develop their capacity to monitor progress towards sustainable forest management and mobilize forest financing. Our work supports the implementation of the UN Strategic Plan for Forests and the UN Forest Instrument and is guided by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other global agreements.\nProtecting Our Ocean\nUN DESA has been supporting the Governments of Kenya and Portugal to organize for the UN Ocean Conference and its preparatory meetings. The Department, in collaboration with related UN entities, works to inform UN senior leadership in addressing climate change and its impacts on the ocean as one of the most significant challenges to achieving the 2030 Agenda and SDG 14.\nSustainable Transport\nThe UN Sustainable Transport Conference, originally scheduled for May in Beijing, was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. UN DESA, led by its Under-Secretary-General as the conference Secretary-General, continues to mobilize all stakeholders and strengthen thought leadership to promote sustainable transport, including through inter-agency report analyses, webinars and discussions in related fora.\nSustainable Energy\nAs the Secretariat of UN-Energy, UN DESA supports implementation of the UN Decade of Sustainable Energy for All 2014-2024 and the work of intergovernmental processes in the areas of energy. The Department convenes the more than 40-member multistakeholder SDG 7 Technical Advisory Group, addressing universal access and clean energy transitions. The Department has also begun preparations for the High-Level Dialogue on Energy to be held in 2021, with the Under-Secretary-General of UN DESA serving as the Dialogue Secretary-General.\nWater and Sanitation\nUN DESA leads the support to UN Member States in the implementation of the International Decade for Action “Water for Sustainable Development”, 2018-2028. The Department is also coordinating preparations for the 2023 UN Conference on the Water Action Decade, together with UN-Water, the Government of Portugal and the Government of Tajikistan.\nAbout UN DESA\nWhat We Do\nLeadership\nAdvisory Board\nPolicy Dialogues\nECESA\nOrganigramme\nKey Topics\nClimate Action\nData\nFinancing\nGlobal Partnerships\nHLPF\nLeaving No One Behind\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nStrengthening Institutions\nThought Leadership\nUN DESA Products\nPublications\nDatabases\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nWebinars\nStatements\nUN DESA Voice\nVideos\nUN DESA Divisions\nOffice of Intergovernmental Support and Coordination for Sustainable Development\nDivision for Sustainable Development Goals\nPopulation Division\nDivision for Public Institutions and Digital Government\nFinancing for Sustainable Development Office\nDivision for Inclusive Social Development\nStatistics Division\nEconomic Analysis and Policy Division\nUnited Nations Forum on Forests\nCapacity Development Programme Management Office\nUnited Nations\nDonate\nfacebook\ntwitter\nyoutube\nlinkedin\nA-Z Site Index\nContact\nCopyright\nFAQ\nFraud Alert\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ad88a47d-55be-4a0d-8aa2-5554e6206560", "document_id": "3fcdbcfe-4087-41e5-a4cb-bfb8190f5b63", "ordinal": 0, "text": "DESA-EN | United Nations\nSkip to main content\nToggle navigation\nWelcome to the United Nations\nالعربية\n中文\nNederlands\nEnglish\nFrançais\nDeutsch\nKreyòl\nहिन्दी\nBahasa Indonesia\nItaliano\nPolski\nPortuguês\nРусский\nEspañol\nKiswahili\nTürkçe\nУкраїнська\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nToggle navigation\nHome\nAbout Us\n»\nLeadership\nAdvisory Board\nPolicy Dialogues\nECESA\n2030 Agenda Task Force\nOrganigramme\nContact Us\nWhat We Do\n»\nIntergovernmental Support\nAnalysis\nCapacity Building\nKey Topics\n»\nClimate Action\nData\nFinancing\nGlobal Partnerships\nHLPF\nLeaving No One Behind\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nStrengthening Institutions\nThought Leadership\nLatest from DESA\nProducts\n»\nPublications\nDatabases\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nWebinars\nStatements\nVideos\nUN DESA Voice\nHighlights Report\n»\n2025\n2023-2024\n2022-2023\n2021-2022\n2020-2021\n2019-2020\n2018-2019\nCalendar\nInternational Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, 10 August\nInternational Youth Day, 12 August\nHigh-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, 7-15 July\nHLPF 2026 Special Events, 7-15 July 2026\nMore Events\nHonouring Indigenous midwives: Advancing rights, ensuring cultural continuity and promoting intergenerational well-being\n6 August 2026 - The 2026 International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples (IDWIP), under the theme \"Honouring Indigenous Midwives: Safeguarding Life and Well-being,\" highlights Indigenous midwifery as a vital expression of self-determination, linking health, culture, spirituality and land. It recognized Indigenous midwives as knowledge holders and custodians of values, responsiblites and practices that ensure the continuity of Indigenous Peoples across generations.\nUN DESA | Broddi Sigurdarson\nGlobal Justice Report examines long-term pathways for equality and sustainability\n4 August 2026 - Last week, Professor Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics presented the recently released\nGlobal Justice Report\nat a webinar hosted by the UN DESA Division for Inclusive Social Development. Produced by the World Inequality Lab, the report lays out an ambitious, quantified roadmap to simultaneously achieve equality, environmental sustainability and human wellbeing by 2100.\nMaking the global tax system work for everyone\n3 August 2026 - What would it take to make the global tax system work for everyone, not just the countries best equipped to navigate it? That question continues to drive negotiations on a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC) at its Fifth session from 3 to 13 August 2026.\nUN-GGIM: Putting geospatial information at the heart of sustainable development\n27 July 2026 - Global geospatial experts are coming to New York the week of 3 to 7 August 2026 for the sixteenth session of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM). Anchored by the\nUnited Nations Integrated Geospatial Information Framework “UN-IGIF”,\nUN-GGIM promotes a country-owned and country-led approach to strengthening national geospatial information management. The objective is not merely to produce better maps, but to establish trusted and interoperable information systems that support national priorities and global commitments.\nMore Stories\nWhat does UN DESA do?\nIntergovernmental support\nBy facilitating major global conferences and summits in the economic, social and environmental fields, as mandated by UN Member States, UN DESA assists countries as they find common ground, set norms, and take decisive steps forward.\nAnalysis\nAs the think tank of the UN, DESA, generates, analyses and compiles a wide range of economic, social and environmental data and statistics to inform and advise Member States and other stakeholders as they take stock of trends and policy options to tackle common problems.\nCapacity-building\nUN DESA assists in translating policy frameworks developed in UN conferences and summits into programmes at the country level and, through technical assistance, supports Member States in building national capacities.\nTowards Sustainable Development for All\nSDGs in Numbers\nUsing the latest data and estimates, the annual Sustainable Development Goals Report provides an overview of the world’s implementation efforts to date, highlighting areas of progress and areas where more action needs to be taken to ensure no one is left behind.\nAcceleration Actions\nThe SDG Acceleration Actions help inspire and mobilize actions around the world to promote the implementation of the SDGs, as well as build resilience and bring inclusive recovery in the context of new realities post COVID-19.\nUN DESA’s Follow-Up to the Decade of Action\nFor the Decade of Action, UN DESA is mobilizing to overcome COVID-19 and other global crises, and preparing for future challenges to help Member States realize the 2030 Agenda.\nSDG Blog\nFrom presidents to grassroots activists and from top UN officials to sport stars, UN DESA’s SDG Blog is where you can find every perspective on the Sustainable Development Goals.\nKey Topics\nLeaving No One Behind\nUN DESA’s work is firmly focused on inclusion of the most vulnerable, giving particular attention to youth, indigenous peoples, older persons and persons with disabilities. Promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women remains a constant guide.\nFinancing Sustainable Development\nInsufficient financing remains one of the greatest bottlenecks that prevents the world from achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. UN DESA helps Member States close the financing gap for sustainable development.\nEnhancing Global Partnerships\nThe achievement of the 2030 Agenda will require an unprecedented level of cooperation and collaboration among all levels of government, civil society, business, foundations, academia, and others, and finding new ways of working.\nData for the SDGs\nNow more than ever, high-quality, trustworthy data from strong national statistical systems are needed to inform evidence-based decision-making and measure the progress towards achieving sustainable development. UN DESA supports countries in every corner of the world to bolster their statistical capacities.\nThought Leadership\nUsing timely, principled and authoritative information to highlight solutions and foster solidarity, UN DESA sets the tone of the global conversation on social and economic issues through its cutting-edge analytical products and policy advice.\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nUN DESA plays a global leadership role in advancing cooperation at the science-policy-society interface, and in multi-stakeholder engagement on science, technology and innovation for the SDGs, areas of work established through the Rio+20 conference and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.\nClimate Action\nThe 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement can serve as a compass to help policy makers meet urgent needs while aligning short-term solutions to medium and long-term climate and sustainable development objectives. UN DESA is moving the needle forward for harnessing synergies across development and climate action.\nStrengthening Institutions\nStrong public institutions are critical for achieving the SDGs ensuring that no one is left behind. UN DESA continues to raise awareness of SDG 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions while also helping countries build the capacity of their public institutions to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and achieve the SDGs.\nHigh-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF)\nEvery year since 2015, nations come together in New York to evaluate their efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs. UN DESA has been supporting them in this critical task.\nUN DESA Products\nPublications\nAs a thought leader for the development-pillar of the UN, DESA publications provide timely analysis on the SDGS and related global socioeconomic issues.\nDatabases\nThe Department’s databases serve as a gateway to a broad range of data and statistics that support evidence-based decision-making, and as a hub for global partnerships and good practices.\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nThe preliminary analyses and insights in our working papers are the foundation of stimulating intellectual discussions on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues relevant to the global development agenda.\nWebinars\nUN DESA’s interactive webinars foster an inclusive global dialogue on the development challenges of our time and strengthen outreach to stakeholders worldwide.\nStatements\nStatements by senior management amplify the global narrative in support of Member States’ efforts to reach the SDGs and leave no one behind.\nUN DESA Voice\nOur monthly newsletter, UN DESA Voice is an insider’s look at the latest news, events and opinions from the home of sustainable development. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to stay in the know about global issues. Sign up now!\nVideos\nTake a look at UN DESA’s latest inspiring interviews and informative explainers or browse our rich archive of videos on delivering sustainable development for all.\nInfographics\nIn here, we do not tell – we show. Explore the wonderful, visual world of sustainable development told through infographics.\nMore from UN DESA\nHarnessing Climate and SDGs Synergies\nUN DESA is moving the needle forward in harnessing synergies across development and climate action. The 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement serve as a compass to help policy makers meet urgent needs while aligning short-term solutions to medium and long-term climate and sustainable development objectives. Together with the UNFCCC and other partners, UN DESA is helping Member States ensure more coherence across Nationally Determined Contributions and National Development Plans, as well as National Adaptation Plans and National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies.\nSustainable Forests\nUN DESA leads global efforts to support the international dialogue on forest policy. The Department helps countries to develop their capacity to monitor progress towards sustainable forest management and mobilize forest financing. Our work supports the implementation of the UN Strategic Plan for Forests and the UN Forest Instrument and is guided by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other global agreements.\nProtecting Our Ocean\nUN DESA has been supporting the Governments of Kenya and Portugal to organize for the UN Ocean Conference and its preparatory meetings. The Department, in collaboration with related UN entities, works to inform UN senior leadership in addressing climate change and its impacts on the ocean as one of the most significant challenges to achieving the 2030 Agenda and SDG 14.\nSustainable Transport\nThe UN Sustainable Transport Conference, originally scheduled for May in Beijing, was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. UN DESA, led by its Under-Secretary-General as the conference Secretary-General, continues to mobilize all stakeholders and strengthen thought leadership to promote sustainable transport, including through inter-agency report analyses, webinars and discussions in related fora.\nSustainable Energy\nAs the Secretariat of UN-Energy, UN DESA supports implementation of the UN Decade of Sustainable Energy for All 2014-2024 and the work of intergovernmental processes in the areas of energy. The Department convenes the more than 40-member multistakeholder SDG 7 Technical Advisory Group, addressing universal access and clean energy transitions. The Department has also begun preparations for the High-Level Dialogue on Energy to be held in 2021, with the Under-Secretary-General of UN DESA serving as the Dialogue Secretary-General.\nWater and Sanitation\nUN DESA leads the support to UN Member States in the implementation of the International Decade for Action “Water for Sustainable Development”, 2018-2028. The Department is also coordinating preparations for the 2023 UN Conference on the Water Action Decade, together with UN-Water, the Government of Portugal and the Government of Tajikistan.\nAbout UN DESA\nWhat We Do\nLeadership\nAdvisory Board\nPolicy Dialogues\nECESA\nOrganigramme\nKey Topics\nClimate Action\nData\nFinancing\nGlobal Partnerships\nHLPF\nLeaving No One Behind\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nStrengthening Institutions\nThought Leadership\nUN DESA Products\nPublications\nDatabases\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nWebinars\nStatements\nUN DESA Voice\nVideos\nUN DESA Divisions\nOffice of Intergovernmental Support and Coordination for Sustainable Development\nDivision for Sustainable Development Goals\nPopulation Division\nDivision for Public Institutions and Digital Government\nFinancing for Sustainable Development Office\nDivision for Inclusive Social Development\nStatistics Division\nEconomic Analysis and Policy Division\nUnited Nations Forum on Forests\nCapacity Development Programme Management Office\nUnited Nations\nDonate\nfacebook\ntwitter\nyoutube\nlinkedin\nA-Z Site Index\nContact\nCopyright\nFAQ\nFraud Alert\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12942, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1874}}], "published_at": "2026-07-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\nHLPF 2026 Special Events, 7-15 July 2026\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "4164ab20-cb52-4399-b9e7-4b61483b22ef", "source_id": "22ac003d2c44a5ec8abad6d8", "source": "APNIC", "source_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/", "final_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/", "artifact_sha256": "326fb4c655e1b3fa6b96967318591da8fcc8d24a8ecd0cc3a6a532e0616a300c", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 79097, "title": "Resource Policies – APNIC", "language": "en-AU", "text_length": 3970, "characters": 3970, "text": "Resource Policies – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nResource Policies\nIP addresses and AS numbers are shared resources, available for use by anyone who can demonstrate the need for them. APNIC policies ensure these resources are distributed fairly and consistently across the whole Asia Pacific region. Developments to policy are discussed in the\nPolicy SIG\n.\nCurrent policies\nUse the links below to jump directly to a policy, or the “Current policies” link above, to view all current APNIC resource policies.\nIPv4 Policies\n|\nIPv6 Policies\n|\nASN Policies\nAPNIC Policy SIG\nThe Policy SIG develops policies relating to Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region.\nMailing List\n|\nSIG Guidelines\nPolicy Development\nLearn how policies are developed by the Internet community\nWatch the movie\n|\nPDP\n|\nProposer Guide\n|\nParticipate\nPolicy proposals\nView the proposals that may eventually become policy\nSubmit a proposal\n|\nGuide for proposal authors\nAPNIC drafts for public comment\nView and comment on public drafts of documents incorporating policies that have successfully completed the policy development process.\nRelated links\nParticipate\nPolicy SIG\nPolicy Development\nSpecial Interest Groups\nDocuments\nWhat is an IP address?\nCommunity demographics\nCommunity Consultations\nSend us feedback\nResource Policies\nParticipate\nCurrent policies\nPolicy SIG\nPolicy Development\nPolicy proposals\nAPNIC drafts for public comment\nEditorial comment period for APNIC 54 and APNIC 55 Policies\nPolicies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region\nExperimental allocations policy\nIPv6 address allocation and assignment policy\nCriteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region\nAPNIC Internet Number Resource Policies\nOperational policies for National Internet Registries in the APNIC region\nPolicy environment for Internet number resource distribution in the Asia Pacific\nAPNIC transfer, merger, acquisition, and takeover policy\nFellowship\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nParticipate\nCommunity Technical Support\nSecurity at APNIC\nIPv6@APNIC\nAPNIC Foundation\nAPNIC IPv4 post-exhaustion\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "segments": [{"segment_id": "e812f542-6a8e-4c03-92f1-e4d2c810545c", "document_id": "4164ab20-cb52-4399-b9e7-4b61483b22ef", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Resource Policies – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nResource Policies\nIP addresses and AS numbers are shared resources, available for use by anyone who can demonstrate the need for them. APNIC policies ensure these resources are distributed fairly and consistently across the whole Asia Pacific region. Developments to policy are discussed in the\nPolicy SIG\n.\nCurrent policies\nUse the links below to jump directly to a policy, or the “Current policies” link above, to view all current APNIC resource policies.\nIPv4 Policies\n|\nIPv6 Policies\n|\nASN Policies\nAPNIC Policy SIG\nThe Policy SIG develops policies relating to Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region.\nMailing List\n|\nSIG Guidelines\nPolicy Development\nLearn how policies are developed by the Internet community\nWatch the movie\n|\nPDP\n|\nProposer Guide\n|\nParticipate\nPolicy proposals\nView the proposals that may eventually become policy\nSubmit a proposal\n|\nGuide for proposal authors\nAPNIC drafts for public comment\nView and comment on public drafts of documents incorporating policies that have successfully completed the policy development process.\nRelated links\nParticipate\nPolicy SIG\nPolicy Development\nSpecial Interest Groups\nDocuments\nWhat is an IP address?\nCommunity demographics\nCommunity Consultations\nSend us feedback\nResource Policies\nParticipate\nCurrent policies\nPolicy SIG\nPolicy Development\nPolicy proposals\nAPNIC drafts for public comment\nEditorial comment period for APNIC 54 and APNIC 55 Policies\nPolicies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region\nExperimental allocations policy\nIPv6 address allocation and assignment policy\nCriteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region\nAPNIC Internet Number Resource Policies\nOperational policies for National Internet Registries in the APNIC region\nPolicy environment for Internet number resource distribution in the Asia Pacific\nAPNIC transfer, merger, acquisition, and takeover policy\nFellowship\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nParticipate\nCommunity Technical Support\nSecurity at APNIC\nIPv6@APNIC\nAPNIC Foundation\nAPNIC IPv4 post-exhaustion\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3970, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 577}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "46456a94-426f-4c2d-8a98-8dc57a70878c", "source_id": "7549d0f3e62fea31c8f55257", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://subscribe.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://subscribe.icann.org/", "artifact_sha256": "649bd56fc9c3706cf0cad1c11a4db35f9abdd505603d168b8efdf1c67a64e608", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 334034, "title": "ICANN News Subscriptions", "language": "en", "text_length": 2637, "characters": 2637, "text": "ICANN News Subscriptions\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttp://subscribe.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttp://subscribe.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN News Subscriptions\nReceive the latest ICANN content directly to your email. Simply select the content or topics that interest you most, and you’ll always find the latest ICANN news and content to read in your inbox.\nSign Up for ICANN News Subscriptions\nReceive the latest ICANN news directly to your inbox!\nWhen new content is added or updated on\nhttps://www.icann.org\n, ICANN will send you a daily or weekly email with links to the content. You will receive the daily news email Tuesday through Saturday between 12:10am - 12:40am UTC and the weekly news email on Saturday between 01:10am - 01:40am UTC.\nSimply select the topics you are most interested in and the frequency you’d like to receive the ICANN email alerts, and you’re set.\nTo subscribe, sign in to your ICANN Account.\nSign In Now\nIf you don’t have an ICANN Account, you need to create an account.\nOnce you create your account, you will see a\nWelcome to Your ICANN Account landing page\n. From there, select the ICANN News Subscriptions tile and then you will be able to select your content and frequency preferences.\nCreate An Account\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "82843bab-5b59-41ae-a797-0789f70cd6c3", "document_id": "46456a94-426f-4c2d-8a98-8dc57a70878c", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN News Subscriptions\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttp://subscribe.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttp://subscribe.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN News Subscriptions\nReceive the latest ICANN content directly to your email. Simply select the content or topics that interest you most, and you’ll always find the latest ICANN news and content to read in your inbox.\nSign Up for ICANN News Subscriptions\nReceive the latest ICANN news directly to your inbox!\nWhen new content is added or updated on\nhttps://www.icann.org\n, ICANN will send you a daily or weekly email with links to the content. You will receive the daily news email Tuesday through Saturday between 12:10am - 12:40am UTC and the weekly news email on Saturday between 01:10am - 01:40am UTC.\nSimply select the topics you are most interested in and the frequency you’d like to receive the ICANN email alerts, and you’re set.\nTo subscribe, sign in to your ICANN Account.\nSign In Now\nIf you don’t have an ICANN Account, you need to create an account.\nOnce you create your account, you will see a\nWelcome to Your ICANN Account landing page\n. From there, select the ICANN News Subscriptions tile and then you will be able to select your content and frequency preferences.\nCreate An Account\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2637, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 400}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "4723b949-cd53-4934-8541-bfa19c1f8594", "source_id": "62d62de3f53003a56bf376bc", "source": "LACNIC", "source_url": "https://www.lacnic.net/", "final_url": "https://www.lacnic.net/", "artifact_sha256": "02382ac7915e39a10ff399909a23efe0546da2de96a30e6731beaa31957fefee", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 55029, "title": "LACNIC - Registro de Direcciones IP en LAC", "language": "es", "text_length": 2748, "characters": 2748, "text": "LACNIC - Registro de Direcciones IP en LAC\nMi\nLACNIC\nportuguês\nenglish\nespañol\nAcerca de\nConoce todo acerca de LACNIC\nAcerca de LACNIC\nAnuncios\nEstatuto\nPresupuesto\nTransparencia\nCódigo de Conducta de la comunidad de LACNIC\nCódigo de Ética de LACNIC\nCasa de Internet\nIntegrantes de LACNIC\nDirectorio\nComisión Electoral\nComisión Fiscal\nComité de Ética\nStaff\nIP & ASN\nSolicita IP&ASN\nSolicitar IP & ASN\nLista de espera para recibir direcciones IPv4\nDespliega IPv6\nTransferencias de direcciones IP\nRevocación de IP & ASN\nDevolución de IP & ASN\nGestión de recursos legados\nEstadísticas de Asignación de LACNIC\nAdministra IP&ASN\nMiLACNIC (Ingresar a mi cuenta)\nWhois\nResolución reversa del DNS\nCertificación de recursos (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nGeolocalización de IP\nAutomatización e integración de la gestión IP\nAcceso a Bulk Whois\nLACNIC Tools\nSistema Automatizado para la Administración de Recursos de Internet (SARA)\nMembresía\nMembresía y facturación\nMembresía\nCategorías y Cuotas de Asociados\nFormas de pago\nElecciones\nAsamblea\nTabla de votos\nCapacitaciones\nCampus LACNIC\nPróximas capacitaciones\nCAMPUS\nCursos\nDocentes\nIngresar al campus\nEspecializaciones\nFortalece tus habilidades técnicas\nWebinars\nPodcast\nTutoriales y guías\nNovedades\nParticipar\nEventos de LACNIC\nEventos\n¿Qué es un evento de LACNIC?\nHospedar un evento\nNovedades\n¿Cómo patrocinar?\nEspacios abiertos a la comunidad\nDesarrollo de Políticas\nElecciones\nForo Técnico de LACNIC\nPremio Trayectoria\nListas de Discusión\nConsulta pública sobre el Documento de Gobernanza de los RIR (ICP-2)\nOportunidades\nDescubre nuestras oportunidades de apoyo\nCalendario de iniciativas\nEmbajadores I+D\nFRIDA\nPrograma de becas\nGobernanza de Internet\nInvestigación aplicada\n+RAICES\nIniciativas anteriores\nMentoreo de IT Women\nLíderes\nI+D\nMediciones e informes técnicos\nMediciones de Internet\nIP/ASN para investigación\nHerramientas de medición\nInformes técnicos de Interconexión\nInformes técnicos de IPv6\nInformes técnicos de ciberseguridad\nFactores técnicos del éxito de Internet\nCiberseguridad\nCiberseguridad\nLACNIC CSIRT\nInformación para LEAs\nInformes técnicos de ciberseguridad\nCSIRT Estadísticas\nNovedades\nBlog\nMi\nLACNIC\nConvocatoria a organizaciones titulares de recursos IPv4 legados\nIngresar aquí\nSolicitar recursos\nDespliega IPv6\nConsultar Whois\nLACNIC Tools\nInformes I+D\nEventos\nComunidad\nDesarrollo de Políticas\nIngresar aquí\nOrganización\nAcerca de LACNIC\nCasa de Internet\nReporte Anual\nEmpleo\nContactar\nSugerencias\nListas de Discusión\nContacto\nFAQ\nThe Number Resource Organization\nNRO News\nComité de Revisión\nASO, NRO\nCiberseguridad\nLACNIC CSIRT\nInformación para LEAs\nReportar Incidente\nCSIRT Estadísticas\nPolítica de privacidad\nTransparencia\nArchivo\nGreat Place To Work\nCHK_LACNIC", "segments": [{"segment_id": "74453fdb-1448-4aa4-ad1c-ef54da402abc", "document_id": "4723b949-cd53-4934-8541-bfa19c1f8594", "ordinal": 0, "text": "LACNIC - Registro de Direcciones IP en LAC\nMi\nLACNIC\nportuguês\nenglish\nespañol\nAcerca de\nConoce todo acerca de LACNIC\nAcerca de LACNIC\nAnuncios\nEstatuto\nPresupuesto\nTransparencia\nCódigo de Conducta de la comunidad de LACNIC\nCódigo de Ética de LACNIC\nCasa de Internet\nIntegrantes de LACNIC\nDirectorio\nComisión Electoral\nComisión Fiscal\nComité de Ética\nStaff\nIP & ASN\nSolicita IP&ASN\nSolicitar IP & ASN\nLista de espera para recibir direcciones IPv4\nDespliega IPv6\nTransferencias de direcciones IP\nRevocación de IP & ASN\nDevolución de IP & ASN\nGestión de recursos legados\nEstadísticas de Asignación de LACNIC\nAdministra IP&ASN\nMiLACNIC (Ingresar a mi cuenta)\nWhois\nResolución reversa del DNS\nCertificación de recursos (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nGeolocalización de IP\nAutomatización e integración de la gestión IP\nAcceso a Bulk Whois\nLACNIC Tools\nSistema Automatizado para la Administración de Recursos de Internet (SARA)\nMembresía\nMembresía y facturación\nMembresía\nCategorías y Cuotas de Asociados\nFormas de pago\nElecciones\nAsamblea\nTabla de votos\nCapacitaciones\nCampus LACNIC\nPróximas capacitaciones\nCAMPUS\nCursos\nDocentes\nIngresar al campus\nEspecializaciones\nFortalece tus habilidades técnicas\nWebinars\nPodcast\nTutoriales y guías\nNovedades\nParticipar\nEventos de LACNIC\nEventos\n¿Qué es un evento de LACNIC?\nHospedar un evento\nNovedades\n¿Cómo patrocinar?\nEspacios abiertos a la comunidad\nDesarrollo de Políticas\nElecciones\nForo Técnico de LACNIC\nPremio Trayectoria\nListas de Discusión\nConsulta pública sobre el Documento de Gobernanza de los RIR (ICP-2)\nOportunidades\nDescubre nuestras oportunidades de apoyo\nCalendario de iniciativas\nEmbajadores I+D\nFRIDA\nPrograma de becas\nGobernanza de Internet\nInvestigación aplicada\n+RAICES\nIniciativas anteriores\nMentoreo de IT Women\nLíderes\nI+D\nMediciones e informes técnicos\nMediciones de Internet\nIP/ASN para investigación\nHerramientas de medición\nInformes técnicos de Interconexión\nInformes técnicos de IPv6\nInformes técnicos de ciberseguridad\nFactores técnicos del éxito de Internet\nCiberseguridad\nCiberseguridad\nLACNIC CSIRT\nInformación para LEAs\nInformes técnicos de ciberseguridad\nCSIRT Estadísticas\nNovedades\nBlog\nMi\nLACNIC\nConvocatoria a organizaciones titulares de recursos IPv4 legados\nIngresar aquí\nSolicitar recursos\nDespliega IPv6\nConsultar Whois\nLACNIC Tools\nInformes I+D\nEventos\nComunidad\nDesarrollo de Políticas\nIngresar aquí\nOrganización\nAcerca de LACNIC\nCasa de Internet\nReporte Anual\nEmpleo\nContactar\nSugerencias\nListas de Discusión\nContacto\nFAQ\nThe Number Resource Organization\nNRO News\nComité de Revisión\nASO, NRO\nCiberseguridad\nLACNIC CSIRT\nInformación para LEAs\nReportar Incidente\nCSIRT Estadísticas\nPolítica de privacidad\nTransparencia\nArchivo\nGreat Place To Work\nCHK_LACNIC", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2748, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 380}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "4a95142c-9aa9-4b44-80b3-cb357dbc2bc5", "source_id": "c21a1c85e838435a0a7208e9", "source": "APNIC", "source_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/", "final_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/", "artifact_sha256": "c21a1c85e838435a0a7208e9a0616c577bcbe5e88e4cf26ea317ec74fe31e456", "content_type": "text/html; charset=UTF-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 148766, "title": "APNIC Policy Proposals", "language": "en", "text_length": 19225, "characters": 19225, "text": "Policy proposals – APNIC\nSkip to content\nPolicy proposals\nRecent\nImplemented\nAbandoned\nThis page lists all current policy proposals, their status in the\nAPNIC Policy Development Process\n(PDP), and the Secretariat impact assessment.\nTo be discussed at\nAPNIC 62\nprop-169:\nAligning IPv4 LIR Needs Assessment with Current IPv4 Delegation Policy\nprop-170:\nNibble-Boundary Alignment for IPv6 Allocations\nprop-164:\nAllocations of IPv6 Resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment\nprop-168:\nIncrease to maximum IPv4 delegations\nprop-165:\nProvision of IPv4 Address Space to IPv6-only Networks for Transitional Purpose\nprop-171:\nOperational Accountability for Abuse Contacts in Sub-Allocated Address Space\nprop-172:\nDefining Internet Abuse through IP Addresses\nDid not reach consensus at\nAPNIC 61\nIn Implementation\nprop-166:\nRevocation of Persistently Non-functional RPKI Certification Authorities\nprop-162:\nWHOIS Privacy\nWithdrawn/Abandonded at\nAPNIC 61\nImplemented\nOn behalf of the APNIC community we would like to acknowledge the proposal authors for their contribution to the bottom-up policy development process.\nProposal Number\nProposal Title\nAuthor/s\nProposed Year\nOPM\nImplemented Year\nprop-167:\nPublished Statistics on Directory Service Usage\nJonathan Brewer\n2025\nAPNIC 60\n2026\nprop-156:\nAssignment of Temporary IP Resources\nChristopher Hawker\n2023\nAPNIC 57\n2025\nprop-154:\nResizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs\nSimon Sohel Baroi and Aftab Siddiqui\n2023\nAPNIC 57\n2025\nprop-155\nIPv6 PI assignment for associate members\nAftab Siddiqui and Simon Sohel Baroi\n2023\nAPNIC 56\n2024\nprop-151\nRestricting non hierarchical as-set\nAftab Siddiqui\n2023\nAPNIC 55\n2023\nprop-150\nROA/whois object with Private, Reserved and Unallocated (reserved/available) Origin ASN\nAftab Siddiqui\n2023\nAPNIC 55\n2023\nprop-147\nHistorical Resources Management\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2022\nAPNIC 54\n2023\nprop-146\nAligning the Contrast\nAnupam Agarwal\n2022\nAPNIC 54\n2022\nprop-145\nSingle Source for Definitions\nAnupam Agrawal\n2022\nAPNIC 55\n2023\nprop-144\nReserve pool under Experimental Allocation Policy\nAnupam Agarwal, Amirta Choudhury, and Simon Sohel Baroi\n2022\nAPNIC 53\n2022\nprop-143\nASN to Customer\nJordi Palet Martínez and Anupam Agarwal\n2022\nAPNIC 53\n2022\nprop-142\nUnify Transfer Policies Text\nJordi Palet Martínez and Amrita Choudhury\n2022\nAPNIC 53\n2022\nprop-140\nUpdate End-Site Definition\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2021\nAPNIC 52\n2021\nprop-139\nSOR not required\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2021\nAPNIC 52\n2021\nprop-138\nRestricting AS-ID in ROA\nAftab Siddiqui\n2021\nAPNIC 52\n2021\nprop-136\nRegistration Requirements\nSimon Sohel Baroi and Amrita Choudhury\n2021\nAPNIC 52\n2021\nprop-135\nDocumentation\nAmrita Choudhury and Simon Sohel Baroi\n2021\nAPNIC 52\n2021\nprop-133\nClarification on Sub-Assignments\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2020\nAPNIC 49\n2021\nprop-132\nRPKI ROAs for unallocated and unassigned APNIC address space (was: AS0 for\nBogons)\nAftab Siddiqui\n2019\nAPNIC 48\n2020\nprop-131\nEditorial changes in IPv6 Policy\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2019\nAPNIC 48\n2020\nprop-129\nAbolish Waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests\nAftab Siddiqui\n2019\nAPNIC 47\n2019\nprop-128\nMultihoming not required for ASN\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2019\nAPNIC 47\n2019\nprop-125\nValidation of “abuse-mailbox” and other IRT emails\nJordi Palet Martínez and Aftab Siddiqui\n2018\nAPNIC 46\n2019\nprop-127\nChange maximum delegation size of 103/8 IPv4 address pool to a /23\nChing-Heng Ku, Aftab Siddiqui, Yen-Chieh Wang\n2019\nAPNIC 47\n2019\nprop-122\nUpdating “Subsequent IPv6 allocation” policy\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2017\nAPNIC 44\n2017\nprop-121\nUpdating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2017\nAPNIC 44\n2017\nprop-117\nReturned IPv4 address management and Final /8 exhaustion\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2017\nAPNIC 43\n2017\nprop-116\nProhibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2016\nAPNIC 42\n2017\nprop-114\nModification in the ASN eligibility criteria\nAftab Siddiqui, Skeeve Stevens\n2015\nAPNIC 39\n2016\nprop-113\nModification in the IPv4 eligibility criteria\nAftab Siddiqui, Skeeve Stevens\n2015\nAPNIC 39\n2016\nprop-109\nAllocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as Research Prefixes\nGeoff Huston\n2014\nAPNIC 37\n2014\nprop-108\nSuggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process\nDean Pemberton, Izumi Okutani\n2013\nAPNIC 36\n2014\nprop-107\nAS number transfer policy proposal\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2013\nAPNIC 36\n2014\nprop-105\nDistribution of returned IPv4 address (Modification of prop-088)\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2013\nAPNIC 35\n2014\nprop-104\nClarifying demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4 transfer policy\nShin SHIRAHATA, Norisuke HIRAI, Akira NAKAGAWA\n2012\nAPNIC 34\n2013\nprop-102\nSparse allocation guidelines for IPv6 resource allocations\nDean Pemberton, Ren-Hung Hwang\n2012\nAPNIC 33\n2012\nprop-101\nRemoving multihoming requirement for IPv6 portable assignments\nDavid Woodgate\n2012\nAPNIC 33\n2013\nprop-097\nGlobal policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA\nAlejandro Acosta, Nicolas Antoniello, S. Moonesamy, Douglas Onyango,\nMedel Ramirez, Masato\nYamanishi\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-096\nMaintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the\nfinal /8 phase\nTomohiro Fujisaki, Co-authors Masaru Akai, Fuminori Tanizaki, Toshio\nTachibana, Akira Nakagawa\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-095\nInter-RIR IPv4 address transfer proposal\nTomohiro Fujisaki, CO AUTHOR: Fuminori Tanizaki, Masaru Akai, Toshio\nTachibana, Akira Nakagaw\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-094\nRemoving renumbering requirement from final /8 policy\nIzumi Okutani, Terence Zhang Yinghao\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-093\nReducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8 policy\nRandy Bush, Andy Linton, Philip Smith, Terence Zhang Yinghao\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-088\nDistribution of IPv4 addresses once the final /8 period starts\nRandy Bush, Philip Smith\n2010\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-083\nAlternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations\nSkeeve Stevens\n2010\nAPNIC 29\n2011\nprop-082\nRemoving aggregation criteria for IPv6 initial allocations\nTomohiro Fujisaki, Akira Nakagawa ,Fuminori Tanizaki, Masaru Akai , Toshio\nTachibana\n2010\nAPNIC 29\n2010\nprop-080\nRemoval of IPv4 prefix exchange policy\nGuangliang Pan\n2010\nAPNIC 29\n2010\nprop-079\nAbuse contact information\nTobias Knecht\n2010\nAPNIC 29\n2010\nprop-075\nEnsuring efficient use of historical AS numbers\nGuangliang Pan\n2009\nAPNIC 28\n2010\nprop-074\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN\nBlocks (ASNs) to Regional\nInternet\nRegistries\nRatified by the ICANN Board Executive Committee and implemented by the\nIANA\nAndrew de la Haye, Stacy Hughes\n2009\nAPNIC 28\n2009\nprop-073\nSimplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existing\nIPv4 addresses\nTerry Manderson,Andy Linton\n2009\nAPNIC 28\n2010\nprop-066\nEnsuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources\nBrenda D. Tarimel, Philip Smith, James Spenceley\n2008\nAPNIC 26\n2009\nprop-065\nFormat for delegation and recording of 4-byte AS numbers\nJames Spenceley\n2008\nAPNIC 26\n2008\nprop-064\nChange to assignment policy for AS numbers\nJames Spenceley\n2008\nAPNIC 26\n2009\nprop-062\nUse of final /8\nPhilip Smith, Jonny Martin, Randy Bush\n2008\nAPNIC 26\n2009\nprop-061\n32-bit ASNs for documentation purposes\nPhilip Smith, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Tomoya Yoshida\n2008\nAPNIC 26\n2008\nprop-057\nProposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria\nToshiyuki Hosaka, Izumi Okutani\n2008\nAPNIC 25\n2008\nprop-055\nGlobal policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space\nRoque Gagliano, ANTEL, Francisco Obispo, CENIT, Haitham EL Nakhal, MCIT,\nDidier Allain Kla, ISOC\nCote\nd’Ivoire, JPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team: Akinori Maemura, Akira Nakagawa, Izumi Okutani,\nKosuke\nIto,\nKuniaki Kondo, Shuji Nakamura, Susumu Sato, Takashi Arano, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Tomoya Yoshida,\nToshiyuki\nHosaka\n2008\nAPNIC 25\n2009\nprop-054\nNIR operational policy document revision\nSanjaya, Terry Manderson\n2008\nAPNIC 25\n2008\nprop-053\nChanging minimum IPv4 allocation size to /22\nRajesh Chharia\n2008\nAPNIC 25\n2008\nprop-050\nIPv4 address transfers\nGeoff Huston, Philip Smith\n2007\nAPNIC 24\n2010\nprop-049\nIANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs\nAfriNIC, APNIC,ARIN,LACNIC,RIPE NCC\n2007\nAPNIC 24\n2007\nprop-041\nIPv6 assignment size to critical infrastructure\nAPNIC\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2006\nprop-038\nAmending APNIC’s lame DNS reverse delegation policy\nTerry Manderson\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2007\nprop-035\nIPv6 portable assignment for multihoming\nKatsuyasu Toyama, Takashi Arano, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Toshinori Ishii,\nKosuke Ito, Dai Nishino,\nNoriaktsu\nOhishi, Izumi Okutani\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2007\nprop-033\nEnd site assignment policy for IPv6\nGeoff Huston, Randy Bush\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2007\nprop-032\n4-byte AS number policy proposal\nAdopted by all RIRs\nGeoff Huston\n2005\nAPNIC 21\n2007\nprop-031\nProposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement\npolicy\nStephan Millet, Geoff Huston\n2005\nAPNIC 20\n2007\nprop-030\nDeprecation of ip6.int reverse DNS service in APNIC\nSanjaya\n2005\nAPNIC 20\n2006\nprop-027\nThe second phase of Large Space IPv4 Trial Usage Program for Future IPv6\nDeployment\nKosuke Ito, Yoshiyuki Ezura, Tsukasa Ogino, Gaku Hashimoto\n2005\nAPNIC 19\n2005\nprop-026\nAPNIC to publish address assignment statistics\nToshiyuki Hosaka\n2005\nAPNIC 19\n2005\nprop-025\nProposal on IPv6 IRR service at APNIC\nToyama Katsuyasu\n2004\nAPNIC 18\n2006\nprop-022\nA proposal to abolish redundant charges in IPv6 allocations\nIzumi Okutani\n2004\nAPNIC 18\n2005\nprop-021\nExpansion of the initial allocation space for existing IPv6 address space\nholders\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2004\nAPNIC 18\n2005\nprop-018\nProtecting historical records in the APNIC Whois Database\nAPNIC\n2004\nAPNIC 17\n2004\nprop-017\nRecovery of unused address space\nAPNIC\n2004\nAPNIC 17\n2005\nprop-016\nIPv6 allocations to IPv4 networks\nAPNIC\n2004\nAPNIC 17\n2004\nprop-015\nShould APNIC allocate global unicast IPv6 address space to ‘unconnected’\nnetworks?\nAPNIC\n2004\nAPNIC 17\n2004\nprop-014\nA proposal to lower the IPv4 minimum allocation size and initial\nallocation criteria in the Asia\nPacific\nregion\nAPNIC\n2004\nAPNIC 17\n2004\nprop-012\nImproving reliability of IRR database\nMasasi Eto\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2003\nprop-011\nIXP assignments\nConsensus elements of proposal were\nimplemented\nBill Woodcock\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2004\nprop-010\nProtecting resource records in APNIC Whois Database\nAPNIC\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2004\nprop-008\nIANA IPv4 resource request procedures\nAdopted by all RIRs\nRandy Bush\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2003\nprop-007\nPrivacy of customer assignment records\nJoint RIRs\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2005\nprop-006\nSupporting historical resource transfers\nAPNIC\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2004\nprop-005\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6\nblocks to Regional Internet\nRegistries\nAdopted by all RIRs\nAPNIC\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2004\nprop-004\nLame delegation cleanup revised\nAPNIC\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2006\nprop-002\nDocumentation policy\nAPNIC\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2004\nprop-001\nPolicy process modification\nAPNIC\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2003\nOn behalf of the APNIC community we would like to acknowledge the proposal authors for their contribution to\nthe bottom-up policy development process.\nAbandoned and Withdrawn\nProposal Number\nProposal Title\nAuthor/s\nProposed Year\nOPM\nAbandoned Year\nprop-163\nEnhancing WHOIS Transparency and Efficiency Through Referral Server Implementation\nTsungyi Yu\n2025\nAPNIC 59\n2025\nprop-160\nChange IPv6 Initial assignment to /44 for Organizations Eligible for multihoming\nMd. Rafeeun Noby Babir and Muhammad Redwanul Karim\n2024\nAPNIC 58\n2025\nprop-161\nUsing IPv6 for Internet of Things (IoT)\nGuangliang Pan (Benny), Wei Wong (Wesley), Qiang Li, Yaling Tan\n2024\nAPNIC 58\n2024\nprop-159\nReduction of minimum IPv6 allocation size form /32 to /36\nChristopher Munz-Michielin\n2024\nAPNIC 58\n2024\nprop-158\nIPv6 auto-allocation for each IPv4 request\nDavid Aditya Yoga Pratama and M. Andri Setiawan\n2024\nAPNIC 57\n2024\nprop-157\nTemporary IPv4 Transfers\nJordi Palet Martinez\n2024\nAPNIC 57\n2024\nprop-153\nProposed changes to PDP\nBertrand Cherrier\n2023\nAPNIC 56\n2023\nprop-152\nReduce the IPv4 delegation from /23 to /24\nRajesh Chharia and Vivek Narayan\n2023\nAPNIC 56\n2023\nprop-149\nChange of maximum delegation for less than /21 total IPv4 holdings\nShubham Agarwal and Gaurav Kansal\n2023\nAPNIC 55\n2023\nprop-148\nLeasing of Resources is not Acceptable\nJordi Palet Martinez, Amrita Choudhury, and Fernando Frediani\n2022\nAPNIC 54\n2023\nprop-141\nChange maximum delegation size of IPv4 address from 512 ( /23 ) to 768 (/23+/24) addresses\nSimon Sohel Baroi and Aftab Siddiqui\n2021\nAPNIC 52\n2022\nprop-137\nIPv6 assignment for associate members\nSimon Sohel Baroi and Aftab Siddiqui\n2021\nAPNIC 52\n2023\nprop-130\nModification of transfer policies\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2019\nAPNIC 48\n2021\nprop-134\nPDP Update\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2020\nAPNIC 49\n2020\nprop-126\nPDP Update\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2018\nAPNIC 46\n2019\nprop-124\nClarification on Sub-Assignments\nJordi Palet Martínez\n2018\nAPNIC 46\n2019\nprop-118\nNo need policy in APNIC region\nHeng Lu\n2017\nAPNIC 43\n2019\nprop-123\nModify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy\nAlex Yang\n2018\nAPNIC 45\n2018\nprop-120\nFinal /8 pool exhaustion plan\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2017\nAPNIC 44\n2018\nprop-119\nTemporary transfers\nDavid Hilario\n2017\nAPNIC 44\n2018\nprop-115\nRegistration of detailed assignment information in whois DB\nRuri Hiromi, Tomohiro Fujisaki\n2015\nAPNIC 39\n2016\nprop-112\nOn demand expansion of IPv6 address allocation size in legacy IPv6 space\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2015\nAPNIC 39\n2015\nprop-111\nRequest-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2014\nAPNIC 37\n2014\nprop-110\nDesignate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure\nDean Pemberton, Geoff Huston\n2014\nAPNIC 37\n2014\nprop-106\nRestricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 block\nShin SHIRAHATA, Tomohiro Fujisaki\n2013\nAPNIC 35\n2013\nprop-103\nA Final IP Address Policy Proposal\nRandy Bush\n2012\nAPNIC 34\n2012\nprop-100\nNational IP Address Plan – Allocation of country-wide IP address blocks\nRakesh Mohan Agarwal\n2011\nAPNIC 32\n2012\nprop-099\nIPv6 Reservation for Large Networks\nXing Li, Song Jiang, Xiaomin Zhou, Haijin Li\n2011\nAPNIC 32\n2012\nprop-098\nOptimizing IPv6 allocation strategies (simplified)\nOwen DeLong\n2011\nAPNIC 32\n2012\nprop-092\nDistribution of additional APNIC IPv4 address ranges after IANA exhaustion\nDavid Woodgate\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-091\nLimiting of final /8 policy to specific /9\nDavid Woodgate\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-090\nOptimizing IPv6 allocation strategies\nOwen DeLong\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-089\nAdditional criterion for final /8 allocations (and assignments)\nDavid Woodhouse\n2011\nAPNIC 31\n2011\nprop-087\nIPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes\nTomohiro Fujisaki\n2010\nAPNIC 30\n2011\nprop-086\nGlobal Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion\nSteve Bertrand, Chris Grundemann, Aaron Hughes, Louie Lee, Matt Pounsett, Jason Schiller\n2010\nAPNIC 30\n2011\nprop-085\nEligibility for critical infrastructure assignments from the final /8\nTerence Zhang Yinghao, Wendy Zhao Wei\n2010\nAPNIC 30\n2011\nprop-084\nFrequent whois information update request\nTobias Knecht\n2010\nAPNIC 30\n2011\nprop-081\nEligibility for assignments from the final /8\nTerence Zhang Yinghao, Jane Zhang, Wendy Zhao Wei\n2010\nAPNIC 29\n2010\nprop-078\nReserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitate IPv6 deployment\nTerence Zhang Yinghao, Jane Zhang, Wendy Zhao Wei\n2009\nAPNIC 28\n2010\nprop-077\nProposal to supplement transfer policy of historical IPv4 addresses\nTerence Zhang Yinghao, Jane Zhang, Wendy Zhao Wei\n2009\nAPNIC 28\n2010\nprop-076\nRequiring aggregation for IPv6 subsequent allocations\nTomohiro Fujisaki,Akira Nakagawa, Toshio Tachibana, Fuminori Tanizaki\n2009\nAPNIC 28\n2010\nprop-072\nReapplication limits when transferring address space\nPhilip Smith\n2009\nAPNIC 28\n2009\nprop-071\nJustifying receiving IPv4 address space\nPhilip Smith\n2009\nAPNIC 28\n2009\nprop-070\nMaximum IPv4 allocation size\nJames Spenceley, Jonny Martin\n2009\nAPNIC 27\n2009\nprop-069\nGlobal policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries\nAdiel A. Akplogan, AfriNIC Raul Echeberria, LACNIC, Maemura Akinori, APNIC, Geoff Huston, APNIC,\nAxel Pawlik, RIPE NCC, Ray Plzak, ARIN, Oscar A. Robles-Garay, LACNIC, Nigel Titley, RIPE NCC,\nPaul\nWilson, APNIC\n2009\nAPNIC 27\n2011\nprop-068\nInter-RIR transfer policy\nGeoff Huston\n2009\nAPNIC 27\n2009\nprop-067\nA simple transfer proposal\nRandy Bush, Philip Smith\n2008\nAPNIC 27\n2009\nprop-063\nReducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months\nPhilip Smith, Randy Bush, Jonny Martin\n2008\nAPNIC 26\n2009\nprop-060\nChange in the criteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region\nKusumba Sridhar\n2008\nAPNIC 26\n2008\nprop-059\nUsing the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to construct validated IRR data\nRandy Bush\n2008\nAPNIC 26\n2008\nprop-058\nProposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs\nShirou Niinobe, Takeshi Tomochika, Jiro Yamaguchi, Dai Nishino, Hiroyuki Ashida, Akira Nakagawa,\nToshiyuki Hosaka\n2008\nAPNIC 25\n2008\nprop-056\nIPv4 Soft Landing\nDavid Conrad\n2008\nAPNIC 25\n2008\nprop-052\nCooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool\nTony Hain\n2007\nAPNIC 25\n2008\nprop-051\nGlobal policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space\nRoque Gagliano , ANTEL, Francisco Obispo, CENIT, Haitham EL Nakhal, MCIT, Didier Allain Kla,\nISOC\nCote d’Ivoire\n2007\nAPNIC 24\n2007\nprop-048\nIPv6 ULA-central\nJordi Palet Martinez\n2007\nAPNIC 24\n2007\nprop-047\neGLOP multicast address assignments\nMarshall Eubanks, David Meyer\n2007\nAPNIC 23\n2007\nprop-046\nIPv4 countdown policy proposal\nJPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team\n2007\nAPNIC 23\n2007\nprop-045\nProposal to modify “end site” definition and allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations\nJordi Palet Martinez\n2007\nAPNIC 23\n2007\nprop-044\nProposal to remove requirement to document need for multiple /48s assigned to a single end site\nJordi Palet Martinez\n2007\nAPNIC 23\n2007\nprop-043\nProposal to remove reference to IPv6 policy document as an “interim” policy document\nJordi Palet Martinez\n2007\nAPNIC 23\n2007\nprop-042\nProposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria\nJordi Palet Martinez\n2007\nAPNIC 23\n2007\nprop-040\nProposal for APNIC non-member annual service fee\nAPNIC\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2006\nprop-039\nA proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks\nTomoya Yoshida\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2006\nprop-037\nDeprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data\nTerry Manderson\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2007\nprop-036\nProposal to modify allocation criteria in the “IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy”\nJordi Palet Martinez\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2006\nprop-034\nIPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations\nJordi Palet Martinez\n2006\nAPNIC 22\n2006\nprop-029\nProposal for discrete networks and national peering\nUchenna N Ibekwe, Vu, Baokhanh N (Beth), Jason Schiller\n2005\nAPNIC 20\n2005\nprop-028\nAbolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs\nNIR fee WG\n2005\nAPNIC 19\n2005\nprop-024\nChanging NIR fee structure\nToshiyuki Hosaka\n2004\nAPNIC 18\n2004\nprop-023\nA proposal to prevent the routing of “dark” address space\nGordon Bader\n2004\nAPNIC 18\n2004\nprop-020\nApplication of the HD ratio to IPv4\nAPNIC\n2004\nAPNIC 18\n2006\nprop-019\nA proposal for whois database query\nJeng-jr Li\n2004\nAPNIC 21\n2006\nprop-013\nLIRs to manage multiple discreet networks under a single APNIC membership\nDawn Martin\n2003\nAPNIC 17\n2003\nprop-009\nDelegation of 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa Synopsis\nRandy Bush\n2003\nAPNIC 16\n2003\nprop-003\nPolicy for mirroring on IRR\nJPNIC\n2004\nAPNIC 17\n2005", "segments": [], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:35:17.204787+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "4bc0d238-4808-4da4-827c-5b0ac292961d", "source_id": "8ac2821c4c046a8614d67a2c", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/beginners/courses-and-learning", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/beginners/courses-and-learning", "artifact_sha256": "eceff890c34ff5ed73776d2a958b4a47497b98f86d7c099dc5a44726160b3832", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 307304, "title": "Courses and Learning", "language": "en", "text_length": 3521, "characters": 3521, "text": "Courses and Learning\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN For Beginners\nNew to ICANN? Here you'll find valuable information to help you get started on your ICANN journey. Explore our learning courses, infographics, videos, and other resources.\nSubscribe\nBeginners Home\nCourses and Learning\nFind Your Group\nAttend an Event\nPrograms for Professionals and Students\nCourses and Learning\nWhat is ICANN Learn?\nThe ICANN ecosystem is complex. The quickest way to become an impactful member of the Internet community is to take online courses available on our ICANN Learn platform. Here you can learn about how the Internet works and how it is governed, how to write policy, and what to expect at ICANN’s Public Meetings.\nFeatured Courses\nIf you’re just starting your ICANN stakeholder journey, we recommend taking these courses first. You will need to create an\nICANN Account\nto use ICANN Learn.\nIntroduction to ICANN\nRegistrant Basics: Essentials for Domain Name Holders\nDomain Name System (DNS) Fundamentals\nPolicy Development Fundamentals\nUnconscious Bias\nConstructive Dialogue\nIntroduction to ICANN\nRegistrant Basics: Essentials for Domain Name Holders\nDomain Name System (DNS) Fundamentals\nPolicy Development Fundamentals\nUnconscious Bias\nConstructive Dialogue\nStart Learning\nLearning\nICANN also offers live courses as well as skill and knowledge building workshops for beginners, virtually, and in person. You can find upcoming opportunities on the\nEngagement Calendar\nor the next\nICANN Public Meeting\nagenda.\nCourses and presentations for groups may be available upon request. For more information, see the\ntechnical engagement training course catalog\nand\nconnect with your regional team\n.\nWebinars\nParticipate in the\nICANN for Beginners Virtual Program\nfor a dynamic overview of ICANN and the global Internet ecosystem. Experience a series of engaging webinars tailored for newcomers, each focusing on a key topic. Learn how to join the global ICANN community and play a role in shaping Internet governance.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "dad4b3fc-3747-4ccd-927b-b5c63241876f", "document_id": "4bc0d238-4808-4da4-827c-5b0ac292961d", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Courses and Learning\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN For Beginners\nNew to ICANN? Here you'll find valuable information to help you get started on your ICANN journey. Explore our learning courses, infographics, videos, and other resources.\nSubscribe\nBeginners Home\nCourses and Learning\nFind Your Group\nAttend an Event\nPrograms for Professionals and Students\nCourses and Learning\nWhat is ICANN Learn?\nThe ICANN ecosystem is complex. The quickest way to become an impactful member of the Internet community is to take online courses available on our ICANN Learn platform. Here you can learn about how the Internet works and how it is governed, how to write policy, and what to expect at ICANN’s Public Meetings.\nFeatured Courses\nIf you’re just starting your ICANN stakeholder journey, we recommend taking these courses first. You will need to create an\nICANN Account\nto use ICANN Learn.\nIntroduction to ICANN\nRegistrant Basics: Essentials for Domain Name Holders\nDomain Name System (DNS) Fundamentals\nPolicy Development Fundamentals\nUnconscious Bias\nConstructive Dialogue\nIntroduction to ICANN\nRegistrant Basics: Essentials for Domain Name Holders\nDomain Name System (DNS) Fundamentals\nPolicy Development Fundamentals\nUnconscious Bias\nConstructive Dialogue\nStart Learning\nLearning\nICANN also offers live courses as well as skill and knowledge building workshops for beginners, virtually, and in person. You can find upcoming opportunities on the\nEngagement Calendar\nor the next\nICANN Public Meeting\nagenda.\nCourses and presentations for groups may be available upon request. For more information, see the\ntechnical engagement training course catalog\nand\nconnect with your regional team\n.\nWebinars\nParticipate in the\nICANN for Beginners Virtual Program\nfor a dynamic overview of ICANN and the global Internet ecosystem. Experience a series of engaging webinars tailored for newcomers, each focusing on a key topic. Learn how to join the global ICANN community and play a role in shaping Internet governance.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3521, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 510}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "4c0ada2f-199b-4cfc-950b-893cfee17b1a", "source_id": "e2b3b512261eccb432b34eb1", "source": "RIPE", "source_url": "https://www.ripe.net/publications/", "final_url": "https://www.ripe.net/publications/", "artifact_sha256": "e4b52599a061086973fa6bd2f4e17db85bbf69509eda54a1653570261d88cbb6", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 122583, "title": "Documents and Resources — RIPE Network Coordination Centre", "language": "en", "text_length": 12684, "characters": 12684, "text": "Documents and Resources — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nPublications and Resources\nStay informed about everything Internet-related, from RIPE Policy and RIPE NCC member information to RIPE Labs blog posts and the latest Internet news.\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nRIPE Labs\nRIPE Labs is our open community platform bringing people together to share and discuss news and ideas about network operations, measurements and tools, Internet governance, industry events and community matters.\nRIPE Labs\nMember Update\nYour monthly update on everything RIPE NCC. Get statistics and news about the RIPE NCC's services and activities.\nRead the Member Update\nIPv6 Info Centre\nThe global adoption of IPv6 is one of the key challenges in the Internet industry today, and how successfully we meet that challenge will effect Internet users throughout the world.\nIPv6 Info Centre\nQuick Links\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents include policies, reports or recommendations from RIPE Working Groups and Task Forces, as well as procedures or organisational documents relating to the RIPE NCC.\nRIPE Policies\nRIPE Governance Documents\nIPv6 Documents\nBest Common Practices\nGuidelines\nDraft and Discussion Documents\nAll Current Documents\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nFind documents relevant to the corporate governance of the RIPE NCC. Some of these documents are also published as RIPE documents.\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nCharging Schemes\nCorporate Governance and Legal Documents\nMinutes of Executive Board Meetings\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nAll RIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nLatest news\nNRO NC Nominations 2026: Call to Fill One Seat\nNRO call for nomination to fill one seat for October 2026.\nPublish Date:\n30 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nRIPE NCC Member Update: July 2026\nRead the monthly RIPE NCC Member Update for July 2026.\nPublish Date:\n29 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nmember update\nASO AC delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nThe Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has delivered Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC.\nPublish Date:\n28 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE NCC Quarterly Sanctions Transparency Report (Q3 2026) Published\nWe have published our third sanctions transparency report of the year.\nPublish Date:\n24 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\nRIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 Published\nThe RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 is now available. This strategy builds upon our existing vision, mission and values and sets the long-term direction for the organisation. The document explains RIPE NCC’s role in the Internet ecosystem, sets out six strategic focus areas for the coming five-year period and the external factors that influence our operating environment.\nPublish Date:\n13 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE 95: Call for Host\nThe RIPE NCC is looking for a host for RIPE 95 that will take place in Madrid at the Meliá Castilla Hotel from 15-19 November 2027.\nPublish Date:\n09 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nView all news\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "segments": [{"segment_id": "9bbcdc34-f5dd-47e3-a294-f6953f9a1639", "document_id": "4c0ada2f-199b-4cfc-950b-893cfee17b1a", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Documents and Resources — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nPublications and Resources\nStay informed about everything Internet-related, from RIPE Policy and RIPE NCC member information to RIPE Labs blog posts and the latest Internet news.\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nRIPE Labs\nRIPE Labs is our open community platform bringing people together to share and discuss news and ideas about network operations, measurements and tools, Internet governance, industry events and community matters.\nRIPE Labs\nMember Update\nYour monthly update on everything RIPE NCC. Get statistics and news about the RIPE NCC's services and activities.\nRead the Member Update\nIPv6 Info Centre\nThe global adoption of IPv6 is one of the key challenges in the Internet industry today, and how successfully we meet that challenge will effect Internet users throughout the world.\nIPv6 Info Centre\nQuick Links\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents include policies, reports or recommendations from RIPE Working Groups and Task Forces, as well as procedures or organisational documents relating to the RIPE NCC.\nRIPE Policies\nRIPE Governance Documents\nIPv6 Documents\nBest Common Practices\nGuidelines\nDraft and Discussion Documents\nAll Current Documents\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nFind documents relevant to the corporate governance of the RIPE NCC. Some of these documents are also published as RIPE documents.\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nCharging Schemes\nCorporate Governance and Legal Documents\nMinutes of Executive Board Meetings\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nAll RIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nLatest news\nNRO NC Nominations 2026: Call to Fill One Seat\nNRO call for nomination to fill one seat for October 2026.\nPublish Date:\n30 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nRIPE NCC Member Update: July 2026\nRead the monthly RIPE NCC Member Update for July 2026.\nPublish Date:\n29 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nmember update\nASO AC delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nThe Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has delivered Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC.\nPublish Date:\n28 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE NCC Quarterly Sanctions Transparency Report (Q3 2026) Published\nWe have published our third sanctions transparency report of the year.\nPublish Date:\n24 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\nRIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 Published\nThe RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 is now available. This strategy builds upon our existing vision, mission and values and sets the long-term direction for the organisation. The document explains RIPE NCC’s role in the Internet ecosystem, sets out six strategic focus areas for the coming five-year period and the external factors that influence our operating environment.\nPublish Date:\n13 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE 95: Call for Host\nThe RIPE NCC is looking for a host for RIPE 95 that will take place in Madrid at the Meliá Castilla Hotel from 15-19 November 2027.\nPublish Date:\n09 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nView all news\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12684, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1877}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "4cd68f80-bf15-4b1d-bb27-c70945128b34", "source_id": "679677ae3c8179477f1abefb", "source": "ARIN", "source_url": "https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/", "final_url": "https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/", "artifact_sha256": "679677ae3c8179477f1abefbb06bea9de55eea5fa39becca26b2b59dfbc0404e", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 320183, "title": "ARIN Policy Proposals", "language": "en", "text_length": 65335, "characters": 65335, "text": "Policy Proposals - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nPolicy Proposals\nThe following is a list of all Proposals received by ARIN.\nStatus categories:\nNew Proposal\nUnder Discussion (either Draft or Recommended Draft Policies at various stages of the Policy Development Process)\nPending Board of Trustees Review\nPending Implementation (Adopted by the Board of Trustees)\nImplemented\nImplemented as Editorial Update\nAbandoned\nRejected due to scope\nRemanded to the author for further development\nWithdrawn by the author\nNo matches found.\nexpand all\ncollapse all\nARIN-prop-353: Define Out Of Region Use\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 August 2026\nStatus:\nNew Proposal\nARIN-prop-352: Harmonize Section 1 and Section 6, Principles and Goals Statements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 July 2026\nStatus:\nNew Proposal\nARIN-prop-351: NRPM Section 6.4.1 Retirement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 June 2026\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2026-3\nStatus:\nUnder Discussion\nARIN-prop-350: NRPM Section 6.5 Revision\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n4 May 2026\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2026-2\nStatus:\nUnder Discussion\nARIN-prop-349: Taking IP To Other Planets (TIPTOP)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n3 March 2026\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2026-1\nStatus:\nUnder Discussion\nARIN-prop-348: SPARK (Starter Pack for ARIN Resource Kit)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 September 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nStatus:\nRejected due to scope\nNotes:\nRevised\n31 October 2025\nARIN-prop-347: Reserve 4.10 space for In-Region Use\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 July 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2025-8\nStatus:\nUnder Discussion\nARIN-prop-346: Make policy in 6.5.8.2 match the examples\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 May 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2025-7\nStatus:\nUnder Discussion\nARIN-prop-345: Fix formula in 6.5.2.1c\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 May 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2025-6\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-344: Clarify Justification Requirements for 4.4, 4.10, 6.10, and 11.10 IP Addresses\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 April 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2025-5\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-343: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 April 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2025-4\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-342: Require newly created AS-SETs to have hierarchical names\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 March 2025\nStatus:\nRejected due to scope\nARIN-prop-341: Change Section 9 Out Of Region Use Minimum Criteria\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n13 February 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2025-3\nStatus:\nUnder Discussion\nARIN-prop-340: Clarify 8.5.1 Registration Services Agreement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 February 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2025-2\nStatus:\nImplemented (3 March 2026)\nARIN-prop-339: Clarify ISP and LIR Definitions and References to Address Ambiguity in NRPM Text\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 January 2025\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2025-1\nStatus:\nUnder Discussion\nARIN-prop-338: IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n4 September 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-11\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-337: Registration Requirements and Timing of Requirements With Retirement of Section 4.2.3.7.2\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 July 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-10\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-336: Remove outdated carveout for Community Networks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 Jun 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-9\nStatus:\nImplemented 4 March 2025\nARIN-prop-335: Restrict the largest initial IPv6 allocation to /20\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n31 May 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-8\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-334: 6.5.1a Definition Update\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n3 May 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-6\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-333: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n23 April 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-5\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-332: Internet Exchange Point Definition\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 April 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-4\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-331: Addition of definitions for General and Special Purpose IP Addresses\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 April 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-7\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-330: Edit 6.5.8.3 Section 2\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 March 2024\nResulting Editorial Change:\nARIN-edit-2024-3\nStatus:\nImplemented as Editorial Update\nARIN-prop-329: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 February 2024\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-2\nStatus:\nImplemented 4 March 2025\nARIN-prop-328: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 December 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2024-1\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-327: Reduce 4.18 maximum allocation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n26 October 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2023-8\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-326: Replace Specified Transfers with Monthly Single-Price Auction\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n26 October 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nStatus:\nRejected due to scope\nNotes:\nRevised\n13 February 2024\nARIN-prop-325: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete Networks and the addition of new Section 2.18 Organizational Identifier (Org ID)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 August 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2023-7\nStatus:\nImplemented 4 March 2025\nARIN-prop-324: ARIN Waitlist Qualification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 August 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2023-6\nStatus:\nImplemented 21 August 2024\nARIN-prop-323: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.10.1\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 August 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2023-5\nStatus:\nImplemented 21 August 2024\nARIN-prop-322: Modernization of Registration Requirements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n5 June 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2023-4\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-321: Amendment of the waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 June 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2023-3\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-320: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 May 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2023-2\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-319: Retire 4.2.1.4. Slow Start\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 April 2023\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2023-1\nStatus:\nImplemented 21 August 2024\nARIN-prop-318: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.10\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 August 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-13\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-317: Direct Assignment Language Update\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 July 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-12\nStatus:\nImplemented 4 March 2025\nARIN-prop-316: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 June 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-8\nStatus:\nImplemented 13 September 2023\nARIN-prop-315: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.16\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 June 2022\nResulting Editorial Change:\nARIN-edit-2022-7\nStatus:\nImplemented 1 March 2023\nARIN-prop-314: Clean-up of NRPM – Introduction of Section 2.17\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 June 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-11\nStatus:\nImplemented 13 September 2023\nNotes:\nRevised 12 August 2022\nARIN-prop-313: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.12 and 2.14\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 June 2022\nResulting Editorial Change:\nARIN-edit-2022-6\nStatus:\nImplemented 1 March 2023\nARIN-prop-312: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.11\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 June 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-5\nStatus:\nImplemented 13 September 2023\nARIN-prop-311: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.4 and 2.5\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 June 2022\nResulting Editorial Change:\nARIN-edit-2022-10\nStatus:\nImplemented 1 March 2023\nARIN-prop-310: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.1 and 2.2\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 June 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-4\nStatus:\nImplemented 13 September 2023\nARIN-prop-309: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 June 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-3\nStatus:\nImplemented 13 September 2023\nARIN-prop-308: Leasing not Intended\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n28 March 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-9\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 20 July 2022\nARIN-prop-307: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 March 2022\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-2\nStatus:\nImplemented 13 September 2023\nARIN-prop-306: MDN Clarification for Qualification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 December 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2022-1\nStatus:\nImplemented 1 March 2023\nARIN-prop-305: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 2\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 November 2021\nStatus:\nNew Proposal\nNotes:\nRevised\n7 June 2022\nWithdrawn 22 June 2022\nARIN-prop-304: Deprecation of the 'Autonomous System Originations' Field\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n7 July 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2021-8\nStatus:\nImplemented 13 September 2023\nARIN-prop-303: Make Abuse Contact Useful\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 September 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2021-7\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-302: Remove Circuit Requirement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n13 September 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2021-6\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-301: Remove Initial Small Assignment Requirements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 September 2021\nStatus:\nWithdrawn by the Author\nARIN-prop-300: Update ISP and End User References For 2022 Fee Schedule\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 August 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-edit-2021-5\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-299: Clarifications to Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.6\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 August 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2021-4\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-298: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 July 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2021-3\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-297: Special Use IPv4 Space Out of Scope for Purposes of Determining Waitlist Eligibility\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 February 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2021-2\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-296: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 January 2021\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-edit-2021-1\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-295: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual Description\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 November 2020\nResulting Editorial Change:\nARIN-edit-2020-11\nStatus:\nImplemented as Editorial Change\nARIN-prop-294: Remove IPv6 End-User Assignment Criteria\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 November 2020\nStatus:\nWithdrawn by the Author\nARIN-prop-293: Removal of Requirement to Demonstrate Utilization of Reassignments and Reallocations for ISPs Seeking Initial Allocation from ARIN\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 October 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2020-10\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-292: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 September 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-edit-2020-9\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-291: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 August 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2020-8\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-290: 4.4 gTLD micro-allocation clarification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n3 June 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2020-7\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-289: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n31 May 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2020-6\nStatus:\nImplemented 1 March 2023\nARIN-prop-288: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 May 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2020-5\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-287: Clarification of reference to 8.2 in 8.3\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n24 March 2020\nResulting Editorial Change:\nARIN-edit-2020-4\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-286: Legacy Resources Stats\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 February 2020\nStatus:\nWithdrawn\nARIN-prop-285: IPv6 Nano-allocations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 February 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2020-3\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-284: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n24 January 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2020-1\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-283: Clarify Holdings Restriction for Section 4.1.8 Waitlist Entries\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n24 January 2020\nResulting Editorial Change:\nARIN-edit-2020-1\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 24 January 2020\nARIN-prop-282: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 January 2020\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2020-2\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-281: Reserved Pool Replenishment\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 November 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-21\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-280: Correct Repeated Requests Reference\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n31 October 2019\nStatus:\nWithdrawn by Author\nARIN-prop-279: Harmonization of Maximum Allocation Requirements under Sections 4.1.8 (ARIN Waitlist) and 4.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n31 October 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-20\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 October 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-19\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-277: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 September 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-18\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-276: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 June 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-17\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nN/A: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-16\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-275: Hijacking Authorization Not-intended\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 May 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-15\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 17 June 2019\nARIN-prop-274: No Specified Transfers for 4.1.8.2 Blocks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 April 2019\nResulting Draft Policy\nARIN-2019-14\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-273: ARIN Membership Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 April 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-13\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-272: M&A Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 April 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-12\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-271: M&A Regional Nexus Exclusion\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 April 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-11\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-270: Inter-RIR M&A\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 April 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-10\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-269: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 April 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-9\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 14 May 2019\nARIN-prop-268: Clarification of Section 4.10 for Multiple Discrete Networks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 April 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-8\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 8 April 2019\nARIN-prop-267: Elimination of the Waiting List\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 March 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-7\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 March 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nStatus:\nRejected Due to Scope\nNotes:\nRevised 27 March 2019\nRevised 13 May 2019\nPetitioned 1 May 2019\nRejected Due to Scope by the Board of Trustees 20 June 2019\nARIN-prop-265: Longer Hold Time Requirements for 4.1.8 Recipients\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 March 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-6\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-264: Validation of Abuse-mailbox\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 March 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-5\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-263: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 March 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-4\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 19 March 2019\nARIN-prop-262: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 February 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-3\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-261: Waiting List Block Size Restriction\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 February 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-2\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-260: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n30 January 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2019-1\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-259: Remove IPv4 Reference in NRPM Section 6.10.1\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 January 2019\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nStatus:\nImplemented as Editorial Change\nARIN-prop-258: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 October 2018\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2018-6\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-257: Disallow Third-party Organization Record Creation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n5 October 2018\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2018-5\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-256: Modify 8.3 and 8.4 for Clarity\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 August 2018\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nStatus:\nImplemented as Editorial Change\nARIN-prop-255: NRPM Cleanup\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 April 2018\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nStatus:\nImplemented as Editorial Change\nNotes:\nRevised 13 September 2018\nARIN-prop-254: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 March 2018\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2018-4\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 16 July 2018\nARIN-prop-253: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 February 2018\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2018-3\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-252: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation and Permit Renumbering\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 February 2018\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2018-2\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 15 March 2018\nARIN-prop-251: Correct References to Rwhois\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n28 December 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nStatus:\nImplemented as Editorial Change\nRevised 31 January 2018\nRevised 24 February 2018\nARIN-prop-250: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 December 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2018-1\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-249: Verify Contacts on New Re-assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 November 2017\nStatus:\nWithdrawn\nARIN-prop-248: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 October 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2017-13\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-247: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 October 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2017-12\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 16 November 2017\nARIN-prop-246: Reallocation and Reassignment Language Cleanup\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 October 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy ARIN-2017-11:Reallocation and Reassignment Language Cleanup\nStatus:\nImplemented as Editorial Change\nARIN-prop-245: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM Section 4.2.1.6)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n09 October 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM Section 4.2.1.6)\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-244: Clarification of initial block size for IPv4 ISP transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n07 October 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of initial block size for IPv4 ISP transfers\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-243: Amend the definition of Community Network\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n08 August 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the definition of Community Network\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 14 August 2017\nARIN-prop-242: Retire obsolete section 4 from the NRPM\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n31 May 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-241: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n31 May 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy ARIN-2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-240: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 April 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-239: UPDATE TO NPRM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n09 March 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NPRM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-238: Removal of Community Networks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 February 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-237: clarify slow start for transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 February 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2017-1: Clarify Slow Start for Transfers\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 15 March 2017\nARIN-prop-236: Remove reciprocity requirement for inter-RIR transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 February 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2017-4: Remove reciprocity requirement for inter-RIR transfers\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-235: Clarify generic references to\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 January 2017\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nStatus:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nNotes:\nRevised 16 February 2017\nRevised 13 March 2017\nARIN-prop-234: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n07 December 2016\nStatus:\nARIN- 2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-233: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n30 November 2016\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-232: Integration of Community Networks into existing ISP policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 September 2016\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2016-7: Integration of Community Networks into existing ISP policy\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n13 June 2016\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-230: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n09 June 2016\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n03 May 2016\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrant\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-228: Alternative simplified criteria for justifying small IPv4 transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n28 April 2016\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2016-3 Alternative simplified criteria for justifying small IPv4 transfers\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-227: Change timeframes for all IPv4 requests to 24 months\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 April 2016\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2016-2 Change timeframes for all IPv4 requests to 24 months\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-226: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 February 2016\nStatus:\nARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-225: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 September 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-224: Minimum IPv6 Assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 August 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-223: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 August 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 9 September 2015\nRevised 1 September 2015\nARIN-prop-222: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 July 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-8 Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-221: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 May 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-220: Transfers and Multi-national Networks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 May 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-219: Out of region use\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 May 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-5: Out of region use\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-218: Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 April 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-4: Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-217: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 April 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-216: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 April 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-215: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 February 2015\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-214: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 October 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-213: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 October 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-212: Transfer policy slow start and simplified needs verification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 August 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-20: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-211: New MDN allocation based on past utilization\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 August 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-210: Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 June 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-18: Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-209: Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 May 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-208: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 April 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-207: Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n24 April 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-16: Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-206: Implement IPv6 from IPv4 Without an Outage\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n23 April 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC remanded to originator on 15 May 2014\nARIN-prop-205: Allow Inter-RIR ASN Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 April 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-15: Allow Inter-RIR ASN Transfers\nStatus:\nAdopted\nARIN-prop-204: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 April 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-203: Improved Registry Accuracy Proposal\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 February 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-11: Improved Registry Accuracy Proposal\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 20 February 2014\nARIN-prop-202: Anti-hijack Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n13 February 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2414-12: Anti-hijack Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-201: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 January 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-10: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-200: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 January 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-199: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 January 2014\nStatus:\nARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-198: Remove 7.1\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 January 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 Maintaining IN-ADDRs\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-197: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 January 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-196: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 January 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-4: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-195: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 January 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-3: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-194: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 January 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-193: Alignment of 8.3 Needs Requirements to Reality of Business\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 January 2014\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-8: Alignment of 8.3 Needs Requirements to Reality of Business\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-192: Out of Region Use\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 December 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-191: Subsequent Allocations for Additional Discrete Network Sites\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 October 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for Additional Discrete Network Sites\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-190: Merge IPv4 ISP and End-User requirements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 July 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2013-7: Merge IPv4 ISP and End-User Requirements\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-189: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 May 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-188: LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2013-5: LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-187: RIR Principles\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n24 April 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2013-4: RIR Principles\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-186: Section 8.2 Reorganizations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n23 April 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nReview period on PPML - 24 April through 24 May 2013.\nARIN-prop-185: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n12 March 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-184: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 March 2013\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2013-2: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-183: Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 October 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2013-1: Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nNew Policy Development Process -\n14 January 2013\nARIN-prop-182: Update Residential Customer Definition to not exclude wireless as Residential Service\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 October 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nClosed\n(expired 28 April 2013)\nNew Policy Development Process -\n14 January 2013\nARIN-prop-181: Penalize IPv4 bad actors\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n7 September 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-180: ISP Private Reassignment\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 August 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 16 August 2012\nARIN-prop-179: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA)  over Cable\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 July 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-178: Regional Use of Resources\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n13 July 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-177: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 June 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 11 July 2012\nARIN-prop-176: Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n26 June 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-175: Delete Section 8.2\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 June 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-174: Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 June 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-173: Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 June 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 18 July 2012\nRevised 5 July 2012\nARIN-prop-172: Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n4 June 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 6 June 2012\nARIN-prop-171: Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 May 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 6 June 2012\nRevised 23 May 2012\nARIN-prop-170: Transfer of Number Resources in case of Bankruptcy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 May 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-169: Cleanup IPv6 section 6.5.7\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2012\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-168: Promote 4byte ASN Usage\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 May 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 18 May 2012\nARIN-prop-167: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n30 April 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-166: Clarify /29 Assignment Identification Requirement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n26 April 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 4 May 2012\nARIN-prop-165: Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on 8.3 Specified Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 February 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-164: Predictable ARIN IPv4 Resource exhaustion\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 February 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-163: Dedicated resources for initial ISP allocations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 February 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-162: Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 January 2012\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2012-4: Return to 12 Month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-161: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n13 January 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-160: Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 December 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-159: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 November 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-158: Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n3 October 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 10 Nov 2011\nARIN-prop-157: Section 8.3 Simplification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 September 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-156: Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n23 August 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-155: IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 July 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-13: IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-154: Shared Space for IPv4 Address Extension (w/ IETF considerations)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 July 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-153: Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-152: RSA Modification Limits\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2012-1: Clarifying requirements for IPv4 transfers\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-150: Reclamation Hold\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n13 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nUpdate 17 May 2011\nARIN-prop-149: Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n12 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 2 June 2011\nARIN-prop-148: LRSA resources must not be transferred to LRSA\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-147: Set Transfer Need to 24 months\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 17 May 2011\nARIN-prop-146: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 17 May 2011\nARIN-prop-145: STLS Listing Immunity\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nUpdate 17 May 2011\nARIN-prop-144: Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-143: Clarify Specified Transfer RSA Requirement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 17 May 2011\nARIN-prop-142: Define RSA\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 17 May 2011\nARIN-prop-141: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfer\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 17 May 2011\nARIN-prop-140: Business Failure Clarification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 May 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 17 May 2011\nARIN-prop-139: No reassignment without network service\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n7 April 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-138: IPv6 Size Category Alignment\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 March 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-137: Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 March 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-136: Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n23 February 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-135: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 February 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-134: Identification of Legitimate Address Holders\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 February 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 February 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 15 Feb 2011\nARIN-prop-132: ISP Sub-assignments Do Not Require Specific Customer Relationships\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 February 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 January 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nAC advances as draft policy\nRevised 17 Feb 2011\nRevised 16 Feb 2011\nRevised 10 Feb 2011\nARIN-prop-130: IPv4 Transition Reservation for Every ASN\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 January 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-129: IPv4 Addresses for Process Participants\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 January 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-128: Replacement of Section 4.2.4.4\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 January 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 January 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 January 2011\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 16 Feb 2011\nARIN-prop-125: Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n3 Dec 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-124: Clarification of Section 4.2.4.4\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 Dec 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 13 Dec 2010\nARIN-prop-123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Nov 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 23 Nov 2010\nRevised 20 Nov 2010\nARIN-prop-122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 Nov 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 23 Nov 2010\nARIN-prop-121: Better IPv6 Allocation for ISPs\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 Nov 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 16 Dec 2010\nRevised 1 Dec 2010\nARIN-prop-120: Protecting Number Resources\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n5 Nov 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-2: Protecting Number Resources\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 Oct 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 27 Oct 2010\nARIN-prop-118: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 Jun 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-117: Required Resource Reviews\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 Jun 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-11: Required Resource Reviews\nNotes:\nRevised 7 Jul 2010\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-116: Permitted Uses of space reserved under NRPM 4.10\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 Jun 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-13: Permitted Uses of space reserved under NRPM 4.10\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-115: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 Jun 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-10: (Global Proposal): Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-114: RFC1918 as initial ISP multihomed criteria\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n7 May 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-113: IPv6 for 6rd\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n4 May 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-112: Utilization of 10.4.2 resources only via explicit policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 Apr 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-111: IPv4 Fragment Management policy proposal\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 Apr 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-110: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Apr 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-109: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n4 Feb 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-108: Eliminate the term license in the NRPM\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 Feb 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 Jan 2010\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-106: Simplified IPv6 policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 Dec 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-7: Simplified IPv6 policy\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-105: Simplified M&A transfer policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Dec 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-6: Simplified M&A transfer policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-104: Multiple Discrete Networks for proposal 103\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 Nov 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-103: Change IPv6 Allocation Process\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 Nov 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 20 Nov 2009\nARIN-prop-102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n5 Nov 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-5: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-101: Multihomed initial allocation criteria\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n30 Oct 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-4: Rework of IPv6 allocation criteria\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 30 Dec 2009\nARIN-prop-100: Multihomed Microallocations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n3 Aug 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-99: /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n3 Aug 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Assignment Unit\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 12 Jan 2010\nRevised 11 Aug 2009\nARIN-prop-98: Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n27 Jul 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-97: Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n12 Jun 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nStaff Assessment on 27 Aug 2009\nARIN-prop-96: Transfer Listing Service\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n12 Jun 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-95: Customer Confidentiality\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 Jun 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2010-3: Customer Confidentiality\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 10 Jun 2009\nPetitioned into a draft policy\nARIN-prop-94: Predictable IPv4 Run Out by Allocation Window\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 Jun 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run-Out\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nMerged with 93. Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size\nARIN-prop-93: Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n8 Jun 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run-Out\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nMerged with 94. Predictable IPv4 Run Out by Allocation Window\nRevised 18 Jun 2009\nARIN-prop-92: A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6 Allocation Process\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n5 Jun 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-91: Sunset Clause for Liberalized Transfer Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n4 Jun 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-90: Open Access To IPv6\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 May 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-89: (Global) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs)  to Regional Internet Registries\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 May 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2009-6: (Global): Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-88: IPv4 Example Shortages\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 May 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-87: Extend 16 bit ASN Assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n7 May 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-86: Clarify Board of Trustees Emergency Authority\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 Apr 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nARIN-prop-85: Sunset 2008-6 on schedule\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 Mar 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 06 Apr 2009\nARIN-prop-84: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 Mar 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2009-5: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-83: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 Feb 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAbandoned as Proposal\nRevised 05 Mar 2009\nARIN-prop-82: Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n13 Jan 2009\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2009-3 (Global): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 09 Mar 2009\nARIN-prop-81: Depleted IPv4 reserves\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n2 Dec 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2009-2: Depleted IPv4 reserves\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-80: IPv4 Recovery Fund\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 Nov 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\nDraft Policy 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised 08 Jan 2009\nARIN-prop-79: Annual WHOIS POC Validation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 Aug 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\nMerged into 2008-7: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 20 Oct 2008\nARIN-prop-78: Whois POC e-mail cleanup\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 Aug 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\nMerged into 2008-7: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised 19 Sept 2008\nARIN-prop-77: Whois Authentication Alternatives\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 Aug 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\nMerged into 2008-7: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-76: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 Aug 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2008-7: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-75: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 Aug 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-74: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 Jun 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2008-5 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-73: Extend Experimental Renewal Timeframe\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n5 Jun 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-72: Equitable Distribution of IPv4 Resources before IPv4 Run out\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n21 May 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-71: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n23 Apr 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2008-4: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-70: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 Feb 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-69: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 Feb 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-68: Loophole Closure for 2007-21\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 Feb 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nWithdrawn by author\nARIN-prop-67: SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Jan 2008\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2008-1: SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-66: Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n7 Nov 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-27: Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-65: Globally-coordinated-RIR-pie-IPv4\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 Oct 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-64: 200-reduction-6.5.1.1.d\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Oct 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nWithdrawn by author\nARIN-prop-63: IPv6 Assignment Size Reduction\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Oct 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-62: Modification to Reverse Mapping Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n12 Sept 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-61: Deprecate Lame Server Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 Sept 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-26: Deprecate Lame Server Policy\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised version posted 15 Sept 2007\nARIN-prop-60: Decreasing Exponential Rationing of IPv4 IP Addresses\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 Aug 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-59: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 Aug 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-25: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised version posted 31 Aug 2007\nARIN-prop-58: ISP to LIR Clarification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 Aug 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nRevised version posted 23 Aug 2007\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-57: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 Aug 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-24: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised version posted 23 Aug 2007\nARIN-prop-56: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 Aug 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-55: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n14 Aug 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-22: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-54: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n30 Jul 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-53: Definition of known ISP and changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n30 Jul 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-20: Definition of known ISP and changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-52: IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 Jul 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-19: IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-51: Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 Jul 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-18: Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-50: Authentication of Legacy Resources\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 Jul 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-15: Authentication of Legacy Resources\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-49: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 Jun 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-48: IPv4 Soft Landing\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 May 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-16: IPv4 Soft Landing\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nRevised version posted 14 Aug 2007\nARIN-prop-47: Resource Review Process (was Reclamation of Number Resources)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 May 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-14: Resource Review Process\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nRevised version posted 17 Jul 2007\nARIN-prop-46: Removal of ISP Immediate Need from End-User\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 Apr 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-13: Removal of ISP Immediate Need from End-User\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-45: Resource Renewal and Verification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 Apr 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nWithdrawn by author\nARIN-prop-44: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-43: End Site Immediate Need Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-10: End Site Immediate Need Policy\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-42: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-41: Transfer Policy Clarifications\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-40: IPv4 countdown policy proposal\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n22 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-39: eGLOP multicast address assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-38: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-37: IPv4 PI minimum size change\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n15 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-36: Removal of IPv6 Operational Information from NRPM\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 Feb 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nWithdrawn by author\nARIN-prop-35: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of \"multiple /48\" justification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n24 Jan 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-5: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of “multiple /48” justification\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-34: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of \"interim\" consideration\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n24 Jan 2007\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-4: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of “interim” consideration\nARIN-prop-33: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 Oct 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nVersion 2 posted 23 Jan 2007\nARIN-prop-32: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 Oct 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nVersion 2 posted 23 Jan 2007\nARIN-prop-31: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n25 Oct 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nNotes:\nVersion 2 posted 23 Jan 2007\nARIN-prop-30: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n11 Oct 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-29: Requirement for Reasonable Contract Terms\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 May 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-28: Recommended v6 aggregation practices\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n1 May 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 Apr 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-26: Bulk WHOIS agreement expiration clarification\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n6 Apr 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\nPolicy Proposal 2006-6: Bulk WHOIS agreement expiration clarification\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-25: IPv4 Micro-allocations for anycast services (experimental)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 Feb 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2006-5: IPv4 Micro-allocations for anycast services (temporary)\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-24: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 Feb 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-23: Capturing Originations in Templates\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 Feb 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-22: MicroAllocations for Internal Infrastructure\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 Feb 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-21: Residential Customer Privacy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n18 Jan 2006\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-20: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n12 Dec 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-19: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement (Section 6 of ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual)\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 Aug 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-18: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n29 Aug 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nMerged into the existing 2005-1\nARIN-prop-17: Rationalize Multi-Homing Definition and Requirement\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n24 Aug 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-7: Rationalize Multi-Homing Definition and Requirement\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-16: Micro-allocations for anycast services\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n10 Aug 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-6: IPv4 Micro-allocations for Anycast Services\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-15: IPv6 HD ratio\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 May 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-5: IPv6 HD ratio\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-14: AFRINIC Recognition Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n9 May 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-4: AFRINIC Recognition Policy\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-13: Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 Feb 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-3: Lame Delegations\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-12: Adding an HD ratio choice for new IPv4 allocations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n17 Feb 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\nNone\nNotes:\nAC did not accept as a formal proposal\nARIN-prop-11: Directory Services Overhaul\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n16 Feb 2005\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-10: PI assignments for V6\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n02 Dec 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-9: Amendment to Residential Customer Privacy Policy\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n20 Aug 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy Policy\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-8: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Aug 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries\nStatus:\nImplemented\nARIN-prop-7: Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Aug 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-5: Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-6: Privacy of Reassignment Information\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Aug 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-6: Privacy of Reassignment Information\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-5: Unique Addresses for Private Interconnections\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Feb 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nMerged with ‘Connective Private Network Allocations’\nARIN-prop-4: Connective Private Network Allocations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Feb 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity\nStatus:\nImplemented\nNotes:\nMerged with ‘Unique Addresses for Private Interconnections’\nARIN-prop-3: Purpose and scope of ARIN Whois\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Feb 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-4: Purpose and Scope of ARIN WHOIS Directory\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-2: Use of HD-Ratio for IPv4 Allocations\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Feb 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-2: Use of HD-Ratio for IPv4 Allocations\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nARIN-prop-1: Defining Utilization of IPv4 addresses\nOriginal Proposal Text:\n19 Feb 2004\nResulting Draft Policy:\n2004-1: Defining Utilization of IPv4 Addresses\nStatus:\nAbandoned\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nRelated\nPublic Policy Mailing List\nPPML Archive\nProposal Template\nPolicy Proposals in the PDP", "segments": [], "published_at": "2026-08-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-08-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\n2 August 2026\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:35:18.606078+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "4ec597e1-1f5f-47ed-9298-1a20c9aa45a3", "source_id": "eb7b0a17794b9d45b5be2f40", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/careers", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/careers", "artifact_sha256": "938ac9ba20ac7211d9aba4584c16b825263bd522620f9f7aa652f518ed695f60", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 330034, "title": "Careers at ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 5254, "characters": 5254, "text": "Careers at ICANN\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nJoin Our Team\nHelp us build the future of the Internet\nExplore Open Roles\nCareers Home\nICANN Employment Benefits\nPreparing For Your Virtual Interview\nExplore Open Roles\nCareers at ICANN\nMission\nWe help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet\nTo reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a nonprofit public benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nOpportunity Is Part of Our DNA\nICANN was formed more than 25 years ago to ensure all voices could participate in shaping the Internet. This model has defined us, and we live by the idea that bringing together a range of experience and backgrounds is the most effective and meaningful way to serve ICANN’s mission. Within the organization, we strive to create an environment where we all respect, support, value, and celebrate each other.\nICANN is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer and does not discriminate based on age, race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, marital status, veteran status, physical or mental disability, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), childbirth or related medical conditions, family care status, genetic information, or any other characteristic protected by applicable law. Employment decisions are based on individual qualifications, merit, and organization needs.\nWork Culture\nCollaboration is at the heart of everything we do\nICANN’s work culture energizes all of us. It’s not something we simply write and talk about; it is something we feel. We know that creating and sustaining a positive work culture is a critical part of our success. It impacts everything, from team morale to our work with our stakeholders. Each team member plays an important role in building, improving, and growing our culture.\nWhen our team members wake up in the morning, and log on, or arrive at the office, they know that they are part of something bigger, something extraordinary. No other organization in the world does what ICANN does. It’s a place for people who care about fostering meaningful connections and collaboration, and committing to shared values.\nBenefits\nInvesting in our team\nWe work hard to hire the most talented and passionate people possible and we want to keep them! Our extensive benefits and perks demonstrate that we care about our people, and offer programs to support the health and wellbeing of our team members and their families. Explore the benefit areas below to learn more about how ICANN cares for and invests in our people.\nComprehensive Healthcare\nFlexible Work Arrangements\nCompensation and Recognition\nGenerous Time Off\nWellbeing and Assistance\nPrograms\nContinued Education\nLearn More\nReady to Join Us?\nDisclosures of Your Personal Information:\nAccess to your information will be restricted to ICANN staff who have a need to know the information to carry out their responsibilities regarding recruitment or employment. Your information may also be disclosed to governmental entities and authorities in compliance with all applicable laws, including those entities and authorities that are authorized to enforce applicable laws. We do not disclose applicant information to job banks, or to other companies or external parties. References will only be contacted upon prior approval of the applicant. For more information about how we use your personal data as part of your application, review our\nNotice of Applicant Privacy\n.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "2ddc01f3-6c84-47bb-87f6-f75ff61f42c4", "document_id": "4ec597e1-1f5f-47ed-9298-1a20c9aa45a3", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Careers at ICANN\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nJoin Our Team\nHelp us build the future of the Internet\nExplore Open Roles\nCareers Home\nICANN Employment Benefits\nPreparing For Your Virtual Interview\nExplore Open Roles\nCareers at ICANN\nMission\nWe help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet\nTo reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a nonprofit public benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nOpportunity Is Part of Our DNA\nICANN was formed more than 25 years ago to ensure all voices could participate in shaping the Internet. This model has defined us, and we live by the idea that bringing together a range of experience and backgrounds is the most effective and meaningful way to serve ICANN’s mission. Within the organization, we strive to create an environment where we all respect, support, value, and celebrate each other.\nICANN is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer and does not discriminate based on age, race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, marital status, veteran status, physical or mental disability, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), childbirth or related medical conditions, family care status, genetic information, or any other characteristic protected by applicable law. Employment decisions are based on individual qualifications, merit, and organization needs.\nWork Culture\nCollaboration is at the heart of everything we do\nICANN’s work culture energizes all of us. It’s not something we simply write and talk about; it is something we feel. We know that creating and sustaining a positive work culture is a critical part of our success. It impacts everything, from team morale to our work with our stakeholders. Each team member plays an important role in building, improving, and growing our culture.\nWhen our team members wake up in the morning, and log on, or arrive at the office, they know that they are part of something bigger, something extraordinary. No other organization in the world does what ICANN does. It’s a place for people who care about fostering meaningful connections and collaboration, and committing to shared values.\nBenefits\nInvesting in our team\nWe work hard to hire the most talented and passionate people possible and we want to keep them! Our extensive benefits and perks demonstrate that we care about our people, and offer programs to support the health and wellbeing of our team members and their families. Explore the benefit areas below to learn more about how ICANN cares for and invests in our people.\nComprehensive Healthcare\nFlexible Work Arrangements\nCompensation and Recognition\nGenerous Time Off\nWellbeing and Assistance\nPrograms\nContinued Education\nLearn More\nReady to Join Us?\nDisclosures of Your Personal Information:\nAccess to your information will be restricted to ICANN staff who have a need to know the information to carry out their responsibilities regarding recruitment or employment. Your information may also be disclosed to governmental entities and authorities in compliance with all applicable laws, including those entities and authorities that are authorized to enforce applicable laws. We do not disclose applicant information to job banks, or to other companies or external parties. References will only be contacted upon prior approval of the applicant. For more information about how we use your personal data as part of your application, review our\nNotice of Applicant Privacy\n.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5254, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 800}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "4ee0a5e9-cc0b-454b-84c8-c906e2e104bc", "source_id": "badb506b8eb2263aba7bd7fa", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/default.aspx", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/default.aspx", "artifact_sha256": "60ea9d94c8eba588c5f473c7a182cf5d6d839348a914277dfc17f37bd0ccfa46", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 78761, "title": "Media Centre", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 2876, "characters": 2876, "text": "Media Centre\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nMedia Centre\nRollup Image\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nmediacentre\nShare\nPage Content 19\n​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\n​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​We are here to help you write, report or create engaging stories and features on ITU and t​he fast-evolving world of information and communication technologies. Join us in our commitment to connecting the world.​​\n​\nPress releases ​and Media advisories​​​\nPress Releases, Media Advisories and Communiqués\nMedia registration open for ITU’s World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum 2026\n06 August 2026\n- The Bahamas to host global dialogue on the future of digital policy\nAI for Good and WSIS Forum 2026 close with global push for AI for everyone\n10 July 2026\n- Geneva Digital Week unites the world to harness AI for humanity\nInternational Advisory Body approves landmark report to strengthen submarine cable resilience\n10 July 2026\n- Global recommendations will help safeguard vital telecommunications infrastructure\nMore Press Releases\nPage Content 20\nPage Content\nResources\n​​\n​​​​​\n​\n​​​​​\n​\n​​​​​\n​\n​Data & statistics\n​ICT infrastructure, connectivity, prices, regulation, and other t​opics for over 200 economies.\nLearn more\n​\nBackgrounders\nIn-depth briefings on critical issues and technologies.\nLearn​ more\n​\n​\n​ITU leadership\nTop officials elected by ITU Member States.\nLearn more\n​​​​\n​\nAnimated infographics\n​\n​\n​​​\n​\n​​​\n​\nTechnologies for sustainable development​ v​ideos​​\n​\n​\n​\n​\nPage Content 11\nPage Content 12\n​For media​\n​\n​​\nMedia cont​acts\n​\nMedia accreditation\n​\nSubscribe to media alerts​​\n​\n​Dive​​ deeper\n​\nBackgrounders\n​\nData statistics\n​\nITU leadership\n​​\n​​\nMagazine\n​\nBrand hub​​​​\n​\n​\nPhotos\n​\n​\nPodcasts\n​\nVideos​\n​\n​ ​​​​​​ ​​\nITU News\n​ ​​​​​​ ​​\nBlog\n​\n​Magazine​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\n​\n​​​​\n​\n​\nQuick links​\n​​\nITU ​Media accreditation & eve​nt registration​\n​\nITU News\n​\nMedia Contacts\nPress lines\n: +41 22 730 6039\nE-mail:\npressinfo@itu.int\nDetailed media contact information\n​​​\n​\n​Copyright and fair use enquiries & requests\nMedia outlets can use the materials in this Media Centre with no specific authorization from ITU provided that ITU is acknowledged as the source. Non-media, please contact ITU's Legal Affairs unit at\njur[@]itu.int\n.​\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "segments": [{"segment_id": "c18891ef-02c3-43d0-9597-f6641840f73a", "document_id": "4ee0a5e9-cc0b-454b-84c8-c906e2e104bc", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Media Centre\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nMedia Centre\nRollup Image\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nmediacentre\nShare\nPage Content 19\n​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\n​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​We are here to help you write, report or create engaging stories and features on ITU and t​he fast-evolving world of information and communication technologies. Join us in our commitment to connecting the world.​​\n​\nPress releases ​and Media advisories​​​\nPress Releases, Media Advisories and Communiqués\nMedia registration open for ITU’s World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum 2026\n06 August 2026\n- The Bahamas to host global dialogue on the future of digital policy\nAI for Good and WSIS Forum 2026 close with global push for AI for everyone\n10 July 2026\n- Geneva Digital Week unites the world to harness AI for humanity\nInternational Advisory Body approves landmark report to strengthen submarine cable resilience\n10 July 2026\n- Global recommendations will help safeguard vital telecommunications infrastructure\nMore Press Releases\nPage Content 20\nPage Content\nResources\n​​\n​​​​​\n​\n​​​​​\n​\n​​​​​\n​\n​Data & statistics\n​ICT infrastructure, connectivity, prices, regulation, and other t​opics for over 200 economies.\nLearn more\n​\nBackgrounders\nIn-depth briefings on critical issues and technologies.\nLearn​ more\n​\n​\n​ITU leadership\nTop officials elected by ITU Member States.\nLearn more\n​​​​\n​\nAnimated infographics\n​\n​\n​​​\n​\n​​​\n​\nTechnologies for sustainable development​ v​ideos​​\n​\n​\n​\n​\nPage Content 11\nPage Content 12\n​For media​\n​\n​​\nMedia cont​acts\n​\nMedia accreditation\n​\nSubscribe to media alerts​​\n​\n​Dive​​ deeper\n​\nBackgrounders\n​\nData statistics\n​\nITU leadership\n​​\n​​\nMagazine\n​\nBrand hub​​​​\n​\n​\nPhotos\n​\n​\nPodcasts\n​\nVideos​\n​\n​ ​​​​​​ ​​\nITU News\n​ ​​​​​​ ​​\nBlog\n​\n​Magazine​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\n​\n​​​​\n​\n​\nQuick links​\n​​\nITU ​Media accreditation & eve​nt registration​\n​\nITU News\n​\nMedia Contacts\nPress lines\n: +41 22 730 6039\nE-mail:\npressinfo@itu.int\nDetailed media contact information\n​​​\n​\n​Copyright and fair use enquiries & requests\nMedia outlets can use the materials in this Media Centre with no specific authorization from ITU provided that ITU is acknowledged as the source. Non-media, please contact ITU's Legal Affairs unit at\njur[@]itu.int\n.​\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2876, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 418}}], "published_at": "2026-08-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-08-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\n06 August 2026\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "51c3479b-b5d2-479b-9aa4-dd221e6decef", "source_id": "e4b765af8f5eee1c934b5174", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/academic-engagement", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/academics", "artifact_sha256": "6f92ca3a82a4bed5ff3ed189341c062900735c2f69c29504a3db234fe87b4399", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 77066, "title": "Global Academic Engagement Outreach - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 14235, "characters": 14235, "text": "Global Academic Engagement Outreach - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nGlobal Academic Engagement Outreach\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nAcademia and ICANN: Building the Future of the Internet Together\nAcademia has played a foundational role in the development and stewardship of the Internet. ICANN continues to rely on the expertise, research, and talent of the academic community to inform and strengthen its work on Internet governance, technical coordination, and policy development. From classroom learning to high-level research, the academic sector is a key partner in supporting ICANN and its Mission.\nEngaging with ICANN offers academics, including students, educators, and researchers, a chance to contribute to Internet-related work that has real global impact. As technology evolves, ICANN increasingly relies on academics to contribute to the ICANN community and help inform its work. Contributing to the ICANN community as an academic means taking part in meaningful dialogue, accessing global platforms, networking with industry leaders, and contributing to the future of a secure, stable and interoperable Internet.\nHow it Works\nICANN's Global Academic Engagement program is designed to forge lasting connections with students, researchers, and academic institutions worldwide. Our goals are to:\nPromote understanding of ICANN's mission\nand the Internet's unique identifier systems.\nDevelop future leaders\nthrough training, mentorship, and participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model.\nSupport the integration of Internet governance\ntopics into academic curricula.\nEncourage academic research\naligned with ICANN's mission.\nGet Involved\nAcademic institutions and individuals can engage with ICANN in a variety of ways:\nHost or Attend Events\n: ICANN brings subject-matter expertise to academic institutions through engaging lectures, seminars, and technical training. Check out the\nICANN Engagement Calendar\nfor events happening in your region.\nParticipate in ICANN's Newcomer Programs\n: University students 18-30 can apply to\nNextGen@ICANN\nfor ICANN Public Meetings happening in their region; interested candidates 21 and over from all regions and sectors are welcome to apply to the\nICANN Fellowship Program\nfor any future ICANN Public Meeting.\nBuild Your Internet Governance Knowledge Base with ICANN Learn\n:\nICANN Learn\nis a free platform offering courses in multiple languages on ICANN, the Domain Name System, cybersecurity, and more.\nWatch the Video Below to Learn More About ICANN's Newcomer Programs\nResources and Tools\nICANN offers materials and publications that support teaching and research:\nOCTO Publications\n: Explore in-depth reports from ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) covering DNS security, root server system evolution, and identifier systems.\nGovernment Engagement Publications\n: Access briefings, strategy documents, and regional plans relevant to Internet policy and governance.\nTraining Catalogues and Programs:\nVisit\nICANN's Technical Engagement Training Course Catalog\nif you're interested in having the team deliver a technical training.\nTake a look at\nUniversal Acceptance Training\nfrom ICANN and the Universal Acceptance Steering Group\nData and Tools for Research\n: Faculty and researchers can access datasets, technical documentation, and white papers as starting points for academic research.\nDomain Metrica\nCentralized Zone Data Service\nINFERMAL\nOther Internet Governance Educational Organizations and Academic Networks\nDiploFoundation\n: Capacity development in Internet governance and diplomacy.\nGigaNet\n: The Global Internet Governance Academic Network.\nSchools of Internet Governance\n(SIGs): Opportunities for academic and student participation in regional training.\nGet in Touch\nTo learn more about ICANN's academic initiatives, please email\n[email protected]\nor contact your\nregional ICANN Stakeholder Engagement team\n.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "995ab73d-1bc1-49ab-aa7d-4a4cae3c886b", "document_id": "51c3479b-b5d2-479b-9aa4-dd221e6decef", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Global Academic Engagement Outreach - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nGlobal Academic Engagement Outreach\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nAcademia and ICANN: Building the Future of the Internet Together\nAcademia has played a foundational role in the development and stewardship of the Internet. ICANN continues to rely on the expertise, research, and talent of the academic community to inform and strengthen its work on Internet governance, technical coordination, and policy development. From classroom learning to high-level research, the academic sector is a key partner in supporting ICANN and its Mission.\nEngaging with ICANN offers academics, including students, educators, and researchers, a chance to contribute to Internet-related work that has real global impact. As technology evolves, ICANN increasingly relies on academics to contribute to the ICANN community and help inform its work. Contributing to the ICANN community as an academic means taking part in meaningful dialogue, accessing global platforms, networking with industry leaders, and contributing to the future of a secure, stable and interoperable Internet.\nHow it Works\nICANN's Global Academic Engagement program is designed to forge lasting connections with students, researchers, and academic institutions worldwide. Our goals are to:\nPromote understanding of ICANN's mission\nand the Internet's unique identifier systems.\nDevelop future leaders\nthrough training, mentorship, and participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model.\nSupport the integration of Internet governance\ntopics into academic curricula.\nEncourage academic research\naligned with ICANN's mission.\nGet Involved\nAcademic institutions and individuals can engage with ICANN in a variety of ways:\nHost or Attend Events\n: ICANN brings subject-matter expertise to academic institutions through engaging lectures, seminars, and technical training. Check out the\nICANN Engagement Calendar\nfor events happening in your region.\nParticipate in ICANN's Newcomer Programs\n: University students 18-30 can apply to\nNextGen@ICANN\nfor ICANN Public Meetings happening in their region; interested candidates 21 and over from all regions and sectors are welcome to apply to the\nICANN Fellowship Program\nfor any future ICANN Public Meeting.\nBuild Your Internet Governance Knowledge Base with ICANN Learn\n:\nICANN Learn\nis a free platform offering courses in multiple languages on ICANN, the Domain Name System, cybersecurity, and more.\nWatch the Video Below to Learn More About ICANN's Newcomer Programs\nResources and Tools\nICANN offers materials and publications that support teaching and research:\nOCTO Publications\n: Explore in-depth reports from ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) covering DNS security, root server system evolution, and identifier systems.\nGovernment Engagement Publications\n: Access briefings, strategy documents, and regional plans relevant to Internet policy and governance.\nTraining Catalogues and Programs:\nVisit\nICANN's Technical Engagement Training Course Catalog\nif you're interested in having the team deliver a technical training.\nTake a look at\nUniversal Acceptance Training\nfrom ICANN and the Universal Acceptance Steering Group\nData and Tools for Research\n: Faculty and researchers can access datasets, technical documentation, and white papers as starting points for academic research.\nDomain Metrica\nCentralized Zone Data Service\nINFERMAL\nOther Internet Governance Educational Organizations and Academic Networks\nDiploFoundation\n: Capacity development in Internet governance and diplomacy.\nGigaNet\n: The Global Internet Governance Academic Network.\nSchools of Internet Governance\n(SIGs): Opportunities for academic and student participation in regional training.\nGet in Touch\nTo learn more about ICANN's academic initiatives, please email\n[email protected]\nor contact your\nregional ICANN Stakeholder Engagement team\n.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 14235, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1916}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "53ac9180-f107-47a3-b759-f5dedec6a24e", "source_id": "b1dccd96a88933bf348c65e4", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1280", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1280/", "artifact_sha256": "b1dccd96a88933bf348c65e4c713837844a4103e2ef7b893c5b7c6602a74d130", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 327292, "title": "RFC 1280: IAB Official Protocol Standards", "language": "en", "text_length": 69462, "characters": 69462, "text": "RFC 1280: IAB Official Protocol Standards | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1280\n:\nIAB Official Protocol Standards\nJ. Postel\nHistoric\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n1360\n.\nNetwork Working Group                          Internet Activities Board\nRequest for Comments: 1280                             J. Postel, Editor\nObsoletes: RFCs\n1250\n,                                         March 1992\n1100\n,\n1083\n,\n1130\n,\n1140\n,\n1200\nSTD: 1\n\n\n\n                    IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS\n\n\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in\n   the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).\n   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n\n   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n1\n.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n2\n.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n5\n3\n.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.1\n.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.2\n.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.3\n.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.4\n.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n4\n.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n7\n4.1\n.  Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . .\n8\n4.1.1\n.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n8\n4.1.2\n.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.3\n.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.4\n.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.5\n.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.6\n.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.2\n.  Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . .\n10\n4.2.1\n.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.2\n.  Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.3\n.  Elective Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.4\n.  Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.5\n.  Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5\n.  The Standards Track  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5.1\n.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5.2\n.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n12\n6\n.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1\n.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1.1\n.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1.2\n.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n20\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 1]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n6.2\n.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n21\n6.3\n.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .\n22\n6.4\n.  Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n23\n6.5\n.  Proposed Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n24\n6.6\n.  Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n25\n6.7\n.  Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n26\n6.8\n.  Informational Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n27\n6.9\n.  Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\n7\n.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\n7.1\n.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\n7.1.1\n.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . . .\n28\n7.1.2\n.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .\n29\n7.1.3\n.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact  . . . . .\n30\n7.2\n.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .\n30\n7.3\n.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .\n31\n7.4\n.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .\n31\n7.5\n.  Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . . . . .\n32\n7.6\n.  SRI Network Information Systems Center . . . . . . . . .\n32\n8\n.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n32\n9\n.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n32\nIntroduction\n\n   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series\n   is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.\n   Sections\n6.2\n-\n6.9\ncontain the lists of protocols in each stage of\n   standardization.  Finally come pointers to references and contacts\n   for further information.\n\n   This memo is intended to be issued quarterly; please be sure the copy\n   you are reading is current.  Current copies may be obtained from the\n   Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers\n   Authority (see the contact information at the end of this memo).  Do\n   not use this edition after 31-July-92.\n\n   See\nSection 6.1\nfor a description of recent changes.  In the official\n   lists in sections\n6.2\n-\n6.9\n, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol\n   denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one\n   protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of\n   this document.\n1\n.  The Standardization Process\nThe Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents that\n   define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see\nRFC-1160\nfor an\n   explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its\n   subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the\n   Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)).  The IAB provides these\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 2]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nstandards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the\n   Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as\n   the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use.\n   The definitive description of the Internet standards process is found\n   in\nRFC-1310\n.\n\n   The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization\n   activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force.\n\n   Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a\n   series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft\n   standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and\n   testing.  When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD\n   number (see\nRFC-1311\n).  At each step, the Internet Engineering\n   Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for\n   advancement of the protocol and the IAB must ratify it.  If a\n   recommendation is not ratified, the protocol is remanded to the IETF\n   for further work.\n\n   To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to\n   standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 6\n   months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard\n   and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.\n\n   It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted\n   to draft standard without at least two independent implementations\n   (and the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard\n   to standard generally requires operational experience and\n   demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the\n   recommendation of the IESG).\n\n   In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision\n   concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee\n   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the\n   purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.\n\n   Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step\n   since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization\n   (it puts the protocol \"on the standards track\").  Advancement to\n   draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless\n   major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is\n   likely to be advanced to standard in six months.\n\n   Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise\n   unused.  Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with\n   the designation \"historic\".\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 3]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nBecause the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of\n   early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs\n   document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.  The\n   protocols are designated \"experimental\" in this memorandum.  They\n   appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as\n   evidence of their standardization.\n\n   Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards\n   organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be\n   recommended for use in the Internet.  The specifications of such\n   protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the\n   Internet community.  These protocols are labeled \"informational\" in\n   this memorandum.\n\n   In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development\n   and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the\n   research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of\n   other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.  The\n   IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC\n   series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for\n   standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance\n   the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved\n   this step.\n\n   A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the\n   approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols\n   have become very important to the Internet community even though they\n   have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.\n   However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process\n   be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize\n   interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements\n   from arising).  The IAB reserves the use of the terms \"standard\",\n   \"draft standard\", and \"proposed standard\" in any RFC or other\n   publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the\n   IAB has approved.\n\n   In addition to a state (like \"Proposed Standard\"), a protocol is also\n   assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.  The\n   possible requirement levels (\"Required\", \"Recommended\", \"Elective\",\n   \"Limited Use\", and \"Not Recommended\") are defined in\nSection 4.2\n.\n   When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed\n   standard, draft standard, or standard state (see\nSection 5\n), the\n   status shown in\nSection 6\nis the current status.  For a proposed or\n   draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the\n   eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.\n\n   Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is\n   because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 4]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\ngateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.  The\n   requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label,\n   which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation\n   requirements for a protocol in all situations.  For some protocols,\n   this document contains an additional status paragraph (an\n   applicability statement).  In addition, more detailed status\n   information is contained in separate requirements documents (see\nSection 3\n).\n2\n.  The Request for Comments Documents\nThe documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working\n   notes of the \"Network Working Group\", that is the Internet research\n   and development community.  A document in this series may be on\n   essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be\n   anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.\n\n   Notice:\n\n      All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify\n      standards.\n\n   Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions\n   must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact\n   information at the end of this memo, and see\nRFC 1111\n).\n\n   While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical\n   review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC\n   Editor, as appropriate.\n\n   The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from\n   informational documents of general interests to specifications of\n   standard Internet protocols.  In cases where submission is intended\n   to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard\n   protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the\n   approval of both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing\n   experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before\n   publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant\n   IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments\n   to the author.  See\nSection 5.1\nfor more detail.\n\n   Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is\n   never revised or re-issued with the same number.  There is never a\n   question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.\n   However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be\n   improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.  It\n   is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a\n   particular protocol.  This \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\" memo is\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 5]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nthe reference for determining the correct RFC for the current\n   specification of each protocol.\n\n   The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI\n   International, and a number of other sites.  For more information\n   about obtaining RFCs, see Sections\n7.4\nand\n7.5\n.\n3\n.  Other Reference Documents\nThere are three other reference documents of interest in checking the\n   current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These\n   are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host\n   Requirements.  Note that these documents are revised and updated at\n   different times; in case of differences between these documents, the\n   most recent must prevail.\n\n   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,\n   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in\nSection 3.4\n.\n3.1\n.  Assigned Numbers\nThis document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the\n   various protocols.  For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,\n   Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.\n   Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as\nRFC-1060\n.\n\n   Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network\n   numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was\n   most recently issued as\nRFC-1166\n.\n3.2\n.  Gateway Requirements\nThis document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and\n   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway\n   Requirements is\nRFC-1009\n.  A working group of the IETF is actively\n   preparing a revision.\n3.3\n.  Host Requirements\nThis pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that\n   apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any\n   ambiguities.  Host Requirements was issued as\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n.\n3.4\n.  The MIL-STD Documents\nThe Internet community specifications for IP (\nRFC-791\n) and TCP (\nRFC-\n793\n) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe\n   exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 6]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nspecified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to\n   the IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style\n   and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of\n   documents be used together, along with\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n.\n\n   The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and\n   Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,\n   854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the\n   current Internet specification for FTP is\nRFC-959\n(as modified by\nRFC-1123\n).\n\n   Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.  The Gateway\n   Requirements (\nRFC-1009\n) and Host Requirements (\nRFC-1122\n,\nRFC-1123\n)\n   take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.\n\n          Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777\n          Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778\n          File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780\n          Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781\n          Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782\n\n   These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms\n   Center.  Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;\n   however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if\n   possible.  These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol\n   Handbook (available from the SRI Network Information Systems Center,\n   see\nSection 7.6\n).\n\n          Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015\n          5801 Tabor Ave\n          Philadelphia, PA 19120\n          Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)\n                 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)\n4\n.  Explanation of Terms\nThere are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is\n   the \"maturity level\" or STATE of standardization, one of \"standard\",\n   \"draft standard\", \"proposed standard\", \"experimental\",\n   \"informational\" or \"historic\".  The second is the \"requirement level\"\n   or STATUS of this protocol, one of \"required\", \"recommended\",\n   \"elective\", \"limited use\", or \"not recommended\".\n\n   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word\n   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an\n   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,\n   should be consulted.\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 7]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nWhen a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,\n   it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also\n   notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it\n   reaches the standard state.\n\n   At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.\n   Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following\n   proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).  A new protocol\n   is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or\n   the (experimental, not recommended) cell.\n\n                             S T A T U S\n                     Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not\n                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |\n       S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |\n       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |     |     |\n       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |  X  |\n       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |\n       E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Hist    |     |     |     |  X  | XXX |\n                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n\n   What is a \"system\"?\n\n      Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few\n      protocols are used in both.  The definitions of the terms below\n      will refer to a \"system\" which is either a host or a gateway (or\n      both).  It should be clear from the context of the particular\n      protocol which types of systems are intended.\n4.1\n.  Definitions of Protocol State\nEvery protocol listed in this document is assigned to a \"maturity\n   level\" or STATE of standardization: \"standard\", \"draft standard\",\n   \"proposed standard\", \"experimental\", or \"historic\".\n\n   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol\n\n      The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for\n      the Internet.  These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see\nRFC-\n1311\n).  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and\n      above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)\n      network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 8]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nIP on particular types of networks.\n\n   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol\n\n      The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible\n      Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment\n      are desired.  Comments and test results should be submitted to the\n      IAB.  There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft\n      Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.\n\n   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol\n\n      These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for\n      standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by\n      several groups is desirable.  Revision of the protocol\n      specification is likely.\n\n   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol\n\n      A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it\n      is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of\n      the protocol with the developer of the protocol.\n\n      Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as\n      part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational\n      service offering.  While they may be proposed as a service\n      protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,\n      draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a\n      protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that\n      the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for\n      operational use.\n\n   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol\n\n      Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,\n      or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, may\n      be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community\n      as informational protocols.  Such protocols may in some cases also\n      be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.\n\n   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol\n\n      These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in\n      the Internet either because they have been superseded by later\n      developments or due to lack of interest.\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 9]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n4.2\n.  Definitions of Protocol Status\nThis document lists a \"requirement level\" or STATUS for each\n      protocol.  The status is one of \"required\", \"recommended\",\n      \"elective\", \"limited use\", or \"not recommended\".\n\n   4.2.1.  Required Protocol\n\n      A system must implement the required protocols.\n\n   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol\n\n      A system should implement the recommended protocols.\n\n   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol\n\n      A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The\n      general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,\n      you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols\n      in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail\n      protocols, and several routing protocols.\n\n   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol\n\n      These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be\n      because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited\n      functionality, or historic state.\n\n   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol\n\n      These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be\n      because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or\n      experimental or historic state.\n5\n.  The Standards Track\nThis section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC\n   Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling and\n   publishing of protocols as standards.\n5.1\n.  The RFC Processing Decision Table\nHere is the current decision table for processing submissions by the\n   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the\n   status they want it to have.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 10]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n+==========================================================+\n      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |\n      +==========================================================+\n      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |\n      | Status       |          |          |  or RG   |          |\n      +==========================================================+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      | Standard     |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |\n      | or           |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |\n      | Draft        |          |          |          |          |\n      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |\n      | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |\n      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |\n      | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |\n      | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|\n      | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |\n      | Paper        |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +==========================================================+\n\n      (1) Publish.\n\n      (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying\n          Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.\n\n      (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do\n          Refer (4).\n\n      (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see\n          the document again only after approval by the IESG and the\n          IAB.\n\n      (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no concerns are raised in\n          two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve\n          the concerns or do Refer (4).\n\n      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 11]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nis needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or\n          not.\n\n   Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor\n   changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.\n\n   The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for\n   forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns\n   in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor.  Documents from\n   Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same\n   way as documents from \"other\".\n5.2\n.  The Standards Track Diagram\nThere is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called\n   the standards track.  Actually, only the changes of state are\n   significant to the progression along the standards track, though the\n   status assignments may be changed as well.\n\n   The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,\n   those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.  A\n   protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for\n   several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum\n   four months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term\n   state for many years.\n\n   A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation\n   of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to\n   another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by\n   action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to\n   either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.\n\n   Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is\n   made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability\n   (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although\n   a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then\n   is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.  So\n   the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1.  At any time the\n   STATUS decision may be revisited.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 12]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n|\n         +<----------------------------------------------+\n         |                                               ^\n         V    0                                          |    4\n   +-----------+                                   +===========+\n   |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |\n   +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+\n                                   |                     |\n                                   V    1                |\n                             +-----------+               V\n                             | proposed  |-------------->+\n                        +--->+-----+-----+               |\n                        |          |                     |\n                        |          V    2                |\n                        +<---+-----+-----+               V\n                             | draft std |-------------->+\n                        +--->+-----+-----+               |\n                        |          |                     |\n                        |          V    3                |\n                        +<---+=====+=====+               V\n                             | standard  |-------------->+\n                             +=====+=====+               |\n                                                         |\n                                                         V    5\n                                                   +=====+=====+\n                                                   | historic  |\n                                                   +===========+\n\n   The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can\n   only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and\n   only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least\n   six months.\n\n   The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by\n   action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after\n   the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months.\n\n   Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for\n   standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).\n   This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted\n   to enter the standards track after further work.  There are other\n   paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve\n   IAB action.\n\n   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes\n   historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is\n   in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and\n   becomes historic (state 5).\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 13]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n6\n.  The Protocols\nSub\nsection 6.1\nlists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections\n6.2\n- 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state.\n6.1\n.  Recent Changes\n6.1.1\n.  New RFCs:\n1311 - Introduction to the STD Notes\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1310 - The Internet Standards Process\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1309 - Technical Overview of Directory Services\n             Using the X.500 Protocol\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1308 - Executive Introduction to Directory Services\n             Using the X.500 Protocol\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1307 - Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol\n\n             An Experimental Protocol.\n\n      1306 - Experiences Supporting By-Request Circuit-Switched T3\n             Networks\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1304 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the SIP Interface Type\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1303 - A Convention for Describing SNMP-based Agents\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 14]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nlevel of standard.\n\n      1302 - Building a Network Information Services Infrastructure\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1301 - Multicast Transport Protocol\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1300 - Remembrances of Things Past\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1298 - SNMP over IPX\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1297 - NOC Internal Integrated Trouble Ticket System Functional\n             Specification Wishlist (\"NOC TT REQUIREMENTS\")\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1296 - Internet Growth (1981-1991)\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1295 - User Bill of Rights for entries\n             and listings in the Public Directory\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1294 - Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1293 - Inverse Address Resolution Protocol\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 15]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n1292 - A Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1291 - Mid-Level Networks - Potential Technical Services\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1290 - There's Gold in them thar Networks!  or\n             Searching for Treasure in all the Wrong Places\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1289 - DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1288 - The Finger User Information Protocol\n\n             A Draft Standard protocol.\n\n      1287 - Towards the Future Internet Architecture\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1286 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1285 - FDDI Management Information Base\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1284 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like\n             Interface Types\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1283 - SNMP over OSI\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 16]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n1282 - BSD Rlogin\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1281 - Guidelines for the Secure Operation of the Internet\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1280 - This memo.\n\n      1279 - X.500 and Domains\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1278 - A string encoding of Presentation Address\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1277 - Encoding Network Addresses to support operation over non-\n             OSI lower layers\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1276 - Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to\n             provide an Internet Directory using X.500\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1275 - Replication Requirements to provide an Internet Directory\n             using X.500\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1274 - The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1273 - A Measurement Study of Changes in Service-Level\n             Reachability  in the Global TCP/IP Internet: Goals,\n             Experimental Design, Implementation, and Policy\n             Considerations\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 17]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n1272 - Internet Accounting: Background\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1271 - Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1270 - SNMP Communications Services\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1269 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway\n             Protocol (Version 3)\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1268 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet\n\n             A Draft Standard protocol.\n\n      1267 - A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)\n\n             A Draft Standard protocol.\n\n      1266 - Experience with the BGP Protocol\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1265 - BGP Protocol Analysis\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1264 - Internet Engineering Task Force - Internet Routing Protocol\n             Standardization Criteria\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1263 - TCP Extensions Considered Harmful\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 18]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n1262 - Guidelines for Internet Measurement Activities\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1261 - Transition of NIC Services\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1260 - Not yet issued.\n\n      1259 - Building The Open Road: The NREN As Test-Bed For\n             The National Public Network\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1258 - BSD Rlogin\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.  Obsoleted by\nRFC 1282\n.\n\n      1257 - Isochronous Applications Do Not Require Jitter-Controlled\n             Networks\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1256 - ICMP Router Discovery Messages\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1255 - A Naming Scheme for c=US\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1254 - Gateway Congestion Control Survey\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1253 - OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 19]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n1108 - U.S. Department of Defense Security Options for the\n             Internet Protocol\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1099 - Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1000-1099\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n6.1.2\n.  Other Changes:\nRFC 1156\n, MIB-I is no longer referenced since it is completely\n   replaced by\nRFC 1213\n, MIB-II.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 20]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n6.2\n.  Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                      Status    RFC STD *\n========   =====================================     ======== ==== === =\n--------   IAB Official Protocol Standards           Req      1280   1 *\n--------   Assigned Numbers                          Req      1060   2 *\n--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Req      1122   3 *\n--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Req      1123   3 *\n--------   Gateway Requirements                      Req      1009   4 *\nIP         Internet Protocol                         Req       791   5 *\n            as amended by:\n--------     IP Subnet Extension                     Req       950   5 *\n--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Req       919   5 *\n--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Req       922   5 *\nICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Req       792   5 *\nIGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Rec      1112   5 *\nUDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Rec       768   6 *\nTCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Rec       793   7 *\nTELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Rec   854,855   8 *\nFTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Rec       959   9 *\nSMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Rec       821  10 *\nMAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Rec       822  11 *\nCONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Rec      1049  11 *\nNTP        Network Time Protocol                     Rec      1119  12 *\nDOMAIN     Domain Name System                        Rec 1034,1035  13 *\nDNS-MX     Mail Routing and the Domain System        Rec       974  14 *\nSNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Rec      1157  15 *\nSMI        Structure of Management Information       Rec      1155  16 *\nMIB-II     Management Information Base-II            Rec      1213  17 *\nEGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Rec       904  18 *\nNETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Ele 1001,1002  19 *\nECHO       Echo Protocol                             Rec       862  20 *\nDISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Ele       863  21 *\nCHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Ele       864  22 *\nQUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Ele       865  23 *\nUSERS      Active Users Protocol                     Ele       866  24 *\nDAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Ele       867  25 *\nTIME       Time Server Protocol                      Ele       868  26 *\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards general\n   adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than\n   broadcasting for many applications.  The host interface has been\n   standardized in\nRFC-1112\n; however, multicast-routing gateways are in\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 21]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nthe experimental stage and are not widely available.  An Internet\n   host should support all of\nRFC-1112\n, except for the IGMP protocol\n   itself which is optional; see\nRFC-1122\nfor more details.  Even\n   without IGMP, implementation of\nRFC-1112\nwill provide an important\n   advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.  It\n   is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and\n   gateways at some future date.\n\n   SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all\n   IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  At the current\n   time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (\nRFC-1213\n),\n   and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (\nRFC-1157\n).\n6.3\n.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     State   Status  RFC\n========   =====================================    ======= ====== =====\nIP-FR      Multiprotocol over Frame Relay           Prop    Ele    1294*\nIP-SMDS    Transmission of IP Datagrams over SMDS   Prop    Ele    1209*\nARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Std     Ele     826*\nRARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Std     Ele     903*\nIP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Std     Ele BBN1822*\nIP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Std     Ele     907*\nIP-X25     Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks       Std     Ele     877*\nIP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Std     Ele     894*\nIP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Std     Ele     895*\nIP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Std     Ele    1042*\nIP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Std     Ele     891*\nIP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel        Std     Ele    1044*\nIP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Std     Ele    1051*\nIP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Std     Ele    1055*\nIP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Std     Ele    1088*\nIP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Std     Ele    1132*\nIP-FDDI    Transmission of IP over FDDI             Draft   Ele    1188*\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   It is expected that a system will support one or more physical\n   networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate\n   protocols from the above list must be supported.  That is, it is\n   elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for\n   the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be\n   supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.  See\n   also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific\n   information on network-specific (\"link layer\") protocols.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 22]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n6.4\n.  Draft Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nFINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective       1288*\nBGP-APP    Application of BGP                       Elective       1268*\nBGP3       Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)        Elective       1267*\nOSPF2      Open Shortest Path First Routing V2      Elective       1247\nPOP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective       1225\nConcise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions                 Elective       1212\nIP-FDDI    Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks       Elective       1188\nTOPT-LINE  Telnet Linemode Option                   Elective       1184\nPPP        Point to Point Protocol                  Elective       1171\n--------   Mail Privacy: Procedures                 Elective       1113\n--------   Mail Privacy: Key Management             Elective       1114\n--------   Mail Privacy: Algorithms                 Elective       1115\nBOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                      Recommended 951,1084\nRIP        Routing Information Protocol             Elective       1058\nTP-TCP     ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP  Elective       1006\nNICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective        954\nTFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol           Elective        783\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented\n   and used in the Internet.  However, both implementors and users\n   should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a\n   routing protocol.  The IETF is currently developing several\n   candidates for a new standard \"open\" routing protocol with better\n   properties than RIP.  The IAB urges the Internet community to track\n   these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is\n   standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.\n\n   TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,\n   there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the\n   TCP/IP protocols.  The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating\n   strategies for interoperation.\nRFC-1006\nprovides one interoperation\n   mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI\n   applications.  Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented\n   applications in this mode should use the procedure described in\nRFC-\n1006\n.  In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the\n   Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols\n   in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications\n   across the Internet using full OSI protocol \"stacks\".\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 23]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nPPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial\n   lines, which are a type of physical network.  It is anticipated that\n   PPP will be advanced to the network-specific standard protocol state\n   in the future.\n6.5\n.  Proposed Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nSIP-MIB    SIP Interface Type MIB                   Elective       1304*\nIARP       Inverse Address Resolution Protocol      Elective       1293*\nDECNET-MIB DECNET MIB                               Elective       1289*\nBRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB                               Elective       1286*\nFDDI-MIB   FDDI-MIB                                 Elective       1285*\nETHER-MIB  Ethernet MIB                             Elective       1284*\n-------    Encoding Network Addresses...            Elective       1277*\n-------    Replication and Distributed Operations.. Elective       1276*\n-------    Replication Requirements...              Elective       1275*\n-------    COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema...      Elective       1274*\nRMON-MIB   Remote Network Monitoring MIB            Elective       1271*\nBGP-MIB    Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3)  Elective       1269*\nICMP-ROUT  ICMP Router Discovery Messages           Elective       1256*\nOSPF-MIB   OSPF Version 2 MIB                       Elective       1253*\nIPSO       DoD Security Options for IP              Elective       1108*\nAT-MIB     Appletalk MIB                            Elective       1243\nOSI-UDP    OSI TS on UDP                            Elective       1240\nSTD-MIBs   Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs     Elective       1239\nOSI-NSAP   Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation       Elective       1237\nIPX-IP     Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets    Elective       1234\nDS3-MIB    DS3 Interface Objects                    Elective       1233\nDS1-MIB    DS1 Interface Objects                    Elective       1232\n802.5-MIB  IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB                Elective       1231\n802.4-MIP  IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB                 Elective       1230\nGINT-MIB   Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB  Elective       1229\nPPP-EXT    PPP Extensions for Bridging              Elective       1220\nOIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II          Elective       1214\nIP-SMDS    IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service       Elective       1209\nIP-ARCNET  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Elective       1201\nIS-IS      OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments   Elective       1195\nIP-MTU     Path MTU Discovery                       Elective       1191\nCMOT       Common Management Information Services.. Elective       1189\nPPP-INIT   PPP Initial Configuration Options        Elective       1172\nIP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective       1144\nISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473                       Elective       1139\nSUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective       1094\nSUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective       1057\nPCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective       1056\nNFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective       1037\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 24]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n-------    Mapping between X.400(84) and\nRFC-822\nElective   987,1026\nNNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective        977\nHOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                        Elective        953\nSFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol            Elective        913\nRLP        Resource Location Protocol               Elective        887\nSUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                          Elective        734\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP over\n   particular network types.  It is anticipated that these will be\n   advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in the\n   future.\n6.6\n.  Telnet Options\nFor convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both\ntheir state and status.\n\nProtocol   Name                           Number  State Status  RFC STD\n========   =====================================  ===== ====== ==== ====\nTOPT-BIN   Binary Transmission                 0  Std   Rec     856  27*\nTOPT-ECHO  Echo                                1  Std   Rec     857  28*\nTOPT-RECN  Reconnection                        2  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-SUPP  Suppress Go Ahead                   3  Std   Rec     858  29*\nTOPT-APRX  Approx Message Size Negotiation     4  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-STAT  Status                              5  Std   Rec     859  30*\nTOPT-TIM   Timing Mark                         6  Std   Rec     860  31*\nTOPT-REM   Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    7  Prop  Ele     726\nTOPT-OLW   Output Line Width                   8  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-OPS   Output Page Size                    9  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-OCRD  Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10  Prop  Ele     652\nTOPT-OHT   Output Horizontal Tabstops         11  Prop  Ele     653\nTOPT-OHTD  Output Horizontal Tab Disposition  12  Prop  Ele     654\nTOPT-OFD   Output Formfeed Disposition        13  Prop  Ele     655\nTOPT-OVT   Output Vertical Tabstops           14  Prop  Ele     656\nTOPT-OVTD  Output Vertical Tab Disposition    15  Prop  Ele     657\nTOPT-OLD   Output Linefeed Disposition        16  Prop  Ele     658\nTOPT-EXT   Extended ASCII                     17  Prop  Ele     698\nTOPT-LOGO  Logout                             18  Prop  Ele     727\nTOPT-BYTE  Byte Macro                         19  Prop  Ele     735\nTOPT-DATA  Data Entry Terminal                20  Prop  Ele    1043\nTOPT-SUP   SUPDUP                             21  Prop  Ele     734\nTOPT-SUPO  SUPDUP Output                      22  Prop  Ele     749\nTOPT-SNDL  Send Location                      23  Prop  Ele     779\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 25]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nTOPT-TERM  Terminal Type                      24  Prop  Ele     930\nTOPT-EOR   End of Record                      25  Prop  Ele     885\nTOPT-TACACS  TACACS User Identification       26  Prop  Ele     927\nTOPT-OM    Output Marking                     27  Prop  Ele     933\nTOPT-TLN   Terminal Location Number           28  Prop  Ele     946\nTOPT-3270  Telnet 3270 Regime                 29  Prop  Ele    1041\nTOPT-X.3   X.3 PAD                            30  Prop  Ele    1053\nTOPT-NAWS  Negotiate About Window Size        31  Prop  Ele    1073\nTOPT-TS    Terminal Speed                     32  Prop  Ele    1079\nTOPT-RFC   Remote Flow Control                33  Prop  Ele    1080\nTOPT-LINE  Linemode                           34  Draft Ele    1184\nTOPT-XDL   X Display Location                 35  Prop  Ele    1096\nTOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List             255  Std   Rec     861  32*\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n6.7\n.  Experimental Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nDSLCP      Dynamically Switched Link Control        Elective       1307*\n--------   X.500 and Domains                        Elective       1279*\nSNMP-OSI   SNMP over OSI                            Elective       1283*\nIN-ENCAP   Internet Encapsulation Protocol          Limited Use    1241\nCLNS-MIB   CLNS-MIB                                 Limited Use    1238\nCFDP       Coherent File Distribution Protocol      Limited Use    1235\nSNMP-DPI   SNMP Distributed Program Interface       Limited Use    1228\nSNMP-MUX   SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB                Limited Use    1227\nIP-AX25    IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames         Limited Use    1226\nALERTS     Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts Limited Use    1224\nMPP        Message Posting Protocol                 Limited Use    1204\nST-II      Stream Protocol                          Limited Use    1190\nSNMP-BULK  Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP       Limited Use    1187\nDNS-RR     New DNS RR Definitions                   Limited Use    1183\nNTP-OSI    NTP over OSI Remote Operations           Limited Use    1165\nMSP        Message Send Protocol                    Limited Use    1159\nEHF-MAIL   Encoding Header Field for Mail           Elective       1154\nDMF-MAIL   Digest Message Format for Mail           Elective       1153\nRDP        Reliable Data Protocol                  Limited Use 908,1151\n--------   Mapping between X.400(88) and\nRFC-822\nElective       1148\nTCP-ACO    TCP Alternate Checksum Option           Not Recommended 1146\n--------   Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822       Elective       1137\nIP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing    Not Recommended 1075\nTCP-LDP    TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths      Limited Use    1072\nIMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol       Limited Use 1176,1064\nIMAP3      Interactive Mail Access Protocol         Limited Use    1203\nVMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol   Elective       1045\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 26]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nCOOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                   Not Recommended 1004\nNETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol              Not Recommended 998\nIRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol   Not Recommended 938\nAUTH       Authentication Service                   Not Recommended 931\nLDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                 Not Recommended 909\nNVP-II     Network Voice Protocol                  Limited Use ISI-memo\nPVP        Packet Video Protocol                   Limited Use ISI-memo\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n6.8\n.  Informational Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                    Status           RFC\n=======    ====================================    =============== =====\nMTP        Multicast Transport Protocol            Elective        1301*\nSNMP-IPX   SNMP over IPX                           Elective        1298*\nBSD Login  BSD Login                               Elective        1282*\nDIXIE      DIXIE Protocol Specification            Limited Use     1249\nIP-X.121   IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN     Limited Use     1236\nOSI-HYPER  OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel            Limited Use     1223\nHAP2       Host Access Protocol                    Limited Use     1221\nSUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers     Limited Use     1219\nSNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP        Limited Use     1215\nDAS        Directory Assistance Service            Limited Use     1202\nMD4        MD4 Message Digest Algorithm            Limited Use     1186\nLPDP       Line Printer Daemon Protocol            Limited Use     1179\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 27]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n6.9\n.  Historic Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n=======    =====================================    ============== =====\nBGP        Border Gateway Protocol                  Elective  1163,1164*\nMIB-I      MIB-I                                   Not Recommended 1156*\nSGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol      Not Recommended 1028\nHEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol   Not Recommended 1021\nSTATSRV    Statistics Server                        Not Recommended 996\nPOP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2          Not Recommended 937\nRATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  Not Recommended 916\nHFEP       Host - Front End Protocol                Not Recommended 929\nTHINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                        Not Recommended 914\nHMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                 Not Recommended 869\nGGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                 Not Recommended 823\nRTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                    Not Recommended 818\nCLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol               Not Recommended 778\nMPM        Internet Message Protocol                Not Recommended 759\nNETRJS     Remote Job Service                       Not Recommended 740\nNETED      Network Standard Text Editor             Not Recommended 569\nRJE        Remote Job Entry                         Not Recommended 407\nXNET       Cross Net Debugger                   Not Recommended IEN-158\nNAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol            Not Recommended IEN-116\nMUX        Multiplexing Protocol                 Not Recommended IEN-90\nGRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                  Not Recommended NIC-24308\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n7\n.  Contacts\n7.1\n.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts\n7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact\n\n   Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially\n   about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board\n   care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 28]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\nContacts:\n\n         Bob Braden\n         Executive Director of the IAB\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         Braden@ISI.EDU\n\n         A. Lyman Chapin\n         Chair of the IAB\n         Bolt, Beranek & Newman\n         Mail Stop 20/5b\n         150 Cambridge Park Drive\n         Cambridge, MA 02140\n\n         1-617-873-3133\n\n         Lyman@BBN.COM\n\n   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact\n\n      Contacts:\n\n         Phill Gross\n         Chair of the IETF\n         Advanced Network and Services\n         100 Clearbrook Road\n         Elmsford, NY  10523\n\n         1-914-789-5300\n\n         PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n         Greg Vaudreuil\n         IESG Secretary\n         Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n         Reston, VA 22091\n\n         1-703-620-8990\n\n         gvaudre@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 29]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact\n\n      Contact:\n\n         Jon Postel\n         Chair of the IRTF\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         Postel@ISI.EDU\n7.2\n.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact\nContact:\n\n         Joyce K. Reynolds\n         Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         IANA@ISI.EDU\n\n   The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet\n   Assigned Numbers Authority.\n\n   Please refer to the document \"Assigned Numbers\" (\nRFC-1060\n) for\n   further information about the status of protocol documents.  There\n   are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and\n   gateways in the Internet, \"Host Requirements\" (\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n)\n   and \"Gateway Requirements\" (\nRFC-1009\n).\n\n      How to obtain the most recent edition of this \"IAB Official\n      Protocol Standards\" memo:\n\n         The file \"in-notes/iab-standards.txt\" may be copied via FTP\n         from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username\n         \"anonymous\" and FTP password \"guest\".\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 30]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n7.3\n.  Request for Comments Editor Contact\nContact:\n\n         Jon Postel\n         RFC Editor\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU\n\n   Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for\n   consideration for publication as RFC.  If you are not familiar with\n   the format or style requirements please request the \"Instructions for\n   RFC Authors\".  In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as\n   a guide.\n7.4\n.  The Network Information Center and\nRequests for Comments Distribution Contact\nContact:\n\n         Government Systems, Inc.\n         Attn: Network Information Center\n         14200 Park Meadow Drive\n         Suite 200\n         Chantilly, VA  22021\n\n         Help Desk Hours of Operation: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time\n\n         1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)\n         1-703-802-4535\n         Fax Number: 1-703-802-8376\n\n         NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL\n\n   The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information\n   services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the\n   Requests for Comments (RFC) library.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 31]\nRFC 1280\nIAB Standards                    March 1992\n7.5\n.  Sources for Requests for Comments\nDetails on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending\n   an EMAIL message to \"rfc-info@ISI.EDU\" with the message body \"help:\n   ways_to_get_rfcs\".  For example:\n\n           To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU\n           Subject: getting rfcs\n\n           help: ways_to_get_rfcs\n7.6\nSRI Network Information Systems Center\nTo obtain documentation from the SRI Network Information Systems\n   Center (NISC):\n\n   EMail: nisc@nisc.sri.com\n   Phone: (415) 859-6387, (415) 859-3695\n   Fax: (415) 859-6028\n8\n.  Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not addressed in this memo.\n9\n.  Author's Address\nJon Postel\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA 90292\n\n   Phone: 310-822-1511\n   Fax:   310-823-6714\n\n   Email: Postel@ISI.EDU\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 32]\nRFC\n1280\n: IAB Official Protocol Standards\nHistoric\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n1360\nIAB Official Protocol Standards", "segments": [], "published_at": "1991-11-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1991-11-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1991-11-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:02.024505+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "53c212a3-1647-42f9-876e-c944bb640bb8", "source_id": "a0af30abe67069aefe9803a8", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1386", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1386/", "artifact_sha256": "a0af30abe67069aefe9803a88aae7666ed41c1fde495f3e374031992b3ea7bf0", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 258321, "title": "RFC 1386: The US Domain", "language": "en", "text_length": 61162, "characters": 61162, "text": "RFC 1386: The US Domain | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1386\n:\nThe US Domain\nA. Cooper\n,\nJ. Postel\nInformational\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n1480\n.\nNetwork Working Group                                          A. Cooper\nRequest for Comments: 1386                                     J. Postel\n                                                           December 1992\n                             The US Domain\n\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does\n   not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n.  Introduction ................................................\n2\n1.1\nThe Internet Domain Name System.........................\n2\n1.2\nTop Level Domains.......................................\n3\n1.3\nThe US Domain ..........................................\n4\n2\n.  Naming Structure ............................................\n4\n2.1\nState Codes ............................................\n5\n2.2\nCity Codes or Locality Names............................\n5\n2.3\nExamples of Names.......................................\n5\n3\n.  Registration ................................................\n8\n3.1\nRequirements ...........................................\n8\n3.2\nDirect Entries .........................................\n9\n3.2.1\nUUCP Hosts ..........................................\n9\n3.2.2\nNon-IP Hosts ........................................\n10\n3.3\nDelegated Subdomains ...................................\n12\n3.3.1\nSchools .............................................\n12\n3.3.2\nState Agencies ......................................\n14\n3.3.3\nFederal Agencies ....................................\n14\n3.3.4\nDelegation Requirement...............................\n14\n3.3.5\nDelegation Procedures ...............................\n15\n3.3.6\nSubdomain Contacts...................................\n18\n4\n.  Database Information.........................................\n19\n4.1\nName Servers ...........................................\n19\n4.2\nZone files .............................................\n20\n4.3\nResource Records .......................................\n21\n4.3.1\nA Records ...........................................\n22\n4.3.2\nCNAME Records .......................................\n22\n4.3.3\nMX Records ..........................................\n22\n4.3.4\nHINFO Records .......................................\n23\n4.3.5\nPTR Records .........................................\n23\n4.4\nWildcards ..............................................\n23\n5\n.  References ..................................................\n24\n6\n.  Security Considerations .....................................\n25\n7\n.  Author's Address ............................................\n25\nAppendix-I:  US Domain Names BNF.................................\n26\nAppendix-II: US Domain Questionnaire for Host Entry..............\n28\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 1]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n1\n. INTRODUCTION\n1.1 The Internet Domain Name System\n\n   The Domain Name System (DNS) provides for the translation between\n   host names and addresses.  Within the Internet, this means\n   translating from a name such as \"venera.isi.edu\", to an IP address\n   such as \"128.9.0.32\".  The DNS is a set of protocols and databases.\n   The protocols define the syntax and semantics for a query language to\n   ask questions about information located by DNS-style names.  The\n   databases are distributed and replicated.  There is no dependence on\n   a single central server, and each part of the database is provided in\n   at least two servers.\n\n   The assignment of the 32-bit IP addresses is a separate activity.  IP\n   addresses are assigned by the Network Information Center\n   (Hostmaster@NIC.DDN.MIL).\n\n   In addition to translating names to addresses for hosts that are on\n   the Internet, the DNS provides for registering DNS-style names for\n   other hosts reachable (via electronic mail) through gateways or mail\n   relays.  The records for such name registration point to an Internet\n   host (one with an IP address) that acts as a mail forwarder for the\n   registered host.  For example, the host \"bah.rochester.ny.us\" is\n   registered in the DNS with a pointer to the mail relay\n   \"relay1.uu.net\".  This type of pointer is called an MX record.\n\n   This gives electronic mail users a uniform mail addressing syntax and\n   avoids making users aware of the underlying network boundaries.\n\n   The reason for the development of the domain system was growth in the\n   Internet.  The host name to address mappings were maintained by the\n   Network Information Center (NIC) in a single file, called HOSTS.TXT,\n   which was FTPed by all the hosts on the Internet.  The network\n   population was changing in character.  The timeshared hosts that made\n   up the original ARPANET were being replaced with local networks of\n   workstations.  Local organizations were administering their own names\n   and addresses, but had to wait for the NIC to make changes in\n   HOSTS.TXT to make the changes visible to the Internet at large.\n   Organizations also wanted some local structure on the name space.\n   The applications on the Internet were getting more sophisticated and\n   creating a need for general purpose name service.  The idea of a\n   hierarchical name space, with the hierarchy roughly corresponding to\n   organizational structure, and names using \".\" as the character to\n   mark the boundary between hierarcy levels.  A design using a\n   distributed database and generalized resources was implemented.\n\n   The domain system provides standard formats for resource data,\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 2]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nstandard methods for querying the database, and standard methods for\n   name servers to refresh local data from other name servers.\n\n   1.2  Top-Level Domains\n\n   The top-level domains in the DNS are EDU, COM, GOV, MIL, ORG, INT,\n   and NET, and all the 2-letter country codes from the list of\n   countries in ISO-3166.\n\n   Even though the intention was that any educational institution any\n   where in the world could be registered under the EDU domain, in\n   practice it has turned out with few exceptions only those in the\n   United States have registered under EDU, similiary with COM (for\n   commercial). In other countries, everything is registered under the\n   2-letter country code, often with some subdivision.  For example, in\n   Korea (KR) the second level names are AC for academic community, CO\n   for commercial, GO for government, and RE for research.  However each\n   country may go it's own way about organizing its domain, and many\n   have.\n\n   Their are no plans of putting all of the organizational domains .EDU\n    .GOV .COM etc., under .US.\n\n   However, there are some states registered in the .GOV domain (11 by 2\n   letter code), and 3 by full names)\n\n           ca.gov          la.gov          ohio.gov        va.gov\n           co.gov          md.gov          or.gov          wa.gov\n           hawaii.gov      nc.gov          sc.gov\n           ia.gov          ny.gov          texas.gov\n\n   Other names sometimes appear as top-level domain names.  Some people\n   have made up names in the DNS style without coordinating or\n   registering  with the DNS management.  Some names that typically\n   appear are \".BITNET\", \".UUCP\", and two-letter codes for continents,\n   such as \".NA\" for North America (this conflicts with the official\n   Internet code for Namibia).\n\n   For example, the DNS style name \"KA7EEJ.CO.USA.NA\" is used in the\n   amateur radio network.  These addresses are never supposed to show up\n   on the Internet but they do occasionally.  The amateur radio network\n   people created their own naming scheme, and it interferes sometimes\n   with Internet addresses.\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 3]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n1.3  The US Domain\n\n   The US Domain is an official top-level domain in the DNS of the\n   Internet community.  It is registered with the Network Information\n   Center.  The domain administrators are Jon Postel and Ann Westine\n   Cooper at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of\n   Southern California (USC-ISI).\n\n   US is the ISO-3166 2-letter country code for the United States and\n   thus the US Domain is established as a top-level domain and\n   registered with the NIC the same way other country domains are.\n\n   Because organizations in the United States have registered primarily\n   in the EDU and COM domains, little use was initially made of the US\n   domain.\n\n   In the past, the computers registered in the US Domain were primarily\n   owned by small companies or individuals with computers at home.\n   However, the US Domain has grown and currently registers hosts in\n   federal government agencies, state government agencies, K12 schools,\n   community colleges, private schools, libraries, county agencies, and\n   city utilities, to name a few.\n\n   The administration of the US Domain was managed solely by the Domain\n   Registrar in the past.  However, due to the increase of hosts,\n   administration of subdomains is being delegated to others.\n\n   Any computer in the United States may be registered in the US Domain.\n2\n. NAMING STRUCTURE\nThe US Domain hierarchy is based on political geography.  The\n   namespace under .US is the state namespace, then the city namespace,\n   then organization or computer name and so on.\n\n   For example:\n\n          SPK.WA.US\n         VANC.WA.US\n\n   There is of course no problem with running out of names.\n\n   The things that are named are individual computers.\n\n   If you register now in one city and then move, the database can be\n   updated with a new name in your new city, and a pointer can be set up\n   from your old name to your new name.  This type of pointer is called\n   a CNAME record.\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 4]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nThe use of un-registered names is not effective and causes problems\n   for other users.  Inventing your own name and using it without\n   registering is not a good idea.\n\n   2.1  State Codes\n\n   The state codes are the two letter US Postal abbreviations.\n\n   2.2  City Codes or Locality Names\n\n   Cities may be named (designated) by their full name (spelled out with\n   hyphens replacing spaces (e.g., Los-Angeles or New-York)), or by a\n   city code.  The first choice is the full city name, the second choice\n   is the city codes from Western Union's \"City Mnemonics\" list, and a\n   third choice is a code for your city chosen by the applicant.\n   However, it is very desirable that all users in the same city use the\n   same designator for the city.\n\n   Abbreviated city names are a good idea, particularly when the city\n   name is long, as there is much to type already.  One of the problems\n   is that the city codes in the Western Union City Mnemonics list are\n   sometimes not very good abbreviations.  Users sometimes tend to\n   prefer abbreviations that are commonly used already from that region.\n   Such as SF for San Francisco, MPK for Menlo Park.\n\n   Exceptions have been made in the abbreviations, even though this\n   causes extra work to keep track of these abbreviations.  One\n   abbreviation for one city.  Applicants are told what codes are\n   currently in use, however, if a city code is not used yet, and they\n   would prefer to use a different code that is more common among the\n   natives, then the new code is allowed.  However, once it's\n   registered, then everyone else who registers in that city will have\n   to use that code or spell out the full city name.\n\n   Some applicants have tried to get a copy of the Western Union City\n   Mnemonics code list but it is no longer available from Western Union.\n   However, we do have a copy but it is not online. If you are\n   requesting an abbreviated city code please let us know and we will\n   gladly look it up for you.\n\n   2.3  Examples of Names\n\n   For small entities like individuals or small businesses there is\n   usually no problem with selecting locality based names.\n\n         For example:  Zuckys.Santa-Monica.CA.US\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 5]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nFor large entities like large corporations with multiple facilities\n   in several cities or states this often seems like a unreasonable\n   constraint (especially when compared with the alternative of\n   registering directly in the .COM domain).  However, a company does\n   have a headquarters office in a particular locality and so could\n   register with that name.\n\n         For example:  IBM.Armonk.NY.US\n\n\n             EXAMPLES OF THE NAMING STRUCTURE IN THE US DOMAIN\n\n   PRIVATE (business or individual)\n   ================================\n\n   Camp-Curry.Yosemite.CA.US       <====  a business\n   IBM.Armonk.NY.US                <====  a business\n   Dogwood.atl.GA.US               <====  a business\n   Geo-Petrellis.Culver-City.CA.US <====  a restaurant\n   Zuckys-Santa-Monica.CA.US       <====  a restaurant\n   Joe-Josts.Long-Beach.CA.US      <====  a bar\n   Holodek.Santa-Cruz.CA.US        <====  a personal computer\n\n   FEDERAL\n   =======\n\n   Senate.FED.US           <====  US Senate\n   DOD.FED.US              <====  US Defense Dept.\n   DOT.FED.US              <====  US Transportation Dept.\n   USPS.FED.US             <====  US Postal Service\n   VA.FED.US               <====  US Veterans Administration\n   IRS.FED.US              <====  US Internal Revenue Service\n   Yosemite.NPS.Interior.FED.US    <====  a federal agency\n\n   STATE\n   =====\n\n   Senate.STATE.MN.US      <====  state Senate\n   House.STATE.MN.US       <====  state House of Reps\n   MDH.STATE.MN.US         <====  state Health Dept.\n   HUD.STATE.CA.US         <====  state House and Urban Dev. Dept.\n   DOT.STATE.MN.US         <====  state Transportation Dept.\n   Caltrans.STATE.CA.US    <====  state Transportation Dept.\n   DMV.STATE.CA.US         <====  state Motor Vehicles Dept.\n   Culver-City.DMV.STATE.CA.US  <====  a local office of DMV\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 6]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nCITY | COUNTY\n   ==============\n\n   Police.CITY.Culver-City.CA.US       <====  a city department\n   Fire-Dept.CITY.Los-Angeles.CA.US    <====  a city department\n   Fire-Dept.COUNTY.Los-Angeles.CA.US  <====  a county department\n\n   REGIONAL | DISTRICT | LIBRARY\n   =============================\n\n   SCAQMD.DISTRICT.CA.US                     <====  a regional district\n   Bunker-Hill-Improvement.DISTRICT.LA.CA.US <====  a local district\n\n   Huntington.LIB.LA.US                    <====  a private library\n   Venice.LA-City.LIB.CA.US                <====  a city library\n   MDR.LA-County.LIB.CA.US                 <====  a county library\n\n   K12 | CC | STATE UNIV | PRIVATE SCHOOLS\n   =======================================\n\n   Los-Angeles.UC.STATE.CA.US      <====  UCLA\n   Berkeley.UC.STATE.CA.US         <====  \"CAL\"\n   Irvine.UC.STATE.CA.US           <====  University of Calif. Irvine\n   Santa-Cruz.UC.STATE.CA.US       <====  University of Calif. Santa Cruz\n   Northridge.CSU.STATE.CA.US      <====  Calif. State. Univ. Northridge\n   Fullerton.CSU.STATE.CA.US       <====  Calif. State. Univ. Fullerton\n   Sonoma.CSU.STATE.CA.US          <====  Calif. State. Univ. Sonoma\n\n   SMCC.Santa-Monica.CC.CA.US      <====  a public community college\n   Trade-Tech.Los-Angeles.CC.CA.US <====  a public community college\n\n   Hamilton.High.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US      <====   a public K12 school\n   Sherman-Oaks.Elem.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US  <====   a public K12 school\n   John-Muir.Middle.Santa-Monica.K12.CA.US <====   a public K12 school\n\n   St-Monica.High.Santa-Monica.CA.US       <====  a private high school\n   St-Monica.Elem.Santa-Monica.CA.US       <====  a private elem. school\n   Crossroads-School.Santa-Monica.CA.US    <====  a private school\n   Mary-Ellens.Montessori-School.LA.CA.US  <====  a private school\n   Leland-Stanford-Jr-Univ.Stanford.CA.US  <====  a private school\n   Loyola-Marymount-Univ.Los-Angeles.CA.US <====  a private school\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 7]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nWhen appropriate, subdomains are delegated and partioned in various\n   categories, such as:\n\n                   K12.<state>.US   =   kindegarten thru 12th grade\n                    CC.<state>.US   =   community colleges\n                   LIB.<state>.US   =   libraries\n                 STATE.<state>.US   =   state government agencies\n                <org-name>.FED.US   =   federal government agencies\n\n   The Appendix-I contains the current US Domain Names BNF, but in\n   actuality, the names under these subdomains may vary according to the\n   decision of the administrators of these subdomains.\n\n   Some users would like names associated with a greater metropolitan\n   area or region like the \"Bay Area\" or \"Tri-Cities\".  One problem with\n   this is that these names are not necessarily unique within a state.\n   The best thing to do in this case is to use the larger metropolitan\n   city in your host name.  Cities and in some cases counties are used.\n3\n. REGISTRATION\n3.1  Requirements\n\n   Anyone requesting to register a host in the US Domain is sent a copy\n   of the US Domain policy and procedure, and must fill out a US Domain\n   questionnaire.\n\n   The US Domain template, is similar to the NIC Domain template\n   however, it is not the same.  To request a copy of the US Domain\n   questionnaire, send a message to the US Domain registrar (us-\n   domain@isi.edu).\n\n      Note:  If you are registering a name in a delegated zone\n             (see\nSection 3.3.6\n).  Please register with the\n             contact for that zone.\n\n   The key people must have electronic mailboxes (that work).  Please\n   provide all the information indicated in the \"Administrator\" and\n   \"Technical Contact\" slot.  This person will be the point of contact\n   for any administrative and policy questions about the domain.\n\n   The administrator is usually the person who manages the organization\n   being registered. The technical contact can also be administrator, or\n   the systems person, or someone who is familiar with the technical\n   details of the Internet. The technical contact should have a valid\n   working e-mail address. This is necessary in case something goes\n   wrong.\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 8]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nIt is important that your \"Return-Path\" and \"From\" field indicate an\n   Internet style address.  UUCP style addresses such as \"host1!user\"\n   will not work. This is fine within the UUCP world, but not the\n   Internet.  If you want people on the Internet to be able to send mail\n   to you, your return path needs to be an Internet style address: such\n   as host1!user@internet.gateway.host or user@internet.gateway.host.\n\n   It is also possible to register through one of the Internet service\n   providers that have established working relationships with the US\n   domain administrator.\n\n   If everything checks out, turn around time for registering a host is\n   usually a day or two.  The nameservers are updated anywhere from 12\n   to 24 hours later.\n\n   There are two ways to be registered in the US Domain, directly, or by\n   delegation.\n\n   3.2  Direct Entries\n\n   Direct entry in the database of the US Domain appeals most to\n   individuals and small companies.  Fill out the application and send\n   it directly to the US Domain administrator.  If you are in an area\n   where the zone is delegated to someone else your request will be\n   forwarded to the zone administrator for your registration.\n\n   3.2.1 UUCP Hosts\n\n   Many applicants have hosts in the UUCP world.  Some are one hop away,\n   some two and three hops away from their \"Internet Forwarder\", this is\n   ok.  What is important is getting an Internet host to be your\n   forwarder.  If you do not already have an Internet forwarder, there\n   are several businesses that provide this service for a fee, such as\n   UUNET.UU.NET (postmaster@uunet.uu.net), PSI (postmaster@UU2.PSI.COM)\n   and CERFNET (help@cerf.net).  Sometimes local colleges in your area\n   are already on the Internet and may be willing to act as an Internet\n   Forwarder.  You would need to work this out with the systems\n   administrator we cannot make these arrangements for you.\n\n   Although we work with UUCP service providers, the Internet US Domain\n   registration is not affiliated with the registration of UUCP Map\n   entries.  The UUCP map entry does not provide us with sufficient\n   information.  If you do not have a copy of the US Domain\n   questionnaire template, please send a message to: us-domain@isi.edu\n   and request one.  See Appendix-II.\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 9]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nThis is not an appropriate registration for the US Domain.\n\n     #N starl\n     #S Amiga 2500; AmigaDOS 2.04; Dillon's AmigaUUCP 1.15D\n     #O Starlight BBS\n     #C Stephen Baker\n     #E starl!sbaker\n     #T +1 305 378 1161\n     #P 1107 SW 200th St #303B Miami, Fl. 33157\n     #L 25 47 N / 88 10 W [city]\n     #R\n     #U mthvax\n     #W starl!sbaker (Stephen Baker); Mon Feb 24 19:58:24 EST 1992\n      starl        mthvax(DAILY)\n\n   If you are registering your host as a central site for a USENET group\n   where other UUCP sites will feed from you, that's fine.  These UUCP\n   sites do not need to register.  If however, the other sites become a\n   subdomain of your hostname, then we will need to register them\n   individually or add a wildcard record.\n\n           For example:          bah.rochester.ny.us\n                           host1.bah.rochester.ny.us\n                           host2.bah.rochester.ny.us\n\n   3.2.2 NON-IP Hosts\n\n   To use US Domain names for non-IP hosts, there must be a forwarder\n   host that is an IP host.  There must be an adminstrative agreement\n   and a technical procedure for relaying mail between the non-IP host\n   and the forwarder host.\n\n   Case 1:\n   -------\n\n   Your host is not an IP host but does talk directly with a host that\n   is an IP host.\n                                                  +-----------------+\n   +----------+            +---------+            |                 |\n   |your-host |---UUCP-----|forwarder|----IP/TCP--|    INTERNET     |\n   +----------+            +---------+            |                 |\n                                                  +-----------------+\n   \"Forwarder\" must be an IP host on the Internet.\n\n   You must ask \"forwarder\" if they are willing to be the internet\n   forwarder for \"your-host\".\n\n   In the US Domain of the DNS data base there must be an entry like\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 10]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nthis:\n          \"your-host\"  MX  10  \"forwarder\"\n\n   This must be entered by the US Domain administrator.\n\n   In the \"forwarder\" routing tables there must be information about\n   \"your-host\" with a rule like: If I see mail for \"your-host\" I will\n   send it via uucp by calling phone number \"123-4567\".\n\n   Case 2:\n   -------\n\n   In this case your hosts talks to another host that ... that talks to\n   an IP host.  In other words, there are multiple hops between your host\n   and the Internet.\n                                                  +-----------------+\n   +----------+            +---------+            |                 |\n   |path-host |---UUCP-----|forwarder|----IP/TCP--|    INTERNET     |\n   +----------+            +---------+            |                 |\n       |                                          +-----------------+\n      UUCP\n       |\n   +----------+\n   |your-host |\n   +----------+\n\n   \"Forwarder\" must be an IP host on the internet.\n\n   You must ask \"forwarder\" if they are willing to be the Internet\n   Forwarder for \"Your-Host\".  You must ask \"path-host\" to relay your\n   mail.\n\n   In the US Domain of the DNS DataBase there must be an entry like this:\n\n          \"your-host\"  MX  10  \"forwarder\"\n\n   This must be entered by the US Domain Administrator.\n\n   In the \"forwarder\" routing tables there must be information about\n   \"your-host\" with a rule like: If I see mail for \"your-host\" I will\n   send it via UUCP to \"path-host\" by calling phone number \"123-4567\".\n   and \"path-host\" must also know how to relay the mail to \"your-host\".\n\n   Note: It is assumed that \"path-host\" is already MXed to \"forwarder\".\n   It is not appropriate to ask to MX \"your-host\" to \"path-host\" (this\n   is sometimes called double MXing).  The host on the right hand side\n   of an MX entry must be a host on the Internet with an IP address\n   (e.g., 128.9.2.32).\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 11]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n3.3  Delegated Subdomains\n\n   The administrator of the US Domain is responsible for the assignment\n   of all the DNS names that end with \".US\".  Of course, one person or\n   even one group can't handle all this in the long run so portions of\n   the name space are delegated to others.\n\n   Delegation of cities, companies within cities, schools (K12),\n   community colleges (CC), libraries (LIB), state government (STATE),\n   and federal government agencies, departments, etc., is acceptable and\n   practical.\n\n   For a delegated portion of the namespace, for example a city, no\n   alterations can be made to that name, no abbreviations added, etc.\n   unless applied for.\n\n   Sometimes there may be two people running name servers in the same\n   city because different portions of the name space has been delegated\n   to them.  For example, someone may be delegated the <city>.<state>.US\n   name space, and someone else from a state government agency may have\n   the .STATE.<state>.US, portion.  For example, Fred may run the name\n   servers for Sacramento.CA.US and Joe may run the name servers for\n   STATE.CA.US in Sacramento.\n\n   If a company would like to have wildcard records added, or run their\n   own name servers in a city that we have delegated name space to, this\n   is ok.\n\n   Delegation of the whole State namespace is not yet implemented.  The\n   delegated part of the name space is in the form of:\n\n                    .STATE.<state>.US.\n                      .K12.<state>.US.\n                       .CC.<state>.US.\n                      .LIB.<state>.US.\n        .<org-name>.<city>.<state>.US.\n         .CITY.<city-name>.<state>.US.\n                   .<org-name>.FED.US.\n\n   3.3.1  Schools\n\n   As schools begin to join the Internet, there ought to be a consistent\n   scheme for naming them.  A \"K12\" name branch has been established in\n   each state in the US Domain for this purpose.\n\n   Public schools are usually organized by districts which can be larger\n   or smaller than a city or county.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 12]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nIt makes sense to name schools within districts.  However districts\n   often have the same name as a city or county so there has to be a way\n   to distinguish a public school district name from some other type of\n   locality name.  The keyword \"K12\" is used for this.\n\n   In some districts, the same school name is used at different levels,\n   for example, Washington Elementary School and Washington High School.\n   We suggest that when necessary the keywords \"Elementary\", \"Middle\",\n   and \"High\" be used to distinguish these schools.  These keywords\n   would only be used when they are needed, if the school's name is\n   unique without such keywords don't use them.\n\n   Typical K12 school names currently used are like:\n\n              IVY.PRS.K12.NJ.US\n              DMHS.JCPS.K12.KY.US\n              OHS.EUNION.K12.CA.US\n              BOHS.BREA.K12.CA.US\n\n   These names could be long.  Given the large number of schools,\n   organizing by school district and state seems appropriate.  When\n   there are many things to name some of the names must be long.\n\n   In some cases there may be appropriate abbreviations that can be\n   used.  For example Hamilton High School in Los Angeles could be:\n\n              Hami.Hi.LA.K12.CA.US\n\n      Some School Examples:\n      ---------------------\n\n      Hamilton.High.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US        <== a public school\n      Sherman-Oaks.Elem.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US    <== a public school\n      John-Muir.Middle.Santa-Monica.K12.CA.US   <== a public school\n      Crossroads-School.Santa-Monica.CA.US      <== a private school\n      SMCC.CC.CA.US                             <== a community college\n      Northridge.CSU.STATE.CA.US                <== a state university\n\n   If a school has a bunch of PCs, then each PC should have a name.\n   Suppose they are named \"alpha\", \"beta\", ... then if they belong to a\n   school named \"Lincoln.High.Lakewood.K12.CA.US\" their names would be:\n\n                alpha.Lincoln.High.Lakewood.K12.CA.US.\n                beta.Lincoln.High.Lakewood.K12.CA.US\n           ...\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 13]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n3.2.2  State Agencies\n\n   US Domain namespace has been delegated to the state goverment\n   agencies.  For example, in the State of Minnesota, the subdomain is\n   STATE.MN.US\n\n   This means that the person running the namservers for state.mn.us are\n   responsible for naming agencies, of the state govermnent.  For\n   example:\n\n      State Agencies:\n      ---------------\n\n      Senate.STATE.MN.US      <== State Senate\n      MDH.STATE.MN.US         <== Dept. of Health\n      CALTRANS.STATE.CA.US    <== Dept. of Transportation\n      DMV.STATE.CA.US         <== Dept. of Motor Vehicles\n\n   3.3.3  Federal Agencies\n\n   A federal namespace has been delegated to the federal government\n   agencies.  For example the subdomain for the Federal Reserve Bank of\n   Minneapolis is MNPL.FRB.FED.US. Other examples are listed below.\n\n      Federal Government Agencies:\n      ---------------------------\n\n      Senate.FED.US   <====  US Senate\n      DOD.FED.US      <====  US Defense Dept.\n      USPS.FED.US     <====  US Postal Service\n      VA.FED.US       <====  US Veterans Administration\n      IRS.FED.US      <====  US Internal Revenue Service\n      Yosemite.NPS.Interior.FED.US    <====  A Federal agency\n\n   3.3.4  Delegation Requirements\n\n   When a subdomain is delegated, the following requirements must be\n   met:\n\n      1)  There must be a knowledgeable and competent technical contact,\n          familiar with the Internet Domain Name System.  This\n          requirement is easily satisified if the technical contact\n          already runs some other nameservers.\n\n      2)  Organizations requesting delegations must provide at least two\n          independent (robust and reliable) DNS name servers in\n          physically separate locations on the Internet.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 14]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n3)  The subdomain must accept all applicants on an equal basis.\n\n      4)  The subdomain must provide timely processing of requests.  To\n          do this it is helpful to have several individuals\n          knowledgeable about the procedures so that the operations are\n          not delayed due to one persons unavailability (for example by\n          being on vacation).\n\n   3.3.5  Delegation Procedures\n\n   The procedure that is followed when a subdomain is delegated includes\n   the following steps:\n\n      1)  Evaluate the technical contact's experience with DNS.  Make\n          sure there is a need for the proposed delegation.  Make sure\n          the technical contact has the information about the US Domain\n          and the suggested naming structure.\n\n      2)  Note: In the past there was the concept of a \"coordinator\" for\n          a group or a club or \"Domain Park\". They would arrange to\n          coordinate the registration of all the computers used by\n          members of the club and forward all the information for the\n          group to the US Domain Administrator.  Most coordinators have\n          moved into the position of administrator of that now delegated\n          subdomain.\n\n      3)  Add the new technical contact to the \"us-dom-adm\" mailing list\n          for distributing updates to the US Domain policies and\n          procedures, or other pertinent information.\n\n      4)  Delete any hosts from our zone file that belongs in the newly\n          delegated subdomain and make sure they now have the hosts in\n          their zone file.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 15]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n5)  Send them a copy of the zone file so their initial zone file\n          is identical to ours. For example:\n\n            mil.wi.us.   86400   SOA spool.mu.edu. manager.spool.mu.edu. (\n                                    920904  ;serial\n                                    28800   ;refresh\n                                    14400   ;retry\n                                    3600000 ;expire\n                                    86400 ) ;minim\n\n            mil.wi.us.      86400   NS      spool.mu.edu.\n            spool.mu.edu.   50400   A       134.48.1.31\n            mil.wi.us.      86400   NS      sophie.mscs.mu.edu.\n\n            sophie.mscs.mu.edu.     50400   A       134.48.4.6\n            solaria.mil.wi.us.      86400   HINFO   Sun 3/60 SunOs\n            solaria.mil.wi.us.      86400   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n            nthomas.mil.wi.us.      86400   HINFO   386 Clone DOS\n            nthomas.mil.wi.us.      86400   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n            rwmke.mil.wi.us.        86400   HINFO   UNIX PC UNIX\n            rwmke.mil.wi.us.        86400   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n            milestn.mil.wi.us.      86400   HINFO   PC AT ENIX\n            milestn.mil.wi.us.      86400   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n            dawley.mil.wi.us.       86400   HINFO   386 Clone DOS\n            dawley.mil.wi.us.       86400   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n            ...\n                      -------------------------------------\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 16]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n6)  The US Domain zone file must have the following records,\n          showing the name, address, e-mail, and phone number of the\n          technical contact for the delegated subdomain and the name of\n          the delegated name space and the names of the nameservers.\n\n            ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\n            ;\n            ;Delegated zone: .mil.wi.us\n            ;Contact:  Steven Goodman\n            ;          manager@spool.mu.edu\n            ;          Marquette University\n            ;          (414) 288-6734\n\n            mil.wi.us.      604800  NS      SPOOL.MU.EDU.\n                            604800  NS      SOPHIE.MSCS.MU.EDU.\n\n            ; A glue record is not needed this time. Glue records are\n            ; needed when the name of the server is a subdomain of the\n            ; delegated domain.\n            ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\n\n      7)  Check to see that delegated subdomain name servers are up and\n          running, and make sure the delegated hosts are installed in\n          their zone file.  Now delete any hosts from the US Domain zone\n          file that belongs in the newly delegated subdomain.\n\n      8)  Inform the technical contact of the newly delegated subdomain\n          that wildcard records are allowed in the zone file under the\n          organizational subdomain but no wildcard records are allowed\n          under the \"city\" or \"state\" domain.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 17]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n3.3.6   Subdomain Contacts\n\n   Approximately 680 individual hosts are registered, but we have\n   delegated the following portions of the namespace.  We do not know\n   how many hosts are registered under each of these subsdomains.\n\n           DELEGATED ZONE             CONTACT\n           ==============             =======\n\n           TUCSON.AZ.US               leonard@arizona.edu\n           SF.CA.US                   sf-hostmaster@apple.com\n           PREMENOS.SF.CA.US          jenkins@premenos.sf.ca.us\n           SCVL.CA.US                 sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us\n           SANTA-CRUZ.CA.US           sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us\n           APTOS.CA.US                sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us\n           CAMPBELL.CA.US             sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us\n           CAPITOLA.CA.US             sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us\n           FELTON.CA.US               sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us\n           ZAYANTE.CA.US              sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us\n           BOULDER-CREEK.CA.US        sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us\n           DARWIN.PTVY.CA.US          brian@angband.stanford.edu\n           LOGAN-HS.UNIONCITY.CA.US   cjw@marmot.nersc.gov\n           BOULDER.CO.US              trent@XOR.COM\n           COLOSPGS.CO.US             trent@XOR.COM\n           DENVER.CO.US               trent@XOR.COM\n           DVR.CO.US                  trent@XOR.COM\n           CHI.IL.US                  matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu\n           EUGENE.OR.US               meyer@oregon.uoregon.edu\n           SPRINGFIELD.OR.US          meyer@oregon.uoregon.edu\n           MULTNOMAH.LIB.OR.US        brianw@polaris.admin.ogi.edu\n           PGH.PA.US                  ecd@CERT.ORG\n           SPK.WA.US                  root@dogear.spk.wa.us\n           MIL.WI.US                  manager@spool.mu.edu\n           ATL.GA.US                  charvey@gatech.gatech.edu\n           Mt-PARK.GA.US              charvey@gatech.gatech.edu\n           CLARKSTON.GA.US            charvey@gatech.gatech.edu\n           STATE.MN.US                dfazio@mr.net\n           MNPL.FRB.FED.US            dfazio@mr.net\n\n           K12.CA.US                  mdm@NIC.CSU.NET\n           CC.CA.US                   mdm@NIC.CSU.NET\n           K12.MI.US                  sandra.s.waite@um.cc.umich.edu\n           K12.TX.US                  bmanning@is.rice.edu\n           K12.NJ.US                  becker@nisc.jvnc.net\n           K12.MS.US                  fwp@msstate.edu\n           dmhs.jcps.K12.KY.US        lentner@sura.net\n           TIES.K12.MN.US             dfazio@mr.net\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 18]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nThe following MD.US counties have been delegated to\n        (butler@brl.mil).\n\n           AL.MD.US.       Allegany\n           AA.MD.US.       Anne Arundel\n           BA.MD.US.       Baltimore\n           CAL.MD.US.      Calvert\n           CAR.MD.US.      Caroline\n           CE.MD.US.       Cecil\n           CH.MD.US.       Charles\n           DO.MD.US.       Dorchester\n           FR.MD.US.       Frederick\n           GA.MD.US.       Garrett\n           HA.MD.US.       Harford\n           HO.MD.US.       Howard\n           KE.MD.US.       Kent\n           MO.MD.US.       Montgomery\n           PG.MD.US.       Prince George\"s\n           QA.MD.US.       Queen Anne's\n           SM.MD.US.       St. Mary's\n           SO.MD.US.       Somerset\n           TA.MD.US.       Talbot\n           WA.MD.US.       Washington\n           WI.MD.US.       Wicomico\n           WO.MD.US.       Worcester\n4\n. DATABASE INFORMATION\n4.1. Name Servers\n\n   Name servers are the repositories of information that make up the\n   domain database.  The database is divided up into sections called\n   zones, which are distributed among the name servers.  While name\n   servers can have several optional functions and sources of data, the\n   essential task of a name server is to answer queries using data in\n   its zones.  The response to a query can always be generated using\n   only local data, and either contains the answer to the question or a\n   referral to other name servers \"closer\" to the desired information.\n\n   A given zone will be available from several name servers to insure\n   its availability in spite of host or communication link failure.\n   Every zone is required to be available on at least two servers, and\n   many zones have more redundancy than that.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 19]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nThe US Domain is currently supported by six name servers.\n\n           venera.isi.edu\n           ns.isi.edu\n           ns.hercules.csl.sri.com\n           nnsc.nsf.net\n           ns.uu.net\n           adm.brl.mil\n\n   4.2 Zone Files\n\n   A \"zone\" is a registry of domains kept by a particular organization.\n   A zone registry is \"authoritative\", that is, the master copy of the\n   registry is kept by the zone organization, and this copy is, by\n   definition, always up-to-date.  Copies of this registry may be\n   distributed to other places and kept in caches, but these caches are\n   not authoritative, and may be out-of-date.\n\n   Every zone has at least one node, and hence domain name, for which it\n   is authoritative, and all of the nodes in a particular zone are\n   connected.  Given the tree structure, every zone has a highest node\n   which is closer to the root than any other node in the zone.  The\n   name of this node is often used to identify the zone.  The data that\n   describes a zone has four major parts:\n\n        1) Authoritative data for all nodes within the zone.\n\n        2) Data that defines the top node of the zone\n           (can be thought of as part of the authoritative data).\n\n        3) Data that describes delegated subzones, i.e., cuts\n           around the bottom of the zone,\n\n        4) Data that allows access to name servers for subzones\n           (sometimes called \"glue\" data).\n\n   The zone administrator has to maintain the zones at all the\n   namservers which are authoritative for the zone.  When the changes\n   are made they must be distributed to all of the name servers.\n\n   Copies of the zone files are not available unless you are on the\n   Internet.  To look at the zone files use the \"dig\" program of the DNS\n   domain name system.\n\n        dig   @nshost  host-your-checking  axfr\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 20]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n4.3 Resource Records\n\n   Records in the zone data files are called resource records (RRs).\n   The standard Resource records (RR) are specified in STD 13,\nRFC 1034\nand STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n(3,4).  An RR has a standard format as shown.\n\n                  <name> [<ttl>] [<class>] <type> <data>\n\n   The first field is always the name of the domain record.  The second\n   field is an optional time to live field.  This specifies how long\n   this data will be stored in the data base.  The third field is the\n   address class; the class field specifies the protocol group most\n   often this is the Internet class \"IN\".  The fourth field states the\n   type of the resource record.  The fields after that are dependent on\n   the Type of RR. The fifth field is the data field which is defined\n   differently for each type and class of data.  Here is a list of the\n   current commonly used types.\n\n           SOA     Start of Authority\n           NS      Name Server\n           A       Internet Address\n           CNAME   Canonical Name (nickname pointer)\n           HINFO   Host Information\n           WKS     Well Known Services\n           MX      Mail Exchanger\n           PTR     Pointer\n\n   What do the fields mean?\n\n           foo.LA.CA.US.    604800    MX   10     Venera.ISI.EDU.\n           (1)              (2)       (3)  (4)    (5)\n\n           1)  domain name\n           2)  time to live information\n           3)  mail exchanger record\n           4)  preference value to determine (if more than one\n               forwarder) which mailer to use first, lower number\n               higher preference\n           5)  the Internet forwarding host.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 21]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n4.3.1  A Records\n\n   Internet (IP) Address.  The data for an \"A\" record is an Internet\n   address in a dotted decimal form.  A sample \"A\" record might look\n   like:\n\n           venera.isi.edu.          A      128.9.0.32\n              (name)               (A)     (address)\n\n   The name field is the machine name, and the address is the network\n   address. There should be only one \"A\" record for each address of a\n   host.\n\n   4.3.2  CNAME Records\n\n   Canonical Name resource record, CNAME, specifies an alias for a\n   canonical name. This is essentially a pointer to the official name\n   for the requested name.  All other RRs appear under this official\n   name.  A machine named FERNWOOD.MPK.CA.US may want to have the\n   nickname ANTERIOR.MPK.CA.US.  In that case, the following RR would be\n   used:\n\n           anterior.mpk.ca.us.     CNAME      fernwood.mpk.ca.us.\n            (alias nickname)                   (canonical name)\n\n   Nicknames (the name associated with the RR is the nickname) may be\n   added for awhile when a host changes its name, usually because it\n   moves to another state.  It helps to have this CNAME pointer so if\n   any mail comes to the old address it will get forwarded to the new\n   one.  There cannot be any other RRs associated with a nickname of the\n   same class.\n\n   4.3.3  MX Records\n\n   Mail Exchanger records, MX, are used to specify a machine that knows\n   how to deliver mail to a machine that is not directly connected to\n   the Internet.  For example, venera.isi.edu is the mail gateway that\n   knows how to deliver mail to foo.la.ca.us, but other machines on the\n   network cannot deliver mail directly to foo.la.ca.us.  These two\n   machines may have a private connection or use a different transport\n   medium (such as uucp).  The preference value (10) is the order that a\n   mailer should follow when there is more than one way to deliver mail\n   to a single machine.  The lower the number the higher the preference.\n\n           foo.LA.CA.US.  604800  MX  10  Venera.ISI.EDU.\n           foo.LA.CA.US.  604800  MX  20  relay1.uu.net.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 22]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n4.3.4   HINFO Records\n\n   Host information resource records, HINFO is for host specific data.\n   This lists the hardware and operating system that are running at the\n   listed host.  It should be noted that a space separates the hardware\n   information and the operating system information.  If you want to\n   include a space in the machine name you must quote the name.  Host\n   information is not specific to any class, so ANY may be used for the\n   address class.  There should be one HINFO record for each host.\n\n   acb.la.ca.us.       HINFO       VAX-11/780      UNIX\n                                   (Hardware)      (Operating System)\n\n   The official HINFO types can be found in the latest Assigned Numbers\n   RFC, the most recent edition being\nRFC 1340\n.  The hardware type is\n   called the Machine Name, and the software type is called the System\n   Name.\n\n   The information users supply about this is often inconsistent or\n   incomplete.  Please follow the terms in the current \"Assigned\n   Numbers\".\n\n   4.3.5  PTR Records\n\n   A Domain Name Pointer record, PTR, allows special names to point to\n   some other location in the domain data base.  These are typically\n   used in setting up reverse pointers for the special IN-ADDR.ARPA\n   domain.  PTR names should be unique to the zone.\n\n         0.0.9.128.in-addr.arpa     PTR    isi-net.isi.edu.\n             (special name)                  (real name)\n\n   A PTR record is to be added to the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain for every A\n   record registered in the US Domain.  These PTR records need to be\n   added by the administrator of the network where the host is\n   connected.  The US Domain administration does not administer the\n   network and cannot make these entries in the DNS database.\n\n   4.4  Wildcards\n\n   The wildcard records are of the form \"*.<anydomain>\", where\n   <anydomain> is any domain name.  The wildcards potentially apply to\n   descendents of <anydomain>, but not to <anydomain> itself.\n\n   For example, suppose a large company located in California with a\n   large, non-IP/TCP, network wanted to create a mail gateway.  If the\n   company was called DWP.LA.CA.US, and the IP/TCP capable gateway\n   machine (Internet forwarder) was called ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV, the\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 23]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nfollowing RRs might be entered into the .US zone.\n\n           dwp.la.ca.us    MX      10       ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV\n         *.dwp.la.ca.us    MX      10       ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV\n\n   The wildcard record *.DWP.LA.CA.US would cause an MX query for any\n   domain name ending in DWP.LA.CA.US to return an MX RR pointing at\n   ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV. The entry without the \"*\" is needed so the host\n   dwp can be found.\n\n   In the US Domain, wildcard records are allowed in our zone files\n   under the organizational subdomain (and where noted otherwise) but no\n   wildcard records are allowed under the \"City\" or \"State\" domain.\n\n       The authors strongly believe that it is in everyone's\n       interest and good for the Internet to have each host\n       explicitly registered (that is, we believe that wildcards\n       should not be used), we also realize that not everyone\n       agrees with this belief.  Thus, we will allow wildcard\n       records in the US Domain under groups or organizations.\n       For example, *.DWP.LA.CA.US.\n\n       The reason we feel single entries are the best is by the mere\n       fact that if anyone wanted to find one of the hosts in the\n       domain name system it would be there, and problems can be\n       detected more easily.  When using wildcards records all the\n       hosts under a subdomain are hidden.\n5\n. REFERENCES\n[\n1\n]  Stahl, M., \"Domain Administrators Guide\",\nRFC 1032\n, SRI\n        International, November 1987.\n\n   [\n2\n]  Lottor, M., \"Domain Administrators Operations Guide\"\nRFC 1033\n,\n        SRI International, November 1987.\n\n   [\n3\n]  Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities\",\n        STD 13,\nRFC 1034\n, ISI, November 1987.\n\n   [\n4\n]  Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Implementation and\n        Specification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, ISI, November 1987.\n\n   [\n5\n]  Dunlap, K., \"Name Server Operations Guide for Bind,\n        Release 4.3\", UC Berkeley, SMM:11-3.\n\n   [\n6\n]  Partridge, C., \"Mail Routing and the Domain Name System\",\n        STD 14,\nRFC 974\n, BBN, January 1986.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 24]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n6\n. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\n7\n. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES\nAnn Cooper\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA  90292\n\n   Phone:  1-310-822-1511\n   Email:  cooper@isi.edu\n\n\n   Jon Postel\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA  90292\n\n   Phone:  1-310-822-1511\n   Email:  postel@isi.edu\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 25]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nAPPENDIX-I:  US DOMAIN NAMES BNF\n                     ================================\n\n   <us-domain-name>    ::= <us-name><dot><us>\n\n   <us-name>           ::= <state-name><dot><state-code> |\n                           <fed-name><dot><fed>\n\n   <state-code>        ::= <the two-letter code of a state from the\n                            zip code directory>\n\n   <state-name>        ::= <local-name><dot><locality> |\n                           <state-agency-name><dot><state> |\n                           <regional-agency-name><dot><agency>\n\n   <fed-name>          ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a US\n                            federal government agency>\n\n   <locality>          ::= <the full name of a city from the\n                             zip code directory> |\n                           <a short code name for a city> |\n                           <the full name of a county, township,\n                            or parish> |\n                           <other well known and commonly used\n                            locality name>\n\n   <local-name>        ::= <entity-name> |\n                           <city-name><dot><city> |\n                           <county-name><dot><county> |\n                           <local-agency-name><dot><agency>\n\n   <state-agency-name> ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a state\n                            government agency>\n\n   <regional-agency-name> ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a special\n                            agency or district not an element of the\n                            state government and typically larger than\n                            a single city or county, for example, the\n                            Southern California Air Quality Management\n                            District>\n\n   <entity-name>       ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of an entity\n                            within a city, for example: a company,\n                            business, private school, club, organization,\n                            or individual>\n\n   <city-name>         ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a city\n                            government agency>\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 26]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n<county-name>       ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a county,\n                             township, or parish government agency>\n\n   <local-agency-name> ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a special\n                            agency or district not an element of a\n                            city or county government and typically\n                            equal or smaller than a single city or\n                            county, for example, the Bunker Hill\n                            Improvement District>\n\n\n   <city> ::= \"CITY\"\n\n   <county> ::= \"COUNTY\" | \"TOWNSHIP\" | \"PARISH\"\n\n   <dot> ::= \".\"\n\n   <fed> ::= \"FED\"\n\n   <agency> ::= \"AGENCY\" | \"DISTRICT\" | \"K12\" | \"CC\" | \"LIB\"\n\n   <state> ::= \"STATE\" | \"COMMONWEALTH\"\n\n   <us> ::= \"US\"\n\n\n   Note:  \"K12\" may be used for public school districts, only.\n          and \"CC\" may be used only for public community colleges,\n          and \"LIB\" can only be used by libraries.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 27]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nAPPENDIX-II: US DOMAIN QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOST ENTRY\n\n\nTo register a host in the US domain, the following information must be\nsent to the US Domain Registrar (Us-Domain@ISI.EDU).  Questions may be\nsent by electronic mail to the above address, or by phone to\nAnn Cooper (310-822-1511).\n\n\n(1)  The name of the top-level domain to join.\n\n           For example:  US\n\n\n(2)  The name of the administrative head of the organization, including\n     title, mailing address, phone number, organization, and network\n     mailbox.  This is the contact point for administrative and policy\n     questions about the domain.  In the case of a research project,\n     this should be the principal investigator.\n\n           For example:\n\n              Administrator\n\n                 Organization  The NetWorthy Corporation\n                 Name          Penelope Q. Sassafrass\n                 Title         President\n                 Mail Address  The NetWorthy Corporation\n                               4676 Andrews Way, Suite 100\n                               Santa Clara, CA 94302-1212\n                 Phone Number  (415) 123-4567\n                 Net Mailbox   Sassafrass@ECHO.TNC.COM\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 28]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n(3)  The name of the technical contact for the entry, including title,\n     mailing address, phone number, organization, and network mailbox.\n     This is the contact point for problems concerning the domain or\n     zone, as well as for updating information about the domain or zone.\n\n           For example:\n\n              Technical Contact\n\n                 Organization  The NetWorthy Corporation\n                 Name          Ansel A. Aardvark\n                 Title         Executive Director\n                 Mail Address  The NetWorthy Corporation\n                               4676 Andrews Way, Suite 100\n                               Santa Clara, CA. 94302-1212\n                 Phone Number  (415) 123-6789\n                 Net Mailbox   Aardvark@ECHO.TNC.COM\n\n\n(4)  The name of the host.  This is the name that will be used in tables\n     and lists associating the domain with the domain server addresses.\n     [While, from a technical standpoint, domain names can be quite long\n     (programmers beware), shorter names are easier for people to cope\n     with.]\n\n           For example:  NetWorthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US\n\n           Or:  Alpha.NetWorthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US\n                Beta.NetWorthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US\n\n\n(5)  If this machine is not directly on the internet, how does it\n     communicate with the Internet.  Through UUCP, CREN, etc?  Which\n     forwarding host?\n\n          For example:  The host \"Networthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US\" uses UUCP\n          to connect to \"RELAY.ISI.EDU\" which is an Internet host.\n\n          The administrator of RELAY.ISI.EDU must agree to be the\n          forwarding host for Networthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US, and the\n          forwarding host must know a delivery method and route to it.\n          No double MXing.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 29]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\nIf you are requesting an indirect connection, that is, a Mail\n          Exchanger (MX) record, what is the name and mailbox of the\n          administrator of the forwarding host.\n\n          For example:John Smith\n               js@RELAY.ISI.EDU\n\n\n(6)  Please describe your organization briefly.\n\n     For example: The NetWorthy Corporation is a consulting\n     organization of people working with UNIX and the C language in an\n     electronic networking environment.  It sponsors two technical\n     conferences annually and distributes a bimonthly newsletter.\n\n\n(7)  What Domain Name System (DNS) Resource Records (RR) and values are\n     to be entered.\n\n     a.  A       Internet Address (internet hosts only)\n     b.  HINFO   Host Information, Machine System\n     c.  WKS     Well Known Services, Protocols, Ports (internet hosts only)\n     d.  MX      Mail Exchanger (required for UUCP, and CREN hosts)\n\n     An example of RRs for an internet host.\n\n     NetWorthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US   IN   A       128.9.3.123\n                              IN   HINFO   SUN-3/11OC UNIX\n                              IN   MX      10  ISI.EDU\n                              IN   WKS     128.9.3.123. UDP (echo\n                                                             tftp)\n                              IN   WKS     128.9.3.133. TCP (telnet\n                                                             ftp\n                                                             tftp\n                                                             finger)\n\n     An example of RRs for a non-internet host.\n\n     Beta.NetWorthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US   MX      10   RELAY.ISI.EDU\n                                        HINFO   SUN-3/11OC UNIX\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 30]\nRFC 1386\nThe US Domain                 December 1992\n(8)  Where is the IN-ADDR pointer record to be entered. (For internet\n     hosts only.)  It is your responsibility to see that this is done.\n     Contact the administrator of the IP network your host is on.  The\n     US Domain administration does not administer the network and cannot\n     make these entries in the DNS database.\n\n        For example:\n\n           123.3.9.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA.    PTR  NetWorthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US\n\n     Who is the contact for the zone of the IN-ADDR.ARPA data, where\n     this record will be entered?\n\n\n(9)  What Time to Live (TTL)?  TTL is the time (in seconds) that a\n     resolver will use the data it got from the domain server before it\n     asks it again for the data.  A typical TTL is One Week 604800.\n     (NOTE:  TTL is not applicable to non-Internet hosts.)\n\n        For example:\n\n           One Week   604800\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 31]\nRFC\n1386\n: The US Domain\nInformational\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n1480\nThe US Domain", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-12-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-12-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-12-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:15.528294+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "551adf0c-33dd-4734-bb66-59549cfc5a8d", "source_id": "0e02220d49348027c062d27c", "source": "OECD", "source_url": "https://www.oecd.org/en/publications.html", "final_url": "https://www.oecd.org/en/publications.html", "artifact_sha256": "1783eb5b7c7c668bad82a903d4834fc58278651122886505d775a442924eb213", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 1481233, "title": "Publications | OECD", "language": "en", "text_length": 41510, "characters": 41510, "text": "Publications | OECD\nSkip to main content\nOECD\nTopics\nFeatured topics\nAgriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nDevelopment\nDigital\nEconomy\nEducation and skills\nEmployment\nEnvironment\nFinance and investment\nGovernance\nHealth\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nSociety\nTaxation\nTrade\nEnergy\nNuclear energy\nTransport\nFeatured topics\nArtificial intelligence\nHow to apply effective governance to harness the benefits of A.I. and mitigate its risks\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nAnalysis and insights for driving a rapid transition to net-zero while building resilience to physical climate impacts\nDevelopment co-operation\nStandards and guidelines for development co-operation with concrete examples of their implementation\nGender equality\nPolicies on gender equality a driver of economic growth, democracy and social cohesion\nGlobal value and supply chains\nAs the trend towards the international dispersion of certain value chain activities produces challenges, discover policies to meet these\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nEnhanced transparency and exchange of information to put an end to bank secrecy and fight tax evasion and avoidance\nAgriculture and fisheries\nAgricultural policy monitoring\nAgricultural productivity and innovation\nAgricultural trade and markets\nAgriculture and sustainability\nFisheries and aquaculture\nFood systems\nOECD standards for agriculture\nExplore agriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nClimate adaptation and resilience\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nGlobal co-operation on climate\nGreen technology and innovation\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore climate change\nDevelopment\nCritical minerals\nDevelopment co-operation\nFinance for sustainable development\nGlobal and regional development trends\nGovernance and peace for development\nHuman development and social inclusion\nOfficial development assistance (ODA)\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nTax and development\nUrbanisation, infrastructure and development\nExplore development\nDigital\nArtificial intelligence\nCommunication infrastructure and services\nData flows and governance\nDigital government\nDigital security\nDigital transformation\nOnline safety and well-being\nPrivacy and data protection\nExplore digital\nEconomy\nCompetition\nEconomic policy\nEconomic surveillance\nEconomy and society\nFinancial markets\nGlobal trade and open markets\nInvestment\nProductivity and long-term growth\nSustainable economic growth\nExplore economy\nEducation and skills\nAdult skills and work\nEducation access, participation, and progression\nEducation economic and social outcomes\nEducation equity\nEducation evaluation and quality assurance\nEducation financing\nEducation leadership\nEducation organisation and governance\nFuture of education and skills\nLearning environment\nStudent performance (PISA)\nTeachers and educators\nExplore education and skills\nEmployment\nAdult skills and work\nEmployability\nEmployment services\nFuture of work\nHealth and work\nJob quality\nLocal employment and economic development\nPublic employment and management\nExplore employment\nEnvironment\nBiodiversity, water and ecosystems\nChemical safety and biosafety\nEnvironment, society and economy\nEnvironmental policies and evaluation\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nGreen technology and innovation\nGreening countries, regions and cities\nPollution\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore environment\nFinance and investment\nCritical minerals\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nFinancial consumer protection, education and inclusion\nFinancial markets\nInfrastructure\nInvestment\nPensions and insurance\nResponsible business conduct\nSubnational finance and investment\nExplore finance and investment\nGovernance\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCorporate governance\nDigital government\nGovernment innovation\nInfrastructure\nMulti-level governance\nPublic employment and management\nPublic finance and budgets\nPublic policymaking\nPublic procurement\nRegulatory reform\nTrust and democracy\nExplore governance\nHealth\nChronic diseases\nDigital health\nHealth and work\nHealth inequality and universal health coverage\nHealth spending and financial sustainability\nHealthcare quality and outcomes\nImproving public health\nPharmaceuticals and medical technologies\nThe future of health systems\nExplore health\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCompetition\nCorporate governance\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIndustrial policy\nIndustry sector analysis\nResponsible business conduct\nSMEs and entrepreneurship\nSustainable, green, and inclusive business\nTourism\nExplore industry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nLocal employment and economic development\nMulti-level governance\nRegional development\nRural development and natural resources\nSubnational finance and investment\nUrban development and cities\nExplore regional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nChemical safety and biosafety\nScience policy\nSpace economy\nTechnology policy\nExplore science, technology and innovation\nSociety\nAgeing\nConsumer policy\nEconomy and society\nGender equality\nHousing\nInclusion and equality\nMigration\nPensions and insurance\nSocial policy\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nWell-being and beyond GDP\nYouth\nExplore society\nTaxation\nBase erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)\nConsumption taxes\nCross-border and international tax\nTax administration\nTax and crime\nTax and development\nTax and the environment\nTax policy\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nTax treaties\nExplore taxation\nTrade\nCritical minerals\nAgricultural trade and markets\nDigital trade\nExport credits\nGlobal trade and open markets\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIllicit trade\nInclusive trade\nServices trade\nSubsidies and government support\nTrade and sustainability\nExplore trade\nEnergy\nExplore energy\nNuclear energy\nExplore nuclear energy\nTransport\nExplore transport\nFeatured topics\nArtificial intelligence\nHow to apply effective governance to harness the benefits of A.I. and mitigate its risks\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nAnalysis and insights for driving a rapid transition to net-zero while building resilience to physical climate impacts\nDevelopment co-operation\nStandards and guidelines for development co-operation with concrete examples of their implementation\nGender equality\nPolicies on gender equality a driver of economic growth, democracy and social cohesion\nGlobal value and supply chains\nAs the trend towards the international dispersion of certain value chain activities produces challenges, discover policies to meet these\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nEnhanced transparency and exchange of information to put an end to bank secrecy and fight tax evasion and avoidance\nAgriculture and fisheries\nAgricultural policy monitoring\nAgricultural productivity and innovation\nAgricultural trade and markets\nAgriculture and sustainability\nFisheries and aquaculture\nFood systems\nOECD standards for agriculture\nExplore agriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nClimate adaptation and resilience\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nGlobal co-operation on climate\nGreen technology and innovation\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore climate change\nDevelopment\nCritical minerals\nDevelopment co-operation\nFinance for sustainable development\nGlobal and regional development trends\nGovernance and peace for development\nHuman development and social inclusion\nOfficial development assistance (ODA)\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nTax and development\nUrbanisation, infrastructure and development\nExplore development\nDigital\nArtificial intelligence\nCommunication infrastructure and services\nData flows and governance\nDigital government\nDigital security\nDigital transformation\nOnline safety and well-being\nPrivacy and data protection\nExplore digital\nEconomy\nCompetition\nEconomic policy\nEconomic surveillance\nEconomy and society\nFinancial markets\nGlobal trade and open markets\nInvestment\nProductivity and long-term growth\nSustainable economic growth\nExplore economy\nEducation and skills\nAdult skills and work\nEducation access, participation, and progression\nEducation economic and social outcomes\nEducation equity\nEducation evaluation and quality assurance\nEducation financing\nEducation leadership\nEducation organisation and governance\nFuture of education and skills\nLearning environment\nStudent performance (PISA)\nTeachers and educators\nExplore education and skills\nEmployment\nAdult skills and work\nEmployability\nEmployment services\nFuture of work\nHealth and work\nJob quality\nLocal employment and economic development\nPublic employment and management\nExplore employment\nEnvironment\nBiodiversity, water and ecosystems\nChemical safety and biosafety\nEnvironment, society and economy\nEnvironmental policies and evaluation\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nGreen technology and innovation\nGreening countries, regions and cities\nPollution\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore environment\nFinance and investment\nCritical minerals\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nFinancial consumer protection, education and inclusion\nFinancial markets\nInfrastructure\nInvestment\nPensions and insurance\nResponsible business conduct\nSubnational finance and investment\nExplore finance and investment\nGovernance\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCorporate governance\nDigital government\nGovernment innovation\nInfrastructure\nMulti-level governance\nPublic employment and management\nPublic finance and budgets\nPublic policymaking\nPublic procurement\nRegulatory reform\nTrust and democracy\nExplore governance\nHealth\nChronic diseases\nDigital health\nHealth and work\nHealth inequality and universal health coverage\nHealth spending and financial sustainability\nHealthcare quality and outcomes\nImproving public health\nPharmaceuticals and medical technologies\nThe future of health systems\nExplore health\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCompetition\nCorporate governance\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIndustrial policy\nIndustry sector analysis\nResponsible business conduct\nSMEs and entrepreneurship\nSustainable, green, and inclusive business\nTourism\nExplore industry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nLocal employment and economic development\nMulti-level governance\nRegional development\nRural development and natural resources\nSubnational finance and investment\nUrban development and cities\nExplore regional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nChemical safety and biosafety\nScience policy\nSpace economy\nTechnology policy\nExplore science, technology and innovation\nSociety\nAgeing\nConsumer policy\nEconomy and society\nGender equality\nHousing\nInclusion and equality\nMigration\nPensions and insurance\nSocial policy\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nWell-being and beyond GDP\nYouth\nExplore society\nTaxation\nBase erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)\nConsumption taxes\nCross-border and international tax\nTax administration\nTax and crime\nTax and development\nTax and the environment\nTax policy\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nTax treaties\nExplore taxation\nTrade\nCritical minerals\nAgricultural trade and markets\nDigital trade\nExport credits\nGlobal trade and open markets\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIllicit trade\nInclusive trade\nServices trade\nSubsidies and government support\nTrade and sustainability\nExplore trade\nEnergy\nExplore energy\nNuclear energy\nExplore nuclear energy\nTransport\nExplore transport\nCountries & regions\nA - C\nD - I\nJ - M\nN - R\nS - T\nU - Z\nRegional and global engagement\nCountries A - C\nAfghanistan\nAlbania\nAlgeria\nAndorra\nAngola\nAntigua and Barbuda\nArgentina\nArmenia\nAustralia\nAustria\nAzerbaijan\nBahamas\nBahrain\nBangladesh\nBarbados\nBelarus\nBelgium\nBelize\nBenin\nBhutan\nBolivia\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nBotswana\nBrazil\nBrunei Darussalam\nBulgaria\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCabo Verde\nCambodia\nCameroon\nCanada\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nChile\nChina (People's Republic of)\nColombia\nComoros\nCongo\nCosta Rica\nCôte d’Ivoire\nCroatia\nCuba\nCyprus\nCzechia\nCountries D - I\nDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDenmark\nDjibouti\nDominica\nDominican Republic\nEcuador\nEgypt\nEl Salvador\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEstonia\nEswatini\nEthiopia\nEuropean Union\nFiji\nFinland\nFrance\nGabon\nGambia\nGeorgia\nGermany\nGhana\nGreece\nGrenada\nGuatemala\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nGuyana\nHaiti\nHonduras\nHungary\nIceland\nIndia\nIndonesia\nIran\nIraq\nIreland\nIsrael\nItaly\nCountries J - M\nJamaica\nJapan\nJordan\nKazakhstan\nKenya\nKiribati\nKorea\nKuwait\nKyrgyzstan\nLao People’s Democratic Republic\nLatvia\nLebanon\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nLiechtenstein\nLithuania\nLuxembourg\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMalaysia\nMaldives\nMali\nMalta\nMarshall Islands\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMexico\nMicronesia\nMoldova\nMonaco\nMongolia\nMontenegro\nMorocco\nMozambique\nMyanmar\nCountries N - R\nNamibia\nNauru\nNepal\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNicaragua\nNiger\nNigeria\nRepublic of North Macedonia\nNorway\nOman\nPakistan\nPalau\nPanama\nPapua New Guinea\nParaguay\nPeru\nPhilippines\nPoland\nPortugal\nQatar\nRomania\nRussia\nRwanda\nCountries S - T\nSaint Kitts and Nevis\nSaint Lucia\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nSamoa\nSan Marino\nSao Tome and Principe\nSaudi Arabia\nSenegal\nSerbia\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSingapore\nSlovak Republic\nSlovenia\nSolomon Islands\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSouth Sudan\nSpain\nSri Lanka\nSudan\nSuriname\nSweden\nSwitzerland\nSyrian Arab Republic\nTajikistan\nTanzania\nThailand\nTimor-Leste\nTogo\nTonga\nTrinidad and Tobago\nTunisia\nTürkiye\nTurkmenistan\nTuvalu\nCountries U - Z\nUganda\nUkraine\nUnited Arab Emirates\nUnited Kingdom\nUnited States\nUruguay\nUzbekistan\nVanuatu\nVenezuela\nViet Nam\nYemen\nZambia\nZimbabwe\nRegional and global engagement\nAfrica\nEurasia\nLatin America\nMiddle East and North Africa\nSoutheast Asia\nSouth East Europe\nBrowse all countries & regions\nCountries\nA - C\nD - I\nJ - M\nN - R\nS - T\nU - Z\nCountries A - C\nAfghanistan\nAlbania\nAlgeria\nAndorra\nAngola\nAntigua and Barbuda\nArgentina\nArmenia\nAustralia\nAustria\nAzerbaijan\nBahamas\nBahrain\nBangladesh\nBarbados\nBelarus\nBelgium\nBelize\nBenin\nBhutan\nBolivia\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nBotswana\nBrazil\nBrunei Darussalam\nBulgaria\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCabo Verde\nCambodia\nCameroon\nCanada\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nChile\nChina (People's Republic of)\nColombia\nComoros\nCongo\nCosta Rica\nCôte d’Ivoire\nCroatia\nCuba\nCyprus\nCzechia\nCountries D - I\nDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDenmark\nDjibouti\nDominica\nDominican Republic\nEcuador\nEgypt\nEl Salvador\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEstonia\nEswatini\nEthiopia\nEuropean Union\nFiji\nFinland\nFrance\nGabon\nGambia\nGeorgia\nGermany\nGhana\nGreece\nGrenada\nGuatemala\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nGuyana\nHaiti\nHonduras\nHungary\nIceland\nIndia\nIndonesia\nIran\nIraq\nIreland\nIsrael\nItaly\nCountries J - M\nJamaica\nJapan\nJordan\nKazakhstan\nKenya\nKiribati\nKorea\nKuwait\nKyrgyzstan\nLao People’s Democratic Republic\nLatvia\nLebanon\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nLiechtenstein\nLithuania\nLuxembourg\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMalaysia\nMaldives\nMali\nMalta\nMarshall Islands\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMexico\nMicronesia\nMoldova\nMonaco\nMongolia\nMontenegro\nMorocco\nMozambique\nMyanmar\nCountries N - R\nNamibia\nNauru\nNepal\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNicaragua\nNiger\nNigeria\nRepublic of North Macedonia\nNorway\nOman\nPakistan\nPalau\nPanama\nPapua New Guinea\nParaguay\nPeru\nPhilippines\nPoland\nPortugal\nQatar\nRomania\nRussia\nRwanda\nCountries S - T\nSaint Kitts and Nevis\nSaint Lucia\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nSamoa\nSan Marino\nSao Tome and Principe\nSaudi Arabia\nSenegal\nSerbia\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSingapore\nSlovak Republic\nSlovenia\nSolomon Islands\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSouth Sudan\nSpain\nSri Lanka\nSudan\nSuriname\nSweden\nSwitzerland\nSyrian Arab Republic\nTajikistan\nTanzania\nThailand\nTimor-Leste\nTogo\nTonga\nTrinidad and Tobago\nTunisia\nTürkiye\nTurkmenistan\nTuvalu\nCountries U - Z\nUganda\nUkraine\nUnited Arab Emirates\nUnited Kingdom\nUnited States\nUruguay\nUzbekistan\nVanuatu\nVenezuela\nViet Nam\nYemen\nZambia\nZimbabwe\nRegional and global engagement\nAfrica\nEurasia\nLatin America\nMiddle East and North Africa\nSoutheast Asia\nSouth East Europe\nBrowse all countries & regions\nPublications\nPublications\nBrowse all publications\nPublications\nReports and research papers\nResearch and working papers with deep dives and findings\nPolicy papers and briefs\nPolicy recommendations and case studies\nFeatured publications\nOECD Employment Outlook 2026\nOECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026\nData\nData\nBrowse all data\nData\nIndicators\nKey data and interactive charts across a wide range of topics\nDashboards & tools\nMonitor policy issues with statistics, simulators, or indexes\nMethods\nInternational statistical standards, manuals, handbooks and more\nInsights\nStatistics news releases, and articles\nOECD Data Explorer\nFind, understand, and use the data you need\nFeatured data\nInflation (CPI)\nstatistical release, 4 August 2026\nGrowth and economic well-being\nstatistical release, 6 August 2026\nNews & events\nNews & events\nExplore news and events\nNews & events\nNewsroom\nDiscover our latest press releases and media resources\nEvents\nSee our list of events and register to attend\nBlogs, videos & podcasts\nRead the latest insights\nFeatured events\n4th OECD Blue Sky Forum on science, technology and innovation data and indicators\n14-16 September 2026\n2026 OECD Global Forum on Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy\n12-13 October 2026\nAbout\nAbout OECD\nAbout\nAbout the organisation\nHow we work\nOECD Secretary-General\nOrganisational structure\nMembers and partners\nOECD and G7, G20, APEC\nEthics and Integrity\nEngage with us\nNewsroom\nEvents\nNetworks\nWork with us\nCareers\nInternships\nYoung associates\nProcurement at the OECD\nLogin on your MyOECD account\nSearch\nEnglish\nen\nEnglish\nFrançais\nOpen menu\nClose\nOECD\nback\nClose menu\nTopics\nFeatured topics\nAgriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nDevelopment\nDigital\nEconomy\nEducation and skills\nEmployment\nEnvironment\nFinance and investment\nGovernance\nHealth\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nSociety\nTaxation\nTrade\nEnergy\nNuclear energy\nTransport\nFeatured topics\nArtificial intelligence\nHow to apply effective governance to harness the benefits of A.I. and mitigate its risks\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nAnalysis and insights for driving a rapid transition to net-zero while building resilience to physical climate impacts\nDevelopment co-operation\nStandards and guidelines for development co-operation with concrete examples of their implementation\nGender equality\nPolicies on gender equality a driver of economic growth, democracy and social cohesion\nGlobal value and supply chains\nAs the trend towards the international dispersion of certain value chain activities produces challenges, discover policies to meet these\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nEnhanced transparency and exchange of information to put an end to bank secrecy and fight tax evasion and avoidance\nAgriculture and fisheries\nAgricultural policy monitoring\nAgricultural productivity and innovation\nAgricultural trade and markets\nAgriculture and sustainability\nFisheries and aquaculture\nFood systems\nOECD standards for agriculture\nExplore agriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nClimate adaptation and resilience\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nGlobal co-operation on climate\nGreen technology and innovation\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore climate change\nDevelopment\nCritical minerals\nDevelopment co-operation\nFinance for sustainable development\nGlobal and regional development trends\nGovernance and peace for development\nHuman development and social inclusion\nOfficial development assistance (ODA)\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nTax and development\nUrbanisation, infrastructure and development\nExplore development\nDigital\nArtificial intelligence\nCommunication infrastructure and services\nData flows and governance\nDigital government\nDigital security\nDigital transformation\nOnline safety and well-being\nPrivacy and data protection\nExplore digital\nEconomy\nCompetition\nEconomic policy\nEconomic surveillance\nEconomy and society\nFinancial markets\nGlobal trade and open markets\nInvestment\nProductivity and long-term growth\nSustainable economic growth\nExplore economy\nEducation and skills\nAdult skills and work\nEducation access, participation, and progression\nEducation economic and social outcomes\nEducation equity\nEducation evaluation and quality assurance\nEducation financing\nEducation leadership\nEducation organisation and governance\nFuture of education and skills\nLearning environment\nStudent performance (PISA)\nTeachers and educators\nExplore education and skills\nEmployment\nAdult skills and work\nEmployability\nEmployment services\nFuture of work\nHealth and work\nJob quality\nLocal employment and economic development\nPublic employment and management\nExplore employment\nEnvironment\nBiodiversity, water and ecosystems\nChemical safety and biosafety\nEnvironment, society and economy\nEnvironmental policies and evaluation\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nGreen technology and innovation\nGreening countries, regions and cities\nPollution\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore environment\nFinance and investment\nCritical minerals\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nFinancial consumer protection, education and inclusion\nFinancial markets\nInfrastructure\nInvestment\nPensions and insurance\nResponsible business conduct\nSubnational finance and investment\nExplore finance and investment\nGovernance\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCorporate governance\nDigital government\nGovernment innovation\nInfrastructure\nMulti-level governance\nPublic employment and management\nPublic finance and budgets\nPublic policymaking\nPublic procurement\nRegulatory reform\nTrust and democracy\nExplore governance\nHealth\nChronic diseases\nDigital health\nHealth and work\nHealth inequality and universal health coverage\nHealth spending and financial sustainability\nHealthcare quality and outcomes\nImproving public health\nPharmaceuticals and medical technologies\nThe future of health systems\nExplore health\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCompetition\nCorporate governance\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIndustrial policy\nIndustry sector analysis\nResponsible business conduct\nSMEs and entrepreneurship\nSustainable, green, and inclusive business\nTourism\nExplore industry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nLocal employment and economic development\nMulti-level governance\nRegional development\nRural development and natural resources\nSubnational finance and investment\nUrban development and cities\nExplore regional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nChemical safety and biosafety\nScience policy\nSpace economy\nTechnology policy\nExplore science, technology and innovation\nSociety\nAgeing\nConsumer policy\nEconomy and society\nGender equality\nHousing\nInclusion and equality\nMigration\nPensions and insurance\nSocial policy\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nWell-being and beyond GDP\nYouth\nExplore society\nTaxation\nBase erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)\nConsumption taxes\nCross-border and international tax\nTax administration\nTax and crime\nTax and development\nTax and the environment\nTax policy\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nTax treaties\nExplore taxation\nTrade\nCritical minerals\nAgricultural trade and markets\nDigital trade\nExport credits\nGlobal trade and open markets\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIllicit trade\nInclusive trade\nServices trade\nSubsidies and government support\nTrade and sustainability\nExplore trade\nEnergy\nExplore energy\nNuclear energy\nExplore nuclear energy\nTransport\nExplore transport\nFeatured topics\nArtificial intelligence\nHow to apply effective governance to harness the benefits of A.I. and mitigate its risks\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nAnalysis and insights for driving a rapid transition to net-zero while building resilience to physical climate impacts\nDevelopment co-operation\nStandards and guidelines for development co-operation with concrete examples of their implementation\nGender equality\nPolicies on gender equality a driver of economic growth, democracy and social cohesion\nGlobal value and supply chains\nAs the trend towards the international dispersion of certain value chain activities produces challenges, discover policies to meet these\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nEnhanced transparency and exchange of information to put an end to bank secrecy and fight tax evasion and avoidance\nAgriculture and fisheries\nAgricultural policy monitoring\nAgricultural productivity and innovation\nAgricultural trade and markets\nAgriculture and sustainability\nFisheries and aquaculture\nFood systems\nOECD standards for agriculture\nExplore agriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nClimate adaptation and resilience\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nGlobal co-operation on climate\nGreen technology and innovation\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore climate change\nDevelopment\nCritical minerals\nDevelopment co-operation\nFinance for sustainable development\nGlobal and regional development trends\nGovernance and peace for development\nHuman development and social inclusion\nOfficial development assistance (ODA)\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nTax and development\nUrbanisation, infrastructure and development\nExplore development\nDigital\nArtificial intelligence\nCommunication infrastructure and services\nData flows and governance\nDigital government\nDigital security\nDigital transformation\nOnline safety and well-being\nPrivacy and data protection\nExplore digital\nEconomy\nCompetition\nEconomic policy\nEconomic surveillance\nEconomy and society\nFinancial markets\nGlobal trade and open markets\nInvestment\nProductivity and long-term growth\nSustainable economic growth\nExplore economy\nEducation and skills\nAdult skills and work\nEducation access, participation, and progression\nEducation economic and social outcomes\nEducation equity\nEducation evaluation and quality assurance\nEducation financing\nEducation leadership\nEducation organisation and governance\nFuture of education and skills\nLearning environment\nStudent performance (PISA)\nTeachers and educators\nExplore education and skills\nEmployment\nAdult skills and work\nEmployability\nEmployment services\nFuture of work\nHealth and work\nJob quality\nLocal employment and economic development\nPublic employment and management\nExplore employment\nEnvironment\nBiodiversity, water and ecosystems\nChemical safety and biosafety\nEnvironment, society and economy\nEnvironmental policies and evaluation\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nGreen technology and innovation\nGreening countries, regions and cities\nPollution\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore environment\nFinance and investment\nCritical minerals\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nFinancial consumer protection, education and inclusion\nFinancial markets\nInfrastructure\nInvestment\nPensions and insurance\nResponsible business conduct\nSubnational finance and investment\nExplore finance and investment\nGovernance\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCorporate governance\nDigital government\nGovernment innovation\nInfrastructure\nMulti-level governance\nPublic employment and management\nPublic finance and budgets\nPublic policymaking\nPublic procurement\nRegulatory reform\nTrust and democracy\nExplore governance\nHealth\nChronic diseases\nDigital health\nHealth and work\nHealth inequality and universal health coverage\nHealth spending and financial sustainability\nHealthcare quality and outcomes\nImproving public health\nPharmaceuticals and medical technologies\nThe future of health systems\nExplore health\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCompetition\nCorporate governance\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIndustrial policy\nIndustry sector analysis\nResponsible business conduct\nSMEs and entrepreneurship\nSustainable, green, and inclusive business\nTourism\nExplore industry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nLocal employment and economic development\nMulti-level governance\nRegional development\nRural development and natural resources\nSubnational finance and investment\nUrban development and cities\nExplore regional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nChemical safety and biosafety\nScience policy\nSpace economy\nTechnology policy\nExplore science, technology and innovation\nSociety\nAgeing\nConsumer policy\nEconomy and society\nGender equality\nHousing\nInclusion and equality\nMigration\nPensions and insurance\nSocial policy\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nWell-being and beyond GDP\nYouth\nExplore society\nTaxation\nBase erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)\nConsumption taxes\nCross-border and international tax\nTax administration\nTax and crime\nTax and development\nTax and the environment\nTax policy\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nTax treaties\nExplore taxation\nTrade\nCritical minerals\nAgricultural trade and markets\nDigital trade\nExport credits\nGlobal trade and open markets\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIllicit trade\nInclusive trade\nServices trade\nSubsidies and government support\nTrade and sustainability\nExplore trade\nEnergy\nExplore energy\nNuclear energy\nExplore nuclear energy\nTransport\nExplore transport\nCountries & regions\nA - C\nD - I\nJ - M\nN - R\nS - T\nU - Z\nRegional and global engagement\nCountries A - C\nAfghanistan\nAlbania\nAlgeria\nAndorra\nAngola\nAntigua and Barbuda\nArgentina\nArmenia\nAustralia\nAustria\nAzerbaijan\nBahamas\nBahrain\nBangladesh\nBarbados\nBelarus\nBelgium\nBelize\nBenin\nBhutan\nBolivia\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nBotswana\nBrazil\nBrunei Darussalam\nBulgaria\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCabo Verde\nCambodia\nCameroon\nCanada\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nChile\nChina (People's Republic of)\nColombia\nComoros\nCongo\nCosta Rica\nCôte d’Ivoire\nCroatia\nCuba\nCyprus\nCzechia\nCountries D - I\nDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDenmark\nDjibouti\nDominica\nDominican Republic\nEcuador\nEgypt\nEl Salvador\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEstonia\nEswatini\nEthiopia\nEuropean Union\nFiji\nFinland\nFrance\nGabon\nGambia\nGeorgia\nGermany\nGhana\nGreece\nGrenada\nGuatemala\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nGuyana\nHaiti\nHonduras\nHungary\nIceland\nIndia\nIndonesia\nIran\nIraq\nIreland\nIsrael\nItaly\nCountries J - M\nJamaica\nJapan\nJordan\nKazakhstan\nKenya\nKiribati\nKorea\nKuwait\nKyrgyzstan\nLao People’s Democratic Republic\nLatvia\nLebanon\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nLiechtenstein\nLithuania\nLuxembourg\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMalaysia\nMaldives\nMali\nMalta\nMarshall Islands\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMexico\nMicronesia\nMoldova\nMonaco\nMongolia\nMontenegro\nMorocco\nMozambique\nMyanmar\nCountries N - R\nNamibia\nNauru\nNepal\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNicaragua\nNiger\nNigeria\nRepublic of North Macedonia\nNorway\nOman\nPakistan\nPalau\nPanama\nPapua New Guinea\nParaguay\nPeru\nPhilippines\nPoland\nPortugal\nQatar\nRomania\nRussia\nRwanda\nCountries S - T\nSaint Kitts and Nevis\nSaint Lucia\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nSamoa\nSan Marino\nSao Tome and Principe\nSaudi Arabia\nSenegal\nSerbia\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSingapore\nSlovak Republic\nSlovenia\nSolomon Islands\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSouth Sudan\nSpain\nSri Lanka\nSudan\nSuriname\nSweden\nSwitzerland\nSyrian Arab Republic\nTajikistan\nTanzania\nThailand\nTimor-Leste\nTogo\nTonga\nTrinidad and Tobago\nTunisia\nTürkiye\nTurkmenistan\nTuvalu\nCountries U - Z\nUganda\nUkraine\nUnited Arab Emirates\nUnited Kingdom\nUnited States\nUruguay\nUzbekistan\nVanuatu\nVenezuela\nViet Nam\nYemen\nZambia\nZimbabwe\nRegional and global engagement\nAfrica\nEurasia\nLatin America\nMiddle East and North Africa\nSoutheast Asia\nSouth East Europe\nBrowse all countries & regions\nCountries\nA - C\nD - I\nJ - M\nN - R\nS - T\nU - Z\nCountries A - C\nAfghanistan\nAlbania\nAlgeria\nAndorra\nAngola\nAntigua and Barbuda\nArgentina\nArmenia\nAustralia\nAustria\nAzerbaijan\nBahamas\nBahrain\nBangladesh\nBarbados\nBelarus\nBelgium\nBelize\nBenin\nBhutan\nBolivia\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nBotswana\nBrazil\nBrunei Darussalam\nBulgaria\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCabo Verde\nCambodia\nCameroon\nCanada\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nChile\nChina (People's Republic of)\nColombia\nComoros\nCongo\nCosta Rica\nCôte d’Ivoire\nCroatia\nCuba\nCyprus\nCzechia\nCountries D - I\nDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDenmark\nDjibouti\nDominica\nDominican Republic\nEcuador\nEgypt\nEl Salvador\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEstonia\nEswatini\nEthiopia\nEuropean Union\nFiji\nFinland\nFrance\nGabon\nGambia\nGeorgia\nGermany\nGhana\nGreece\nGrenada\nGuatemala\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nGuyana\nHaiti\nHonduras\nHungary\nIceland\nIndia\nIndonesia\nIran\nIraq\nIreland\nIsrael\nItaly\nCountries J - M\nJamaica\nJapan\nJordan\nKazakhstan\nKenya\nKiribati\nKorea\nKuwait\nKyrgyzstan\nLao People’s Democratic Republic\nLatvia\nLebanon\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nLiechtenstein\nLithuania\nLuxembourg\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMalaysia\nMaldives\nMali\nMalta\nMarshall Islands\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMexico\nMicronesia\nMoldova\nMonaco\nMongolia\nMontenegro\nMorocco\nMozambique\nMyanmar\nCountries N - R\nNamibia\nNauru\nNepal\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNicaragua\nNiger\nNigeria\nRepublic of North Macedonia\nNorway\nOman\nPakistan\nPalau\nPanama\nPapua New Guinea\nParaguay\nPeru\nPhilippines\nPoland\nPortugal\nQatar\nRomania\nRussia\nRwanda\nCountries S - T\nSaint Kitts and Nevis\nSaint Lucia\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nSamoa\nSan Marino\nSao Tome and Principe\nSaudi Arabia\nSenegal\nSerbia\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSingapore\nSlovak Republic\nSlovenia\nSolomon Islands\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSouth Sudan\nSpain\nSri Lanka\nSudan\nSuriname\nSweden\nSwitzerland\nSyrian Arab Republic\nTajikistan\nTanzania\nThailand\nTimor-Leste\nTogo\nTonga\nTrinidad and Tobago\nTunisia\nTürkiye\nTurkmenistan\nTuvalu\nCountries U - Z\nUganda\nUkraine\nUnited Arab Emirates\nUnited Kingdom\nUnited States\nUruguay\nUzbekistan\nVanuatu\nVenezuela\nViet Nam\nYemen\nZambia\nZimbabwe\nRegional and global engagement\nAfrica\nEurasia\nLatin America\nMiddle East and North Africa\nSoutheast Asia\nSouth East Europe\nBrowse all countries & regions\nPublications\nPublications\nBrowse all publications\nPublications\nReports and research papers\nResearch and working papers with deep dives and findings\nPolicy papers and briefs\nPolicy recommendations and case studies\nFeatured publications\nOECD Employment Outlook 2026\nOECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026\nData\nData\nBrowse all data\nData\nIndicators\nKey data and interactive charts across a wide range of topics\nDashboards & tools\nMonitor policy issues with statistics, simulators, or indexes\nMethods\nInternational statistical standards, manuals, handbooks and more\nInsights\nStatistics news releases, and articles\nOECD Data Explorer\nFind, understand, and use the data you need\nFeatured data\nInflation (CPI)\nstatistical release, 4 August 2026\nGrowth and economic well-being\nstatistical release, 6 August 2026\nNews & events\nNews & events\nExplore news and events\nNews & events\nNewsroom\nDiscover our latest press releases and media resources\nEvents\nSee our list of events and register to attend\nBlogs, videos & podcasts\nRead the latest insights\nFeatured events\n4th OECD Blue Sky Forum on science, technology and innovation data and indicators\n14-16 September 2026\n2026 OECD Global Forum on Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy\n12-13 October 2026\nAbout\nAbout OECD\nAbout\nAbout the organisation\nHow we work\nOECD Secretary-General\nOrganisational structure\nMembers and partners\nOECD and G7, G20, APEC\nEthics and Integrity\nEngage with us\nNewsroom\nEvents\nNetworks\nWork with us\nCareers\nInternships\nYoung associates\nProcurement at the OECD\nClose menu\nOECD\nPublications\nPublications\nInsights and context to inform policies and global dialogue\nFeatured\nReports and research papers\nPolicy papers and briefs\nSupport\nForthcoming\nOECD archives\nScroll left\nScroll right\nAvailable in:\nEnglish\nEnglish\nfrançais\nSelect a language\nClose\nEnglish\nfrançais\nApply\nCancel\nFind the publications you are looking for\nSearch\nOECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2026 Issue 1\n300 Pages\nThe evolving conflict in the Middle East is having significant humanitarian costs and testing the resilience of a global economy boosted by with solid underlying strong AI-related activity. The prices of energy and other key inputs produced in the Persian Gulf have soared since February, pushing up headline inflation, and some signs of supply shortfalls are emerging amidst disruptions to production and exports. Given the exceptionally uncertain situation this Economic Outlook presents two distinct scenarios of how the global economy could evolve over the next eighteen months. A time-limited disruption scenario, with energy production in the Gulf economies recovering from the third quarter of 2026 would result in global growth moderating in 2026 before picking up in 2027. A prolonged disruption scenario, with supply constraints persisting until the latter half of 2027, would result in significantly weaker growth outcomes and substantially higher inflation in both 2026 and 2027. The slowdown could be exacerbated if AI investment is adversely impacted by disruptions to the supply of energy and other key products or if national export restrictions are introduced. Amidst heightened uncertainty, flexible and agile public policies are needed to ensure macroeconomic stability. Key medium-term policy priorities also remain, such as the need to establish a credible fiscal path to debt sustainability, enhance energy security and resilience, secure a lasting decline in trade tensions and strengthen the prospects for sustainable and resilient growth.This issue includes an assessment of the global economic situation, a chapter on government policy responses to current energy crisis and policies to strengthen energy resilience, a chapter on the economic consequences of higher defence spending and a chapter summarising developments and providing projections for each individual country. Coverage is provided for all OECD Members as well as for selected partner economies.\nLearn more\nRestoring Public Finances\n266 Pages\nPublic finances in OECD countries are facing significant challenges such as slow economic growth, ageing populations, high debt from recent crises, and new spending pressures, including in defence. This report looks at efforts made by OECD countries as well as some accession candidate countries and one non-Member economy in 2025 and 2026 to restore their public finances. Drawing on the results of the 2026 OECD Survey on Restoring Public Finances, it provides an overview of ongoing savings initiatives across all major spending areas, as well as details of reforms and savings measures. Further reforms will be required to ensure fiscal sustainability and generate fiscal space to empower government action. Governments will also need to continue strengthening their budgeting institutions. Finally, given that lasting support for reform depends on citizens’ awareness and ownership of both the need for change and its implications, focusing on empowering public understanding of the fiscal challenges ahead will be essential in the future. A companion report entitled The People and the Budget addresses these issues.\nLearn more\nFeatured publications\nOECD Employment Outlook 2026\nReport\nOECD\n7 July 2026\nOECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026\nReport\nOECD\n30 June 2026\nKey publications\nSee all publications\nWorking paper\nWhich start‐ups achieve scale?\nEvidence from innovative start‐ups in the EU and the US\n7 August 2026\n74 Pages\nWorking paper\nEfficient fiscal policy to ensure income security for the elderly\n3 August 2026\n72 Pages\nPolicy brief\nGovernment involvement in sustainability initiatives\nAn overview\n31 July 2026\n12 Pages\nBook series\nGlobal Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes\nPeer Reviews\nReport\nCitizen Participation for Better Cohesion Policy\n30 July 2026\n77 Pages\nWorking paper\nCompetition in the age of AI\nInitial evidence from microdata\n30 July 2026\n75 Pages\nExplore further\nSee all publications\nWorking paper\nMaking intra‐regional food trade count\nBetter data systems for food trade monitoring in West Africa\n7 August 2026\n30 Pages\nWorking paper\nAn AI‐enhanced granular analysis of Thailand’s mathematics performance\n30 July 2026\n40 Pages\nWorking paper\nOECD methodology to estimate SEEA Air Emission Accounts\nAn update\n29 July 2026\n64 Pages\nReport\nPromoting the Development of the Semiconductor Ecosystem in Panama\n29 July 2026\n143 Pages\nReport\nGlobal Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Tanzania 2026 (Second Round)\nPeer Review on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request\n29 July 2026\n112 Pages\nReport\nGlobal Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Namibia 2026 (Second Round)\nPeer Review on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request\n29 July 2026\n97 Pages\noecd\n© Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development\nTopics\nAll Topics\nCountries & regions\nAll Countries\nRegional and global engagement\nData\nIndicators\nDashboards & Tools\nPublications\nReports\nPolicy briefs\nNews & Events\nNewsroom\nEvents\nBlogs & podcasts\nAbout\nAbout the organisation\nAccession to the OECD\nCareers\nNetworks\nProcurement at the OECD\nContact us\nNewsletters\nOECD legal framework\nWeb accessibility\nEthics and integrity\nSocial media links\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nInstagram\nNewsletters\nPodcast\nWhatsapp\nUtility links\nTerms & Conditions\nPrivacy Policy\nGo to top", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a606d304-9aa4-41c2-ada3-060d8e005d91", "document_id": "551adf0c-33dd-4734-bb66-59549cfc5a8d", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Publications | OECD\nSkip to main content\nOECD\nTopics\nFeatured topics\nAgriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nDevelopment\nDigital\nEconomy\nEducation and skills\nEmployment\nEnvironment\nFinance and investment\nGovernance\nHealth\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nSociety\nTaxation\nTrade\nEnergy\nNuclear energy\nTransport\nFeatured topics\nArtificial intelligence\nHow to apply effective governance to harness the benefits of A.I. and mitigate its risks\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nAnalysis and insights for driving a rapid transition to net-zero while building resilience to physical climate impacts\nDevelopment co-operation\nStandards and guidelines for development co-operation with concrete examples of their implementation\nGender equality\nPolicies on gender equality a driver of economic growth, democracy and social cohesion\nGlobal value and supply chains\nAs the trend towards the international dispersion of certain value chain activities produces challenges, discover policies to meet these\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nEnhanced transparency and exchange of information to put an end to bank secrecy and fight tax evasion and avoidance\nAgriculture and fisheries\nAgricultural policy monitoring\nAgricultural productivity and innovation\nAgricultural trade and markets\nAgriculture and sustainability\nFisheries and aquaculture\nFood systems\nOECD standards for agriculture\nExplore agriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nClimate adaptation and resilience\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nGlobal co-operation on climate\nGreen technology and innovation\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore climate change\nDevelopment\nCritical minerals\nDevelopment co-operation\nFinance for sustainable development\nGlobal and regional development trends\nGovernance and peace for development\nHuman development and social inclusion\nOfficial development assistance (ODA)\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nTax and development\nUrbanisation, infrastructure and development\nExplore development\nDigital\nArtificial intelligence\nCommunication infrastructure and services\nData flows and governance\nDigital government\nDigital security\nDigital transformation\nOnline safety and well-being\nPrivacy and data protection\nExplore digital\nEconomy\nCompetition\nEconomic policy\nEconomic surveillance\nEconomy and society\nFinancial markets\nGlobal trade and open markets\nInvestment\nProductivity and long-term growth\nSustainable economic growth\nExplore economy\nEducation and skills\nAdult skills and work\nEducation access, participation, and progression\nEducation economic and social outcomes\nEducation equity\nEducation evaluation and quality assurance\nEducation financing\nEducation leadership\nEducation organisation and governance\nFuture of education and skills\nLearning environment\nStudent performance (PISA)\nTeachers and educators\nExplore education and skills\nEmployment\nAdult skills and work\nEmployability\nEmployment services\nFuture of work\nHealth and work\nJob quality\nLocal employment and economic development\nPublic employment and management\nExplore employment\nEnvironment\nBiodiversity, water and ecosystems\nChemical safety and biosafety\nEnvironment, society and economy\nEnvironmental policies and evaluation\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nGreen technology and innovation\nGreening countries, regions and cities\nPollution\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore environment\nFinance and investment\nCritical minerals\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nFinancial consumer protection, education and inclusion\nFinancial markets\nInfrastructure\nInvestment\nPensions and insurance\nResponsible business conduct\nSubnational finance and investment\nExplore finance and investment\nGovernance\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCorporate governance\nDigital government\nGovernment innovation\nInfrastructure\nMulti-level governance\nPublic employment and management\nPublic finance and budgets\nPublic policymaking\nPublic procurement\nRegulatory reform\nTrust and democracy\nExplore governance\nHealth\nChronic diseases\nDigital health\nHealth and work\nHealth inequality and universal health coverage\nHealth spending and financial sustainability\nHealthcare quality and outcomes\nImproving public health\nPharmaceuticals and medical technologies\nThe future of health systems\nExplore health\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCompetition\nCorporate governance\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIndustrial policy\nIndustry sector analysis\nResponsible business conduct\nSMEs and entrepreneurship\nSustainable, green, and inclusive business\nTourism\nExplore industry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nLocal employment and economic development\nMulti-level governance\nRegional development\nRural development and natural resources\nSubnational finance and investment\nUrban development and cities\nExplore regional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nChemical safety and biosafety\nScience policy\nSpace economy\nTechnology policy\nExplore science, technology and innovation\nSociety\nAgeing\nConsumer policy\nEconomy and society\nGender equality\nHousing\nInclusion and equality\nMigration\nPensions and insurance\nSocial policy\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nWell-being and beyond GDP\nYouth\nExplore society\nTaxation\nBase erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)\nConsumption taxes\nCross-border and international tax\nTax administration\nTax and crime\nTax and development\nTax and the environment\nTax policy\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nTax treaties\nExplore taxation\nTrade\nCritical minerals\nAgricultural trade and markets\nDigital trade\nExport credits\nGlobal trade and open markets\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIllicit trade\nInclusive trade\nServices trade\nSubsidies and government support\nTrade and sustainability\nExplore trade\nEnergy\nExplore energy\nNuclear energy\nExplore nuclear energy\nTransport\nExplore transport\nFeatured topics\nArtificial intelligence\nHow to apply effective governance to harness the benefits of A.I. and mitigate its risks\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nAnalysis and insights for driving a rapid transition to net-zero while building resilience to physical climate impacts\nDevelopment co-operation\nStandards and guidelines for development co-operation with concrete examples of their implementation\nGender equality\nPolicies on gender equality a driver of economic growth, democracy and social cohesion\nGlobal value and supply chains\nAs the trend towards the international dispersion of certain value chain activities produces challenges, discover policies to meet these\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nEnhanced transparency and exchange of information to put an end to bank secrecy and fight tax evasion and avoidance\nAgriculture and fisheries\nAgricultural policy monitoring\nAgricultural productivity and innovation\nAgricultural trade and markets\nAgriculture and sustainability\nFisheries and aquaculture\nFood systems\nOECD standards for agriculture\nExplore agriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nClimate adaptation and resilience\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nGlobal co-operation on climate\nGreen technology and innovation\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore climate change\nDevelopment\nCritical minerals\nDevelopment co-operation\nFinance for sustainable development\nGlobal and regional development trends\nGovernance and peace for development\nHuman development and social inclusion\nOfficial development assistance (ODA)\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nTax and development\nUrbanisation, infrastructure and development\nExplore development\nDigital\nArtificial intelligence\nCommunication infrastructure and services\nData flows and governance\nDigital government\nDigital security\nDigital transformation\nOnline safety and well-being\nPrivacy and data protection\nExplore digital\nEconomy\nCompetition\nEconomic policy\nEconomic surveillance\nEconomy and society\nFinancial markets\nGlobal trade and open markets\nInvestment\nProductivity and long-term growth\nSustainable economic growth\nExplore economy\nEducation and skills\nAdult skills and work\nEducation access, participation, and progression\nEducation economic and social outcomes\nEducation equity\nEducation evaluation and quality assurance\nEducation financing\nEducation leadership\nEducation organisation and governance\nFuture of education and skills\nLearning environment\nStudent performance (PISA)\nTeachers and educators\nExplore education and skills\nEmployment\nAdult skills and work\nEmployability\nEmployment services\nFuture of work\nHealth and work\nJob quality\nLocal employment and economic development\nPublic employment and management\nExplore employment\nEnvironment\nBiodiversity, water and ecosystems\nChemical safety and biosafety\nEnvironment, society and economy\nEnvironmental policies and evaluation\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nGreen technology and innovation\nGreening countries, regions and cities\nPollution\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore environment\nFinance and investment\nCritical minerals\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nFinancial consumer protection, education and inclusion\nFinancial markets\nInfrastructure\nInvestment\nPensions and insurance\nResponsible business conduct\nSubnational finance and investment\nExplore finance and investment\nGovernance\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCorporate governance\nDigital government\nGovernment innovation\nInfrastructure\nMulti-level governance\nPublic employment and management\nPublic finance and budgets\nPublic policymaking\nPublic procurement\nRegulatory reform\nTrust and democracy\nExplore governance\nHealth\nChronic diseases\nDigital health\nHealth and work\nHealth inequality and universal health coverage\nHealth spending and financial sustainability\nHealthcare quality and outcomes\nImproving public health\nPharmaceuticals and medical technologies\nThe future of health systems\nExplore health\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCompetition\nCorporate governance\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIndustrial policy\nIndustry sector analysis\nResponsible business conduct\nSMEs and entrepreneurship\nSustainable, green, and inclusive business\nTourism\nExplore industry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nLocal employment and economic development\nMulti-level governance\nRegional development\nRural development and natural resources\nSubnational finance and investment\nUrban development and cities\nExplore regional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nChemical safety and biosafety\nScience policy\nSpace economy\nTechnology policy\nExplore science, technology and innovation\nSociety\nAgeing\nConsumer policy\nEconomy and society\nGender equality\nHousing\nInclusion and equality\nMigration\nPensions and insurance\nSocial policy\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nWell-being and beyond GDP\nYouth\nExplore society\nTaxation\nBase erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)\nConsumption taxes\nCross-border and international tax\nTax administration\nTax and crime\nTax and development\nTax and the environment\nTax policy\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nTax treaties\nExplore taxation\nTrade\nCritical minerals\nAgricultural trade and markets\nDigital trade\nExport credits\nGlobal trade and open markets\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIllicit trade\nInclusive trade\nServices trade\nSubsidies and government support\nTrade and sustainability\nExplore trade\nEnergy\nExplore energy\nNuclear energy\nExplore nuclear energy\nTransport\nExplore transport\nCountries & regions\nA - C\nD - I\nJ - M\nN - R\nS - T\nU - Z\nRegional and global engagement\nCountries A - C\nAfghanistan\nAlbania\nAlgeria\nAndorra\nAngola\nAntigua and Barbuda\nArgentina\nArmenia\nAustralia\nAustria\nAzerbaijan\nBahamas\nBahrain\nBangladesh\nBarbados\nBelarus\nBelgium\nBelize\nBenin\nBhutan\nBolivia\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nBotswana\nBrazil\nBrunei Darussalam\nBulgaria\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCabo Verde\nCambodia\nCameroon\nCanada\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nChile\nChina (People's Republic of)\nColombia\nComoros\nCongo\nCosta Rica\nCôte d’Ivoire\nCroatia\nCuba\nCyprus\nCzechia\nCountries D - I\nDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDenmark\nDjibouti\nDominica\nDominican Republic\nEcuador\nEgypt\nEl Salvador\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEstonia\nEswatini\nEthiopia\nEuropean Union\nFiji\nFinland\nFrance\nGabon\nGambia\nGeorgia\nGermany\nGhana\nGreece\nGrenada\nGuatemala\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nGuyana\nHaiti\nHonduras\nHungary\nIceland\nIndia\nIndonesia\nIran\nIraq\nIreland\nIsrael\nItaly\nCountries J - M\nJamaica\nJapan\nJordan\nKazakhstan\nKenya\nKiribati\nKorea\nKuwait\nKyrgyzstan\nLao People’s Democratic Republic\nLatvia\nLebanon\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nLiechtenstein\nLithuania\nLuxembourg\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMalaysia\nMaldives\nMali\nMalta\nMarshall Islands\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMexico\nMicronesia\nMoldova\nMonaco\nMongolia\nMontenegro\nMorocco\nMozambique\nMyanmar\nCountries N - R\nNamibia\nNauru\nNepal\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNicaragua\nNiger\nNigeria\nRepublic of North Macedonia\nNorway\nOman\nPakistan\nPalau\nPanama\nPapua New Guinea\nParaguay\nPeru\nPhilippines\nPoland\nPortugal\nQatar\nRomania\nRussia\nRwanda\nCountries S - T\nSaint Kitts and Nevis\nSaint Lucia\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nSamoa\nSan Marino\nSao Tome and Principe\nSaudi Arabia\nSenegal\nSerbia\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSingapore\nSlovak Republic\nSlovenia\nSolomon Islands\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSouth Sudan\nSpain\nSri Lanka\nSudan\nSuriname\nSweden\nSwitzerland\nSyrian Arab Republic\nTajikistan\nTanzania\nThailand\nTimor-Leste\nTogo\nTonga\nTrinidad and Tobago\nTunisia\nTürkiye\nTurkmenistan\nTuvalu\nCountries U - Z\nUganda\nUkraine\nUnited Arab Emirates\nUnited Kingdom\nUnited States\nUruguay\nUzbekistan\nVanuatu\nVenezuela\nViet Nam\nYemen\nZambia\nZimbabwe\nRegional and global engagement\nAfrica\nEurasia\nLatin America\nMiddle East and North Africa\nSoutheast Asia\nSouth East Europe\nBrowse all countries & regions\nCountries\nA - C\nD - I\nJ - M\nN - R\nS - T\nU - Z\nCountries A - C\nAfghanistan\nAlbania\nAlgeria\nAndorra\nAngola\nAntigua and Barbuda\nArgentina\nArmenia\nAustralia\nAustria\nAzerbaijan\nBahamas\nBahrain\nBangladesh\nBarbados\nBelarus\nBelgium\nBelize\nBenin\nBhutan\nBolivia\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nBotswana\nBrazil\nBrunei Darussalam\nBulgaria\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCabo Verde\nCambodia\nCameroon\nCanada\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nChile\nChina (People's Republic of)\nColombia\nComoros\nCongo\nCosta Rica\nCôte d’Ivoire\nCroatia\nCuba\nCyprus\nCzechia\nCountries D - I\nDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDenmark\nDjibouti\nDominica\nDominican Republic\nEcuador\nEgypt\nEl Salvador\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEstonia\nEswatini\nEthiopia\nEuropean Union\nFiji\nFinland\nFrance\nGabon\nGambia\nGeorgia\nGermany\nGhana\nGreece\nGrenada\nGuatemala\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nGuyana\nHaiti\nHonduras\nHungary\nIceland\nIndia\nIndonesia\nIran\nIraq\nIreland\nIsrael\nItaly\nCountries J - M\nJamaica\nJapan\nJordan\nKazakhstan\nKenya\nKiribati\nKorea\nKuwait\nKyrgyzstan\nLao People’s Democratic Republic\nLatvia\nLebanon\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nLiechtenstein\nLithuania\nLuxembourg\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMalaysia\nMaldives\nMali\nMalta\nMarshall Islands\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMexico\nMicronesia\nMoldova\nMonaco\nMongolia\nMontenegro\nMorocco\nMozambique\nMyanmar\nCountries N - R\nNamibia\nNauru\nNepal\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNicaragua\nNiger\nNigeria\nRepublic of North Macedonia\nNorway\nOman\nPakistan\nPalau\nPanama\nPapua New Guinea\nParaguay\nPeru\nPhilippines\nPoland\nPortugal\nQatar\nRomania\nRussia\nRwanda\nCountries S - T\nSaint Kitts and Nevis\nSaint Lucia\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nSamoa\nSan Marino\nSao Tome and Principe\nSaudi Arabia\nSenegal\nSerbia\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSingapore\nSlovak Republic\nSlovenia\nSolomon Islands\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSouth Sudan\nSpain\nSri Lanka\nSudan\nSuriname\nSweden\nSwitzerland\nSyrian Arab Republic\nTajikistan\nTanzania\nThailand\nTimor-Leste\nTogo\nTonga\nTrinidad and Tobago\nTunisia\nTürkiye\nTurkmenistan\nTuvalu\nCountries U - Z\nUganda\nUkraine\nUnited Arab Emirates\nUnited Kingdom\nUnited States\nUruguay\nUzbekistan\nVanuatu\nVenezuela\nViet Nam\nYemen\nZambia\nZimbabwe\nRegional and global engagement\nAfrica\nEurasia\nLatin America\nMiddle East and North Africa\nSoutheast Asia\nSouth East Europe\nBrowse all countries & regions\nPublications\nPublications\nBrowse all publications\nPublications\nReports and research papers\nResearch and working papers with deep dives and findings\nPolicy papers and briefs\nPolicy recommendations and case studies\nFeatured publications\nOECD Employment Outlook 2026\nOECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026\nData\nData\nBrowse all data\nData\nIndicators\nKey data and interactive charts across a wide range of topics\nDashboards & tools\nMonitor policy issues with statistics, simulators, or indexes\nMethods\nInternational statistical standards, manuals, handbooks and more\nInsights\nStatistics news releases, and articles\nOECD Data Explorer\nFind, understand, and use the data you need\nFeatured data\nInflation (CPI)\nstatistical release, 4 August 2026\nGrowth and economic well-being\nstatistical release, 6 August 2026\nNews & events\nNews & events\nExplore news and events\nNews & events\nNewsroom\nDiscover our latest press releases and media resources\nEvents\nSee our list of events and register to attend\nBlogs, videos & podcasts\nRead the latest insights\nFeatured events\n4th OECD Blue Sky Forum on science, technology and innovation data and indicators\n14-16 September 2026\n2026 OECD Global Forum on Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy\n12-13 October 2026\nAbout\nAbout OECD\nAbout\nAbout the organisation\nHow we work\nOECD Secretary-General\nOrganisational structure\nMembers and partners\nOECD and G7, G20, APEC\nEthics and Integrity\nEngage with us\nNewsroom\nEvents\nNetworks\nWork with us\nCareers\nInternships\nYoung associates\nProcurement at the OECD\nLogin on your MyOECD account\nSearch\nEnglish\nen\nEnglish\nFrançais\nOpen menu\nClose\nOECD\nback\nClose menu\nTopics\nFeatured topics\nAgriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nDevelopment\nDigital\nEconomy\nEducation and skills\nEmployment\nEnvironment\nFinance and investment\nGovernance\nHealth\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nSociety\nTaxation\nTrade\nEnergy\nNuclear energy\nTransport\nFeatured topics\nArtificial intelligence\nHow to apply effective governance to harness the benefits of A.I. and mitigate its risks\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nAnalysis and insights for driving a rapid transition to net-zero while building resilience to physical climate impacts\nDevelopment co-operation\nStandards and guidelines for development co-operation with concrete examples of their implementation\nGender equality\nPolicies on gender equality a driver of economic growth, democracy and social cohesion\nGlobal value and supply chains\nAs the trend towards the international dispersion of certain value chain activities produces challenges, discover policies to meet these\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nEnhanced transparency and exchange of information to put an end to bank secrecy and fight tax evasion and avoidance\nAgriculture and fisheries\nAgricultural policy monitoring\nAgricultural productivity and innovation\nAgricultural trade and markets\nAgriculture and sustainability\nFisheries and aquaculture\nFood systems\nOECD standards for agriculture\nExplore agriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nClimate adaptation and resilience\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nGlobal co-operation on climate\nGreen technology and innovation\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore climate change\nDevelopment\nCritical minerals\nDevelopment co-operation\nFinance for sustainable development\nGlobal and regional development trends\nGovernance and peace for development\nHuman development and social inclusion\nOfficial development assistance (ODA)\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nTax and development\nUrbanisation, infrastructure and development\nExplore development\nDigital\nArtificial intelligence\nCommunication infrastructure and services\nData flows and governance\nDigital government\nDigital security\nDigital transformation\nOnline safety and well-being\nPrivacy and data protection\nExplore digital\nEconomy\nCompetition\nEconomic policy\nEconomic surveillance\nEconomy and society\nFinancial markets\nGlobal trade and open markets\nInvestment\nProductivity and long-term growth\nSustainable economic growth\nExplore economy\nEducation and skills\nAdult skills and work\nEducation access, participation, and progression\nEducation economic and social outcomes\nEducation equity\nEducation evaluation and quality assurance\nEducation financing\nEducation leadership\nEducation organisation and governance\nFuture of education and skills\nLearning environment\nStudent performance (PISA)\nTeachers and educators\nExplore education and skills\nEmployment\nAdult skills and work\nEmployability\nEmployment services\nFuture of work\nHealth and work\nJob quality\nLocal employment and economic development\nPublic employment and management\nExplore employment\nEnvironment\nBiodiversity, water and ecosystems\nChemical safety and biosafety\nEnvironment, society and economy\nEnvironmental policies and evaluation\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nGreen technology and innovation\nGreening countries, regions and cities\nPollution\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore environment\nFinance and investment\nCritical minerals\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nFinancial consumer protection, education and inclusion\nFinancial markets\nInfrastructure\nInvestment\nPensions and insurance\nResponsible business conduct\nSubnational finance and investment\nExplore finance and investment\nGovernance\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCorporate governance\nDigital government\nGovernment innovation\nInfrastructure\nMulti-level governance\nPublic employment and management\nPublic finance and budgets\nPublic policymaking\nPublic procurement\nRegulatory reform\nTrust and democracy\nExplore governance\nHealth\nChronic diseases\nDigital health\nHealth and work\nHealth inequality and universal health coverage\nHealth spending and financial sustainability\nHealthcare quality and outcomes\nImproving public health\nPharmaceuticals and medical technologies\nThe future of health systems\nExplore health\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCompetition\nCorporate governance\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIndustrial policy\nIndustry sector analysis\nResponsible business conduct\nSMEs and entrepreneurship\nSustainable, green, and inclusive business\nTourism\nExplore industry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nLocal employment and economic development\nMulti-level governance\nRegional development\nRural development and natural resources\nSubnational finance and investment\nUrban development and cities\nExplore regional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nChemical safety and biosafety\nScience policy\nSpace economy\nTechnology policy\nExplore science, technology and innovation\nSociety\nAgeing\nConsumer policy\nEconomy and society\nGender equality\nHousing\nInclusion and equality\nMigration\nPensions and insurance\nSocial policy\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nWell-being and beyond GDP\nYouth\nExplore society\nTaxation\nBase erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)\nConsumption taxes\nCross-border and international tax\nTax administration\nTax and crime\nTax and development\nTax and the environment\nTax policy\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nTax treaties\nExplore taxation\nTrade\nCritical minerals\nAgricultural trade and markets\nDigital trade\nExport credits\nGlobal trade and open markets\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIllicit trade\nInclusive trade\nServices trade\nSubsidies and government support\nTrade and sustainability\nExplore trade\nEnergy\nExplore energy\nNuclear energy\nExplore nuclear energy\nTransport\nExplore transport\nFeatured topics\nArtificial intelligence\nHow to apply effective governance to harness the benefits of A.I. and mitigate its risks\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nAnalysis and insights for driving a rapid transition to net-zero while building resilience to physical climate impacts\nDevelopment co-operation\nStandards and guidelines for development co-operation with concrete examples of their implementation\nGender equality\nPolicies on gender equality a driver of economic growth, democracy and social cohesion\nGlobal value and supply chains\nAs the trend towards the international dispersion of certain value chain activities produces challenges, discover policies to meet these\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nEnhanced transparency and exchange of information to put an end to bank secrecy and fight tax evasion and avoidance\nAgriculture and fisheries\nAgricultural policy monitoring\nAgricultural productivity and innovation\nAgricultural trade and markets\nAgriculture and sustainability\nFisheries and aquaculture\nFood systems\nOECD standards for agriculture\nExplore agriculture and fisheries\nClimate change\nClimate adaptation and resilience\nClimate mitigation and net-zero transition\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nGlobal co-operation on climate\nGreen technology and innovation\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore climate change\nDevelopment\nCritical minerals\nDevelopment co-operation\nFinance for sustainable development\nGlobal and regional development trends\nGovernance and peace for development\nHuman development and social inclusion\nOfficial development assistance (ODA)\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nTax and development\nUrbanisation, infrastructure and development\nExplore development\nDigital\nArtificial intelligence\nCommunication infrastructure and services\nData flows and governance\nDigital government\nDigital security\nDigital transformation\nOnline safety and well-being\nPrivacy and data protection\nExplore digital\nEconomy\nCompetition\nEconomic policy\nEconomic surveillance\nEconomy and society\nFinancial markets\nGlobal trade and open markets\nInvestment\nProductivity and long-term growth\nSustainable economic growth\nExplore economy\nEducation and skills\nAdult skills and work\nEducation access, participation, and progression\nEducation economic and social outcomes\nEducation equity\nEducation evaluation and quality assurance\nEducation financing\nEducation leadership\nEducation organisation and governance\nFuture of education and skills\nLearning environment\nStudent performance (PISA)\nTeachers and educators\nExplore education and skills\nEmployment\nAdult skills and work\nEmployability\nEmployment services\nFuture of work\nHealth and work\nJob quality\nLocal employment and economic development\nPublic employment and management\nExplore employment\nEnvironment\nBiodiversity, water and ecosystems\nChemical safety and biosafety\nEnvironment, society and economy\nEnvironmental policies and evaluation\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nGreen technology and innovation\nGreening countries, regions and cities\nPollution\nResource efficiency and circular economy\nExplore environment\nFinance and investment\nCritical minerals\nFinance and investment for climate goals\nFinance and investment for environmental goals\nFinancial consumer protection, education and inclusion\nFinancial markets\nInfrastructure\nInvestment\nPensions and insurance\nResponsible business conduct\nSubnational finance and investment\nExplore finance and investment\nGovernance\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCorporate governance\nDigital government\nGovernment innovation\nInfrastructure\nMulti-level governance\nPublic employment and management\nPublic finance and budgets\nPublic policymaking\nPublic procurement\nRegulatory reform\nTrust and democracy\nExplore governance\nHealth\nChronic diseases\nDigital health\nHealth and work\nHealth inequality and universal health coverage\nHealth spending and financial sustainability\nHealthcare quality and outcomes\nImproving public health\nPharmaceuticals and medical technologies\nThe future of health systems\nExplore health\nIndustry, business and entrepreneurship\nAnti-corruption and integrity\nCompetition\nCorporate governance\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIndustrial policy\nIndustry sector analysis\nResponsible business conduct\nSMEs and entrepreneurship\nSustainable, green, and inclusive business\nTourism\nExplore industry, business and entrepreneurship\nRegional, rural and urban development\nLocal employment and economic development\nMulti-level governance\nRegional development\nRural development and natural resources\nSubnational finance and investment\nUrban development and cities\nExplore regional, rural and urban development\nScience, technology and innovation\nChemical safety and biosafety\nScience policy\nSpace economy\nTechnology policy\nExplore science, technology and innovation\nSociety\nAgeing\nConsumer policy\nEconomy and society\nGender equality\nHousing\nInclusion and equality\nMigration\nPensions and insurance\nSocial policy\nSustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\nWell-being and beyond GDP\nYouth\nExplore society\nTaxation\nBase erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)\nConsumption taxes\nCross-border and international tax\nTax administration\nTax and crime\nTax and development\nTax and the environment\nTax policy\nTax transparency and international co-operation\nTax treaties\nExplore taxation\nTrade\nCritical minerals\nAgricultural trade and markets\nDigital trade\nExport credits\nGlobal trade and open markets\nGlobal value and supply chains\nIllicit trade\nInclusive trade\nServices trade\nSubsidies and government support\nTrade and sustainability\nExplore trade\nEnergy\nExplore energy\nNuclear energy\nExplore nuclear energy\nTransport\nExplore transport\nCountries & regions\nA - C\nD - I\nJ - M\nN - R\nS - T\nU - Z\nRegional and global engagement\nCountries A - C\nAfghanistan\nAlbania\nAlgeria\nAndorra\nAngola\nAntigua and Barbuda\nArgentina\nArmenia\nAustralia\nAustria\nAzerbaijan\nBahamas\nBahrain\nBangladesh\nBarbados\nBelarus\nBelgium\nBelize\nBenin\nBhutan\nBolivia\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nBotswana\nBrazil\nBrunei Darussalam\nBulgaria\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCabo Verde\nCambodia\nCameroon\nCanada\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nChile\nChina (People's Republic of)\nColombia\nComoros\nCongo\nCosta Rica\nCôte d’Ivoire\nCroatia\nCuba\nCyprus\nCzechia\nCountries D - I\nDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDenmark\nDjibouti\nDominica\nDominican Republic\nEcuador\nEgypt\nEl Salvador\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEstonia\nEswatini\nEthiopia\nEuropean Union\nFiji\nFinland\nFrance\nGabon\nGambia\nGeorgia\nGermany\nGhana\nGreece\nGrenada\nGuatemala\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nGuyana\nHaiti\nHonduras\nHungary\nIceland\nIndia\nIndonesia\nIran\nIraq\nIreland\nIsrael\nItaly\nCountries J - M\nJamaica\nJapan\nJordan\nKazakhstan\nKenya\nKiribati\nKorea\nKuwait\nKyrgyzstan\nLao People’s Democratic Republic\nLatvia\nLebanon\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nLiechtenstein\nLithuania\nLuxembourg\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMalaysia\nMaldives\nMali\nMalta\nMarshall Islands\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMexico\nMicronesia\nMoldova\nMonaco\nMongolia\nMontenegro\nMorocco\nMozambique\nMyanmar\nCountries N - R\nNamibia\nNauru\nNepal\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNicaragua\nNiger\nNigeria\nRepublic of North Macedonia\nNorway\nOman\nPakistan\nPalau\nPanama\nPapua New Guinea\nParaguay\nPeru\nPhilippines\nPoland\nPortugal\nQatar\nRomania\nRussia\nRwanda\nCountries S - T\nSaint Kitts and Nevis\nSaint Lucia\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nSamoa\nSan Marino\nSao Tome and Principe\nSaudi Arabia\nSenegal\nSerbia\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSingapore\nSlovak Republic\nSlovenia\nSolomon Islands\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSouth Sudan\nSpain\nSri Lanka\nSudan\nSuriname\nSweden\nSwitzerland\nSyrian Arab Republic\nTajikistan\nTanzania\nThailand\nTimor-Leste\nTogo\nTonga\nTrinidad and Tobago\nTunisia\nTürkiye\nTurkmenistan\nTuvalu\nCountries U - Z\nUganda\nUkraine\nUnited Arab Emirates\nUnited Kingdom\nUnited States\nUruguay\nUzbekistan\nVanuatu\nVenezuela\nViet Nam\nYemen\nZambia\nZimbabwe\nRegional and global engagement\nAfrica\nEurasia\nLatin America\nMiddle East and North Africa\nSoutheast Asia\nSouth East Europe\nBrowse all countries & regions\nCountries\nA - C\nD - I\nJ - M\nN - R\nS - T\nU - Z\nCountries A - C\nAfghanistan\nAlbania\nAlgeria\nAndorra\nAngola\nAntigua and Barbuda\nArgentina\nArmenia\nAustralia\nAustria\nAzerbaijan\nBahamas\nBahrain\nBangladesh\nBarbados\nBelarus\nBelgium\nBelize\nBenin\nBhutan\nBolivia\nBosnia and Herzegovina\nBotswana\nBrazil\nBrunei Darussalam\nBulgaria\nBurkina Faso\nBurundi\nCabo Verde\nCambodia\nCameroon\nCanada\nCentral African Republic\nChad\nChile\nChina (People's Republic of)\nColombia\nComoros\nCongo\nCosta Rica\nCôte d’Ivoire\nCroatia\nCuba\nCyprus\nCzechia\nCountries D - I\nDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo\nDenmark\nDjibouti\nDominica\nDominican Republic\nEcuador\nEgypt\nEl Salvador\nEquatorial Guinea\nEritrea\nEstonia\nEswatini\nEthiopia\nEuropean Union\nFiji\nFinland\nFrance\nGabon\nGambia\nGeorgia\nGermany\nGhana\nGreece\nGrenada\nGuatemala\nGuinea\nGuinea-Bissau\nGuyana\nHaiti\nHonduras\nHungary\nIceland\nIndia\nIndonesia\nIran\nIraq\nIreland\nIsrael\nItaly\nCountries J - M\nJamaica\nJapan\nJordan\nKazakhstan\nKenya\nKiribati\nKorea\nKuwait\nKyrgyzstan\nLao People’s Democratic Republic\nLatvia\nLebanon\nLesotho\nLiberia\nLibya\nLiechtenstein\nLithuania\nLuxembourg\nMadagascar\nMalawi\nMalaysia\nMaldives\nMali\nMalta\nMarshall Islands\nMauritania\nMauritius\nMexico\nMicronesia\nMoldova\nMonaco\nMongolia\nMontenegro\nMorocco\nMozambique\nMyanmar\nCountries N - R\nNamibia\nNauru\nNepal\nNetherlands\nNew Zealand\nNicaragua\nNiger\nNigeria\nRepublic of North Macedonia\nNorway\nOman\nPakistan\nPalau\nPanama\nPapua New Guinea\nParaguay\nPeru\nPhilippines\nPoland\nPortugal\nQatar\nRomania\nRussia\nRwanda\nCountries S - T\nSaint Kitts and Nevis\nSaint Lucia\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nSamoa\nSan Marino\nSao Tome and Principe\nSaudi Arabia\nSenegal\nSerbia\nSeychelles\nSierra Leone\nSingapore\nSlovak Republic\nSlovenia\nSolomon Islands\nSomalia\nSouth Africa\nSouth Sudan\nSpain\nSri Lanka\nSudan\nSuriname\nSweden\nSwitzerland\nSyrian Arab Republic\nTajikistan\nTanzania\nThailand\nTimor-Leste\nTogo\nTonga\nTrinidad and Tobago\nTunisia\nTürkiye\nTurkmenistan\nTuvalu\nCountries U - Z\nUganda\nUkraine\nUnited Arab Emirates\nUnited Kingdom\nUnited States\nUruguay\nUzbekistan\nVanuatu\nVenezuela\nViet Nam\nYemen\nZambia\nZimbabwe\nRegional and global engagement\nAfrica\nEurasia\nLatin America\nMiddle East and North Africa\nSoutheast Asia\nSouth East Europe\nBrowse all countries & regions\nPublications\nPublications\nBrowse all publications\nPublications\nReports and research papers\nResearch and working papers with deep dives and findings\nPolicy papers and briefs\nPolicy recommendations and case studies\nFeatured publications\nOECD Employment Outlook 2026\nOECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026\nData\nData\nBrowse all data\nData\nIndicators\nKey data and interactive charts across a wide range of topics\nDashboards & tools\nMonitor policy issues with statistics, simulators, or indexes\nMethods\nInternational statistical standards, manuals, handbooks and more\nInsights\nStatistics news releases, and articles\nOECD Data Explorer\nFind, understand, and use the data you need\nFeatured data\nInflation (CPI)\nstatistical release, 4 August 2026\nGrowth and economic well-being\nstatistical release, 6 August 2026\nNews & events\nNews & events\nExplore news and events\nNews & events\nNewsroom\nDiscover our latest press releases and media resources\nEvents\nSee our list of events and register to attend\nBlogs, videos & podcasts\nRead the latest insights\nFeatured events\n4th OECD Blue Sky Forum on science, technology and innovation data and indicators\n14-16 September 2026\n2026 OECD Global Forum on Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy\n12-13 October 2026\nAbout\nAbout OECD\nAbout\nAbout the organisation\nHow we work\nOECD Secretary-General\nOrganisational structure\nMembers and partners\nOECD and G7, G20, APEC\nEthics and Integrity\nEngage with us\nNewsroom\nEvents\nNetworks\nWork with us\nCareers\nInternships\nYoung associates\nProcurement at the OECD\nClose menu\nOECD\nPublications\nPublications\nInsights and context to inform policies and global dialogue\nFeatured\nReports and research papers\nPolicy papers and briefs\nSupport\nForthcoming\nOECD archives\nScroll left\nScroll right\nAvailable in:\nEnglish\nEnglish\nfrançais\nSelect a language\nClose\nEnglish\nfrançais\nApply\nCancel\nFind the publications you are looking for\nSearch\nOECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2026 Issue 1\n300 Pages\nThe evolving conflict in the Middle East is having significant humanitarian costs and testing the resilience of a global economy boosted by with solid underlying strong AI-related activity. The prices of energy and other key inputs produced in the Persian Gulf have soared since February, pushing up headline inflation, and some signs of supply shortfalls are emerging amidst disruptions to production and exports. Given the exceptionally uncertain situation this Economic Outlook presents two distinct scenarios of how the global economy could evolve over the next eighteen months. A time-limited disruption scenario, with energy production in the Gulf economies recovering from the third quarter of 2026 would result in global growth moderating in 2026 before picking up in 2027. A prolonged disruption scenario, with supply constraints persisting until the latter half of 2027, would result in significantly weaker growth outcomes and substantially higher inflation in both 2026 and 2027. The slowdown could be exacerbated if AI investment is adversely impacted by disruptions to the supply of energy and other key products or if national export restrictions are introduced. Amidst heightened uncertainty, flexible and agile public policies are needed to ensure macroeconomic stability. Key medium-term policy priorities also remain, such as the need to establish a credible fiscal path to debt sustainability, enhance energy security and resilience, secure a lasting decline in trade tensions and strengthen the prospects for sustainable and resilient growth.This issue includes an assessment of the global economic situation, a chapter on government policy responses to current energy crisis and policies to strengthen energy resilience, a chapter on the economic consequences of higher defence spending and a chapter summarising developments and providing projections for each individual country. Coverage is provided for all OECD Members as well as for selected partner economies.\nLearn more\nRestoring Public Finances\n266 Pages\nPublic finances in OECD countries are facing significant challenges such as slow economic growth, ageing populations, high debt from recent crises, and new spending pressures, including in defence. This report looks at efforts made by OECD countries as well as some accession candidate countries and one non-Member economy in 2025 and 2026 to restore their public finances. Drawing on the results of the 2026 OECD Survey on Restoring Public Finances, it provides an overview of ongoing savings initiatives across all major spending areas, as well as details of reforms and savings measures. Further reforms will be required to ensure fiscal sustainability and generate fiscal space to empower government action. Governments will also need to continue strengthening their budgeting institutions. Finally, given that lasting support for reform depends on citizens’ awareness and ownership of both the need for change and its implications, focusing on empowering public understanding of the fiscal challenges ahead will be essential in the future. A companion report entitled The People and the Budget addresses these issues.\nLearn more\nFeatured publications\nOECD Employment Outlook 2026\nReport\nOECD\n7 July 2026\nOECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026\nReport\nOECD\n30 June 2026\nKey publications\nSee all publications\nWorking paper\nWhich start‐ups achieve scale?\nEvidence from innovative start‐ups in the EU and the US\n7 August 2026\n74 Pages\nWorking paper\nEfficient fiscal policy to ensure income security for the elderly\n3 August 2026\n72 Pages\nPolicy brief\nGovernment involvement in sustainability initiatives\nAn overview\n31 July 2026\n12 Pages\nBook series\nGlobal Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes\nPeer Reviews\nReport\nCitizen Participation for Better Cohesion Policy\n30 July 2026\n77 Pages\nWorking paper\nCompetition in the age of AI\nInitial evidence from microdata\n30 July 2026\n75 Pages\nExplore further\nSee all publications\nWorking paper\nMaking intra‐regional food trade count\nBetter data systems for food trade monitoring in West Africa\n7 August 2026\n30 Pages\nWorking paper\nAn AI‐enhanced granular analysis of Thailand’s mathematics performance\n30 July 2026\n40 Pages\nWorking paper\nOECD methodology to estimate SEEA Air Emission Accounts\nAn update\n29 July 2026\n64 Pages\nReport\nPromoting the Development of the Semiconductor Ecosystem in Panama\n29 July 2026\n143 Pages\nReport\nGlobal Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Tanzania 2026 (Second Round)\nPeer Review on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request\n29 July 2026\n112 Pages\nReport\nGlobal Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Namibia 2026 (Second Round)\nPeer Review on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request\n29 July 2026\n97 Pages\noecd\n© Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development\nTopics\nAll Topics\nCountries & regions\nAll Countries\nRegional and global engagement\nData\nIndicators\nDashboards & Tools\nPublications\nReports\nPolicy briefs\nNews & Events\nNewsroom\nEvents\nBlogs & podcasts\nAbout\nAbout the organisation\nAccession to the OECD\nCareers\nNetworks\nProcurement at the OECD\nContact us\nNewsletters\nOECD legal framework\nWeb accessibility\nEthics and integrity\nSocial media links\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nInstagram\nNewsletters\nPodcast\nWhatsapp\nUtility links\nTerms & Conditions\nPrivacy Policy\nGo to top", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 41510, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 28, "word_count": 5547}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "554223c4-794b-4179-a742-a7252bae9b97", "source_id": "1523131f8224f07a6a1f6b60", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-open-educational-resources-dc-oer", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-open-educational-resources-dc-oer", "artifact_sha256": "9ccd701c8c359bf8ee42dc9044d0192c0d06e9b05fe61720ba3846f9160ae5d5", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 86606, "title": "Dynamic Coalition on Open Educational Resources | Internet Governance Forum", "language": "en", "text_length": 7405, "characters": 7405, "text": "Dynamic Coalition on Open Educational Resources | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nDynamic Coalition on Open Educational Resources (DC-OER)\nIntroduction\nDigital transformation for education is a reality and for supporting inclusive knowledge societies, we need to work together on mainstreaming open educational content and platforms. With the support of the\nIGF\ncommunity, the OER Dynamic Coalition will facilitate advocacy, knowledge sharing and capacity building in all action areas of the OER Recommendation. The implementation of this normative instrument will enable to harness the potential of open content in digital learning to promote universal access to information. The adoption of the Recommendation is a decisive step towards building more open and inclusive knowledge societies and towards achieving the UN 2030 Agenda. Indeed, the implementation of the Recommendation will contribute to the achievement of at least six Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Effective Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for Achieving the Goals).\nAction Plan\nThe Open Educational Resources (OER) Dynamic Coalition was established in March 2020 by UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector with the objective of supporting the implementation of the first four areas of action defined in the 2019 UNESCO Recommendation on OER.\nCapacity building: developing the capacity of all key education stakeholders to create, access, re-use, re-purpose, adapt, and redistribute OER, as well as to use and apply open licenses in a manner consistent with national copyright legislation and international obligations;\nDeveloping supportive policy: encouraging governments, and education authorities and institutions to adopt regulatory frameworks to support open licensing of publicly funded educational and research materials, develop strategies to enable the use and adaptation of OER in support of high quality, inclusive education and lifelong learning for all, supported by relevant research in the area;\nEffective, inclusive and equitable access to quality OER: supporting the adoption of strategies and programmes including through relevant technology solutions that ensure OER in any medium are shared in open formats and standards to maximize equitable access, co-creation, curation, and searchability, including for those from vulnerable groups and persons with disabilities;\nNurturing the creation of sustainability models for OER: supporting and encouraging the creation of sustainability models for OER at national, regional and institutional levels, and the planning and pilot testing of new sustainable forms of education and learning.\nThe OER Dynamic Coalition aims to foster and facilitate international cooperation between stakeholders and share best practices with a view to creating synergies and networks in the implementation of the 2019 Recommendation on OER.\nMailing List\nMailing list address:\n[email protected]\nSubscribe to the mailing list:\nhttps://surveys.unesco.org/163625?lang=en\nStakeholders\nIntergovernmental organisations\nPapa Youga Dieng, IFEF OIF\nMohamed Jemni, ALECSO\nMaimouna Sissoko Toure, IFEF OIF\nEmil Tanawa, OIF\nStephane Vincent-Lancrin, OECD\nCivil society\nNeil Butcher, OER Africa, South Africa\nCable Green, Head of Open Knowledge, Creative Commons, USA\nAnthony Bloome, Mobiles for Education Alliance, USA\nSanjaya Mishra, Commonwealth of Learning, Canada\nTorunn Gjelsvik, ICDE, Norway\nMarcela Morales, OE Global, Mexico\nNichole Saad, Wikimedia Foundation\nLisa Petrides, Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME), USA\nAcademia\nMelinda Bandalaria, University of the Philippines Open University, Philippines\nTel Amiel, University of Brasilia, Brazil\nAhmed Tlilli, Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University, China\nJaviera Atenas, University of Suffolk, United Kingdom\nColin de la Higuera, University of Nantes, France\nLilia Cheniti, University of Sousse, Tunisia\nWayne Mackintosh, OER Foundation, New Zealand\nMaria Soledad Ramírez-Montoya, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico\nDocuments\nAnnual Report 2025\nAnnual Report 2024\nAnnual Report 2023\nContacts\nZeynep Varoglu, Programme Specialist UNESCO Communication and Information Sector\nEmail: Z.varoglu [at] unesco.org\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "eef728cd-d286-4ca5-ae89-e0954781d4a2", "document_id": "554223c4-794b-4179-a742-a7252bae9b97", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Dynamic Coalition on Open Educational Resources | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nDynamic Coalition on Open Educational Resources (DC-OER)\nIntroduction\nDigital transformation for education is a reality and for supporting inclusive knowledge societies, we need to work together on mainstreaming open educational content and platforms. With the support of the\nIGF\ncommunity, the OER Dynamic Coalition will facilitate advocacy, knowledge sharing and capacity building in all action areas of the OER Recommendation. The implementation of this normative instrument will enable to harness the potential of open content in digital learning to promote universal access to information. The adoption of the Recommendation is a decisive step towards building more open and inclusive knowledge societies and towards achieving the UN 2030 Agenda. Indeed, the implementation of the Recommendation will contribute to the achievement of at least six Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Effective Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for Achieving the Goals).\nAction Plan\nThe Open Educational Resources (OER) Dynamic Coalition was established in March 2020 by UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector with the objective of supporting the implementation of the first four areas of action defined in the 2019 UNESCO Recommendation on OER.\nCapacity building: developing the capacity of all key education stakeholders to create, access, re-use, re-purpose, adapt, and redistribute OER, as well as to use and apply open licenses in a manner consistent with national copyright legislation and international obligations;\nDeveloping supportive policy: encouraging governments, and education authorities and institutions to adopt regulatory frameworks to support open licensing of publicly funded educational and research materials, develop strategies to enable the use and adaptation of OER in support of high quality, inclusive education and lifelong learning for all, supported by relevant research in the area;\nEffective, inclusive and equitable access to quality OER: supporting the adoption of strategies and programmes including through relevant technology solutions that ensure OER in any medium are shared in open formats and standards to maximize equitable access, co-creation, curation, and searchability, including for those from vulnerable groups and persons with disabilities;\nNurturing the creation of sustainability models for OER: supporting and encouraging the creation of sustainability models for OER at national, regional and institutional levels, and the planning and pilot testing of new sustainable forms of education and learning.\nThe OER Dynamic Coalition aims to foster and facilitate international cooperation between stakeholders and share best practices with a view to creating synergies and networks in the implementation of the 2019 Recommendation on OER.\nMailing List\nMailing list address:\n[email protected]\nSubscribe to the mailing list:\nhttps://surveys.unesco.org/163625?lang=en\nStakeholders\nIntergovernmental organisations\nPapa Youga Dieng, IFEF OIF\nMohamed Jemni, ALECSO\nMaimouna Sissoko Toure, IFEF OIF\nEmil Tanawa, OIF\nStephane Vincent-Lancrin, OECD\nCivil society\nNeil Butcher, OER Africa, South Africa\nCable Green, Head of Open Knowledge, Creative Commons, USA\nAnthony Bloome, Mobiles for Education Alliance, USA\nSanjaya Mishra, Commonwealth of Learning, Canada\nTorunn Gjelsvik, ICDE, Norway\nMarcela Morales, OE Global, Mexico\nNichole Saad, Wikimedia Foundation\nLisa Petrides, Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME), USA\nAcademia\nMelinda Bandalaria, University of the Philippines Open University, Philippines\nTel Amiel, University of Brasilia, Brazil\nAhmed Tlilli, Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University, China\nJaviera Atenas, University of Suffolk, United Kingdom\nColin de la Higuera, University of Nantes, France\nLilia Cheniti, University of Sousse, Tunisia\nWayne Mackintosh, OER Foundation, New Zealand\nMaria Soledad Ramírez-Montoya, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico\nDocuments\nAnnual Report 2025\nAnnual Report 2024\nAnnual Report 2023\nContacts\nZeynep Varoglu, Programme Specialist UNESCO Communication and Information Sector\nEmail: Z.varoglu [at] unesco.org\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 7405, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1063}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "55af2fa0-7f93-4dfa-8e11-64848d146ab3", "source_id": "df1825378e083d8a93d37e77", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1174", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1174/", "artifact_sha256": "df1825378e083d8a93d37e77eb0741324785446f60633a00e87547a8ae77dfca", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 132660, "title": "RFC 1174: IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet 'Connected' Status", "language": "en", "text_length": 21052, "characters": 21052, "text": "RFC 1174: IAB recommended policy on distributing internet identifier assignment and IAB recommended policy change to internet \"connected\" status | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1174\n:\nIAB recommended policy on distributing internet identifier assignment and IAB recommended policy change to internet \"connected\" status\nV.G. Cerf\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                            V. Cerf\nRequest for Comments:  1174                                         CNRI\n                                                             August 1990\nIAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier Assignment\nand\nIAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet \"Connected\" Status\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This informational RFC represents the official view of the Internet\n   Activities Board (IAB), and describes the recommended policies and\n   procedures on distributing Internet identifier assignments and\n   dropping the connected status requirement.  This RFC does not specify\n   a standard.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n\n   Status of this Memo...............................................\n1\nOverview..........................................................\n1\n1\n.  Recommendation about Internet Identifiers.....................\n2\n1.1\n.  Summary.....................................................\n2\n1.2\n.  Introduction................................................\n2\n1.3\n.  Proposed Method of Operation................................\n2\n2\n.  Recommendation about Connected Status.........................\n3\n2.1\n.  Summary.....................................................\n3\n2.2\n.  Introduction................................................\n3\n2.3\n.  Recommendations.............................................\n4\n2.a.1.  Attachment 1..............................................\n4\n2.a.1.1.  Summary.................................................\n4\n2.a.1.2.  Background..............................................\n4\n2.a.1.3.  Recommendation..........................................\n6\n2.a.1.4.  Discussion..............................................\n7\n2.a.2.  Attachment 2..............................................\n8\nSecurity Considerations...........................................\n8\nAuthor's Address..................................................\n9\nOverview\n\n   This RFC includes two recommendations from the IAB to the FNC.  The\n   first is a \"Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier\n   Assignment\", that is, a suggestion to distribute the function of\n   assigning network and autonomous system numbers.  The second is a\n   \"Recommended Policy Change to Internet 'Connected' Status\", that is,\n   a suggestion to drop the notion of connected status in favor of\n   recording the acceptable use policy and traffic access policy for\n   each network.  Included in this second recommendation is the explict\nCerf                                                            [Page 1]\nRFC 1174\nIdentifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990\nsuggestion that any registered network may be entered into the DNS\n   database without regard to connected status.\n1\n.  Recommendation about Internet Identifiers\nTo: Chairman, Federal Networking Council\n   From: Chairman, Internet Activities Board\n   CC: IAB, IESG\n   Subject: Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet\n            Identifier Assignment\n1.1\n.  Summary\nThis document recommends procedures for distributing assignment of\n   Internet identifiers (network and autonomous system numbers).\n1.2\n.  Introduction\nThroughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a\n   central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for the allocation\n   and assignment of various numeric identifiers needed for the\n   operation of the Internet.  The IANA function is performed by USC\n   Information Sciences Institute.  The IANA has the discretionary\n   authority to delegate portions of this responsibility and, with\n   respect to numeric network and autonomous system identifiers, has\n   lodged this responsibility with an Internet Registry (IR).  This\n   function is performed by SRI International at its Network Information\n   Center (DDN-NIC).\n\n   With the rapid escalation of the number of networks in the Internet\n   and its concurrent internationalization, it is timely to consider\n   further delegation of assignment and registration authority on an\n   international basis.  It is also essential to take into consideration\n   that such identifiers, particularly network identifiers of class A\n   and B type, will become an increasingly scarce commodity whose\n   allocation must be handled with thoughtful care.\n1.3\n.  Proposed Method of Operation\nIt is proposed to retain the centralized IANA and IR functions.\n\n   The IR would continue to be the principal registry for all network\n   and autonomous system numbers.  It would also continue to maintain\n   the list of root Domain Name System servers and a database of\n   registered nets and autonomous systems.\n\n   In addition, however, the IR would also allocate to organizations\n   approved by the Coordinating Committee for Intercontinental Research\nCerf                                                            [Page 2]\nRFC 1174\nIdentifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990\nNetworking (CCIRN) blocks of network and autonomous system numbers,\n   as needed, and delegate to them further assignment authority.\n\n   It is recommended that, at least initially, the IR serve as the\n   default registry in cases where no delegated registration authority\n   has been identified.\n\n   Copies of the aggregate Internet registration database(s) should be\n   maintained by the IR and copies provided to each delegated registry\n   to improve redundancy and access to this information.  Updates to the\n   database, however, would still be centralized at the IR with complete\n   copies redistributed by file transfer or other means on a timely\n   basis.\n\n   It is recommended that candidate delegated registries meet with the\n   IANA and IR to review operational procedures and requirements and to\n   produce documentation to be issued as RFCs describing the details of\n   the proposed distributed mode of operation.\n\n   It is recommended that host Domain Name registration continue in its\n   present form which already accommodates distribution of this\n   function.\n2\n.  Recommendation about Connected Status\nTo: Chairman, Federal Networking Council (FNC)\n   From: Chairman, Internet Activities Board\n   CC: IAB, IESG\n   Subject: Recommended Policy Change to Internet \"Connected\" Status\n2.1\n.  Summary\nThis memorandum recommends a change in the current policy for\n   associating \"connected\" status to a subset of networks which have\n   been assigned an Internet identifier.\n2.2\n.  Introduction\nIn the following, the term Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)\n   refers to the organization which has primary authority to allocate\n   and assign numeric identifiers required for operation of the\n   Internet.  This function is presently performed by USC Information\n   Sciences Institute.  The term Internet Registry (IR) refers to the\n   organization which has the responsibility for gathering and\n   registering information about networks to which identifiers (network\n   numbers, autonomous system numbers) have been assigned by the IR.  At\n   present, SRI International serves as the IR.\nCerf                                                            [Page 3]\nRFC 1174\nIdentifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990\nAttachments (1) and (2) outline the rationale for and implications of\n   changing the current policy for associating \"connected\" status with\n   only a subset of networks which have been assigned Internet\n   identifiers.\n2.3\n.  Recommendations\nThe following actions are recommended:\n\n      1. The Internet Registry should be instructed to drop all\n      reference to \"connected\" status in its databases and in its forms\n      for Internet network and autonomous system registration.\n\n      2. The Internet Registry should be instructed to request brief\n      statements of acceptable network usage, access and transit policy\n      for external traffic (i.e., traffic entering from or exiting to\n      other networks) from each applicant for a network or autonomous\n      system identifier.  For example, some networks conform to the\n      National Science Foundation acceptable use guidelines; other\n      networks will carry any traffic (e.g., common carriers); others\n      may prohibit transit use.  Retrospective statements should be\n      gathered by the IR for networks already registered.  Such\n      statements should be made available on-line and widely publicized.\n\n      3. The Internet Registry should be instructed to allow any\n      registered networks to be entered into the Domain Name Server\n      database without regard to \"connected\" status.\n\n   Attachment: (1) Recommendation for replacement of \"Connected\" Status\n               (2) Recommendation on DNS and Connectivity\n\n2.a.1.  Attachment 1\n\nRecommendation for Replacement of \"Connected\" Status\n\n2.a.1.1.  Summary\n\n   A revision of the current Internet procedures controlling connection\n   to the Internet is recommended to solve urgent problems caused by\n   Internet growth both in the US and internationally.  The\n   recommendation involves relaxation of the present \"connected\" status\n   rule and the creation of a policy database to guide network\n   administrators.\n\n2.a.1.2.  Background\n\n   With the demise of the ARPANET and the growth of a global Internet,\n   the administration and registration of Internet network numbers has\nCerf                                                            [Page 4]\nRFC 1174\nIdentifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990\noutgrown its initially conceived client base: military, government\n   and government-sponsored research organizations.  Since the\n   international growth has extended the Internet community to industry\n   and a broad range of academic and research institutions, we must re-\n   evaluate some of the criteria for assignment and use of Internet\n   network numbers.\n\n   In the early phases of the Internet research project, numbers were\n   assigned only to networks of organizations that were participating in\n   the research effort.  Later, as the system became more stable and\n   expanded into a widespread infrastructure, other organizations with\n   networks were assigned network numbers and allowed to interconnect if\n   they were parts of the U.S. Government or sponsored by a Government\n   organization.  To ensure global uniqueness, a single Internet\n   Registry (IR) was designated: the Defense Data Net Network\n   Information Center (DDN-NIC) at SRI International.\n\n   As the Internet protocols became popular in the commercial\n   marketplace, many organizations purchased and installed private\n   networks that needed network number assignments but were not intended\n   to be connected to the federally-sponsored system.  The IR adopted a\n   policy of assigning network numbers to all who requested them, while\n   distinguishing networks permitted to link to the global Internet by\n   assigning them \"connected\" status.  Essentially, this meant that the\n   network to which the number was assigned had the sanction of a U.S.\n   Government sponsoring organization to link to the Internet.\n\n   The present day Internet encompasses networks that serve as\n   intermediaries to access the federally-sponsored backbones.  Many of\n   these intermediate networks were initiated under the sponsorship of\n   the National Science Foundation.  Some have been founded without\n   federal assistance as consortia of using organizations.  The\n   Government has expressed a desire that all such networks be self-\n   supporting, without the need for federal subsidy.  To achieve this\n   goal, it has been essential for the intermediate networks to support\n   an increasingly varied range of users.  A great many industrial\n   participants can be found on the intermediate level networks.  Their\n   use of the federally-sponsored backbones is premised on the basis\n   that the traffic is in support of academic, scholarly or other\n   research work.  The criteria for use of the intermediate level\n   networks alone is sometimes more relaxed and, in the cases of the\n   newly-formed commercial networks, there are no restrictions at all.\n\n   In essence, each network needs to be able to determine, on the basis\n   of its own criteria, with which networks it will interconnect and for\n   which networks it will support transit service.  There is no longer a\n   simple binary correlation between \"connected\" status and acceptable\n   use policy.  The matter becomes even more complex as we contemplate\nCerf                                                            [Page 5]\nRFC 1174\nIdentifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990\nthe large and growing number of non-U.S. networks joining the global\n   Internet.  It is inappropriate to require that all of these networks\n   adhere to U.S. access and use criteria; rather, it can only be\n   required that the traffic they send through the federally-sponsored\n   networks be consistent with the federal criteria.\n\n2.a.1.3.  Recommendation\n\n   Since the concept of a single, global \"connected\" status is no longer\n   meaningful, it is recommended that it be retired and to define new\n   characteristics that could be used by networks within the Internet to\n   determine a specific network's eligibility to communicate with other\n   networks.\n\n   Some attributes which might be useful to track and could be used as\n   criteria to determine the acceptability of Internet traffic for\n   routing purposes include:\n\n       1) Country codes\n\n       2) Conformance to acceptable use policy for:\n             NSFNET, MILNET, NSI, ESnet, NORDUnet, ...\n\n   To implement this idea, the IR would update the current Internet-\n   Number-Template to query applicants for the necessary information.\n   This information would then be collected in a database containing,\n   for instance, a matrix of network numbers over policies.  Note that\n   the policies might be presented in narrative form.  In addition, the\n   usage policies of the various networks must be publicly available so\n   that applicants and other interested parties can be advised of policy\n   issues as they relate to various networks.\n\n   Under this proposal, the IR would be charged with the registration\n   and administration of the Internet number space but not with the\n   enforcement of policy.  The IR should collect enough information to\n   permit network administrators to make intelligent decisions as to the\n   acceptability of traffic destined to or from each and every\n   legitimate Internet number.  Enforcement of policies is discussed\n   below.\n\n   At a later step, we anticipate that it will be desirable to\n   distribute the IR function among multiple centers, e.g., with centers\n   on different continents.  This should be straight-forward once the IR\n   function is divorced from policy enforcement.\nCerf                                                            [Page 6]\nRFC 1174\nIdentifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990\n2.a.1.4.  Discussion\n\n   It is already true in the current Internet that there are\n   restrictions on certain traffic on particular networks.  For example,\n   two intermediate level networks that are willing to carry arbitrary\n   traffic can link with each other but are barred from passing\n   commercial traffic or any other traffic that is not for academic or\n   scholarly purposes across the federally-sponsored backbones.\n\n   Routing of traffic based upon acceptable-use policies requires a\n   technical ability known as \"policy-based routing\" (PBR).  At the\n   present time, the PBR mechanism available in the Internet operates as\n   the level of an entire network; all users and hosts on a network are\n   subject to the same routes for a given destination.  Using this PBR\n   mechanism, a network maintains routes (and provides transit services)\n   only for networks with compatible use policies.  For an intermediate\n   level network, for example, the routing decisions must be made on the\n   basis of the network numbers assigned to the organizations; some\n   might be considered to have traffic conformant with federal use\n   policies and some might not.\n\n   Although it is much more fine-grained than the current \"on or off\"\n   rule of connected status, the use of PBR based on networks is still a\n   very coarse measure of control.  Since the decision on acceptability\n   is made at the network level, one has to assign a set of\n   characteristics to all traffic emanating from or entering into a\n   given network to make this access control strategy work.  Strict\n   application of such controls could prevent a commercial organization\n   from legitimately sending research or scholarly data across the\n   federal backbone (e.g., IBM needs to communicate with MCI and MERIT\n   about NSFNET, but other parts of IBM may need to communicate on\n   commercial matters). Organizations with a variety of uses might have\n   to artificially define several networks with which to associate\n   different use policies.\n\n   The practical result is that in order to support desirable usage\n   patterns, government-sponsored networks will sometimes have to depend\n   upon self-policing by traffic sources, rather than upon strict\n   mechanical enforcement of acceptable use policies.  Higher certainty\n   on usage will have a cost in terms of limiting desirable access.\n\n   An important project now underway in the Internet Engineering Task\n   Force (IETF) is developing a more general mechanism for PBR that will\n   allow control at the level of individual hosts and possibly even\n   user.  It will give an end host or user the ability to select routes,\n   taking into consideration issues such as cost, performance and\n   reliability of the transit networks.\nCerf                                                            [Page 7]\nRFC 1174\nIdentifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990\n2.a.2.  Attachment 2\n\nIAB Policy Recommendation on DNS and Connectivity\n\n   The Internet Domain Name system (DNS) is an essential part of the\n   networking infrastructure.  It establishes a global distributed\n   database for mapping host names into IP addresses and for delivering\n   electronic mail.  Its efficient and reliable functioning is vital to\n   nearly all Internet users.\n\n   Some DNS operations depend upon the existence of a complete database\n   at certain \"root\" servers, in particular at the Internet Registry\n   (IP) located at the Defense Data Net Network Information Center at\n   SRI International (DDN-NIC).  The past policy has been to tie\n   inclusion in this database to approval of Internet interconnection by\n   a U.S. Government agency.  This \"connected\" status restriction is no\n   longer viable, and recommendations for its replacement have been put\n   forward.\n\n   In any case, we believe that the DNS database is not the proper\n   architectural level for enforcement of administrative access\n   restrictions, e.g., controls over the announcement of networks in the\n   routing protocols.\n\n   The Internet Activities Board (IAB) therefore strongly endorses the\n   following recommendation from the Federal Engineering Planning Group\n   to the Federal Networking Council, to provide DNS service regardless\n   of access control policies:\n\n      \"There has been a great deal of discussion about domain\n      nameservers, the IN-ADDR domain, and \"connected\" status as the\n      Internet has grown to include many more nations than just the\n      United States.  As we move to a more global Internet, it seems\n      like it would be a good idea to re-evaluate some of the rules that\n      have governed the naming and registration policies that exist.\n\n      The naming and routing should be completely decoupled.  In\n      particular, it should be possible to register both a name/domain,\n      as well as address servers within the IN-ADDR domain, independent\n      of whether the client has \"connected\" status or not.  This should\n      be implemented immediately by the IR at the DDN-NIC.  No U.S.\n      Government sponsor should be required for domain name/address\n      registration.\"\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not addressed in this memo.\nCerf                                                            [Page 8]\nRFC 1174\nIdentifier Assignment and Connected Status    August 1990\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Vinton G. Cerf\n   Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n   1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n   Reston, VA 22091\n\n   Phone: (703) 620-8990\n\n   EMail: vcerf@nri.reston.va.us\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCerf                                                            [Page 9]\nRFC\n1174\n: IAB recommended policy on distributing internet identifier assignment and IAB recommended policy change to internet \"connected\" status\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1990-08-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1990-08-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1990-08-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:47.643918+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "55ba37fc-1e7c-4050-8df7-46a895cf32c1", "source_id": "7d8a719d4949c68a9402685d", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1262", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1262/", "artifact_sha256": "7d8a719d4949c68a9402685db70a7b3cd8b73e63432a07eb3607749e3004902a", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 86993, "title": "RFC 1262: Guidelines for Internet Measurement Activities", "language": "en", "text_length": 6558, "characters": 6558, "text": "RFC 1262: Guidelines for Internet Measurement Activities | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1262\n:\nGuidelines for Internet Measurement Activities\nV.G. Cerf\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                          Internet Activities Board\nRequest for Comments: 1262                   Vinton G. Cerf/CNRI, Editor\n                                                            October 1991\nGuidelines for Internet Measurement Activities\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nSummary\n\n   Measurement of the Internet is critical for future development,\n   evolution and deployment planning.  Internet-wide activities have the\n   potential to interfere with normal operation and must be planned with\n   care and made widely known beforehand.  This document offers guidance\n   to researchers planning Internet measurements.\n\n   This RFC represents IAB guidance for researchers considering\n   measurement experiments on the Internet.  This RFC does not represent\n   a standard for the Internet but the Internet Activities Board\n   strongly urges that Internet users follow the guidelines out of\n   courtesy and professional consideration for the Internet community.\n\nGuidelines\n\n   The Internet has undergone dramatic growth in connectivity, use, and\n   quality of service over the past several years.  As this growth\n   continues and the Internet is used for increasingly diverse and\n   demanding purposes, it is vital to collect data about a range of\n   functions, from low-level packet switching services to considerations\n   for the networking expectations of individual applications.  Such\n   data is vital to research and engineering planning activities, as\n   well as to ensure the continued development of the operational\n   infrastructure.  Yet, it is also important that data collection\n   activities do not interfere with the operational viability and\n   stability of the network, and do not violate considerations regarding\n   privacy, security, and acceptable use policies of the network.  In\n   this light, the Internet Activities Board offers the following basic\n   guidelines for network measurement activities.\n\n   In general, any data collection activity should be undertaken with\n   professional consideration of its impact on the services and users of\n   the network, and activities should be planned to achieve operational\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 1]\nRFC 1262\nMeasurement Guidelines             October 1991\nor research goals with minimal impact.  In some cases, data may be\n   collected continuously, for example to measure packet counts or the\n   distribution of use of specific applications.  In other cases, the\n   planned investigations will be too demanding to be undertaken\n   continuously, because of the intensity of effort required by the\n   researcher or the traffic load on the underlying network\n   infrastructure.  Any data collection activity should be designed with\n   careful consideration of this type of issue, and should be tested\n   thoroughly before being deployed on the Internet.  Any individual\n   initiating a network measurement activity should alert the relevant\n   service providers using mechanisms such as bulletin boards, mailing\n   lists and individual mail communications.\n\n   Furthermore, the data being collected must not be gathered using\n   break-ins to network systems or other illegal or unethical\n   techniques.  If a measurement activity might be construed as a\n   possible security intrusion, the researcher should make it easy for a\n   system administrator at a remote site to determine that the activity\n   is not a break in attempt, by informing the CERT, making information\n   about the study easily available by anonymous FTP or other means\n   [\n1\n,\n2\n,\n3\n].\n\n   More specifically, an individual attempting a network measurement\n   activity should ensure that the following conditions are met:\n\n     1) the data collected will not violate privacy, security, or\n        acceptable use concerns,\n\n     2) if the aggregated data has a potential for privacy intrusions,\n        the researcher must protect privacy, for example by limiting\n        published statistics in such a fashion that individual users or\n        institutions are not identified,\n\n     3) if the data collection activity may be construed to be a\n        security violation, the researchers are strongly advised to\n        inform the CERT in advance, and, if applicable, request some\n        guidance,\n\n     4) the data collection does not unduly load or otherwise interfere\n        with the network or attached machines, in particular, if at all\n        feasible, non-invasive measurement, like passive monitoring,\n        should be considered as the first choice,\n\n     5) if there is an operational impact, the service providers must be\n        contacted,\n\n     6) the study goals, methodology, and plans are widely available, in\n        a fashion that requires minimal effort to locate and retrieve,\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 2]\nRFC 1262\nMeasurement Guidelines             October 1991\nand\n\n     7) if the activity would impose undue burden on a remote machine or\n        network, the measurements should not be performed without prior\n        explicit permission.\n\nReferences\n\n     [\n1\n] Internet Activities Board, \"Ethics and the Internet\",\nRFC-1087\n,\n         January 1989.\n\n     [\n2\n] Holbrook, P., and J. Reynolds, (Eds.), \"Site Security\n         Handbook\",\nRFC-1244\n, FYI-8, CICnet and USC Information Sciences\n         Institute, July 1991.\n\n     [\n3\n] Computer Emergency Response Team/Coordination Center (CERT/CC),\n         Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University,\n         Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, Internet E-mail:\n         cert@cert.sei.cmu.edu, Telephone: 412-268-7090 24-hour hotline.\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   The body of this memo does discuss security issues related to network\n   measurement, particularly the potential confusion of benign\n   measurement with hostile security attacks.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Vinton G. Cerf\n   Chair of the IAB\n   Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n   1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n   Reston, VA 22091\n\n   1-703-620-8990\n\n   VCerf@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 3]\nRFC\n1262\n: Guidelines for Internet Measurement Activities\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1991-09-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1991-09-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1991-09-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:59.226461+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "55d54cf0-218f-4502-9249-82542b1dd6d4", "source_id": "47d1c8f7f8807322d00998ea", "source": "UNESCO", "source_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information", "final_url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information", "artifact_sha256": "2f7cbd0d72b24b0cbed6d6a3613b8ee2568b2e99b2f6dcfe72fc2958a26d216b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 321668, "title": "Communication & Information | UNESCO", "language": "en", "text_length": 6931, "characters": 6931, "text": "Communication & Information | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nРусский\nالعربية\n中文\nUNESCO\nMain navigation\nWho we are\nAbout us\nAbout us\nMember States Profiles\nMember States Profiles\nGlobal presence\nGlobal presence\nPartners\nPartners\nWhat we do\nPeople we serve\nPeople we serve\nCore functions\nCore functions\nObjectives\nObjectives\nProgrammes\nProgrammes\nNews\nNewsroom\nNewsroom\nCalendar\nCalendar\nInternational days and more\nInternational days and more\nStay updated\nStay updated\nResources\nLegal texts\nLegal texts\nSites navigator\nSites navigator\nMultimedia\nMultimedia\nLearning Hub\nLearning Hub\nPublications\nPublications\nDocuments\nDocuments\nGlobal reports\nGlobal reports\nData and indicators\nData and indicators\nMember States Portal\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nChetan Soni\nChetan Soni\nCommunication & Information\nUpholding Information as a Public Good\nHome\nAbout\nAbout\nPrizes\nEmir Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah Prize\nGuillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize\nJikji Memory of the World Prize\nDays\n13 February - World Radio Day\n3 May - World Press Freedom Day\n28 September - International Day for Universal Access to Information\n27 October - World Day for Audiovisual Heritage\n2 November - International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists\nWeeks\n24-31 October - Global Media and Information Literacy Week\nDecades\n2022-2032 - International Decade of Indigenous Languages\nWho's Who\nInternational Cooperation\nInformation for All Programme\nInternational Programme for the Development of Communication\nGlobal Media Defence Fund\nInstitutes and Centres\nFreedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists\nPartners to Promote Freedom of Expression\nNorms & Conventions\nDeclarations\nAbuja Declaration on Global Financing for Media and Information Literacy\nDeclaration of Windhoek on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press\nDubai Declaration on Open Educational Resources (OER)\nThe Tashkent Declaration on Universal Access to Information\nRecommendations\nMultilingualism/Access to Cyberspace\nPreservation/Access to Documentary Heritage\nOpen Educational Resources (OER)\nOur Expertise\nResources\nOnline Courses\nPublications\nIndicators\nInternet Universality Indicators\nMedia Development Indicators\nUNESCO Journalists's Safety Indicators\nData Center\nUNESCO’s Communication and Information Sector (CI Sector) empowers key actors to safeguard fundamental human rights, both in online and off-line spaces, focusing on the following fields:\nCall for applications: Indigenous Language Data Commons Incubator\nDiscover\nFreedom of expression and the safety of journalists\nDiscover\nMedia development and media in emergencies\nDiscover\nMedia and information literacy and digital competencies\nDiscover\nUniversal access to information and digital inclusion\nDiscover\nDigital policies and digital transformation\nDiscover\nDocumentary heritage - Memory of the World programme\nDiscover\nUNESCO & CLEMI / Réseau Canopé\nGrowing up in a connected world\nA Global Resources for families on Media and Information Literacy\nDiscover\nNEW - What you need to know about communication and information and why it matters\nPENDING Text from Akané + NEW PAGE TO BE CREATED modèle ED https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-education-and-why-it-matters?hub=343\nRead more\n13_Phunkod/Shutterstock.com\nNews\nNews\n#1 Jacqueline Baudrier: A Pioneer of Public Media and a Strong Voice at UNESCO\n30 April 2026\nNews\n#5 Lucia Moholy: From the Bauhaus to UNESCO’s Archives\n3 July 2026\nArticle\n#MakeImpunityVisible - UNESCO campaign at Geneva Peace Week 2022\n30 November 2022\nNews\n#SIDS4: UNESCO bolsters Antigua and Barbuda’s public broadcaster to enhance disaster resilience\n6 June 2024\nLoad more\nPress Releases\nPress release\n2/3 of digital content creators do not check their facts before sharing, but want to learn how to do so (UNESCO survey)\n26 November 2024\nPress release\n2023 : Alarming increase in journalists killed in conflict zones\n19 December 2023\nPress release\n64 new inscriptions on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register\n24 May 2023\nPress release\n85% of journalist killings remain unpunished worldwide (UNESCO report)\n2 November 2024\nLoad more\nKey facts\n1,800+\njournalists killed since 1993\n570\nMemory of the World inscriptions\non the International Register since 1995\n139\nUN Member States\nhave adopted various Access to Information legal guarantees\n70%\nof World’s languages in danger of disappearing\nNearly 73%\nof women surveyed have experienced online violence\n12%\nof AI researchers globally are women\n86%\nimpunity for crimes committed against journalists\nNearly 66%\nof the World’s population is online\nCalendar\nEvent\nCat I – International Conference of States\n10th anniversary of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of journalists\n2 November 2022\nEvent\nCat V – Advisory Committee\n12th Meeting of the Global Task Force for Making a Decade of Action for Indigenous Languages (IDIL 2022-2032)\n28 June 2023\nEvent\nCat II – Intergovernmental meeting, other than international conference of States\n12th session of the Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme (IFAP)\n21 June 2023 - 22 June 2023\nEvent\nCat II – Intergovernmental meeting, other than international conference of States\n13th session of the Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme (IFAP)\n23 April 2025 - 24 April 2025\nLoad more\nPublications\nLatest titles\nPublication\nAlula's inscriptions\n7 October 2025\nPublication\nAssessing Internet Development in Argentina\n8 October 2024\nPublication\nAssessing Internet Development in Cabo Verde\n11 October 2024\nPublication\nAssessing Internet development in Ethiopia\n13 August 2025\nLoad more\nGet involved\nCareers\nFellowships\nPrizes\nVisit us\nOrganize your event\nUNESCO Shop\nSubscribe to our newsletters\nNetworks\nAssociated Schools (ASPnet)\nClubs and Associations\nCities Platform\nChairs and UNITWIN Programme\nField Offices\nGoodwill Ambassadors\nInstitutes and Centres\nPartners\nUNEVOC\nYouth\nSpecialized websites\nWorld Heritage\nIntangible Cultural Heritage\nIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission\nInternational Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences\nInternational Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development\nInternational Year of Glaciers’ Preservation\nVirtual Museum of Stolen Cultural Objects\nDive into Heritage\nUNESCO Datahub\nUNESCO Digital Library\nTerms of use\nUNESCO name and logo\nFAQ\nReport fraud, abuse, misconduct\nScam alert\nPreventing harassment at UNESCO events\nPolicies\nProtection of human rights (Procedure 104)\nPrivacy Notice\nAccess to information\nEnvironmental and Social Policies\nStakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM)\nQuery list\nFollow us\nInstagram\nLinkedIn\nYouTube\nX\nTikTok\nFacebook\nWhatsApp\nUNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment.\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "segments": [{"segment_id": "10eb4881-eafd-42e3-9bce-3d7dc3ab4614", "document_id": "55d54cf0-218f-4502-9249-82542b1dd6d4", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Communication & Information | UNESCO\nSkip to main content\nUNESCO\nEnglish\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nРусский\nالعربية\n中文\nUNESCO\nMain navigation\nWho we are\nAbout us\nAbout us\nMember States Profiles\nMember States Profiles\nGlobal presence\nGlobal presence\nPartners\nPartners\nWhat we do\nPeople we serve\nPeople we serve\nCore functions\nCore functions\nObjectives\nObjectives\nProgrammes\nProgrammes\nNews\nNewsroom\nNewsroom\nCalendar\nCalendar\nInternational days and more\nInternational days and more\nStay updated\nStay updated\nResources\nLegal texts\nLegal texts\nSites navigator\nSites navigator\nMultimedia\nMultimedia\nLearning Hub\nLearning Hub\nPublications\nPublications\nDocuments\nDocuments\nGlobal reports\nGlobal reports\nData and indicators\nData and indicators\nMember States Portal\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nQuick links:\nAI\nResponse to Crisis\nKey Challenges\nChetan Soni\nChetan Soni\nCommunication & Information\nUpholding Information as a Public Good\nHome\nAbout\nAbout\nPrizes\nEmir Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah Prize\nGuillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize\nJikji Memory of the World Prize\nDays\n13 February - World Radio Day\n3 May - World Press Freedom Day\n28 September - International Day for Universal Access to Information\n27 October - World Day for Audiovisual Heritage\n2 November - International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists\nWeeks\n24-31 October - Global Media and Information Literacy Week\nDecades\n2022-2032 - International Decade of Indigenous Languages\nWho's Who\nInternational Cooperation\nInformation for All Programme\nInternational Programme for the Development of Communication\nGlobal Media Defence Fund\nInstitutes and Centres\nFreedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists\nPartners to Promote Freedom of Expression\nNorms & Conventions\nDeclarations\nAbuja Declaration on Global Financing for Media and Information Literacy\nDeclaration of Windhoek on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press\nDubai Declaration on Open Educational Resources (OER)\nThe Tashkent Declaration on Universal Access to Information\nRecommendations\nMultilingualism/Access to Cyberspace\nPreservation/Access to Documentary Heritage\nOpen Educational Resources (OER)\nOur Expertise\nResources\nOnline Courses\nPublications\nIndicators\nInternet Universality Indicators\nMedia Development Indicators\nUNESCO Journalists's Safety Indicators\nData Center\nUNESCO’s Communication and Information Sector (CI Sector) empowers key actors to safeguard fundamental human rights, both in online and off-line spaces, focusing on the following fields:\nCall for applications: Indigenous Language Data Commons Incubator\nDiscover\nFreedom of expression and the safety of journalists\nDiscover\nMedia development and media in emergencies\nDiscover\nMedia and information literacy and digital competencies\nDiscover\nUniversal access to information and digital inclusion\nDiscover\nDigital policies and digital transformation\nDiscover\nDocumentary heritage - Memory of the World programme\nDiscover\nUNESCO & CLEMI / Réseau Canopé\nGrowing up in a connected world\nA Global Resources for families on Media and Information Literacy\nDiscover\nNEW - What you need to know about communication and information and why it matters\nPENDING Text from Akané + NEW PAGE TO BE CREATED modèle ED https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-education-and-why-it-matters?hub=343\nRead more\n13_Phunkod/Shutterstock.com\nNews\nNews\n#1 Jacqueline Baudrier: A Pioneer of Public Media and a Strong Voice at UNESCO\n30 April 2026\nNews\n#5 Lucia Moholy: From the Bauhaus to UNESCO’s Archives\n3 July 2026\nArticle\n#MakeImpunityVisible - UNESCO campaign at Geneva Peace Week 2022\n30 November 2022\nNews\n#SIDS4: UNESCO bolsters Antigua and Barbuda’s public broadcaster to enhance disaster resilience\n6 June 2024\nLoad more\nPress Releases\nPress release\n2/3 of digital content creators do not check their facts before sharing, but want to learn how to do so (UNESCO survey)\n26 November 2024\nPress release\n2023 : Alarming increase in journalists killed in conflict zones\n19 December 2023\nPress release\n64 new inscriptions on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register\n24 May 2023\nPress release\n85% of journalist killings remain unpunished worldwide (UNESCO report)\n2 November 2024\nLoad more\nKey facts\n1,800+\njournalists killed since 1993\n570\nMemory of the World inscriptions\non the International Register since 1995\n139\nUN Member States\nhave adopted various Access to Information legal guarantees\n70%\nof World’s languages in danger of disappearing\nNearly 73%\nof women surveyed have experienced online violence\n12%\nof AI researchers globally are women\n86%\nimpunity for crimes committed against journalists\nNearly 66%\nof the World’s population is online\nCalendar\nEvent\nCat I – International Conference of States\n10th anniversary of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of journalists\n2 November 2022\nEvent\nCat V – Advisory Committee\n12th Meeting of the Global Task Force for Making a Decade of Action for Indigenous Languages (IDIL 2022-2032)\n28 June 2023\nEvent\nCat II – Intergovernmental meeting, other than international conference of States\n12th session of the Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme (IFAP)\n21 June 2023 - 22 June 2023\nEvent\nCat II – Intergovernmental meeting, other than international conference of States\n13th session of the Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme (IFAP)\n23 April 2025 - 24 April 2025\nLoad more\nPublications\nLatest titles\nPublication\nAlula's inscriptions\n7 October 2025\nPublication\nAssessing Internet Development in Argentina\n8 October 2024\nPublication\nAssessing Internet Development in Cabo Verde\n11 October 2024\nPublication\nAssessing Internet development in Ethiopia\n13 August 2025\nLoad more\nGet involved\nCareers\nFellowships\nPrizes\nVisit us\nOrganize your event\nUNESCO Shop\nSubscribe to our newsletters\nNetworks\nAssociated Schools (ASPnet)\nClubs and Associations\nCities Platform\nChairs and UNITWIN Programme\nField Offices\nGoodwill Ambassadors\nInstitutes and Centres\nPartners\nUNEVOC\nYouth\nSpecialized websites\nWorld Heritage\nIntangible Cultural Heritage\nIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission\nInternational Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences\nInternational Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development\nInternational Year of Glaciers’ Preservation\nVirtual Museum of Stolen Cultural Objects\nDive into Heritage\nUNESCO Datahub\nUNESCO Digital Library\nTerms of use\nUNESCO name and logo\nFAQ\nReport fraud, abuse, misconduct\nScam alert\nPreventing harassment at UNESCO events\nPolicies\nProtection of human rights (Procedure 104)\nPrivacy Notice\nAccess to information\nEnvironmental and Social Policies\nStakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM)\nQuery list\nFollow us\nInstagram\nLinkedIn\nYouTube\nX\nTikTok\nFacebook\nWhatsApp\nUNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment.\ntop\nWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read\nour privacy notice\n.\nclose", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6931, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 990}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "5742e2ac-26a2-496a-b8ac-ae5b37eb2812", "source_id": "60287132fac78dd6f0a6e9f1", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/nris-meetings-in-2025", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/nris-meetings-in-2026", "artifact_sha256": "b0855247f2715083c61e19d9123d426350bb700ca75b6e20893b6f46a269fe9d", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 118394, "title": "NRIs Meetings in 2026 | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "language": "en", "text_length": 8621, "characters": 8621, "text": "NRIs Meetings in 2026 | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nNRIs Meetings in 2026\nThe\nNRIs\nannual meetings are added to the list below and to the\nIGF calendar\nafter receiving the information from the\nNRIs\ncoordinators. All onsite meetings also include an option to participate online.\nJANUARY 2026\nTrinidad and Tobago\nIGF\n29-30 January 2026, hosted online\nhttps://igf.tt/\nFEBRUARY 2026\nGeorgia\nIGF\n11 February 2026, Tbilisi\nhttps://new.igf.ge/\nCentral African\nIGF\n16-21 February 2026, Bujumbura, Burundi\nhttps://igf-ac.org/\nMARCH 2026\nAPRIL 2026\nRussia\nIGF\n7-8 April 2026, Moscow\nhttps://rigf.ru/en/\nDR Congo\nIGF\n21-22 April 2026, Kinshasa\nhttp://www.fgi.cd/\nCabo Verde\nIGF\n21-22 April 2026, Praia\nhttps://igf.cv/\nNiger\nIGF\n21-24 April 2026, Niamey\nhttps://igf.ne/\nMoldova\nIGF\n23-24 April 2026, Chisinau\nhttps://igf.md/\nCentral Asia\nIGF\n28 April 2026, Dushanbe, Tajikistan\nhttps://caigf.org/\nLiberia\nIGF\n28-30 April 2026, Paynesville\nhttps://liberiaigf.org\nMAY 2026\nSenegal\nIGF\n7-8 May 2026, Dakar, Senegal\nhttps://www.isoc.sn/\nWest Africa\nIGF\n11–15 May 2026, Freetown, Sierra Leone\nhttp://www.waigf.org/\nKenya\nIGF\n19 - 21 May 2026, Nairobi\nhttps://kigf.or.ke/\nKenya Youth\nIGF\n20 May 2026, Nairobi\nhttps://kigf.or.ke/kenya-youth-ifg-2026/\nYouthDIG - European Youth\nIGF\n23-25 May 2026, Brussels, Belgium\nhttps://www.eurodig.org/index.php?id=715\nAustria\nIGF\n26 May 2026, Salzburg\nhttps://www.igf-austria.at/\nCroatia\nIGF\n27 May 2026, Opatija\nhttps://www.carnet.hr/en/projekt/internet-governance-forum/\nBrazil\nIGF\n25-29 May 2026, Belém\nhttps://forumdainternet.cgi.br/\nEuroDIG\n26-27 May 2026, Brussels, Belgium\nhttps://www.eurodig.org/\nUganda\nIGF\n27-28 May 2026, Kampala\nhttps://uigf.ug/\nJUNE 2026\nGambia\nIGF\n2 June 2026\nhttps://igf.gm/\nSwiss Youth\nIGF\n13 June 2026, Bern\nhttps://youth.igf.swiss/\nSwiss\nIGF\n16 June 2026, Bern\nhttp://www.igf.swiss/\nTogo\nIGF\n17 June 2026 (SIG)\n18 June 2026 (Youth\nIGF\n)\n19 June 2026, Lomé (\nIGF\n)\nhttps://intgovforum.tg/\nPortugal\nIGF\n30 June 2026, Lisboa\nhttps://governacaointernet.pt/\nJULY 2026\nSouth Sudan\nIGF\n2 July 2026, Juba\nhttps://ssigf.org.ss/\nTanzania\nIGF\n3 July 2026, Dar es Salaam\nhttps://www.tzigf.or.tz/\nEast Africa\nIGF\n13 July 2026, Gitega, Burundi (EA SIG)\n14 July 2026, Gitega, Burundi (EA\nIGF\n)\nhttps://eaigf.africa/\nBenin Youth\nIGF\n18 July 2026, Parakou\nhttps://youthigf.bj/\nRwanda\nIGF\n27-30 July 2026, Kigali\nhttps://rwigf.rw/\nMauritius\nIGF\n31 July - 1 August 2026, Port Louis\nhttps://halleymovement.org/mauritius-internet-governance-forum-2026/\nSIDS\nIGF\n31 July - 1 August 2026, Port Louis, Mauritius\nhttps://ctu.int/event/3rd-small-islands-developing-states-internet-gove...\nAUGUST 2026\nTanzania Youth\nIGF\n14 August 2026, Arusha, Tanzania\nhttps://youth-igf-tanzania.mystrikingly.com/\nMano River Union\nIGF\n19-21 August 2026, Monrovia, Liberia\nhttp://mruigf.org/\nDR Congo Youth\nIGF\n20th August 2026, Kinshasa\nhttps://youthigfdrc.cd/\nCaribbean\nIGF\n24-26 August 2026, Grenada\nhttps://ctu.int/event/22nd-caribbean-internet-governance-forum/\nYouth Caribbean\nIGF\n24 August 2026, Grenada\nhttps://ctu.int/event/5th-caribbean-youth-internet-governance-forum/\nPeru\nIGF\n27–28 August 2026, Arequipa\nhttps://gobernanzadeinternet.pe/\nSEPTEMBER 2026\nGermany\nIGF\n9 September 2026, Berlin\nhttps://igf-d.de/igf-d-2026/\nIGF\n-USA\n9 September 2026, Philadelphia\nhttps://igfusa.us/\nPanama\nIGF\n10 September 2026, Ciudad del Saber\nhttps://igfpanama.pa/\nMongolia\nIGF\n14-15 September 2026\nhttps://www.facebook.com/share/1FDEPSCP8p/\nColombia\nIGF\n16-17 September, Bogota\nhttps://gobernanzadeinternet.co/\nPanama Youth\nIGF\n17 September 2026, Instituto Técnico Superior Especializado (ITSE), Panama\nhttps://www.youthigf.pa/\nMaldives\nIGF\n19 September 2026, Villa College, Malé\nhttps://maldivesigf.mv/\nBenin\nIGF\n19 September 2026, Cotonou\nhttps://fgi.bj\nAustralia\nIGF\n22-23 September 2026, Canberra\nhttps://auigf.au/\nSri Lanka\nIGF\n23 September 2026, Sri Lanka\nhttps://igfsrilanka.org/\nOCTOBER 2026\nCanada\nIGF\n2 October 2026, Toronto\nhttp://www.canadianigf.ca/\nLebanon\nIGF\n6–7 October 2026, Beirut\nhttp://www.igflebanon.com/\nFinnish\nIGF\n7 October 2026, Helsinki\nhttps://internetforum.fi/\nAsia Pacific\nIGF\n4-7 October 2026, Kathmandu, Nepal\nhttps://ap.rigf.asia/\nParaguay\nIGF\n7-8 October 2026,\nAsunción\nhttps://igf.org.py\nKazakhstan\nIGF\n14 October 2026, Almaty city\nhttp://www.igf.kz/\nEl Salvador\nIGF\n14-15 October 2026, Hacienda Los Miranda, San Salvador\nhttps://igf.sv/\nDigital World Summit Greece (Greece\nIGF\n)\n15 October 2026, Athens\nhttps://digitalworldsummit.gr/\nBangladesh\nIGF\n15-17 October 2026, Dhaka\nhttps://www.bangladeshigf.org/\nPoland\nIGF\n19-20 October 2026, Bydgoszcz\nhttps://www.gov.pl/web/igf-poland\nEcuador\nIGF\n22 October 2026, Quito\nhttps://corpece.org.ec/igf2026/igf_ecuador_2026.html\nIraq\nIGF\n22–23 October 2026, Baghdad\nhttps://igfiraq.com/\nItaly\nIGF\n29-30 October 2026, Naples\nhttps://www.agid.gov.it/it/agenzia/attivita-internazionali/internet-gov...\nNOVEMBER 2026\nAfrican\nIGF\n2–5 November 2026, Accra, Ghana\nhttps://igf.africa/africa-igf-2026/\nFrance\nIGF\n3 November 2026, Villejuif\nhttps://www.igf-france.fr/\nIreland\nIGF\n5 November 2026, Dublin\nhttps://www.igf-ireland.ie/\nArmenia\nIGF\n6 November 2026, Yerevan\nhttps://armigf.am/\nLatin America and Caribbean\nIGF\n(LACIGF)\n4-6 November 2026, Fortaleza, Brazil\nhttps://lacigf.org/\nSouth Eastern European Dialogue on Internet Governance (SEEDIG)\n13-14 November 2026, Saravejo, Bosnia and Hercegovina\nhttps://seedig.net/\nNorth Macedonia\nIGF\n18 November 2026, Innox Center, Skopje\nhttps://igfmkd.mk\nYouth LACIGF\nWeek of 3 November 2026, Fortaleza, Brasil\nhttps://youthlacigf.lat/\nDECEMBER 2026\nPast year meetings are archived\n.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "d22e6635-ea68-4cfe-9f6f-8fe906a5e8cc", "document_id": "5742e2ac-26a2-496a-b8ac-ae5b37eb2812", "ordinal": 0, "text": "NRIs Meetings in 2026 | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nNRIs Meetings in 2026\nThe\nNRIs\nannual meetings are added to the list below and to the\nIGF calendar\nafter receiving the information from the\nNRIs\ncoordinators. All onsite meetings also include an option to participate online.\nJANUARY 2026\nTrinidad and Tobago\nIGF\n29-30 January 2026, hosted online\nhttps://igf.tt/\nFEBRUARY 2026\nGeorgia\nIGF\n11 February 2026, Tbilisi\nhttps://new.igf.ge/\nCentral African\nIGF\n16-21 February 2026, Bujumbura, Burundi\nhttps://igf-ac.org/\nMARCH 2026\nAPRIL 2026\nRussia\nIGF\n7-8 April 2026, Moscow\nhttps://rigf.ru/en/\nDR Congo\nIGF\n21-22 April 2026, Kinshasa\nhttp://www.fgi.cd/\nCabo Verde\nIGF\n21-22 April 2026, Praia\nhttps://igf.cv/\nNiger\nIGF\n21-24 April 2026, Niamey\nhttps://igf.ne/\nMoldova\nIGF\n23-24 April 2026, Chisinau\nhttps://igf.md/\nCentral Asia\nIGF\n28 April 2026, Dushanbe, Tajikistan\nhttps://caigf.org/\nLiberia\nIGF\n28-30 April 2026, Paynesville\nhttps://liberiaigf.org\nMAY 2026\nSenegal\nIGF\n7-8 May 2026, Dakar, Senegal\nhttps://www.isoc.sn/\nWest Africa\nIGF\n11–15 May 2026, Freetown, Sierra Leone\nhttp://www.waigf.org/\nKenya\nIGF\n19 - 21 May 2026, Nairobi\nhttps://kigf.or.ke/\nKenya Youth\nIGF\n20 May 2026, Nairobi\nhttps://kigf.or.ke/kenya-youth-ifg-2026/\nYouthDIG - European Youth\nIGF\n23-25 May 2026, Brussels, Belgium\nhttps://www.eurodig.org/index.php?id=715\nAustria\nIGF\n26 May 2026, Salzburg\nhttps://www.igf-austria.at/\nCroatia\nIGF\n27 May 2026, Opatija\nhttps://www.carnet.hr/en/projekt/internet-governance-forum/\nBrazil\nIGF\n25-29 May 2026, Belém\nhttps://forumdainternet.cgi.br/\nEuroDIG\n26-27 May 2026, Brussels, Belgium\nhttps://www.eurodig.org/\nUganda\nIGF\n27-28 May 2026, Kampala\nhttps://uigf.ug/\nJUNE 2026\nGambia\nIGF\n2 June 2026\nhttps://igf.gm/\nSwiss Youth\nIGF\n13 June 2026, Bern\nhttps://youth.igf.swiss/\nSwiss\nIGF\n16 June 2026, Bern\nhttp://www.igf.swiss/\nTogo\nIGF\n17 June 2026 (SIG)\n18 June 2026 (Youth\nIGF\n)\n19 June 2026, Lomé (\nIGF\n)\nhttps://intgovforum.tg/\nPortugal\nIGF\n30 June 2026, Lisboa\nhttps://governacaointernet.pt/\nJULY 2026\nSouth Sudan\nIGF\n2 July 2026, Juba\nhttps://ssigf.org.ss/\nTanzania\nIGF\n3 July 2026, Dar es Salaam\nhttps://www.tzigf.or.tz/\nEast Africa\nIGF\n13 July 2026, Gitega, Burundi (EA SIG)\n14 July 2026, Gitega, Burundi (EA\nIGF\n)\nhttps://eaigf.africa/\nBenin Youth\nIGF\n18 July 2026, Parakou\nhttps://youthigf.bj/\nRwanda\nIGF\n27-30 July 2026, Kigali\nhttps://rwigf.rw/\nMauritius\nIGF\n31 July - 1 August 2026, Port Louis\nhttps://halleymovement.org/mauritius-internet-governance-forum-2026/\nSIDS\nIGF\n31 July - 1 August 2026, Port Louis, Mauritius\nhttps://ctu.int/event/3rd-small-islands-developing-states-internet-gove...\nAUGUST 2026\nTanzania Youth\nIGF\n14 August 2026, Arusha, Tanzania\nhttps://youth-igf-tanzania.mystrikingly.com/\nMano River Union\nIGF\n19-21 August 2026, Monrovia, Liberia\nhttp://mruigf.org/\nDR Congo Youth\nIGF\n20th August 2026, Kinshasa\nhttps://youthigfdrc.cd/\nCaribbean\nIGF\n24-26 August 2026, Grenada\nhttps://ctu.int/event/22nd-caribbean-internet-governance-forum/\nYouth Caribbean\nIGF\n24 August 2026, Grenada\nhttps://ctu.int/event/5th-caribbean-youth-internet-governance-forum/\nPeru\nIGF\n27–28 August 2026, Arequipa\nhttps://gobernanzadeinternet.pe/\nSEPTEMBER 2026\nGermany\nIGF\n9 September 2026, Berlin\nhttps://igf-d.de/igf-d-2026/\nIGF\n-USA\n9 September 2026, Philadelphia\nhttps://igfusa.us/\nPanama\nIGF\n10 September 2026, Ciudad del Saber\nhttps://igfpanama.pa/\nMongolia\nIGF\n14-15 September 2026\nhttps://www.facebook.com/share/1FDEPSCP8p/\nColombia\nIGF\n16-17 September, Bogota\nhttps://gobernanzadeinternet.co/\nPanama Youth\nIGF\n17 September 2026, Instituto Técnico Superior Especializado (ITSE), Panama\nhttps://www.youthigf.pa/\nMaldives\nIGF\n19 September 2026, Villa College, Malé\nhttps://maldivesigf.mv/\nBenin\nIGF\n19 September 2026, Cotonou\nhttps://fgi.bj\nAustralia\nIGF\n22-23 September 2026, Canberra\nhttps://auigf.au/\nSri Lanka\nIGF\n23 September 2026, Sri Lanka\nhttps://igfsrilanka.org/\nOCTOBER 2026\nCanada\nIGF\n2 October 2026, Toronto\nhttp://www.canadianigf.ca/\nLebanon\nIGF\n6–7 October 2026, Beirut\nhttp://www.igflebanon.com/\nFinnish\nIGF\n7 October 2026, Helsinki\nhttps://internetforum.fi/\nAsia Pacific\nIGF\n4-7 October 2026, Kathmandu, Nepal\nhttps://ap.rigf.asia/\nParaguay\nIGF\n7-8 October 2026,\nAsunción\nhttps://igf.org.py\nKazakhstan\nIGF\n14 October 2026, Almaty city\nhttp://www.igf.kz/\nEl Salvador\nIGF\n14-15 October 2026, Hacienda Los Miranda, San Salvador\nhttps://igf.sv/\nDigital World Summit Greece (Greece\nIGF\n)\n15 October 2026, Athens\nhttps://digitalworldsummit.gr/\nBangladesh\nIGF\n15-17 October 2026, Dhaka\nhttps://www.bangladeshigf.org/\nPoland\nIGF\n19-20 October 2026, Bydgoszcz\nhttps://www.gov.pl/web/igf-poland\nEcuador\nIGF\n22 October 2026, Quito\nhttps://corpece.org.ec/igf2026/igf_ecuador_2026.html\nIraq\nIGF\n22–23 October 2026, Baghdad\nhttps://igfiraq.com/\nItaly\nIGF\n29-30 October 2026, Naples\nhttps://www.agid.gov.it/it/agenzia/attivita-internazionali/internet-gov...\nNOVEMBER 2026\nAfrican\nIGF\n2–5 November 2026, Accra, Ghana\nhttps://igf.africa/africa-igf-2026/\nFrance\nIGF\n3 November 2026, Villejuif\nhttps://www.igf-france.fr/\nIreland\nIGF\n5 November 2026, Dublin\nhttps://www.igf-ireland.ie/\nArmenia\nIGF\n6 November 2026, Yerevan\nhttps://armigf.am/\nLatin America and Caribbean\nIGF\n(LACIGF)\n4-6 November 2026, Fortaleza, Brazil\nhttps://lacigf.org/\nSouth Eastern European Dialogue on Internet Governance (SEEDIG)\n13-14 November 2026, Saravejo, Bosnia and Hercegovina\nhttps://seedig.net/\nNorth Macedonia\nIGF\n18 November 2026, Innox Center, Skopje\nhttps://igfmkd.mk\nYouth LACIGF\nWeek of 3 November 2026, Fortaleza, Brasil\nhttps://youthlacigf.lat/\nDECEMBER 2026\nPast year meetings are archived\n.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 8621, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1128}}], "published_at": "2026-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "NRIs Meetings in 2026 | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "notes": "Year found in title: 'NRIs Meetings in 2026 | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)'"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "58c65d20-f68e-49ed-b560-001b5922f219", "source_id": "35a3594e2a5aa36750612a46", "source": "EU", "source_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-decade", "final_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/page-not-found", "artifact_sha256": "58c79bfab7880c00e847e6e9326be86b455f1954b5a4248730adcaa4d96b513a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 46156, "title": "Page not found | Shaping Europe’s digital future", "language": "en", "text_length": 1632, "characters": 1632, "text": "Page not found | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\nPage not found\nPage not found\nSorry, we could not find that page\nThe page or document you are looking for may have been moved or the URL may be incorrect.\nSome suggestions to help your search:\nUse the search box above\nBrowse the menu sections above\nReport any broken link via our\ncontact form\nPolicies\nFind out more about the Digital EU policies\nNews highlights\nCheck our latest news and publications\nJobs opportunities\nFind out about open vacancies\nSubscribe to the news\nCheck out our newsletters and register\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "segments": [{"segment_id": "920d1917-896a-4167-865f-6a020ddfb7db", "document_id": "58c65d20-f68e-49ed-b560-001b5922f219", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Page not found | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\nPage not found\nPage not found\nSorry, we could not find that page\nThe page or document you are looking for may have been moved or the URL may be incorrect.\nSome suggestions to help your search:\nUse the search box above\nBrowse the menu sections above\nReport any broken link via our\ncontact form\nPolicies\nFind out more about the Digital EU policies\nNews highlights\nCheck our latest news and publications\nJobs opportunities\nFind out about open vacancies\nSubscribe to the news\nCheck out our newsletters and register\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1632, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 258}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "59054360-0be5-47cd-9f0b-5b83559f433c", "source_id": "472caf6809919c5f7f69c37b", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1192", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1192/", "artifact_sha256": "472caf6809919c5f7f69c37b6bb4755e3741166e05f45f4a80c310ce9f9f1d94", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 152928, "title": "RFC 1192: Commercialization of the Internet Summary Report", "language": "en", "text_length": 34463, "characters": 34463, "text": "RFC 1192: Commercialization of the Internet summary report | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1192\n:\nCommercialization of the Internet summary report\nB. Kahin\nInformational\nNetwork Working Working Group                           B. Kahin, Editor\nRequest for Comments: 1192                                       Harvard\n                                                           November 1990\nCommercialization of the Internet\nSummary Report\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo is based on a workshop held by the Science, Technology and\n   Public Policy Program of the John F. Kennedy School of Government,\n   Harvard University, March 1-3, 1990.\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify any standard.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nIntroduction\n\n   \"The networks of Stages 2 and 3 will be implemented and operated so\n   that they can become commercialized; industry will then be able to\n   supplant the government in supplying these network services.\"  --\n   Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee, Program Plan for\n   the National Research and Education Network, May 23, 1989, pp. 4-5.\n\n   \"The NREN should be the prototype of a new national information\n   infrastructure which could be available to every home, office and\n   factory.  Wherever information is used, from manufacturing to high-\n   definition home video entertainment, and most particularly in\n   education, the country will benefit from deployment of this\n   technology....  The corresponding ease of inter-computer\n   communication will then provide the benefits associated with the NREN\n   to the entire nation, improving the productivity of all information-\n   handling activities.  To achieve this end, the deployment of the\n   Stage 3 NREN will include a specific, structured process resulting in\n   transition of the network from a government operation a commercial\n   service.\"  -- Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal\n   High Performance Computing Program, September 8, 1989, pp. 32, 35.\n\n   \"The National Science Foundation shall, in cooperation with the\n   Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of\n   Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and\n   other appropriate agencies, provide for the establishment of a\n   national multi-gigabit-per-second research and education computer\n   network by 1996, to be known as the National Research and Education\n   Network, which shall:\n\n        (1) link government, industry, and the education\nKahin                                                           [Page 1]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\ncommunity;\n             ....\n             (6) be established in a manner which fosters and\n        maintains competition and private sector investment in high\n        speed data networking within the telecommunications\n        industry;\n             ....\n             (8) be phased out when commercial networks can meet the\n        networking needs of American researchers.\"\n\n   -- S. 1067, 101st Congress, 2nd Session, as marked up April 3, 1990\n   [\"High-Performance Computing Act of 1990\"], Title II,\nSection 201\n.\n\nBackground\n\n   This report is based on a workshop held at the John F. Kennedy School\n   of Government, Harvard University March 1-3, 1990, by the Harvard\n   Science, Technology and Public Policy Program.  Sponsored by the\n   National Science Foundation and the U.S.  Congress Office of\n   Technology Assessment, the workshop was designed to explore the\n   issues involved in the commercialization of the Internet, including\n   the envisioned National Research and Education Network (NREN).\n   Rather than recapitulate the discussion at the workshop, this report\n   attempts to synthesize the issues for the benefit of those not\n   present at the workshop.  It is intended for readers familiar with\n   the general landscape of the Internet, the NSFNET, and proposals and\n   plans for the NREN.\n\n   At the workshop, Stephen Wolff, Director of the NSF Division of\n   Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure,\n   distinguished \"commercialization\" and \"privatization\" on the basis of\n   his experience developing policy for the NSFNET.  He defined\n   commercialization as permitting commercial users and providers to\n   access and use Internet facilities and services and privatization as\n   the elimination of the federal role in providing or subsidizing\n   network services.  In principle, privatization could be achieved by\n   shifting the federal subsidy from network providers to users, thus\n   spurring private sector investment in network services.  Creation of\n   a market for private vendors would in turn defuse concerns about\n   acceptable use and commercialization.\n\nCommercialization and Privatization\n\n   Commercialization.  In the past, many companies were connected to the\n   old ARPANET when it was entirely underwritten by the federal\n   government.  Now, corporate R&D facilities are already connected to,\n   and are sometimes voting members of, mid-level networks.  There are\n   mail connections from the Internet to commercial services such as\nKahin                                                           [Page 2]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nMCIMAIL, SprintMail, and Compuserve.  DASnet provides a commercial\n   mail gateway to and from the Internet and commercial mail services.\n   UUNET, a nonprofit corporation, markets TCP/IP services (Alternet)\n   with access to the Internet as well as mail services.  Performance\n   Systems International (PSI), a startup company which now operates\n   NYSERNET (the New York State regional network, partially funded by\n   NSF) is aggressively marketing Internet-connected TCP/IP services on\n   the East and West Coasts.  RLG is selling access to its RLIN database\n   over the Internet directly to end users.  Other fee-based services\n   include Clarinet, a private news filtering service, and FAST, a non-\n   profit parts brokering service.  However, in all these cases, any use\n   of the NSFNET backbone must, in principle, support the \"purpose of\n   the NSFNET.\"\n\n   Under the draft acceptable use policy in effect from 1988 to mid-\n   1990, use of the NSFNET backbone had to support the purpose of\n   \"scientific research and other scholarly activities.\"  The interim\n   policy promulgated in June 1990 is the same, except that the purpose\n   of the NSFNET is now \"to support research and education in and among\n   academic institutions in the U.S. by access to unique resources and\n   the opportunity for collaborative work.\"  Despite this limitation,\n   use of the NSFNET backbone has been growing at 15-20% per month or\n   more, and there are regular requests for access by commercial\n   services.  Even though such services may, directly or indirectly,\n   support the purposes of the NSFNET, they raise prospects of\n   overburdening network resources and unfair competition with private\n   providers of network services (notably the public X.25 packet-\n   switched networks, such as SprintNet and Tymnet).\n\n   Privatization.  In some respects, the Internet is already\n   substantially privatized.  The physical circuits are owned by the\n   private sector, and the logical networks are usually managed and\n   operated by the private sector.  The nonprofit regional networks of\n   the NSFNET increasingly contract out routine operations, including\n   network information centers, while retaining control of policy and\n   planning functions.  This helps develop expertise, resources, and\n   competition in the private sector and so facilitates the development\n   of similar commercial services.\n\n   In the case of NSFNET, the annual federal investment covers only a\n   minor part of the backbone and the regional networks.  Although the\n   NSFNET backbone is operated as a cooperative agreement between NSF\n   and Merit, the Michigan higher education network, NSF contributes\n   less than $3 million of approximately $10 million in annual costs.\n   The State of Michigan Strategic Fund contributes $1 million and the\n   balance is covered by contributed services from the subcontractors to\n   Merit, IBM and MCI.\nKahin                                                           [Page 3]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nAt the regional level, NSF provides approximately 40% of the\n   operating costs of the mid-level networks it funds -- with the\n   remainder covered by membership and connection fees, funding from\n   state governments, and in-kind contributions.  This calculation does\n   not include a number of authorized networks (e.g., PREPnet, and,\n   until recently, NEARnet and CERFnet) that receive no NSF funding.\n   However, NSF also funds institutional connections to the NSFNET,\n   which includes payments by the institution to the regional network.\n   Other agencies (DOD, NASA, and DOE) have also funded some connections\n   to NSFNET networks for the benefit of their respective research\n   communities -- and have occasionally funded the networks directly.\n\n   Finally, the campus-level networks at academic institutions probably\n   represent a perhaps 7-10 times larger annual investment than the\n   mid-level networks and the backbone together, yet there is no federal\n   funding program at this level.  Furthermore, since these local\n   networks must ordinarily be built by the institution rather than\n   leased, there is an additional capitalization cost incurred by the\n   institutions, which, annualized and aggregated, is perhaps another\n   20-50 times the annual costs of the mid-level and backbone networks.\n   (These figures are the roughest of estimates, intended only for\n   illustration.)\n\nThe NSFNET Backbone as a Free Good\n\n   Whereas the NSF funding of mid-level networks varies greatly -- from\n   0% to 75% -- the backbone is available as a free good to the NSF-\n   funded mid-level networks.  It is also used free of charge by other\n   authorized networks, including networks not considered part of\n   NSFNET: CSNET, BITNET, UUNET, and PSI, as well as the research\n   networks of other federal agencies.  As noted, their use of the\n   backbone is in principle limited to the support of academic research\n   and education.\n\n   Through their use of the NSFNET backbone, these networks appear to be\n   enjoying a subsidy from NSF -- and from IBM, MCI, and the State of\n   Michigan.  BITNET and some agency networks even use the backbone for\n   their internal traffic.  Nonetheless, these other networks generally\n   add value to NSFNET for NSFNET users and regional networks insofar as\n   all networks benefit from access to each other's users and resources.\n\n   However, small or startup networks generally bring in fewer network-\n   based resources, so one side may benefit more than the other.  To the\n   extent that the mail traffic is predominantly mailing lists (or other\n   information resources) originating on one network, questions of\n   imbalance and implicit subsidy arise.  For example, because of the\n   mailing lists available without charge on the Internet, three times\n   as much traffic runs over the mail gateway from the Internet to\nKahin                                                           [Page 4]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nMCIMAIL as from MCIMAIL to the Internet.  This pattern is reinforced\n   by the sender-pays fee structure of MCIMAIL, which discourages\n   mailing list distribution from within MCIMAIL.\n\n   The impact of such imbalances is not clear.  For now, the capacity of\n   the NSFNET backbone is staying ahead of demand: It jumped from 56\n   Kbps to 1.544 Mbps (T-1) in 1988 and will go to 45 Mbps over the next\n   year.  But NSF is concerned about a possible recurrence of the\n   congestion which drove users off the NSFNET prior to the 1988\n   upgrade.  Given the tripling of campus-level connections over the\n   past year, continued growth in users at each site, the parade of new\n   resources available over the network, and, especially, the\n   development of high-bandwidth uses, there is reason to fear that\n   demand may again overwhelm capacity.\n\n   Offering the NSFNET backbone at no cost to authorized networks both\n   encourages undisciplined use of the backbone and inhibits private\n   investment in backbone networks.  It constrains the development of a\n   market for commercial TCP/IP services by diverting an established and\n   rapidly growing user base to a subsidized resource.  Charging NSFNET\n   regionals and other mid-level networks for the use of the NSFNET\n   backbone would resolve this problem, but this would impose a\n   substantial cost burden on the mid-level networks, which would in\n   turn have to raise membership and connection fees dramatically.  To\n   compensate, the NSF subsidy that now underwrites the backbone could\n   be moved down the distribution chain to the users of the backbone --\n   i.e., to the regional networks, to the campuses, or even to\n   researchers themselves.\n\n   Each option poses unique opportunities and problems.  In theory, the\n   further down the chain the subsidy is pushed, the more accountable\n   providers will be to end-user needs.  Funding in hands of researchers\n   would make universities more responsive to researchers' networking\n   needs.  Funding in the hands of universities would in turn make\n   regional networks more responsive and competitive.  And funds for\n   regional networks would spur a general market for backbone services.\n   But the mechanisms for expressing user demand upward through these\n   tiers are imperfect.  And, from an administrative standpoint, it is\n   easier for NSF to simply provide one free backbone to all comers --\n   rather than deal with 25 mid-level networks, or 500 universities, or\n   perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of individual researchers.\n\nOption: Funding Researchers\n\n   It would be possible to earmark funds for network services in agency\n   research grants as a matter of course, so that no new administrative\n   process would be required.  But since network costs are presently not\n   usage based, such funding will not readily translate into\nKahin                                                           [Page 5]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nidentifiable services and may simply end up in local overhead\n   accounts since few institutions allocate out costs of access to the\n   Internet.  The use of vouchers rather than cash add-ons might help\n   ensure that federal resources are in fact applied to qualifying wide\n   area network services -- and possibly avoid the imposition of\n   standard institutional overhead on direct funding.  However, if\n   vouchers can be sold to other institutions, as economists would\n   advocate in the interests of market efficiency, these advantages may\n   be compromised.  Even non-transferable vouchers may create a unique\n   set of accounting problems for both funding agencies and\n   institutional recipients.\n\n   A federal subsidy channeled automatically to research grants could\n   substantially limit or segregate the user community.  It would tend\n   to divide the academic community by exacerbating obvious divisions\n   between the resource-rich and resource-poor -- between federally\n   funded researchers and other researchers, between scientists and\n   faculty in other disciplines, and between research and education.\n   Within the academic community, there is considerable sentiment for\n   providing basic network services out of institutional overhead to\n   faculty and researchers in all disciplines, at least as long as basic\n   services remain unmetered and relatively low at the institutional\n   level.  Of course, special costing and funding may well make sense\n   for high-bandwidth usage-sensitive network services (such as remote\n   imaging) as they become available in the future.\n\nOption: Funding Institutions\n\n   Alternatively, funding for external network services, whether in the\n   form of cash or vouchers, could be provided directly to institutions\n   without linking it directly to federal research funding.  As it is,\n   institutions may apply for one-time grants to connect to regional\n   networks, and these are awarded based on peer assessment of a number\n   of different factors, not just the quality of the institution's\n   research.  But redirecting the subsidy of the backbone could provide\n   regular support at the institutional level in ways that need not\n   involve peer review.  For example, annual funding might be tied to\n   the number of PhD candidates within specific disciplines -- or to all\n   degrees awarded in science.  Geographic location could be factored in\n   -- as could financial need.  This, of course, would amount to an\n   entitlement program, a rarity for NSF.  Nonetheless, it would allow\n   institutions to make decisions based on their own needs -- without\n   putting NSF in the position of judging among competing networks,\n   nonprofit and for-profit.\n\n   There are, however, questions about what sort of services the\n   earmarked funding or vouchers could be used for.  Could they be used\n   to pay the institution's BITNET fee?  Or a SprintNet bill?  Or to\nKahin                                                           [Page 6]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nacquire modems?  For information services?  And, if so, what sort?\n   Such questions force the funding agency to assume a kind of\n   regulatory in an environment where competing equities, demonstrated\n   need, technological foresight, and politics must be constantly\n   weighed and juggled.\n\nOption: Funding Regional Networks\n\n   Shifting the subsidy to the regional networks is appealing in that it\n   appears to be the least radical alternative and would only require\n   allocating funds among some two dozen contenders.  Since most of the\n   regional networks are already receiving federal funding, it would be\n   relatively simple to tack on funds for the purchase of backbone\n   services.  However, providing additional funding at this level\n   highlights the problem of competition among mid-level networks.\n\n   Although most regional networks are to some degree creatures of NSF,\n   funded to ensure the national reach of NSFNET, they do not hold\n   exclusive geographic franchises, and in some areas, there is\n   competition between regionals for members/customers.  NSF grants to\n   regional networks, by their very size, have an effect of unleveling\n   the playing field among regionals and distorting competitive\n   strengths and weaknesses.\n\n   Alternet and PSI further complicate the picture, since there is no\n   clear basis for NSF or other agencies to discriminate against them.\n   The presence of these privately funded providers (and the possibility\n   of others) raises difficult questions about what network services the\n   government should be funding: What needs is the market now capable of\n   meeting?  And where will it continue to fail?\n\n   Experience with regulation of the voice network shows that it is\n   inefficient to subsidize local residential service for everybody.  If\n   one is concerned about people dropping off the voice network -- or\n   institutions not getting on the Internet -- the answer is to identify\n   and subsidize those who really need help.  The market-driven\n   suppliers of TCP/IP-based Internet connectivity are naturally going\n   after those markets which can be wired at a low cost per institution,\n   i.e., large metropolitan areas, especially those with a high\n   concentration of R&D facilities, such as Boston, San Francisco, and\n   Washington, DC.  In the voice environment, this kind of targeted\n   marketing by unregulated companies is widely recognized as cream-\n   skimming.\n\n   Like fully regulated voice common carriers (i.e., the local exchange\n   carriers), the non-profit NSF-funded regional networks are expected\n   to serve all institutions within a large geographic area.  In areas\n   with few R&D facilities, this will normally result in a\nKahin                                                           [Page 7]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\ndisproportionately large investment in leased lines.  Either remote\n   institutions must pay for the leased line to the nearest network\n   point of presence -- or the network must include the leased line as\n   part of common costs.  If the regional network assumes such costs, it\n   will not be price-competitive with other more compact networks.\n\n   Accordingly, a subsidy redirected to the regional networks could be\n   keyed to the density of the network.  This might be calculated by\n   number of circuit miles per member institution or some form of\n   aggregate institutional size, figured for either the network as a\n   whole or for a defined subregion.  This subsidy could be available to\n   both for-profit and non-profit networks, but only certain non-profit\n   networks would meet the density requirement, presumably those most in\n   need of help.\n\nIncreasing the Value of the Connection\n\n   The principal advantage in underwriting the backbone is that it\n   provides a evenhanded, universal benefit that does not involve NSF in\n   choosing among competing networks.  By increasing the value of\n   belonging to a regional network, the backbone offers all attached\n   networks a continuing annual subsidy commensurate with their size.\n\n   Increased value can also derived from access to complementary\n   resources -- supercomputer cycles, databases, electronic newsletters,\n   special instruments, etc. -- over the network.  Like direct funding\n   of backbone, funding these resources would induce more institutions\n   to join regional networks and to upgrade their connections.  For\n   example, where a database already exists, mounting it on the network\n   can be a very cost-effective investment, increasing the value of the\n   network as well as directly benefiting the users of the database.\n\n   Commercial information services (e.g., Dialog, Orbit, Lexis) may\n   serve this function well since they represents resources already\n   available without any public investment.  Marketing commercial\n   services to universities over the Internet is permissible in that it\n   supports academic research and education (although the guidelines\n   state that such commercial uses \"should be reviewed on a case-by-case\n   basis\" by NSF).\n\n   But to date there has been remarkably little use of the regional\n   networks, let alone the NSFNET backbone, to deliver commercial\n   information services.  In part, this is because the commercial\n   services are unaware of the opportunities or unsure how to market in\n   this environment and are concerned about losing control of their\n   product.  It is also due to uneasiness within the regional networks\n   about usage policies and reluctance to compete directly with public\n   packet-switched networks.  However, for weak regional networks, it\nKahin                                                           [Page 8]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nmay be necessary to involve commercial services in order to attract\n   and hold sufficient membership -- at least if NSF subsidies are\n   withdrawn.  Without a critical mass of users, commercialization may\n   need to precede privatization.\n\nImpact of Removing NSF Subsidy from the Backbone\n\n   Any shift to a less direct form of subsidy may cause some disocation\n   and distress at the regional network level -- until the benefits\n   begin to be felt.  No regional network has yet folded, and no\n   institution has permanently dropped its connection to a regional\n   network as a consequence of higher prices, but concerns about the\n   viability of some regionals would suggest that any withdrawal of\n   subsidy proceed in phases.\n\n   Moreover, as the NSF subsidy vanishes, the operation of the backbone\n   becomes a private concern of Merit, the Michigan Strategic Fund, IBM,\n   and MCI.  While Merit and the Michigan Strategic Fund are more or\n   less public enterprises within the state, they are essentially\n   private entrepreneurs in the national operation of a backbone\n   network.  Without NSF's imprimatur and the leveraging federal funds,\n   the remaining parties are much less likely to treat the backbone as a\n   charity offering and may well look to recovering costs and using\n   revenues to expand service.\n\n   The backbone operation could conceivably become either a nonprofit or\n   for-profit utility.  While nonprofit status might be more appealing\n   to the academic networking community now served by the backbone, it\n   is not readily apparent how a broadly representative nonprofit\n   corporation, or even a cooperative, could be constituted in a form\n   its many heterogeneous users would embrace.  A non-profit\n   organization may also have difficulty financing rapid expansion of\n   services.  At the same time, the fact that it will compete with\n   private suppliers may preclude recognition as a tax-exempt\n   organization -- and so its ability to reinvest retained earnings.\n\n   Operation of the backbone on a for-profit basis would attract private\n   investment and could be conducted with relative efficiency.  However,\n   given the dominant position of the backbone, a for-profit operation\n   could conceivably get entangled in complex antitrust, regulatory, and\n   political struggles.  A nonprofit organization is not immune from\n   such risks, but to the extent its users are represented in policy-\n   making, tensions are more likely to get expressed and resolved\n   internally.\n\n   The status of backbone or regional networks within the Internet is\n   entirely separate from the question of whether network services are\n   metered and charged on a usage basis.  Confusion in this regard stems\nKahin                                                           [Page 9]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nfrom the fact that the low-speed public data networks (SprintNet,\n   TymNet), which are sometimes seen as competitive to Internet\n   services, do bill on a connect-time basis.  However, these commercial\n   services use X.25 connection-based packet-switching -- rather than\n   the connectionless (datagram) TCP/IP packet-switching used on the\n   Internet.  Internet services could conceivably be billed on per-\n   packet basis, but the accounting overhead would be high and packets\n   do not contain information about individual users.  At bottom, this\n   is a marketing issue, and there is no evidence of any market for\n   metered services -- except possibly among very small users.  The\n   private suppliers, Alternet and PSI, both sell \"pipes\" not packets.\n\nPrivatization by Function\n\n   As an alternative approach to encouraging privatization, Dr.  Wolff\n   suggested barring mature services such as electronic mail from the\n   subsidized network.  In particular, NSF could bar the mail and news\n   protocols, SMTP and NNTP, from the backbone and thereby encourage\n   private providers to offer a national mail backbone connecting the\n   regional networks.  Implementation would not be trivial, but it would\n   arguably help move the academic and research community toward the\n   improved functionality of X.400 standards.  It would also reduce\n   traffic over the backbone by about 30% -- although given continued\n   growth in traffic, this would only buy two months of time.\n\n   If mail were moved off the regional networks as well as off the\n   NSFNET backbone, this would relieve the more critical congestion\n   problem within certain regions.  But logistically, it would be more\n   complicated since it would require diverting mail at perhaps a\n   thousand institutional nodes rather than at one or two dozen regional\n   nodes.  Politically, it would be difficult because NSF has\n   traditionally recognized the autonomy of the regional networks it has\n   funded, and the networks have been free to adopt their own usage\n   guidelines.  And it would hurt the regional networks financially,\n   especially the marginal networks most in need of NSF subsidies.\n   Economies of scale are critical at the regional level, and the loss\n   of mail would cause the networks to lose present and potential\n   members.\n\nThe National Research and Education Network\n\n   The initiative for a National Research and Education Network (NREN)\n   raises a broader set of policy issues because of the potentially much\n   larger set of users and diverse expectations concerning the scope and\n   purpose of the NREN.  The decision to restyle what was originally\n   described as a National Research Network to include education was an\n   important political and strategic step.  However, this move to a\n   broader purpose and constituency has made it all the more difficult\nKahin                                                          [Page 10]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nto limit the community of potential users -- and, by extension, the\n   market for commercial services.  At the regional, and especially the\n   state level, public networking initiatives may already encompass\n   economic development, education at all levels, medical and public\n   health services, and public libraries.\n\n   The high bandwidth envisioned for the NREN suggests a growing\n   distance between resource-intensive high-end uses and wide use of\n   low-bandwidth services at low fixed prices.  The different demands\n   placed on network resources by different kinds of services will\n   likely lead to more sophisticated pricing structures, including\n   usage-based pricing for production-quality high-bandwidth services.\n   The need to relate such prices to costs incurred will in turn\n   facilitate comparison and interconnection with services provided by\n   commercial vendors.  This will happen first within and among\n   metropolitan areas where diverse user needs, such as\n   videoconferencing and medical imaging, combine to support the\n   development of such services.\n\n   As shown in Figures 1. and 2., the broadening of scope corresponds to\n   a similar generalization of structure.  The path begins with\n   mission-specific research activity organized within a single\n   computer.  It ends with the development of a national or\n   international infrastructure: a ubiquitous, orderly communications\n   system that reflects and addresses all social needs and market\n   demand, without being subject to artificial limitations on purpose or\n   connection.  There is naturally tension between retaining the\n   benefits of specialization and exclusivity and seeking the benefits\n   of resource-sharing and economies of scale and scope.  But the\n   development and growth of distributed computing and network\n   technologies encourage fundamental structures to multiply and evolve\n   as components of a generalized, heterogeneous infrastructure.  And\n   the vision driving the NREN is the aggregation and maturing of a\n   seamless market for specialized information and computing resources\n   in a common, negotiable environment.  These resources have costs\n   which are far greater than the NREN.  But the NREN can minimize the\n   costs of access and spread the costs of creation across the widest\n   universe of users.\nKahin                                                          [Page 11]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nFigure 1.  Generalization of Purpose:\n\n   Discipline-Specific Research            CSNET, HEPnet, MFEnet\n\n   General Research                        early NSFNET, \"NRN\"\n\n   Research and Education                  BITNET, present NSFNET,\n                                           early \"NREN\"\n\n   Quasi-Public                            many regional networks,\n                                           \"NREN\"\n\n   National Infrastructure                 \"commercialized NREN\"\n\n   _______________________________________________________________\n\n\nFigure 2. Generalization of Structure:\n\n   Computer                                time-sharing hosts\n\n   Network                                 early ARPANET\n\n   Internetwork                            ESNET, NSFNET (tiered)\n\n   Multiple Internetworks                  present Internet\n\n   Infrastructure                          \"NREN\"\n\n\nWorkshop Participants\n\n   Rick Adams, UUNET\n   Eric Aupperle, Merit\n   Stanley Besen, RAND Corporation\n   Lewis Branscomb, Harvard University\n   Yale Braunstein, University of California, Berkeley\n   Charles Brownstein, National Science Foundation\n   Deborah Estrin, University of Southern California\n   David Farber, University of Pennsylvania\n   Darleen Fisher, National Science Foundation\n   Thomas Fletcher, Harvard University\n   Kenneth Flamm, Brookings Institution\n   Lisa Heinz, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment\n   Fred Howlett, AT&T\n   Brian Kahin, Harvard University\n   Robert Kahn, Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n   Kenneth King, EDUCOM\nKahin                                                          [Page 12]\nRFC 1192\nCommercialization of the Internet       November 1990\nKenneth Klingenstein, University of Colorado\n   Joel Maloff, CICNet\n   Bruce McConnell, Office of Management and Budget\n   Jerry Mechling, Harvard University\n   James Michalko, Research Libraries Group\n   Elizabeth Miller, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment\n   Eli Noam, New York State Public Service Commission\n   Eric Nussbaum, Bellcore\n   Peter O'Neil, Digital Equipment Corporation\n   Robert Powers, MCI\n   Charla Rath, National Telecommunications and Information\n                Administration, Department of Commerce\n   Ira Richer, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency\n   William Schrader, Performance Systems International\n   Howard Webber, Digital Equipment Corporation\n   Allan Weis, IBM\n   Stephen Wolff, National Science Foundation\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Brian Kahin\n   Director, Information Infrastructure Project\n   Science, Technology & Public Program\n   John F. Kennedy School of Government\n   Harvard University\n\n   Phone:  617-495-8903\n\n   EMail:  kahin@hulaw.harvard.edu\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nKahin                                                          [Page 13]\nRFC\n1192\n: Commercialization of the Internet summary report\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1990-11-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1990-11-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1990-11-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:51.011067+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "5f232c61-5afb-4bad-a5fd-5d2e7b8b042f", "source_id": "a38c0e0370270d21a39c32b4", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2860", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860/", "artifact_sha256": "06658c88507e13277adeae50eee63de64fb562812d333fe3ca679d21987f799c", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 107901, "title": "RFC 2860: Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 11997, "characters": 11997, "text": "RFC 2860: Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 2860\nInfo\nRFC\n2860\n:\nMemorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nB. Carpenter\n,\nF. Baker\n,\nM. Roberts\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group B. Carpenter\nRequest for Comments: 2860 IAB\nCategory: Informational F. Baker\nIETF\nM. Roberts\nICANN\nJune 2000\nMemorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical\nWork of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis memo provides information for the Internet community. It does\nnot specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this\nmemo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis document places on record the text of the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding concerning the technical work of the IANA that was\nsigned on March 1, 2000 between the IETF and ICANN, and ratified by\nthe ICANN Board on March 10, 2000.\n\nMoU text as signed\n\nMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING THE TECHNICAL WORK OF THE\nINTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY\n\n1. This Memorandum of Understanding (\"MOU\") defines an agreement\nbetween the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet\nCorporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Its intent is exclusively\nto define the technical work to be carried out by the Internet\nAssigned Numbers Authority on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task\nForce and the Internet Research Task Force. It is recognized that\nICANN may, through the IANA, provide similar services to other\norganisations with respect to protocols not within IETF's scope (i.e.\nregistries not created by IETF or IRTF action); nothing in this MOU\nlimits ICANN's ability to do so.\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 1]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\n2. This MOU will remain in effect until either modified or cancelled\nby mutual consent of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or cancelled by\neither party with at least six (6) months notice.\n\n3. Definition of terms and abbreviations used in this document.\n\nICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a\nCalifornia non-profit corporation.\n\nIANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (a traditional name, used\nhere to refer to the technical team making and publishing the\nassignments of Internet protocol technical parameters). The IANA\ntechnical team is now part of ICANN.\n\nIETF - the Internet Engineering Task Force, the unincorporated\nassociation operating under such name that creates Internet Standards\nand related documents.\n\nIAB - the Internet Architecture Board, an oversight committee of the\nIETF. The IAB is chartered to designate the IANA on behalf of the\nIETF.\n\nIESG - the Internet Engineering Steering Group, a management\ncommittee of the IETF.\n\nIRTF - the Internet Research Task Force, an unincorporated\nassociation also overseen by the IAB.\n\nIRSG - the Internet Research Steering group, a management committee\nof the IRTF.\n\nRFC - \"Request For Comments\", the archival document series of the\nIETF, also used by the IRTF and by third parties.\n\nISOC - the Internet Society, a not-for-profit corporation that\nsupports the IETF.\n\n4. Agreed technical work items. ICANN agrees that during the term of\nthis MOU it shall cause IANA to comply, for protocols within IETF's\nscope, with the following requirements, which ICANN and IETF\nacknowledge reflect the existing arrangements under which the IANA is\noperated:\n\n4.1. The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters\nonly as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs,\nincluding Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards and Best\nCurrent Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for IANA\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 2]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nassignment. If they are not so specified, or in case of ambiguity,\nIANA will continue to assign and register Internet protocol\nparameters that have traditionally been registered by IANA, following\npast and current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise\ndirected by the IESG.\n\nIf in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, IANA will seek and\nfollow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG. Where\nappropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise IANA.\n\nThe IANA will work with the IETF to develop any missing criteria and\nprocedures over time, which the IANA will adopt when so instructed by\nthe IESG.\n\n4.2. In the event of technical dispute between the IANA and the IESG,\nboth will seek guidance from the IAB whose decision shall be final.\n\n4.3. Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in addition\nto the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the assignment\nof domain names, and the assignment of IP address blocks. These\npolicy issues are outside the scope of this MOU.\n\nNote that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as\ndomain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised\naddress blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c)\nexperimental assignments are not considered to be policy issues, and\nshall remain subject to the provisions of this\nSection 4\n. (For\npurposes of this MOU, the term \"assignments\" includes allocations.)\nIn the event ICANN adopts a policy that prevents it from complying\nwith the provisions of this\nSection 4\nwith respect to the assignments\ndescribed in (a) - (c) above, ICANN will notify the IETF, which may\nthen exercise its ability to cancel this MOU under\nSection 2\nabove.\n\n4.4. The IANA shall make available to the public, on-line and free of\ncharge, information about each current assignment, including contact\ndetails for the assignee. Assignments published in RFCs by the RFC\nEditor and available publicly will be deemed to meet the requirements\nof this\nSection 4.4\n.\n\n4.5. The IANA shall provide on-line facilities for the public to\nrequest Internet protocol parameter assignments and shall either\nexecute such assignments, or deny them for non- conformance with\napplicable technical requirements, in a timely manner. There shall be\nno charge for assignments without the consent of the IAB. Requests\nshall only be denied on legitimate technical grounds.\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 3]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nFor protocols within the IETF scope (i.e., registries created by IETF\naction), appeals against such denials may be made to the IESG and\nsubsequently to the IAB as provided in 4.2 above.\n\n4.6. The IANA shall have non-voting liaison seats on appropriate IETF\ncommittees as determined by the IETF, and may participate in all IETF\ndiscussions concerning technical requirements for protocol parameter\nassignment through such liaisons.\n\n4.7. The IANA shall review all documents in IETF Last Call to\nidentify any issues of concern to the IANA, and shall raise these\nissues with the IESG.\n\n5. Application to IRTF/IRSG. The parties understand that certain of\nthe protocol parameters to be assigned by IANA will be relevant to\nIRTF, rather than IETF. With respect to these protocol parameters,\nIANA will comply with the procedures set forth in\nSection 4\n, with the\nunderstanding that IRTF and IRSG shall be substituted for IETF and\nIESG, respectively, in such procedures. In the event of any question\nas to whether a particular protocol parameter relates principally to\nIETF or IRTF, the IAB shall have the authority to answer such\nquestion in its discretion.\n\n6. General. This MOU does not constitute any of the parties as a\npartner, joint venturer, agent, principal or franchisee of any other\nparty. The waiver of any provision of this MOU on any occasion shall\nnot constitute a waiver for purposes of any other occasion. No party\nmay transfer or assign any interest, right or obligation arising\nunder this MOU without the prior written consent of each other party\nto this MOU.\n\n7. Effectiveness of MOU. This Agreement requires the approval or\nratification of the ICANN Board of Directors. The signatory for\nICANN shall use his best efforts to secure and deliver to IETF such\napproval or ratification within two months of signing.\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 4]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Memorandum of Understanding is executed as\nof this first day of March 2000 by the undersigned, acting through\ntheir duly authorized representatives:\n\nINTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE\n\nBy: __________________________ Fred Baker, IETF Chair\n\nApproved by:\n\nINTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD\n\nBy: __________________________ Brian Carpenter, IAB Chair\n\nINTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS\n\nBy:___________________________ Mike Roberts, President\n\nSecurity considerations\n\nThis document does not directly impact the security of the Internet.\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 5]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nAcknowledgements\n\nThe technical heart of this document was discussed in the IETF\nPOISSON working group in 1998 and 1999 and reviewed by the IESG and\nIAB. Jorge Contreras, Joyce K. Reynolds, and Louis Touton assisted in\nits finalisation.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nBrian E. Carpenter\niCAIR\nSuite 150\n1890 Maple Avenue\nEvanston IL 60201\nUSA\n\nEMail: brian@icair.org\n\nFred Baker\n519 Lado Drive\nSanta Barbara, CA 93111\nUSA\n\nEMail: fred@cisco.com\n\nMichael M. Roberts\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)\n4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330\nMarina del Rey, CA 90292\nUSA\n\nEMail: roberts@icann.org\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 6]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.\n\nThe limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 7]\nRFC\n2860\n: Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nInformational\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nDetails\nDate published\nJune 2000\nAuthors\nB. Carpenter\n,\nF. Baker\n,\nM. Roberts\nIAB Stream\nIAB\nDOI\nhttps://doi.org/10.17487/RFC2860\nFormats\nTXT\n,\nHTML\n.\nCite this RFC\nTXT\n,\nXML\n,\nBibTeX\n.\nDocument history\nView history of\nRFC\n2860\n:\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "55eb8206-6d09-486d-bae0-89ff7745a1fd", "document_id": "5f232c61-5afb-4bad-a5fd-5d2e7b8b042f", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 2860: Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 2860\nInfo\nRFC\n2860\n:\nMemorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nB. Carpenter\n,\nF. Baker\n,\nM. Roberts\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group B. Carpenter\nRequest for Comments: 2860 IAB\nCategory: Informational F. Baker\nIETF\nM. Roberts\nICANN\nJune 2000\nMemorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical\nWork of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis memo provides information for the Internet community. It does\nnot specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this\nmemo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis document places on record the text of the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding concerning the technical work of the IANA that was\nsigned on March 1, 2000 between the IETF and ICANN, and ratified by\nthe ICANN Board on March 10, 2000.\n\nMoU text as signed\n\nMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING THE TECHNICAL WORK OF THE\nINTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY\n\n1. This Memorandum of Understanding (\"MOU\") defines an agreement\nbetween the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet\nCorporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Its intent is exclusively\nto define the technical work to be carried out by the Internet\nAssigned Numbers Authority on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task\nForce and the Internet Research Task Force. It is recognized that\nICANN may, through the IANA, provide similar services to other\norganisations with respect to protocols not within IETF's scope (i.e.\nregistries not created by IETF or IRTF action); nothing in this MOU\nlimits ICANN's ability to do so.\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 1]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\n2. This MOU will remain in effect until either modified or cancelled\nby mutual consent of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or cancelled by\neither party with at least six (6) months notice.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2213, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 348}}, {"segment_id": "11a8f901-bc3e-486c-a65b-a7349c263b9e", "document_id": "5f232c61-5afb-4bad-a5fd-5d2e7b8b042f", "ordinal": 1, "text": "3. Definition of terms and abbreviations used in this document.\n\nICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a\nCalifornia non-profit corporation.\n\nIANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (a traditional name, used\nhere to refer to the technical team making and publishing the\nassignments of Internet protocol technical parameters). The IANA\ntechnical team is now part of ICANN.\n\nIETF - the Internet Engineering Task Force, the unincorporated\nassociation operating under such name that creates Internet Standards\nand related documents.\n\nIAB - the Internet Architecture Board, an oversight committee of the\nIETF. The IAB is chartered to designate the IANA on behalf of the\nIETF.\n\nIESG - the Internet Engineering Steering Group, a management\ncommittee of the IETF.\n\nIRTF - the Internet Research Task Force, an unincorporated\nassociation also overseen by the IAB.\n\nIRSG - the Internet Research Steering group, a management committee\nof the IRTF.\n\nRFC - \"Request For Comments\", the archival document series of the\nIETF, also used by the IRTF and by third parties.\n\nISOC - the Internet Society, a not-for-profit corporation that\nsupports the IETF.\n\n4. Agreed technical work items. ICANN agrees that during the term of\nthis MOU it shall cause IANA to comply, for protocols within IETF's\nscope, with the following requirements, which ICANN and IETF\nacknowledge reflect the existing arrangements under which the IANA is\noperated:\n\n4.1. The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters\nonly as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs,\nincluding Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards and Best\nCurrent Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for IANA\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 2]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nassignment. If they are not so specified, or in case of ambiguity,\nIANA will continue to assign and register Internet protocol\nparameters that have traditionally been registered by IANA, following\npast and current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise\ndirected by the IESG.", "char_start": 2215, "char_end": 4306, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 324}}, {"segment_id": "46eaadb3-ddcb-47ad-85fb-8c866dca2784", "document_id": "5f232c61-5afb-4bad-a5fd-5d2e7b8b042f", "ordinal": 2, "text": "If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, IANA will seek and\nfollow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG. Where\nappropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise IANA.\n\nThe IANA will work with the IETF to develop any missing criteria and\nprocedures over time, which the IANA will adopt when so instructed by\nthe IESG.\n\n4.2. In the event of technical dispute between the IANA and the IESG,\nboth will seek guidance from the IAB whose decision shall be final.\n\n4.3. Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in addition\nto the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the assignment\nof domain names, and the assignment of IP address blocks. These\npolicy issues are outside the scope of this MOU.\n\nNote that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as\ndomain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised\naddress blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c)\nexperimental assignments are not considered to be policy issues, and\nshall remain subject to the provisions of this\nSection 4\n. (For\npurposes of this MOU, the term \"assignments\" includes allocations.)\nIn the event ICANN adopts a policy that prevents it from complying\nwith the provisions of this\nSection 4\nwith respect to the assignments\ndescribed in (a) - (c) above, ICANN will notify the IETF, which may\nthen exercise its ability to cancel this MOU under\nSection 2\nabove.\n\n4.4. The IANA shall make available to the public, on-line and free of\ncharge, information about each current assignment, including contact\ndetails for the assignee. Assignments published in RFCs by the RFC\nEditor and available publicly will be deemed to meet the requirements\nof this\nSection 4.4\n.\n\n4.5. The IANA shall provide on-line facilities for the public to\nrequest Internet protocol parameter assignments and shall either\nexecute such assignments, or deny them for non- conformance with\napplicable technical requirements, in a timely manner. There shall be\nno charge for assignments without the consent of the IAB. Requests\nshall only be denied on legitimate technical grounds.\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 3]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nFor protocols within the IETF scope (i.e., registries created by IETF\naction), appeals against such denials may be made to the IESG and\nsubsequently to the IAB as provided in 4.2 above.", "char_start": 4308, "char_end": 6686, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 391}}, {"segment_id": "fef0460c-1393-4862-90a4-e372620da9c0", "document_id": "5f232c61-5afb-4bad-a5fd-5d2e7b8b042f", "ordinal": 3, "text": "4.6. The IANA shall have non-voting liaison seats on appropriate IETF\ncommittees as determined by the IETF, and may participate in all IETF\ndiscussions concerning technical requirements for protocol parameter\nassignment through such liaisons.\n\n4.7. The IANA shall review all documents in IETF Last Call to\nidentify any issues of concern to the IANA, and shall raise these\nissues with the IESG.\n\n5. Application to IRTF/IRSG. The parties understand that certain of\nthe protocol parameters to be assigned by IANA will be relevant to\nIRTF, rather than IETF. With respect to these protocol parameters,\nIANA will comply with the procedures set forth in\nSection 4\n, with the\nunderstanding that IRTF and IRSG shall be substituted for IETF and\nIESG, respectively, in such procedures. In the event of any question\nas to whether a particular protocol parameter relates principally to\nIETF or IRTF, the IAB shall have the authority to answer such\nquestion in its discretion.\n\n6. General. This MOU does not constitute any of the parties as a\npartner, joint venturer, agent, principal or franchisee of any other\nparty. The waiver of any provision of this MOU on any occasion shall\nnot constitute a waiver for purposes of any other occasion. No party\nmay transfer or assign any interest, right or obligation arising\nunder this MOU without the prior written consent of each other party\nto this MOU.\n\n7. Effectiveness of MOU. This Agreement requires the approval or\nratification of the ICANN Board of Directors. The signatory for\nICANN shall use his best efforts to secure and deliver to IETF such\napproval or ratification within two months of signing.\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 4]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Memorandum of Understanding is executed as\nof this first day of March 2000 by the undersigned, acting through\ntheir duly authorized representatives:", "char_start": 6688, "char_end": 8600, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 313}}, {"segment_id": "837342f0-f55a-41e1-a49c-0aef5151cfcf", "document_id": "5f232c61-5afb-4bad-a5fd-5d2e7b8b042f", "ordinal": 4, "text": "INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE\n\nBy: __________________________ Fred Baker, IETF Chair\n\nApproved by:\n\nINTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD\n\nBy: __________________________ Brian Carpenter, IAB Chair\n\nINTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS\n\nBy:___________________________ Mike Roberts, President\n\nSecurity considerations\n\nThis document does not directly impact the security of the Internet.\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 5]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nAcknowledgements\n\nThe technical heart of this document was discussed in the IETF\nPOISSON working group in 1998 and 1999 and reviewed by the IESG and\nIAB. Jorge Contreras, Joyce K. Reynolds, and Louis Touton assisted in\nits finalisation.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nBrian E. Carpenter\niCAIR\nSuite 150\n1890 Maple Avenue\nEvanston IL 60201\nUSA\n\nEMail: brian@icair.org\n\nFred Baker\n519 Lado Drive\nSanta Barbara, CA 93111\nUSA\n\nEMail: fred@cisco.com\n\nMichael M. Roberts\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)\n4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330\nMarina del Rey, CA 90292\nUSA\n\nEMail: roberts@icann.org\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 6]\nRFC 2860\nMoU Between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA June 2000\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.", "char_start": 8602, "char_end": 10690, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 310}}, {"segment_id": "7811a82f-d5b8-4d97-99aa-84ae9c895e9c", "document_id": "5f232c61-5afb-4bad-a5fd-5d2e7b8b042f", "ordinal": 5, "text": "The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nCarpenter, et al. Informational [Page 7]\nRFC\n2860\n: Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nInformational\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nDetails\nDate published\nJune 2000\nAuthors\nB. Carpenter\n,\nF. Baker\n,\nM. Roberts\nIAB Stream\nIAB\nDOI\nhttps://doi.org/10.17487/RFC2860\nFormats\nTXT\n,\nHTML\n.\nCite this RFC\nTXT\n,\nXML\n,\nBibTeX\n.\nDocument history\nView history of\nRFC\n2860\n:\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 10692, "char_end": 11997, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 203}}], "published_at": "2000-06-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2000-06-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 2860 IAB\nCategory: Informational F. Baker\nIETF\nM. Roberts\nICANN\nJune 2000", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "5ff6ad07-22ea-4007-b992-0ccea573e8b3", "source_id": "93b2b1c29686449f4bf41f15", "source": "RIPE", "source_url": "https://www.ripe.net/participate/", "final_url": "https://www.ripe.net/membership/", "artifact_sha256": "f3eaf7374f67342d77e30768b319c065685601d6c7cc2306b5093531f967fe90", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 124405, "title": "Membership — RIPE Network Coordination Centre", "language": "en", "text_length": 13137, "characters": 13137, "text": "Membership — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nMembership\nThe smooth running of the Internet depends on the involvement of those who give their input on membership and policy issues. And there are many ways to get involved, online and in person.\nRIPE NCC Membership\nMembership Information\nOur members can benefit from a wide range of membership services, such as training and Internet analysis tools, that the RIPE NCC provides to help organisations with their technical operations. The RIPE NCC also carries out coordination activities that allow members to discuss issues of common interest online and at events throughout its service region.\nBecome a Member\nIf your organisation needs IPv6 address space and AS Numbers, and/or makes assignments to End Users or customers, you should become a RIPE NCC member.\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nThis page outlines the steps you need to take in order to take advantage of all the services that the RIPE NCC has to offer.\nLIR Basics\nBilling, Costs and Fees\nFind out what costs and fees are associated with being a member.\nBilling and Fees\nRead the Member Update\nGet all you need to know of what's happening in the RIPE NCC Member Update.\nRead more\nJoin the Mailing Lists\nThe RIPE NCC offers several mailing lists for its members to stay up to date with news and announcements and to discuss topics of interest with other members.\nMailing Lists for Members\nAttend a General Meeting\nThe RIPE NCC holds a General Meeting (GM) twice a year - in spring and in autumn.\nGeneral Meetings\nRIPE NCC Services\nView the list of services offered by the RIPE NCC\nView Services\nUpcoming Events\nThe RIPE NCC facilitates a range of meetings for different audiences.\nCAPIF 5\n24 Sep 2026\n—\n25 Sep 2026\nDushanbe, Tajikistan\nRIPE 93\n26 Oct 2026\n—\n30 Oct 2026\nSofia, Bulgaria\nSEE 15\n13 Apr 2027\n—\n14 Apr 2027\nTirana, AL\nRIPE 94\n24 May 2027\n—\n28 May 2027\nVilnius, Lithuania\nRIPE 95\n15 Nov 2027\n—\n19 Nov 2027\nMadrid, Spain\nRIPE 96\n15 May 2028\n—\n19 May 2028\nView all events\nLatest news\nNRO NC Nominations 2026: Call to Fill One Seat\nNRO call for nomination to fill one seat for October 2026.\nPublish Date:\n30 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nRIPE NCC Member Update: July 2026\nRead the monthly RIPE NCC Member Update for July 2026.\nPublish Date:\n29 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nmember update\nASO AC delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nThe Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has delivered Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC.\nPublish Date:\n28 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE NCC Quarterly Sanctions Transparency Report (Q3 2026) Published\nWe have published our third sanctions transparency report of the year.\nPublish Date:\n24 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\nRIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 Published\nThe RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 is now available. This strategy builds upon our existing vision, mission and values and sets the long-term direction for the organisation. The document explains RIPE NCC’s role in the Internet ecosystem, sets out six strategic focus areas for the coming five-year period and the external factors that influence our operating environment.\nPublish Date:\n13 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE 95: Call for Host\nThe RIPE NCC is looking for a host for RIPE 95 that will take place in Madrid at the Meliá Castilla Hotel from 15-19 November 2027.\nPublish Date:\n09 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nView all news\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "segments": [{"segment_id": "be22c6ab-ea7e-4cee-9a85-ccd88b325f14", "document_id": "5ff6ad07-22ea-4007-b992-0ccea573e8b3", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Membership — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nMembership\nThe smooth running of the Internet depends on the involvement of those who give their input on membership and policy issues. And there are many ways to get involved, online and in person.\nRIPE NCC Membership\nMembership Information\nOur members can benefit from a wide range of membership services, such as training and Internet analysis tools, that the RIPE NCC provides to help organisations with their technical operations. The RIPE NCC also carries out coordination activities that allow members to discuss issues of common interest online and at events throughout its service region.\nBecome a Member\nIf your organisation needs IPv6 address space and AS Numbers, and/or makes assignments to End Users or customers, you should become a RIPE NCC member.\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nThis page outlines the steps you need to take in order to take advantage of all the services that the RIPE NCC has to offer.\nLIR Basics\nBilling, Costs and Fees\nFind out what costs and fees are associated with being a member.\nBilling and Fees\nRead the Member Update\nGet all you need to know of what's happening in the RIPE NCC Member Update.\nRead more\nJoin the Mailing Lists\nThe RIPE NCC offers several mailing lists for its members to stay up to date with news and announcements and to discuss topics of interest with other members.\nMailing Lists for Members\nAttend a General Meeting\nThe RIPE NCC holds a General Meeting (GM) twice a year - in spring and in autumn.\nGeneral Meetings\nRIPE NCC Services\nView the list of services offered by the RIPE NCC\nView Services\nUpcoming Events\nThe RIPE NCC facilitates a range of meetings for different audiences.\nCAPIF 5\n24 Sep 2026\n—\n25 Sep 2026\nDushanbe, Tajikistan\nRIPE 93\n26 Oct 2026\n—\n30 Oct 2026\nSofia, Bulgaria\nSEE 15\n13 Apr 2027\n—\n14 Apr 2027\nTirana, AL\nRIPE 94\n24 May 2027\n—\n28 May 2027\nVilnius, Lithuania\nRIPE 95\n15 Nov 2027\n—\n19 Nov 2027\nMadrid, Spain\nRIPE 96\n15 May 2028\n—\n19 May 2028\nView all events\nLatest news\nNRO NC Nominations 2026: Call to Fill One Seat\nNRO call for nomination to fill one seat for October 2026.\nPublish Date:\n30 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nRIPE NCC Member Update: July 2026\nRead the monthly RIPE NCC Member Update for July 2026.\nPublish Date:\n29 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nmember update\nASO AC delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nThe Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has delivered Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC.\nPublish Date:\n28 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE NCC Quarterly Sanctions Transparency Report (Q3 2026) Published\nWe have published our third sanctions transparency report of the year.\nPublish Date:\n24 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\nRIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 Published\nThe RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 is now available. This strategy builds upon our existing vision, mission and values and sets the long-term direction for the organisation. The document explains RIPE NCC’s role in the Internet ecosystem, sets out six strategic focus areas for the coming five-year period and the external factors that influence our operating environment.\nPublish Date:\n13 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE 95: Call for Host\nThe RIPE NCC is looking for a host for RIPE 95 that will take place in Madrid at the Meliá Castilla Hotel from 15-19 November 2027.\nPublish Date:\n09 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nView all news\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 13137, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 11, "word_count": 2009}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "61ae5b11-e3eb-44ff-b1b6-97597c196844", "source_id": "3b72d6626ac136bb59b89909", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/effect-2012-02-25-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/effect-2012-02-25-en", "artifact_sha256": "9011a878aeac3cf12bcbf13dd20203f428b859b8fdcff2f63f67a3c56a3063bf", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 72991, "title": "What's the effect of ICANN's role and work on the Internet? - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 12466, "characters": 12466, "text": "What's the effect of ICANN's role and work on the Internet? - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nWhat's the effect of ICANN's role and work on the Internet?\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nItaliano\n日本語\n한국어\nPortuguês\nPусский\n中文\nICANN plays a unique role in the infrastructure of the Internet. Through\nits contracts with registries (such as dot-com or dot-info) and registrars\n(companies that sell domains names to individuals and organisations),\nICANN helps define how the domain name system functions and expands.\nRegistrars\nICANN created the registrar market (together with an accreditation system)\nin order to introduce greater competition on the Internet. The result\nhas been several hundred companies able to sell domains which itself led\nto a dramatic reduction in the cost of domains - an 80 percent fall. There\nis now a diverse and vibrant market in the supply of the Internet’s\nbasic building block.\nThat accreditation process is currently undergoing reform in order to\nkeep in up-to-date with a rapidly changing domain name market.\nDispute resolution\nICANN helped design and implement a low-cost system for resolving disputes\nover domain name ownership. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution\nPolicy (UDRP) has been used tens of thousands of times to resolve ownership\ndisputes, avoiding the need for costly and complex recourse to the courts.\nNew top-level domains\nICANN approves the introduction of new \"generic top-level domains\" to\nthe Internet - a process that expands the online space available. So far,\nICANN has introduced 13 new top-level domains to the Internet, ranging\nfrom dot-asia to dot-travel, accounting for over six million domains.\nICANN has also developed a refined process to introduce further TLDs that\nis being finalised with applications expected in early 2010.\nInternationalized domain names\nThrough its decision-making processes, ICANN has adopted guidelines\nfor the introduction of internationalised domain names (IDNs), opening\nthe way for domain registrations in hundreds of the world’s languages\n- something that will expand the use and the influence of the Internet\nglobally to new heights.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "6c5e1005-8917-4890-9df5-3e4d28931ff3", "document_id": "61ae5b11-e3eb-44ff-b1b6-97597c196844", "ordinal": 0, "text": "What's the effect of ICANN's role and work on the Internet? - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nWhat's the effect of ICANN's role and work on the Internet?\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nItaliano\n日本語\n한국어\nPortuguês\nPусский\n中文\nICANN plays a unique role in the infrastructure of the Internet. Through\nits contracts with registries (such as dot-com or dot-info) and registrars\n(companies that sell domains names to individuals and organisations),\nICANN helps define how the domain name system functions and expands.\nRegistrars\nICANN created the registrar market (together with an accreditation system)\nin order to introduce greater competition on the Internet. The result\nhas been several hundred companies able to sell domains which itself led\nto a dramatic reduction in the cost of domains - an 80 percent fall. There\nis now a diverse and vibrant market in the supply of the Internet’s\nbasic building block.\nThat accreditation process is currently undergoing reform in order to\nkeep in up-to-date with a rapidly changing domain name market.\nDispute resolution\nICANN helped design and implement a low-cost system for resolving disputes\nover domain name ownership. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution\nPolicy (UDRP) has been used tens of thousands of times to resolve ownership\ndisputes, avoiding the need for costly and complex recourse to the courts.\nNew top-level domains\nICANN approves the introduction of new \"generic top-level domains\" to\nthe Internet - a process that expands the online space available. So far,\nICANN has introduced 13 new top-level domains to the Internet, ranging\nfrom dot-asia to dot-travel, accounting for over six million domains.\nICANN has also developed a refined process to introduce further TLDs that\nis being finalised with applications expected in early 2010.\nInternationalized domain names\nThrough its decision-making processes, ICANN has adopted guidelines\nfor the introduction of internationalised domain names (IDNs), opening\nthe way for domain registrations in hundreds of the world’s languages\n- something that will expand the use and the influence of the Internet\nglobally to new heights.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12466, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1700}}], "published_at": "2012-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2012-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2012-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "62238299-31ce-45ed-b0a5-c67c52ef73d7", "source_id": "a636c8d57a159b6d2af0dc5d", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1380", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1380/", "artifact_sha256": "a636c8d57a159b6d2af0dc5d1827696347fef15ec267952fac5d051f192753bf", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 251969, "title": "RFC 1380: IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing", "language": "en", "text_length": 48724, "characters": 48724, "text": "RFC 1380: IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1380\n:\nIESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing\nP. Gross\n,\nP. Almquist\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                           P. Gross\nRequest for Comments: 1380                                    IESG Chair\n                                                             P. Almquist\n                                                        IESG Internet AD\n                                                           November 1992\nIESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing\nStatus Of This Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\n   This memo summarizes issues surrounding the routing and addressing\n   scaling problems in the IP architecture, and it provides a brief\n   background of the ROAD group and related activities in the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force (IETF).\n\n   It also provides a preliminary report of the Internet Engineering\n   Steering Group (IESG) deliberations on how these routing and\n   addressing issues should be pursued in the Internet Architecture\n   Board (IAB)/IETF.\n\nAcknowledgements\n\n   This note draws principally from two sources: the output from the\n   ROAD group, as reported at the San Diego IETF meeting, and on\n   numerous detailed discussions in the IESG following the San Diego\n   IETF meeting.  Zheng Wang, Bob Hinden, Kent England, and Bob Smart\n   provided input for the \"Criteria For Bigger Internet Addresses\"\n   section below.  Greg Vaudreuil prepared the final version of the\n   bibliography, based on previous bibliographies by Lyman Chapin and\n   bibliographies distributed on the Big-Internet mailing list.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n. INTRODUCTION..................................................\n2\n2\n.  ISSUES OF GROWTH AND EVOLUTION IN THE INTERNET...............\n3\n2.1\nThe Problems................................................\n3\n2.2\nPossible Solutions..........................................\n5\n3\n. PREPARING FOR ACTION..........................................\n7\n3.1\nThe IAB Architecture Retreats................................\n7\n3.2\nThe Santa Fe IETF............................................\n7\n3.3\nThe ROAD Group and beyond....................................\n8\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 1]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\n4\n. SETTING DIRECTIONS FOR THE IETF...............................\n10\n4.1\nThe Need For Interim Solutions...............................\n10\n4.2\nThe Proposed Phases..........................................\n10\n4.3\nA Solution For Routing Table Explosion -- CIDR...............\n12\n4.4\nRegarding \"IP Address Exhaustion\"............................\n13\n4.5 Milestones And Timetable For Making a Recommendation for\n       \"Bigger Internet Addresses\"..................................\n14\n5\n. SUMMARY.......................................................\n15\nAppendix A\n. FOR MORE INFORMATION.................................\n16\nAppendix B\n. INFORMATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA FOR \"BIGGER\n               INTERNET ADDRESSES\"..................................\n16\nAppendix C\n. BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................\n20\nSecurity Considerations..........................................\n21\nAuthors' Addresses...............................................\n22\n1\n. INTRODUCTION\nIt seems unlikely that the designers of IP ever imagined at the time\n   what phenomenal success the Internet would achieve.  Internet\n   connections were initially intended primarily for mainframe computers\n   at sites performing DARPA-sponsored research.  Now, of course, the\n   Internet has extended its reach to the desktop and is beginning to\n   extend into the home.  No longer the exclusive purview of pure R&D\n   establishments, the Internet has become well entrenched in parts of\n   the corporate world and is beginning to make inroads into secondary\n   and even primary schools.  While once it was an almost exclusively\n   U.S. phenomenon, the Internet now extends to every continent and\n   within a few years may well include network connections in every\n   country.\n\n   Over the past couple of years, we have seen increasingly strong\n   indications that all of this success will stress the limits of IP\n   unless appropriate corrective actions are taken.  The supply of\n   unallocated Class B network numbers is rapidly dwindling, and the\n   amount of routing information now carried in the Internet is\n   increasingly taxing the abilities of both the routers and the people\n   who have to manage them.  Somewhat longer-term, it is possible that\n   we will run out of host addresses or network numbers altogether.\n\n   While these problems could be avoided by attempting to restrict the\n   growth of the Internet, most people would prefer solutions that allow\n   growth to continue.  Fortunately, it appears that such solutions are\n   possible, and that, in fact, our biggest problem is having too many\n   possible solutions rather than too few.\n\n   This memo provides a preliminary report of IESG deliberations on how\n   routing and addressing issues can be pursued in the IAB/IETF.\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 2]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nIn following sections, we will discuss in more detail the problems\n   confronting us and possible approaches.  We will give a brief\n   overview of the ROAD group and related activities in the IETF.  We\n   will then discuss possible courses of action in the IETF.\n   Ultimately, the IESG will issue a recommendation from the IESG/IETF\n   to the IAB.\n2\n.  ISSUES OF GROWTH AND EVOLUTION IN THE INTERNET\n2.1\nThe Problems\nThe Internet now faces three growth-related problems:\n\n     - Class B network number exhaustion - Routing table explosion\n     - IP address space exhaustion\n2.1.1\nClass B Network Number Exhaustion\nOver the last several years, the number of network numbers assigned\n   and the number of network numbers configured into the Merit NSFnet\n   routing database have roughly doubled every 12 months.  This has led\n   to estimates that, at the current allocation rate, and in the absence\n   of corrective measures, it will take less than 2 years to allocate\n   all of the currently unassigned Class B network numbers.\n\n   After that, new sites which wished to connect more than the number of\n   hosts possible in a single Class C (253 hosts) would need to be\n   assigned multiple Class C networks.  This will exacerbate the routing\n   table explosion problems described next.\n2.1.2\n.  Routing Table Explosion\nAs the number of networks connected to the Internet has grown, the\n   amount of routing information that has to be passed around to keep\n   track of them all is likewise growing.  This is leading to two types\n   of problems.\n\nHardware and Protocol Limits\n\n   Routing protocols must pass around this information, and routers must\n   store and use it.  This taxes memory limits in the routers, and can\n   also consume significant bandwidth when older routing protocols are\n   used, (such as EGP and RIP, which were designed for a much smaller\n   number of networks).\n\n   The limits on the memory in the routers seem to be the most pressing.\n   It is already the case that the routers used in the MILNET are\n   incapable of handling all of the current routes, and most other\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 3]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nservice providers have found the need to periodically upgrade their\n   routers to accommodate ever larger quantities of routing information.\n   An informal survey of router vendors by the ROAD group estimated that\n   most of the currently deployed generation of high-end routers will\n   support O(16000) routes.  This will be probably be adequate for the\n   next 12 to 18 months at the current rate of growth.  Most vendors\n   have begun, or will soon begin, to ship routers capable of handling\n   O(64000) routes, which should be adequate for an additional two years\n   if the above Class B Network Number Exhaustion problem is solved.\n\nHuman Limits\n\n   The number of routes does not merely tax the network's physical\n   plant.  Network operators have found that the inter-domain routing\n   protocol mechanisms often need to be augmented by a considerable\n   amount of configuration to make the paths followed by packets be\n   consistent with the policies and desires of the network operators.\n   As the number of networks increases, the configuration (and the\n   traffic monitoring to determine whether the configuration has been\n   done correctly) becomes increasingly difficult and time-consuming.\n\n   Although it is not possible to determine a number of networks (and\n   therefore a time frame) where human limits will be exceeded, network\n   operators view this as a significant short-term problem.\n2.1.3\n.  IP Address Exhaustion\nIf the current exponential growth rate continues unabated, the number\n   of computers connected to the Internet will eventually exceed the\n   number of possible IP addresses.  Because IP addresses are divided\n   into \"network\" and \"host\" portions, we may not ever fully run out of\n   IP addresses because we will run out of IP network numbers first.\n\n   There is considerable uncertainty regarding the timeframe when we\n   might exceed the limits of the IP address space.  However, the issue\n   is serious enough that it deserves our earliest attention.  It is\n   very important that we develop solutions to this potential problem\n   well before we are in danger of actually running out of addresses.\n2.1.4\n.  Other Internetwork Layer Issues\nAlthough the catalog of problems above is pretty complete as far as\n   the scaling problems of the Internet are concerned, there are other\n   Internet layer issues that will need to be addressed over the coming\n   years.  These are issues regarding advanced functionality and service\n   guarantees in the Internet layer.\n\n   In any attempt to resolve the Internet scaling problems, it is\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 4]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nimportant to consider how these other issues might affect the future\n   evolution of Internet layer protocols.  These issues include:\n\n        1)   Policy-based routing\n        2)   Flow control\n        3)   Weak Quality-of-Service (QOS)\n        4)   Service guarantees (strong QOS)\n        5)   Charging\n2.2\nPossible Solutions\n2.2.1\n.  Class B Network Number Exhaustion\nA number of approaches have been suggested for how we might slow the\n   exhaustion of the Class B IP addresses.  These include:\n\n      1)   Reclaiming those Class B network numbers which have been\n      assigned but are either unused or used by networks which are not\n      connected to the Internet.\n\n      2)   Modifying address assignment policies to slow the assignment\n      of Class B network numbers by assigning multiple Class C network\n      numbers to organizations which are only a little bit to big to be\n      accommodated by a Class C network number.\n\n         Note: It is already the case that a Class B number is assigned\n         only if the applicant would need more than \"several\" Class C\n         networks.  The value of \"several\" has increased over time from\n         1 to (currently) 32.\n\n      3)   Use the Class C address space to form aggregations of\n      different size than the normal normal Class C addresses.  Such\n      schemes include Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [\nFuller92\n]\n      and the C# scheme [\nSolen92\n].\n2.2.2\n.  Routing Table Explosion\nAs was described earlier, there are actually two parts to this\n   problem.  They each have slightly different possible approaches:\n\nHardware and Protocol Limits\n\n      1) More thrust.  We could simply recognize the fact that routers\n      which need full Internet routing information will require large\n      amounts of memory and processing capacity.  This is at best a very\n      short-term approach, and we will always need to face this problem\n      in the long-term.\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 5]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\n2) Route servers (a variant of the \"More Thrust\" solution).\n      Instead of requiring every router to store complete routing\n      information, mechanisms could be developed to allow the tasks of\n      computing and storing routes to be offloaded to a server.  Routers\n      would request routes from the server as needed (presumably caching\n      to improve performance).\n\n      3) Topology engineering.  Many network providers already try to\n      design their networks in such a way that only a few of the routers\n      need complete routing information (the others rely on default\n      routes to reach destinations that they don't have explicit routes\n      to).  While this is inconvenient for network operators, it is a\n      trend which is likely to continue.\n\n      It is also the case that network providers could further reduce\n      the number of routers which need full routing information by\n      accepting some amount of suboptimal routing or reducing alternate\n      paths used for backup.\n\n      4) Charging-based solutions.  By charging for network number\n      advertisements, it might be possible to discourage sites from\n      connecting more networks to the Internet than they get significant\n      value from having connected.\n\n      5) Aggregation of routing information.  It is fairly clear that in\n      the long-term it will be necessary for addresses to be more\n      hierarchical.  This will allow routes to many networks to be\n      collapsed into a single summary route.  Therefore, an important\n      question is whether aggregation can also be part of the short-term\n      solution.  Of the proposals to date, only CIDR could provide\n      aggregation in the short-term.  All longer-term proposals should\n      aggregation.\n\nHuman Limits\n\n      1) Additional human resources.  Network providers could devote\n      additional manpower to routing management, or accept the\n      consequences of a reduced level of routing management.  This is\n      obviously unattractive as anything other than a very short-term\n      solution.\n\n      2) Better tools.  Network operators and router vendors could work\n      to develop more powerful paradigms and mechanisms for routing\n      management.\n\n      The IETF has already undertaken some work in the areas of route\n      filtering and route leaking.\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 6]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\n2.2.3\n.  IP Address Exhaustion\nThe following general approaches have been suggested for dealing with\n   the possible exhaustion of the IP address space:\n\n      1) Protocol modifications to provide a larger address space.  By\n      enhancing IP or by transitioning to another protocol with a larger\n      address space, we could substantially increase the number of\n      available network numbers and addresses.\n\n      2) Addresses which are not globally unique.  Several proposed\n      schemes have emerged whereby a host's domain name is globally\n      unique, but its IP address would be unique only within it's local\n      routing domain.  These schemes usually involve address translating\n\n      3) Partitioned Internet.  The Internet could be partitioned into\n      areas, such that a host's IP address would be unique only within\n      its own area.  Such schemes generally postulate application\n      gateways to interconnect the areas.  This is not unlike the\n      approach often used to connect differing protocol families.\n\n      4) Reclaiming network numbers.  Network numbers which are not\n      used, or are used by networks which are not connected to the\n      Internet, could conceivably be reclaimed for general Internet use.\n      This isn't a long-term solution, but could possibly help in the\n      interim if for some reason address exhaustion starts to occur\n      unexpectedly soon.\n3\n. PREPARING FOR ACTION\n3.1\nThe IAB Architecture Retreats\nIn July 1991, the IAB held a special workshop to consider critical\n   issues in the IP architecture (Clark91).  Of particular concern were\n   the problems related to Internet growth and scaling.  The IAB felt\n   the issues were of sufficient concern to begin organizing a special\n   group to explore the issues and to explore possible solutions.  Peter\n   Ford (LANL) was asked to organize this effort.  The IAB reconvened\n   the architecture workshop in January 1992 to further examine these\n   critical issues, and to meet jointly with the then-formed ROAD group\n   (see below).\n3.2\nThe Santa Fe IETF\nAt the November 1991 Santa Fe IETF meeting, the BGP Working Groups\n   independently began a concerted exploration of the issues of routing\n   table scaling.  The principal approach was to perform route\n   aggregation by using address masks in BGP to do \"supernetting\"\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 7]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\n(rather than \"subnetting\").  This approach would eventually evolve\n   into CIDR.  The BGP WG decided to form a separate subgroup, to be led\n   by Phill Gross (ANS) to pursue this solution.\n3.3\nThe ROAD Group and Beyond\nAt the Santa Fe IETF, the initially separate IAB and BGP WG\n   activities were combined into a special effort, named the \"ROuting\n   and ADdressing (ROAD) Group\", to be co-chaired by Ford and Gross.\n\n   The group was asked to explore possible near-term approaches for the\n   scaling problems described in the last section, namely:\n\n       - Class B address exhaustion\n       - Routing table explosion\n       - IP address space exhaustion\n\n   The ROAD group was asked to report back to the IETF at the San Diego\n   IETF (March 1992).  Suggested guidelines included minimizing changes\n   to hosts, must be incrementally deployable, and must provide support\n   for a billion networks.\n\n   The ROAD group was not a traditional open IETF working group.  It was\n   always presumed that this was a one-time special group that would\n   lead to the formation of other IETF WGs after its report in San\n   Diego.\n\n   The ROAD group held several face-face meetings between the November\n   1991 (Santa Fe) and March 1992 (San Diego) IETF meetings.  This\n   included several times at the Santa Fe IETF meeting, December 1991 in\n   Reston VA, January 1992 in Boston (in conjunction with the IAB\n   architecture workshop), and January 1992 in Arizona).  There was also\n   much discussion by electronic mail.\n\n   The group produced numerous documents, which have variously been made\n   available as Internet-Drafts or RFCs (see Bibliography in\nAppendix\nD\n).\n\n   As follow-up, the ROAD co-chairs reported to the IETF plenary in\n   March 1992 in San Diego.  Plus, several specific ROAD-related\n   activities took place during the IETF meeting that week.\n\n   The Ford/Gross presentation served as a preliminary report from the\n   ROAD group.  The basic thrust was:\n\n      1.  The Internet community needs a better way to deal with current\n      addresses (e.g., hierarchical address assignments for routing\n      aggregation to help slow Class B exhaustion and routing table\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 8]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nexplosion).  Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR; also called\n      \"supernetting\") was recommended.  CIDR calls for:\n\n        - The development of a plan for hierarchical IP address\n          assignment for aggregation in routing,\n\n        - Enhanced \"classless\" Inter-domain protocols (i.e., carry\n          address masks along with IP addresses),\n\n        - Inter-Domain routing \"Usage documents\" for using addressing\n          and routing plan with the enhanced inter-domain protocols,\n          and for interacting with IGPs.\n\n      2.  The Internet community needs bigger addresses for the Internet\n      to stem IP address exhaustion.  The ROAD group explored several\n      approaches in some depth.  Some of these approaches were discussed\n      at the San Diego IETF.  However, a final recommendation of a\n      single approach did not emerge.\n\n      3.  The Internet community needs to focus more effort on future\n      directions for Internet routing and advanced Internet layer\n      features.\n\n   Other ROAD-related activities at the San Diego IETF meeting included:\n\n      - Monday,  8:00 - 9:00 am,  Report from the ROAD group on\n      \"Internet Routing and Addressing Considerations\",\n\n      - Monday,  9:30-12:00pm,  Geographical Addressing and Routing\n      (during NOOP WG session),\n\n      - Monday,  1:30-3:30pm,  Preliminary discussion of a CIDR routing\n      and addressing plan  (during ORAD session),\n\n      - Tuesday,  1:30-6:00pm,  Internet Routing and Addressing BOF (to\n      discuss ROAD results and to explore approaches for bigger Internet\n      address space),\n\n      - Wednesday,  1:30-3:30pm,  CIDR Supernetting BOF (joint with BGP\n      WG),\n\n      - Thursday,  4:00-6:00pm,  Summary of ROAD activities in San Diego\n      followed by open plenary discussion.\n\n   The slides for the Monday presentation (Ford92), slides for the\n   Thursday summary (and notes in the Chair's message) (Gross92), and\n   notes for the other sessions are contained in the Proceedings of the\n   Twenty-Third IETF (San Diego).\nGross & Almquist                                                [Page 9]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\n4\n. SETTING DIRECTIONS FOR THE IETF\n4.1\nThe Need For Interim Solutions\nSolutions to the problems of advanced Internet layer functionality\n   are far from being well understood.  While we should certainly\n   encourage research in these areas, it is premature to start an\n   engineering effort for an Internet layer which would solve not only\n   the scaling problems but also those other issues.\n\n   Plus, most approaches to the problem of IP address space exhaustion\n   involve changes to the Internet layer.  Such approaches mean changes\n   changes to host software that will require us to face the very\n   difficult transition of a large installed base.\n\n   It is therefore not likely that we can (a) develop a single solution\n   for the near-term scaling problems that will (b) also solve the\n   longer-term problems of advanced Internet-layer functionality, that\n   we can (c) choose, implement and deploy before the nearer-term\n   problems of Class B exhaustion or routing table explosion confront\n   us.\n\n   This line of reasoning leads to the inevitable conclusion that we\n   will need to make major enhancements to IP in (at least) two stages.\n\n   Therefore, we will consider interim measures to deal with Class B\n   address exhaustion and routing table explosion (together), and to\n   deal with IP address exhaustion (separately).\n\n   We will also suggest that the possible relation between these nearer-\n   term measures and work toward advanced Internet layer functionality\n   should be made an important consideration.\n4.2\nThe Proposed Phases\nThe IESG recommends that we divide the overall course of action into\n   several phases.  For lack of a better vocabulary, we will term these\n   \"immediate\", \"short-term\", mid-term\", and \"long-term\" phases.  But,\n   as the ROAD group pointed out, we should start all the phases\n   immediately. We cannot afford to act on these phases consecutively!\n\n   In brief, the phases are:\n\n    - \"Immediate\".  These are configuration and engineering actions that\n   can take place immediately without protocol design, development, or\n   deployment.  There are a number of actions that can begin\n   immediately.  Although none of these will solve any of the problems,\n   they can help slow the onset of the problems.\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 10]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nThe IESG specifically endorses:\n\n       1) the need for more conservative address assignment\n          policies,\n       2) alignment of new address assignment policies with any new\n          aggregation schemes,\n       3) efforts to reclaim unused Class B addresses,\n       4) installation of more powerful routers by network operators\n          at key points in the Internet, and\n       5) careful attention to topology engineering.\n\n    - \"Short-term\".  Actions in this phase are aimed at dealing with\n   Class B exhaustion and routing table explosion.  These problems are\n   deemed to be quite pressing and to need solutions well before the IP\n   address exhaustion problem needs to be or could be solved.  In this\n   timeframe, changes to hosts can *not* be considered.\n\n    - \"Mid-term\".  In the mid-term, the issue of IP address exhaustion\n   must be solved.  This is the most fundamental problem facing the IP\n   architecture.  Depending on the expected timeframe, changes to host\n   software could be considered.  Note: whatever approach is taken, it\n   must also deal with the routing table explosion.  If it does not,\n   then we will simply be forced to deal with that problem again, but in\n   a larger address space.\n\n    - \"Long-term\".  Taking a broader view, the IESG feels that advanced\n   Internet layer functionality, like QOS support and  resource\n   reservation, will be crucial to the long-term success of the Internet\n   architecture.\n\n   Therefore, planning for advanced Internet layer functionality should\n   play a key role in our choice of mid-term solutions.\n\n   In particular, we need to keep several things in mind:\n\n      1) The long-term solution will require replacement and/or\n      extension of the Internet layer.  This will be a significant\n      trauma for vendors, operators, and for users.  Therefore, it is\n      particularly important that we either minimize the trauma involved\n      in deploying the sort-and mid-term solutions, or we need to assure\n      that the short- and mid-term solutions will provide a smooth\n      transition path for the long-term solutions.\n\n      2) The long-term solution will likely require globally unique\n      endpoint identifiers with an hierarchical structure to aid\n      routing.  Any effort to define hierarchy and assignment mechanisms\n      for short- or mid-term solutions would, if done well, probably\n      have long-term usefulness, even if the long-term solution uses\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 11]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nradically different message formats.\n\n      3) To some extent, development and deployment of the interim\n      measures will divert resources away from other important projects,\n      including the development of the long-term solution.  This\n      diversion should be carefully considered when choosing which\n      interim measures to pursue.\n4.3\nA Solution For Routing Table Explosion -- CIDR\nThe IESG accepted ROAD's endorsement of CIDR [\nFuller92\n].  CIDR solves\n   the routing table explosion problem (for the current IP addressing\n   scheme), makes the Class B exhaustion problem less important, and\n   buys time for the crucial address exhaustion problem.\n\n   The IESG felt that other alternatives (e.g., C#, see Solen92) did not\n   provide both routing table aggregation and Class B conservation at\n   comparable effort.\n\n   CIDR will require policy changes, protocol specification changes,\n   implementation, and deployment of new router software, but it does\n   not call for changes to host software.\n\n   The IESG recommends the following course of action to pursue CIDR in\n   the IETF:\n\n      a. Adopt the CIDR model described in Fuller92.\n\n      b. Develop a plan for \"IP Address Assignment Guidelines\".\n\n      The IESG considered the creation of an addressing plan to be an\n      operational issue.  Therefore, the IESG asked Bernhard Stockman\n      (IESG Operational Requirements Area Co-Director) to lead an effort\n      to develop such a plan.  Bernhard Stockman is in a position to\n      bring important international input (Stockman92) into this effort\n      because he is a key player in RIPE and EBONE and he is a co-chair\n      of the Intercontinental Engineering Planning Group (IEPG).\n\n      A specific proposal [\nGerich92\n] has now emerged.  [\nGerich92\n]\n      incorporates the views of the IETF, RIPE, IEPG, and the Federal\n      Engineering Planning group (FEPG).\n\n      c. Pursue CIDR extensions to BGP in the BGP WG.\n\n      This activity stated at the San Diego IETF meeting.  A new BGP\n      specification, BGP4, incorporating the CIDR extensions, is now\n      available for public comment [Rekhter92a].\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 12]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nd. Form a new WG to consider CIDR-related extensions to IDRP\n      (e.g., specify how run IDRP for IP inter-domain routing).\n\n      e. Give careful consideration to how CIDR will be deployed in the\n      Internet.\n\n      This includes issues such as how to maintain address aggregation\n      across non-CIDR domains and how CIDR and various IGPs will need to\n      interact.  Depending on the status of the combined CIDR\n      activities, the IESG may recommend forming a \"CIDR Deployment WG\",\n      along the same lines as the current BGP Deployment WG.\n4.4\nRegarding \"Bigger Internet Addresses\"\nIn April-May 1992, the IESG reviewed the various approaches emerging\n   from  the ROAD group activities -- e.g., \"Simple CLNP\" [\nCallon92a\n],\n   \"IP Encaps\"  [\nHinden92\n], \"CNAT\" [\nCallon92b\n], and \"Nimrod\"\n   [\nChiappa91\n].\n\n   (Note: These were the only proposals under serious consideration in\n   this time period.  Other proposals, namely \"The P Internet Protocol\n   (PIP)\" [\nTsuchiya92b\n] and \"The Simple Internet Protocol (SIP)\"\n   [\nDeering92\n] have since been proposed.  Following the San Diego IETF\n   deliberations in March, \"Simple CLNP\" evolved into \"TCP and UDP with\n   Bigger Addresses (TUBA)\", and \"IP Encaps\" evolved into \"IP Address\n   Encapsulation (IPAE)\" [\nHinden92\n].)\n\n   The \"Simple CLNP\" approach perhaps initially enjoyed more support\n   than other approaches.\n\n   However, the consensus view in the IESG was that the full impact of\n   transition to \"Simple CLNP\" (or to any of the proposed approaches)\n   had not yet been explored in sufficient detail to make a final\n   recommendation possible at this time.\n\n   The feeling in the IESG was that such important issues as\n\n      - impact on operational infrastructure,\n      - impact on current protocols (e.g., checksum computation\n        in TCP and UDP under any new IP-level protocol),\n      - deployment of new routing protocols,\n      - assignment of new addresses,\n      - impact on performance,\n      - ownership of change control\n      - effect of supporting new protocols, such as for address\n        resolution,\n      - effect on network management and security, and\n      - the costs to network operators and network users who must\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 13]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nbe trained in the architecture and specifics of any  new\n        protocols needed to be explored in more depth before a\n        decision of this magnitude should be made.\n\n   At first the question seemed to be one of timing.\n\n   At the risk of oversimplifying some very wide ranging discussions,\n   many in the IESG felt that if a decision had to be made\n   *immediately*, then \"Simple CLNP\" might be their choice.  However,\n   they would feel much more comfortable if more detailed information\n   was part of the decision.\n\n   The IESG felt there needed to be an open and thorough evaluation of\n   any proposed new routing and addressing architecture.  The Internet\n   community must have a thorough understanding of the impact of\n   changing from the current IP architecture to a new one.  The\n   community needs to be confident that we all understand which approach\n   has the most benefits for long-term internet growth and evolution,\n   and the least impact on the current Internet.\n\n   The IESG considered what additional information and criteria were\n   needed to choose between alternative approaches.  We also considered\n   the time needed for gathering this additional information and the\n   amount of time remaining before it was absolutely imperative to make\n   this decision (i.e., how much time do we have before we are in danger\n   of running out of IP addresses *before* we could deploy a new\n   architecture?).\n\n   This led the IESG to propose a specific set of selection criteria and\n   information, and specific milestones and timetable for the decision.\n\n   The next section describes the milestones and timetable for choosing\n   the approach for bigger Internet addresses.\n\n   The selection criteria referenced in the milestones are contained in\nAppendix B\n.\n4.5\nMilestones And Timetable For Making a Recommendation for \"Bigger\nInternet Addresses\"\nIn June, the IESG recommended that a call for proposals be made, with\n   initial activities to begin at the July IETF in Boston, and with a\n   strict timetable for reaching a recommendation coming out of the\n   November IETF meeting [\nGross92a\n].\n\n   Eventually, the call for proposals was made at the July meeting\n   itself.\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 14]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nA working group will be formed for each proposed approach.  The\n   charter of each WG will be to explore the criteria described in\nAppendix B\nand to develop a detailed plan for IESG consideration.\n\n   The WGs will be asked to submit an Internet-Draft prior to the\n   November 1992 IETF, and to make presentations at the November IETF.\n   The IESG and the IETF will review all submitted proposals and then\n   the IESG will make a recommendation to the IAB following the November\n   1992 IETF meeting.\n\n   Therefore, the milestones and timetable for the IESG to reach a\n   recommendation on bigger Internet addresses are:\n\n      July 1992 -- Issue a call for proposals at the Boston IETF meeting\n      to form working groups to explore separate approaches for bigger\n      Internet addresses.\n\n      August-November 1992 -- Proposed WGs submit charters, create\n      discussion lists, and begin their deliberations by email and/or\n      face- to-face meetings.  Redistribute the IESG recommendation\n      (i.e., this memo).  Public review, discussion, and modification as\n      appropriate of the \"selection criteria\" in\nAppendix B\n.\n\n      October 1992 -- By the end of October, each WG will be required to\n      submit a written description of the approach and how the criteria\n      are satisfied.  This is to insure that these documents are\n      distributed as Internet-Drafts for public review well before the\n      November IETF meeting.\n\n      November 1992 -- Each WG will be given an opportunity to present\n      its findings in detail at the November 1992 IETF meeting.  Based\n      on the written documents, the presentations, and public\n      discussions (by email and at the IETF), the IESG will forward a\n      recommendation to the IAB after the November IETF meeting.\n5\n. SUMMARY\nThe problems of Internet scaling and address exhaustion are\n   fundamentally important to the continued health of the global\n   Internet, and to the long-term success of such programs as the U.S.\n   NREN and the European EBONE.  Finding and embarking on a course of\n   action is critical.  However, the problem is so important that we\n   need a deep understanding of the information and criteria described\n   in\nAppendix B\nbefore a decision is made.\n\n   With this memo, the IESG re-affirms its earlier recommendation to the\n   IAB that (a) we move CIDR forward in the IETF as described in\nsection\n4.3\n, and (b) that we encourage the exploration of other proposals for\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 15]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\na bigger Internet address space according to the timetable in\nsection\n4.5\n.\nAppendix A\n.  FOR MORE INFORMATION\nTo become better acquainted with the issues and/or to follow the\n   progress of these activities:\n\n       - Please see the documents in the Bibliography below.\n\n       - Join the Big-Internet mailing list where the general issues\n         are discussed (big-internet-request@munnari.oz.au).\n\n       - Any new WG formed will have an open mailing list.  Please feel\n         free to join each as they are announced on the IETF mailing\n         list.  The current lists are:\n\n          PIP:      pip-request@thumper.bellcore.com\n          TUBA:     tuba-request@lanl.gov\n          IPAE:     ip-encaps-request@sunroof.eng.sun.com\n          SIP:      sip-request@caldera.usc.edu\n\n       - Attend the November IETF in Washington D.C. (where the WGs\n         will report and the IESG recommendation will begin formulating\n         its recommendation to the IAB).\n\n   Note: In order to receive announcements of:\n\n       - future IETF meetings and agenda,\n       - new IETF working groups, and\n       - the posting of Internet-Drafts and RFCs,\n\n   please send a request to join the IETF-Announcement mailing list\n   (ietf-announce-request@nri.reston.va.us).\nAppendix B\n.  INFORMATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA FOR \"BIGGER INTERNET\nADDRESSES\"\n\n   This section describes the information and criteria which the IESG\n   felt that any new routing and addressing proposal should supply.  As\n   the community has a chance to comment on these criteria, and as the\n   IESG gets a better understanding of the issues relating to selection\n   of a new routing and addressing architecture, this section may be\n   revised and published in a separate document.\n\n   It is expected that every proposal submitted for consideration should\n   address each item below on an point-by-point basis.\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 16]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nB.1\nDescription of the Proposed Scheme\nA complete description of the proposed routing and addressing\n   architecture should be supplied.  This should be at the level of\n   detail where the functionality and complexity of the scheme can be\n   clearly understood.  It should describe how the proposal solves the\n   basic problems of IP address exhaustion and router resource overload.\nB.2\nChanges Required\nAll changes to existing protocols should be documented and new\n   protocols which need to be developed and/or deployed should be\n   specified and described.  This should enumerate all protocols which\n   are not currently in widespread operational deployment in the\n   Internet.\n\n   Changes should also be grouped by the devices and/or functions they\n   affect.  This should include at least the following:\n\n         - Protocol changes in hosts\n         - Protocol changes in exterior router\n         - Protocol changes in interior router\n         - Security and Authentication Changes\n         - Domain name system changes\n         - Network management changes\n         - Changes required to operations tools (e.g., ping, trace-\n           route, etc.)\n         - Changes to operational and administration\n           procedures\n\n   The changes should also include if hosts and routers have their\n   current IP addresses changed.\n\n   The impact and changes to the existing set of TCP/IP protocols should\n   be described.  This should include at a minimum:\n\n         - IP\n         - ICMP\n         - DNS\n         - ARP/RARP\n         - TCP\n         - UDP\n         - FTP\n         - RPC\n         - SNMP\n\n   The impact on protocols which use IP addresses as data should be\n   specifically addressed.\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 17]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nB.3\nImplementation Experience\nA description of implementation experience with the proposal should\n   be supplied.  This should include the how much of the proposal was\n   implemented and hard it was to implement.  If it was implemented by\n   modifying existing code, the extent of the modifications should be\n   described.\nB.4\nLarge Internet Support\nThe proposal should describe how it will scale to support a large\n   internet of a billion networks.  It should describe how the proposed\n   routing and addressing architecture will work to support an internet\n   of this size.  This should include, as appropriate, a description of\n   the routing hierarchy, how the routing and addressing will be\n   organized, how different layers of the routing interact (e.g.,\n   interior and exterior, or L1, L2, L3, etc.), and relationship between\n   addressing and routing.\n\n   The addressing proposed should include a description of how addresses\n   will be assigned, who owns the addresses (e.g., user or service\n   provider), and whether there are restrictions in address assignment\n   or topology.\nB.5\nSyntax and semantics of names, identifiers and addresses\nProposals should address the manner in which data sources and sinks\n   are identified and addressed, describe how current domain names and\n   IP addresses would be used/translated/mapped in their scheme, how\n   proposed new identifier and address fields and semantics are used,\n   and should describe the issues involved in administration of these id\n   and address spaces according to their proposal.  The deployment plan\n   should address how these new semantics would be introduced and\n   backward compatibility maintained.\n\n   Any overlays in the syntax of these protocol structures should be\n   clearly identified and conflicts resulting from syntactic overlay of\n   functionality should be clearly addressed in the discussion of the\n   impact on administrative assignment.\nB.6\nPerformance Impact\nThe performance impact of the new routing and addressing architecture\n   should be evaluated.  It should be compared against the current state\n   of the art with the current IP.  The performance evaluation for\n   routers and hosts should include packets-per-second and memory usage\n   projections, and bandwidth usage for networks.  Performance should be\n   evaluated for both high speed speed and low speed lines.\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 18]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nPerformance for routers (table size and computational load) and\n   network bandwidth consumption should be projected based on the\n   following projected data points:\n\n      -Domains    10^3   10^4   10^5   10^6   10^7   10^8\n      -Networks   10^4   10^5   10^6   10^7   10^8   10^9\n      -Hosts      10^6   10^7   10^8   10^9   10^10  10^11\nB.7\nSupport for TCP/IP hosts than do not support the new architecture\nThe proposal should describe how hosts which do not support the new\n   architecture will be supported -- whether they receive full services\n   and can communicate with the whole Internet, or if they will receive\n   limited services.  Also, describe if a translation service be\n   provided between old and new hosts?  If so, where will be this be\n   done.\nB.8\nEffect on User Community\nThe large and growing installed base of IP systems comprises people,\n   as well as software and machines.  The proposal should describe\n   changes in understanding and procedures that are used by the people\n   involved in internetworking.  This should include new and/or changes\n   in concepts, terminology, and organization.\nB.9\nDeployment Plan Description\nThe proposal should include a deployment plan.  It should include the\n   steps required to deploy it.  Each step should include the devices\n   and protocols which are required to change and what benefits are\n   derived at each step. This should also include at each step if hosts\n   and routers are required to run the current and proposed internet\n   protocol.\n\n   A schedule should be included, with justification showing that the\n   schedule is realistic.\nB.10\nSecurity Impact\nThe impact on current and future security plans should be addressed.\n   Specifically do current security mechanisms such as address and\n   protocol port filtering work in the same manner as they do today, and\n   what is the effect on security and authentication schemes currently\n   under development.\nB.11\nFuture Evolution\nThe proposal should describe how it lays a foundation for solving\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 19]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nemerging internet problems such as security/authentication, mobility,\n   resource allocation, accounting, high packet rates, etc.\nAppendix C\n.  BIBLIOGRAPHY\n-Documents and Information from IETF/IESG:\n\n   [\nFord92\n] Ford, P., and P. Gross, \"Routing And Addressing\n   Considerations\", Proceedings of the Twenty-Third IETF, March 1992.\n\n   [\nGross92\n] Gross, P., \"Chair's Message and Minutes of the Open IETF\n   Plenary\", Proceedings of the Twenty-Third IETF, March 1992.\n\n   [\nGross92a\n] Gross, P., \"IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing\",\n   Electronic mail message to the Big-Internet mailing list, June 1992.\n\n-Documents directly resulting from the ROAD group:\n\n   [\nFuller92\n] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan,\n   \"Supernetting:  an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy\",\nRFC\n1338\n, BARRNet, cisco, Merit, OARnet, June 1992.\n\n   [\nHinden92\n] Hinden, B., \"New Scheme for Internet Routing and\n   Addressing (ENCAPS)\", Email message to Big-Internet mailing list,\n   March 16, 1992.\n\n   [\nCallon92a\n] Callon, R., \"TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A\n   Simple Proposal for Internet Addressing and Routing\",\nRFC 1347\n, DEC,\n   June 1992\n\n   [\nDeering92\n] Deering, S., \"City Codes:  An Alternative Scheme for OSI\n   NSAP Allocation in the Internet\", Email message to Big-Internet\n   mailing list, January 7, 1992.\n\n   [\nCallon92b\n] CNAT\n\n-Related Documents:\n\n   [\nHinden92b\n] Hinden, R., and D. Crocker, \"A Proposal for IP Address\n   Encapsulation (IPAE): A Compatible version of IP with Large\n   Addresses\", Work in Progress, June 1992.\n\n   [\nDeering92b\n] Deering, S., \"The Simple Internet Protocol\", Big-\n   Internet mailing list.\n\n   [\nStockman92\n] Karrenberg, D., and B. Stockman, \"A Proposal for a\n   Global Internet Addressing Scheme\", Work in Progress, May 1992.\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 20]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\n[\nRekhter92\n] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, \"Guidelines for IP Address\n   Allocation\", Work in Progress, May 1992.\n\n   [\nRekhter92b\n] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, \"The Border Gateway Protocol\n   (Version 4)\", Work in Progress, September 1992.\n\n   [\nRekhter92c\n] Rekhter, Y., and P. Gross, \"Application of the Border\n   Gateway Protocol\", Work in Progress, September 1992.\n\n   [\nGerich92\n]  Gerich, E., \"Guidelines for Management of IP Address\n   Space\",\nRFC 1366\n, Merit, October 1992.\n\n   [\nSolen92\n]  Solensky, F., and F. Kastenholz, \"A Revision to IP Address\n   Classifications\", Work in Progress, March 1992.\n\n   [\nWang92\n]  Wany, Z.,  and J. Crowcroft, \"A Two-Tier Address Structure\n   for the Internet:  A Solution to the Problem of Address Space\n   Exhaustion\",\nRFC 1335\n,  University College London, May 1992.\n\n   [\nCallon91\n]  Callon, R., Gardner, E., and R. Colella, \"Guidelines for\n   OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet\",\nRFC 1237\n, NIST, Mitre, DEC,\n   July 1991.\n\n   [\nTsuchiya92a\n]  Tsuchiya, P., \"The IP Network Address Translator\n   (NAT): Preliminary Design\", Work in Progress, April 1991.\n\n   [\nTsuchiya92b\n]  Tsuchiya, P.,\n\"The 'P' Internet Protocol\"\n, Work in\n   Progress, May 1992.\n\n   [\nChiappa91\n]  Chiappa, J., \"A New IP Routing and Addressing\n   Architecture\", Work in Progress, July 1991.\n\n   [\nClark91\n]  Clark, D., Chapin, L., Cerf, V., Braden, R., and R. Hobby,\n   \"Towards the Future Internet Architecture\",\nRFC 1287\n, MIT, BBN, CNRI,\n   ISI, UCDavis, December 1991.\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are discussed in sections\n4.4\n, B.2, B.10, and B.11.\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 21]\nRFC 1380\nROAD                     November 1992\nAuthors' Addresses\n\n   Phillip Gross, IESG Chair\n   Advanced Network & Services\n   100 Clearbrook Road\n   Elmsford, NY\n\n   Phone: 914-789-5300\n   EMail: pgross@ans.net\n\n\n   Philip Almquist\n   Stanford University\n   Networking Systems\n   Pine Hall 147\n   Stanford, CA 94305\n\n   Phone: (415) 723-2229\n   EMail: Almquist@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGross & Almquist                                               [Page 22]\nRFC\n1380\n: IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-11-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-11-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-11-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:13.742701+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "62993035-d076-491c-8fba-88ccf97d7086", "source_id": "cf5ecae66e4ce48ad528dd04", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-data-and-artificial-intelligence-governance-dc-daig", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-data-and-artificial-intelligence-governance-dc-daig", "artifact_sha256": "5b3b9d7f630a54fb000c671254c0a277e4edc3a6b9bfe89b16289d4eef837626", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 88687, "title": "Dynamic Coalition on Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance | Internet Governance Forum", "language": "en", "text_length": 8248, "characters": 8248, "text": "Dynamic Coalition on Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nDynamic Coalition on Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance (DC-DAIG)\nIntroduction\nThe proposal to create a UN\nIGF\nData and Artificial Intelligence Governance Coalition (DAIG) emerged during the Data Governance School LatAm, in April 2023, hosted by the Center for Technology and Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas.\nThe goal of the coalition is to facilitate a multistakeholder and evidence-based debate around the governance of personal data and AI exploring the interactions of data policies with AI policies, with a particular focus on the Global South.\nThe Data Governance School LatAm acted as an inception meeting of the DAIG Coalition where stakeholders agreed on the inexistence of an appropriate venue to discuss such concerns, with a particular focus on the analysis of Global South approaches and perspectives. The establishment of the DAIG Coalition, therefore, aims at responding to the pressing need to establish such initiative.\nAction Plan\nUN\nIGF\nData and Artificial Intelligence Governance Coalition (DAIG) aims at fostering discussion of existing approaches to data and AI governance, promoting analysis of good and bad practices to identify what solutions should be replicated and which ones should be avoided by stakeholders to achieve a sustainable an effective data and AI governance.\nTo do so the DAIG Coalition aims at promoting collective studies and multistakeholder interactions to collect and discuss evidence, critically analyse existing regulatory and institutional arrangements, and propose policy updates.\nImportantly, the DAIG will act as a hub to connect global UN\nIGF\ndiscussions with regional and local initiatives, with a particular focus on Global South debates.\nTo facilitate meaningful interactions between local, regional, and global issues, systems, and stakeholders, the DAIG Coalition will adopt the following governance structure.\nGlobal Chair: Ana Brian Nougrères, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy\nGlobal Chair: Luca Belli, Professor, FGV Law School\nRegional Coordinator for Africa: Sizwe Snail, Professor, Nelson Mandela University\nRegional Coordinator for Asia: Smriti Parsheera, Researcher, Indian Institute of Technology/CyberBRICS Project\nRegional Coordinator for South America: Pablo Palazzi, Professor, Universidad de San Andrés\nRegional Coordinator for North America: Jonathan Mendoza, Secretary for Data Protection, National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (INAI)\nRegional Coordinator for Europe: TBC\nMailing List\nMailing list address:\n[email protected]\nSubscribe to the mailing list:\nhttps://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/igf-daig\nStakeholders\nCoordinators\nAna Brian, UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy\nLuca Belli, Center for Technology & Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School\nGovernment\nAna Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, and Universidad de Montevideo), Uruguay\nArmando Manzueta (Ministry of Economy, Planning and Development), Dominican Republic\nCarina de Castro Quirino (Undersecretary for Regulation and Business Environment of the Rio de Janeiro Municipality), Brazil\nGonzalo Sosa (E-Government and Information and Knowledge Society Agency - AGESIG), Uruguay\nFátima Arzamendia (National Telecommunications Commission), Paraguay\nJonathan Mendoza (National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data - INAI), Mexico\nMaria Julia Giorgelli (Office of the Ombudsman of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires), Argentina\nMiriam Wimmer (Brazilian National Data Protection Authority), Brazil\nCivil society\nCamila Leite Contri (Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense - Idec), Brazil\nIsadora Perez Peixoto (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br), Brazil\nAlice Rangel Teixeira (ForHumanity), Brazil\nPrivate Sector\nSamanta Oliveira (Mercado Livre), Brazil\nPaula Vargas (Meta), Latam\nArianne Jimenez (META), APAC\nDiogo Manganelli (Lenovo), Brazil\nFilipe Ribeiro Duarte (Martinelli Attorneys), Brazil\nPhilipe Monteiro Cardoso (Cardoso Associated Attorneys), Brazil\nTatiana Coutinho (Lima Feigelson Attorneys), Brazil\nAcademia\nLuca Belli (Center for Technology and Society at FGV), Brazil\nBárbara Muracciole (Universidad de la República), Uruguay\nPablo Palazzi (Universidad de San Andrés), Argentina\nSizwe Snail (Nelson Mandela University), South Africa\nWei Wang (University of Hong Kong), China\nSmriti Parsheera (Indian Institute of Technology/CyberBRICS Project), India\nBianca Kremer (IDP/CTS-FGV), Brazil\nClara Leitão (CTS-FGV), Brazil\nNicolo Zingales (CTS-FGV), Brazil\nEkaterina Martynova (Higher School of Economics/CyberBRICS Project), Russia\nShilpa Singh Jaswant (University of Melbourne/OP Jindal Global Law University/CyberBRICS Project), India\nIndependent\nSinuhe Nascimento, Brazil\nDocuments/Reports\nDAIG Call for Papers on AI Safety and Security 2026\nDAIG Annual Report 2025\nDAIG Annual Report 2024\nAI from the Global Majority - DAIG Coalition 2024 Outcome\nDAIG Call for Essays 2024\nDAIG Annual Report 2023\nDAIG Outcome Report\nCall for Papers on AI Transparency and Accountability\nContact\nLuca Belli – luca.belli[at]fgv.br\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "b5075b78-a9b5-4f7b-80c7-1375a42e7537", "document_id": "62993035-d076-491c-8fba-88ccf97d7086", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Dynamic Coalition on Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nDynamic Coalition on Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance (DC-DAIG)\nIntroduction\nThe proposal to create a UN\nIGF\nData and Artificial Intelligence Governance Coalition (DAIG) emerged during the Data Governance School LatAm, in April 2023, hosted by the Center for Technology and Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas.\nThe goal of the coalition is to facilitate a multistakeholder and evidence-based debate around the governance of personal data and AI exploring the interactions of data policies with AI policies, with a particular focus on the Global South.\nThe Data Governance School LatAm acted as an inception meeting of the DAIG Coalition where stakeholders agreed on the inexistence of an appropriate venue to discuss such concerns, with a particular focus on the analysis of Global South approaches and perspectives. The establishment of the DAIG Coalition, therefore, aims at responding to the pressing need to establish such initiative.\nAction Plan\nUN\nIGF\nData and Artificial Intelligence Governance Coalition (DAIG) aims at fostering discussion of existing approaches to data and AI governance, promoting analysis of good and bad practices to identify what solutions should be replicated and which ones should be avoided by stakeholders to achieve a sustainable an effective data and AI governance.\nTo do so the DAIG Coalition aims at promoting collective studies and multistakeholder interactions to collect and discuss evidence, critically analyse existing regulatory and institutional arrangements, and propose policy updates.\nImportantly, the DAIG will act as a hub to connect global UN\nIGF\ndiscussions with regional and local initiatives, with a particular focus on Global South debates.\nTo facilitate meaningful interactions between local, regional, and global issues, systems, and stakeholders, the DAIG Coalition will adopt the following governance structure.\nGlobal Chair: Ana Brian Nougrères, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy\nGlobal Chair: Luca Belli, Professor, FGV Law School\nRegional Coordinator for Africa: Sizwe Snail, Professor, Nelson Mandela University\nRegional Coordinator for Asia: Smriti Parsheera, Researcher, Indian Institute of Technology/CyberBRICS Project\nRegional Coordinator for South America: Pablo Palazzi, Professor, Universidad de San Andrés\nRegional Coordinator for North America: Jonathan Mendoza, Secretary for Data Protection, National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (INAI)\nRegional Coordinator for Europe: TBC\nMailing List\nMailing list address:\n[email protected]\nSubscribe to the mailing list:\nhttps://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/igf-daig\nStakeholders\nCoordinators\nAna Brian, UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy\nLuca Belli, Center for Technology & Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School\nGovernment\nAna Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, and Universidad de Montevideo), Uruguay\nArmando Manzueta (Ministry of Economy, Planning and Development), Dominican Republic\nCarina de Castro Quirino (Undersecretary for Regulation and Business Environment of the Rio de Janeiro Municipality), Brazil\nGonzalo Sosa (E-Government and Information and Knowledge Society Agency - AGESIG), Uruguay\nFátima Arzamendia (National Telecommunications Commission), Paraguay\nJonathan Mendoza (National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data - INAI), Mexico\nMaria Julia Giorgelli (Office of the Ombudsman of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires), Argentina\nMiriam Wimmer (Brazilian National Data Protection Authority), Brazil\nCivil society\nCamila Leite Contri (Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense - Idec), Brazil\nIsadora Perez Peixoto (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br), Brazil\nAlice Rangel Teixeira (ForHumanity), Brazil\nPrivate Sector\nSamanta Oliveira (Mercado Livre), Brazil\nPaula Vargas (Meta), Latam\nArianne Jimenez (META), APAC\nDiogo Manganelli (Lenovo), Brazil\nFilipe Ribeiro Duarte (Martinelli Attorneys), Brazil\nPhilipe Monteiro Cardoso (Cardoso Associated Attorneys), Brazil\nTatiana Coutinho (Lima Feigelson Attorneys), Brazil\nAcademia\nLuca Belli (Center for Technology and Society at FGV), Brazil\nBárbara Muracciole (Universidad de la República), Uruguay\nPablo Palazzi (Universidad de San Andrés), Argentina\nSizwe Snail (Nelson Mandela University), South Africa\nWei Wang (University of Hong Kong), China\nSmriti Parsheera (Indian Institute of Technology/CyberBRICS Project), India\nBianca Kremer (IDP/CTS-FGV), Brazil\nClara Leitão (CTS-FGV), Brazil\nNicolo Zingales (CTS-FGV), Brazil\nEkaterina Martynova (Higher School of Economics/CyberBRICS Project), Russia\nShilpa Singh Jaswant (University of Melbourne/OP Jindal Global Law University/CyberBRICS Project), India\nIndependent\nSinuhe Nascimento, Brazil\nDocuments/Reports\nDAIG Call for Papers on AI Safety and Security 2026\nDAIG Annual Report 2025\nDAIG Annual Report 2024\nAI from the Global Majority - DAIG Coalition 2024 Outcome\nDAIG Call for Essays 2024\nDAIG Annual Report 2023\nDAIG Outcome Report\nCall for Papers on AI Transparency and Accountability\nContact\nLuca Belli – luca.belli[at]fgv.br\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 8248, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1172}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "source_id": "e630f15f4a53df4ba7dd0ab5", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8280", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8280/", "artifact_sha256": "8fb6aebeaaeb572cb1a158ef60c473d3e379327a383939b0e9da692f62a212d1", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 917587, "title": "RFC 8280: Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 179111, "characters": 179111, "text": "RFC 8280: Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 8280\nInfo\nRFC\n8280\n:\nResearch into Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nN. ten Oever\n,\nC. Cath\nInformational\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n9620\n.\nInternet Research Task Force (IRTF) N. ten Oever\nRequest for Comments: 8280 ARTICLE 19\nCategory: Informational C. Cath\nISSN: 2070-1721 Oxford Internet Institute\nOctober 2017\nResearch into Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nAbstract\n\nThis document aims to propose guidelines for human rights\nconsiderations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for\nprivacy considerations (\nRFC 6973\n). The other parts of this document\nexplain the background of the guidelines and how they were developed.\n\nThis document is the first milestone in a longer-term research\neffort. It has been reviewed by the Human Rights Protocol\nConsiderations (HRPC) Research Group and also by individuals from\noutside the research group.\n\nStatus of This Memo\n\nThis document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is\npublished for informational purposes.\n\nThis document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force\n(IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research\nand development activities. These results might not be suitable for\ndeployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Human Rights\nProtocol Considerations Research Group of the Internet Research Task\nForce (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not\na candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see\nSection 2 of\nRFC 7841\n.\n\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata,\nand how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8280\n.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 1]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n\nThis document is subject to\nBCP 78\nand the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttps://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect\nto this document.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 2]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction ....................................................\n4\n2\n. Vocabulary Used .................................................\n6\n3\n. Research Questions .............................................\n12\n4\n. Literature and Discussion Review ...............................\n12\n5\n. Methodology ....................................................\n15\n5.1\n. Data Sources ..............................................\n17\n5.1.1\n. Discourse Analysis of RFCs .........................\n17\n5.1.2\n. Interviews with Members of the IETF Community ......\n17\n5.1.3\n. Participant Observation in Working Groups ..........\n17\n5.2\n. Data Analysis Strategies ..................................\n18\n5.2.1. Identifying Qualities of Technical Concepts\nThat Relate to Human Rights ........................\n18\n5.2.2\n. Relating Human Rights to Technical Concepts ........\n20\n5.2.3. Mapping Cases of Protocols, Implementations, and\nNetworking Paradigms That Adversely Impact Human\nRights or Are Enablers Thereof .....................\n21\n6\n. Model for Developing Human Rights Protocol Considerations ......\n40\n6.1\n. Human Rights Threats ......................................\n40\n6.2\n. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations ................\n42\n6.2.1\n. Connectivity .......................................\n43\n6.2.2\n. Privacy ............................................\n43\n6.2.3\n. Content Agnosticism ................................\n44\n6.2.4\n. Security ...........................................\n45\n6.2.5\n. Internationalization ...............................\n46\n6.2.6\n. Censorship Resistance ..............................\n47\n6.2.7\n. Open Standards .....................................\n48\n6.2.8\n. Heterogeneity Support ..............................\n50\n6.2.9\n. Anonymity ..........................................\n51\n6.2.10\n. Pseudonymity ......................................\n51\n6.2.11\n. Accessibility .....................................\n53\n6.2.12\n. Localization ......................................\n53\n6.2.13\n. Decentralization ..................................\n54\n6.2.14\n. Reliability .......................................\n55\n6.2.15\n. Confidentiality ...................................\n56\n6.2.16\n. Integrity .........................................\n58\n6.2.17\n. Authenticity ......................................\n59\n6.2.18\n. Adaptability ......................................\n60\n6.2.19\n. Outcome Transparency ..............................\n61\n7\n. Security Considerations ........................................\n61\n8\n. IANA Considerations ............................................\n61\n9\n. Research Group Information .....................................\n62\n10\n. Informative References ........................................\n62\nAcknowledgements ..................................................\n80\nAuthors' Addresses ................................................\n81\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 3]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n1\n. Introduction\n\"There's a freedom about the Internet: As long as we accept the rules\nof sending packets around, we can send packets containing anything to\nanywhere.\" [\nBerners-Lee\n]\n\n\"The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.\"\n[\nRFC3935\n]\n\nThe ever-growing interconnectedness of the Internet and society\nincreases the impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals.\nBecause of this, the design and development of the Internet\ninfrastructure also have a growing impact on society. This has led\nto a broad recognition that human rights [\nUDHR\n] [\nICCPR\n] [\nICESCR\n] have\na role in the development and management of the Internet [\nUNGA2013\n]\n[\nNETmundial\n]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be\nstrengthened as an enabling environment for human rights [\nBrown\n].\n\nThis document aims to (1) expose the relationship between protocols\nand human rights, (2) propose possible guidelines to protect the\nInternet as an enabling environment for human rights in future\nprotocol development, in a manner similar to the work done for\nprivacy considerations [\nRFC6973\n], and (3) increase the awareness, in\nboth the human rights community and the technical community, of the\nimportance of the technical workings of the Internet and its impact\non human rights.\n\nDocument authors who want to apply this work to their own can go\ndirectly to\nSection 6\nof this document.\n\nOpen, secure, and reliable connectivity is necessary (although not\nsufficient) to exercise human rights such as freedom of expression\nand freedom of association [\nFOC\n], as defined in the Universal\nDeclaration of Human Rights [\nUDHR\n]. The purpose of the Internet is\nto be a global network of networks that provides unfettered\nconnectivity to all users, and for any content [\nRFC1958\n]. This\nobjective of stimulating global connectivity contributes to the\nInternet's role as an enabler of human rights. The Internet has\ngiven people a platform to exchange opinions and gather information;\nit has enabled people of different backgrounds and genders to\nparticipate in the public debate; it has also allowed people to\ncongregate and organize. Next to that, the strong commitment to\nsecurity [\nRFC1984\n] [\nRFC3365\n] and privacy [\nRFC6973\n] [\nRFC7258\n] in the\nInternet's architectural design contributes to the strengthening of\nthe Internet as an enabling environment for human rights. One could\neven argue that the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights\nbut that human rights lie at the base of, and are ingrained in, the\narchitecture of the networks that make up the Internet. Internet\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 4]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nconnectivity increases the capacity for individuals to exercise their\nrights; the core of the Internet -- its architectural design -- is\ntherefore closely intertwined with the human rights framework\n[\nCathFloridi\n]. The quintessential link between the Internet's\ninfrastructure and human rights has been argued by many. [\nBless1\n],\nfor instance, argues that \"to a certain extent, the Internet and its\nprotocols have already facilitated the realization of human rights,\ne.g., the freedom of assembly and expression. In contrast, measures\nof censorship and pervasive surveillance violate fundamental human\nrights.\" [\nDeNardis15\n] argues that \"Since the first hints of Internet\ncommercialization and internationalization, the IETF has supported\nstrong security in protocol design and has sometimes served as a\nforce resisting protocol-enabled surveillance features.\" By doing\nso, the IETF enabled the manifestation of the right to privacy,\nthrough the Internet's infrastructure. Additionally, access to\nfreely available information gives people access to knowledge that\nenables them to help satisfy other human rights; as such, the\nInternet increasingly becomes a precondition for human rights rather\nthan a supplement.\n\nHuman rights can be in conflict with each other, such as the right to\nfreedom of expression and the right to privacy. In such cases, the\ndifferent affected rights need to be balanced. To do this, it is\ncrucial that the impacts on rights are clearly documented in order to\nmitigate potential harm. This research aims to ultimately contribute\nto making that process tangible and practical for protocol\ndevelopers. Technology can never be fully equated with a human\nright. Whereas a specific technology might be a strong enabler of a\nspecific human right, it might have an adverse impact on another\nhuman right. In this case, decisions on design and deployment need\nto take this into account.\n\nThe open nature of the initial technical design and its open\nstandards, as well as developments like open source, fostered freedom\nof communication. What emerged was a network of networks that could\nenable everyone to connect and to exchange data, information, and\ncode. For many, enabling such connections became a core value.\nHowever, as the scale and the commercialization of the Internet grew,\ntopics like access, rights, and connectivity have been forced to\ncompete with other values. Therefore, important characteristics of\nthe Internet that enable human rights might be degraded if they're\nnot properly defined, described, and protected as such. Conversely,\nnot protecting characteristics that enable human rights could also\nresult in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity, along\nwith other inherent parts of the Internet's architecture of networks.\nNew protocols, particularly those that upgrade the core\ninfrastructure of the network, should be designed to continue to\nenable fundamental human rights.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 5]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nThe IETF has produced guidelines and procedures to ensure and\ngalvanize the privacy of individuals and security of the network in\nprotocol development. This document aims to explore the possibility\nof developing similar procedures for guidelines for human rights\nconsiderations to ensure that protocols developed in the IETF do not\nhave an adverse impact on the realization of human rights on the\nInternet. By carefully considering the answers to the questions\nposed in\nSection 6\nof this document, document authors should be\n(1) able to produce a comprehensive analysis that can serve as the\nbasis for discussion on whether the protocol adequately protects\nagainst specific human rights threats and (2) potentially stimulated\nto think about alternative design choices.\n\nThis document was developed within the framework of the Human Rights\nProtocol Considerations (HRPC) Research Group, based on discussions\non the HRPC mailing list (\nSection 9\n); this document was also\nextensively discussed during HRPC sessions. This document has\nreceived eleven in-depth reviews on the mailing list, and it received\nmany comments from inside and outside the IRTF and IETF communities.\n2\n. Vocabulary Used\nIn the discussion of human rights and Internet architecture, concepts\ndeveloped in computer science, networking, law, policy-making, and\nadvocacy are coming together [\nDutton\n] [\nKaye\n] [\nFranklin\n] [\nRFC1958\n].\nThe same concepts might have a very different meaning and\nimplications in other areas of expertise. In order to foster a\nconstructive interdisciplinary debate and minimize differences in\ninterpretation, the following glossary is provided. It builds as\nmuch as possible on existing definitions; when definitions were not\navailable in IETF documents, definitions were taken from other\nStandards Development Organizations (SDOs) or academic literature.\n\nAccessibility: \"Full Internet Connectivity\", as described in\n[\nRFC4084\n], to provide unfettered access to the Internet.\n\nThe design of protocols, services, or implementations that provide\nan enabling environment for people with disabilities.\n\nThe ability to receive information available on the Internet.\n\nAnonymity: The condition of an identity being unknown or concealed\n[\nRFC4949\n].\n\nAnonymous: A state of an individual in which an observer or attacker\ncannot identify the individual within a set of other individuals\n(the anonymity set) [\nRFC6973\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 6]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAuthenticity: The property of being genuine and able to be verified\nand be trusted [\nRFC4949\n].\n\nBlocking: The practice of preventing access to resources in the\naggregate [\nRFC7754\n]. Both blocking and filtering can be\nimplemented at the level of \"services\" (web hosting or video\nstreaming, for example) or at the level of particular \"content\"\n[\nRFC7754\n].\n\nCensorship: Technical mechanisms, including both blocking and\nfiltering, that certain political or private actors around the\nworld use to block or degrade Internet traffic. For further\ndetails on the various elements of Internet censorship, see\n[\nHall\n].\n\nCensorship resistance: Methods and measures to mitigate Internet\ncensorship.\n\nConfidentiality: The property that data is not disclosed to system\nentities unless they have been authorized to know the data\n[\nRFC4949\n].\n\nConnectivity: The extent to which a device or network is able to\nreach other devices or networks to exchange data. The Internet is\nthe tool for providing global connectivity [\nRFC1958\n]. Different\ntypes of connectivity are further specified in [\nRFC4084\n].\n\nThe end-to-end principle, interoperability, distributed\narchitecture, resilience, reliability, and robustness in\ncombination constitute the enabling factors that result in\nconnectivity to, and on, the Internet.\n\nContent agnosticism: Treating network traffic identically regardless\nof content.\n\nDecentralized: Implementation or deployment of standards, protocols,\nor systems without one single point of control.\n\nEnd-to-end principle: The principle that application-specific\nfunctions should not be embedded into the network and thus stay at\nthe endpoints. In many cases, especially when dealing with\nfailures, the right decisions can only be made with the\ncorresponding application-specific knowledge, which is available\nat endpoints not in the network.\n\nThe end-to-end principle is one of the key architectural\nguidelines of the Internet. The argument in favor of the\nend-to-end approach to system design is laid out in the\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 7]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nfundamental papers by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark [\nSaltzer\n] [\nClark\n].\nIn these papers, the authors argue in favor of radical\nsimplification: system designers should only build the essential\nand shared functions into the network, as most functions can only\nbe implemented at network endpoints. Building features into the\nnetwork for the benefit of certain applications will come at the\nexpense of others. As such, in general system designers should\nattempt to steer clear of building anything into the network that\nis not a bare necessity for its functioning. Following the\nend-to-end principle is crucial for innovation, as it makes\ninnovation at the edges possible without having to make changes to\nthe network, and it protects the robustness of the network.\n[\nRFC2775\n] further elaborates on various aspects of end-to-end\nconnectivity.\n\nFederation: The possibility of connecting autonomous and possibly\ncentralized systems into a single system without a central\nauthority.\n\nFiltering: The practice of preventing access to specific resources\nwithin an aggregate [\nRFC7754\n].\n\nHeterogeneity: \"The Internet is characterized by heterogeneity on\nmany levels: devices and nodes, router scheduling algorithms and\nqueue management mechanisms, routing protocols, levels of\nmultiplexing, protocol versions and implementations, underlying\nlink layers (e.g., point-to-point, multi-access links, wireless,\nFDDI, etc.), in the traffic mix and in the levels of congestion at\ndifferent times and places. Moreover, as the Internet is composed\nof autonomous organizations and internet service providers, each\nwith their own separate policy concerns, there is a large\nheterogeneity of administrative domains and pricing structures.\"\n[\nFIArch\n]\n\nAs a result, per [\nFIArch\n], the heterogeneity principle proposed in\n[\nRFC1958\n] needs to be supported by design.\n\nHuman rights: Principles and norms that are indivisible,\ninterrelated, unalienable, universal, and mutually reinforcing.\nHuman rights have been codified in national and international\nbodies of law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [\nUDHR\n]\nis the most well-known document in the history of human rights.\nThe aspirations from [\nUDHR\n] were later codified into treaties such\nas the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights\n[\nICCPR\n] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and\nCultural Rights [\nICESCR\n], after which signatory countries were\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 8]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nobliged to reflect them in their national bodies of law. There is\nalso a broad recognition that not only states have obligations\nvis-a-vis human rights, but non-state actors do as well.\n\nIntegrity: The property that data has not been changed, destroyed,\nor lost in an unauthorized or accidental manner [\nRFC4949\n].\n\nInternationalization (i18n): The practice of making protocols,\nstandards, and implementations usable in different languages and\nscripts (see\nSection 6.2.12\n(\"Localization\")).\n\n\"In the IETF, 'internationalization' means to add or improve the\nhandling of non-ASCII text in a protocol\" [\nRFC6365\n].\n\nA different perspective, more appropriate to protocols that are\ndesigned for global use from the beginning, is the definition used\nby the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) [\nW3Ci18nDef\n]:\n\"Internationalization is the design and development of a product,\napplication or document content that enables easy localization for\ntarget audiences that vary in culture, region, or language.\"\n\nMany protocols that handle text only handle one charset\n(US-ASCII), or they leave the question of encoding up to local\nguesswork (which leads, of course, to interoperability problems)\n[\nRFC3536\n]. If multiple charsets are permitted, they must be\nexplicitly identified [\nRFC2277\n]. Adding non-ASCII text to a\nprotocol allows the protocol to handle more scripts, hopefully all\nscripts in use in the world. In today's world, that is normally\nbest accomplished by allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only,\nthereby shifting conversion issues away from ad hoc choices.\n\nInteroperable: A property of a documented standard or protocol that\nallows different independent implementations to work with each\nother without any restriction on functionality.\n\nLocalization (l10n): The practice of translating an implementation\nto make it functional in a specific language or for users in a\nspecific locale (see\nSection 6.2.5\n(\"Internationalization\")).\n\n(cf. [\nRFC6365\n]): The process of adapting an internationalized\napplication platform or application to a specific cultural\nenvironment. In localization, the same semantics are preserved\nwhile the syntax may be changed [\nFRAMEWORK\n].\n\nLocalization is the act of tailoring an application for a\ndifferent language, script, or culture. Some internationalized\napplications can handle a wide variety of languages. Typical\nusers only understand a small number of languages, so the program\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 9]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nmust be tailored to interact with users in just the languages they\nknow. The major work of localization is translating the user\ninterface and documentation. Localization involves not only\nchanging the language interaction but also other relevant changes,\nsuch as display of numbers, dates, currency, and so on. The\nbetter internationalized an application is, the easier it is to\nlocalize it for a particular language and character-encoding\nscheme.\n\nOpen standards: Conform with [\nRFC2026\n], which states the following:\n\"Various national and international standards bodies, such as\nANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and\nservice specifications that are similar to Technical\nSpecifications defined here. National and international groups\nalso publish 'implementors' agreements' that are analogous to\nApplicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-\nspecific detail concerned with the practical application of their\nstandards. All of these are considered to be 'open external\nstandards' for the purposes of the Internet Standards Process.\"\n\nOpenness: Absence of centralized points of control -- \"a feature\nthat is assumed to make it easy for new users to join and new uses\nto unfold\" [\nBrown\n].\n\nPermissionless innovation: The freedom and ability to freely create\nand deploy new protocols on top of the communications constructs\nthat currently exist.\n\nPrivacy: The right of an entity (normally a person), acting on its\nown behalf, to determine the degree to which it will interact with\nits environment, including the degree to which the entity is\nwilling to share its personal information with others [\nRFC4949\n].\n\nThe right of individuals to control or influence what information\nrelated to them may be collected and stored, and by whom and to\nwhom that information may be disclosed.\n\nPrivacy is a broad concept relating to the protection of\nindividual or group autonomy and the relationship between an\nindividual or group and society, including government, companies,\nand private individuals. It is often summarized as \"the right to\nbe left alone\", but it encompasses a wide range of rights,\nincluding protections from intrusions into family and home life,\ncontrol of sexual and reproductive rights, and communications\nsecrecy. It is commonly recognized as a core right that underpins\nhuman dignity and other values such as freedom of association and\nfreedom of speech.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 10]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nThe right to privacy is also recognized in nearly every national\nconstitution and in most international human rights treaties. It\nhas been adjudicated upon by both international and regional\nbodies. The right to privacy is also legally protected at the\nnational level through provisions in civil and/or criminal codes.\n\nReliability: Ensures that a protocol will execute its function\nconsistently as described and function without unexpected results.\nA system that is reliable degenerates gracefully and will have a\ndocumented way to announce degradation. It also has mechanisms to\nrecover from failure gracefully and, if applicable, allow for\npartial healing [\ndict\n].\n\nResilience: The maintaining of dependability and performance in the\nface of unanticipated changes and circumstances [\nMeyer\n].\n\nRobustness: The resistance of protocols and their implementations to\nerrors, and resistance to involuntary, legal, or malicious\nattempts to disrupt their modes of operation [\nRFC760\n] [\nRFC791\n]\n[\nRFC793\n] [\nRFC1122\n]. Or, framed more positively, a system can\nprovide functionality consistently and without errors despite\ninvoluntary, legal, or malicious attempts to disrupt its mode of\noperation.\n\nScalability: The ability to handle increased or decreased system\nparameters (number of end systems, users, data flows, routing\nentries, etc.) predictably within defined expectations. There\nshould be a clear definition of its scope and applicability. The\nlimits of a system's scalability should be defined. Growth or\nshrinkage of these parameters is typically considered by orders of\nmagnitude.\n\nStrong encryption / cryptography: Used to describe a cryptographic\nalgorithm that would require a large amount of computational power\nto defeat it [\nRFC4949\n]. In the modern usage of the definition of\n\"strong encryption\", this refers to an amount of computing power\ncurrently not available, not even to major state-level actors.\n\nTransparency: In this context, linked to the comprehensibility of a\nprotocol in relation to the choices it makes for users, protocol\ndevelopers, and implementers, and to its outcome.\n\nOutcome transparency is linked to the comprehensibility of the\neffects of a protocol in relation to the choices it makes for\nusers, protocol developers, and implementers, including the\ncomprehensibility of possible unintended consequences of protocol\nchoices (e.g., lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity\nand negative externalities).\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 11]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n3\n. Research Questions\nThe Human Rights Protocol Considerations (HRPC) Research Group in the\nInternet Research Task Force (IRTF) embarked on its mission to answer\nthe following two questions, which are also the main two questions\nthat this document seeks to answer:\n\n1. How can Internet protocols and standards impact human rights, by\neither enabling them or creating a restrictive environment?\n\n2. Can guidelines be developed to improve informed and transparent\ndecision-making about the potential impact of protocols on human\nrights?\n4\n. Literature and Discussion Review\nProtocols and standards are regularly seen as merely performing\ntechnical functions. However, these protocols and standards do not\nexist outside of their technical context, nor do they exist outside\nof their political, historical, economic, legal, or cultural context.\nThis is best exemplified by the way in which some Internet processes\nand protocols have become part and parcel of political processes and\npublic policies: one only has to look at the IANA transition,\n[\nRFC7258\n] (\"Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\"), or global innovation\npolicy, for concrete examples [\nDeNardis15\n]. According to [\nAbbate\n],\n\"protocols are politics by other means.\" This statement would\nprobably not garner IETF consensus, but it nonetheless reveals that\nprotocols are based on decision-making, most often by humans. In\nthis process, the values and ideas about the role that a particular\ntechnology should perform in society are embedded into the design.\nOften, these design decisions are partly \"purely technical\" and\npartly inspired by a certain world view of how technology should\nfunction that is inspired by personal, corporate, and political\nviews. Within the community of IETF participants, there is a strong\ndesire to solve technical problems and to minimize engagement with\npolitical processes and non-protocol-related political issues.\n\nSince the late 1990s, a burgeoning group of academics and\npractitioners researched questions surrounding the societal impact of\nprotocols, as well as the politics of protocols. These studies vary\nin focus and scope: some focus on specific standards [\nDavidson-etal\n]\n[\nMusiani\n]; others look into the political, legal, commercial, or\nsocial impact of protocols [\nBrownMarsden\n] [\nLessig\n] [\nMueller\n]; and yet\nothers look at how the engineers' personal set of values get\ntranslated into technology [\nAbbate\n] [\nCathFloridi\n] [\nDeNardis15\n]\n[\nWynsbergheMoura\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 12]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nCommercial and political influences on the management of the\nInternet's infrastructure are well documented in the academic\nliterature and will thus not be discussed here; see [\nBenkler\n],\n[\nBrown-etal\n], [\nDeNardis15\n], [\nLessig\n], [\nMueller\n], and [\nZittrain\n]. It\nis sufficient to say that the IETF community consistently tries to\npush back against the standardization of surveillance and certain\nother issues that negatively influence an end user's experience of,\nand trust in, the Internet [\nDeNardis14\n]. The role that human rights\nplay in engineering, infrastructure maintenance, and protocol design\nis much less clear.\n\nIt is very important to understand how protocols and standards impact\nhuman rights, in particular because SDOs are increasingly becoming\nvenues where social values (like human rights) are discussed,\nalthough often from a technological point of view. These SDOs are\nbecoming a new focal point for discussions about \"values by design\"\nand the role of technical engineers in protecting or enabling human\nrights [\nBrown-etal\n] [\nClark-etal\n] [\nDeNardis14\n] [\nCathFloridi\n] [\nLessig\n]\n[\nRachovitsa\n].\n\nIn the academic literature, five clear positions can be discerned in\nrelation to the role of human rights in protocol design and how to\naccount for these human rights in protocol development: Clark\net al. [\nClark-etal\n] argue that there is a need to design \"for\nvariation in outcome -- so that the outcome can be different in\ndifferent places, and the tussle takes place within the design (...)\"\n[as] \"Rigid designs will be broken; designs that permit variation\nwill flex under pressure and survive.\" They hold that human rights\nshould not be hard-coded into protocols for three reasons: First, the\nrights in the UDHR are not absolute. Second, technology is not the\nonly tool in the tussle over human rights. And last but not least,\nit is dangerous to make promises that can't be kept. The open nature\nof the Internet will never, they argue, be enough to fully protect\nindividuals' human rights.\n\nConversely, Brown et al. [\nBrown-etal\n] state that \"some key, universal\nvalues -- of which the UDHR is the most legitimate expression --\nshould be baked into the architecture at design time.\" They argue\nthat design choices have offline consequences and are able to shape\nthe power positions of groups or individuals in society. As such,\nthe individuals making these technical decisions have a moral\nobligation to take into account the impact of their decisions on\nsociety and, by extension, human rights. Brown et al. recognize that\nvalues and the implementation of human rights vary across the globe.\nYet they argue that all members of the United Nations have found\n\"common agreement on the values proclaimed in the Universal\nDeclaration of Human Rights. In looking for the most legitimate set\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 13]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nof global values to embed in the future Internet architectures, the\nUDHR has the democratic assent of a significant fraction of the\nplanet's population, through their elected representatives.\"\n\nThe main disagreement between these two academic positions lies\nmostly in the question of whether (1) a particular value system\nshould be embedded into the Internet's architectures or (2) the\narchitectures need to account for a varying set of values.\n\nA third position, which is similar to that of Brown et al., is taken\nby [\nBroeders\n], in which Broeders argues that \"we must find ways to\ncontinue guaranteeing the overall integrity and functionality of the\npublic core of the Internet.\" He argues that the best way to do this\nis by declaring the backbone of the Internet -- which includes the\nTCP/IP protocol suite, numerous standards, the Domain Name System\n(DNS), and routing protocols -- a common public good. This is a\ndifferent approach than those of [\nClark-etal\n] and [\nBrown-etal\n]\nbecause Broeders does not suggest that social values should (or\nshould not) be explicitly coded into the Internet, but rather that\nthe existing infrastructure should be seen as an entity of public\nvalue.\n\nBless and Orwat [\nBless2\n] represent a fourth position. They argue\nthat it is too early to make any definitive claims but that there is\na need for more careful analysis of the impact of protocol design\nchoices on human rights. They also argue that it is important to\nsearch for solutions that \"create awareness in the technical\ncommunity about impact of design choices on social values\" and \"work\ntowards a methodology for co-design of technical and institutional\nsystems.\"\n\nBerners-Lee and Halpin [\nBernersLeeHalpin\n] represent a fifth position.\nThey argue that the Internet could lead to even newer capacities, and\nthese capacities may over time be viewed as new kinds of rights. For\nexample, Internet access may be viewed as a human right in and of\nitself if it is taken to be a precondition for other rights, even if\nit could not have been predicted at the time that the UDHR was\nwritten (after the end of World War II).\n\nIt is important to contextualize the technical discussion with the\nacademic discussions on this issue. The academic discussions are\nalso important to document, as they inform the position of the\nauthors of this document. The research group's position is that\nhard-coding human rights into protocols is complicated and changes\nwith the context. At this point, it is difficult to say whether or\nnot hard-coding human rights into protocols is wise or feasible.\nAdditionally, there are many human rights, but not all are relevant\nfor information and communications technologies (ICTs). A partial\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 14]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ncatalog (with references to sources) of human rights related to ICTs\ncan be found in [\nHill2014\n]. It is, however, important to make\nconscious and explicit design decisions that take into account the\nhuman rights protocol considerations guidelines developed below.\nThis will contribute to the understanding of the impact that\nprotocols can have on human rights, for both developers and users.\nIn addition, it contributes to (1) the careful consideration of the\nimpact that a specific protocol might have on human rights and\n(2) the dissemination of the practice of documenting protocol design\ndecisions related to human rights.\n\nPursuant to the principle of constant change, because the function\nand scope of the Internet evolve, so does the role of the IETF in\ndeveloping standards. Internet Standards are adopted based on a\nseries of criteria, including high technical quality, support by\ncommunity consensus, and their overall benefit to the Internet. The\nlatter calls for an assessment of the interests of all affected\nparties and the specifications' impact on the Internet's users. In\nthis respect, the effective exercise of the human rights of the\nInternet users is a relevant consideration that needs to be\nappreciated in the standardization process insofar as it is directly\nlinked to the reliability and core values of the Internet [\nRFC1958\n]\n[\nRFC2775\n] [\nRFC3439\n] [\nRFC3724\n].\n\nThis document details the steps taken in the research into human\nrights protocol considerations by the HRPC Research Group to clarify\nthe relationship between technical concepts used in the IETF and\nhuman rights. This document sets out some preliminary steps and\nconsiderations for engineers to take into account when developing\nstandards and protocols.\n5\n. Methodology\nMapping the relationship between human rights, protocols, and\narchitectures is a new research challenge that requires a good amount\nof interdisciplinary and cross-organizational cooperation to develop\na consistent methodology.\n\nThe methodological choices made in this document are based on the\npolitical-science-based method of discourse analysis and ethnographic\nresearch methods [\nCath\n]. This work departs from the assumption that\nlanguage reflects the understanding of concepts. Or, as [\nJabri\n]\nholds, policy documents are \"social relations represented in texts\nwhere the language contained within these texts is used to construct\nmeaning and representation.\" This process happens in society\n[\nDenzin\n] and manifests itself in institutions and organizations\n[\nKing\n], exposed using the ethnographic methods of semi-structured\ninterviews and participant observation. Or, in non-academic\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 15]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nlanguage, the way the language in IETF/IRTF documents describes and\napproaches the issues they are trying to address is an indication of\nthe underlying social assumptions and relationships of the engineers\nto their engineering. By reading and analyzing these documents, as\nwell as interviewing engineers and participating in the IETF/IRTF\nworking groups, it is possible to distill the relationship between\nhuman rights, protocols, and the Internet's infrastructure as it\npertains to the work of the IETF.\n\nThe discourse analysis was operationalized using qualitative and\nquantitative means. The first step taken by the authors and\ncontributors was reading RFCs and other official IETF documents. The\nsecond step was the use of a Python-based analyzer, using the\n\"Bigbang\" tool, adapted by Nick Doty [\nDoty\n], to scan for the concepts\nthat were identified as important architectural principles (distilled\non the initial reading and supplemented by the interviews and\nparticipant observation). Such a quantitative method is very precise\nand speeds up the research process [\nRitchie\n]. But this tool is\nunable to understand \"latent meaning\" [\nDenzin\n]. In order to mitigate\nthese issues of automated word-frequency-based approaches and to get\na sense of the \"thick meaning\" [\nGeertz\n] of the data, a second\nqualitative analysis of the data set was performed. These various\nrounds of discourse analysis were used to inform the interviews and\nfurther data analysis. As such, the initial rounds of quantitative\ndiscourse analysis were used to inform the second rounds of\nqualitative analysis. The results from the qualitative interviews\nwere again used to feed new concepts into the quantitative discourse\nanalysis. As such, the two methods continued to support and enrich\neach other.\n\nThe ethnographic methods of the data collection and processing\nallowed the research group to acquire the data necessary to \"provide\na holistic understanding of research participants' views and actions\"\n[\nDenzin\n] that highlighted ongoing issues and case studies where\nprotocols impact human rights. The interview participants were\nselected through purposive sampling [\nBabbie\n], as the research group\nwas interested in getting a wide variety of opinions on the role of\nhuman rights in guiding protocol development. This sampling method\nalso ensured that individuals with extensive experience working at\nthe IETF in various roles were targeted. The interviewees included\nindividuals in leadership positions (Working Group (WG) chairs, Area\nDirectors (ADs)), \"regular participants\", and individuals working for\nspecific entities (corporate, civil society, political, academic) and\nrepresented various backgrounds, nationalities, and genders.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 16]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.1\n. Data Sources\nIn order to map the potential relationship between human rights and\nprotocols, the HRPC Research Group gathered data from three specific\nsources:\n5.1.1\n. Discourse Analysis of RFCs\nTo start addressing the issue, a mapping exercise analyzing Internet\ninfrastructure and protocol features vis-a-vis their possible impact\non human rights was undertaken. Therefore, research on (1) the\nlanguage used in current and historic RFCs and (2) information\ngathered from mailing-list discussions was undertaken to expose core\narchitectural principles, language, and deliberations on the human\nrights of those affected by the network.\n5.1.2\n. Interviews with Members of the IETF Community\nOver 30 interviews with the current and past members of the Internet\nArchitecture Board (IAB), current and past members of the Internet\nEngineering Steering Group (IESG), chairs of selected working groups,\nand RFC authors were done at the IETF 92 meeting in Dallas in\nMarch 2015 to get an insider's understanding of how they view the\nrelationship (if any) between human rights and protocols, and how\nthis relationship plays out in their work. Several of the\nparticipants opted to remain anonymous. If you are interested in\nthis data set, please contact the authors of this document.\n5.1.3\n. Participant Observation in Working Groups\nBy participating in various working groups, in person at IETF\nmeetings, and on mailing lists, information about the IETF's\nday-to-day workings was gathered, from which general themes,\ntechnical concepts, and use cases about human rights and protocols\nwere extracted. This process started at the IETF 91 meeting in\nHonolulu and continues today.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 17]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2\n. Data Analysis Strategies\nThe data above was processed using three consecutive strategies:\nmapping protocols related to human rights, extracting concepts from\nthese protocols, and creation of a common glossary (detailed under\nSection 2\n). Before going over these strategies, some elaboration on\nthe process of identifying technical concepts as they relate to human\nrights is needed:\n5.2.1\n. Identifying Qualities of Technical Concepts That Relate to Human\nRights\n5.2.1.1\n. Mapping Protocols and Standards to Human Rights\nBy combining data from the three data sources named above, an\nextensive list of protocols and standards that potentially enable the\nInternet as a tool for freedom of expression and association was\ncreated. In order to determine the enabling (or inhibiting)\nfeatures, we relied on direct references in the RFCs as related to\nsuch impacts, as well as input from the community. Based on this\nanalysis, a list of RFCs that describe standards and protocols that\nare potentially closely related to human rights was compiled.\n5.2.1.2\n. Extracting Concepts from Selected RFCs\nThe first step was to identify the protocols and standards that are\nrelated to human rights and to create an environment that enables\nhuman rights. For that, we needed to focus on specific technical\nconcepts that underlie these protocols and standards. Based on this\nlist, a number of technical concepts that appeared frequently were\nextracted and used to create a second list of technical terms that,\nwhen combined and applied in different circumstances, create an\nenabling environment for exercising human rights on the Internet.\n5.2.1.3\n. Building a Common Vocabulary of Technical Concepts That Impact\nHuman Rights\nWhile interviewing experts, investigating RFCs, and compiling\ntechnical definitions, several concepts of convergence and divergence\nwere identified. To ensure that the discussion was based on a common\nunderstanding of terms and vocabulary, a list of definitions was\ncreated. The definitions are based on the wording found in various\nIETF documents; if the definitions were not available therein,\ndefinitions were taken from other SDOs or academic literature, as\nindicated in\nSection 2\n.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 18]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.1.4\n. Translating Human Rights Concepts into Technical Definitions\nThe previous steps allowed for the clarification of relationships\nbetween human rights and technical concepts. The steps taken show\nhow the research process \"zoomed in\", from compiling a broad list of\nprotocols and standards that relate to human rights to extracting the\nprecise technical concepts that make up these protocols and\nstandards, in order to understand the relationship between the two.\nThis subsection presents the next step: translating human rights to\ntechnical concepts by matching the individual components of the\nrights to the accompanying technical concepts, allowing for the\ncreation of a list of technical concepts that, when partially\ncombined, can create an enabling environment for human rights.\n5.2.1.5\n. List of Technical Terms That, When Partially Combined, Can\nCreate an Enabling Environment for Human Rights\nBased on the prior steps, the following list of technical terms was\ndrafted. When partially combined, this list can create an enabling\nenvironment for human rights, such as freedom of expression and\nfreedom of association.\n\nArchitectural principles Enabling features\nand system properties for user rights\n\n/------------------------------------------------\\\n| |\n+=================|=============================+ |\n= | = |\n= | End-to-end = |\n= | Reliability = |\n= | Resilience = Access as |\n= | Interoperability = human right |\n= Good enough | Transparency = |\n= principle | Data minimization = |\n= | Permissionless innovation = |\n= Simplicity | Graceful degradation = |\n= | Connectivity = |\n= | Heterogeneity support = |\n= | = |\n= | = |\n= \\------------------------------------------------/\n= =\n+===============================================+\n\nFigure 1: Relationship between Architectural Principles and Enabling\nFeatures for User Rights\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 19]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.2\n. Relating Human Rights to Technical Concepts\nThe technical concepts listed in the steps above have been grouped\naccording to their impact on specific rights, as mentioned in the\ninterviews done at IETF 92 as well as the study of literature (see\nSection 4\n(\"Literature and Discussion Review\") above).\n\nThis analysis aims to assist protocol developers in better\nunderstanding the roles that specific technical concepts have with\nregard to their contribution to an enabling environment for people to\nexercise their human rights.\n\nThis analysis does not claim to be a complete or exhaustive mapping\nof all possible ways in which protocols could potentially impact\nhuman rights, but it presents a mapping of initial concepts based on\ninterviews and on discussion and review of the literature.\n\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Technical Concepts | Rights Potentially Impacted |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Connectivity | |\n| Privacy | |\n| Security | |\n| Content agnosticism | Right to freedom of expression |\n| Internationalization | |\n| Censorship resistance | |\n| Open standards | |\n| Heterogeneity support | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Anonymity | |\n| Privacy | |\n| Pseudonymity | Right to non-discrimination |\n| Accessibility | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Content agnosticism | |\n| Security | Right to equal protection |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Accessibility | |\n| Internationalization | Right to political participation |\n| Censorship resistance | |\n| Connectivity | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Open standards | |\n| Localization | Right to participate in cultural life, |\n| Internationalization | arts, and science, and |\n| Censorship resistance | Right to education |\n| Accessibility | |\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 20]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Connectivity | |\n| Decentralization | |\n| Censorship resistance | Right to freedom of assembly |\n| Pseudonymity | and association |\n| Anonymity | |\n| Security | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Reliability | |\n| Confidentiality | |\n| Integrity | Right to security |\n| Authenticity | |\n| Anonymity | |\n| | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n\nFigure 2: Relationship between Specific Technical Concepts\nwith Regard to Their Contribution to an Enabling Environment\nfor People to Exercise Their Human Rights\n5.2.3\n. Mapping Cases of Protocols, Implementations, and Networking\nParadigms That Adversely Impact Human Rights or Are Enablers\nThereof\n\nGiven the information above, the following list of cases of\nprotocols, implementations, and networking paradigms that either\nadversely impact or enable human rights was formed.\n\nIt is important to note that the assessment here is not a general\njudgment on these protocols, nor is it an exhaustive listing of all\nthe potential negative or positive impacts on human rights that these\nprotocols might have. When these protocols were conceived, there\nwere many criteria to take into account. For instance, relying on a\ncentralized service can be bad for freedom of speech (it creates one\nmore control point, where censorship could be applied), but it may be\na necessity if the endpoints are not connected and reachable\npermanently. So, when we say \"protocol X has feature Y, which may\nendanger freedom of speech,\" it does not mean that protocol X is bad,\nmuch less that its authors were evil. The goal here is to show, with\nactual examples, that the design of protocols has practical\nconsequences for some human rights and that these consequences have\nto be considered in the design phase.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 21]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.1\n. IPv4\nThe Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4), also known as \"Layer 3\" of\nthe Internet and specified with a common encapsulation and protocol\nheader, is defined in [\nRFC791\n]. The evolution of Internet\ncommunications led to continued development in this area,\n\"encapsulated\" in the development of version 6 (IPv6) of the protocol\n[\nRFC8200\n]. In spite of this updated protocol, we find that 23 years\nafter the specification of IPv6 the older IPv4 standard continues to\naccount for a sizable majority of Internet traffic. Most of the\nissues discussed here (Network Address Translators (NATs) are a major\nexception; see\nSection 5.2.3.1.2\n(\"Address Translation and\nMobility\")) are valid for IPv4 as well as IPv6.\n\nThe Internet was designed as a platform for free and open\ncommunication, most notably encoded in the end-to-end principle, and\nthat philosophy is also present in the technical implementation of IP\n[\nRFC3724\n]. While the protocol was designed to exist in an\nenvironment where intelligence is at the end hosts, it has proven to\nprovide sufficient information that a more intelligent network core\ncan make policy decisions and enforce policy-based traffic shaping,\nthereby restricting the communications of end hosts. These\ncapabilities for network control and for limitations on freedom of\nexpression by end hosts can be traced back to the design of IPv4,\nhelping us to understand which technical protocol decisions have led\nto harm to this human right. A feature that can harm freedom of\nexpression as well as the right to privacy through misuse of IP is\nthe exploitation of the public visibility of the host pairs for all\ncommunications and the corresponding ability to differentiate and\nblock traffic as a result of that metadata.\n5.2.3.1.1\n. Network Visibility of Source and Destination\nThe IPv4 protocol header contains fixed location fields for both the\nsource IP address and destination IP address [\nRFC791\n]. These\naddresses identify both the host sending and the host receiving each\nmessage; they also allow the core network to understand who is\ntalking to whom and to practically limit communication selectively\nbetween pairs of hosts. Blocking of communication based on the pair\nof source and destination is one of the most common limitations on\nthe ability for people to communicate today [\nCAIDA\n] and can be seen\nas a restriction of the ability for people to assemble or to\nconsensually express themselves.\n\nInclusion of an Internet-wide identified source in the IP header\nis not the only possible design, especially since the protocol is\nmost commonly implemented over Ethernet networks exposing only\nlink-local identifiers [\nRFC894\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 22]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nA variety of alternative designs do exist, such as the Accountable\nand Private Internet Protocol [\nAPIP\n] and High-speed Onion Routing at\nthe Network Layer (HORNET) [\nHORNET\n] as well as source routing. The\nlatter would allow the sender to choose a predefined (safe) route and\nspoofing of the source IP address, which are technically supported by\nIPv4, but neither are considered good practice on the Internet\n[\nFarrow\n]. While projects like [\nTorProject\n] provide an alternative\nimplementation of anonymity in connections, they have been developed\nin spite of the IPv4 protocol design.\n5.2.3.1.2\n. Address Translation and Mobility\nA major structural shift in the Internet that undermined the protocol\ndesign of IPv4, and significantly reduced the freedom of end users to\ncommunicate and assemble, was the introduction of network address\ntranslation [\nRFC3022\n]. Network address translation is a process\nwhereby organizations and autonomous systems connect two networks by\ntranslating the IPv4 source and destination addresses between them.\nThis process puts the router performing the translation in a\nprivileged position, where it is predetermined which subset of\ncommunications will be translated.\n\nThis process of translation has widespread adoption despite promoting\na process that goes against the stated end-to-end process of the\nunderlying protocol [\nNATusage\n]. In contrast, the proposed mechanism\nto provide support for mobility and forwarding to clients that may\nmove -- encoded instead as an option in IP [\nRFC5944\n] -- has failed to\ngain traction. In this situation, the compromise made in the design\nof the protocol resulted in a technology that is not coherent with\nthe end-to-end principles and thus creates an extra possible hurdle\nfor freedom of expression in its design, even though a viable\nalternative exists. There is a particular problem surrounding NATs\nand Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) (as well as other connections\nused for privacy purposes), as NATs sometimes cause VPNs not to work.\n5.2.3.2\n. DNS\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) [\nRFC1035\n] provides service discovery\ncapabilities and provides a mechanism to associate human-readable\nnames with services. The DNS is organized around a set of\nindependently operated \"root servers\" run by organizations that\nfunction in line with ICANN's policy by answering queries for which\norganizations have been delegated to manage registration under each\nTop-Level Domain (TLD). The DNS is organized as a rooted tree, and\nthis brings up political and social concerns over control. TLDs are\nmaintained and determined by ICANN. These namespaces encompass\nseveral classes of services. The initial namespaces, including\n\".com\" and \".net\", provide common spaces for expression of ideas,\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 23]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nthough their policies are enacted through US-based companies. Other\nnamespaces are delegated to specific nationalities and may impose\nlimits designed to focus speech in those forums, to both (1) promote\nspeech from that nationality and (2) comply with local limits on\nexpression and social norms. Finally, the system has recently been\nexpanded with additional generic and sponsored namespaces -- for\ninstance, \".travel\" and \".ninja\" -- that are operated by a range of\norganizations that may independently determine their registration\npolicies. This new development has both positive and negative\nimplications in terms of enabling human rights. Some individuals\nargue that it undermines the right to freedom of expression because\nsome of these new generic TLDs have restricted policies on\nregistration and particular rules on hate speech content. Others\nargue that precisely these properties are positive because they\nenable certain (mostly minority) communities to build safer spaces\nfor association, thereby enabling their right to freedom of\nassociation. An often-mentioned example is an application like\n.gay [\nCoE\n].\n\nAs discussed in [\nRFC7626\n], DNS has significant privacy issues. Most\nnotable is the lack of encryption to limit the visibility of requests\nfor domain resolution from intermediary parties, and a limited\ndeployment of DNSSEC to provide authentication, allowing the client\nto know that they received a correct, \"authoritative\" answer to a\nquery. In response to the privacy issues, the IETF DNS Private\nExchange (DPRIVE) Working Group is developing mechanisms to provide\nconfidentiality to DNS transactions, to address concerns surrounding\npervasive monitoring [\nRFC7258\n].\n\nAuthentication through DNSSEC creates a validation path for records.\nThis authentication protects against forged or manipulated DNS data.\nAs such, DNSSEC protects directory lookups and makes it harder to\nhijack a session. This is important because interference with the\noperation of the DNS is currently becoming one of the central\nmechanisms used to block access to websites. This interference\nlimits both the freedom of expression of the publisher to offer their\ncontent and the freedom of assembly for clients to congregate in a\nshared virtual space. Even though DNSSEC doesn't prevent censorship,\nit makes it clear that the returned information is not the\ninformation that was requested; this contributes to the right to\nsecurity and increases trust in the network. It is, however,\nimportant to note that DNSSEC is currently not widely supported or\ndeployed by domain name registrars, making it difficult to\nauthenticate and use correctly.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 24]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.2.1\n. Removal of Records\nThere have been a number of cases where the records for a domain are\nremoved from the name system due to political events. Examples of\nthis removal include the \"seizure\" of wikileaks [\nBBC-wikileaks\n] and\nthe names of illegally operating gambling operations by the United\nStates Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit. In the first\ncase, a US court ordered the registrar to take down the domain. In\nthe second, ICE compelled the US-based registry in charge of the .com\nTLD to hand ownership of those domains over to the US government.\nThe same technique has been used in Libya to remove sites in\nviolation of \"our Country's Law and Morality (which) do not allow any\nkind of pornography or its promotion.\" [\ntechyum\n]\n\nAt a protocol level, there is no technical auditing for name\nownership, as in alternate systems like Namecoin [\nNamecoin\n]. As a\nresult, there is no ability for users to differentiate seizure from\nthe legitimate transfer of name ownership, which is purely a policy\ndecision made by registrars. While DNSSEC addresses the network\ndistortion events described below, it does not tackle this problem.\n\n(Although we mention alternative techniques, this is not a comparison\nof DNS with Namecoin: the latter has its own problems and\nlimitations. The idea here is to show that there are several\npossible choices, and they have consequences for human rights.)\n5.2.3.2.2\n. Distortion of Records\nThe most common mechanism by which the DNS is abused to limit freedom\nof expression is through manipulation of protocol messages by the\nnetwork. One form occurs at an organizational level, where client\ncomputers are instructed to use a local DNS resolver controlled by\nthe organization. The DNS resolver will then selectively distort\nresponses rather than request the authoritative lookup from the\nupstream system. The second form occurs through the use of Deep\nPacket Inspection (DPI), where all DNS protocol messages are\ninspected by the network and objectionable content is distorted, as\ncan be observed in Chinese networks.\n\nA notable instance of distortion occurred in Greece [\nVerveris\n], where\na study found evidence of both (1) DPI to distort DNS replies and\n(2) more excessive blocking of content than was legally required or\nrequested (also known as \"overblocking\"). Internet Service Providers\n(ISPs), obeying a governmental order, prevented clients from\nresolving the names of domains, thereby prompting this particular\nblocking of systems there.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 25]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAt a protocol level, the effectiveness of these attacks is made\npossible by a lack of authentication in the DNS protocol. DNSSEC\nprovides the ability to determine the authenticity of responses when\nused, but it is not regularly checked by resolvers. DNSSEC is not\neffective when the local resolver for a network is complicit in the\ndistortion -- for instance, when the resolver assigned for use by an\nISP is the source of injection. Selective distortion of records is\nalso made possible by the predictable structure of DNS messages,\nwhich makes it computationally easy for a network device to watch all\npassing messages even at high speeds, and the lack of encryption,\nwhich allows the network to distort only an objectionable subset of\nprotocol messages. Specific distortion mechanisms are discussed\nfurther in [\nHall\n].\n\nUsers can switch to another resolver -- for instance, a public\nresolver. The distorter can then try to block or hijack the\nconnection to this resolver. This may start an arms race, with the\nuser switching to secured connections to this alternative resolver\n[\nRFC7858\n] and the distorter then trying to find more sophisticated\nways to block or hijack the connection. In some cases, this search\nfor an alternative, non-disrupting resolver may lead to more\ncentralization because many people are switching to a few big\ncommercial public resolvers.\n5.2.3.2.3\n. Injection of Records\nResponding incorrectly to requests for name lookups is the most\ncommon mechanism that in-network devices use to limit the ability of\nend users to discover services. A deviation that accomplishes a\nsimilar objective and may be seen as different from a \"freedom of\nexpression\" perspective is the injection of incorrect responses to\nqueries. The most prominent example of this behavior occurs in\nChina, where requests for lookups of sites deemed inappropriate will\ntrigger the network to return a false response, causing the client to\nignore the real response when it subsequently arrives\n[\ngreatfirewall\n]. Unlike the other network paradigms discussed above,\ninjection does not stifle the ability of a server to announce its\nname; it instead provides another voice that answers sooner. This is\neffective because without DNSSEC, the protocol will respond to\nwhichever answer is received first, without listening for subsequent\nanswers.\n5.2.3.3\n. HTTP\nThe Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) version 1.1 [\nRFC7230\n]\n[\nRFC7231\n] [\nRFC7232\n] [\nRFC7233\n] [\nRFC7234\n] [\nRFC7235\n] [\nRFC7236\n] [\nRFC7237\n]\nis a request-response application protocol developed throughout the\n1990s. HTTP factually contributed to the exponential growth of the\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 26]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nInternet and the interconnection of populations around the world.\nIts simple design strongly contributed to the fact that HTTP has\nbecome the foundation of most modern Internet platforms and\ncommunication systems, from websites to chat systems and computer-to-\ncomputer applications. In its manifestation in the World Wide Web,\nHTTP radically revolutionized the course of technological development\nand the ways people interact with online content and with each other.\n\nHowever, HTTP is also a fundamentally insecure protocol that doesn't\nnatively provide encryption properties. While the definition of the\nSecure Sockets Layer (SSL) [\nRFC6101\n], and later of Transport Layer\nSecurity (TLS) [\nRFC5246\n], also happened during the 1990s, the fact\nthat HTTP doesn't mandate the use of such encryption layers by\ndevelopers and service providers was one of the reasons for a very\nlate adoption of encryption. Only in the middle of the 2000s did we\nobserve big ISPs, such as Google, starting to provide encrypted\naccess to their web services.\n\nThe lack of sensitivity and understanding of the critical importance\nof securing web traffic incentivized certain (offensive) actors to\ndevelop, deploy, and utilize interception systems at large and to\nlater launch active injection attacks, in order to swipe large\namounts of data and compromise Internet-enabled devices. The\ncommercial availability of systems and tools to perform these types\nof attacks also led to a number of human rights abuses that have been\ndiscovered and reported over the years.\n\nGenerally, we can identify traffic interception (\nSection 5.2.3.3.1\n)\nand traffic manipulation (\nSection 5.2.3.3.2\n) as the two most\nproblematic attacks that can be performed against applications\nemploying a cleartext HTTP transport layer. That being said, the\nIETF is taking steady steps to move to the encrypted version of HTTP,\nHTTP Secure (HTTPS).\n\nWhile this is commendable, we must not lose track of the fact that\ndifferent protocols, implementations, configurations, and networking\nparadigms can intersect such that they (can be used to) adversely\nimpact human rights. For instance, to facilitate surveillance,\ncertain countries will throttle HTTPS connections, forcing users to\nswitch to (unthrottled) HTTP [\nAryan-etal\n].\n5.2.3.3.1\n. Traffic Interception\nWhile we are seeing an increasing trend in the last couple of years\nto employ SSL/TLS as a secure traffic layer for HTTP-based\napplications, we are still far from seeing a ubiquitous use of\nencryption on the World Wide Web. It is important to consider that\nthe adoption of SSL/TLS is also a relatively recent phenomenon.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 27]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nEmail providers such as riseup.net were the first to enable SSL by\ndefault. Google did not introduce an option for its Gmail users to\nnavigate with SSL until 2008 [\nRideout\n] and turned TLS on by default\nlater, in 2010 [\nSchillace\n]. It took an increasing amount of security\nbreaches and revelations on global surveillance from Edward Snowden\nbefore other mail service providers followed suit. For example,\nYahoo did not enable SSL/TLS by default on its webmail services until\nearly 2014 [\nPeterson\n].\n\nTLS itself has been subject to many attacks and bugs; this situation\ncan be attributed to some fundamental design weaknesses, such as lack\nof a state machine (which opens a vulnerability for triple handshake\nattacks) and flaws caused by early US government restrictions on\ncryptography, leading to cipher-suite downgrade attacks (Logjam\nattacks). These vulnerabilities are being corrected in TLS 1.3\n[\nBhargavan\n] [\nAdrian\n].\n\nHTTP upgrading to HTTPS is also vulnerable to having an attacker\nremove the \"s\" in any links to HTTPS URIs from a web page transferred\nin cleartext over HTTP -- an attack called \"SSL Stripping\"\n[\nsslstrip\n]. Thus, for high-security use of HTTPS, IETF standards\nsuch as HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) [\nRFC6797\n], certificate\npinning [\nRFC7469\n], and/or DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities\n(DANE) [\nRFC6698\n] should be used.\n\nAs we learned through Snowden's revelations, intelligence agencies\nhave been intercepting and collecting unencrypted traffic at large\nfor many years. There are documented examples of such\nmass-surveillance programs with the Government Communications\nHeadquarters's (GCHQ's) Tempora [\nWP-Tempora\n] and the National\nSecurity Agency's (NSA's) XKeyscore [\nGreenwald\n]. Through these\nprograms, the NSA and the GCHQ have been able to swipe large amounts\nof data, including email and instant messaging communications that\nhave been transported in the clear for years by providers\nunsuspecting of the pervasiveness and scale of governments' efforts\nand investment in global mass-surveillance capabilities.\n\nHowever, similar mass interception of unencrypted HTTP communications\nis also often employed at the national level by some democratic\ncountries, by exercising control over state-owned ISPs and through\nthe use of commercially available monitoring, collection, and\ncensorship equipment. Over the last few years, a lot of information\nhas come to public attention on the role and scale of a surveillance\nindustry dedicated to developing different types of interception\ngear, making use of known and unknown weaknesses in existing\nprotocols [\nRFC7258\n]. We have several records of such equipment being\nsold and utilized by some regimes in order to monitor entire segments\nof a population, especially at times of social and political\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 28]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ndistress, uncovering massive human rights abuses. For example, in\n2013, the group Telecomix revealed that the Syrian regime was making\nuse of Blue Coat products in order to intercept cleartext traffic as\nwell as to enforce censorship of unwanted content [\nRSF\n]. Similarly,\nin 2011, it was found that the French technology firm Amesys provided\nthe Gadhafi government with equipment able to intercept emails,\nFacebook traffic, and chat messages at a country-wide level [\nWSJ\n].\nThe use of such systems, especially in the context of the Arab Spring\nand of civil uprisings against the dictatorships, has caused serious\nconcerns regarding significant human rights abuses in Libya.\n5.2.3.3.2\n. Traffic Manipulation\nThe lack of a secure transport layer under HTTP connections not only\nexposes users to interception of the content of their communications\nbut is more and more commonly abused as a vehicle for actively\ncompromising computers and mobile devices. If an HTTP session\ntravels in the clear over the network, any node positioned at any\npoint in the network is able to perform man-in-the-middle attacks;\nthe node can observe, manipulate, and hijack the session and can\nmodify the content of the communication in order to trigger\nunexpected behavior by the application generating the traffic. For\nexample, in the case of a browser, the attacker would be able to\ninject malicious code in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the\nbrowser or any of its plugins. Similarly, the attacker would be able\nto intercept, add malware to, and repackage binary software updates\nthat are very commonly downloaded in the clear by applications such\nas word processors and media players. If the HTTP session were\nencrypted, the tampering of the content would not be possible, and\nthese network injection attacks would not be successful.\n\nWhile traffic manipulation attacks have long been known, documented,\nand prototyped, especially in the context of Wi-Fi and LAN networks,\nin the last few years we have observed an increasing investment in\nthe production and sale of network injection equipment that is both\ncommercially available and deployed at scale by intelligence\nagencies.\n\nFor example, we learned from some of the documents provided by Edward\nSnowden to the press that the NSA has constructed a global network\ninjection infrastructure, called \"QUANTUM\", able to leverage mass\nsurveillance in order to identify targets of interest and\nsubsequently task man-on-the-side attacks to ultimately compromise a\nselected device. Among other attacks, the NSA makes use of an attack\ncalled \"QUANTUMINSERT\" [\nHaagsma\n], which intercepts and hijacks an\nunencrypted HTTP communication and forces the requesting browser to\nredirect to a host controlled by the NSA instead of the intended\nwebsite. Normally, the new destination would be an exploitation\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 29]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nservice, referred to in Snowden documents as \"FOXACID\", which would\nattempt to execute malicious code in the context of the target's\nbrowser. The Guardian reported in 2013 that the NSA has, for\nexample, been using these techniques to target users of the popular\nanonymity service Tor [\nSchneier\n]. The German Norddeutscher Rundfunk\n(NDR) reported in 2014 that the NSA has also been using its\nmass-surveillance capabilities to identify Tor users at large\n[\nAppelbaum\n].\n\nRecently, similar capabilities used by Chinese authorities have been\nreported as well in what has been informally called the \"Great\nCannon\" [\nMarcak\n], which raised numerous concerns on the potential\ncurb on human rights and freedom of speech due to the increasingly\ntighter control of Chinese Internet communications and access to\ninformation.\n\nNetwork injection attacks are also made widely available to state\nactors around the world through the commercialization of similar,\nsmaller-scale equipment that can be easily acquired and deployed at a\ncountry-wide level. Certain companies are known to have network\ninjection gear within their products portfolio [\nMarquis-Boire\n]. The\ntechnology devised and produced by some of them to perform network\ntraffic manipulation attacks on HTTP communications is even the\nsubject of a patent application in the United States [\nGooglepatent\n].\nAccess to offensive technologies available on the commercial lawful\ninterception market has led to human rights abuses and illegitimate\nsurveillance of journalists, human rights defenders, and political\nactivists in many countries around the world [\nCollins\n]. While\nnetwork injection attacks haven't been the subject of much attention,\nthey do enable even unskilled attackers to perform silent and very\nresilient compromises, and unencrypted HTTP remains one of the main\nvehicles.\n\nThere is a new version of HTTP, called \"HTTP/2\" [\nRFC7540\n], which aims\nto be largely backwards compatible while also offering new options\nsuch as data compression of HTTP headers, pipelining of requests, and\nmultiplexing multiple requests over a single TCP connection. In\naddition to decreasing latency to improve page-loading speeds, it\nalso facilitates more efficient use of connectivity in low-bandwidth\nenvironments, which in turn enables freedom of expression; the right\nto assembly; the right to political participation; and the right to\nparticipate in cultural life, arts, and science. [\nRFC7540\n] does not\nmandate TLS or any other form of encryption, nor does it support\nopportunistic encryption even though opportunistic encryption is now\naddressed in [\nRFC8164\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 30]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.4\n. XMPP\nThe Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), specified in\n[\nRFC6120\n], provides a standard for interactive chat messaging and has\nevolved to encompass interoperable text, voice, and video chat. The\nprotocol is structured as a federated network of servers, similar to\nemail, where users register with a local server that acts on their\nbehalf to cache and relay messages. This protocol design has many\nadvantages, allowing servers to shield clients from denial of service\nand other forms of retribution for their expression; it is also\ndesigned to avoid central entities that could control the ability to\ncommunicate or assemble using the protocol.\n\nNonetheless, there are plenty of aspects of the protocol design of\nXMPP that shape the ability for users to communicate freely and to\nassemble via the protocol.\n5.2.3.4.1\n. User Identification\nThe XMPP specification [\nRFC6120\n] dictates that clients are identified\nwith a resource (<node@domain/home> / <node@domain/work>) to\ndistinguish the conversations to specific devices. While the\nprotocol does not specify that the resource must be exposed by the\nclient's server to remote users, in practice this has become the\ndefault behavior. In doing so, users can be tracked by remote\nfriends and their servers, who are able to monitor the presence of\nnot just the user but of each individual device the user logs in\nwith. This has proven to be misleading to many users [\nPidgin\n], since\nmany clients only expose user-level rather than device-level\npresence. Likewise, user invisibility so that communication can\noccur while users don't notify all buddies and other servers of their\navailability is not part of the formal protocol and has only been\nadded as an extension within the XML stream rather than enforced by\nthe protocol.\n5.2.3.4.2\n. Surveillance of Communication\nXMPP specifies the standard by which communications channels may be\nencrypted, but it does not provide visibility to clients regarding\nwhether their communications are encrypted on each link. In\nparticular, even when both clients ensure that they have an encrypted\nconnection to their XMPP server to ensure that their local network is\nunable to read or disrupt the messages they send, the protocol does\nnot provide visibility into the encryption status between the two\nservers. As such, clients may be subject to selective disruption of\ncommunications by an intermediate network that disrupts\ncommunications based on keywords found through DPI. While many\noperators have committed to only establishing encrypted links from\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 31]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ntheir servers in recognition of this vulnerability, it remains\nimpossible for users to audit this behavior, and encrypted\nconnections are not required by the protocol itself [\nXMPP-Manifesto\n].\n\nIn particular,\nSection 13.14\nof the XMPP specification [\nRFC6120\n]\nexplicitly acknowledges the existence of a downgrade attack where an\nadversary controlling an intermediate network can force the\ninter-domain federation between servers to revert to a non-encrypted\nprotocol where selective messages can then be disrupted.\n5.2.3.4.3\n. Group Chat Limitations\nGroup chat in XMPP is defined as an extension within the XML\nspecification of XMPP (\nhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html\n).\nHowever, it is not encoded or required at a protocol level and is not\nuniformly implemented by clients.\n\nThe design of multi-user chat in XMPP suffers from extending a\nprotocol that was not designed with assembly of many users in mind.\nIn particular, in the federated protocol provided by XMPP, multi-user\ncommunities are implemented with a distinguished \"owner\" who is\ngranted control over the participants and structure of the\nconversation.\n\nMulti-user chat rooms are identified by a name specified on a\nspecific server, so that while the overall protocol may be federated,\nthe ability for users to assemble in a given community is moderated\nby a single server. That server may block the room and prevent\nassembly unilaterally, even between two users, neither of whom trust\nor use that server directly.\n5.2.3.5\n. Peer-to-Peer\nPeer-to-Peer (P2P) is a distributed network architecture [\nRFC5694\n] in\nwhich all the participant nodes can be responsible for the storage\nand dissemination of information from any other node (see [\nRFC7574\n],\nan IETF standard that discusses a P2P architecture called the\n\"Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol\" (PPSPP)). A P2P network is a\nlogical overlay that lives on top of the physical network and allows\nnodes (or \"peers\") participating in it to establish contact and\nexchange information directly with each other. The implementation of\na P2P network may vary widely: it may be structured or unstructured,\nand it may implement stronger or weaker cryptographic and anonymity\nproperties. While its most common application has traditionally been\nfile-sharing (and other types of content delivery systems), P2P is a\npopular architecture for networks and applications that require (or\nencourage) decentralization. Prime examples include Bitcoin and\nother proprietary multimedia applications.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 32]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nIn a time of heavily centralized online services, P2P is regularly\ndescribed as an alternative, more democratic, and resistant option\nthat displaces structures of control over data and communications and\ndelegates all peers to be equally responsible for the functioning,\nintegrity, and security of the data. While in principle P2P remains\nimportant to the design and development of future content\ndistribution, messaging, and publishing systems, it poses numerous\nsecurity and privacy challenges that are mostly delegated to\nindividual developers to recognize, analyze, and solve in each\nimplementation of a given P2P network.\n5.2.3.5.1\n. Network Poisoning\nSince content, and sometimes peer lists, are safeguarded and\ndistributed by their members, P2P networks are prone to what are\ngenerally defined as \"poisoning attacks\". Poisoning attacks might be\naimed directly at the data that is being distributed, for example,\n(1) by intentionally corrupting the data, (2) at the index tables\nused to instruct the peers where to fetch the data, or (3) at routing\ntables, with an attempt to provide connecting peers with lists of\nrogue or nonexistent peers, with the intention to effectively cause a\ndenial of service on the network.\n5.2.3.5.2\n. Throttling\nP2P traffic (and BitTorrent in particular) represents a significant\npercentage of global Internet traffic [\nSandvine\n], and it has become\nincreasingly popular for ISPs to perform throttling of customers'\nlines in order to limit bandwidth usage [\ntorrentfreak1\n] and,\nsometimes, probably as an effect of the ongoing conflict between\ncopyright holders and file-sharing communities [\nwikileaks\n]. Such\nthrottling undermines the end-to-end principle.\n\nThrottling the P2P traffic makes some uses of P2P networks\nineffective; this throttling might be coupled with stricter\ninspection of users' Internet traffic through DPI techniques,\npossibly posing additional security and privacy risks.\n5.2.3.5.3\n. Tracking and Identification\nOne of the fundamental and most problematic issues with traditional\nP2P networks is a complete lack of anonymization of their users. For\nexample, in the case of BitTorrent, all peers' IP addresses are\nopenly available to the other peers. This has led to ever-increasing\ntracking of P2P and file-sharing users [\nars\n]. As the geographical\nlocation of the user is directly exposed, as could also be his\nidentity, the user might become a target of additional harassment and\nattacks of a physical or legal nature. For example, it is known that\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 33]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nin Germany law firms have made extensive use of P2P and file-sharing\ntracking systems in order to identify downloaders and initiate legal\nactions looking for compensations [\ntorrentfreak2\n].\n\nIt is worth noting that there are some varieties of P2P networks that\nimplement cryptographic practices and that introduce anonymization of\ntheir users. Such implementations may be proved to be successful in\nresisting censorship of content and tracking of network peers. A\nprime example is Freenet [\nfreenet1\n], a free software application that\nis (1) designed to make it significantly more difficult to identify\nusers and content and (2) dedicated to fostering freedom of speech\nonline [\nfreenet2\n].\n5.2.3.5.4\n. Sybil Attacks\nIn open-membership P2P networks, a single attacker can pretend to be\nmany participants, typically by creating multiple fake identities of\nwhatever kind the P2P network uses [\nDouceur\n]. Attackers can use\nSybil attacks to bias choices that the P2P network makes collectively\nto the attacker's advantage, e.g., by making it more likely that a\nparticular data item (or some threshold of the replicas or shares of\na data item) is assigned to attacker-controlled participants. If the\nP2P network implements any voting, moderation, or peer-review-like\nfunctionality, Sybil attacks may be used to \"stuff the ballots\" to\nbenefit the attacker. Companies and governments can use Sybil\nattacks on discussion-oriented P2P systems for \"astroturfing\" or\ncreating the appearance of mass grassroots support for some position\nwhere in reality there is none. It is important to know that there\nare no known complete, environmentally sustainable, and fully\ndistributed solutions to Sybil attacks, and routing via \"friends\"\nallows users to be de-anonymized via their social graph. It is\nimportant to note that Sybil attacks in this context (e.g.,\nastroturfing) are relevant to more than P2P protocols; they are also\ncommon on web-based systems, and they are exploited by governments\nand commercial entities.\n\nEncrypted P2P and anonymous P2P networks have already emerged. They\nprovide viable platforms for sharing material [\nTribler\n], publishing\ncontent anonymously, and communicating securely [\nBitmessage\n]. These\nplatforms are not perfect, and more research needs to be done. If\nadopted at large, well-designed and resistant P2P networks might\nrepresent a critical component of a future secure and distributed\nInternet, enabling freedom of speech and freedom of information\nat scale.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 34]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.6\n. Virtual Private Networks\nThe VPNs discussed here are point-to-point connections that enable\ntwo computers to communicate over an encrypted tunnel. There are\nmultiple implementations and protocols used in the deployment of\nVPNs, and they generally diversify by encryption protocol or\nparticular requirements, most commonly in proprietary and enterprise\nsolutions. VPNs are commonly used to (1) enable some devices to\ncommunicate through peculiar network configurations, (2) use some\nprivacy and security properties in order to protect the traffic\ngenerated by the end user, or both. VPNs have also become a very\npopular technology among human rights defenders, dissidents, and\njournalists worldwide to avoid local monitoring and eventually also\nto circumvent censorship. VPNs are often debated among human rights\ndefenders as a potential alternative to Tor or other anonymous\nnetworks. Such comparisons are misleading, as some of the privacy\nand security properties of VPNs are often misunderstood by less\ntech-savvy users and could ultimately lead to unintended problems.\n\nAs VPNs have increased in popularity, commercial VPN providers have\nstarted growing as businesses and are very commonly picked by human\nrights defenders and people at risk, as they are normally provided\nwith an easy-to-use service and, sometimes, even custom applications\nto establish the VPN tunnel. Not being able to control the\nconfiguration of the network, let alone the security of the\napplication, assessing the general privacy and security state of\ncommon VPNs is very hard. Such services have often been discovered\nto be leaking information, and their custom applications have been\nfound to be flawed. While Tor and similar networks receive a lot of\nscrutiny from the public and the academic community, commercial or\nnon-commercial VPNs are far less analyzed and understood [\nInsinuator\n]\n[\nAlshalan-etal\n], and it might be valuable to establish some standards\nto guarantee a minimal level of privacy and security to those who\nneed them the most.\n5.2.3.6.1\n. No Anonymity against VPN Providers\nOne of the common misconceptions among users of VPNs is the level of\nanonymity that VPNs can provide. This sense of anonymity can be\nbetrayed by a number of attacks or misconfigurations of the VPN\nprovider. It is important to remember that, in contrast to Tor and\nsimilar systems, VPNs were not designed to provide anonymity\nproperties. From a technical point of view, a VPN might leak\nidentifiable information or might be the subject of correlation\nattacks that could expose the originating address of a connecting\nuser. Most importantly, it is vital to understand that commercial\nand non-commercial VPN providers are bound by the law of the\njurisdiction in which they reside or in which their infrastructure is\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 35]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nlocated, and they might be legally forced to turn over data of\nspecific users if legal investigations or intelligence requirements\ndictate so. In such cases, if the VPN providers retain logs, it is\npossible that a user's information could be provided to the user's\nadversary and lead to his or her identification.\n5.2.3.6.2\n. Logging\nBecause VPNs are point-to-point connections, the service providers\nare in fact able to observe the original location of connecting\nusers, and they are able to track at what time they started their\nsession and, eventually, also to which destinations they're trying to\nconnect. If the VPN providers retain logs for a long enough time,\nthey might be forced to turn over the relevant data or they might be\notherwise compromised, leading to the same data getting exposed. A\nclear log-retention policy could be enforced, but considering that\ncountries enforce different levels of data-retention policies, VPN\nproviders should at least be transparent regarding what information\nthey store and for how long it is being kept.\n5.2.3.6.3\n. Third-Party Hosting\nVPN providers very commonly rely on third parties to provision the\ninfrastructure that is later going to be used to run VPN endpoints.\nFor example, they might rely on external dedicated server providers\nor on uplink providers. In those cases, even if the VPN provider\nitself isn't retaining any significant logs, the information on\nconnecting users might be retained by those third parties instead,\nintroducing an additional collection point for the adversary.\n5.2.3.6.4\n. IPv6 Leakage\nSome studies proved that several commercial VPN providers and\napplications suffer from critical leakage of information through IPv6\ndue to improper support and configuration [\nPETS2015VPN\n]. This is\ngenerally caused by a lack of proper configuration of the client's\nIPv6 routing tables. Considering that most popular browsers and\nsimilar applications have been supporting IPv6 by default, if the\nhost is provided with a functional IPv6 configuration, the traffic\nthat is generated might be leaked if the VPN application isn't\ndesigned to manipulate such traffic properly.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 36]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.6.5\n. DNS Leakage\nSimilarly, VPN services that aren't handling DNS requests and aren't\nrunning DNS servers of their own might be prone to DNS leaking that\nmight not only expose sensitive information on the activity of a user\nbut could also potentially lead to DNS hijacking attacks and\nsubsequent compromises.\n5.2.3.6.6\n. Traffic Correlation\nSome VPN implementations appear to be particularly vulnerable to\nidentification and collection of key exchanges that, some Snowden\ndocuments revealed, are systematically collected and stored for\nfuture reference. The ability of an adversary to monitor network\nconnections at many different points over the Internet can allow them\nto perform traffic correlation attacks and identify the origin of\ncertain VPN traffic by cross-referencing the connection time of the\nuser to the endpoint and the connection time of the endpoint to the\nfinal destination. These types of attacks, although very expensive\nand normally only performed by very resourceful adversaries, have\nbeen documented [\nSPIEGEL\n] to be already in practice, and they could\ncompletely nullify the use of a VPN and ultimately expose the\nactivity and the identity of a user at risk.\n5.2.3.7\n. HTTP Status Code 451\n\"Every Internet user has run into the '404 Not Found' Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP) status code when trying, and failing, to\naccess a particular website\" [\nCath\n]. It is a response status that\nthe server sends to the browser when the server cannot locate the\nURL. \"403 Forbidden\" is another example of this class of code signals\nthat gives users information about what is going on. In the \"403\"\ncase, the server can be reached but is blocking the request because\nthe user is trying to access content forbidden to them, typically\nbecause some content is only for identified users, based on a payment\nor on special status in the organization. Most of the time, 403 is\nsent by the origin server, not by an intermediary. If a firewall\nprevents a government employee from accessing pornography on a work\ncomputer, it does not use 403.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 37]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAs surveillance and censorship of the Internet are becoming more\ncommonplace, voices were raised at the IETF to introduce a new status\ncode that indicates when something is not available for \"legal\nreasons\" (like censorship):\n\nThe 451 status code would allow server operators to operate with\ngreater transparency in circumstances where issues of law or public\npolicy affect their operation. This transparency may be beneficial\nto both (1) these operators and (2) end users [\nRFC7725\n].\n\nThe status code is named \"451\" in reference to both Bradbury's famous\nnovel \"Fahrenheit 451\" and to 451 degrees Fahrenheit (the temperature\nat which some claim book paper autoignites).\n\nDuring the IETF 92 meeting in Dallas, there was discussion about the\nusefulness of 451. The main tension revolved around the lack of an\napparent machine-readable technical use of the information. The\nextent to which 451 is just \"political theatre\" or whether it has a\nconcrete technical use was heatedly debated. Some argued that \"the\n451 status code is just a status code with a response body\"; others\nsaid it was problematic because \"it brings law into the picture.\"\nStill others argued that it would be useful for individuals or for\norganizations like the \"Chilling Effects\" project that are crawling\nthe Web to get an indication of censorship (IETF discussion on 451 --\nauthor's field notes, March 2015). There was no outright objection\nduring the Dallas meeting against moving forward on status code 451,\nand on December 18, 2015, the IESG approved \"An HTTP Status Code to\nReport Legal Obstacles\" (now [\nRFC7725\n]) for publication. HTTP status\ncode 451 is now an IETF-approved HTTP status code that signals when\nresource access is denied as a consequence of legal demands.\n\nWhat is interesting about this particular case is that not only\ntechnical arguments but also the status code's outright potential\npolitical use for civil society played a substantial role in shaping\nthe discussion and the decision to move forward with this technology.\n\nIt is nonetheless important to note that HTTP status code 451 is not\na solution to detect all occasions of censorship. A large swath of\nInternet filtering occurs in the network, at a lower level than HTTP,\nrather than at the server itself. For these forms of censorship, 451\nplays a limited role, as typical censoring intermediaries won't\ngenerate it. Besides technical reasons, such filtering regimes are\nunlikely to voluntarily inject a 451 status code. The use of 451 is\nmost likely to apply in the case of cooperative, legal versions of\ncontent removal resulting from requests to providers. One can think\nof content that is removed or blocked for legal reasons, like\ncopyright infringement, gambling laws, child abuse, etc. Large\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 38]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nInternet companies and search engines are constantly asked to censor\ncontent in various jurisdictions. 451 allows this to be easily\ndiscovered -- for instance, by initiatives like the Lumen Database.\n\nOverall, the strength of 451 lies in its ability to provide\ntransparency by giving the reason for blocking and giving the\nend user the ability to file a complaint. It allows organizations to\neasily measure censorship in an automated way and prompts the user to\naccess the content via another path (e.g., Tor, VPNs) when (s)he\nencounters the 451 status code.\n\nStatus code 451 impacts human rights by making censorship more\ntransparent and measurable. It increases transparency by signaling\nthe existence of censorship (instead of a much broader HTTP error\nmessage such as HTTP status code 404) as well as providing details of\nthe legal restriction, which legal authority is imposing it, and to\nwhat class of resources it applies. This empowers the user to seek\nredress.\n5.2.3.8\n. DDoS Attacks\nMany individuals, including IETF engineers, have argued that DDoS\nattacks are fundamentally against freedom of expression.\nTechnically, DDoS attacks are attacks where one host or multiple\nhosts overload the bandwidth or resources of another host by flooding\nit with traffic or making resource-intensive requests, causing it to\ntemporarily stop being available to users. One can roughly\ndifferentiate three types of DDoS attacks:\n\n1. volume-based attacks (which aim to make the host unreachable by\nusing up all its bandwidth; often-used techniques are UDP floods\nand ICMP floods)\n\n2. protocol attacks (which aim to use up actual server resources;\noften-used techniques are SYN floods, fragmented packet attacks,\nand \"ping of death\" [\nRFC4949\n])\n\n3. application-layer attacks (which aim to bring down a server, such\nas a web server)\n\nDDoS attacks can thus stifle freedom of expression and complicate the\nability of independent media and human rights organizations to\nexercise their right to (online) freedom of association, while\nfacilitating the ability of governments to censor dissent. When it\ncomes to comparing DDoS attacks to protests in offline life, it is\nimportant to remember that only a limited number of DDoS attacks\nsolely involved willing participants. In the overwhelming majority\nof cases, the clients are hacked hosts of unrelated parties that\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 39]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nhave not consented to being part of a DDoS (for exceptions, see\nOperation Ababil [\nAbabil\n] or the Iranian Green Movement's DDoS\ncampaign at election time [\nGreenMovement\n]). In addition,\nDDoS attacks are increasingly used as an extortion tactic.\n\nAll of these issues seem to suggest that the IETF should try to\nensure that their protocols cannot be used for DDoS attacks; this is\nconsistent with the long-standing IETF consensus that DDoS is an\nattack that protocols should mitigate to the extent they can [\nBCP72\n].\nDecreasing the number of vulnerabilities in protocols and (outside of\nthe IETF) the number of bugs in the network stacks of routers or\ncomputers could address this issue. The IETF can clearly play a role\nin bringing about some of these changes, but the IETF cannot be\nexpected to take a positive stance on (specific) DDoS attacks or to\ncreate protocols that enable some attacks and inhibit others. What\nthe IETF can do is critically reflect on its role in the development\nof the Internet and how this impacts the ability of people to\nexercise their human rights, such as freedom of expression.\n6\n. Model for Developing Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nThis section outlines a set of human rights protocol considerations\nfor protocol developers. It provides questions that engineers should\nask themselves when developing or improving protocols if they want to\nunderstand their impact on human rights. It should, however, be\nnoted that the impact of a protocol cannot be solely deduced from its\ndesign; its usage and implementation should also be studied to form a\nfull assessment of the impact of the protocol on human rights.\n\nThe questions are based on the research performed by the HRPC\nResearch Group. This research was documented prior to the writing of\nthese considerations. The research establishes that human rights\nrelate to standards and protocols; it also offers a common vocabulary\nof technical concepts that impact human rights and how these\ntechnical concepts can be combined to ensure that the Internet\nremains an enabling environment for human rights. With this, a model\nfor developing human rights protocol considerations has taken shape.\n6.1\n. Human Rights Threats\nHuman rights threats on the Internet come in a myriad of forms.\nProtocols and standards can either harm or enable the right to\nfreedom of expression; the right to non-discrimination; the right to\nequal protection; the right to participate in cultural life, arts,\nand science; the right to freedom of assembly and association; and\nthe right to security. An end user who is denied access to certain\nservices, data, or websites may be unable to disclose vital\ninformation about malpractice on the part of a government or other\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 40]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nauthority. A person whose communications are monitored may be\nprevented from exercising their right to freedom of association or\nparticipation in political processes [\nPenney\n]. In a worst-case\nscenario, protocols that leak information can lead to physical\ndanger. A realistic example to consider is when, based on\ninformation gathered by state agencies through information leakage in\nprotocols, individuals perceived as threats to the state are\nsubjected to torture, extrajudicial killings, or detention.\n\nThis section details several \"common\" threats to human rights,\nindicating how each of these can lead to harm to, or violations of,\nhuman rights. It also presents several examples of how these threats\nto human rights materialize on the Internet. This threat modeling is\ninspired by [\nRFC6973\n] (\"Privacy Considerations for Internet\nProtocols\"), which is based on security threat analysis. This method\nis by no means a perfect solution for assessing human rights risks in\nInternet protocols and systems; it is, however, the best approach\ncurrently available. Certain specific human rights threats are\nindirectly considered in Internet protocols as part of their security\nconsiderations [\nBCP72\n], but privacy guidelines [\nRFC6973\n] or reviews,\nlet alone the assessments of the impact of protocols on human rights,\nare not standardized or implemented.\n\nMany threats, enablers, and risks are linked to different rights.\nThis is not surprising if one takes into account that human rights\nare interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible. Here, however,\nwe're not discussing all human rights, because not all human rights\nare relevant to ICTs in general and to protocols and standards in\nparticular [\nBless1\n]:\n\nThe main source of the values of human rights is the International\nBill of Human Rights that is composed of the Universal Declaration\nof Human Rights [\nUDHR\n] along with the International Covenant on\nCivil and Political Rights [\nICCPR\n] and the International Covenant\non Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [\nICESCR\n]. In the light of\nseveral cases of Internet censorship, the Human Rights Council\nResolution 20/8 was adopted in 2012 [\nUNHRC2016\n], affirming \"...\nthat the same rights that people have offline must also be\nprotected online ...\" In 2015, the Charter of Human Rights and\nPrinciples for the Internet [\nIRP\n] was developed and released.\nAccording to these documents, some examples of human rights\nrelevant for ICT systems are human dignity (Art. 1 UDHR),\nnon-discrimination (Art. 2), rights to life, liberty and security\n(Art. 3), freedom of opinion and expression (Art. 19), freedom of\nassembly and association (Art. 20), rights to equal protection,\nlegal remedy, fair trial, due process, presumed innocent\n(Art. 7-11), appropriate social and international order (Art. 28),\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 41]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nparticipation in public affairs (Art. 21), participation in\ncultural life, protection of intellectual property (Art. 27), and\nprivacy (Art. 12).\n\nA partial catalog of human rights related to ICTs, including economic\nrights, can be found in [\nHill2014\n].\n\nThis is by no means an attempt to exclude specific rights or\nprioritize some rights over others. If other rights seem relevant,\nplease contact the authors of this document.\n6.2\n. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations\nThis section provides guidance for document authors in the form of a\nquestionnaire about protocols and their (potential) impact. The\nquestionnaire may be useful at any point in the design process,\nparticularly after document authors have developed a high-level\nprotocol model as described in [\nRFC4101\n]. These guidelines do not\nseek to replace any existing referenced specifications; rather, they\ncontribute to them and look at the design process from a human rights\nperspective.\n\nProtocols and Internet Standards might benefit from a documented\ndiscussion of potential human rights risks arising from potential\nmisapplications of the protocol or technology described in the RFC in\nquestion. This might be coupled with an Applicability Statement for\nthat RFC.\n\nNote that the guidance provided in this section does not recommend\nspecific practices. The range of protocols developed in the IETF is\ntoo broad to make recommendations about particular uses of data or\nhow human rights might be balanced against other design goals.\nHowever, by carefully considering the answers to the following\nquestions, document authors should be able to produce a comprehensive\nanalysis that can serve as the basis for discussion on whether the\nprotocol adequately takes specific human rights threats into account.\nThis guidance is meant to help the thought process of a human rights\nanalysis; it does not provide specific directions for how to write a\nhuman rights protocol considerations section (following the example\nset in [\nRFC6973\n]), and the addition of a human rights protocol\nconsiderations section has also not yet been proposed. In\nconsidering these questions, authors will need to be aware of the\npotential of technical advances or the passage of time to undermine\nprotections. In general, considerations of rights are likely to be\nmore effective if they are considered given a purpose and specific\nuse cases, rather than as abstract absolute goals.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 42]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n6.2.1\n. Connectivity\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol add application-specific functions to\nintermediary nodes?\n\n- Could this functionality be added to end nodes instead of\nintermediary nodes?\n\n- Is your protocol optimized for low bandwidth and high-latency\nconnections?\n\n- Could your protocol also be developed in a stateless manner?\n\nExplanation: The end-to-end principle [\nSaltzer\n] holds that \"the\nintelligence is end to end rather than hidden in the network\"\n[\nRFC1958\n]. The end-to-end principle is important for the\nrobustness of the network and innovation. Such robustness of the\nnetwork is crucial to enabling human rights like freedom of\nexpression.\n\nExample: Middleboxes (which can be content delivery networks,\nfirewalls, NATs, or other intermediary nodes that provide\n\"services\" other than routing) serve many legitimate purposes.\nBut the protocols guiding them can influence individuals' ability\nto communicate online freely and privately. The potential for\nabuse, intentional and unintentional censoring, and limiting\npermissionless innovation -- and thus, ultimately, the impact of\nmiddleboxes on the Internet as a place of unfiltered, unmonitored\nfreedom of speech -- is real.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n6.2.2\n. Privacy\nQuestions:\n\n- Did you have a look at the guidelines in\nSection 7 of [RFC6973]\n(\"Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\")?\n\n- Could your protocol in any way impact the confidentiality of\nprotocol metadata?\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 43]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n- Could your protocol counter traffic analysis?\n\n- Could your protocol improve data minimization?\n\n- Does your document identify potentially sensitive data logged by\nyour protocol and/or for how long that data needs to be retained\nfor technical reasons?\n\nExplanation: \"Privacy\" refers to the right of an entity (normally a\nperson), acting on its own behalf, to determine the degree to\nwhich it will interact with its environment, including the degree\nto which the entity is willing to share its personal information\nwith others [\nRFC4949\n]. If a protocol provides insufficient\nprivacy protection, it may have a negative impact on freedom of\nexpression as users self-censor for fear of surveillance or find\nthemselves unable to express themselves freely.\n\nExample: See [\nRFC6973\n].\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n6.2.3\n. Content Agnosticism\nQuestions:\n\n- If your protocol impacts packet handling, does it use user data\n(packet data that is not included in the header)?\n\n- Does your protocol make decisions based on the payload of the\npacket?\n\n- Does your protocol prioritize certain content or services over\nothers in the routing process?\n\n- Is the protocol transparent about the prioritization that is made\n(if any)?\n\nExplanation: \"Content agnosticism\" refers to the notion that network\ntraffic is treated identically regardless of payload, with some\nexceptions when it comes to effective traffic handling -- for\ninstance, delay-tolerant or delay-sensitive packets based on the\nheader.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 44]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nExample: Content agnosticism prevents payload-based discrimination\nagainst packets. This is important because changes to this\nprinciple can lead to a two-tiered Internet, where certain packets\nare prioritized over others based on their content. Effectively,\nthis would mean that although all users are entitled to receive\ntheir packets at a certain speed, some users become more equal\nthan others.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to equal protection\n6.2.4\n. Security\nQuestions:\n\n- Did you have a look at [\nBCP72\n] (\"Guidelines for Writing RFC Text\non Security Considerations\")?\n\n- Have you found any attacks that are somewhat related to your\nprotocol yet considered out of scope for your document?\n\n- Would these attacks be pertinent to the features of the Internet\nthat enable human rights (as described throughout this document)?\n\nExplanation: Most people speak of security as if it were a single\nmonolithic property of a protocol or system; however, upon\nreflection one realizes that it is clearly not true. Rather,\nsecurity is a series of related but somewhat independent\nproperties. Not all of these properties are required for every\napplication. Since communications are carried out by systems and\naccess to systems is through communications channels, these goals\nobviously interlock, but they can also be independently provided\n[\nBCP72\n].\n\nExample: See [\nBCP72\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 45]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.5\n. Internationalization\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol have text strings that have to be understood or\nentered by humans?\n\n- Does your protocol allow Unicode? If so, do you accept texts in\none charset (which must be UTF-8) or several (which is dangerous\nfor interoperability)?\n\n- If character sets or encodings other than UTF-8 are allowed, does\nyour protocol mandate proper tagging of the charset?\n\n- Did you have a look at [\nRFC6365\n]?\n\nExplanation: \"Internationalization\" refers to the practice of making\nprotocols, standards, and implementations usable in different\nlanguages and scripts (see\nSection 6.2.12\n(\"Localization\")). \"In\nthe IETF, 'internationalization' means to add or improve the\nhandling of non-ASCII text in a protocol\" [\nRFC6365\n].\n\nA different perspective, more appropriate to protocols that are\ndesigned for global use from the beginning, is the definition used\nby the W3C [\nW3Ci18nDef\n]: \"Internationalization is the design and\ndevelopment of a product, application or document content that\nenables easy localization for target audiences that vary in\nculture, region, or language.\"\n\nMany protocols that handle text only handle one charset\n(US-ASCII), or they leave the question of what coded character set\n(CCS) and encoding are used up to local guesswork (which leads, of\ncourse, to interoperability problems) [\nRFC3536\n]. If multiple\ncharsets are permitted, they must be explicitly identified\n[\nRFC2277\n]. Adding non-ASCII text to a protocol allows the\nprotocol to handle more scripts, hopefully all scripts in use in\nthe world. In today's world, that is normally best accomplished\nby allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 46]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nIn the current IETF policy [\nRFC2277\n], internationalization is\naimed at user-facing strings, not protocol elements, such as the\nverbs used by some text-based protocols. (Do note that some\nstrings, such as identifiers, are both content and protocol\nelements.) If the Internet wants to be a global network of\nnetworks, the protocols should work with languages other than\nEnglish and character sets other than Latin characters. It is\ntherefore crucial that at least the content carried by the\nprotocol can be in any script and that all scripts are treated\nequally.\n\nExample: See\nSection 6.2.12\n(\"Localization\").\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to political participation\n\n- Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science\n6.2.6\n. Censorship Resistance\nQuestions:\n\n- Does this protocol introduce new identifiers or reuse existing\nidentifiers (e.g., Media Access Control (MAC) addresses) that\nmight be associated with persons or content?\n\n- Does your protocol make it apparent or transparent when access to\na resource is restricted?\n\n- Can your protocol contribute to filtering in such a way that it\ncould be implemented to censor data or services? If so, could\nyour protocol be designed to ensure that this doesn't happen?\n\nExplanation: \"Censorship resistance\" refers to the methods and\nmeasures to prevent Internet censorship.\n\nExample: When IPv6 was developed, embedding a MAC address into\nunique IP addresses was discussed. This makes it possible, per\n[\nRFC4941\n], for \"eavesdroppers and other information collectors to\nidentify when different addresses used in different transactions\nactually correspond to the same node.\" This is why privacy\nextensions for stateless address autoconfiguration in IPv6\n[\nRFC4941\n] have been introduced.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 47]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nIdentifiers of content exposed within a protocol might be used to\nfacilitate censorship, as in the case of application-layer-based\ncensorship, which affects protocols like HTTP. Denial or\nrestriction of access can be made apparent by the use of status\ncode 451, thereby allowing server operators to operate with\ngreater transparency in circumstances where issues of law or\npublic policy affect their operation [\nRFC7725\n].\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to political participation\n\n- Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n6.2.7\n. Open Standards\nQuestions:\n\n- Is your protocol fully documented in such a way that it could be\neasily implemented, improved, built upon, and/or further\ndeveloped?\n\n- Do you depend on proprietary code for the implementation, running,\nor further development of your protocol?\n\n- Does your protocol favor a particular proprietary specification\nover technically equivalent and competing specification(s) -- for\ninstance, by making any incorporated vendor specification\n\"required\" or \"recommended\" [\nRFC2026\n]?\n\n- Do you normatively reference another standard that is not\navailable without cost (and could you possibly do without it)?\n\n- Are you aware of any patents that would prevent your standard from\nbeing fully implemented [\nRFC6701\n] [\nRFC8179\n]?\n\nExplanation: The Internet was able to be developed into the global\nnetwork of networks because of the existence of open,\nnon-proprietary standards [\nZittrain\n]. They are crucial for\nenabling interoperability. Yet, open standards are not explicitly\ndefined within the IETF. On the subject, [\nRFC2026\n] states the\nfollowing: \"Various national and international standards bodies,\nsuch as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol\nand service specifications that are similar to Technical\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 48]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nSpecifications defined\" at the IETF. \"National and international\ngroups also publish 'implementors' agreements' that are analogous\nto Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-\nspecific detail concerned with the practical application of their\nstandards. All of these are considered to be 'open external\nstandards' for the purposes of the Internet Standards Process.\"\nSimilarly, [\nRFC3935\n] does not define open standards but does\nemphasize the importance of \"open process\": any interested person\ncan participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make\nhis or her voice heard on the issue. Part of this principle is\nthe IETF's commitment to making its documents, WG mailing lists,\nattendance lists, and meeting minutes publicly available on the\nInternet.\n\nOpen standards are important, as they allow for permissionless\ninnovation, which in turn is important for maintaining the freedom\nand ability to freely create and deploy new protocols on top of\nthe communications constructs that currently exist. It is at the\nheart of the Internet as we know it, and to maintain its\nfundamentally open nature, we need to be mindful of the need for\ndeveloping open standards.\n\nAll standards that need to be normatively implemented should be\nfreely available and should provide reasonable protection against\npatent infringement claims, so that it can also be implemented in\nopen-source or free software. Patents have often held back open\nstandardization or have been used against those deploying open\nstandards, particularly in the domain of cryptography [\nNewegg\n].\nAn exemption is sometimes made when a protocol that normatively\nrelies on specifications produced by other SDOs that are not\nfreely available is standardized. Patents in open standards or in\nnormative references to other standards should have a patent\ndisclosure [\nnotewell\n], royalty-free licensing [\npatentpolicy\n], or\nsome other form of reasonable protection. Reasonable patent\nprotection should include, but is not limited to, cryptographic\nprimitives.\n\nExample: [\nRFC6108\n] describes a system deployed by Comcast, an ISP,\nfor providing critical end-user notifications to web browsers.\nSuch a notification system is being used to provide\nalmost-immediate notifications to customers, such as warning them\nthat their traffic exhibits patterns that are indicative of\nmalware or virus infection. There are other proprietary systems\nthat can perform such notifications, but those systems utilize\nDeep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology. In contrast to DPI,\n[\nRFC6108\n] describes a system that does not rely upon DPI and is\ninstead based on open IETF standards and open-source applications.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 49]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science\n6.2.8\n. Heterogeneity Support\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol support heterogeneity by design?\n\n- Does your protocol allow for multiple types of hardware?\n\n- Does your protocol allow for multiple types of application\nprotocols?\n\n- Is your protocol liberal in what it receives and handles?\n\n- Will your protocol remain usable and open if the context changes?\n\n- Does your protocol allow well-defined extension points? If so, do\nthese extension points allow for open innovation?\n\nExplanation: [\nFIArch\n] notes the following: \"The Internet is\ncharacterized by heterogeneity on many levels: devices and nodes,\nrouter scheduling algorithms and queue management mechanisms,\nrouting protocols, levels of multiplexing, protocol versions and\nimplementations, underlying link layers (e.g., point-to-point,\nmulti-access links, wireless, FDDI, etc.), in the traffic mix and\nin the levels of congestion at different times and places.\nMoreover, as the Internet is composed of autonomous organizations\nand internet service providers, each with their own separate\npolicy concerns, there is a large heterogeneity of administrative\ndomains and pricing structures.\" As a result, as also noted in\n[\nFIArch\n], the heterogeneity principle proposed in [\nRFC1958\n] needs\nto be supported by design.\n\nExample: Heterogeneity is inevitable and needs to be supported by\ndesign. For example, multiple types of hardware must be allowed\nfor transmission speeds differing by at least seven orders of\nmagnitude, various computer word lengths, and hosts ranging from\nmemory-starved microprocessors up to massively parallel\nsupercomputers. As noted in [\nRFC1958\n], \"Multiple types of\napplication protocol must be allowed for, ranging from the\nsimplest such as remote login up to the most complex such as\ndistributed databases.\"\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 50]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to political participation\n6.2.9\n. Anonymity\nQuestion:\n\n- Did you have a look at [\nRFC6973\n] (\"Privacy Considerations for\nInternet Protocols\"), especially\nSection 6.1.1\nof that document?\n\nExplanation: \"Anonymity\" refers to the condition of an identity\nbeing unknown or concealed [\nRFC4949\n]. Even though full anonymity\nis hard to achieve, it is a non-binary concept. Making pervasive\nmonitoring and tracking harder is important for many users as well\nas for the IETF [\nRFC7258\n]. Achieving a higher level of anonymity\nis an important feature for many end users, as it allows them\ndifferent degrees of privacy online.\n\nExample: Protocols often expose personal data; it is therefore\nimportant to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts on\nprivacy. A protocol that uses data that could help identify a\nsender (items of interest) should be protected from third parties.\nFor instance, if one wants to hide the source/destination IP\naddresses of a packet, the use of IPsec in tunneling mode (e.g.,\ninside a VPN) can help protect against third parties likely to\neavesdrop packets exchanged between the tunnel endpoints.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to political participation\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.10\n. Pseudonymity\nQuestions:\n\n- Have you considered [\nRFC6973\n] (\"Privacy Considerations for\nInternet Protocols\"), especially\nSection 6.1.2\nof that document?\n\n- Does the protocol collect personally derived data?\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 51]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n- Does the protocol generate or process anything that can be, or\nthat can be tightly correlated with, personally identifiable\ninformation?\n\n- Does the protocol utilize data that is personally derived, i.e.,\nderived from the interaction of a single person or from their\ndevice or address?\n\n- Does this protocol generate personally derived data? If so, how\nwill that data be handled?\n\nExplanation: Pseudonymity -- the ability to use a persistent\nidentifier that is not immediately linked to one's offline\nidentity -- is an important feature for many end users, as it\nallows them different degrees of disguised identity and privacy\nonline.\n\nExample: When designing a standard that exposes personal data, it is\nimportant to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts. While\npseudonyms cannot easily be reverse-engineered -- for example,\nsome early approaches used such techniques as simple hashing of IP\naddresses that could in turn be easily reversed by generating a\nhash for each potential IP address and comparing it to the\npseudonym -- limiting the exposure of personal data remains\nimportant.\n\n\"Pseudonymity\" means using a pseudonym instead of one's \"real\"\nname. There are many reasons for users to use pseudonyms -- for\ninstance, to hide their gender; protect themselves against\nharassment; protect their families' privacy; frankly discuss\nsexuality; or develop an artistic or journalistic persona without\nretribution from an employer, (potential) customers, or social\nsurroundings [\ngeekfeminism\n]. The difference between anonymity and\npseudonymity is that a pseudonym is often persistent.\n\"Pseudonymity is strengthened when less personal data can be\nlinked to the pseudonym; when the same pseudonym is used less\noften and across fewer contexts; and when independently chosen\npseudonyms are more frequently used for new actions (making them,\nfrom an observer's or attacker's perspective, unlinkable).\"\n[\nRFC6973\n]\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 52]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n6.2.11\n. Accessibility\nQuestions:\n\n- Is your protocol designed to provide an enabling environment for\npeople who are not able-bodied?\n\n- Have you looked at the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative\n[\nW3CAccessibility\n] for examples and guidance?\n\nExplanation: The Internet is fundamentally designed to work for all\npeople, whatever their hardware, software, language, culture,\nlocation, or physical or mental ability. When the Internet meets\nthis goal, it is accessible to people with a diverse range of\nhearing, movement, sight, and cognitive abilities\n[\nW3CAccessibility\n]. Sometimes, in the design of protocols,\nwebsites, web technologies, or web tools, barriers that exclude\npeople from using the Web are created.\n\nExample: The HTML protocol as defined in [\nHTML5\n] specifically\nrequires that (with a few exceptions) every image must have an\n\"alt\" attribute to ensure that images are accessible for people\nthat cannot themselves decipher non-text content in web pages.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n\n- Right to education\n\n- Right to political participation\n6.2.12\n. Localization\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol uphold the standards of internationalization?\n\n- Have you taken any concrete steps towards localizing your protocol\nfor relevant audiences?\n\nExplanation: Per [\nW3Ci18nDef\n], \"Localization refers to the\nadaptation of a product, application or document content to meet\nthe language, cultural and other requirements of a specific target\nmarket (a 'locale').\" It is also described as the practice of\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 53]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ntranslating an implementation to make it functional in a specific\nlanguage or for users in a specific locale (see\nSection 6.2.5\n(\"Internationalization\")).\n\nExample: The Internet is a global medium, but many of its protocols\nand products are developed with a certain audience in mind; this\naudience often shares particular characteristics like knowing how\nto read and write in ASCII and knowing English. This limits the\nability of a large part of the world's online population to use\nthe Internet in a way that is culturally and linguistically\naccessible. An example of a protocol that has taken into account\nthe view that individuals like to have access to data in their\nnative language can be found in [\nRFC5646\n]; such a protocol would\nlabel the information content with an identifier for the language\nin which it is written and would allow information to be presented\nin more than one language.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n6.2.13\n. Decentralization\nQuestions:\n\n- Can your protocol be implemented without one single point of\ncontrol?\n\n- If applicable, can your protocol be deployed in a federated\nmanner?\n\n- What is the potential for discrimination against users of your\nprotocol?\n\n- Can your protocol be used to negatively implicate users (e.g.,\nincrimination, accusation)?\n\n- Does your protocol create additional centralized points of\ncontrol?\n\nExplanation: Decentralization is one of the central technical\nconcepts of the architecture of networks and is embraced as such\nby the IETF [\nRFC3935\n]. It refers to the absence or minimization\nof centralized points of control -- \"a feature that is assumed to\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 54]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nmake it easy for new users to join and new uses to unfold\"\n[\nBrown\n]. It also reduces issues surrounding single points of\nfailure and distributes the network such that it continues to\nfunction if one or several nodes are disabled. With the\ncommercialization of the Internet in the early 1990s, there has\nbeen a slow trend toward moving away from decentralization, to the\ndetriment of any technical benefits that having a decentralized\nInternet otherwise provides.\n\nExample: The bits traveling the Internet are increasingly\nsusceptible to monitoring and censorship, from both governments\nand ISPs, as well as third (malicious) parties. The ability to\nmonitor and censor is further enabled by increased centralization\nof the network, creating central infrastructure points that can be\ntapped into. The creation of P2P networks and the development of\nvoice-over-IP protocols using P2P technology in combination with a\ndistributed hash table (DHT) for scalability are examples of how\nprotocols can preserve decentralization [\nPouwelse\n].\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n6.2.14\n. Reliability\nQuestions:\n\n- Is your protocol fault tolerant?\n\n- Does your protocol degrade gracefully?\n\n- Can your protocol resist malicious degradation attempts?\n\n- Do you have a documented way to announce degradation?\n\n- Do you have measures in place for recovery or partial healing from\nfailure?\n\n- Can your protocol maintain dependability and performance in the\nface of unanticipated changes or circumstances?\n\nExplanation: Reliability ensures that a protocol will execute its\nfunction consistently, be error resistant as described, and\nfunction without unexpected results. A system that is reliable\ndegenerates gracefully and will have a documented way to announce\ndegradation. It also has mechanisms to recover from failure\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 55]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ngracefully and, if applicable, to allow for partial healing. It\nis important here to draw a distinction between random degradation\nand malicious degradation. Many current attacks against TLS, for\nexample, exploit TLS's ability to gracefully degrade to older\ncipher suites; from a functional perspective, this ability is\ngood, but from a security perspective, it can be very bad. As\nwith confidentiality, the growth of the Internet and fostering\ninnovation in services depend on users having confidence and trust\n[\nRFC3724\n] in the network. For reliability, it is necessary that\nservices notify users if packet delivery fails. In the case of\nreal-time systems, the protocol needs to safeguard timeliness in\naddition to providing reliable delivery.\n\nExample: In the modern IP stack structure, a reliable transport\nlayer requires an indication that transport processing has\nsuccessfully completed, such as the indication given by TCP's ACK\nmessage [\nRFC793\n] and not simply an indication from the IP layer\nthat the packet arrived. Similarly, an application-layer protocol\nmay require an application-specific acknowledgement that contains,\namong other things, a status code indicating the disposition of\nthe request (see [\nRFC3724\n]).\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.15\n. Confidentiality\nQuestions:\n\n- Does this protocol expose information related to identifiers or\ndata? If so, does it do so to each of the other protocol entities\n(i.e., recipients, intermediaries, and enablers) [\nRFC6973\n]?\n\n- What options exist for protocol implementers to choose to limit\nthe information shared with each entity?\n\n- What operational controls are available to limit the information\nshared with each entity?\n\n- What controls or consent mechanisms does the protocol define or\nrequire before personal data or identifiers are shared or exposed\nvia the protocol? If no such mechanisms or controls are\nspecified, is it expected that control and consent will be handled\noutside of the protocol?\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 56]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n- Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to share different\npieces of information with different recipients? If not, are\nthere mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide\ninitiators with such control?\n\n- Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to limit which\ninformation is shared with intermediaries? If not, are there\nmechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide users\nwith such control?\n\n- Is it expected that users will have relationships that govern the\nuse of the information (contractual or otherwise) with those who\noperate these intermediaries?\n\n- Does the protocol prefer encryption over cleartext operation?\n\n- Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to express\nindividuals' preferences to recipients or intermediaries with\nregard to the collection, use, or disclosure of their personal\ndata?\n\nExplanation: \"Confidentiality\" refers to keeping a user's data\nsecret from unintended listeners [\nBCP72\n]. The growth of the\nInternet depends on users having confidence that the network\nprotects their personal data [\nRFC1984\n].\n\nExample: Protocols that do not encrypt their payload make the entire\ncontent of the communication available to the idealized attacker\nalong their path [\nRFC7624\n]. Following the advice in [\nRFC3365\n],\nmost such protocols have a secure variant that encrypts the\npayload for confidentiality, and these secure variants are seeing\never-wider deployment. A noteworthy exception is DNS [\nRFC1035\n],\nas DNSSEC [\nRFC4033\n] does not have confidentiality as a\nrequirement. This implies that, in the absence of changes to the\nprotocol as presently under development in the IETF's DNS Private\nExchange (DPRIVE) Working Group, all DNS queries and answers\ngenerated by the activities of any protocol are available to the\nattacker. When store-and-forward protocols are used (e.g., SMTP\n[\nRFC5321\n]), intermediaries leave this data subject to observation\nby an attacker that has compromised these intermediaries, unless\nthe data is encrypted end to end by the application-layer protocol\nor the implementation uses an encrypted store for this data\n[\nRFC7624\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 57]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to privacy\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.16\n. Integrity\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol maintain, assure, and/or verify the accuracy of\npayload data?\n\n- Does your protocol maintain and assure the consistency of data?\n\n- Does your protocol in any way allow the data to be (intentionally\nor unintentionally) altered?\n\nExplanation: \"Integrity\" refers to the maintenance and assurance of\nthe accuracy and consistency of data to ensure that it has not\nbeen (intentionally or unintentionally) altered.\n\nExample: Integrity verification of data is important for preventing\nvulnerabilities and attacks such as man-in-the-middle attacks.\nThese attacks happen when a third party (often for malicious\nreasons) intercepts a communication between two parties, inserting\nthemselves in the middle and changing the content of the data. In\npractice, this looks as follows:\n\nAlice wants to communicate with Bob.\nCorinne forges and sends a message to Bob, impersonating Alice.\nBob cannot see that the data from Alice was altered by Corinne.\nCorinne intercepts and alters the communication as it is sent\nbetween Alice and Bob.\nCorinne is able to control the communication content.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to security\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 58]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n6.2.17\n. Authenticity\nQuestions:\n\n- Do you have sufficient measures in place to confirm the truth of\nan attribute of an entity or of a single piece of data?\n\n- Can attributes get garbled along the way (see\nSection 6.2.4\n(\"Security\"))?\n\n- If relevant, have you implemented IPsec, DNSSEC, HTTPS, and other\nstandard security best practices?\n\nExplanation: Authenticity ensures that data does indeed come from\nthe source it claims to come from. This is important for\npreventing (1) certain attacks or (2) unauthorized access to, and\nuse of, data.\n\nExample: Authentication of data is important for preventing\nvulnerabilities and attacks such as man-in-the-middle attacks.\nThese attacks happen when a third party (often for malicious\nreasons) intercepts a communication between two parties, inserting\nthemselves in the middle and posing as both parties. In practice,\nthis looks as follows:\n\nAlice wants to communicate with Bob.\nAlice sends data to Bob.\nCorinne intercepts the data sent to Bob.\nCorinne reads and alters the message to Bob.\nBob cannot see that the data did not come from Alice but instead\ncame from Corinne.\n\nWhen there is proper authentication, the scenario would be as\nfollows:\n\nAlice wants to communicate with Bob.\nAlice sends data to Bob.\nCorinne intercepts the data sent to Bob.\nCorinne reads and alters the message to Bob.\nBob can see that the data did not come from Alice but instead came\nfrom Corinne.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 59]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to privacy\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.18\n. Adaptability\nQuestions:\n\n- Is your protocol written in such a way that it would be easy for\nother protocols to be developed on top of it or to interact\nwith it?\n\n- Does your protocol impact permissionless innovation (see\nSection 6.2.1\n(\"Connectivity\") above)?\n\nExplanation: Adaptability is closely interrelated with\npermissionless innovation; both maintain the freedom and ability\nto freely create and deploy new protocols on top of the\ncommunications constructs that currently exist. Permissionless\ninnovation is at the heart of the Internet as we know it. To\nmaintain the Internet's fundamentally open nature and ensure that\nit can continue to develop, we need to be mindful of the impact of\nprotocols on maintaining or reducing permissionless innovation.\n\nExample: WebRTC generates audio and/or video data. In order to\nensure that WebRTC can be used in different locations by different\nparties, it is important that standard JavaScript APIs be\ndeveloped to support applications from different voice service\nproviders. Multiple parties will have similar capabilities; in\norder to ensure that all parties can build upon existing\nstandards, these standards need to be adaptable and allow for\npermissionless innovation.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to education\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 60]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n6.2.19\n. Outcome Transparency\nQuestion:\n\n- Are the effects of your protocol fully and easily comprehensible,\nincluding with respect to unintended consequences of protocol\nchoices?\n\nExplanation: Certain technical choices may have unintended\nconsequences.\n\nExample: Lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and\nnegative externalities; spam is an example. Lack of data that\ncould be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called\n\"free\" arrangements that obscure the actual costs and distribution\nof the costs -- for example, (1) the barter arrangements that are\ncommonly used for Internet interconnection and (2) the commercial\nexploitation of personal data for targeted advertising, which is\nthe most common funding model for the so-called \"free\" services\nsuch as search engines and social networks.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to privacy\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n\n- Right to access to information\n7\n. Security Considerations\nAs this document discusses research, there are no security\nconsiderations.\n8\n. IANA Considerations\nThis document does not require any IANA actions.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 61]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n9\n. Research Group Information\nThe discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nResearch Group is located at the email address <hrpc@ietf.org>.\nInformation on the group and information on how to subscribe to the\nlist are provided at <\nhttps://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc\n>.\n\nArchives of the list can be found at\n<\nhttps://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html\n>.\n10\n. Informative References\n[\nAbabil\n] Danchev, D., \"Dissecting 'Operation Ababil' - an OSINT\nAnalysis\", September 2012, <\nhttp://ddanchev.blogspot.be/\n2012/09/dissecting-operation-ababil-osint.html\n>.\n\n[\nAbbate\n] Abbate, J., \"Inventing the Internet\", MIT Press, 2000,\n<\nhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet\n>.\n\n[\nAdrian\n] Adrian, D., Bhargavan, K., Durumeric, Z., Gaudry, P.,\nGreen, M., Halderman, J., Heninger, N., Springall, D.,\nThome, E., Valenta, L., VanderSloot, B., Wustrow, E.,\nZanella-Beguelin, S., and P. Zimmermann, \"Imperfect\nForward Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice\",\nProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer\nand Communications Security, pp. 5-17,\nDOI 10.1145/2810103.2813707, October 2015.\n\n[\nAlshalan-etal\n]\nAlshalan, A., Pisharody, S., and D. Huang, \"A Survey of\nMobile VPN Technologies\", IEEE Communications Surveys &\nTutorials, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp. 1177-1196,\nDOI 10.1109/COMST.2015.2496624, 2016,\n<\nhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/\ndocument/7314859/?arnumber=7314859\n>.\n\n[\nAPIP\n] Naylor, D., Mukerjee, M., and P. Steenkiste, \"Balancing\naccountability and privacy in the network\", SIGCOMM '14,\nProceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on\nSIGCOMM, pp. 75-86, DOI 10.1145/2740070.2626306,\nOctober 2014,\n<\nhttps://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2626306\n>.\n\n[\nAppelbaum\n]\nAppelbaum, J., Gibson, A., Goetz, J., Kabisch, V., Kampf,\nL., and L. Ryge, \"NSA targets the privacy-conscious\",\n2014, <\nhttp://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/\nnsa230_page-1.html\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 62]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nars\n] Anderson, N., \"P2P researchers: use a blocklist or you\nwill be tracked... 100% of the time\", October 2007,\n<\nhttp://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/\np2p-researchers-use-a-blocklist-or-you-will-be-tracked-\n100-of-the-time/\n>.\n\n[\nAryan-etal\n]\nAryan, S., Aryan, H., and J. Alex Halderman, \"Internet\nCensorship in Iran: A First Look\", 2013,\n<\nhttps://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/iran-foci13.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nBabbie\n] Babbie, E., \"The Basics of Social Research\",\nCengage, Belmont, CA, 2017.\n\n[\nBBC-wikileaks\n]\nBBC, \"Whistle-blower site taken offline\", February 2008,\n<\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7250916.stm\n>.\n\n[\nBCP72\n] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, \"Guidelines for Writing RFC\nText on Security Considerations\",\nBCP 72\n,\nRFC 3552\n,\nJuly 2003, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72\n>.\n\n[\nBenkler\n] Benkler, Y., \"The Wealth of Networks - How Social\nProduction Transforms Markets and Freedom\", Yale\nUniversity Press, New Haven and London, 2006,\n<\nhttp://is.gd/rxUpTQ\n>.\n\n[\nBerners-Lee\n]\nBerners-Lee, T. and M. Fischetti, \"Weaving the Web: The\nOriginal Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide\nWeb\", HarperCollins, p. 208, 1999.\n\n[\nBernersLeeHalpin\n]\nBerners-Lee, T. and H. Halpin, \"Internet Access is a Human\nRight\", 2012, <\nhttp://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/homepage/\npublications/def-timbl-halpin.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nBhargavan\n]\nBhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Pironti,\nA., and P. Strub, \"Triple Handshakes and Cookie Cutters:\nBreaking and Fixing Authentication over TLS\", 2014 IEEE\nSymposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 98-113,\nDOI 10.1109/SP.2014.14, May 2014.\n\n[\nBitmessage\n]\nBitmessage, \"Bitmessage Wiki\", March 2017,\n<\nhttps://bitmessage.org/wiki/Main_Page\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 63]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nBless1\n] Orwat, C. and R. Bless, \"Values and Networks - Steps\nToward Exploring their Relationships\", ACM SIGCOMM\nComputer Communication Review, Volume 46, Number 2,\npp. 25-31, DOI 10.1145/2935634.2935640, April 2016,\n<\nhttp://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/\npapers/2016/April/0000000-0000003.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nBless2\n] Bless, R. and C. Orwat, \"Values and Networks\", July 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/\nslides-93-hrpc-2.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nBroeders\n] Broeders, D., \"The public core of the Internet. An\ninternational agenda for Internet governance\", The\nNetherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR)\nReport No. 94 (under \"Reports to the government\"), 2015,\n<\nhttps://english.wrr.nl/publications/reports/2015/10/01/\nthe-public-core-of-the-internet\n>\n\n[\nBrown\n] Ziewitz, M. and I. Brown, Ed., \"A Prehistory of Internet\nGovernance\", Research Handbook on Governance of the\nInternet, Part 1, Chapter 1 (pp. 3-26), Edward Elgar\nPublishing Ltd, Cheltenham, DOI 10.4337/9781849805049,\n2013.\n\n[\nBrown-etal\n]\nBrown, I., Clark, D., and D. Trossen, \"Should Specific\nValues Be Embedded In The Internet Architecture?\",\nReARCH '10, Proceedings of the Re-Architecting the\nInternet Workshop, Article No. 10,\nDOI 10.1145/1921233.1921246, November 2010,\n<\nhttp://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2010/Workshops/\nREARCH/ReArch_papers/10-Brown.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nBrownMarsden\n]\nBrown, I. and C. Marsden, \"Regulating Code: Good\nGovernance and Better Regulation in the Information Age\",\nMIT Press, 2013,\n<\nhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/regulating-code\n>.\n\n[\nCAIDA\n] Dainotti, A., Squarcella, C., Aben, E., Claffy, K.,\nChiesa, M., Russo, M., and A. Pescape, \"Analysis of\nCountry-wide Internet Outages Caused by Censorship\",\nDOI 10.1109/TNET.2013.2291244, December 2013,\n<\nhttp://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2014/\noutages_censorship/outages_censorship.pdf\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 64]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nCath\n] Cath, C., \"A Case Study of Coding Rights: Should Freedom\nof Speech Be Instantiated in the Protocols and Standards\nDesigned by the Internet Engineering Task Force?\",\nAugust 2015, <\nhttps://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/\nhrpc/current/pdf36GrmRM84S.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nCathFloridi\n]\nCath, C. and L. Floridi, \"The Design of the Internet's\nArchitecture by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nand Human Rights\", April 2017.\n\n[\nClark\n] Clark, D., \"The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet\nProtocols\", SIGCOMM '88, Proceedings of the ACM CCR,\nVolume 18, Number 4, pp. 106-114, DOI 10.1145/52324.52336,\nAugust 1988.\n\n[\nClark-etal\n]\nClark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., and R. Braden,\n\"Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomorrow's Internet\",\nIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) archive,\nVolume 13, Issue 3, pp. 462-475,\nDOI 10.1109/TNET.2005.850224, June 2005,\n<\nhttps://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049\n>.\n\n[\nCoE\n] Council of Europe, \"Applications to ICANN for Community-\nbased New Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs): Opportunities\nand challenges from a human rights perspective\", 2016,\n<\nhttps://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/\nDisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806b5a14\n>.\n\n[\nCollins\n] Collins, K., \"Hacking Team's oppressive regimes customer\nlist revealed in hack\", July 2015,\n<\nhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/06/\nhacking-team-spyware-company-hacked\n>.\n\n[\nDavidson-etal\n]\nDavidson, A., Morris, J., and R. Courtney, \"Strangers in a\nStrange Land: Public Interest Advocacy and Internet\nStandards\", Telecommunications Policy Research\nConference, Alexandria, VA, September 2002,\n<\nhttps://www.cdt.org/files/publications/piais.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nDeNardis14\n]\nDeNardis, L., \"The Global War for Internet Governance\",\nYale University Press, 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkz4n\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 65]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nDeNardis15\n]\nDeNardis, L., \"The Internet Design Tension between\nSurveillance and Security\", IEEE Annals of the History of\nComputing, Volume 37, Issue 2, DOI 10.1109/MAHC.2015.29,\n2015, <\nhttp://is.gd/7GAnFy\n>.\n\n[\nDenzin\n] Denzin, N., Ed., and Y. Lincoln, Ed., \"The SAGE Handbook\nof Qualitative Research\", SAGE Handbooks, Thousand Oaks,\nCA, 2011, <\nhttp://www.amazon.com/\nSAGE-Handbook-Qualitative-Research-Handbooks/\ndp/1412974178\n>.\n\n[\ndict\n] BusinessDictionary.com, \"Reliability (dictionary entry)\",\nWebFinance, Inc., 2017,\n<\nhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/\ndefinition/reliability.html\n>.\n\n[\nDoty\n] Doty, N., \"Automated text analysis of Requests for Comment\n(RFCs)\", 2014, <\nhttps://github.com/npdoty/rfc-analysis\n>.\n\n[\nDouceur\n] Douceur, J., \"The Sybil Attack\", 2002,\n<\nhttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/\nuploads/2002/01/IPTPS2002.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nDutton\n] Dutton, W., Dopatka, A., Law, G., and V. Nash, \"Freedom of\nConnection, Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and\nRegulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet\", 2011,\n<\nhttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-\ninformation/resources/publications-and-communication-\nmaterials/publications/full-list/freedom-of-connection-\nfreedom-of-expression-the-changing-legal-and-regulatory-\necology-shaping-the-internet/>.\n\n[\nFarrow\n] Farrow, R., \"Source Address Spoofing\", 2016,\n<\nhttps://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc723706.aspx\n>.\n\n[\nFIArch\n] \"Future Internet Design Principles\", January 2012,\n<\nhttp://www.future-internet.eu/uploads/media/\nFIArch_Design_Principles_V1.0.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nFOC\n] Ministers of the Freedom Online Coalition, \"The Tallinn\nAgenda - Recommendations for Freedom Online\", 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/wp-content/\nuploads/2014/04/FOC-recommendations-consensus.pdf\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 66]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nFRAMEWORK\n]\nISO/IEC, \"Information technology - Framework for\ninternationalization\", prepared by ISO/IEC\nJTC 1/SC 22/WG 20 ISO/IEC TR 11017, 1998.\n\n[\nFranklin\n] Franklin, U., \"The Real World of Technology\", June 1999,\n<\nhttp://houseofanansi.com/products/\nthe-real-world-of-technology-digital\n>.\n\n[\nfreenet1\n] Freenet, \"What is Freenet?\", n.d.,\n<\nhttps://freenetproject.org/whatis.html\n>.\n\n[\nfreenet2\n] Clarke, I., \"The Philosophy behind Freenet\", n.d.,\n<\nhttps://freenetproject.org/pages/about.html\n>.\n\n[\ngeekfeminism\n]\nGeek Feminism Wiki, \"Pseudonymity\", 2015,\n<\nhttp://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Pseudonymity\n>.\n\n[\nGeertz\n] Geertz, H. and C. Geertz, \"Kinship in Bali\", University of\nChicago Press, Chicago, 1975,\n<\nhttp://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/K/\nbo25832222.html\n>.\n\n[\nGooglepatent\n]\nGoogle, \"Method and device for network traffic\nmanipulation\", 2012,\n<\nhttps://www.google.com/patents/EP2601774A1?cl=en\n>.\n\n[\ngreatfirewall\n]\nAnonymous, \"Towards a Comprehensive Picture of the Great\nFirewall's DNS Censorship\", 4th USENIX Workshop on Free\nand Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI) '14,\nAugust 2014, <\nhttps://www.usenix.org/system/files/\nconference/foci14/foci14-anonymous.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nGreenMovement\n]\nVilleneuve, N., \"Iran DDoS\", 2009,\n<\nhttps://www.nartv.org/2009/06/16/iran-ddos/\n>.\n\n[\nGreenwald\n]\nGreenwald, G., \"XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly\neverything a user does on the internet'\", July 2013,\n<\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/\nnsa-top-secret-program-online-data\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 67]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nHaagsma\n] Haagsma, L., \"Deep dive into QUANTUM INSERT\", April 2015,\n<\nhttp://blog.fox-it.com/2015/04/20/\ndeep-dive-into-quantum-insert/\n>.\n\n[\nHall\n] Hall, J., Aaron, M., Jones, B., and N. Feamster, \"A Survey\nof Worldwide Censorship Techniques\", Work in Progress,\ndraft-hall-censorship-tech-04\n, July 2016.\n\n[\nHill2014\n] Hill, R., \"Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT\nActivities\", May 2014,\n<\nhttp://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nHORNET\n] Chen, C., Asoni, D., Barrera, D., Danezis, G., and A.\nPerrig, \"HORNET: High-speed Onion Routing at the Network\nLayer\", CCS '15, Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC\nConference on Computer and Communications\nSecurity, pp. 1441-1454, DOI 10.1145/2810103.2813628,\nOctober 2015,\n<\nhttps://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2813628\n>.\n\n[\nHTML5\n] Hickson, I., Ed., Berjon, R., Ed., Faulkner, S., Ed.,\nLeithead, T., Ed., Navara, E., Ed., O'Connor, E., Ed., and\nS. Pfeiffer, Ed., \"HTML5\", W3C Recommendation,\nOctober 2014, <\nhttps://www.w3.org/TR/html5/\n>.\n\n[\nICCPR\n] United Nations General Assembly, \"International Covenant\non Civil and Political Rights\", 1966,\n<\nhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/\nCCPR.aspx\n>.\n\n[\nICESCR\n] United Nations General Assembly, \"International Covenant\non Economic, Social and Cultural Rights\", 1966,\n<\nhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/\nCESCR.aspx\n>.\n\n[\nInsinuator\n]\nSchiess, N., \"Vulnerabilities & attack vectors of VPNs\n(Pt 1)\", August 2013, <\nhttps://www.insinuator.net/2013/08/\nvulnerabilities-attack-vectors-of-vpns-pt-1/\n>.\n\n[\nIRP\n] Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition,\n\"10 Internet Rights & Principles\", 2017,\n<\nhttp://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/campaign/\n>.\n\n[\nJabri\n] Jabri, V., \"Discourses on violence: conflict analysis\nreconsidered\", Manchester University Press, 1996.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 68]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nKaye\n] Kaye, D., \"Freedom of expression and the private sector in\nthe digital age\", 2016, <\nhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/\nFreedomOpinion/Pages/Privatesectorinthedigitalage.aspx\n>.\n\n[\nKing\n] King, C., \"Power, Social Violence and Civil Wars\",\nChapter 8 of \"Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict\nManagement in a Divided World\", United States Institute of\nPeace Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.\n\n[\nLessig\n] Lessig, L., \"Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace,\nVersion 2.0 ('Codev2')\", Basic Books, New York, 2006,\n<\nhttp://codev2.cc/\n>.\n\n[\nMarcak\n] Marcak, B., Weaver, N., Dalek, J., Ensafi, R., Fifield,\nD., McKune, S., Rey, A., Scott-Railton, J., Deibert, R.,\nand V. Paxson, \"China's Great Cannon\", April 2015,\n<\nhttps://citizenlab.org/2015/04/chinas-great-cannon/\n>.\n\n[\nMarquis-Boire\n]\nMarquis-Boire, M., \"Schrodinger's Cat Video and the Death\nof Clear-Text\", August 2014, <\nhttps://citizenlab.org/\n2014/08/cat-video-and-the-death-of-clear-text/\n>.\n\n[\nMeyer\n] Meyer, J., \"Defining and Evaluating Resilience: A\nPerformability Perspective\", presentation at International\nWorkshop on Performability Modeling of Computer and\nCommunication Systems, September 2009.\n\n[\nMueller\n] Mueller, M., \"Networks and States: The Global Politics of\nInternet Governance\", MIT Press,\nDOI 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014595.001.0001, 2010,\n<\nhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/networks-and-states\n>.\n\n[\nMusiani\n] Musiani, F., \"Giants, Dwarfs and Decentralized\nAlternatives to Internet-based Services: An Issue of\nInternet Governance\", Westminster Papers in Communication\nand Culture, 10(1), pp. 81-94, DOI 10.16997/wpcc.214,\n2015, <\nhttps://www.westminsterpapers.org/\narticles/10.16997/wpcc.214/\n>.\n\n[\nNamecoin\n] Namecoin, \"Namecoin\", 2015, <\nhttps://namecoin.info/\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 69]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nNATusage\n] Maier, G., Schneider, F., and A. Feldmann, \"NAT usage in\nResidential Broadband networks\", PAM: International\nConference on Passive and Active Network\nMeasurement Lecture Notes in Computer Science,\nVolume 6579, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg,\nDOI 10.1007/978-3-642-19260-9_4, 2011,\n<\nhttp://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/\nNATusage11.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nNETmundial\n]\nNETmundial, \"NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement\",\nApril 2014, <\nhttp://netmundial.br/wp-content/\nuploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nNewegg\n] Mullin, J., \"Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites\nthe history of encryption\", November 2013,\n<\nhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-\ntrial-mystery-company-tqp-re-writes-the-history-of-\nencryption/\n>.\n\n[\nnotewell\n] IETF, \"Note Well\", 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html\n>.\n\n[\npatentpolicy\n]\nWeitzner, D., Ed., \"W3C Patent Policy\", World Wide\nWeb Consortium, February 2004,\n<\nhttps://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/\n>.\n\n[\nPenney\n] Penney, J., \"Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and\nWikipedia Use\", 2016, <\nhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/\npapers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645\n>.\n\n[\nPeterson\n] Peterson, A., Gellman, B., and A. Soltani, \"Yahoo to make\nSSL encryption the default for Webmail users. Finally.\",\nOctober 2013, <\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/\nnews/the-switch/wp/2013/10/14/\nyahoo-to-make-ssl-encryption-the-default-\nfor-webmail-users-finally/?utm_term=.a17eca45ddfe>.\n\n[\nPETS2015VPN\n]\nPerta, V., Barbera, M., Tyson, G., Haddadi, H., and A.\nMei, \"A Glance through the VPN Looking Glass: IPv6 Leakage\nand DNS Hijacking in Commercial VPN clients\",\nDOI 10.1515/popets-2015-0006, 2015,\n<\nhttp://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~hamed/papers/\nPETS2015VPN.pdf\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 70]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nPidgin\n] js and Pidgin Developers, \"[XMPP] Invisible mode violating\nstandard\", 2007,\n<\nhttps://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4322\n>.\n\n[\nPouwelse\n] Pouwelse, J., Ed., \"Media without censorship (CensorFree)\nscenarios\", Work in Progress,\ndraft-pouwelse-censorfree-\nscenarios-02\n, October 2012.\n\n[\nRachovitsa\n]\nRachovitsa, A., \"Engineering and lawyering privacy by\ndesign: understanding online privacy both as a technical\nand an international human rights issue\", International\nJournal of Law and Information Technology, Volume 24,\nIssue 4, pp. 374-399, DOI 10.1093/ijlit/eaw012,\nDecember 2016, <\nhttps://academic.oup.com/ijlit/\narticle/24/4/374/2566975/\nEngineering-and-lawyering-privacy-by-design\n>.\n\n[\nRFC760\n] Postel, J., \"DoD standard Internet Protocol\",\nRFC 760\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC0760, January 1980,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc760\n>.\n\n[\nRFC791\n] Postel, J., \"Internet Protocol\", STD 5,\nRFC 791\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791\n>.\n\n[\nRFC793\n] Postel, J., \"Transmission Control Protocol\", STD 7,\nRFC 793\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793\n>.\n\n[\nRFC894\n] Hornig, C., \"A Standard for the Transmission of IP\nDatagrams over Ethernet Networks\", STD 41,\nRFC 894\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC0894, April 1984,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc894\n>.\n\n[\nRFC1035\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain names - implementation and\nspecification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,\nNovember 1987, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035\n>.\n\n[\nRFC1122\n] Braden, R., Ed., \"Requirements for Internet Hosts -\nCommunication Layers\", STD 3,\nRFC 1122\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122\n>.\n\n[\nRFC1958\n] Carpenter, B., Ed., \"Architectural Principles of the\nInternet\",\nRFC 1958\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 71]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC1984\n] IAB and IESG, \"IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic\nTechnology and the Internet\",\nBCP 200\n,\nRFC 1984\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1984\n>.\n\n[\nRFC2026\n] Bradner, S., \"The Internet Standards Process --\nRevision 3\",\nBCP 9\n,\nRFC 2026\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026,\nOctober 1996, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026\n>.\n\n[\nRFC2277\n] Alvestrand, H., \"IETF Policy on Character Sets and\nLanguages\",\nBCP 18\n,\nRFC 2277\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,\nJanuary 1998, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277\n>.\n\n[\nRFC2775\n] Carpenter, B., \"Internet Transparency\",\nRFC 2775\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC2775, February 2000,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2775\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3022\n] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, \"Traditional IP Network\nAddress Translator (Traditional NAT)\",\nRFC 3022\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3365\n] Schiller, J., \"Strong Security Requirements for Internet\nEngineering Task Force Standard Protocols\",\nBCP 61\n,\nRFC 3365\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3365\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3439\n] Bush, R. and D. Meyer, \"Some Internet Architectural\nGuidelines and Philosophy\",\nRFC 3439\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC3439, December 2002,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3439\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3536\n] Hoffman, P., \"Terminology Used in Internationalization in\nthe IETF\",\nRFC 3536\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC3536, May 2003,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3536\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3724\n] Kempf, J., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and IAB, \"The Rise of\nthe Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on\nthe Evolution of the Internet Architecture\",\nRFC 3724\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC3724, March 2004,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3724\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3935\n] Alvestrand, H., \"A Mission Statement for the IETF\",\nBCP 95\n,\nRFC 3935\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 72]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC4033\n] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.\nRose, \"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements\",\nRFC 4033\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033\n>.\n\n[\nRFC4084\n] Klensin, J., \"Terminology for Describing Internet\nConnectivity\",\nBCP 104\n,\nRFC 4084\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC4084,\nMay 2005, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4084\n>.\n\n[\nRFC4101\n] Rescorla, E. and IAB, \"Writing Protocol Models\",\nRFC 4101\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC4101, June 2005,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4101\n>.\n\n[\nRFC4941\n] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, \"Privacy\nExtensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in\nIPv6\",\nRFC 4941\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941\n>.\n\n[\nRFC4949\n] Shirey, R., \"Internet Security Glossary, Version 2\",\nFYI 36,\nRFC 4949\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5246\n] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, \"The Transport Layer Security\n(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2\",\nRFC 5246\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5321\n] Klensin, J., \"Simple Mail Transfer Protocol\",\nRFC 5321\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5646\n] Phillips, A., Ed., and M. Davis, Ed., \"Tags for\nIdentifying Languages\",\nBCP 47\n,\nRFC 5646\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC5646, September 2009,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5694\n] Camarillo, G., Ed., and IAB, \"Peer-to-Peer (P2P)\nArchitecture: Definition, Taxonomies, Examples, and\nApplicability\",\nRFC 5694\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC5694,\nNovember 2009, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5694\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5944\n] Perkins, C., Ed., \"IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised\",\nRFC 5944\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 73]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC6101\n] Freier, A., Karlton, P., and P. Kocher, \"The Secure\nSockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0\",\nRFC 6101\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6101, August 2011,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6101\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6108\n] Chung, C., Kasyanov, A., Livingood, J., Mody, N., and B.\nVan Lieu, \"Comcast's Web Notification System Design\",\nRFC 6108\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC6108, February 2011,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6108\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6120\n] Saint-Andre, P., \"Extensible Messaging and Presence\nProtocol (XMPP): Core\",\nRFC 6120\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,\nMarch 2011, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6365\n] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, \"Terminology Used in\nInternationalization in the IETF\",\nBCP 166\n,\nRFC 6365\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6698\n] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, \"The DNS-Based Authentication\nof Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)\nProtocol: TLSA\",\nRFC 6698\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698,\nAugust 2012, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6701\n] Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, \"Sanctions Available for\nApplication to Violators of IETF IPR Policy\",\nRFC 6701\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6701, August 2012,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6701\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6797\n] Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, \"HTTP Strict\nTransport Security (HSTS)\",\nRFC 6797\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6797, November 2012,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6973\n] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,\nMorris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, \"Privacy\nConsiderations for Internet Protocols\",\nRFC 6973\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7230\n] Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing\",\nRFC 7230\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 74]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC7231\n] Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content\",\nRFC 7231\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7232\n] Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests\",\nRFC 7232\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7233\n] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,\n\"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests\",\nRFC 7233\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7233, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7233\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7234\n] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,\nEd., \"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching\",\nRFC 7234\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7235\n] Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication\",\nRFC 7235\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7236\n] Reschke, J., \"Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)\nAuthentication Scheme Registrations\",\nRFC 7236\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7236, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7236\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7237\n] Reschke, J., \"Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)\nMethod Registrations\",\nRFC 7237\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7237,\nJune 2014, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7237\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7258\n] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, \"Pervasive Monitoring Is an\nAttack\",\nBCP 188\n,\nRFC 7258\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258,\nMay 2014, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7469\n] Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, \"Public Key Pinning\nExtension for HTTP\",\nRFC 7469\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469,\nApril 2015, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7540\n] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)\",\nRFC 7540\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 75]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC7574\n] Bakker, A., Petrocco, R., and V. Grishchenko, \"Peer-to-\nPeer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)\",\nRFC 7574\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7574, July 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7574\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7624\n] Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,\nTrammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,\n\"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A\nThreat Model and Problem Statement\",\nRFC 7624\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7626\n] Bortzmeyer, S., \"DNS Privacy Considerations\",\nRFC 7626\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7626, August 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7626\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7725\n] Bray, T., \"An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles\",\nRFC 7725\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7725, February 2016,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7725\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7754\n] Barnes, R., Cooper, A., Kolkman, O., Thaler, D., and E.\nNordmark, \"Technical Considerations for Internet Service\nBlocking and Filtering\",\nRFC 7754\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7754,\nMarch 2016, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7754\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7858\n] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,\nand P. Hoffman, \"Specification for DNS over Transport\nLayer Security (TLS)\",\nRFC 7858\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858,\nMay 2016, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858\n>.\n\n[\nRFC8164\n] Nottingham, M. and M. Thomson, \"Opportunistic Security for\nHTTP/2\",\nRFC 8164\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC8164, May 2017,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8164\n>.\n\n[\nRFC8179\n] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, \"Intellectual Property\nRights in IETF Technology\",\nBCP 79\n,\nRFC 8179\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179\n>.\n\n[\nRFC8200\n] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, \"Internet Protocol, Version 6\n(IPv6) Specification\", STD 86,\nRFC 8200\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200\n>.\n\n[\nRideout\n] Rideout, A., \"Making security easier\", July 2008,\n<\nhttp://gmailblog.blogspot.de/2008/07/\nmaking-security-easier.html\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 76]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRitchie\n] Ritchie, J. and J. Lewis, \"Qualitative Research Practice:\nA Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers\", SAGE\nPublishing, London, 2003, <\nhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/\nQualitative-Research-Practice-Students-Researchers/\ndp/0761971106\n>.\n\n[\nRSF\n] Reporters Without Borders (RSF), \"Syria using 34 Blue Coat\nservers to spy on Internet users\", January 2016,\n<\nhttps://rsf.org/en/news/\nsyria-using-34-blue-coat-servers-spy-internet-users\n>.\n\n[\nSaltzer\n] Saltzer, J., Reed, D., and D. Clark, \"End-to-End Arguments\nin System Design\", ACM Transactions on Computer Systems\n(TOCS), Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 277-288,\nDOI 10.1145/357401.357402, November 1984.\n\n[\nSandvine\n] Sandvine, \"Sandvine: Over 70% Of North American Traffic Is\nNow Streaming Video And Audio\", December 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.sandvine.com/pr/2015/12/7/sandvine-over-70-\nof-north-american-traffic-is-now-streaming-video-and-\naudio.html\n>.\n\n[\nSchillace\n] Schillace, S., \"Default https access for Gmail\",\nJanuary 2010, <\nhttp://gmailblog.blogspot.de/2010/01/\ndefault-https-access-for-gmail.html\n>.\n\n[\nSchneier\n] Schneier, B., \"Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users'\nonline anonymity\", October 2013,\n<\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/\ntor-attacks-nsa-users-online-anonymity\n>.\n\n[\nSPIEGEL\n] SPIEGEL, \"Prying Eyes - Inside the NSA's War on Internet\nSecurity\", December 2014,\n<\nhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/\ninside-the-nsa-s-war-on-internet-security-a-1010361.html\n>.\n\n[\nsslstrip\n] Marlinspike, M., \"Software >> sslstrip\", 2011,\n<\nhttps://moxie.org/software/sslstrip/\n>.\n\n[\ntechyum\n] Violet, \"Official - vb.ly Link Shortener Seized by Libyan\nGovernment\", October 2010, <\nhttp://techyum.com/2010/10/\nofficial-vb-ly-link-shortener-seized-by-libyan-\ngovernment/\n>.\n\n[\nTorProject\n]\nThe Tor Project, \"Anonymity Online\", 2006,\n<\nhttps://www.torproject.org/\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 77]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\ntorrentfreak1\n]\nVan der Sar, E., \"Is Your ISP Messing With BitTorrent\nTraffic? Find Out\", January 2014,\n<\nhttps://torrentfreak.com/is-your-isp-messing-with-\nbittorrent-traffic-find-out-140123/\n>.\n\n[\ntorrentfreak2\n]\nAndy, \"Lawyers Sent 109,000 Piracy Threats in Germany\nDuring 2013\", March 2014, <\nhttps://torrentfreak.com/\nlawyers-sent-109000-piracy-threats-in-germany-during-\n2013-140304/\n>.\n\n[\nTribler\n] Delft University of Technology, Department EWI/PDS/\nTribler, \"About Tribler\", 2013,\n<\nhttps://www.tribler.org/about.html\n>.\n\n[\nUDHR\n] United Nations General Assembly, \"The Universal\nDeclaration of Human Rights\", 1948, <\nhttp://www.un.org/en/\nuniversal-declaration-human-rights/index.html\n>.\n\n[\nUNGA2013\n] United Nations General Assembly, \"UN General Assembly\nResolution \"The right to privacy in the digital age\"\n(A/C.3/68/L.45)\", 2013,\n<\nhttps://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N13/\n576/77/PDF/N1357677.pdf?OpenElement\n>.\n\n[\nUNHRC2016\n]\nUnited Nations Human Rights Council, \"The promotion,\nprotection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet\",\nResolution A/HRC/32/L.20, 2016,\n<\nhttp://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=20340\n>.\n\n[\nVerveris\n] Ververis, V., Kargiotakis, G., Filasto, A., Fabian, B.,\nand A. Alexandros, \"Understanding Internet Censorship\nPolicy: The Case of Greece\", 5th USENIX Workshop on Free\nand Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI) '15,\nAugust 2015, <\nhttps://www.usenix.org/system/files/\nconference/foci15/foci15-paper-ververis-update.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nW3CAccessibility\n]\nWorld Wide Web Consortium, \"Accessibility\", 2016,\n<\nhttps://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility\n>.\n\n[\nW3Ci18nDef\n]\nIshida, R. and S. Miller, \"Localization vs.\nInternationalization\", World Wide Web Consortium,\nApril 2015, <\nhttp://www.w3.org/International/\nquestions/qa-i18n.en\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 78]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nwikileaks\n]\nSladek, T. and E. Broese, \"Market Survey: Detection &\nFiltering Solutions to Identify File Transfer of Copyright\nProtected Content for Warner Bros. and movielabs\", 2011,\n<\nhttps://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/docs/Anti-Piracy/CDSA/\nEANTC-Survey-1.5-unsecured.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nWP-Tempora\n]\nWikipedia, \"Tempora\", September 2017,\n<\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora\n>.\n\n[\nWSJ\n] Sonne, P. and M. Coker, \"Firms Aided Libyan Spies\", The\nWall Street Journal, August 2011,\n<\nhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/\nSB10001424053111904199404576538721260166388\n>.\n\n[\nWynsbergheMoura\n]\nNguyen, B., Ed., van Wynsberghe, A., van Wynsberghe, A.,\nand G. Moreira Moura, \"The concept of embedded values and\nthe example of internet security\", June 2013,\n<\nhttp://doc.utwente.nl/87095/\n>.\n\n[\nXMPP-Manifesto\n]\nSaint-Andre, P. and XMPP Operators, \"A Public Statement\nRegarding Ubiquitous Encryption on the XMPP Network\",\nMarch 2014, <\nhttps://raw.githubusercontent.com/\nstpeter/manifesto/master/manifesto.txt\n>.\n\n[\nZittrain\n] Zittrain, J., \"The Future of the Internet - And How to\nStop It\", Yale University Press & Penguin UK, 2008,\n<\nhttps://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4455262/\nZittrain_Future%20of%20the%20Internet.pdf?sequence=1\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 79]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAcknowledgements\n\nA special thanks to all members of the HRPC Research Group who\ncontributed to this document. The following deserve a special\nmention:\n\n- Joana Varon for helping draft the first iteration of the\nmethodology and previous drafts, and for directing the film \"Net\nof Rights\" and working on the interviews at IETF 92 in Dallas.\n\n- Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg) for helping with the first iteration of\nthe glossary (\nSection 2\n) as well as a lot of technical guidance,\nsupport, and language suggestions.\n\n- Claudio Guarnieri for writing the first iterations of the case\nstudies on VPNs, HTTP, and P2P.\n\n- Will Scott for writing the first iterations of the case studies on\nDNS, IP, and XMPP.\n\n- Avri Doria for proposing writing a glossary in the first place,\nhelp with writing the initial proposals and Internet-Drafts, her\nreviews, and her contributions to the glossary.\n\nThanks also to Stephane Bortzmeyer, John Curran, Barry Shein, Joe\nHall, Joss Wright, Harry Halpin, and Tim Sammut, who made a lot of\nexcellent suggestions, many of which found their way directly into\nthe text. We want to thank Amelia Andersdotter, Stephen Farrell,\nStephane Bortzmeyer, Shane Kerr, Giovane Moura, James Gannon, Alissa\nCooper, Andrew Sullivan, S. Moonesamy, Roland Bless, and Scott Craig\nfor their reviews and for testing the HRPC guidelines in the wild.\nWe would also like to thank Molly Sauter, Arturo Filasto, Nathalie\nMarechal, Eleanor Saitta, Richard Hill, and all others who provided\ninput on this document or the conceptualization of the idea. Thanks\nto Edward Snowden for his comments at IETF 93 in Prague regarding the\nimpact of protocols on the rights of users.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 80]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nNiels ten Oever\nARTICLE 19\n\nEmail: mail@nielstenoever.net\n\nCorinne Cath\nOxford Internet Institute\n\nEmail: corinnecath@gmail.com\n\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 81]\nRFC\n8280\n: Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n2\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. Vocabulary Used\n3. Research Questions\n4. Literature and Discussion Review\n5. Methodology\n5.1. Data Sources\n5.1.1. Discourse Analysis of RFCs\n5.1.2. Interviews with Members of the IETF Community\n5.1.3. Participant Observation in Working Groups\n5.2. Data Analysis Strategies\n5.2.1. Identifying Qualities of Technical Concepts That Relate to Human\nRights\n5.2.1.1. Mapping Protocols and Standards to Human Rights\n5.2.1.2. Extracting Concepts from Selected RFCs\n5.2.1.3. Building a Common Vocabulary of Technical Concepts That Impact\nHuman Rights\n5.2.1.4. Translating Human Rights Concepts into Technical Definitions\n5.2.1.5. List of Technical Terms That, When Partially Combined, Can\nCreate an Enabling Environment for Human Rights\n5.2.2. Relating Human Rights to Technical Concepts\n5.2.3. Mapping Cases of Protocols, Implementations, and Networking\nParadigms That Adversely Impact Human Rights or Are Enablers\n5.2.3.1. IPv4\n5.2.3.1.1. Network Visibility of Source and Destination\n5.2.3.1.2. Address Translation and Mobility\n5.2.3.2. DNS\n5.2.3.2.1. Removal of Records\n5.2.3.2.2. Distortion of Records\n5.2.3.2.3. Injection of Records\n5.2.3.3. HTTP\n5.2.3.3.1. Traffic Interception\n5.2.3.3.2. Traffic Manipulation\n5.2.3.4. XMPP\n5.2.3.4.1. User Identification\n5.2.3.4.2. Surveillance of Communication\n5.2.3.4.3. Group Chat Limitations\n5.2.3.5. Peer-to-Peer\n5.2.3.5.1. Network Poisoning\n5.2.3.5.2. Throttling\n5.2.3.5.3. Tracking and Identification\n5.2.3.5.4. Sybil Attacks\n5.2.3.6. Virtual Private Networks\n5.2.3.6.1. No Anonymity against VPN Providers\n5.2.3.6.2. Logging\n5.2.3.6.3. Third-Party Hosting\n5.2.3.6.4. IPv6 Leakage\n5.2.3.6.5. DNS Leakage\n5.2.3.6.6. Traffic Correlation\n5.2.3.7. HTTP Status Code 451\n5.2.3.8. DDoS Attacks\n6. Model for Developing Human Rights Protocol Considerations\n6.1. Human Rights Threats\n6.2. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations\n6.2.1. Connectivity\n6.2.2. Privacy\n6.2.3. Content Agnosticism\n6.2.4. Security\n6.2.5. Internationalization\n6.2.6. Censorship Resistance\n6.2.7. Open Standards\n6.2.8. Heterogeneity Support\n6.2.9. Anonymity\n6.2.10. Pseudonymity\n6.2.11. Accessibility\n6.2.12. Localization\n6.2.13. Decentralization\n6.2.14. Reliability\n6.2.15. Confidentiality\n6.2.16. Integrity\n6.2.17. Authenticity\n6.2.18. Adaptability\n6.2.19. Outcome Transparency\n7. Security Considerations\n8. IANA Considerations\n9. Research Group Information\n10. Informative References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "fa6f8539-f2d6-4088-855d-6250521fa363", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 8280: Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 8280\nInfo\nRFC\n8280\n:\nResearch into Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nN. ten Oever\n,\nC. Cath\nInformational\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n9620\n.\nInternet Research Task Force (IRTF) N. ten Oever\nRequest for Comments: 8280 ARTICLE 19\nCategory: Informational C. Cath\nISSN: 2070-1721 Oxford Internet Institute\nOctober 2017\nResearch into Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nAbstract\n\nThis document aims to propose guidelines for human rights\nconsiderations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for\nprivacy considerations (\nRFC 6973\n). The other parts of this document\nexplain the background of the guidelines and how they were developed.\n\nThis document is the first milestone in a longer-term research\neffort. It has been reviewed by the Human Rights Protocol\nConsiderations (HRPC) Research Group and also by individuals from\noutside the research group.\n\nStatus of This Memo\n\nThis document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is\npublished for informational purposes.\n\nThis document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force\n(IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research\nand development activities. These results might not be suitable for\ndeployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Human Rights\nProtocol Considerations Research Group of the Internet Research Task\nForce (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not\na candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see\nSection 2 of\nRFC 7841\n.\n\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata,\nand how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8280\n.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 1]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nCopyright Notice", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1901, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 293}}, {"segment_id": "04757c25-91e6-41de-8d08-61b3fd0eb1bd", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 1, "text": "Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n\nThis document is subject to\nBCP 78\nand the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttps://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect\nto this document.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 2]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction ....................................................\n4\n2\n. Vocabulary Used .................................................\n6\n3\n. Research Questions .............................................\n12\n4\n. Literature and Discussion Review ...............................\n12\n5\n. Methodology ....................................................\n15\n5.1\n. Data Sources ..............................................\n17\n5.1.1\n. Discourse Analysis of RFCs .........................\n17\n5.1.2\n. Interviews with Members of the IETF Community ......\n17\n5.1.3\n. Participant Observation in Working Groups ..........\n17\n5.2\n. Data Analysis Strategies ..................................\n18\n5.2.1. Identifying Qualities of Technical Concepts\nThat Relate to Human Rights ........................\n18\n5.2.2\n. Relating Human Rights to Technical Concepts ........\n20\n5.2.3. Mapping Cases of Protocols, Implementations, and\nNetworking Paradigms That Adversely Impact Human\nRights or Are Enablers Thereof .....................\n21\n6\n. Model for Developing Human Rights Protocol Considerations ......\n40\n6.1\n. Human Rights Threats ......................................\n40\n6.2\n. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations ................\n42\n6.2.1\n. Connectivity .......................................\n43\n6.2.2\n. Privacy ............................................\n43\n6.2.3\n. Content Agnosticism ................................\n44\n6.2.4\n. Security ...........................................\n45\n6.2.5\n. Internationalization ...............................\n46\n6.2.6\n. Censorship Resistance ..............................\n47\n6.2.7\n. Open Standards .....................................\n48\n6.2.8\n. Heterogeneity Support ..............................\n50\n6.2.9\n. Anonymity ..........................................\n51\n6.2.10\n. Pseudonymity ......................................\n51\n6.2.11\n. Accessibility .....................................\n53\n6.2.12\n. Localization ......................................\n53\n6.2.13\n. Decentralization ..................................\n54\n6.2.14\n. Reliability .......................................\n55\n6.2.15\n. Confidentiality ...................................\n56\n6.2.16\n. Integrity .........................................\n58\n6.2.17\n. Authenticity ......................................\n59\n6.2.18\n. Adaptability ......................................\n60\n6.2.19\n. Outcome Transparency ..............................\n61\n7\n. Security Considerations ........................................\n61\n8\n. IANA Considerations ............................................\n61\n9\n. Research Group Information .....................................\n62\n10\n. Informative References ........................................\n62\nAcknowledgements ..................................................\n80\nAuthors' Addresses ................................................\n81\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 3]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n1\n. Introduction\n\"There's a freedom about the Internet: As long as we accept the rules\nof sending packets around, we can send packets containing anything to\nanywhere.\" [\nBerners-Lee\n]", "char_start": 1903, "char_end": 5599, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 400}}, {"segment_id": "f31ba354-26f6-477e-b0ad-ef55e35be150", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 2, "text": "\"The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.\"\n[\nRFC3935\n]\n\nThe ever-growing interconnectedness of the Internet and society\nincreases the impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals.\nBecause of this, the design and development of the Internet\ninfrastructure also have a growing impact on society. This has led\nto a broad recognition that human rights [\nUDHR\n] [\nICCPR\n] [\nICESCR\n] have\na role in the development and management of the Internet [\nUNGA2013\n]\n[\nNETmundial\n]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be\nstrengthened as an enabling environment for human rights [\nBrown\n].\n\nThis document aims to (1) expose the relationship between protocols\nand human rights, (2) propose possible guidelines to protect the\nInternet as an enabling environment for human rights in future\nprotocol development, in a manner similar to the work done for\nprivacy considerations [\nRFC6973\n], and (3) increase the awareness, in\nboth the human rights community and the technical community, of the\nimportance of the technical workings of the Internet and its impact\non human rights.\n\nDocument authors who want to apply this work to their own can go\ndirectly to\nSection 6\nof this document.\n\nOpen, secure, and reliable connectivity is necessary (although not\nsufficient) to exercise human rights such as freedom of expression\nand freedom of association [\nFOC\n], as defined in the Universal\nDeclaration of Human Rights [\nUDHR\n]. The purpose of the Internet is\nto be a global network of networks that provides unfettered\nconnectivity to all users, and for any content [\nRFC1958\n]. This\nobjective of stimulating global connectivity contributes to the\nInternet's role as an enabler of human rights. The Internet has\ngiven people a platform to exchange opinions and gather information;\nit has enabled people of different backgrounds and genders to\nparticipate in the public debate; it has also allowed people to\ncongregate and organize. Next to that, the strong commitment to\nsecurity [\nRFC1984\n] [\nRFC3365\n] and privacy [\nRFC6973\n] [\nRFC7258\n] in the\nInternet's architectural design contributes to the strengthening of\nthe Internet as an enabling environment for human rights. One could\neven argue that the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights\nbut that human rights lie at the base of, and are ingrained in, the\narchitecture of the networks that make up the Internet. Internet\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 4]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nconnectivity increases the capacity for individuals to exercise their\nrights; the core of the Internet -- its architectural design -- is\ntherefore closely intertwined with the human rights framework\n[\nCathFloridi\n]. The quintessential link between the Internet's\ninfrastructure and human rights has been argued by many. [\nBless1\n],\nfor instance, argues that \"to a certain extent, the Internet and its\nprotocols have already facilitated the realization of human rights,\ne.g., the freedom of assembly and expression. In contrast, measures\nof censorship and pervasive surveillance violate fundamental human\nrights.\" [\nDeNardis15\n] argues that \"Since the first hints of Internet\ncommercialization and internationalization, the IETF has supported\nstrong security in protocol design and has sometimes served as a\nforce resisting protocol-enabled surveillance features.\" By doing\nso, the IETF enabled the manifestation of the right to privacy,\nthrough the Internet's infrastructure. Additionally, access to\nfreely available information gives people access to knowledge that\nenables them to help satisfy other human rights; as such, the\nInternet increasingly becomes a precondition for human rights rather\nthan a supplement.", "char_start": 5601, "char_end": 9312, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 593}}, {"segment_id": "0e196973-e8ff-468f-9fbb-8a903d75c1f6", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 3, "text": "Human rights can be in conflict with each other, such as the right to\nfreedom of expression and the right to privacy. In such cases, the\ndifferent affected rights need to be balanced. To do this, it is\ncrucial that the impacts on rights are clearly documented in order to\nmitigate potential harm. This research aims to ultimately contribute\nto making that process tangible and practical for protocol\ndevelopers. Technology can never be fully equated with a human\nright. Whereas a specific technology might be a strong enabler of a\nspecific human right, it might have an adverse impact on another\nhuman right. In this case, decisions on design and deployment need\nto take this into account.\n\nThe open nature of the initial technical design and its open\nstandards, as well as developments like open source, fostered freedom\nof communication. What emerged was a network of networks that could\nenable everyone to connect and to exchange data, information, and\ncode. For many, enabling such connections became a core value.\nHowever, as the scale and the commercialization of the Internet grew,\ntopics like access, rights, and connectivity have been forced to\ncompete with other values. Therefore, important characteristics of\nthe Internet that enable human rights might be degraded if they're\nnot properly defined, described, and protected as such. Conversely,\nnot protecting characteristics that enable human rights could also\nresult in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity, along\nwith other inherent parts of the Internet's architecture of networks.\nNew protocols, particularly those that upgrade the core\ninfrastructure of the network, should be designed to continue to\nenable fundamental human rights.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 5]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nThe IETF has produced guidelines and procedures to ensure and\ngalvanize the privacy of individuals and security of the network in\nprotocol development. This document aims to explore the possibility\nof developing similar procedures for guidelines for human rights\nconsiderations to ensure that protocols developed in the IETF do not\nhave an adverse impact on the realization of human rights on the\nInternet. By carefully considering the answers to the questions\nposed in\nSection 6\nof this document, document authors should be\n(1) able to produce a comprehensive analysis that can serve as the\nbasis for discussion on whether the protocol adequately protects\nagainst specific human rights threats and (2) potentially stimulated\nto think about alternative design choices.", "char_start": 9314, "char_end": 11894, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 401}}, {"segment_id": "6b998475-8df0-4cdc-85dc-4f610e0bd798", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 4, "text": "This document was developed within the framework of the Human Rights\nProtocol Considerations (HRPC) Research Group, based on discussions\non the HRPC mailing list (\nSection 9\n); this document was also\nextensively discussed during HRPC sessions. This document has\nreceived eleven in-depth reviews on the mailing list, and it received\nmany comments from inside and outside the IRTF and IETF communities.\n2\n. Vocabulary Used\nIn the discussion of human rights and Internet architecture, concepts\ndeveloped in computer science, networking, law, policy-making, and\nadvocacy are coming together [\nDutton\n] [\nKaye\n] [\nFranklin\n] [\nRFC1958\n].\nThe same concepts might have a very different meaning and\nimplications in other areas of expertise. In order to foster a\nconstructive interdisciplinary debate and minimize differences in\ninterpretation, the following glossary is provided. It builds as\nmuch as possible on existing definitions; when definitions were not\navailable in IETF documents, definitions were taken from other\nStandards Development Organizations (SDOs) or academic literature.\n\nAccessibility: \"Full Internet Connectivity\", as described in\n[\nRFC4084\n], to provide unfettered access to the Internet.\n\nThe design of protocols, services, or implementations that provide\nan enabling environment for people with disabilities.\n\nThe ability to receive information available on the Internet.\n\nAnonymity: The condition of an identity being unknown or concealed\n[\nRFC4949\n].\n\nAnonymous: A state of an individual in which an observer or attacker\ncannot identify the individual within a set of other individuals\n(the anonymity set) [\nRFC6973\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 6]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAuthenticity: The property of being genuine and able to be verified\nand be trusted [\nRFC4949\n].", "char_start": 11896, "char_end": 13728, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 278}}, {"segment_id": "d1be9fcf-3d53-4302-b0c6-d12b1e162b93", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 5, "text": "Blocking: The practice of preventing access to resources in the\naggregate [\nRFC7754\n]. Both blocking and filtering can be\nimplemented at the level of \"services\" (web hosting or video\nstreaming, for example) or at the level of particular \"content\"\n[\nRFC7754\n].\n\nCensorship: Technical mechanisms, including both blocking and\nfiltering, that certain political or private actors around the\nworld use to block or degrade Internet traffic. For further\ndetails on the various elements of Internet censorship, see\n[\nHall\n].\n\nCensorship resistance: Methods and measures to mitigate Internet\ncensorship.\n\nConfidentiality: The property that data is not disclosed to system\nentities unless they have been authorized to know the data\n[\nRFC4949\n].\n\nConnectivity: The extent to which a device or network is able to\nreach other devices or networks to exchange data. The Internet is\nthe tool for providing global connectivity [\nRFC1958\n]. Different\ntypes of connectivity are further specified in [\nRFC4084\n].\n\nThe end-to-end principle, interoperability, distributed\narchitecture, resilience, reliability, and robustness in\ncombination constitute the enabling factors that result in\nconnectivity to, and on, the Internet.\n\nContent agnosticism: Treating network traffic identically regardless\nof content.\n\nDecentralized: Implementation or deployment of standards, protocols,\nor systems without one single point of control.\n\nEnd-to-end principle: The principle that application-specific\nfunctions should not be embedded into the network and thus stay at\nthe endpoints. In many cases, especially when dealing with\nfailures, the right decisions can only be made with the\ncorresponding application-specific knowledge, which is available\nat endpoints not in the network.\n\nThe end-to-end principle is one of the key architectural\nguidelines of the Internet. The argument in favor of the\nend-to-end approach to system design is laid out in the\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 7]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nfundamental papers by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark [\nSaltzer\n] [\nClark\n].\nIn these papers, the authors argue in favor of radical\nsimplification: system designers should only build the essential\nand shared functions into the network, as most functions can only\nbe implemented at network endpoints. Building features into the\nnetwork for the benefit of certain applications will come at the\nexpense of others. As such, in general system designers should\nattempt to steer clear of building anything into the network that\nis not a bare necessity for its functioning. Following the\nend-to-end principle is crucial for innovation, as it makes\ninnovation at the edges possible without having to make changes to\nthe network, and it protects the robustness of the network.\n[\nRFC2775\n] further elaborates on various aspects of end-to-end\nconnectivity.", "char_start": 13730, "char_end": 16584, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 432}}, {"segment_id": "25b9f9e9-6eef-4e8f-9c2a-fd868dbecfe1", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 6, "text": "Federation: The possibility of connecting autonomous and possibly\ncentralized systems into a single system without a central\nauthority.\n\nFiltering: The practice of preventing access to specific resources\nwithin an aggregate [\nRFC7754\n].\n\nHeterogeneity: \"The Internet is characterized by heterogeneity on\nmany levels: devices and nodes, router scheduling algorithms and\nqueue management mechanisms, routing protocols, levels of\nmultiplexing, protocol versions and implementations, underlying\nlink layers (e.g., point-to-point, multi-access links, wireless,\nFDDI, etc.), in the traffic mix and in the levels of congestion at\ndifferent times and places. Moreover, as the Internet is composed\nof autonomous organizations and internet service providers, each\nwith their own separate policy concerns, there is a large\nheterogeneity of administrative domains and pricing structures.\"\n[\nFIArch\n]\n\nAs a result, per [\nFIArch\n], the heterogeneity principle proposed in\n[\nRFC1958\n] needs to be supported by design.\n\nHuman rights: Principles and norms that are indivisible,\ninterrelated, unalienable, universal, and mutually reinforcing.\nHuman rights have been codified in national and international\nbodies of law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [\nUDHR\n]\nis the most well-known document in the history of human rights.\nThe aspirations from [\nUDHR\n] were later codified into treaties such\nas the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights\n[\nICCPR\n] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and\nCultural Rights [\nICESCR\n], after which signatory countries were\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 8]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nobliged to reflect them in their national bodies of law. There is\nalso a broad recognition that not only states have obligations\nvis-a-vis human rights, but non-state actors do as well.", "char_start": 16586, "char_end": 18446, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 276}}, {"segment_id": "f4695b92-3e87-47ad-bbb8-4ce16fdd4f0b", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 7, "text": "Integrity: The property that data has not been changed, destroyed,\nor lost in an unauthorized or accidental manner [\nRFC4949\n].\n\nInternationalization (i18n): The practice of making protocols,\nstandards, and implementations usable in different languages and\nscripts (see\nSection 6.2.12\n(\"Localization\")).\n\n\"In the IETF, 'internationalization' means to add or improve the\nhandling of non-ASCII text in a protocol\" [\nRFC6365\n].\n\nA different perspective, more appropriate to protocols that are\ndesigned for global use from the beginning, is the definition used\nby the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) [\nW3Ci18nDef\n]:\n\"Internationalization is the design and development of a product,\napplication or document content that enables easy localization for\ntarget audiences that vary in culture, region, or language.\"\n\nMany protocols that handle text only handle one charset\n(US-ASCII), or they leave the question of encoding up to local\nguesswork (which leads, of course, to interoperability problems)\n[\nRFC3536\n]. If multiple charsets are permitted, they must be\nexplicitly identified [\nRFC2277\n]. Adding non-ASCII text to a\nprotocol allows the protocol to handle more scripts, hopefully all\nscripts in use in the world. In today's world, that is normally\nbest accomplished by allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only,\nthereby shifting conversion issues away from ad hoc choices.\n\nInteroperable: A property of a documented standard or protocol that\nallows different independent implementations to work with each\nother without any restriction on functionality.\n\nLocalization (l10n): The practice of translating an implementation\nto make it functional in a specific language or for users in a\nspecific locale (see\nSection 6.2.5\n(\"Internationalization\")).\n\n(cf. [\nRFC6365\n]): The process of adapting an internationalized\napplication platform or application to a specific cultural\nenvironment. In localization, the same semantics are preserved\nwhile the syntax may be changed [\nFRAMEWORK\n].", "char_start": 18448, "char_end": 20422, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 293}}, {"segment_id": "725eadeb-0290-4362-94ab-d086b0210421", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 8, "text": "Localization is the act of tailoring an application for a\ndifferent language, script, or culture. Some internationalized\napplications can handle a wide variety of languages. Typical\nusers only understand a small number of languages, so the program\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 9]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nmust be tailored to interact with users in just the languages they\nknow. The major work of localization is translating the user\ninterface and documentation. Localization involves not only\nchanging the language interaction but also other relevant changes,\nsuch as display of numbers, dates, currency, and so on. The\nbetter internationalized an application is, the easier it is to\nlocalize it for a particular language and character-encoding\nscheme.\n\nOpen standards: Conform with [\nRFC2026\n], which states the following:\n\"Various national and international standards bodies, such as\nANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and\nservice specifications that are similar to Technical\nSpecifications defined here. National and international groups\nalso publish 'implementors' agreements' that are analogous to\nApplicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-\nspecific detail concerned with the practical application of their\nstandards. All of these are considered to be 'open external\nstandards' for the purposes of the Internet Standards Process.\"\n\nOpenness: Absence of centralized points of control -- \"a feature\nthat is assumed to make it easy for new users to join and new uses\nto unfold\" [\nBrown\n].\n\nPermissionless innovation: The freedom and ability to freely create\nand deploy new protocols on top of the communications constructs\nthat currently exist.\n\nPrivacy: The right of an entity (normally a person), acting on its\nown behalf, to determine the degree to which it will interact with\nits environment, including the degree to which the entity is\nwilling to share its personal information with others [\nRFC4949\n].", "char_start": 20424, "char_end": 22417, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 304}}, {"segment_id": "b5fa184c-b0f2-4bee-b854-8d64f8bf5fa8", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 9, "text": "The right of individuals to control or influence what information\nrelated to them may be collected and stored, and by whom and to\nwhom that information may be disclosed.\n\nPrivacy is a broad concept relating to the protection of\nindividual or group autonomy and the relationship between an\nindividual or group and society, including government, companies,\nand private individuals. It is often summarized as \"the right to\nbe left alone\", but it encompasses a wide range of rights,\nincluding protections from intrusions into family and home life,\ncontrol of sexual and reproductive rights, and communications\nsecrecy. It is commonly recognized as a core right that underpins\nhuman dignity and other values such as freedom of association and\nfreedom of speech.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 10]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nThe right to privacy is also recognized in nearly every national\nconstitution and in most international human rights treaties. It\nhas been adjudicated upon by both international and regional\nbodies. The right to privacy is also legally protected at the\nnational level through provisions in civil and/or criminal codes.\n\nReliability: Ensures that a protocol will execute its function\nconsistently as described and function without unexpected results.\nA system that is reliable degenerates gracefully and will have a\ndocumented way to announce degradation. It also has mechanisms to\nrecover from failure gracefully and, if applicable, allow for\npartial healing [\ndict\n].\n\nResilience: The maintaining of dependability and performance in the\nface of unanticipated changes and circumstances [\nMeyer\n].\n\nRobustness: The resistance of protocols and their implementations to\nerrors, and resistance to involuntary, legal, or malicious\nattempts to disrupt their modes of operation [\nRFC760\n] [\nRFC791\n]\n[\nRFC793\n] [\nRFC1122\n]. Or, framed more positively, a system can\nprovide functionality consistently and without errors despite\ninvoluntary, legal, or malicious attempts to disrupt its mode of\noperation.", "char_start": 22419, "char_end": 24471, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 315}}, {"segment_id": "f61efe71-068a-4a6f-972d-f4a184b0ca76", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 10, "text": "Scalability: The ability to handle increased or decreased system\nparameters (number of end systems, users, data flows, routing\nentries, etc.) predictably within defined expectations. There\nshould be a clear definition of its scope and applicability. The\nlimits of a system's scalability should be defined. Growth or\nshrinkage of these parameters is typically considered by orders of\nmagnitude.\n\nStrong encryption / cryptography: Used to describe a cryptographic\nalgorithm that would require a large amount of computational power\nto defeat it [\nRFC4949\n]. In the modern usage of the definition of\n\"strong encryption\", this refers to an amount of computing power\ncurrently not available, not even to major state-level actors.\n\nTransparency: In this context, linked to the comprehensibility of a\nprotocol in relation to the choices it makes for users, protocol\ndevelopers, and implementers, and to its outcome.\n\nOutcome transparency is linked to the comprehensibility of the\neffects of a protocol in relation to the choices it makes for\nusers, protocol developers, and implementers, including the\ncomprehensibility of possible unintended consequences of protocol\nchoices (e.g., lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity\nand negative externalities).\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 11]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n3\n. Research Questions\nThe Human Rights Protocol Considerations (HRPC) Research Group in the\nInternet Research Task Force (IRTF) embarked on its mission to answer\nthe following two questions, which are also the main two questions\nthat this document seeks to answer:\n\n1. How can Internet protocols and standards impact human rights, by\neither enabling them or creating a restrictive environment?\n\n2. Can guidelines be developed to improve informed and transparent\ndecision-making about the potential impact of protocols on human\nrights?\n4\n. Literature and Discussion Review\nProtocols and standards are regularly seen as merely performing\ntechnical functions. However, these protocols and standards do not\nexist outside of their technical context, nor do they exist outside\nof their political, historical, economic, legal, or cultural context.\nThis is best exemplified by the way in which some Internet processes\nand protocols have become part and parcel of political processes and\npublic policies: one only has to look at the IANA transition,\n[\nRFC7258\n] (\"Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\"), or global innovation\npolicy, for concrete examples [\nDeNardis15\n]. According to [\nAbbate\n],\n\"protocols are politics by other means.\" This statement would\nprobably not garner IETF consensus, but it nonetheless reveals that\nprotocols are based on decision-making, most often by humans. In\nthis process, the values and ideas about the role that a particular\ntechnology should perform in society are embedded into the design.\nOften, these design decisions are partly \"purely technical\" and\npartly inspired by a certain world view of how technology should\nfunction that is inspired by personal, corporate, and political\nviews. Within the community of IETF participants, there is a strong\ndesire to solve technical problems and to minimize engagement with\npolitical processes and non-protocol-related political issues.", "char_start": 24473, "char_end": 27733, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 490}}, {"segment_id": "2ea10858-379d-4acb-a025-0268be1b8896", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 11, "text": "Since the late 1990s, a burgeoning group of academics and\npractitioners researched questions surrounding the societal impact of\nprotocols, as well as the politics of protocols. These studies vary\nin focus and scope: some focus on specific standards [\nDavidson-etal\n]\n[\nMusiani\n]; others look into the political, legal, commercial, or\nsocial impact of protocols [\nBrownMarsden\n] [\nLessig\n] [\nMueller\n]; and yet\nothers look at how the engineers' personal set of values get\ntranslated into technology [\nAbbate\n] [\nCathFloridi\n] [\nDeNardis15\n]\n[\nWynsbergheMoura\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 12]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nCommercial and political influences on the management of the\nInternet's infrastructure are well documented in the academic\nliterature and will thus not be discussed here; see [\nBenkler\n],\n[\nBrown-etal\n], [\nDeNardis15\n], [\nLessig\n], [\nMueller\n], and [\nZittrain\n]. It\nis sufficient to say that the IETF community consistently tries to\npush back against the standardization of surveillance and certain\nother issues that negatively influence an end user's experience of,\nand trust in, the Internet [\nDeNardis14\n]. The role that human rights\nplay in engineering, infrastructure maintenance, and protocol design\nis much less clear.\n\nIt is very important to understand how protocols and standards impact\nhuman rights, in particular because SDOs are increasingly becoming\nvenues where social values (like human rights) are discussed,\nalthough often from a technological point of view. These SDOs are\nbecoming a new focal point for discussions about \"values by design\"\nand the role of technical engineers in protecting or enabling human\nrights [\nBrown-etal\n] [\nClark-etal\n] [\nDeNardis14\n] [\nCathFloridi\n] [\nLessig\n]\n[\nRachovitsa\n].\n\nIn the academic literature, five clear positions can be discerned in\nrelation to the role of human rights in protocol design and how to\naccount for these human rights in protocol development: Clark\net al. [\nClark-etal\n] argue that there is a need to design \"for\nvariation in outcome -- so that the outcome can be different in\ndifferent places, and the tussle takes place within the design (...)\"\n[as] \"Rigid designs will be broken; designs that permit variation\nwill flex under pressure and survive.\" They hold that human rights\nshould not be hard-coded into protocols for three reasons: First, the\nrights in the UDHR are not absolute. Second, technology is not the\nonly tool in the tussle over human rights. And last but not least,\nit is dangerous to make promises that can't be kept. The open nature\nof the Internet will never, they argue, be enough to fully protect\nindividuals' human rights.", "char_start": 27735, "char_end": 30415, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 445}}, {"segment_id": "653fd450-35bf-4039-a654-976cc7f13f6a", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 12, "text": "Conversely, Brown et al. [\nBrown-etal\n] state that \"some key, universal\nvalues -- of which the UDHR is the most legitimate expression --\nshould be baked into the architecture at design time.\" They argue\nthat design choices have offline consequences and are able to shape\nthe power positions of groups or individuals in society. As such,\nthe individuals making these technical decisions have a moral\nobligation to take into account the impact of their decisions on\nsociety and, by extension, human rights. Brown et al. recognize that\nvalues and the implementation of human rights vary across the globe.\nYet they argue that all members of the United Nations have found\n\"common agreement on the values proclaimed in the Universal\nDeclaration of Human Rights. In looking for the most legitimate set\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 13]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nof global values to embed in the future Internet architectures, the\nUDHR has the democratic assent of a significant fraction of the\nplanet's population, through their elected representatives.\"\n\nThe main disagreement between these two academic positions lies\nmostly in the question of whether (1) a particular value system\nshould be embedded into the Internet's architectures or (2) the\narchitectures need to account for a varying set of values.\n\nA third position, which is similar to that of Brown et al., is taken\nby [\nBroeders\n], in which Broeders argues that \"we must find ways to\ncontinue guaranteeing the overall integrity and functionality of the\npublic core of the Internet.\" He argues that the best way to do this\nis by declaring the backbone of the Internet -- which includes the\nTCP/IP protocol suite, numerous standards, the Domain Name System\n(DNS), and routing protocols -- a common public good. This is a\ndifferent approach than those of [\nClark-etal\n] and [\nBrown-etal\n]\nbecause Broeders does not suggest that social values should (or\nshould not) be explicitly coded into the Internet, but rather that\nthe existing infrastructure should be seen as an entity of public\nvalue.", "char_start": 30417, "char_end": 32501, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 343}}, {"segment_id": "e8b1c382-0f9c-45e5-aff0-9c2c44e8198c", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 13, "text": "Bless and Orwat [\nBless2\n] represent a fourth position. They argue\nthat it is too early to make any definitive claims but that there is\na need for more careful analysis of the impact of protocol design\nchoices on human rights. They also argue that it is important to\nsearch for solutions that \"create awareness in the technical\ncommunity about impact of design choices on social values\" and \"work\ntowards a methodology for co-design of technical and institutional\nsystems.\"\n\nBerners-Lee and Halpin [\nBernersLeeHalpin\n] represent a fifth position.\nThey argue that the Internet could lead to even newer capacities, and\nthese capacities may over time be viewed as new kinds of rights. For\nexample, Internet access may be viewed as a human right in and of\nitself if it is taken to be a precondition for other rights, even if\nit could not have been predicted at the time that the UDHR was\nwritten (after the end of World War II).\n\nIt is important to contextualize the technical discussion with the\nacademic discussions on this issue. The academic discussions are\nalso important to document, as they inform the position of the\nauthors of this document. The research group's position is that\nhard-coding human rights into protocols is complicated and changes\nwith the context. At this point, it is difficult to say whether or\nnot hard-coding human rights into protocols is wise or feasible.\nAdditionally, there are many human rights, but not all are relevant\nfor information and communications technologies (ICTs). A partial\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 14]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ncatalog (with references to sources) of human rights related to ICTs\ncan be found in [\nHill2014\n]. It is, however, important to make\nconscious and explicit design decisions that take into account the\nhuman rights protocol considerations guidelines developed below.\nThis will contribute to the understanding of the impact that\nprotocols can have on human rights, for both developers and users.\nIn addition, it contributes to (1) the careful consideration of the\nimpact that a specific protocol might have on human rights and\n(2) the dissemination of the practice of documenting protocol design\ndecisions related to human rights.", "char_start": 32503, "char_end": 34748, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 368}}, {"segment_id": "59f585ef-a6fa-460f-a256-8d4b3f177ef7", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 14, "text": "Pursuant to the principle of constant change, because the function\nand scope of the Internet evolve, so does the role of the IETF in\ndeveloping standards. Internet Standards are adopted based on a\nseries of criteria, including high technical quality, support by\ncommunity consensus, and their overall benefit to the Internet. The\nlatter calls for an assessment of the interests of all affected\nparties and the specifications' impact on the Internet's users. In\nthis respect, the effective exercise of the human rights of the\nInternet users is a relevant consideration that needs to be\nappreciated in the standardization process insofar as it is directly\nlinked to the reliability and core values of the Internet [\nRFC1958\n]\n[\nRFC2775\n] [\nRFC3439\n] [\nRFC3724\n].\n\nThis document details the steps taken in the research into human\nrights protocol considerations by the HRPC Research Group to clarify\nthe relationship between technical concepts used in the IETF and\nhuman rights. This document sets out some preliminary steps and\nconsiderations for engineers to take into account when developing\nstandards and protocols.\n5\n. Methodology\nMapping the relationship between human rights, protocols, and\narchitectures is a new research challenge that requires a good amount\nof interdisciplinary and cross-organizational cooperation to develop\na consistent methodology.\n\nThe methodological choices made in this document are based on the\npolitical-science-based method of discourse analysis and ethnographic\nresearch methods [\nCath\n]. This work departs from the assumption that\nlanguage reflects the understanding of concepts. Or, as [\nJabri\n]\nholds, policy documents are \"social relations represented in texts\nwhere the language contained within these texts is used to construct\nmeaning and representation.\" This process happens in society\n[\nDenzin\n] and manifests itself in institutions and organizations\n[\nKing\n], exposed using the ethnographic methods of semi-structured\ninterviews and participant observation. Or, in non-academic\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 15]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nlanguage, the way the language in IETF/IRTF documents describes and\napproaches the issues they are trying to address is an indication of\nthe underlying social assumptions and relationships of the engineers\nto their engineering. By reading and analyzing these documents, as\nwell as interviewing engineers and participating in the IETF/IRTF\nworking groups, it is possible to distill the relationship between\nhuman rights, protocols, and the Internet's infrastructure as it\npertains to the work of the IETF.", "char_start": 34750, "char_end": 37377, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 398}}, {"segment_id": "c7dd7e28-c217-4ae1-a94a-a432f6cccb06", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 15, "text": "The discourse analysis was operationalized using qualitative and\nquantitative means. The first step taken by the authors and\ncontributors was reading RFCs and other official IETF documents. The\nsecond step was the use of a Python-based analyzer, using the\n\"Bigbang\" tool, adapted by Nick Doty [\nDoty\n], to scan for the concepts\nthat were identified as important architectural principles (distilled\non the initial reading and supplemented by the interviews and\nparticipant observation). Such a quantitative method is very precise\nand speeds up the research process [\nRitchie\n]. But this tool is\nunable to understand \"latent meaning\" [\nDenzin\n]. In order to mitigate\nthese issues of automated word-frequency-based approaches and to get\na sense of the \"thick meaning\" [\nGeertz\n] of the data, a second\nqualitative analysis of the data set was performed. These various\nrounds of discourse analysis were used to inform the interviews and\nfurther data analysis. As such, the initial rounds of quantitative\ndiscourse analysis were used to inform the second rounds of\nqualitative analysis. The results from the qualitative interviews\nwere again used to feed new concepts into the quantitative discourse\nanalysis. As such, the two methods continued to support and enrich\neach other.\n\nThe ethnographic methods of the data collection and processing\nallowed the research group to acquire the data necessary to \"provide\na holistic understanding of research participants' views and actions\"\n[\nDenzin\n] that highlighted ongoing issues and case studies where\nprotocols impact human rights. The interview participants were\nselected through purposive sampling [\nBabbie\n], as the research group\nwas interested in getting a wide variety of opinions on the role of\nhuman rights in guiding protocol development. This sampling method\nalso ensured that individuals with extensive experience working at\nthe IETF in various roles were targeted. The interviewees included\nindividuals in leadership positions (Working Group (WG) chairs, Area\nDirectors (ADs)), \"regular participants\", and individuals working for\nspecific entities (corporate, civil society, political, academic) and\nrepresented various backgrounds, nationalities, and genders.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 16]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.1\n. Data Sources\nIn order to map the potential relationship between human rights and\nprotocols, the HRPC Research Group gathered data from three specific\nsources:\n5.1.1\n. Discourse Analysis of RFCs\nTo start addressing the issue, a mapping exercise analyzing Internet\ninfrastructure and protocol features vis-a-vis their possible impact\non human rights was undertaken. Therefore, research on (1) the\nlanguage used in current and historic RFCs and (2) information\ngathered from mailing-list discussions was undertaken to expose core\narchitectural principles, language, and deliberations on the human\nrights of those affected by the network.\n5.1.2\n. Interviews with Members of the IETF Community\nOver 30 interviews with the current and past members of the Internet\nArchitecture Board (IAB), current and past members of the Internet\nEngineering Steering Group (IESG), chairs of selected working groups,\nand RFC authors were done at the IETF 92 meeting in Dallas in\nMarch 2015 to get an insider's understanding of how they view the\nrelationship (if any) between human rights and protocols, and how\nthis relationship plays out in their work. Several of the\nparticipants opted to remain anonymous. If you are interested in\nthis data set, please contact the authors of this document.\n5.1.3\n. Participant Observation in Working Groups\nBy participating in various working groups, in person at IETF\nmeetings, and on mailing lists, information about the IETF's\nday-to-day workings was gathered, from which general themes,\ntechnical concepts, and use cases about human rights and protocols\nwere extracted. This process started at the IETF 91 meeting in\nHonolulu and continues today.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 17]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2\n. Data Analysis Strategies\nThe data above was processed using three consecutive strategies:\nmapping protocols related to human rights, extracting concepts from\nthese protocols, and creation of a common glossary (detailed under\nSection 2\n). Before going over these strategies, some elaboration on\nthe process of identifying technical concepts as they relate to human\nrights is needed:\n5.2.1\n. Identifying Qualities of Technical Concepts That Relate to Human\nRights\n5.2.1.1\n. Mapping Protocols and Standards to Human Rights\nBy combining data from the three data sources named above, an\nextensive list of protocols and standards that potentially enable the\nInternet as a tool for freedom of expression and association was\ncreated. In order to determine the enabling (or inhibiting)\nfeatures, we relied on direct references in the RFCs as related to\nsuch impacts, as well as input from the community. Based on this\nanalysis, a list of RFCs that describe standards and protocols that\nare potentially closely related to human rights was compiled.\n5.2.1.2\n. Extracting Concepts from Selected RFCs\nThe first step was to identify the protocols and standards that are\nrelated to human rights and to create an environment that enables\nhuman rights. For that, we needed to focus on specific technical\nconcepts that underlie these protocols and standards. Based on this\nlist, a number of technical concepts that appeared frequently were\nextracted and used to create a second list of technical terms that,\nwhen combined and applied in different circumstances, create an\nenabling environment for exercising human rights on the Internet.\n5.2.1.3\n. Building a Common Vocabulary of Technical Concepts That Impact\nHuman Rights\nWhile interviewing experts, investigating RFCs, and compiling\ntechnical definitions, several concepts of convergence and divergence\nwere identified. To ensure that the discussion was based on a common\nunderstanding of terms and vocabulary, a list of definitions was\ncreated. The definitions are based on the wording found in various\nIETF documents; if the definitions were not available therein,\ndefinitions were taken from other SDOs or academic literature, as\nindicated in\nSection 2\n.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 18]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.1.4\n. Translating Human Rights Concepts into Technical Definitions\nThe previous steps allowed for the clarification of relationships\nbetween human rights and technical concepts. The steps taken show\nhow the research process \"zoomed in\", from compiling a broad list of\nprotocols and standards that relate to human rights to extracting the\nprecise technical concepts that make up these protocols and\nstandards, in order to understand the relationship between the two.\nThis subsection presents the next step: translating human rights to\ntechnical concepts by matching the individual components of the\nrights to the accompanying technical concepts, allowing for the\ncreation of a list of technical concepts that, when partially\ncombined, can create an enabling environment for human rights.\n5.2.1.5\n. List of Technical Terms That, When Partially Combined, Can\nCreate an Enabling Environment for Human Rights\nBased on the prior steps, the following list of technical terms was\ndrafted. When partially combined, this list can create an enabling\nenvironment for human rights, such as freedom of expression and\nfreedom of association.", "char_start": 37379, "char_end": 44894, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1145}}, {"segment_id": "04d5fbe2-9242-43e1-a84e-742c894a0f07", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 16, "text": "Architectural principles Enabling features\nand system properties for user rights\n\n/------------------------------------------------\\\n| |\n+=================|=============================+ |\n= | = |\n= | End-to-end = |\n= | Reliability = |\n= | Resilience = Access as |\n= | Interoperability = human right |\n= Good enough | Transparency = |\n= principle | Data minimization = |\n= | Permissionless innovation = |\n= Simplicity | Graceful degradation = |\n= | Connectivity = |\n= | Heterogeneity support = |\n= | = |\n= | = |\n= \\------------------------------------------------/\n= =\n+===============================================+\n\nFigure 1: Relationship between Architectural Principles and Enabling\nFeatures for User Rights\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 19]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.2\n. Relating Human Rights to Technical Concepts\nThe technical concepts listed in the steps above have been grouped\naccording to their impact on specific rights, as mentioned in the\ninterviews done at IETF 92 as well as the study of literature (see\nSection 4\n(\"Literature and Discussion Review\") above).\n\nThis analysis aims to assist protocol developers in better\nunderstanding the roles that specific technical concepts have with\nregard to their contribution to an enabling environment for people to\nexercise their human rights.\n\nThis analysis does not claim to be a complete or exhaustive mapping\nof all possible ways in which protocols could potentially impact\nhuman rights, but it presents a mapping of initial concepts based on\ninterviews and on discussion and review of the literature.\n\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Technical Concepts | Rights Potentially Impacted |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Connectivity | |\n| Privacy | |\n| Security | |\n| Content agnosticism | Right to freedom of expression |\n| Internationalization | |\n| Censorship resistance | |\n| Open standards | |\n| Heterogeneity support | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Anonymity | |\n| Privacy | |\n| Pseudonymity | Right to non-discrimination |\n| Accessibility | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Content agnosticism | |\n| Security | Right to equal protection |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Accessibility | |\n| Internationalization | Right to political participation |\n| Censorship resistance | |\n| Connectivity | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Open standards | |\n| Localization | Right to participate in cultural life, |\n| Internationalization | arts, and science, and |\n| Censorship resistance | Right to education |\n| Accessibility | |\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 20]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Connectivity | |\n| Decentralization | |\n| Censorship resistance | Right to freedom of assembly |\n| Pseudonymity | and association |\n| Anonymity | |\n| Security | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+\n| Reliability | |\n| Confidentiality | |\n| Integrity | Right to security |\n| Authenticity | |\n| Anonymity | |\n| | |\n+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+", "char_start": 44896, "char_end": 48246, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 466}}, {"segment_id": "dce06383-e963-45cd-bd30-14ccd9e861fa", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 17, "text": "Figure 2: Relationship between Specific Technical Concepts\nwith Regard to Their Contribution to an Enabling Environment\nfor People to Exercise Their Human Rights\n5.2.3\n. Mapping Cases of Protocols, Implementations, and Networking\nParadigms That Adversely Impact Human Rights or Are Enablers\nThereof\n\nGiven the information above, the following list of cases of\nprotocols, implementations, and networking paradigms that either\nadversely impact or enable human rights was formed.\n\nIt is important to note that the assessment here is not a general\njudgment on these protocols, nor is it an exhaustive listing of all\nthe potential negative or positive impacts on human rights that these\nprotocols might have. When these protocols were conceived, there\nwere many criteria to take into account. For instance, relying on a\ncentralized service can be bad for freedom of speech (it creates one\nmore control point, where censorship could be applied), but it may be\na necessity if the endpoints are not connected and reachable\npermanently. So, when we say \"protocol X has feature Y, which may\nendanger freedom of speech,\" it does not mean that protocol X is bad,\nmuch less that its authors were evil. The goal here is to show, with\nactual examples, that the design of protocols has practical\nconsequences for some human rights and that these consequences have\nto be considered in the design phase.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 21]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.1\n. IPv4\nThe Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4), also known as \"Layer 3\" of\nthe Internet and specified with a common encapsulation and protocol\nheader, is defined in [\nRFC791\n]. The evolution of Internet\ncommunications led to continued development in this area,\n\"encapsulated\" in the development of version 6 (IPv6) of the protocol\n[\nRFC8200\n]. In spite of this updated protocol, we find that 23 years\nafter the specification of IPv6 the older IPv4 standard continues to\naccount for a sizable majority of Internet traffic. Most of the\nissues discussed here (Network Address Translators (NATs) are a major\nexception; see\nSection 5.2.3.1.2\n(\"Address Translation and\nMobility\")) are valid for IPv4 as well as IPv6.", "char_start": 48248, "char_end": 50451, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 355}}, {"segment_id": "9abb1426-10dd-4c8b-97c8-a1ec36042e29", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 18, "text": "The Internet was designed as a platform for free and open\ncommunication, most notably encoded in the end-to-end principle, and\nthat philosophy is also present in the technical implementation of IP\n[\nRFC3724\n]. While the protocol was designed to exist in an\nenvironment where intelligence is at the end hosts, it has proven to\nprovide sufficient information that a more intelligent network core\ncan make policy decisions and enforce policy-based traffic shaping,\nthereby restricting the communications of end hosts. These\ncapabilities for network control and for limitations on freedom of\nexpression by end hosts can be traced back to the design of IPv4,\nhelping us to understand which technical protocol decisions have led\nto harm to this human right. A feature that can harm freedom of\nexpression as well as the right to privacy through misuse of IP is\nthe exploitation of the public visibility of the host pairs for all\ncommunications and the corresponding ability to differentiate and\nblock traffic as a result of that metadata.\n5.2.3.1.1\n. Network Visibility of Source and Destination\nThe IPv4 protocol header contains fixed location fields for both the\nsource IP address and destination IP address [\nRFC791\n]. These\naddresses identify both the host sending and the host receiving each\nmessage; they also allow the core network to understand who is\ntalking to whom and to practically limit communication selectively\nbetween pairs of hosts. Blocking of communication based on the pair\nof source and destination is one of the most common limitations on\nthe ability for people to communicate today [\nCAIDA\n] and can be seen\nas a restriction of the ability for people to assemble or to\nconsensually express themselves.\n\nInclusion of an Internet-wide identified source in the IP header\nis not the only possible design, especially since the protocol is\nmost commonly implemented over Ethernet networks exposing only\nlink-local identifiers [\nRFC894\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 22]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nA variety of alternative designs do exist, such as the Accountable\nand Private Internet Protocol [\nAPIP\n] and High-speed Onion Routing at\nthe Network Layer (HORNET) [\nHORNET\n] as well as source routing. The\nlatter would allow the sender to choose a predefined (safe) route and\nspoofing of the source IP address, which are technically supported by\nIPv4, but neither are considered good practice on the Internet\n[\nFarrow\n]. While projects like [\nTorProject\n] provide an alternative\nimplementation of anonymity in connections, they have been developed\nin spite of the IPv4 protocol design.\n5.2.3.1.2\n. Address Translation and Mobility\nA major structural shift in the Internet that undermined the protocol\ndesign of IPv4, and significantly reduced the freedom of end users to\ncommunicate and assemble, was the introduction of network address\ntranslation [\nRFC3022\n]. Network address translation is a process\nwhereby organizations and autonomous systems connect two networks by\ntranslating the IPv4 source and destination addresses between them.\nThis process puts the router performing the translation in a\nprivileged position, where it is predetermined which subset of\ncommunications will be translated.", "char_start": 50453, "char_end": 53701, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 516}}, {"segment_id": "34b6bdec-6636-4664-8470-aee50718d54e", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 19, "text": "This process of translation has widespread adoption despite promoting\na process that goes against the stated end-to-end process of the\nunderlying protocol [\nNATusage\n]. In contrast, the proposed mechanism\nto provide support for mobility and forwarding to clients that may\nmove -- encoded instead as an option in IP [\nRFC5944\n] -- has failed to\ngain traction. In this situation, the compromise made in the design\nof the protocol resulted in a technology that is not coherent with\nthe end-to-end principles and thus creates an extra possible hurdle\nfor freedom of expression in its design, even though a viable\nalternative exists. There is a particular problem surrounding NATs\nand Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) (as well as other connections\nused for privacy purposes), as NATs sometimes cause VPNs not to work.\n5.2.3.2\n. DNS\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) [\nRFC1035\n] provides service discovery\ncapabilities and provides a mechanism to associate human-readable\nnames with services. The DNS is organized around a set of\nindependently operated \"root servers\" run by organizations that\nfunction in line with ICANN's policy by answering queries for which\norganizations have been delegated to manage registration under each\nTop-Level Domain (TLD). The DNS is organized as a rooted tree, and\nthis brings up political and social concerns over control. TLDs are\nmaintained and determined by ICANN. These namespaces encompass\nseveral classes of services. The initial namespaces, including\n\".com\" and \".net\", provide common spaces for expression of ideas,\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 23]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nthough their policies are enacted through US-based companies. Other\nnamespaces are delegated to specific nationalities and may impose\nlimits designed to focus speech in those forums, to both (1) promote\nspeech from that nationality and (2) comply with local limits on\nexpression and social norms. Finally, the system has recently been\nexpanded with additional generic and sponsored namespaces -- for\ninstance, \".travel\" and \".ninja\" -- that are operated by a range of\norganizations that may independently determine their registration\npolicies. This new development has both positive and negative\nimplications in terms of enabling human rights. Some individuals\nargue that it undermines the right to freedom of expression because\nsome of these new generic TLDs have restricted policies on\nregistration and particular rules on hate speech content. Others\nargue that precisely these properties are positive because they\nenable certain (mostly minority) communities to build safer spaces\nfor association, thereby enabling their right to freedom of\nassociation. An often-mentioned example is an application like\n.gay [\nCoE\n].", "char_start": 53703, "char_end": 56468, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 423}}, {"segment_id": "09c01fd0-8cfc-4815-a378-5ac60c50f377", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 20, "text": "As discussed in [\nRFC7626\n], DNS has significant privacy issues. Most\nnotable is the lack of encryption to limit the visibility of requests\nfor domain resolution from intermediary parties, and a limited\ndeployment of DNSSEC to provide authentication, allowing the client\nto know that they received a correct, \"authoritative\" answer to a\nquery. In response to the privacy issues, the IETF DNS Private\nExchange (DPRIVE) Working Group is developing mechanisms to provide\nconfidentiality to DNS transactions, to address concerns surrounding\npervasive monitoring [\nRFC7258\n].\n\nAuthentication through DNSSEC creates a validation path for records.\nThis authentication protects against forged or manipulated DNS data.\nAs such, DNSSEC protects directory lookups and makes it harder to\nhijack a session. This is important because interference with the\noperation of the DNS is currently becoming one of the central\nmechanisms used to block access to websites. This interference\nlimits both the freedom of expression of the publisher to offer their\ncontent and the freedom of assembly for clients to congregate in a\nshared virtual space. Even though DNSSEC doesn't prevent censorship,\nit makes it clear that the returned information is not the\ninformation that was requested; this contributes to the right to\nsecurity and increases trust in the network. It is, however,\nimportant to note that DNSSEC is currently not widely supported or\ndeployed by domain name registrars, making it difficult to\nauthenticate and use correctly.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 24]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.2.1\n. Removal of Records\nThere have been a number of cases where the records for a domain are\nremoved from the name system due to political events. Examples of\nthis removal include the \"seizure\" of wikileaks [\nBBC-wikileaks\n] and\nthe names of illegally operating gambling operations by the United\nStates Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit. In the first\ncase, a US court ordered the registrar to take down the domain. In\nthe second, ICE compelled the US-based registry in charge of the .com\nTLD to hand ownership of those domains over to the US government.\nThe same technique has been used in Libya to remove sites in\nviolation of \"our Country's Law and Morality (which) do not allow any\nkind of pornography or its promotion.\" [\ntechyum\n]", "char_start": 56470, "char_end": 58841, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 379}}, {"segment_id": "27a110ca-88d5-41c2-9724-34c9d1aa7d7e", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 21, "text": "At a protocol level, there is no technical auditing for name\nownership, as in alternate systems like Namecoin [\nNamecoin\n]. As a\nresult, there is no ability for users to differentiate seizure from\nthe legitimate transfer of name ownership, which is purely a policy\ndecision made by registrars. While DNSSEC addresses the network\ndistortion events described below, it does not tackle this problem.\n\n(Although we mention alternative techniques, this is not a comparison\nof DNS with Namecoin: the latter has its own problems and\nlimitations. The idea here is to show that there are several\npossible choices, and they have consequences for human rights.)\n5.2.3.2.2\n. Distortion of Records\nThe most common mechanism by which the DNS is abused to limit freedom\nof expression is through manipulation of protocol messages by the\nnetwork. One form occurs at an organizational level, where client\ncomputers are instructed to use a local DNS resolver controlled by\nthe organization. The DNS resolver will then selectively distort\nresponses rather than request the authoritative lookup from the\nupstream system. The second form occurs through the use of Deep\nPacket Inspection (DPI), where all DNS protocol messages are\ninspected by the network and objectionable content is distorted, as\ncan be observed in Chinese networks.\n\nA notable instance of distortion occurred in Greece [\nVerveris\n], where\na study found evidence of both (1) DPI to distort DNS replies and\n(2) more excessive blocking of content than was legally required or\nrequested (also known as \"overblocking\"). Internet Service Providers\n(ISPs), obeying a governmental order, prevented clients from\nresolving the names of domains, thereby prompting this particular\nblocking of systems there.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 25]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAt a protocol level, the effectiveness of these attacks is made\npossible by a lack of authentication in the DNS protocol. DNSSEC\nprovides the ability to determine the authenticity of responses when\nused, but it is not regularly checked by resolvers. DNSSEC is not\neffective when the local resolver for a network is complicit in the\ndistortion -- for instance, when the resolver assigned for use by an\nISP is the source of injection. Selective distortion of records is\nalso made possible by the predictable structure of DNS messages,\nwhich makes it computationally easy for a network device to watch all\npassing messages even at high speeds, and the lack of encryption,\nwhich allows the network to distort only an objectionable subset of\nprotocol messages. Specific distortion mechanisms are discussed\nfurther in [\nHall\n].", "char_start": 58843, "char_end": 61507, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 423}}, {"segment_id": "4c87f5f0-7fbb-46e7-8267-2db7d5524645", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 22, "text": "Users can switch to another resolver -- for instance, a public\nresolver. The distorter can then try to block or hijack the\nconnection to this resolver. This may start an arms race, with the\nuser switching to secured connections to this alternative resolver\n[\nRFC7858\n] and the distorter then trying to find more sophisticated\nways to block or hijack the connection. In some cases, this search\nfor an alternative, non-disrupting resolver may lead to more\ncentralization because many people are switching to a few big\ncommercial public resolvers.\n5.2.3.2.3\n. Injection of Records\nResponding incorrectly to requests for name lookups is the most\ncommon mechanism that in-network devices use to limit the ability of\nend users to discover services. A deviation that accomplishes a\nsimilar objective and may be seen as different from a \"freedom of\nexpression\" perspective is the injection of incorrect responses to\nqueries. The most prominent example of this behavior occurs in\nChina, where requests for lookups of sites deemed inappropriate will\ntrigger the network to return a false response, causing the client to\nignore the real response when it subsequently arrives\n[\ngreatfirewall\n]. Unlike the other network paradigms discussed above,\ninjection does not stifle the ability of a server to announce its\nname; it instead provides another voice that answers sooner. This is\neffective because without DNSSEC, the protocol will respond to\nwhichever answer is received first, without listening for subsequent\nanswers.\n5.2.3.3\n. HTTP\nThe Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) version 1.1 [\nRFC7230\n]\n[\nRFC7231\n] [\nRFC7232\n] [\nRFC7233\n] [\nRFC7234\n] [\nRFC7235\n] [\nRFC7236\n] [\nRFC7237\n]\nis a request-response application protocol developed throughout the\n1990s. HTTP factually contributed to the exponential growth of the\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 26]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nInternet and the interconnection of populations around the world.\nIts simple design strongly contributed to the fact that HTTP has\nbecome the foundation of most modern Internet platforms and\ncommunication systems, from websites to chat systems and computer-to-\ncomputer applications. In its manifestation in the World Wide Web,\nHTTP radically revolutionized the course of technological development\nand the ways people interact with online content and with each other.", "char_start": 61509, "char_end": 63884, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 373}}, {"segment_id": "735cf919-4fff-42f7-89a7-719b9530cb9e", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 23, "text": "However, HTTP is also a fundamentally insecure protocol that doesn't\nnatively provide encryption properties. While the definition of the\nSecure Sockets Layer (SSL) [\nRFC6101\n], and later of Transport Layer\nSecurity (TLS) [\nRFC5246\n], also happened during the 1990s, the fact\nthat HTTP doesn't mandate the use of such encryption layers by\ndevelopers and service providers was one of the reasons for a very\nlate adoption of encryption. Only in the middle of the 2000s did we\nobserve big ISPs, such as Google, starting to provide encrypted\naccess to their web services.\n\nThe lack of sensitivity and understanding of the critical importance\nof securing web traffic incentivized certain (offensive) actors to\ndevelop, deploy, and utilize interception systems at large and to\nlater launch active injection attacks, in order to swipe large\namounts of data and compromise Internet-enabled devices. The\ncommercial availability of systems and tools to perform these types\nof attacks also led to a number of human rights abuses that have been\ndiscovered and reported over the years.\n\nGenerally, we can identify traffic interception (\nSection 5.2.3.3.1\n)\nand traffic manipulation (\nSection 5.2.3.3.2\n) as the two most\nproblematic attacks that can be performed against applications\nemploying a cleartext HTTP transport layer. That being said, the\nIETF is taking steady steps to move to the encrypted version of HTTP,\nHTTP Secure (HTTPS).\n\nWhile this is commendable, we must not lose track of the fact that\ndifferent protocols, implementations, configurations, and networking\nparadigms can intersect such that they (can be used to) adversely\nimpact human rights. For instance, to facilitate surveillance,\ncertain countries will throttle HTTPS connections, forcing users to\nswitch to (unthrottled) HTTP [\nAryan-etal\n].\n5.2.3.3.1\n. Traffic Interception\nWhile we are seeing an increasing trend in the last couple of years\nto employ SSL/TLS as a secure traffic layer for HTTP-based\napplications, we are still far from seeing a ubiquitous use of\nencryption on the World Wide Web. It is important to consider that\nthe adoption of SSL/TLS is also a relatively recent phenomenon.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 27]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nEmail providers such as riseup.net were the first to enable SSL by\ndefault. Google did not introduce an option for its Gmail users to\nnavigate with SSL until 2008 [\nRideout\n] and turned TLS on by default\nlater, in 2010 [\nSchillace\n]. It took an increasing amount of security\nbreaches and revelations on global surveillance from Edward Snowden\nbefore other mail service providers followed suit. For example,\nYahoo did not enable SSL/TLS by default on its webmail services until\nearly 2014 [\nPeterson\n].", "char_start": 63886, "char_end": 66645, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 441}}, {"segment_id": "beec8c24-df88-44f0-9b01-70ef3b99b9e5", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 24, "text": "TLS itself has been subject to many attacks and bugs; this situation\ncan be attributed to some fundamental design weaknesses, such as lack\nof a state machine (which opens a vulnerability for triple handshake\nattacks) and flaws caused by early US government restrictions on\ncryptography, leading to cipher-suite downgrade attacks (Logjam\nattacks). These vulnerabilities are being corrected in TLS 1.3\n[\nBhargavan\n] [\nAdrian\n].\n\nHTTP upgrading to HTTPS is also vulnerable to having an attacker\nremove the \"s\" in any links to HTTPS URIs from a web page transferred\nin cleartext over HTTP -- an attack called \"SSL Stripping\"\n[\nsslstrip\n]. Thus, for high-security use of HTTPS, IETF standards\nsuch as HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) [\nRFC6797\n], certificate\npinning [\nRFC7469\n], and/or DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities\n(DANE) [\nRFC6698\n] should be used.\n\nAs we learned through Snowden's revelations, intelligence agencies\nhave been intercepting and collecting unencrypted traffic at large\nfor many years. There are documented examples of such\nmass-surveillance programs with the Government Communications\nHeadquarters's (GCHQ's) Tempora [\nWP-Tempora\n] and the National\nSecurity Agency's (NSA's) XKeyscore [\nGreenwald\n]. Through these\nprograms, the NSA and the GCHQ have been able to swipe large amounts\nof data, including email and instant messaging communications that\nhave been transported in the clear for years by providers\nunsuspecting of the pervasiveness and scale of governments' efforts\nand investment in global mass-surveillance capabilities.\n\nHowever, similar mass interception of unencrypted HTTP communications\nis also often employed at the national level by some democratic\ncountries, by exercising control over state-owned ISPs and through\nthe use of commercially available monitoring, collection, and\ncensorship equipment. Over the last few years, a lot of information\nhas come to public attention on the role and scale of a surveillance\nindustry dedicated to developing different types of interception\ngear, making use of known and unknown weaknesses in existing\nprotocols [\nRFC7258\n]. We have several records of such equipment being\nsold and utilized by some regimes in order to monitor entire segments\nof a population, especially at times of social and political\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 28]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ndistress, uncovering massive human rights abuses. For example, in\n2013, the group Telecomix revealed that the Syrian regime was making\nuse of Blue Coat products in order to intercept cleartext traffic as\nwell as to enforce censorship of unwanted content [\nRSF\n]. Similarly,\nin 2011, it was found that the French technology firm Amesys provided\nthe Gadhafi government with equipment able to intercept emails,\nFacebook traffic, and chat messages at a country-wide level [\nWSJ\n].\nThe use of such systems, especially in the context of the Arab Spring\nand of civil uprisings against the dictatorships, has caused serious\nconcerns regarding significant human rights abuses in Libya.\n5.2.3.3.2\n. Traffic Manipulation\nThe lack of a secure transport layer under HTTP connections not only\nexposes users to interception of the content of their communications\nbut is more and more commonly abused as a vehicle for actively\ncompromising computers and mobile devices. If an HTTP session\ntravels in the clear over the network, any node positioned at any\npoint in the network is able to perform man-in-the-middle attacks;\nthe node can observe, manipulate, and hijack the session and can\nmodify the content of the communication in order to trigger\nunexpected behavior by the application generating the traffic. For\nexample, in the case of a browser, the attacker would be able to\ninject malicious code in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the\nbrowser or any of its plugins. Similarly, the attacker would be able\nto intercept, add malware to, and repackage binary software updates\nthat are very commonly downloaded in the clear by applications such\nas word processors and media players. If the HTTP session were\nencrypted, the tampering of the content would not be possible, and\nthese network injection attacks would not be successful.", "char_start": 66647, "char_end": 70859, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 657}}, {"segment_id": "a94d9ccc-1161-4bda-8160-b0798abca6c4", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 25, "text": "While traffic manipulation attacks have long been known, documented,\nand prototyped, especially in the context of Wi-Fi and LAN networks,\nin the last few years we have observed an increasing investment in\nthe production and sale of network injection equipment that is both\ncommercially available and deployed at scale by intelligence\nagencies.\n\nFor example, we learned from some of the documents provided by Edward\nSnowden to the press that the NSA has constructed a global network\ninjection infrastructure, called \"QUANTUM\", able to leverage mass\nsurveillance in order to identify targets of interest and\nsubsequently task man-on-the-side attacks to ultimately compromise a\nselected device. Among other attacks, the NSA makes use of an attack\ncalled \"QUANTUMINSERT\" [\nHaagsma\n], which intercepts and hijacks an\nunencrypted HTTP communication and forces the requesting browser to\nredirect to a host controlled by the NSA instead of the intended\nwebsite. Normally, the new destination would be an exploitation\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 29]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nservice, referred to in Snowden documents as \"FOXACID\", which would\nattempt to execute malicious code in the context of the target's\nbrowser. The Guardian reported in 2013 that the NSA has, for\nexample, been using these techniques to target users of the popular\nanonymity service Tor [\nSchneier\n]. The German Norddeutscher Rundfunk\n(NDR) reported in 2014 that the NSA has also been using its\nmass-surveillance capabilities to identify Tor users at large\n[\nAppelbaum\n].\n\nRecently, similar capabilities used by Chinese authorities have been\nreported as well in what has been informally called the \"Great\nCannon\" [\nMarcak\n], which raised numerous concerns on the potential\ncurb on human rights and freedom of speech due to the increasingly\ntighter control of Chinese Internet communications and access to\ninformation.", "char_start": 70861, "char_end": 72784, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 297}}, {"segment_id": "0bbe9772-700e-48c4-a5f1-cb611e0900dc", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 26, "text": "Network injection attacks are also made widely available to state\nactors around the world through the commercialization of similar,\nsmaller-scale equipment that can be easily acquired and deployed at a\ncountry-wide level. Certain companies are known to have network\ninjection gear within their products portfolio [\nMarquis-Boire\n]. The\ntechnology devised and produced by some of them to perform network\ntraffic manipulation attacks on HTTP communications is even the\nsubject of a patent application in the United States [\nGooglepatent\n].\nAccess to offensive technologies available on the commercial lawful\ninterception market has led to human rights abuses and illegitimate\nsurveillance of journalists, human rights defenders, and political\nactivists in many countries around the world [\nCollins\n]. While\nnetwork injection attacks haven't been the subject of much attention,\nthey do enable even unskilled attackers to perform silent and very\nresilient compromises, and unencrypted HTTP remains one of the main\nvehicles.\n\nThere is a new version of HTTP, called \"HTTP/2\" [\nRFC7540\n], which aims\nto be largely backwards compatible while also offering new options\nsuch as data compression of HTTP headers, pipelining of requests, and\nmultiplexing multiple requests over a single TCP connection. In\naddition to decreasing latency to improve page-loading speeds, it\nalso facilitates more efficient use of connectivity in low-bandwidth\nenvironments, which in turn enables freedom of expression; the right\nto assembly; the right to political participation; and the right to\nparticipate in cultural life, arts, and science. [\nRFC7540\n] does not\nmandate TLS or any other form of encryption, nor does it support\nopportunistic encryption even though opportunistic encryption is now\naddressed in [\nRFC8164\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 30]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.4\n. XMPP\nThe Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), specified in\n[\nRFC6120\n], provides a standard for interactive chat messaging and has\nevolved to encompass interoperable text, voice, and video chat. The\nprotocol is structured as a federated network of servers, similar to\nemail, where users register with a local server that acts on their\nbehalf to cache and relay messages. This protocol design has many\nadvantages, allowing servers to shield clients from denial of service\nand other forms of retribution for their expression; it is also\ndesigned to avoid central entities that could control the ability to\ncommunicate or assemble using the protocol.", "char_start": 72786, "char_end": 75353, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 392}}, {"segment_id": "2977c7ab-1690-4191-aa49-e56204e60416", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 27, "text": "Nonetheless, there are plenty of aspects of the protocol design of\nXMPP that shape the ability for users to communicate freely and to\nassemble via the protocol.\n5.2.3.4.1\n. User Identification\nThe XMPP specification [\nRFC6120\n] dictates that clients are identified\nwith a resource (<node@domain/home> / <node@domain/work>) to\ndistinguish the conversations to specific devices. While the\nprotocol does not specify that the resource must be exposed by the\nclient's server to remote users, in practice this has become the\ndefault behavior. In doing so, users can be tracked by remote\nfriends and their servers, who are able to monitor the presence of\nnot just the user but of each individual device the user logs in\nwith. This has proven to be misleading to many users [\nPidgin\n], since\nmany clients only expose user-level rather than device-level\npresence. Likewise, user invisibility so that communication can\noccur while users don't notify all buddies and other servers of their\navailability is not part of the formal protocol and has only been\nadded as an extension within the XML stream rather than enforced by\nthe protocol.\n5.2.3.4.2\n. Surveillance of Communication\nXMPP specifies the standard by which communications channels may be\nencrypted, but it does not provide visibility to clients regarding\nwhether their communications are encrypted on each link. In\nparticular, even when both clients ensure that they have an encrypted\nconnection to their XMPP server to ensure that their local network is\nunable to read or disrupt the messages they send, the protocol does\nnot provide visibility into the encryption status between the two\nservers. As such, clients may be subject to selective disruption of\ncommunications by an intermediate network that disrupts\ncommunications based on keywords found through DPI. While many\noperators have committed to only establishing encrypted links from\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 31]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ntheir servers in recognition of this vulnerability, it remains\nimpossible for users to audit this behavior, and encrypted\nconnections are not required by the protocol itself [\nXMPP-Manifesto\n].", "char_start": 75355, "char_end": 77540, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 343}}, {"segment_id": "f6cb0099-4bd0-439e-a589-33776ea527e0", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 28, "text": "In particular,\nSection 13.14\nof the XMPP specification [\nRFC6120\n]\nexplicitly acknowledges the existence of a downgrade attack where an\nadversary controlling an intermediate network can force the\ninter-domain federation between servers to revert to a non-encrypted\nprotocol where selective messages can then be disrupted.\n5.2.3.4.3\n. Group Chat Limitations\nGroup chat in XMPP is defined as an extension within the XML\nspecification of XMPP (\nhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html\n).\nHowever, it is not encoded or required at a protocol level and is not\nuniformly implemented by clients.\n\nThe design of multi-user chat in XMPP suffers from extending a\nprotocol that was not designed with assembly of many users in mind.\nIn particular, in the federated protocol provided by XMPP, multi-user\ncommunities are implemented with a distinguished \"owner\" who is\ngranted control over the participants and structure of the\nconversation.\n\nMulti-user chat rooms are identified by a name specified on a\nspecific server, so that while the overall protocol may be federated,\nthe ability for users to assemble in a given community is moderated\nby a single server. That server may block the room and prevent\nassembly unilaterally, even between two users, neither of whom trust\nor use that server directly.\n5.2.3.5\n. Peer-to-Peer\nPeer-to-Peer (P2P) is a distributed network architecture [\nRFC5694\n] in\nwhich all the participant nodes can be responsible for the storage\nand dissemination of information from any other node (see [\nRFC7574\n],\nan IETF standard that discusses a P2P architecture called the\n\"Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol\" (PPSPP)). A P2P network is a\nlogical overlay that lives on top of the physical network and allows\nnodes (or \"peers\") participating in it to establish contact and\nexchange information directly with each other. The implementation of\na P2P network may vary widely: it may be structured or unstructured,\nand it may implement stronger or weaker cryptographic and anonymity\nproperties. While its most common application has traditionally been\nfile-sharing (and other types of content delivery systems), P2P is a\npopular architecture for networks and applications that require (or\nencourage) decentralization. Prime examples include Bitcoin and\nother proprietary multimedia applications.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 32]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nIn a time of heavily centralized online services, P2P is regularly\ndescribed as an alternative, more democratic, and resistant option\nthat displaces structures of control over data and communications and\ndelegates all peers to be equally responsible for the functioning,\nintegrity, and security of the data. While in principle P2P remains\nimportant to the design and development of future content\ndistribution, messaging, and publishing systems, it poses numerous\nsecurity and privacy challenges that are mostly delegated to\nindividual developers to recognize, analyze, and solve in each\nimplementation of a given P2P network.\n5.2.3.5.1\n. Network Poisoning\nSince content, and sometimes peer lists, are safeguarded and\ndistributed by their members, P2P networks are prone to what are\ngenerally defined as \"poisoning attacks\". Poisoning attacks might be\naimed directly at the data that is being distributed, for example,\n(1) by intentionally corrupting the data, (2) at the index tables\nused to instruct the peers where to fetch the data, or (3) at routing\ntables, with an attempt to provide connecting peers with lists of\nrogue or nonexistent peers, with the intention to effectively cause a\ndenial of service on the network.\n5.2.3.5.2\n. Throttling\nP2P traffic (and BitTorrent in particular) represents a significant\npercentage of global Internet traffic [\nSandvine\n], and it has become\nincreasingly popular for ISPs to perform throttling of customers'\nlines in order to limit bandwidth usage [\ntorrentfreak1\n] and,\nsometimes, probably as an effect of the ongoing conflict between\ncopyright holders and file-sharing communities [\nwikileaks\n]. Such\nthrottling undermines the end-to-end principle.", "char_start": 77542, "char_end": 81643, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 622}}, {"segment_id": "52711fba-7ab9-4e1e-8042-884a98f9e157", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 29, "text": "Throttling the P2P traffic makes some uses of P2P networks\nineffective; this throttling might be coupled with stricter\ninspection of users' Internet traffic through DPI techniques,\npossibly posing additional security and privacy risks.\n5.2.3.5.3\n. Tracking and Identification\nOne of the fundamental and most problematic issues with traditional\nP2P networks is a complete lack of anonymization of their users. For\nexample, in the case of BitTorrent, all peers' IP addresses are\nopenly available to the other peers. This has led to ever-increasing\ntracking of P2P and file-sharing users [\nars\n]. As the geographical\nlocation of the user is directly exposed, as could also be his\nidentity, the user might become a target of additional harassment and\nattacks of a physical or legal nature. For example, it is known that\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 33]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nin Germany law firms have made extensive use of P2P and file-sharing\ntracking systems in order to identify downloaders and initiate legal\nactions looking for compensations [\ntorrentfreak2\n].\n\nIt is worth noting that there are some varieties of P2P networks that\nimplement cryptographic practices and that introduce anonymization of\ntheir users. Such implementations may be proved to be successful in\nresisting censorship of content and tracking of network peers. A\nprime example is Freenet [\nfreenet1\n], a free software application that\nis (1) designed to make it significantly more difficult to identify\nusers and content and (2) dedicated to fostering freedom of speech\nonline [\nfreenet2\n].\n5.2.3.5.4\n. Sybil Attacks\nIn open-membership P2P networks, a single attacker can pretend to be\nmany participants, typically by creating multiple fake identities of\nwhatever kind the P2P network uses [\nDouceur\n]. Attackers can use\nSybil attacks to bias choices that the P2P network makes collectively\nto the attacker's advantage, e.g., by making it more likely that a\nparticular data item (or some threshold of the replicas or shares of\na data item) is assigned to attacker-controlled participants. If the\nP2P network implements any voting, moderation, or peer-review-like\nfunctionality, Sybil attacks may be used to \"stuff the ballots\" to\nbenefit the attacker. Companies and governments can use Sybil\nattacks on discussion-oriented P2P systems for \"astroturfing\" or\ncreating the appearance of mass grassroots support for some position\nwhere in reality there is none. It is important to know that there\nare no known complete, environmentally sustainable, and fully\ndistributed solutions to Sybil attacks, and routing via \"friends\"\nallows users to be de-anonymized via their social graph. It is\nimportant to note that Sybil attacks in this context (e.g.,\nastroturfing) are relevant to more than P2P protocols; they are also\ncommon on web-based systems, and they are exploited by governments\nand commercial entities.", "char_start": 81645, "char_end": 84567, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 456}}, {"segment_id": "4a7d6a99-58c4-4067-92b8-c16747debefe", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 30, "text": "Encrypted P2P and anonymous P2P networks have already emerged. They\nprovide viable platforms for sharing material [\nTribler\n], publishing\ncontent anonymously, and communicating securely [\nBitmessage\n]. These\nplatforms are not perfect, and more research needs to be done. If\nadopted at large, well-designed and resistant P2P networks might\nrepresent a critical component of a future secure and distributed\nInternet, enabling freedom of speech and freedom of information\nat scale.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 34]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.6\n. Virtual Private Networks\nThe VPNs discussed here are point-to-point connections that enable\ntwo computers to communicate over an encrypted tunnel. There are\nmultiple implementations and protocols used in the deployment of\nVPNs, and they generally diversify by encryption protocol or\nparticular requirements, most commonly in proprietary and enterprise\nsolutions. VPNs are commonly used to (1) enable some devices to\ncommunicate through peculiar network configurations, (2) use some\nprivacy and security properties in order to protect the traffic\ngenerated by the end user, or both. VPNs have also become a very\npopular technology among human rights defenders, dissidents, and\njournalists worldwide to avoid local monitoring and eventually also\nto circumvent censorship. VPNs are often debated among human rights\ndefenders as a potential alternative to Tor or other anonymous\nnetworks. Such comparisons are misleading, as some of the privacy\nand security properties of VPNs are often misunderstood by less\ntech-savvy users and could ultimately lead to unintended problems.\n\nAs VPNs have increased in popularity, commercial VPN providers have\nstarted growing as businesses and are very commonly picked by human\nrights defenders and people at risk, as they are normally provided\nwith an easy-to-use service and, sometimes, even custom applications\nto establish the VPN tunnel. Not being able to control the\nconfiguration of the network, let alone the security of the\napplication, assessing the general privacy and security state of\ncommon VPNs is very hard. Such services have often been discovered\nto be leaking information, and their custom applications have been\nfound to be flawed. While Tor and similar networks receive a lot of\nscrutiny from the public and the academic community, commercial or\nnon-commercial VPNs are far less analyzed and understood [\nInsinuator\n]\n[\nAlshalan-etal\n], and it might be valuable to establish some standards\nto guarantee a minimal level of privacy and security to those who\nneed them the most.\n5.2.3.6.1\n. No Anonymity against VPN Providers\nOne of the common misconceptions among users of VPNs is the level of\nanonymity that VPNs can provide. This sense of anonymity can be\nbetrayed by a number of attacks or misconfigurations of the VPN\nprovider. It is important to remember that, in contrast to Tor and\nsimilar systems, VPNs were not designed to provide anonymity\nproperties. From a technical point of view, a VPN might leak\nidentifiable information or might be the subject of correlation\nattacks that could expose the originating address of a connecting\nuser. Most importantly, it is vital to understand that commercial\nand non-commercial VPN providers are bound by the law of the\njurisdiction in which they reside or in which their infrastructure is\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 35]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nlocated, and they might be legally forced to turn over data of\nspecific users if legal investigations or intelligence requirements\ndictate so. In such cases, if the VPN providers retain logs, it is\npossible that a user's information could be provided to the user's\nadversary and lead to his or her identification.\n5.2.3.6.2\n. Logging\nBecause VPNs are point-to-point connections, the service providers\nare in fact able to observe the original location of connecting\nusers, and they are able to track at what time they started their\nsession and, eventually, also to which destinations they're trying to\nconnect. If the VPN providers retain logs for a long enough time,\nthey might be forced to turn over the relevant data or they might be\notherwise compromised, leading to the same data getting exposed. A\nclear log-retention policy could be enforced, but considering that\ncountries enforce different levels of data-retention policies, VPN\nproviders should at least be transparent regarding what information\nthey store and for how long it is being kept.\n5.2.3.6.3\n. Third-Party Hosting\nVPN providers very commonly rely on third parties to provision the\ninfrastructure that is later going to be used to run VPN endpoints.\nFor example, they might rely on external dedicated server providers\nor on uplink providers. In those cases, even if the VPN provider\nitself isn't retaining any significant logs, the information on\nconnecting users might be retained by those third parties instead,\nintroducing an additional collection point for the adversary.\n5.2.3.6.4\n. IPv6 Leakage\nSome studies proved that several commercial VPN providers and\napplications suffer from critical leakage of information through IPv6\ndue to improper support and configuration [\nPETS2015VPN\n]. This is\ngenerally caused by a lack of proper configuration of the client's\nIPv6 routing tables. Considering that most popular browsers and\nsimilar applications have been supporting IPv6 by default, if the\nhost is provided with a functional IPv6 configuration, the traffic\nthat is generated might be leaked if the VPN application isn't\ndesigned to manipulate such traffic properly.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 36]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n5.2.3.6.5\n. DNS Leakage\nSimilarly, VPN services that aren't handling DNS requests and aren't\nrunning DNS servers of their own might be prone to DNS leaking that\nmight not only expose sensitive information on the activity of a user\nbut could also potentially lead to DNS hijacking attacks and\nsubsequent compromises.\n5.2.3.6.6\n. Traffic Correlation\nSome VPN implementations appear to be particularly vulnerable to\nidentification and collection of key exchanges that, some Snowden\ndocuments revealed, are systematically collected and stored for\nfuture reference. The ability of an adversary to monitor network\nconnections at many different points over the Internet can allow them\nto perform traffic correlation attacks and identify the origin of\ncertain VPN traffic by cross-referencing the connection time of the\nuser to the endpoint and the connection time of the endpoint to the\nfinal destination. These types of attacks, although very expensive\nand normally only performed by very resourceful adversaries, have\nbeen documented [\nSPIEGEL\n] to be already in practice, and they could\ncompletely nullify the use of a VPN and ultimately expose the\nactivity and the identity of a user at risk.\n5.2.3.7\n. HTTP Status Code 451\n\"Every Internet user has run into the '404 Not Found' Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP) status code when trying, and failing, to\naccess a particular website\" [\nCath\n]. It is a response status that\nthe server sends to the browser when the server cannot locate the\nURL. \"403 Forbidden\" is another example of this class of code signals\nthat gives users information about what is going on. In the \"403\"\ncase, the server can be reached but is blocking the request because\nthe user is trying to access content forbidden to them, typically\nbecause some content is only for identified users, based on a payment\nor on special status in the organization. Most of the time, 403 is\nsent by the origin server, not by an intermediary. If a firewall\nprevents a government employee from accessing pornography on a work\ncomputer, it does not use 403.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 37]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAs surveillance and censorship of the Internet are becoming more\ncommonplace, voices were raised at the IETF to introduce a new status\ncode that indicates when something is not available for \"legal\nreasons\" (like censorship):", "char_start": 84569, "char_end": 92668, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 7, "word_count": 1276}}, {"segment_id": "cd062f62-f9f8-482e-8930-a386f79ec50b", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 31, "text": "The 451 status code would allow server operators to operate with\ngreater transparency in circumstances where issues of law or public\npolicy affect their operation. This transparency may be beneficial\nto both (1) these operators and (2) end users [\nRFC7725\n].\n\nThe status code is named \"451\" in reference to both Bradbury's famous\nnovel \"Fahrenheit 451\" and to 451 degrees Fahrenheit (the temperature\nat which some claim book paper autoignites).\n\nDuring the IETF 92 meeting in Dallas, there was discussion about the\nusefulness of 451. The main tension revolved around the lack of an\napparent machine-readable technical use of the information. The\nextent to which 451 is just \"political theatre\" or whether it has a\nconcrete technical use was heatedly debated. Some argued that \"the\n451 status code is just a status code with a response body\"; others\nsaid it was problematic because \"it brings law into the picture.\"\nStill others argued that it would be useful for individuals or for\norganizations like the \"Chilling Effects\" project that are crawling\nthe Web to get an indication of censorship (IETF discussion on 451 --\nauthor's field notes, March 2015). There was no outright objection\nduring the Dallas meeting against moving forward on status code 451,\nand on December 18, 2015, the IESG approved \"An HTTP Status Code to\nReport Legal Obstacles\" (now [\nRFC7725\n]) for publication. HTTP status\ncode 451 is now an IETF-approved HTTP status code that signals when\nresource access is denied as a consequence of legal demands.\n\nWhat is interesting about this particular case is that not only\ntechnical arguments but also the status code's outright potential\npolitical use for civil society played a substantial role in shaping\nthe discussion and the decision to move forward with this technology.\n\nIt is nonetheless important to note that HTTP status code 451 is not\na solution to detect all occasions of censorship. A large swath of\nInternet filtering occurs in the network, at a lower level than HTTP,\nrather than at the server itself. For these forms of censorship, 451\nplays a limited role, as typical censoring intermediaries won't\ngenerate it. Besides technical reasons, such filtering regimes are\nunlikely to voluntarily inject a 451 status code. The use of 451 is\nmost likely to apply in the case of cooperative, legal versions of\ncontent removal resulting from requests to providers. One can think\nof content that is removed or blocked for legal reasons, like\ncopyright infringement, gambling laws, child abuse, etc. Large\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 38]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nInternet companies and search engines are constantly asked to censor\ncontent in various jurisdictions. 451 allows this to be easily\ndiscovered -- for instance, by initiatives like the Lumen Database.", "char_start": 92670, "char_end": 95498, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 459}}, {"segment_id": "395c73b3-80ec-4870-a8dd-9d35b544daac", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 32, "text": "Overall, the strength of 451 lies in its ability to provide\ntransparency by giving the reason for blocking and giving the\nend user the ability to file a complaint. It allows organizations to\neasily measure censorship in an automated way and prompts the user to\naccess the content via another path (e.g., Tor, VPNs) when (s)he\nencounters the 451 status code.\n\nStatus code 451 impacts human rights by making censorship more\ntransparent and measurable. It increases transparency by signaling\nthe existence of censorship (instead of a much broader HTTP error\nmessage such as HTTP status code 404) as well as providing details of\nthe legal restriction, which legal authority is imposing it, and to\nwhat class of resources it applies. This empowers the user to seek\nredress.\n5.2.3.8\n. DDoS Attacks\nMany individuals, including IETF engineers, have argued that DDoS\nattacks are fundamentally against freedom of expression.\nTechnically, DDoS attacks are attacks where one host or multiple\nhosts overload the bandwidth or resources of another host by flooding\nit with traffic or making resource-intensive requests, causing it to\ntemporarily stop being available to users. One can roughly\ndifferentiate three types of DDoS attacks:\n\n1. volume-based attacks (which aim to make the host unreachable by\nusing up all its bandwidth; often-used techniques are UDP floods\nand ICMP floods)\n\n2. protocol attacks (which aim to use up actual server resources;\noften-used techniques are SYN floods, fragmented packet attacks,\nand \"ping of death\" [\nRFC4949\n])\n\n3. application-layer attacks (which aim to bring down a server, such\nas a web server)\n\nDDoS attacks can thus stifle freedom of expression and complicate the\nability of independent media and human rights organizations to\nexercise their right to (online) freedom of association, while\nfacilitating the ability of governments to censor dissent. When it\ncomes to comparing DDoS attacks to protests in offline life, it is\nimportant to remember that only a limited number of DDoS attacks\nsolely involved willing participants. In the overwhelming majority\nof cases, the clients are hacked hosts of unrelated parties that\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 39]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nhave not consented to being part of a DDoS (for exceptions, see\nOperation Ababil [\nAbabil\n] or the Iranian Green Movement's DDoS\ncampaign at election time [\nGreenMovement\n]). In addition,\nDDoS attacks are increasingly used as an extortion tactic.", "char_start": 95500, "char_end": 97997, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 395}}, {"segment_id": "c56d23fd-f5d1-44e2-8c7f-7c769802fcca", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 33, "text": "All of these issues seem to suggest that the IETF should try to\nensure that their protocols cannot be used for DDoS attacks; this is\nconsistent with the long-standing IETF consensus that DDoS is an\nattack that protocols should mitigate to the extent they can [\nBCP72\n].\nDecreasing the number of vulnerabilities in protocols and (outside of\nthe IETF) the number of bugs in the network stacks of routers or\ncomputers could address this issue. The IETF can clearly play a role\nin bringing about some of these changes, but the IETF cannot be\nexpected to take a positive stance on (specific) DDoS attacks or to\ncreate protocols that enable some attacks and inhibit others. What\nthe IETF can do is critically reflect on its role in the development\nof the Internet and how this impacts the ability of people to\nexercise their human rights, such as freedom of expression.\n6\n. Model for Developing Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nThis section outlines a set of human rights protocol considerations\nfor protocol developers. It provides questions that engineers should\nask themselves when developing or improving protocols if they want to\nunderstand their impact on human rights. It should, however, be\nnoted that the impact of a protocol cannot be solely deduced from its\ndesign; its usage and implementation should also be studied to form a\nfull assessment of the impact of the protocol on human rights.\n\nThe questions are based on the research performed by the HRPC\nResearch Group. This research was documented prior to the writing of\nthese considerations. The research establishes that human rights\nrelate to standards and protocols; it also offers a common vocabulary\nof technical concepts that impact human rights and how these\ntechnical concepts can be combined to ensure that the Internet\nremains an enabling environment for human rights. With this, a model\nfor developing human rights protocol considerations has taken shape.\n6.1\n. Human Rights Threats\nHuman rights threats on the Internet come in a myriad of forms.\nProtocols and standards can either harm or enable the right to\nfreedom of expression; the right to non-discrimination; the right to\nequal protection; the right to participate in cultural life, arts,\nand science; the right to freedom of assembly and association; and\nthe right to security. An end user who is denied access to certain\nservices, data, or websites may be unable to disclose vital\ninformation about malpractice on the part of a government or other\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 40]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nauthority. A person whose communications are monitored may be\nprevented from exercising their right to freedom of association or\nparticipation in political processes [\nPenney\n]. In a worst-case\nscenario, protocols that leak information can lead to physical\ndanger. A realistic example to consider is when, based on\ninformation gathered by state agencies through information leakage in\nprotocols, individuals perceived as threats to the state are\nsubjected to torture, extrajudicial killings, or detention.", "char_start": 97999, "char_end": 101084, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 498}}, {"segment_id": "3216289a-4862-4d20-99b2-2823d0d4d4eb", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 34, "text": "This section details several \"common\" threats to human rights,\nindicating how each of these can lead to harm to, or violations of,\nhuman rights. It also presents several examples of how these threats\nto human rights materialize on the Internet. This threat modeling is\ninspired by [\nRFC6973\n] (\"Privacy Considerations for Internet\nProtocols\"), which is based on security threat analysis. This method\nis by no means a perfect solution for assessing human rights risks in\nInternet protocols and systems; it is, however, the best approach\ncurrently available. Certain specific human rights threats are\nindirectly considered in Internet protocols as part of their security\nconsiderations [\nBCP72\n], but privacy guidelines [\nRFC6973\n] or reviews,\nlet alone the assessments of the impact of protocols on human rights,\nare not standardized or implemented.\n\nMany threats, enablers, and risks are linked to different rights.\nThis is not surprising if one takes into account that human rights\nare interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible. Here, however,\nwe're not discussing all human rights, because not all human rights\nare relevant to ICTs in general and to protocols and standards in\nparticular [\nBless1\n]:\n\nThe main source of the values of human rights is the International\nBill of Human Rights that is composed of the Universal Declaration\nof Human Rights [\nUDHR\n] along with the International Covenant on\nCivil and Political Rights [\nICCPR\n] and the International Covenant\non Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [\nICESCR\n]. In the light of\nseveral cases of Internet censorship, the Human Rights Council\nResolution 20/8 was adopted in 2012 [\nUNHRC2016\n], affirming \"...\nthat the same rights that people have offline must also be\nprotected online ...\" In 2015, the Charter of Human Rights and\nPrinciples for the Internet [\nIRP\n] was developed and released.\nAccording to these documents, some examples of human rights\nrelevant for ICT systems are human dignity (Art. 1 UDHR),\nnon-discrimination (Art. 2), rights to life, liberty and security\n(Art. 3), freedom of opinion and expression (Art. 19), freedom of\nassembly and association (Art. 20), rights to equal protection,\nlegal remedy, fair trial, due process, presumed innocent\n(Art. 7-11), appropriate social and international order (Art. 28),\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 41]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nparticipation in public affairs (Art. 21), participation in\ncultural life, protection of intellectual property (Art. 27), and\nprivacy (Art. 12).", "char_start": 101086, "char_end": 103626, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 401}}, {"segment_id": "3e049796-d85e-4f33-b165-feb5bbe222ab", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 35, "text": "A partial catalog of human rights related to ICTs, including economic\nrights, can be found in [\nHill2014\n].\n\nThis is by no means an attempt to exclude specific rights or\nprioritize some rights over others. If other rights seem relevant,\nplease contact the authors of this document.\n6.2\n. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations\nThis section provides guidance for document authors in the form of a\nquestionnaire about protocols and their (potential) impact. The\nquestionnaire may be useful at any point in the design process,\nparticularly after document authors have developed a high-level\nprotocol model as described in [\nRFC4101\n]. These guidelines do not\nseek to replace any existing referenced specifications; rather, they\ncontribute to them and look at the design process from a human rights\nperspective.\n\nProtocols and Internet Standards might benefit from a documented\ndiscussion of potential human rights risks arising from potential\nmisapplications of the protocol or technology described in the RFC in\nquestion. This might be coupled with an Applicability Statement for\nthat RFC.\n\nNote that the guidance provided in this section does not recommend\nspecific practices. The range of protocols developed in the IETF is\ntoo broad to make recommendations about particular uses of data or\nhow human rights might be balanced against other design goals.\nHowever, by carefully considering the answers to the following\nquestions, document authors should be able to produce a comprehensive\nanalysis that can serve as the basis for discussion on whether the\nprotocol adequately takes specific human rights threats into account.\nThis guidance is meant to help the thought process of a human rights\nanalysis; it does not provide specific directions for how to write a\nhuman rights protocol considerations section (following the example\nset in [\nRFC6973\n]), and the addition of a human rights protocol\nconsiderations section has also not yet been proposed. In\nconsidering these questions, authors will need to be aware of the\npotential of technical advances or the passage of time to undermine\nprotections. In general, considerations of rights are likely to be\nmore effective if they are considered given a purpose and specific\nuse cases, rather than as abstract absolute goals.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 42]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n6.2.1\n. Connectivity\nQuestions:", "char_start": 103628, "char_end": 106035, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 378}}, {"segment_id": "4b556ea2-d4b4-4827-a8b2-47019e704b75", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 36, "text": "- Does your protocol add application-specific functions to\nintermediary nodes?\n\n- Could this functionality be added to end nodes instead of\nintermediary nodes?\n\n- Is your protocol optimized for low bandwidth and high-latency\nconnections?\n\n- Could your protocol also be developed in a stateless manner?\n\nExplanation: The end-to-end principle [\nSaltzer\n] holds that \"the\nintelligence is end to end rather than hidden in the network\"\n[\nRFC1958\n]. The end-to-end principle is important for the\nrobustness of the network and innovation. Such robustness of the\nnetwork is crucial to enabling human rights like freedom of\nexpression.\n\nExample: Middleboxes (which can be content delivery networks,\nfirewalls, NATs, or other intermediary nodes that provide\n\"services\" other than routing) serve many legitimate purposes.\nBut the protocols guiding them can influence individuals' ability\nto communicate online freely and privately. The potential for\nabuse, intentional and unintentional censoring, and limiting\npermissionless innovation -- and thus, ultimately, the impact of\nmiddleboxes on the Internet as a place of unfiltered, unmonitored\nfreedom of speech -- is real.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n6.2.2\n. Privacy\nQuestions:\n\n- Did you have a look at the guidelines in\nSection 7 of [RFC6973]\n(\"Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\")?\n\n- Could your protocol in any way impact the confidentiality of\nprotocol metadata?\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 43]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n- Could your protocol counter traffic analysis?\n\n- Could your protocol improve data minimization?\n\n- Does your document identify potentially sensitive data logged by\nyour protocol and/or for how long that data needs to be retained\nfor technical reasons?", "char_start": 106037, "char_end": 107871, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 276}}, {"segment_id": "e5f91693-caf8-440a-922c-71b254cfff26", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 37, "text": "Explanation: \"Privacy\" refers to the right of an entity (normally a\nperson), acting on its own behalf, to determine the degree to\nwhich it will interact with its environment, including the degree\nto which the entity is willing to share its personal information\nwith others [\nRFC4949\n]. If a protocol provides insufficient\nprivacy protection, it may have a negative impact on freedom of\nexpression as users self-censor for fear of surveillance or find\nthemselves unable to express themselves freely.\n\nExample: See [\nRFC6973\n].\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n6.2.3\n. Content Agnosticism\nQuestions:\n\n- If your protocol impacts packet handling, does it use user data\n(packet data that is not included in the header)?\n\n- Does your protocol make decisions based on the payload of the\npacket?\n\n- Does your protocol prioritize certain content or services over\nothers in the routing process?\n\n- Is the protocol transparent about the prioritization that is made\n(if any)?\n\nExplanation: \"Content agnosticism\" refers to the notion that network\ntraffic is treated identically regardless of payload, with some\nexceptions when it comes to effective traffic handling -- for\ninstance, delay-tolerant or delay-sensitive packets based on the\nheader.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 44]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nExample: Content agnosticism prevents payload-based discrimination\nagainst packets. This is important because changes to this\nprinciple can lead to a two-tiered Internet, where certain packets\nare prioritized over others based on their content. Effectively,\nthis would mean that although all users are entitled to receive\ntheir packets at a certain speed, some users become more equal\nthan others.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression", "char_start": 107873, "char_end": 109689, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 280}}, {"segment_id": "06e7944d-2fbb-4e82-a8e1-6cf192634265", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 38, "text": "- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to equal protection\n6.2.4\n. Security\nQuestions:\n\n- Did you have a look at [\nBCP72\n] (\"Guidelines for Writing RFC Text\non Security Considerations\")?\n\n- Have you found any attacks that are somewhat related to your\nprotocol yet considered out of scope for your document?\n\n- Would these attacks be pertinent to the features of the Internet\nthat enable human rights (as described throughout this document)?\n\nExplanation: Most people speak of security as if it were a single\nmonolithic property of a protocol or system; however, upon\nreflection one realizes that it is clearly not true. Rather,\nsecurity is a series of related but somewhat independent\nproperties. Not all of these properties are required for every\napplication. Since communications are carried out by systems and\naccess to systems is through communications channels, these goals\nobviously interlock, but they can also be independently provided\n[\nBCP72\n].\n\nExample: See [\nBCP72\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 45]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.5\n. Internationalization\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol have text strings that have to be understood or\nentered by humans?\n\n- Does your protocol allow Unicode? If so, do you accept texts in\none charset (which must be UTF-8) or several (which is dangerous\nfor interoperability)?\n\n- If character sets or encodings other than UTF-8 are allowed, does\nyour protocol mandate proper tagging of the charset?\n\n- Did you have a look at [\nRFC6365\n]?\n\nExplanation: \"Internationalization\" refers to the practice of making\nprotocols, standards, and implementations usable in different\nlanguages and scripts (see\nSection 6.2.12\n(\"Localization\")). \"In\nthe IETF, 'internationalization' means to add or improve the\nhandling of non-ASCII text in a protocol\" [\nRFC6365\n].", "char_start": 109691, "char_end": 111671, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 314}}, {"segment_id": "58d1c192-b7d6-4e85-adb5-798e919f4fe3", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 39, "text": "A different perspective, more appropriate to protocols that are\ndesigned for global use from the beginning, is the definition used\nby the W3C [\nW3Ci18nDef\n]: \"Internationalization is the design and\ndevelopment of a product, application or document content that\nenables easy localization for target audiences that vary in\nculture, region, or language.\"\n\nMany protocols that handle text only handle one charset\n(US-ASCII), or they leave the question of what coded character set\n(CCS) and encoding are used up to local guesswork (which leads, of\ncourse, to interoperability problems) [\nRFC3536\n]. If multiple\ncharsets are permitted, they must be explicitly identified\n[\nRFC2277\n]. Adding non-ASCII text to a protocol allows the\nprotocol to handle more scripts, hopefully all scripts in use in\nthe world. In today's world, that is normally best accomplished\nby allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 46]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nIn the current IETF policy [\nRFC2277\n], internationalization is\naimed at user-facing strings, not protocol elements, such as the\nverbs used by some text-based protocols. (Do note that some\nstrings, such as identifiers, are both content and protocol\nelements.) If the Internet wants to be a global network of\nnetworks, the protocols should work with languages other than\nEnglish and character sets other than Latin characters. It is\ntherefore crucial that at least the content carried by the\nprotocol can be in any script and that all scripts are treated\nequally.\n\nExample: See\nSection 6.2.12\n(\"Localization\").\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to political participation\n\n- Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science\n6.2.6\n. Censorship Resistance\nQuestions:\n\n- Does this protocol introduce new identifiers or reuse existing\nidentifiers (e.g., Media Access Control (MAC) addresses) that\nmight be associated with persons or content?", "char_start": 111673, "char_end": 113633, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 305}}, {"segment_id": "dea7b55c-ab87-43b7-8265-5c983bb6d956", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 40, "text": "- Does your protocol make it apparent or transparent when access to\na resource is restricted?\n\n- Can your protocol contribute to filtering in such a way that it\ncould be implemented to censor data or services? If so, could\nyour protocol be designed to ensure that this doesn't happen?\n\nExplanation: \"Censorship resistance\" refers to the methods and\nmeasures to prevent Internet censorship.\n\nExample: When IPv6 was developed, embedding a MAC address into\nunique IP addresses was discussed. This makes it possible, per\n[\nRFC4941\n], for \"eavesdroppers and other information collectors to\nidentify when different addresses used in different transactions\nactually correspond to the same node.\" This is why privacy\nextensions for stateless address autoconfiguration in IPv6\n[\nRFC4941\n] have been introduced.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 47]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nIdentifiers of content exposed within a protocol might be used to\nfacilitate censorship, as in the case of application-layer-based\ncensorship, which affects protocols like HTTP. Denial or\nrestriction of access can be made apparent by the use of status\ncode 451, thereby allowing server operators to operate with\ngreater transparency in circumstances where issues of law or\npublic policy affect their operation [\nRFC7725\n].\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to political participation\n\n- Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n6.2.7\n. Open Standards\nQuestions:\n\n- Is your protocol fully documented in such a way that it could be\neasily implemented, improved, built upon, and/or further\ndeveloped?\n\n- Do you depend on proprietary code for the implementation, running,\nor further development of your protocol?\n\n- Does your protocol favor a particular proprietary specification\nover technically equivalent and competing specification(s) -- for\ninstance, by making any incorporated vendor specification\n\"required\" or \"recommended\" [\nRFC2026\n]?", "char_start": 113635, "char_end": 115660, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 308}}, {"segment_id": "7ad77a3a-5a65-4e99-8518-9199f789600e", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 41, "text": "- Do you normatively reference another standard that is not\navailable without cost (and could you possibly do without it)?\n\n- Are you aware of any patents that would prevent your standard from\nbeing fully implemented [\nRFC6701\n] [\nRFC8179\n]?\n\nExplanation: The Internet was able to be developed into the global\nnetwork of networks because of the existence of open,\nnon-proprietary standards [\nZittrain\n]. They are crucial for\nenabling interoperability. Yet, open standards are not explicitly\ndefined within the IETF. On the subject, [\nRFC2026\n] states the\nfollowing: \"Various national and international standards bodies,\nsuch as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol\nand service specifications that are similar to Technical\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 48]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nSpecifications defined\" at the IETF. \"National and international\ngroups also publish 'implementors' agreements' that are analogous\nto Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-\nspecific detail concerned with the practical application of their\nstandards. All of these are considered to be 'open external\nstandards' for the purposes of the Internet Standards Process.\"\nSimilarly, [\nRFC3935\n] does not define open standards but does\nemphasize the importance of \"open process\": any interested person\ncan participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make\nhis or her voice heard on the issue. Part of this principle is\nthe IETF's commitment to making its documents, WG mailing lists,\nattendance lists, and meeting minutes publicly available on the\nInternet.\n\nOpen standards are important, as they allow for permissionless\ninnovation, which in turn is important for maintaining the freedom\nand ability to freely create and deploy new protocols on top of\nthe communications constructs that currently exist. It is at the\nheart of the Internet as we know it, and to maintain its\nfundamentally open nature, we need to be mindful of the need for\ndeveloping open standards.", "char_start": 115662, "char_end": 117696, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 318}}, {"segment_id": "5d9cf980-fd3b-43ee-a56d-d6960f571156", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 42, "text": "All standards that need to be normatively implemented should be\nfreely available and should provide reasonable protection against\npatent infringement claims, so that it can also be implemented in\nopen-source or free software. Patents have often held back open\nstandardization or have been used against those deploying open\nstandards, particularly in the domain of cryptography [\nNewegg\n].\nAn exemption is sometimes made when a protocol that normatively\nrelies on specifications produced by other SDOs that are not\nfreely available is standardized. Patents in open standards or in\nnormative references to other standards should have a patent\ndisclosure [\nnotewell\n], royalty-free licensing [\npatentpolicy\n], or\nsome other form of reasonable protection. Reasonable patent\nprotection should include, but is not limited to, cryptographic\nprimitives.\n\nExample: [\nRFC6108\n] describes a system deployed by Comcast, an ISP,\nfor providing critical end-user notifications to web browsers.\nSuch a notification system is being used to provide\nalmost-immediate notifications to customers, such as warning them\nthat their traffic exhibits patterns that are indicative of\nmalware or virus infection. There are other proprietary systems\nthat can perform such notifications, but those systems utilize\nDeep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology. In contrast to DPI,\n[\nRFC6108\n] describes a system that does not rely upon DPI and is\ninstead based on open IETF standards and open-source applications.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 49]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science\n6.2.8\n. Heterogeneity Support\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol support heterogeneity by design?\n\n- Does your protocol allow for multiple types of hardware?", "char_start": 117698, "char_end": 119534, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 276}}, {"segment_id": "7bac04f2-5b56-4f7c-baec-a57649c4f13d", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 43, "text": "- Does your protocol allow for multiple types of application\nprotocols?\n\n- Is your protocol liberal in what it receives and handles?\n\n- Will your protocol remain usable and open if the context changes?\n\n- Does your protocol allow well-defined extension points? If so, do\nthese extension points allow for open innovation?\n\nExplanation: [\nFIArch\n] notes the following: \"The Internet is\ncharacterized by heterogeneity on many levels: devices and nodes,\nrouter scheduling algorithms and queue management mechanisms,\nrouting protocols, levels of multiplexing, protocol versions and\nimplementations, underlying link layers (e.g., point-to-point,\nmulti-access links, wireless, FDDI, etc.), in the traffic mix and\nin the levels of congestion at different times and places.\nMoreover, as the Internet is composed of autonomous organizations\nand internet service providers, each with their own separate\npolicy concerns, there is a large heterogeneity of administrative\ndomains and pricing structures.\" As a result, as also noted in\n[\nFIArch\n], the heterogeneity principle proposed in [\nRFC1958\n] needs\nto be supported by design.\n\nExample: Heterogeneity is inevitable and needs to be supported by\ndesign. For example, multiple types of hardware must be allowed\nfor transmission speeds differing by at least seven orders of\nmagnitude, various computer word lengths, and hosts ranging from\nmemory-starved microprocessors up to massively parallel\nsupercomputers. As noted in [\nRFC1958\n], \"Multiple types of\napplication protocol must be allowed for, ranging from the\nsimplest such as remote login up to the most complex such as\ndistributed databases.\"\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 50]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to political participation\n6.2.9\n. Anonymity\nQuestion:", "char_start": 119536, "char_end": 121378, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 276}}, {"segment_id": "3e5aa3b9-e925-44a6-b061-61cc68a2bf45", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 44, "text": "- Did you have a look at [\nRFC6973\n] (\"Privacy Considerations for\nInternet Protocols\"), especially\nSection 6.1.1\nof that document?\n\nExplanation: \"Anonymity\" refers to the condition of an identity\nbeing unknown or concealed [\nRFC4949\n]. Even though full anonymity\nis hard to achieve, it is a non-binary concept. Making pervasive\nmonitoring and tracking harder is important for many users as well\nas for the IETF [\nRFC7258\n]. Achieving a higher level of anonymity\nis an important feature for many end users, as it allows them\ndifferent degrees of privacy online.\n\nExample: Protocols often expose personal data; it is therefore\nimportant to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts on\nprivacy. A protocol that uses data that could help identify a\nsender (items of interest) should be protected from third parties.\nFor instance, if one wants to hide the source/destination IP\naddresses of a packet, the use of IPsec in tunneling mode (e.g.,\ninside a VPN) can help protect against third parties likely to\neavesdrop packets exchanged between the tunnel endpoints.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to political participation\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.10\n. Pseudonymity\nQuestions:\n\n- Have you considered [\nRFC6973\n] (\"Privacy Considerations for\nInternet Protocols\"), especially\nSection 6.1.2\nof that document?\n\n- Does the protocol collect personally derived data?\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 51]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n- Does the protocol generate or process anything that can be, or\nthat can be tightly correlated with, personally identifiable\ninformation?\n\n- Does the protocol utilize data that is personally derived, i.e.,\nderived from the interaction of a single person or from their\ndevice or address?", "char_start": 121380, "char_end": 123192, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 286}}, {"segment_id": "244ce550-92c6-491d-b257-cb8edf647b1d", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 45, "text": "- Does this protocol generate personally derived data? If so, how\nwill that data be handled?\n\nExplanation: Pseudonymity -- the ability to use a persistent\nidentifier that is not immediately linked to one's offline\nidentity -- is an important feature for many end users, as it\nallows them different degrees of disguised identity and privacy\nonline.\n\nExample: When designing a standard that exposes personal data, it is\nimportant to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts. While\npseudonyms cannot easily be reverse-engineered -- for example,\nsome early approaches used such techniques as simple hashing of IP\naddresses that could in turn be easily reversed by generating a\nhash for each potential IP address and comparing it to the\npseudonym -- limiting the exposure of personal data remains\nimportant.\n\n\"Pseudonymity\" means using a pseudonym instead of one's \"real\"\nname. There are many reasons for users to use pseudonyms -- for\ninstance, to hide their gender; protect themselves against\nharassment; protect their families' privacy; frankly discuss\nsexuality; or develop an artistic or journalistic persona without\nretribution from an employer, (potential) customers, or social\nsurroundings [\ngeekfeminism\n]. The difference between anonymity and\npseudonymity is that a pseudonym is often persistent.\n\"Pseudonymity is strengthened when less personal data can be\nlinked to the pseudonym; when the same pseudonym is used less\noften and across fewer contexts; and when independently chosen\npseudonyms are more frequently used for new actions (making them,\nfrom an observer's or attacker's perspective, unlinkable).\"\n[\nRFC6973\n]\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 52]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n6.2.11\n. Accessibility\nQuestions:", "char_start": 123194, "char_end": 125047, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 279}}, {"segment_id": "b50cb61b-b20b-4bbd-96bf-592793fe585e", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 46, "text": "- Is your protocol designed to provide an enabling environment for\npeople who are not able-bodied?\n\n- Have you looked at the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative\n[\nW3CAccessibility\n] for examples and guidance?\n\nExplanation: The Internet is fundamentally designed to work for all\npeople, whatever their hardware, software, language, culture,\nlocation, or physical or mental ability. When the Internet meets\nthis goal, it is accessible to people with a diverse range of\nhearing, movement, sight, and cognitive abilities\n[\nW3CAccessibility\n]. Sometimes, in the design of protocols,\nwebsites, web technologies, or web tools, barriers that exclude\npeople from using the Web are created.\n\nExample: The HTML protocol as defined in [\nHTML5\n] specifically\nrequires that (with a few exceptions) every image must have an\n\"alt\" attribute to ensure that images are accessible for people\nthat cannot themselves decipher non-text content in web pages.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n\n- Right to education\n\n- Right to political participation\n6.2.12\n. Localization\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol uphold the standards of internationalization?\n\n- Have you taken any concrete steps towards localizing your protocol\nfor relevant audiences?\n\nExplanation: Per [\nW3Ci18nDef\n], \"Localization refers to the\nadaptation of a product, application or document content to meet\nthe language, cultural and other requirements of a specific target\nmarket (a 'locale').\" It is also described as the practice of\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 53]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ntranslating an implementation to make it functional in a specific\nlanguage or for users in a specific locale (see\nSection 6.2.5\n(\"Internationalization\")).\n\nExample: The Internet is a global medium, but many of its protocols\nand products are developed with a certain audience in mind; this\naudience often shares particular characteristics like knowing how\nto read and write in ASCII and knowing English. This limits the\nability of a large part of the world's online population to use\nthe Internet in a way that is culturally and linguistically\naccessible. An example of a protocol that has taken into account\nthe view that individuals like to have access to data in their\nnative language can be found in [\nRFC5646\n]; such a protocol would\nlabel the information content with an identifier for the language\nin which it is written and would allow information to be presented\nin more than one language.", "char_start": 125049, "char_end": 127577, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 398}}, {"segment_id": "c2a15232-7e1a-46c3-ad9b-8d91b4c36f80", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 47, "text": "Impacts:\n\n- Right to non-discrimination\n\n- Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n6.2.13\n. Decentralization\nQuestions:\n\n- Can your protocol be implemented without one single point of\ncontrol?\n\n- If applicable, can your protocol be deployed in a federated\nmanner?\n\n- What is the potential for discrimination against users of your\nprotocol?\n\n- Can your protocol be used to negatively implicate users (e.g.,\nincrimination, accusation)?\n\n- Does your protocol create additional centralized points of\ncontrol?\n\nExplanation: Decentralization is one of the central technical\nconcepts of the architecture of networks and is embraced as such\nby the IETF [\nRFC3935\n]. It refers to the absence or minimization\nof centralized points of control -- \"a feature that is assumed to\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 54]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nmake it easy for new users to join and new uses to unfold\"\n[\nBrown\n]. It also reduces issues surrounding single points of\nfailure and distributes the network such that it continues to\nfunction if one or several nodes are disabled. With the\ncommercialization of the Internet in the early 1990s, there has\nbeen a slow trend toward moving away from decentralization, to the\ndetriment of any technical benefits that having a decentralized\nInternet otherwise provides.\n\nExample: The bits traveling the Internet are increasingly\nsusceptible to monitoring and censorship, from both governments\nand ISPs, as well as third (malicious) parties. The ability to\nmonitor and censor is further enabled by increased centralization\nof the network, creating central infrastructure points that can be\ntapped into. The creation of P2P networks and the development of\nvoice-over-IP protocols using P2P technology in combination with a\ndistributed hash table (DHT) for scalability are examples of how\nprotocols can preserve decentralization [\nPouwelse\n].", "char_start": 127579, "char_end": 129528, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 303}}, {"segment_id": "1a236d3c-f0b5-4509-a837-55e1f8bb561f", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 48, "text": "Impacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n6.2.14\n. Reliability\nQuestions:\n\n- Is your protocol fault tolerant?\n\n- Does your protocol degrade gracefully?\n\n- Can your protocol resist malicious degradation attempts?\n\n- Do you have a documented way to announce degradation?\n\n- Do you have measures in place for recovery or partial healing from\nfailure?\n\n- Can your protocol maintain dependability and performance in the\nface of unanticipated changes or circumstances?\n\nExplanation: Reliability ensures that a protocol will execute its\nfunction consistently, be error resistant as described, and\nfunction without unexpected results. A system that is reliable\ndegenerates gracefully and will have a documented way to announce\ndegradation. It also has mechanisms to recover from failure\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 55]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\ngracefully and, if applicable, to allow for partial healing. It\nis important here to draw a distinction between random degradation\nand malicious degradation. Many current attacks against TLS, for\nexample, exploit TLS's ability to gracefully degrade to older\ncipher suites; from a functional perspective, this ability is\ngood, but from a security perspective, it can be very bad. As\nwith confidentiality, the growth of the Internet and fostering\ninnovation in services depend on users having confidence and trust\n[\nRFC3724\n] in the network. For reliability, it is necessary that\nservices notify users if packet delivery fails. In the case of\nreal-time systems, the protocol needs to safeguard timeliness in\naddition to providing reliable delivery.\n\nExample: In the modern IP stack structure, a reliable transport\nlayer requires an indication that transport processing has\nsuccessfully completed, such as the indication given by TCP's ACK\nmessage [\nRFC793\n] and not simply an indication from the IP layer\nthat the packet arrived. Similarly, an application-layer protocol\nmay require an application-specific acknowledgement that contains,\namong other things, a status code indicating the disposition of\nthe request (see [\nRFC3724\n]).", "char_start": 129530, "char_end": 131688, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 326}}, {"segment_id": "f7dd160e-aab4-4448-823a-97d9087bb8a9", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 49, "text": "Impacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.15\n. Confidentiality\nQuestions:\n\n- Does this protocol expose information related to identifiers or\ndata? If so, does it do so to each of the other protocol entities\n(i.e., recipients, intermediaries, and enablers) [\nRFC6973\n]?\n\n- What options exist for protocol implementers to choose to limit\nthe information shared with each entity?\n\n- What operational controls are available to limit the information\nshared with each entity?\n\n- What controls or consent mechanisms does the protocol define or\nrequire before personal data or identifiers are shared or exposed\nvia the protocol? If no such mechanisms or controls are\nspecified, is it expected that control and consent will be handled\noutside of the protocol?\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 56]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n- Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to share different\npieces of information with different recipients? If not, are\nthere mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide\ninitiators with such control?\n\n- Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to limit which\ninformation is shared with intermediaries? If not, are there\nmechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide users\nwith such control?\n\n- Is it expected that users will have relationships that govern the\nuse of the information (contractual or otherwise) with those who\noperate these intermediaries?\n\n- Does the protocol prefer encryption over cleartext operation?\n\n- Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to express\nindividuals' preferences to recipients or intermediaries with\nregard to the collection, use, or disclosure of their personal\ndata?\n\nExplanation: \"Confidentiality\" refers to keeping a user's data\nsecret from unintended listeners [\nBCP72\n]. The growth of the\nInternet depends on users having confidence that the network\nprotects their personal data [\nRFC1984\n].", "char_start": 131690, "char_end": 133643, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 303}}, {"segment_id": "055760a3-6f6c-4f54-a1a3-4707d80e3cc8", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 50, "text": "Example: Protocols that do not encrypt their payload make the entire\ncontent of the communication available to the idealized attacker\nalong their path [\nRFC7624\n]. Following the advice in [\nRFC3365\n],\nmost such protocols have a secure variant that encrypts the\npayload for confidentiality, and these secure variants are seeing\never-wider deployment. A noteworthy exception is DNS [\nRFC1035\n],\nas DNSSEC [\nRFC4033\n] does not have confidentiality as a\nrequirement. This implies that, in the absence of changes to the\nprotocol as presently under development in the IETF's DNS Private\nExchange (DPRIVE) Working Group, all DNS queries and answers\ngenerated by the activities of any protocol are available to the\nattacker. When store-and-forward protocols are used (e.g., SMTP\n[\nRFC5321\n]), intermediaries leave this data subject to observation\nby an attacker that has compromised these intermediaries, unless\nthe data is encrypted end to end by the application-layer protocol\nor the implementation uses an encrypted store for this data\n[\nRFC7624\n].\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 57]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to privacy\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.16\n. Integrity\nQuestions:\n\n- Does your protocol maintain, assure, and/or verify the accuracy of\npayload data?\n\n- Does your protocol maintain and assure the consistency of data?\n\n- Does your protocol in any way allow the data to be (intentionally\nor unintentionally) altered?\n\nExplanation: \"Integrity\" refers to the maintenance and assurance of\nthe accuracy and consistency of data to ensure that it has not\nbeen (intentionally or unintentionally) altered.\n\nExample: Integrity verification of data is important for preventing\nvulnerabilities and attacks such as man-in-the-middle attacks.\nThese attacks happen when a third party (often for malicious\nreasons) intercepts a communication between two parties, inserting\nthemselves in the middle and changing the content of the data. In\npractice, this looks as follows:", "char_start": 133645, "char_end": 135657, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 310}}, {"segment_id": "cc7024aa-8f9d-40a5-8048-e531f5fb28c5", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 51, "text": "Alice wants to communicate with Bob.\nCorinne forges and sends a message to Bob, impersonating Alice.\nBob cannot see that the data from Alice was altered by Corinne.\nCorinne intercepts and alters the communication as it is sent\nbetween Alice and Bob.\nCorinne is able to control the communication content.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to security\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 58]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n6.2.17\n. Authenticity\nQuestions:\n\n- Do you have sufficient measures in place to confirm the truth of\nan attribute of an entity or of a single piece of data?\n\n- Can attributes get garbled along the way (see\nSection 6.2.4\n(\"Security\"))?\n\n- If relevant, have you implemented IPsec, DNSSEC, HTTPS, and other\nstandard security best practices?\n\nExplanation: Authenticity ensures that data does indeed come from\nthe source it claims to come from. This is important for\npreventing (1) certain attacks or (2) unauthorized access to, and\nuse of, data.\n\nExample: Authentication of data is important for preventing\nvulnerabilities and attacks such as man-in-the-middle attacks.\nThese attacks happen when a third party (often for malicious\nreasons) intercepts a communication between two parties, inserting\nthemselves in the middle and posing as both parties. In practice,\nthis looks as follows:\n\nAlice wants to communicate with Bob.\nAlice sends data to Bob.\nCorinne intercepts the data sent to Bob.\nCorinne reads and alters the message to Bob.\nBob cannot see that the data did not come from Alice but instead\ncame from Corinne.\n\nWhen there is proper authentication, the scenario would be as\nfollows:\n\nAlice wants to communicate with Bob.\nAlice sends data to Bob.\nCorinne intercepts the data sent to Bob.\nCorinne reads and alters the message to Bob.\nBob can see that the data did not come from Alice but instead came\nfrom Corinne.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 59]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nImpacts:", "char_start": 135659, "char_end": 137654, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 324}}, {"segment_id": "3ffe686f-a3be-4e45-9db4-e4a50c90be94", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 52, "text": "- Right to privacy\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to security\n6.2.18\n. Adaptability\nQuestions:\n\n- Is your protocol written in such a way that it would be easy for\nother protocols to be developed on top of it or to interact\nwith it?\n\n- Does your protocol impact permissionless innovation (see\nSection 6.2.1\n(\"Connectivity\") above)?\n\nExplanation: Adaptability is closely interrelated with\npermissionless innovation; both maintain the freedom and ability\nto freely create and deploy new protocols on top of the\ncommunications constructs that currently exist. Permissionless\ninnovation is at the heart of the Internet as we know it. To\nmaintain the Internet's fundamentally open nature and ensure that\nit can continue to develop, we need to be mindful of the impact of\nprotocols on maintaining or reducing permissionless innovation.\n\nExample: WebRTC generates audio and/or video data. In order to\nensure that WebRTC can be used in different locations by different\nparties, it is important that standard JavaScript APIs be\ndeveloped to support applications from different voice service\nproviders. Multiple parties will have similar capabilities; in\norder to ensure that all parties can build upon existing\nstandards, these standards need to be adaptable and allow for\npermissionless innovation.\n\nImpacts:\n\n- Right to education\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 60]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n6.2.19\n. Outcome Transparency\nQuestion:\n\n- Are the effects of your protocol fully and easily comprehensible,\nincluding with respect to unintended consequences of protocol\nchoices?\n\nExplanation: Certain technical choices may have unintended\nconsequences.\n\nExample: Lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and\nnegative externalities; spam is an example. Lack of data that\ncould be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called\n\"free\" arrangements that obscure the actual costs and distribution\nof the costs -- for example, (1) the barter arrangements that are\ncommonly used for Internet interconnection and (2) the commercial\nexploitation of personal data for targeted advertising, which is\nthe most common funding model for the so-called \"free\" services\nsuch as search engines and social networks.", "char_start": 137656, "char_end": 139987, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 356}}, {"segment_id": "819fb51c-9de3-43c1-bed5-88064cd0f26a", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 53, "text": "Impacts:\n\n- Right to freedom of expression\n\n- Right to privacy\n\n- Right to freedom of assembly and association\n\n- Right to access to information\n7\n. Security Considerations\nAs this document discusses research, there are no security\nconsiderations.\n8\n. IANA Considerations\nThis document does not require any IANA actions.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 61]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n9\n. Research Group Information\nThe discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nResearch Group is located at the email address <hrpc@ietf.org>.\nInformation on the group and information on how to subscribe to the\nlist are provided at <\nhttps://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc\n>.\n\nArchives of the list can be found at\n<\nhttps://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html\n>.\n10\n. Informative References\n[\nAbabil\n] Danchev, D., \"Dissecting 'Operation Ababil' - an OSINT\nAnalysis\", September 2012, <\nhttp://ddanchev.blogspot.be/\n2012/09/dissecting-operation-ababil-osint.html\n>.\n\n[\nAbbate\n] Abbate, J., \"Inventing the Internet\", MIT Press, 2000,\n<\nhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet\n>.\n\n[\nAdrian\n] Adrian, D., Bhargavan, K., Durumeric, Z., Gaudry, P.,\nGreen, M., Halderman, J., Heninger, N., Springall, D.,\nThome, E., Valenta, L., VanderSloot, B., Wustrow, E.,\nZanella-Beguelin, S., and P. Zimmermann, \"Imperfect\nForward Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice\",\nProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer\nand Communications Security, pp. 5-17,\nDOI 10.1145/2810103.2813707, October 2015.\n\n[\nAlshalan-etal\n]\nAlshalan, A., Pisharody, S., and D. Huang, \"A Survey of\nMobile VPN Technologies\", IEEE Communications Surveys &\nTutorials, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp. 1177-1196,\nDOI 10.1109/COMST.2015.2496624, 2016,\n<\nhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/\ndocument/7314859/?arnumber=7314859\n>.", "char_start": 139989, "char_end": 141846, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 248}}, {"segment_id": "99f1b464-05a2-4ff8-b0ba-5a3386ef3a91", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 54, "text": "[\nAPIP\n] Naylor, D., Mukerjee, M., and P. Steenkiste, \"Balancing\naccountability and privacy in the network\", SIGCOMM '14,\nProceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on\nSIGCOMM, pp. 75-86, DOI 10.1145/2740070.2626306,\nOctober 2014,\n<\nhttps://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2626306\n>.\n\n[\nAppelbaum\n]\nAppelbaum, J., Gibson, A., Goetz, J., Kabisch, V., Kampf,\nL., and L. Ryge, \"NSA targets the privacy-conscious\",\n2014, <\nhttp://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/\nnsa230_page-1.html\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 62]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nars\n] Anderson, N., \"P2P researchers: use a blocklist or you\nwill be tracked... 100% of the time\", October 2007,\n<\nhttp://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/\np2p-researchers-use-a-blocklist-or-you-will-be-tracked-\n100-of-the-time/\n>.\n\n[\nAryan-etal\n]\nAryan, S., Aryan, H., and J. Alex Halderman, \"Internet\nCensorship in Iran: A First Look\", 2013,\n<\nhttps://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/iran-foci13.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nBabbie\n] Babbie, E., \"The Basics of Social Research\",\nCengage, Belmont, CA, 2017.\n\n[\nBBC-wikileaks\n]\nBBC, \"Whistle-blower site taken offline\", February 2008,\n<\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7250916.stm\n>.\n\n[\nBCP72\n] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, \"Guidelines for Writing RFC\nText on Security Considerations\",\nBCP 72\n,\nRFC 3552\n,\nJuly 2003, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72\n>.\n\n[\nBenkler\n] Benkler, Y., \"The Wealth of Networks - How Social\nProduction Transforms Markets and Freedom\", Yale\nUniversity Press, New Haven and London, 2006,\n<\nhttp://is.gd/rxUpTQ\n>.\n\n[\nBerners-Lee\n]\nBerners-Lee, T. and M. Fischetti, \"Weaving the Web: The\nOriginal Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide\nWeb\", HarperCollins, p. 208, 1999.\n\n[\nBernersLeeHalpin\n]\nBerners-Lee, T. and H. Halpin, \"Internet Access is a Human\nRight\", 2012, <\nhttp://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/homepage/\npublications/def-timbl-halpin.pdf\n>.", "char_start": 141848, "char_end": 143736, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 251}}, {"segment_id": "74f87ca0-b4a1-4271-86a4-7ede3035bf0a", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 55, "text": "[\nBhargavan\n]\nBhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Pironti,\nA., and P. Strub, \"Triple Handshakes and Cookie Cutters:\nBreaking and Fixing Authentication over TLS\", 2014 IEEE\nSymposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 98-113,\nDOI 10.1109/SP.2014.14, May 2014.\n\n[\nBitmessage\n]\nBitmessage, \"Bitmessage Wiki\", March 2017,\n<\nhttps://bitmessage.org/wiki/Main_Page\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 63]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nBless1\n] Orwat, C. and R. Bless, \"Values and Networks - Steps\nToward Exploring their Relationships\", ACM SIGCOMM\nComputer Communication Review, Volume 46, Number 2,\npp. 25-31, DOI 10.1145/2935634.2935640, April 2016,\n<\nhttp://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/\npapers/2016/April/0000000-0000003.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nBless2\n] Bless, R. and C. Orwat, \"Values and Networks\", July 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/\nslides-93-hrpc-2.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nBroeders\n] Broeders, D., \"The public core of the Internet. An\ninternational agenda for Internet governance\", The\nNetherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR)\nReport No. 94 (under \"Reports to the government\"), 2015,\n<\nhttps://english.wrr.nl/publications/reports/2015/10/01/\nthe-public-core-of-the-internet\n>\n\n[\nBrown\n] Ziewitz, M. and I. Brown, Ed., \"A Prehistory of Internet\nGovernance\", Research Handbook on Governance of the\nInternet, Part 1, Chapter 1 (pp. 3-26), Edward Elgar\nPublishing Ltd, Cheltenham, DOI 10.4337/9781849805049,\n2013.\n\n[\nBrown-etal\n]\nBrown, I., Clark, D., and D. Trossen, \"Should Specific\nValues Be Embedded In The Internet Architecture?\",\nReARCH '10, Proceedings of the Re-Architecting the\nInternet Workshop, Article No. 10,\nDOI 10.1145/1921233.1921246, November 2010,\n<\nhttp://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2010/Workshops/\nREARCH/ReArch_papers/10-Brown.pdf\n>.", "char_start": 143738, "char_end": 145559, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 229}}, {"segment_id": "4eecdb1a-fd19-4195-b23d-7ece6208177f", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 56, "text": "[\nBrownMarsden\n]\nBrown, I. and C. Marsden, \"Regulating Code: Good\nGovernance and Better Regulation in the Information Age\",\nMIT Press, 2013,\n<\nhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/regulating-code\n>.\n\n[\nCAIDA\n] Dainotti, A., Squarcella, C., Aben, E., Claffy, K.,\nChiesa, M., Russo, M., and A. Pescape, \"Analysis of\nCountry-wide Internet Outages Caused by Censorship\",\nDOI 10.1109/TNET.2013.2291244, December 2013,\n<\nhttp://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2014/\noutages_censorship/outages_censorship.pdf\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 64]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nCath\n] Cath, C., \"A Case Study of Coding Rights: Should Freedom\nof Speech Be Instantiated in the Protocols and Standards\nDesigned by the Internet Engineering Task Force?\",\nAugust 2015, <\nhttps://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/\nhrpc/current/pdf36GrmRM84S.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nCathFloridi\n]\nCath, C. and L. Floridi, \"The Design of the Internet's\nArchitecture by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nand Human Rights\", April 2017.\n\n[\nClark\n] Clark, D., \"The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet\nProtocols\", SIGCOMM '88, Proceedings of the ACM CCR,\nVolume 18, Number 4, pp. 106-114, DOI 10.1145/52324.52336,\nAugust 1988.\n\n[\nClark-etal\n]\nClark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., and R. Braden,\n\"Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomorrow's Internet\",\nIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) archive,\nVolume 13, Issue 3, pp. 462-475,\nDOI 10.1109/TNET.2005.850224, June 2005,\n<\nhttps://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049\n>.\n\n[\nCoE\n] Council of Europe, \"Applications to ICANN for Community-\nbased New Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs): Opportunities\nand challenges from a human rights perspective\", 2016,\n<\nhttps://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/\nDisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806b5a14\n>.\n\n[\nCollins\n] Collins, K., \"Hacking Team's oppressive regimes customer\nlist revealed in hack\", July 2015,\n<\nhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/06/\nhacking-team-spyware-company-hacked\n>.", "char_start": 145561, "char_end": 147553, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 253}}, {"segment_id": "69e55ba3-2522-47d2-8516-acb0059469b5", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 57, "text": "[\nDavidson-etal\n]\nDavidson, A., Morris, J., and R. Courtney, \"Strangers in a\nStrange Land: Public Interest Advocacy and Internet\nStandards\", Telecommunications Policy Research\nConference, Alexandria, VA, September 2002,\n<\nhttps://www.cdt.org/files/publications/piais.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nDeNardis14\n]\nDeNardis, L., \"The Global War for Internet Governance\",\nYale University Press, 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkz4n\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 65]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nDeNardis15\n]\nDeNardis, L., \"The Internet Design Tension between\nSurveillance and Security\", IEEE Annals of the History of\nComputing, Volume 37, Issue 2, DOI 10.1109/MAHC.2015.29,\n2015, <\nhttp://is.gd/7GAnFy\n>.\n\n[\nDenzin\n] Denzin, N., Ed., and Y. Lincoln, Ed., \"The SAGE Handbook\nof Qualitative Research\", SAGE Handbooks, Thousand Oaks,\nCA, 2011, <\nhttp://www.amazon.com/\nSAGE-Handbook-Qualitative-Research-Handbooks/\ndp/1412974178\n>.\n\n[\ndict\n] BusinessDictionary.com, \"Reliability (dictionary entry)\",\nWebFinance, Inc., 2017,\n<\nhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/\ndefinition/reliability.html\n>.\n\n[\nDoty\n] Doty, N., \"Automated text analysis of Requests for Comment\n(RFCs)\", 2014, <\nhttps://github.com/npdoty/rfc-analysis\n>.\n\n[\nDouceur\n] Douceur, J., \"The Sybil Attack\", 2002,\n<\nhttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/\nuploads/2002/01/IPTPS2002.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nDutton\n] Dutton, W., Dopatka, A., Law, G., and V. Nash, \"Freedom of\nConnection, Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and\nRegulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet\", 2011,\n<\nhttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-\ninformation/resources/publications-and-communication-\nmaterials/publications/full-list/freedom-of-connection-\nfreedom-of-expression-the-changing-legal-and-regulatory-\necology-shaping-the-internet/>.", "char_start": 147555, "char_end": 149365, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 1, "word_count": 200}}, {"segment_id": "47c2b835-d609-4192-ac26-632d6a472b98", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 58, "text": "[\nFarrow\n] Farrow, R., \"Source Address Spoofing\", 2016,\n<\nhttps://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc723706.aspx\n>.\n\n[\nFIArch\n] \"Future Internet Design Principles\", January 2012,\n<\nhttp://www.future-internet.eu/uploads/media/\nFIArch_Design_Principles_V1.0.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nFOC\n] Ministers of the Freedom Online Coalition, \"The Tallinn\nAgenda - Recommendations for Freedom Online\", 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/wp-content/\nuploads/2014/04/FOC-recommendations-consensus.pdf\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 66]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nFRAMEWORK\n]\nISO/IEC, \"Information technology - Framework for\ninternationalization\", prepared by ISO/IEC\nJTC 1/SC 22/WG 20 ISO/IEC TR 11017, 1998.\n\n[\nFranklin\n] Franklin, U., \"The Real World of Technology\", June 1999,\n<\nhttp://houseofanansi.com/products/\nthe-real-world-of-technology-digital\n>.\n\n[\nfreenet1\n] Freenet, \"What is Freenet?\", n.d.,\n<\nhttps://freenetproject.org/whatis.html\n>.\n\n[\nfreenet2\n] Clarke, I., \"The Philosophy behind Freenet\", n.d.,\n<\nhttps://freenetproject.org/pages/about.html\n>.\n\n[\ngeekfeminism\n]\nGeek Feminism Wiki, \"Pseudonymity\", 2015,\n<\nhttp://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Pseudonymity\n>.\n\n[\nGeertz\n] Geertz, H. and C. Geertz, \"Kinship in Bali\", University of\nChicago Press, Chicago, 1975,\n<\nhttp://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/K/\nbo25832222.html\n>.\n\n[\nGooglepatent\n]\nGoogle, \"Method and device for network traffic\nmanipulation\", 2012,\n<\nhttps://www.google.com/patents/EP2601774A1?cl=en\n>.\n\n[\ngreatfirewall\n]\nAnonymous, \"Towards a Comprehensive Picture of the Great\nFirewall's DNS Censorship\", 4th USENIX Workshop on Free\nand Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI) '14,\nAugust 2014, <\nhttps://www.usenix.org/system/files/\nconference/foci14/foci14-anonymous.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nGreenMovement\n]\nVilleneuve, N., \"Iran DDoS\", 2009,\n<\nhttps://www.nartv.org/2009/06/16/iran-ddos/\n>.", "char_start": 149367, "char_end": 151260, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 214}}, {"segment_id": "37a33209-f8b9-4e10-a7e1-8a1c934a9ef5", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 59, "text": "[\nGreenwald\n]\nGreenwald, G., \"XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly\neverything a user does on the internet'\", July 2013,\n<\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/\nnsa-top-secret-program-online-data\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 67]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nHaagsma\n] Haagsma, L., \"Deep dive into QUANTUM INSERT\", April 2015,\n<\nhttp://blog.fox-it.com/2015/04/20/\ndeep-dive-into-quantum-insert/\n>.\n\n[\nHall\n] Hall, J., Aaron, M., Jones, B., and N. Feamster, \"A Survey\nof Worldwide Censorship Techniques\", Work in Progress,\ndraft-hall-censorship-tech-04\n, July 2016.\n\n[\nHill2014\n] Hill, R., \"Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT\nActivities\", May 2014,\n<\nhttp://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nHORNET\n] Chen, C., Asoni, D., Barrera, D., Danezis, G., and A.\nPerrig, \"HORNET: High-speed Onion Routing at the Network\nLayer\", CCS '15, Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC\nConference on Computer and Communications\nSecurity, pp. 1441-1454, DOI 10.1145/2810103.2813628,\nOctober 2015,\n<\nhttps://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2813628\n>.\n\n[\nHTML5\n] Hickson, I., Ed., Berjon, R., Ed., Faulkner, S., Ed.,\nLeithead, T., Ed., Navara, E., Ed., O'Connor, E., Ed., and\nS. Pfeiffer, Ed., \"HTML5\", W3C Recommendation,\nOctober 2014, <\nhttps://www.w3.org/TR/html5/\n>.\n\n[\nICCPR\n] United Nations General Assembly, \"International Covenant\non Civil and Political Rights\", 1966,\n<\nhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/\nCCPR.aspx\n>.\n\n[\nICESCR\n] United Nations General Assembly, \"International Covenant\non Economic, Social and Cultural Rights\", 1966,\n<\nhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/\nCESCR.aspx\n>.\n\n[\nInsinuator\n]\nSchiess, N., \"Vulnerabilities & attack vectors of VPNs\n(Pt 1)\", August 2013, <\nhttps://www.insinuator.net/2013/08/\nvulnerabilities-attack-vectors-of-vpns-pt-1/\n>.", "char_start": 151262, "char_end": 153104, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 234}}, {"segment_id": "4658c3a8-f1f8-4270-a879-9089d5a8f5ca", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 60, "text": "[\nIRP\n] Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition,\n\"10 Internet Rights & Principles\", 2017,\n<\nhttp://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/campaign/\n>.\n\n[\nJabri\n] Jabri, V., \"Discourses on violence: conflict analysis\nreconsidered\", Manchester University Press, 1996.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 68]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nKaye\n] Kaye, D., \"Freedom of expression and the private sector in\nthe digital age\", 2016, <\nhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/\nFreedomOpinion/Pages/Privatesectorinthedigitalage.aspx\n>.\n\n[\nKing\n] King, C., \"Power, Social Violence and Civil Wars\",\nChapter 8 of \"Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict\nManagement in a Divided World\", United States Institute of\nPeace Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.\n\n[\nLessig\n] Lessig, L., \"Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace,\nVersion 2.0 ('Codev2')\", Basic Books, New York, 2006,\n<\nhttp://codev2.cc/\n>.\n\n[\nMarcak\n] Marcak, B., Weaver, N., Dalek, J., Ensafi, R., Fifield,\nD., McKune, S., Rey, A., Scott-Railton, J., Deibert, R.,\nand V. Paxson, \"China's Great Cannon\", April 2015,\n<\nhttps://citizenlab.org/2015/04/chinas-great-cannon/\n>.\n\n[\nMarquis-Boire\n]\nMarquis-Boire, M., \"Schrodinger's Cat Video and the Death\nof Clear-Text\", August 2014, <\nhttps://citizenlab.org/\n2014/08/cat-video-and-the-death-of-clear-text/\n>.\n\n[\nMeyer\n] Meyer, J., \"Defining and Evaluating Resilience: A\nPerformability Perspective\", presentation at International\nWorkshop on Performability Modeling of Computer and\nCommunication Systems, September 2009.\n\n[\nMueller\n] Mueller, M., \"Networks and States: The Global Politics of\nInternet Governance\", MIT Press,\nDOI 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014595.001.0001, 2010,\n<\nhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/networks-and-states\n>.\n\n[\nMusiani\n] Musiani, F., \"Giants, Dwarfs and Decentralized\nAlternatives to Internet-based Services: An Issue of\nInternet Governance\", Westminster Papers in Communication\nand Culture, 10(1), pp. 81-94, DOI 10.16997/wpcc.214,\n2015, <\nhttps://www.westminsterpapers.org/\narticles/10.16997/wpcc.214/\n>.", "char_start": 153106, "char_end": 155141, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 258}}, {"segment_id": "f4a5c848-aacc-44a6-bd7d-71fdb6af29ec", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 61, "text": "[\nNamecoin\n] Namecoin, \"Namecoin\", 2015, <\nhttps://namecoin.info/\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 69]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nNATusage\n] Maier, G., Schneider, F., and A. Feldmann, \"NAT usage in\nResidential Broadband networks\", PAM: International\nConference on Passive and Active Network\nMeasurement Lecture Notes in Computer Science,\nVolume 6579, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg,\nDOI 10.1007/978-3-642-19260-9_4, 2011,\n<\nhttp://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/\nNATusage11.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nNETmundial\n]\nNETmundial, \"NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement\",\nApril 2014, <\nhttp://netmundial.br/wp-content/\nuploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nNewegg\n] Mullin, J., \"Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites\nthe history of encryption\", November 2013,\n<\nhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-\ntrial-mystery-company-tqp-re-writes-the-history-of-\nencryption/\n>.\n\n[\nnotewell\n] IETF, \"Note Well\", 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html\n>.\n\n[\npatentpolicy\n]\nWeitzner, D., Ed., \"W3C Patent Policy\", World Wide\nWeb Consortium, February 2004,\n<\nhttps://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/\n>.\n\n[\nPenney\n] Penney, J., \"Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and\nWikipedia Use\", 2016, <\nhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/\npapers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645\n>.\n\n[\nPeterson\n] Peterson, A., Gellman, B., and A. Soltani, \"Yahoo to make\nSSL encryption the default for Webmail users. Finally.\",\nOctober 2013, <\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/\nnews/the-switch/wp/2013/10/14/\nyahoo-to-make-ssl-encryption-the-default-\nfor-webmail-users-finally/?utm_term=.a17eca45ddfe>.\n\n[\nPETS2015VPN\n]\nPerta, V., Barbera, M., Tyson, G., Haddadi, H., and A.\nMei, \"A Glance through the VPN Looking Glass: IPv6 Leakage\nand DNS Hijacking in Commercial VPN clients\",\nDOI 10.1515/popets-2015-0006, 2015,\n<\nhttp://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~hamed/papers/\nPETS2015VPN.pdf\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 70]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nPidgin\n] js and Pidgin Developers, \"[XMPP] Invisible mode violating\nstandard\", 2007,\n<\nhttps://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4322\n>.", "char_start": 155143, "char_end": 157294, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 244}}, {"segment_id": "09f65114-17c2-4965-9a42-b0ca3464fe41", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 62, "text": "[\nPouwelse\n] Pouwelse, J., Ed., \"Media without censorship (CensorFree)\nscenarios\", Work in Progress,\ndraft-pouwelse-censorfree-\nscenarios-02\n, October 2012.\n\n[\nRachovitsa\n]\nRachovitsa, A., \"Engineering and lawyering privacy by\ndesign: understanding online privacy both as a technical\nand an international human rights issue\", International\nJournal of Law and Information Technology, Volume 24,\nIssue 4, pp. 374-399, DOI 10.1093/ijlit/eaw012,\nDecember 2016, <\nhttps://academic.oup.com/ijlit/\narticle/24/4/374/2566975/\nEngineering-and-lawyering-privacy-by-design\n>.\n\n[\nRFC760\n] Postel, J., \"DoD standard Internet Protocol\",\nRFC 760\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC0760, January 1980,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc760\n>.\n\n[\nRFC791\n] Postel, J., \"Internet Protocol\", STD 5,\nRFC 791\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791\n>.\n\n[\nRFC793\n] Postel, J., \"Transmission Control Protocol\", STD 7,\nRFC 793\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793\n>.\n\n[\nRFC894\n] Hornig, C., \"A Standard for the Transmission of IP\nDatagrams over Ethernet Networks\", STD 41,\nRFC 894\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC0894, April 1984,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc894\n>.\n\n[\nRFC1035\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain names - implementation and\nspecification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,\nNovember 1987, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035\n>.\n\n[\nRFC1122\n] Braden, R., Ed., \"Requirements for Internet Hosts -\nCommunication Layers\", STD 3,\nRFC 1122\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122\n>.\n\n[\nRFC1958\n] Carpenter, B., Ed., \"Architectural Principles of the\nInternet\",\nRFC 1958\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 71]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC1984\n] IAB and IESG, \"IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic\nTechnology and the Internet\",\nBCP 200\n,\nRFC 1984\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1984\n>.", "char_start": 157296, "char_end": 159334, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 264}}, {"segment_id": "318dfdf0-1fc6-4f1c-9055-bf5cd52d291b", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 63, "text": "[\nRFC2026\n] Bradner, S., \"The Internet Standards Process --\nRevision 3\",\nBCP 9\n,\nRFC 2026\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026,\nOctober 1996, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026\n>.\n\n[\nRFC2277\n] Alvestrand, H., \"IETF Policy on Character Sets and\nLanguages\",\nBCP 18\n,\nRFC 2277\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,\nJanuary 1998, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277\n>.\n\n[\nRFC2775\n] Carpenter, B., \"Internet Transparency\",\nRFC 2775\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC2775, February 2000,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2775\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3022\n] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, \"Traditional IP Network\nAddress Translator (Traditional NAT)\",\nRFC 3022\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3365\n] Schiller, J., \"Strong Security Requirements for Internet\nEngineering Task Force Standard Protocols\",\nBCP 61\n,\nRFC 3365\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3365\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3439\n] Bush, R. and D. Meyer, \"Some Internet Architectural\nGuidelines and Philosophy\",\nRFC 3439\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC3439, December 2002,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3439\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3536\n] Hoffman, P., \"Terminology Used in Internationalization in\nthe IETF\",\nRFC 3536\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC3536, May 2003,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3536\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3724\n] Kempf, J., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and IAB, \"The Rise of\nthe Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on\nthe Evolution of the Internet Architecture\",\nRFC 3724\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC3724, March 2004,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3724\n>.\n\n[\nRFC3935\n] Alvestrand, H., \"A Mission Statement for the IETF\",\nBCP 95\n,\nRFC 3935\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 72]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC4033\n] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.\nRose, \"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements\",\nRFC 4033\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033\n>.", "char_start": 159336, "char_end": 161335, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 273}}, {"segment_id": "8780120d-b334-4c2b-8f54-5ac818a7d1a6", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 64, "text": "[\nRFC4084\n] Klensin, J., \"Terminology for Describing Internet\nConnectivity\",\nBCP 104\n,\nRFC 4084\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC4084,\nMay 2005, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4084\n>.\n\n[\nRFC4101\n] Rescorla, E. and IAB, \"Writing Protocol Models\",\nRFC 4101\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC4101, June 2005,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4101\n>.\n\n[\nRFC4941\n] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, \"Privacy\nExtensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in\nIPv6\",\nRFC 4941\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941\n>.\n\n[\nRFC4949\n] Shirey, R., \"Internet Security Glossary, Version 2\",\nFYI 36,\nRFC 4949\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5246\n] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, \"The Transport Layer Security\n(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2\",\nRFC 5246\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5321\n] Klensin, J., \"Simple Mail Transfer Protocol\",\nRFC 5321\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5646\n] Phillips, A., Ed., and M. Davis, Ed., \"Tags for\nIdentifying Languages\",\nBCP 47\n,\nRFC 5646\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC5646, September 2009,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5694\n] Camarillo, G., Ed., and IAB, \"Peer-to-Peer (P2P)\nArchitecture: Definition, Taxonomies, Examples, and\nApplicability\",\nRFC 5694\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC5694,\nNovember 2009, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5694\n>.\n\n[\nRFC5944\n] Perkins, C., Ed., \"IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised\",\nRFC 5944\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 73]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC6101\n] Freier, A., Karlton, P., and P. Kocher, \"The Secure\nSockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0\",\nRFC 6101\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6101, August 2011,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6101\n>.", "char_start": 161337, "char_end": 163261, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 256}}, {"segment_id": "e1606866-7530-43db-b893-6aa00b286847", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 65, "text": "[\nRFC6108\n] Chung, C., Kasyanov, A., Livingood, J., Mody, N., and B.\nVan Lieu, \"Comcast's Web Notification System Design\",\nRFC 6108\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC6108, February 2011,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6108\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6120\n] Saint-Andre, P., \"Extensible Messaging and Presence\nProtocol (XMPP): Core\",\nRFC 6120\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,\nMarch 2011, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6365\n] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, \"Terminology Used in\nInternationalization in the IETF\",\nBCP 166\n,\nRFC 6365\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6698\n] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, \"The DNS-Based Authentication\nof Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)\nProtocol: TLSA\",\nRFC 6698\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698,\nAugust 2012, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6701\n] Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, \"Sanctions Available for\nApplication to Violators of IETF IPR Policy\",\nRFC 6701\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6701, August 2012,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6701\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6797\n] Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, \"HTTP Strict\nTransport Security (HSTS)\",\nRFC 6797\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6797, November 2012,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797\n>.\n\n[\nRFC6973\n] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,\nMorris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, \"Privacy\nConsiderations for Internet Protocols\",\nRFC 6973\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7230\n] Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing\",\nRFC 7230\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 74]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC7231\n] Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content\",\nRFC 7231\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231\n>.", "char_start": 163263, "char_end": 165242, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 267}}, {"segment_id": "f506b2dc-b8e3-4ec0-9570-c82c1481c8f3", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 66, "text": "[\nRFC7232\n] Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests\",\nRFC 7232\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7233\n] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,\n\"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests\",\nRFC 7233\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7233, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7233\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7234\n] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,\nEd., \"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching\",\nRFC 7234\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7235\n] Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication\",\nRFC 7235\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7236\n] Reschke, J., \"Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)\nAuthentication Scheme Registrations\",\nRFC 7236\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7236, June 2014,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7236\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7237\n] Reschke, J., \"Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)\nMethod Registrations\",\nRFC 7237\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7237,\nJune 2014, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7237\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7258\n] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, \"Pervasive Monitoring Is an\nAttack\",\nBCP 188\n,\nRFC 7258\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258,\nMay 2014, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7469\n] Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, \"Public Key Pinning\nExtension for HTTP\",\nRFC 7469\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469,\nApril 2015, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7540\n] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)\",\nRFC 7540\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 75]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRFC7574\n] Bakker, A., Petrocco, R., and V. Grishchenko, \"Peer-to-\nPeer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)\",\nRFC 7574\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7574, July 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7574\n>.", "char_start": 165244, "char_end": 167308, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 273}}, {"segment_id": "7c22ac29-481f-4e45-87f9-2a79ca32d2d6", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 67, "text": "[\nRFC7624\n] Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,\nTrammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,\n\"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A\nThreat Model and Problem Statement\",\nRFC 7624\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7626\n] Bortzmeyer, S., \"DNS Privacy Considerations\",\nRFC 7626\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC7626, August 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7626\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7725\n] Bray, T., \"An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles\",\nRFC 7725\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7725, February 2016,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7725\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7754\n] Barnes, R., Cooper, A., Kolkman, O., Thaler, D., and E.\nNordmark, \"Technical Considerations for Internet Service\nBlocking and Filtering\",\nRFC 7754\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7754,\nMarch 2016, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7754\n>.\n\n[\nRFC7858\n] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,\nand P. Hoffman, \"Specification for DNS over Transport\nLayer Security (TLS)\",\nRFC 7858\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858,\nMay 2016, <\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858\n>.\n\n[\nRFC8164\n] Nottingham, M. and M. Thomson, \"Opportunistic Security for\nHTTP/2\",\nRFC 8164\n, DOI 10.17487/RFC8164, May 2017,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8164\n>.\n\n[\nRFC8179\n] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, \"Intellectual Property\nRights in IETF Technology\",\nBCP 79\n,\nRFC 8179\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179\n>.\n\n[\nRFC8200\n] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, \"Internet Protocol, Version 6\n(IPv6) Specification\", STD 86,\nRFC 8200\n,\nDOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,\n<\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200\n>.\n\n[\nRideout\n] Rideout, A., \"Making security easier\", July 2008,\n<\nhttp://gmailblog.blogspot.de/2008/07/\nmaking-security-easier.html\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 76]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nRitchie\n] Ritchie, J. and J. Lewis, \"Qualitative Research Practice:\nA Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers\", SAGE\nPublishing, London, 2003, <\nhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/\nQualitative-Research-Practice-Students-Researchers/\ndp/0761971106\n>.", "char_start": 167310, "char_end": 169429, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 280}}, {"segment_id": "efb5d612-43e4-4a03-89d5-ef0bb22f44e1", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 68, "text": "[\nRSF\n] Reporters Without Borders (RSF), \"Syria using 34 Blue Coat\nservers to spy on Internet users\", January 2016,\n<\nhttps://rsf.org/en/news/\nsyria-using-34-blue-coat-servers-spy-internet-users\n>.\n\n[\nSaltzer\n] Saltzer, J., Reed, D., and D. Clark, \"End-to-End Arguments\nin System Design\", ACM Transactions on Computer Systems\n(TOCS), Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 277-288,\nDOI 10.1145/357401.357402, November 1984.\n\n[\nSandvine\n] Sandvine, \"Sandvine: Over 70% Of North American Traffic Is\nNow Streaming Video And Audio\", December 2015,\n<\nhttps://www.sandvine.com/pr/2015/12/7/sandvine-over-70-\nof-north-american-traffic-is-now-streaming-video-and-\naudio.html\n>.\n\n[\nSchillace\n] Schillace, S., \"Default https access for Gmail\",\nJanuary 2010, <\nhttp://gmailblog.blogspot.de/2010/01/\ndefault-https-access-for-gmail.html\n>.\n\n[\nSchneier\n] Schneier, B., \"Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users'\nonline anonymity\", October 2013,\n<\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/\ntor-attacks-nsa-users-online-anonymity\n>.\n\n[\nSPIEGEL\n] SPIEGEL, \"Prying Eyes - Inside the NSA's War on Internet\nSecurity\", December 2014,\n<\nhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/\ninside-the-nsa-s-war-on-internet-security-a-1010361.html\n>.\n\n[\nsslstrip\n] Marlinspike, M., \"Software >> sslstrip\", 2011,\n<\nhttps://moxie.org/software/sslstrip/\n>.\n\n[\ntechyum\n] Violet, \"Official - vb.ly Link Shortener Seized by Libyan\nGovernment\", October 2010, <\nhttp://techyum.com/2010/10/\nofficial-vb-ly-link-shortener-seized-by-libyan-\ngovernment/\n>.\n\n[\nTorProject\n]\nThe Tor Project, \"Anonymity Online\", 2006,\n<\nhttps://www.torproject.org/\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 77]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\ntorrentfreak1\n]\nVan der Sar, E., \"Is Your ISP Messing With BitTorrent\nTraffic? Find Out\", January 2014,\n<\nhttps://torrentfreak.com/is-your-isp-messing-with-\nbittorrent-traffic-find-out-140123/\n>.", "char_start": 169431, "char_end": 171323, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 216}}, {"segment_id": "a5cf3c3e-b396-4840-bacb-322d0727b16c", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 69, "text": "[\ntorrentfreak2\n]\nAndy, \"Lawyers Sent 109,000 Piracy Threats in Germany\nDuring 2013\", March 2014, <\nhttps://torrentfreak.com/\nlawyers-sent-109000-piracy-threats-in-germany-during-\n2013-140304/\n>.\n\n[\nTribler\n] Delft University of Technology, Department EWI/PDS/\nTribler, \"About Tribler\", 2013,\n<\nhttps://www.tribler.org/about.html\n>.\n\n[\nUDHR\n] United Nations General Assembly, \"The Universal\nDeclaration of Human Rights\", 1948, <\nhttp://www.un.org/en/\nuniversal-declaration-human-rights/index.html\n>.\n\n[\nUNGA2013\n] United Nations General Assembly, \"UN General Assembly\nResolution \"The right to privacy in the digital age\"\n(A/C.3/68/L.45)\", 2013,\n<\nhttps://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N13/\n576/77/PDF/N1357677.pdf?OpenElement\n>.\n\n[\nUNHRC2016\n]\nUnited Nations Human Rights Council, \"The promotion,\nprotection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet\",\nResolution A/HRC/32/L.20, 2016,\n<\nhttp://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=20340\n>.\n\n[\nVerveris\n] Ververis, V., Kargiotakis, G., Filasto, A., Fabian, B.,\nand A. Alexandros, \"Understanding Internet Censorship\nPolicy: The Case of Greece\", 5th USENIX Workshop on Free\nand Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI) '15,\nAugust 2015, <\nhttps://www.usenix.org/system/files/\nconference/foci15/foci15-paper-ververis-update.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nW3CAccessibility\n]\nWorld Wide Web Consortium, \"Accessibility\", 2016,\n<\nhttps://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility\n>.\n\n[\nW3Ci18nDef\n]\nIshida, R. and S. Miller, \"Localization vs.\nInternationalization\", World Wide Web Consortium,\nApril 2015, <\nhttp://www.w3.org/International/\nquestions/qa-i18n.en\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 78]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\n[\nwikileaks\n]\nSladek, T. and E. Broese, \"Market Survey: Detection &\nFiltering Solutions to Identify File Transfer of Copyright\nProtected Content for Warner Bros. and movielabs\", 2011,\n<\nhttps://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/docs/Anti-Piracy/CDSA/\nEANTC-Survey-1.5-unsecured.pdf\n>.", "char_start": 171325, "char_end": 173309, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 225}}, {"segment_id": "5704fe91-7997-41cc-8ed2-b8fce39f7756", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 70, "text": "[\nWP-Tempora\n]\nWikipedia, \"Tempora\", September 2017,\n<\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora\n>.\n\n[\nWSJ\n] Sonne, P. and M. Coker, \"Firms Aided Libyan Spies\", The\nWall Street Journal, August 2011,\n<\nhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/\nSB10001424053111904199404576538721260166388\n>.\n\n[\nWynsbergheMoura\n]\nNguyen, B., Ed., van Wynsberghe, A., van Wynsberghe, A.,\nand G. Moreira Moura, \"The concept of embedded values and\nthe example of internet security\", June 2013,\n<\nhttp://doc.utwente.nl/87095/\n>.\n\n[\nXMPP-Manifesto\n]\nSaint-Andre, P. and XMPP Operators, \"A Public Statement\nRegarding Ubiquitous Encryption on the XMPP Network\",\nMarch 2014, <\nhttps://raw.githubusercontent.com/\nstpeter/manifesto/master/manifesto.txt\n>.\n\n[\nZittrain\n] Zittrain, J., \"The Future of the Internet - And How to\nStop It\", Yale University Press & Penguin UK, 2008,\n<\nhttps://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4455262/\nZittrain_Future%20of%20the%20Internet.pdf?sequence=1\n>.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 79]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAcknowledgements\n\nA special thanks to all members of the HRPC Research Group who\ncontributed to this document. The following deserve a special\nmention:\n\n- Joana Varon for helping draft the first iteration of the\nmethodology and previous drafts, and for directing the film \"Net\nof Rights\" and working on the interviews at IETF 92 in Dallas.\n\n- Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg) for helping with the first iteration of\nthe glossary (\nSection 2\n) as well as a lot of technical guidance,\nsupport, and language suggestions.\n\n- Claudio Guarnieri for writing the first iterations of the case\nstudies on VPNs, HTTP, and P2P.\n\n- Will Scott for writing the first iterations of the case studies on\nDNS, IP, and XMPP.\n\n- Avri Doria for proposing writing a glossary in the first place,\nhelp with writing the initial proposals and Internet-Drafts, her\nreviews, and her contributions to the glossary.", "char_start": 173311, "char_end": 175230, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 278}}, {"segment_id": "26e543ed-8a99-401a-9f51-42a440607837", "document_id": "63ab3e7f-468d-4486-8a43-f71586babccc", "ordinal": 71, "text": "Thanks also to Stephane Bortzmeyer, John Curran, Barry Shein, Joe\nHall, Joss Wright, Harry Halpin, and Tim Sammut, who made a lot of\nexcellent suggestions, many of which found their way directly into\nthe text. We want to thank Amelia Andersdotter, Stephen Farrell,\nStephane Bortzmeyer, Shane Kerr, Giovane Moura, James Gannon, Alissa\nCooper, Andrew Sullivan, S. Moonesamy, Roland Bless, and Scott Craig\nfor their reviews and for testing the HRPC guidelines in the wild.\nWe would also like to thank Molly Sauter, Arturo Filasto, Nathalie\nMarechal, Eleanor Saitta, Richard Hill, and all others who provided\ninput on this document or the conceptualization of the idea. Thanks\nto Edward Snowden for his comments at IETF 93 in Prague regarding the\nimpact of protocols on the rights of users.\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 80]\nRFC 8280\nHuman Rights Protocol Considerations October 2017\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nNiels ten Oever\nARTICLE 19\n\nEmail: mail@nielstenoever.net\n\nCorinne Cath\nOxford Internet Institute\n\nEmail: corinnecath@gmail.com\n\nTen Oever & Cath Informational [Page 81]\nRFC\n8280\n: Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n2\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. Vocabulary Used\n3. Research Questions\n4. Literature and Discussion Review\n5. Methodology\n5.1. Data Sources\n5.1.1. Discourse Analysis of RFCs\n5.1.2. Interviews with Members of the IETF Community\n5.1.3. Participant Observation in Working Groups\n5.2. Data Analysis Strategies\n5.2.1. Identifying Qualities of Technical Concepts That Relate to Human\nRights\n5.2.1.1. Mapping Protocols and Standards to Human Rights\n5.2.1.2. Extracting Concepts from Selected RFCs\n5.2.1.3. Building a Common Vocabulary of Technical Concepts That Impact\nHuman Rights\n5.2.1.4. Translating Human Rights Concepts into Technical Definitions\n5.2.1.5. List of Technical Terms That, When Partially Combined, Can\nCreate an Enabling Environment for Human Rights\n5.2.2. Relating Human Rights to Technical Concepts\n5.2.3. Mapping Cases of Protocols, Implementations, and Networking\nParadigms That Adversely Impact Human Rights or Are Enablers\n5.2.3.1. IPv4\n5.2.3.1.1. Network Visibility of Source and Destination\n5.2.3.1.2. Address Translation and Mobility\n5.2.3.2. DNS\n5.2.3.2.1. Removal of Records\n5.2.3.2.2. Distortion of Records\n5.2.3.2.3. Injection of Records\n5.2.3.3. HTTP\n5.2.3.3.1. Traffic Interception\n5.2.3.3.2. Traffic Manipulation\n5.2.3.4. XMPP\n5.2.3.4.1. User Identification\n5.2.3.4.2. Surveillance of Communication\n5.2.3.4.3. Group Chat Limitations\n5.2.3.5. Peer-to-Peer\n5.2.3.5.1. Network Poisoning\n5.2.3.5.2. Throttling\n5.2.3.5.3. Tracking and Identification\n5.2.3.5.4. Sybil Attacks\n5.2.3.6. Virtual Private Networks\n5.2.3.6.1. No Anonymity against VPN Providers\n5.2.3.6.2. Logging\n5.2.3.6.3. Third-Party Hosting\n5.2.3.6.4. IPv6 Leakage\n5.2.3.6.5. DNS Leakage\n5.2.3.6.6. Traffic Correlation\n5.2.3.7. HTTP Status Code 451\n5.2.3.8. DDoS Attacks\n6. Model for Developing Human Rights Protocol Considerations\n6.1. Human Rights Threats\n6.2. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations\n6.2.1. Connectivity\n6.2.2. Privacy\n6.2.3. Content Agnosticism\n6.2.4. Security\n6.2.5. Internationalization\n6.2.6. Censorship Resistance\n6.2.7. Open Standards\n6.2.8. Heterogeneity Support\n6.2.9. Anonymity\n6.2.10. Pseudonymity\n6.2.11. Accessibility\n6.2.12. Localization\n6.2.13. Decentralization\n6.2.14. Reliability\n6.2.15. Confidentiality\n6.2.16. Integrity\n6.2.17. Authenticity\n6.2.18. Adaptability\n6.2.19. Outcome Transparency\n7. Security Considerations\n8. IANA Considerations\n9. Research Group Information\n10. Informative References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 175232, "char_end": 179111, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 519}}], "published_at": "2017-10-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2017-10-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 8280 ARTICLE 19\nCategory: Informational C. Cath\nISSN: 2070-1721 Oxford Internet Institute\nOctober 2017", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "6b2d794c-0d49-40fb-aa83-95d33bf8cb99", "source_id": "deb47f40cd66f116393d4c7e", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/overview-of-policy-networks", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/overview-of-policy-networks", "artifact_sha256": "375140d562dd1096a71da79c4a8abf2490d20ec047d89e740fe446ed86b6ef68", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 84620, "title": "Overview of Policy Networks | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "language": "en", "text_length": 4169, "characters": 4169, "text": "Overview of Policy Networks | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nOverview of Policy Networks\nWhile the\nIGF\n2026 policy networks are under implementation, during 2015-2025, the following policy networks were implemented. Please click on each to learn more.\nIGF\n2026\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity (PNC)\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion (PNDI)\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure (PNODI)\nIGF\n2025\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nIGF\n2024\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nIGF\n2023\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nIGF\n2022\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nIGF\n2021\nPolicy Network on Environment (PNE)\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nIGF\n2015-2018\nPolicy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "28343fc5-8dde-40d8-9728-7228814d5d49", "document_id": "6b2d794c-0d49-40fb-aa83-95d33bf8cb99", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Overview of Policy Networks | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nOverview of Policy Networks\nWhile the\nIGF\n2026 policy networks are under implementation, during 2015-2025, the following policy networks were implemented. Please click on each to learn more.\nIGF\n2026\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity (PNC)\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion (PNDI)\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure (PNODI)\nIGF\n2025\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nIGF\n2024\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nIGF\n2023\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nIGF\n2022\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nIGF\n2021\nPolicy Network on Environment (PNE)\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nIGF\n2015-2018\nPolicy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4169, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 619}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "6bf3d9c2-fa5c-43d8-b503-2e2a230b2ffc", "source_id": "0a37fa5e7b84d91e0ab31330", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/about", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/about", "artifact_sha256": "0fa473833246ace906885eebafd0635ddd74aa8c055b20c8b3cb7337a493e968", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 285411, "title": "About Public Comment", "language": "en", "text_length": 5844, "characters": 5844, "text": "About Public Comment\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nAbout Public Comment\nWhat is Public Comment?\nPublic Comment gives the ICANN community, Internet stakeholders, and the general public an opportunity to provide input on ICANN'S work and policies. It is a vital part of our multistakeholder model and contributes to our transparency and accountability commitments.\nExplore the Public Comment Process Infographic\nShow Text Version\nPublic Comment at ICANN\nWhat is Public Comment?\nPublic Comment gives the ICANN community, Internet stakeholders, and the public an opportunity to provide input on ICANN’s work and policies.\nIt is a vital part of our multistakeholder model, and contributes to our transparency and accountability commitments.\nHow Does It Work?\nProceeding Opens\nA proceeding is the process for gathering input on topics like policy and review recommendations, governance documents, and registry agreements.\nThe ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN organization (org) can open proceedings.\nProceedings are open for a minimum of 40 days with exceptions.\nStakeholders Give Input\nRead the proposal and determine whether you are impacted.\nRelevant resources are available on the proceeding webpage.\nAnyone can make a submission including: ICANN community groups, governments, civil society, corporations, the technical community, and individual end users.\nSubmissions may agree or disagree with the proposal or suggest improvements.\nAll submissions are public.\nProceeding Closes\nICANN org has at least 14 days to review submissions.\nSummary Report\nICANN org summarizes submissions and identifies themes into a published report.\nYour Impact\nThe group that opened the proceeding reviews the submissions and summary report, addresses the input, and proposes next steps.\nGet Involved!\nRead more about ICANN’s Public Comment, and the open and upcoming proceedings by visiting:\nhttps://icann.org/en/public-comment\n.\nHave a question? Email us at:\n[email protected]\n.\nClick to open the full PDF.\nHow does Public Comment work?\nThe ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN organization (org) can open a Public Comment proceeding, outlining specific issues or questions for feedback. Stakeholders provide opinions and recommendations, and their submissions are public and archived. ICANN org summarizes the submissions and identifies common themes in a summary report. The group that opened the proceeding, reviews the submissions and summary report, addresses the input, and proposes next steps.\nICANN may seek Public Comment on a variety of topics, including but not limited to:\nICANN org or community governance documents such as the ICANN Bylaws; strategic, operating, and financial plans; budgets; and community charters.\nPolicy recommendations including reports of potential, ongoing, and completed policy development processes.\nRecommendations from Organizational and Specific Reviews.\nImplementation plans for approved Consensus Policy recommendations.\nCross-community working group recommendations.\nICANN base agreements with registry operators and registrars.\nHow do I make a Public Comment submission?\nYour participation is important. Learn more about how to make a Public Comment submission and track your previous submissions by reading this\nhelpful guide\n.\nPublic Comment Transparency\nAll Public Comment submissions, including the name and contact information of the submitter, are public and archived. All submissions must adhere to the ICANN\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nand are subject to the ICANN\nTerms of Service\n.\nWhat are benefits of Public Comment?\nThe Public Comment process reflects diverse viewpoints and expertise, helping to strengthen and refine proposals. Transparent and accountable proceedings help reinforce the legitimacy of the outcomes. Public Comment is an example of the multistakeholder model in action.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "e106255b-274c-4c2a-8672-7b7d114d4b7e", "document_id": "6bf3d9c2-fa5c-43d8-b503-2e2a230b2ffc", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About Public Comment\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nAbout Public Comment\nWhat is Public Comment?\nPublic Comment gives the ICANN community, Internet stakeholders, and the general public an opportunity to provide input on ICANN'S work and policies. It is a vital part of our multistakeholder model and contributes to our transparency and accountability commitments.\nExplore the Public Comment Process Infographic\nShow Text Version\nPublic Comment at ICANN\nWhat is Public Comment?\nPublic Comment gives the ICANN community, Internet stakeholders, and the public an opportunity to provide input on ICANN’s work and policies.\nIt is a vital part of our multistakeholder model, and contributes to our transparency and accountability commitments.\nHow Does It Work?\nProceeding Opens\nA proceeding is the process for gathering input on topics like policy and review recommendations, governance documents, and registry agreements.\nThe ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN organization (org) can open proceedings.\nProceedings are open for a minimum of 40 days with exceptions.\nStakeholders Give Input\nRead the proposal and determine whether you are impacted.\nRelevant resources are available on the proceeding webpage.\nAnyone can make a submission including: ICANN community groups, governments, civil society, corporations, the technical community, and individual end users.\nSubmissions may agree or disagree with the proposal or suggest improvements.\nAll submissions are public.\nProceeding Closes\nICANN org has at least 14 days to review submissions.\nSummary Report\nICANN org summarizes submissions and identifies themes into a published report.\nYour Impact\nThe group that opened the proceeding reviews the submissions and summary report, addresses the input, and proposes next steps.\nGet Involved!\nRead more about ICANN’s Public Comment, and the open and upcoming proceedings by visiting:\nhttps://icann.org/en/public-comment\n.\nHave a question? Email us at:\n[email protected]\n.\nClick to open the full PDF.\nHow does Public Comment work?\nThe ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN organization (org) can open a Public Comment proceeding, outlining specific issues or questions for feedback. Stakeholders provide opinions and recommendations, and their submissions are public and archived. ICANN org summarizes the submissions and identifies common themes in a summary report. The group that opened the proceeding, reviews the submissions and summary report, addresses the input, and proposes next steps.\nICANN may seek Public Comment on a variety of topics, including but not limited to:\nICANN org or community governance documents such as the ICANN Bylaws; strategic, operating, and financial plans; budgets; and community charters.\nPolicy recommendations including reports of potential, ongoing, and completed policy development processes.\nRecommendations from Organizational and Specific Reviews.\nImplementation plans for approved Consensus Policy recommendations.\nCross-community working group recommendations.\nICANN base agreements with registry operators and registrars.\nHow do I make a Public Comment submission?\nYour participation is important. Learn more about how to make a Public Comment submission and track your previous submissions by reading this\nhelpful guide\n.\nPublic Comment Transparency\nAll Public Comment submissions, including the name and contact information of the submitter, are public and archived. All submissions must adhere to the ICANN\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nand are subject to the ICANN\nTerms of Service\n.\nWhat are benefits of Public Comment?\nThe Public Comment process reflects diverse viewpoints and expertise, helping to strengthen and refine proposals. Transparent and accountable proceedings help reinforce the legitimacy of the outcomes. Public Comment is an example of the multistakeholder model in action.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5844, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 824}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "6d2a8441-124d-4d0b-8b86-69e618de32e5", "source_id": "2bfa6db1f55be03f81dc9c6b", "source": "ISOC", "source_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/internet-governance/", "final_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/our-work/internet-governance/", "artifact_sha256": "4d05c6e28b5fc72cea6fe401d1c498d5d7bc2173db7f0a55e6485d1e800ec956", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 310050, "title": "Internet Governance - Internet Society", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 11038, "characters": 11038, "text": "Internet Governance - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nInternet Governance\nThe Internet works best when it is governed by many.\nThe Internet works best when it is governed by many.\nSimply put, Internet governance is how the Internet is managed. We advocate for a multistakeholder approach, which means that all interested actors can participate in inclusive, consensus-driven processes, so that decisions about the Internet are never made by one party alone.\nThe Internet has evolved into the global resource it is today due to collaboration between multiple groups and individuals who make it run smoothly. Nonprofits, policymakers, educators, technical communities, standards setters, and dedicated users all play a critical role in running the Internet.\nInternet Governance\nThe Internet works best when it is governed by many.\nSimply put, Internet governance is how the Internet is managed. We advocate for a multistakeholder approach, which means that all interested actors can participate in inclusive, consensus-driven processes, so that decisions about the Internet are never made by one party alone.\nThe Internet has evolved into the global resource it is today due to collaboration between multiple groups and individuals who make it run smoothly. Nonprofits, policymakers, educators, technical communities, standards setters, and dedicated users all play a critical role in running the Internet.\nKey Internet Governance Links\nKey Internet Governance Links\nWho Runs the Internet\nThe Internet is a global resource, so who actually runs it? Dive into the different groups that play key roles in Internet governance.\nInternet Governance and WSIS\nLearn more about Internet governance, the multistakeholder approach, and how they’re practiced.\nWhy the Multistakeholder Approach Works\nThe multistakeholder approach to Internet governance has grown from the Internet’s own DNA and is what allows it to thrive.\nInternet Governance Processes and Events\nExplore key local, regional, and global events and processes, where stakeholders debate Internet policy issues.\nFootprints of 20 Years of the Internet Governance Forum\nLearn more about how the Internet Governance Forum has enabled open, inclusive, and informed discussions that influence global Internet policy.\nA Pivotal Moment for Global Digital Cooperation\nThis year is the 20th anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). We believe the best way to navigate today’s challenges is to build upon the success of the WSIS framework.\nHow to Create an Impact Brief\nUse our Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit to analyze legislative proposals, business decisions, or technological developments and their impact on the Internet.\nInternet Governance Online Course\nExpand your knowledge of Internet governance, the multistakeholder model, Internet policy, and more.\nA Once-Overlooked Tool: How Community Networks Connected Haiti and the World\nA Once-Overlooked Tool: How Community Networks Connected Haiti and the World\nCommunity networks are a by-the-people, for-the-people approach to connectivity. They connect us across towns, across borders, and across the globe, enabling people to access new opportunities.\nTheir role in the broader Internet governance ecosystem has evolved over time. But when multiple stakeholders—governments, local institutions, technical communities—collaborate, community networks can make meaningful change.\nLearn more about community networks’ journey to mainstream acceptance and how they are making a difference worldwide—such as in Haiti, where our local chapter has used them to connect thousands.\nRead the Full Story\nLatest Updates\nLatest Updates\nContent\nBlog\n(274)\nCampaigns\n(4)\nEvents\n(75)\nNews\n(89)\nPress Releases\n(43)\nStatements\n(39)\nOpen Letters\n(2)\nResources\n(82)\nPolicy Briefs\n(2)\nSpeeches\n(53)\nStories\n(8)\nRegion\nAfrica\n(39)\nAsia-Pacific\n(53)\nEurope\n(36)\nGlobal\n(381)\nLatin America & Caribbean\n(31)\nMiddle East\n(14)\nNorth America\n(28)\nBlog\n7 August 2026\nHow One Alum Helped Build a Community of Internet Leaders\nAmged B. Shwedhy, an Internet Society alumnus, has helped bring Internet governance discussions to Libya ...\nNews\n21 July 2026\nInternet Society’s Contribution to Malaysia Regulator’s Public Consultation\nThe Internet Society has submitted comments to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) in response to its public consultation ...\nNews\n20 July 2026\nInternet Society at WSIS Forum\nThe Internet Society participated in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026 in Geneva, which took place ...\nBlog\n14 July 2026\nThe Need to Reimagine the WSIS Forum\nThe 2026 WSIS Forum demonstrated the strength of a committed WSIS community, but it also exposed clear challenges. The task ...\nEvents\n3 July 2026\nWorld Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026\nInternet Society will attend the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, ...\nResources\n3 July 2026\nNon-Paper on WSIS+20 Implementation\nWhen executed well, the WSIS framework has the potential to effectively extend connectivity, close digital divides, and enhance online safety ...\nEvents\n12 June 2026\nITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2026\nWe are actively engaged in the lead-up to PP-26 to ensure that outcomes protect the open, globally interoperable Internet, and ...\nBlog\n13 May 2026\nHow RightsCon Is an Unexpected Stress Test for the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance\nThe cancellation of RightsCon 2026 is a stark reminder that when opportunities for civic engagement are neutralized, so are stakeholders’ ...\nBlog\n13 April 2026\nFrom Commitments to Practice: Internet Society’s Priorities for WSIS+20 Implementation\nDrawing on our strategic priorities, this blog post outlines where we will focus our efforts in supporting the implementation of ...\n1\n2\n3\n...\n65\n›\nInternet Governance FAQs\nInternet Governance FAQs\nWhy is multistakeholder Internet governance important?\nDifferent groups have unique perspectives and expertise. The multistakeholder approach to Internet governance enables all interested parties to have their voices heard and considered, thereby fostering a stronger Internet. The community of global Internet users is incredibly diverse, and so too should be the people working to shape it.\nThe Internet works best when it is not controlled by any one person or entity. When multiple groups work together to help run the Internet, it prevents the Internet from being steered too heavily by commercial or political interests. This model helps keep the Internet a tool for good in society.\nWhat are the main issues of Internet governance?\nOne of the primary concerns in Internet governance is ensuring that all interested parties are involved in a collaborative decision-making process. While powerful entities, such as governments, may sometimes make unilateral and uninformed decisions without considering other viewpoints or all possible perspectives, the Internet Society will always strive to uphold the multistakeholder model.\nWhile counteracting threats to the Internet is a large priority for the Internet governance community, there is also a focus on sharing information and policy changes that empower governments, organizations, and individuals to close the digital divide. Showcasing the benefits of community-centered connectivity solutions helps increase understanding of these solutions and how governing bodies can make positive policy shifts to connect more people to the Internet.\nWhat is WSIS+20?\nThe World Summit on the Information Society 20-Year Review (\nWSIS+20\n) is a process driven by the United Nations to assess the effectiveness of global actions in using information and communication technologies to advance development since 2005.\nThe result of this review will guide the UN’s actions in the coming years, including how non-governmental stakeholders will be involved in Internet governance. We will defend the participation of all stakeholders, drawing on expertise from the technical community, and continue to advocate for an open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet that is a force for good.\nWhat is the Global Digital Compact?\nThe\nGlobal Digital Compact\nis a proposed framework to set shared principles for a safe, inclusive, open, and human-centered digital future. The compact was developed by the United Nations and aims to guide the global governance of digital technologies, particularly the Internet.\nThis matters because it might influence the future of the Internet and your access to it, influencing digital connectivity, Internet fragmentation, data protection, human rights online, and the promotion of a trustworthy Internet. In January 2025, we shared\nour decision\nnot to endorse the compact.\nWhat is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)?\nThe Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nserves as a global multistakeholder platform dedicated to facilitating discussions on public policy matters pertaining to Internet governance. It provides an open forum for engaging in dialogue among governments, civil society, the private sector, the technical community, and international organizations.\nWe support the IGF (through donations to the Trust Fund) and its network of national, regional, sub-regional, and youth IGFs (through the Internet Society Foundation’s IGF funding program).\nImage copyright:\n© José Elizeche, © Chris Gregory, © Gonzalo Rayo, © Flawless Events, photo courtesy of Alan Ramírez, © Veni Markovski, © Internet Society, © Flawless Events, © Stonehouse Photographic, © Internet Society Haiti Chapter\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nInstagram\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "segments": [{"segment_id": "422dff47-90e1-40ca-856f-f83a61db7921", "document_id": "6d2a8441-124d-4d0b-8b86-69e618de32e5", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Internet Governance - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nInternet Governance\nThe Internet works best when it is governed by many.\nThe Internet works best when it is governed by many.\nSimply put, Internet governance is how the Internet is managed. We advocate for a multistakeholder approach, which means that all interested actors can participate in inclusive, consensus-driven processes, so that decisions about the Internet are never made by one party alone.\nThe Internet has evolved into the global resource it is today due to collaboration between multiple groups and individuals who make it run smoothly. Nonprofits, policymakers, educators, technical communities, standards setters, and dedicated users all play a critical role in running the Internet.\nInternet Governance\nThe Internet works best when it is governed by many.\nSimply put, Internet governance is how the Internet is managed. We advocate for a multistakeholder approach, which means that all interested actors can participate in inclusive, consensus-driven processes, so that decisions about the Internet are never made by one party alone.\nThe Internet has evolved into the global resource it is today due to collaboration between multiple groups and individuals who make it run smoothly. Nonprofits, policymakers, educators, technical communities, standards setters, and dedicated users all play a critical role in running the Internet.\nKey Internet Governance Links\nKey Internet Governance Links\nWho Runs the Internet\nThe Internet is a global resource, so who actually runs it? Dive into the different groups that play key roles in Internet governance.\nInternet Governance and WSIS\nLearn more about Internet governance, the multistakeholder approach, and how they’re practiced.\nWhy the Multistakeholder Approach Works\nThe multistakeholder approach to Internet governance has grown from the Internet’s own DNA and is what allows it to thrive.\nInternet Governance Processes and Events\nExplore key local, regional, and global events and processes, where stakeholders debate Internet policy issues.\nFootprints of 20 Years of the Internet Governance Forum\nLearn more about how the Internet Governance Forum has enabled open, inclusive, and informed discussions that influence global Internet policy.\nA Pivotal Moment for Global Digital Cooperation\nThis year is the 20th anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). We believe the best way to navigate today’s challenges is to build upon the success of the WSIS framework.\nHow to Create an Impact Brief\nUse our Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit to analyze legislative proposals, business decisions, or technological developments and their impact on the Internet.\nInternet Governance Online Course\nExpand your knowledge of Internet governance, the multistakeholder model, Internet policy, and more.\nA Once-Overlooked Tool: How Community Networks Connected Haiti and the World\nA Once-Overlooked Tool: How Community Networks Connected Haiti and the World\nCommunity networks are a by-the-people, for-the-people approach to connectivity. They connect us across towns, across borders, and across the globe, enabling people to access new opportunities.\nTheir role in the broader Internet governance ecosystem has evolved over time. But when multiple stakeholders—governments, local institutions, technical communities—collaborate, community networks can make meaningful change.\nLearn more about community networks’ journey to mainstream acceptance and how they are making a difference worldwide—such as in Haiti, where our local chapter has used them to connect thousands.\nRead the Full Story\nLatest Updates\nLatest Updates\nContent\nBlog\n(274)\nCampaigns\n(4)\nEvents\n(75)\nNews\n(89)\nPress Releases\n(43)\nStatements\n(39)\nOpen Letters\n(2)\nResources\n(82)\nPolicy Briefs\n(2)\nSpeeches\n(53)\nStories\n(8)\nRegion\nAfrica\n(39)\nAsia-Pacific\n(53)\nEurope\n(36)\nGlobal\n(381)\nLatin America & Caribbean\n(31)\nMiddle East\n(14)\nNorth America\n(28)\nBlog\n7 August 2026\nHow One Alum Helped Build a Community of Internet Leaders\nAmged B. Shwedhy, an Internet Society alumnus, has helped bring Internet governance discussions to Libya ...\nNews\n21 July 2026\nInternet Society’s Contribution to Malaysia Regulator’s Public Consultation\nThe Internet Society has submitted comments to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) in response to its public consultation ...\nNews\n20 July 2026\nInternet Society at WSIS Forum\nThe Internet Society participated in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026 in Geneva, which took place ...\nBlog\n14 July 2026\nThe Need to Reimagine the WSIS Forum\nThe 2026 WSIS Forum demonstrated the strength of a committed WSIS community, but it also exposed clear challenges. The task ...\nEvents\n3 July 2026\nWorld Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026\nInternet Society will attend the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, ...\nResources\n3 July 2026\nNon-Paper on WSIS+20 Implementation\nWhen executed well, the WSIS framework has the potential to effectively extend connectivity, close digital divides, and enhance online safety ...\nEvents\n12 June 2026\nITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2026\nWe are actively engaged in the lead-up to PP-26 to ensure that outcomes protect the open, globally interoperable Internet, and ...\nBlog\n13 May 2026\nHow RightsCon Is an Unexpected Stress Test for the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance\nThe cancellation of RightsCon 2026 is a stark reminder that when opportunities for civic engagement are neutralized, so are stakeholders’ ...\nBlog\n13 April 2026\nFrom Commitments to Practice: Internet Society’s Priorities for WSIS+20 Implementation\nDrawing on our strategic priorities, this blog post outlines where we will focus our efforts in supporting the implementation of ...\n1\n2\n3\n...\n65\n›\nInternet Governance FAQs\nInternet Governance FAQs\nWhy is multistakeholder Internet governance important?\nDifferent groups have unique perspectives and expertise. The multistakeholder approach to Internet governance enables all interested parties to have their voices heard and considered, thereby fostering a stronger Internet. The community of global Internet users is incredibly diverse, and so too should be the people working to shape it.\nThe Internet works best when it is not controlled by any one person or entity. When multiple groups work together to help run the Internet, it prevents the Internet from being steered too heavily by commercial or political interests. This model helps keep the Internet a tool for good in society.\nWhat are the main issues of Internet governance?\nOne of the primary concerns in Internet governance is ensuring that all interested parties are involved in a collaborative decision-making process. While powerful entities, such as governments, may sometimes make unilateral and uninformed decisions without considering other viewpoints or all possible perspectives, the Internet Society will always strive to uphold the multistakeholder model.\nWhile counteracting threats to the Internet is a large priority for the Internet governance community, there is also a focus on sharing information and policy changes that empower governments, organizations, and individuals to close the digital divide. Showcasing the benefits of community-centered connectivity solutions helps increase understanding of these solutions and how governing bodies can make positive policy shifts to connect more people to the Internet.\nWhat is WSIS+20?\nThe World Summit on the Information Society 20-Year Review (\nWSIS+20\n) is a process driven by the United Nations to assess the effectiveness of global actions in using information and communication technologies to advance development since 2005.\nThe result of this review will guide the UN’s actions in the coming years, including how non-governmental stakeholders will be involved in Internet governance. We will defend the participation of all stakeholders, drawing on expertise from the technical community, and continue to advocate for an open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet that is a force for good.\nWhat is the Global Digital Compact?\nThe\nGlobal Digital Compact\nis a proposed framework to set shared principles for a safe, inclusive, open, and human-centered digital future. The compact was developed by the United Nations and aims to guide the global governance of digital technologies, particularly the Internet.\nThis matters because it might influence the future of the Internet and your access to it, influencing digital connectivity, Internet fragmentation, data protection, human rights online, and the promotion of a trustworthy Internet. In January 2025, we shared\nour decision\nnot to endorse the compact.\nWhat is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)?\nThe Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nserves as a global multistakeholder platform dedicated to facilitating discussions on public policy matters pertaining to Internet governance. It provides an open forum for engaging in dialogue among governments, civil society, the private sector, the technical community, and international organizations.\nWe support the IGF (through donations to the Trust Fund) and its network of national, regional, sub-regional, and youth IGFs (through the Internet Society Foundation’s IGF funding program).\nImage copyright:\n© José Elizeche, © Chris Gregory, © Gonzalo Rayo, © Flawless Events, photo courtesy of Alan Ramírez, © Veni Markovski, © Internet Society, © Flawless Events, © Stonehouse Photographic, © Internet Society Haiti Chapter\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nInstagram\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11038, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1646}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "6fc6e04e-e35e-49d4-a5a6-aa2e3b8870e7", "source_id": "1b1d9af3a3500f5d27cf5bf1", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en", "artifact_sha256": "4c30dea30fcc3d860d5b1763873befad6917f7cf53248d4b6fefca853ce6fdbb", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 48130, "title": "The New gTLD Program | New gTLD Program", "language": "en", "text_length": 2105, "characters": 2105, "text": "The New gTLD Program | New gTLD Program\nSkip to main content\nEnglish\nالعربية\n中文\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nPortuguese\nDeutsch\nJapanese\nDutch\nSwedish\nSearch\nSearch\nMain navigation\nAbout the Program\nProgram News and Announcements\nApplication Rounds\n2012 Round\n2026 Round\nResources\nChampions Toolkit\nProgram Resources\nCorrespondence\nEngagement Calendar\nNext Round In YOUR Language\nReports\nSourcing Timeline\nUse Cases\nWebinars and Presentations\nMedia Coverage\nhttps://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-adjusts-evaluation-fee-payment-timeline-for-2026-round-applicants-07-08-2026-en\n/en/application-rounds/round2/applicant-journey/application-submission\n/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp\n/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp/rsp-applications\n/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp\nThe New gTLD Program\nThe New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Program:\n2026\nRound is\nan ICANN initiative\nto enable the expansion of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) through the introduction of new top-level domains.\nApplicant Support Program (ASP)\nThe Applicant Support Program (ASP) is an initiative intended to provide financial and non-financial support for eligible entities that demonstrate financial need.\nRegistry Service Provider (RSP)\nThe RSP Evaluation Program evaluates organizations regarding the technical aspects of operating a gTLD. All new gTLD applicants are required to use evaluated RSPs. The List of Evaluated RSPs can be found\nhere\n.\n2026 Round Information\nThe 2026 Round new gTLD application window opens 30 April through 12 August 2026. Find more information here.\nInterested in applying for a new gTLD?\nFind out how your organization can participate and the steps you can take to prepare to apply for a new gTLD.\nApply for a new gTLD.\nReview the application submission processes and apply through the TLD Application Management System (TAMS).\nQuicklinks\nApplicant Guidebook\nFrequently Asked Questions\n2026 Round Resources\nApplicant Journey\n© 2026 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers\nICANN.org\nICANN Privacy Policy\nNew gTLD Program Privacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookie Policy\nHelp", "segments": [{"segment_id": "05ff256e-95b4-4a7b-bbbe-3b898900b1ca", "document_id": "6fc6e04e-e35e-49d4-a5a6-aa2e3b8870e7", "ordinal": 0, "text": "The New gTLD Program | New gTLD Program\nSkip to main content\nEnglish\nالعربية\n中文\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nPortuguese\nDeutsch\nJapanese\nDutch\nSwedish\nSearch\nSearch\nMain navigation\nAbout the Program\nProgram News and Announcements\nApplication Rounds\n2012 Round\n2026 Round\nResources\nChampions Toolkit\nProgram Resources\nCorrespondence\nEngagement Calendar\nNext Round In YOUR Language\nReports\nSourcing Timeline\nUse Cases\nWebinars and Presentations\nMedia Coverage\nhttps://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-adjusts-evaluation-fee-payment-timeline-for-2026-round-applicants-07-08-2026-en\n/en/application-rounds/round2/applicant-journey/application-submission\n/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp\n/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp/rsp-applications\n/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp\nThe New gTLD Program\nThe New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Program:\n2026\nRound is\nan ICANN initiative\nto enable the expansion of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) through the introduction of new top-level domains.\nApplicant Support Program (ASP)\nThe Applicant Support Program (ASP) is an initiative intended to provide financial and non-financial support for eligible entities that demonstrate financial need.\nRegistry Service Provider (RSP)\nThe RSP Evaluation Program evaluates organizations regarding the technical aspects of operating a gTLD. All new gTLD applicants are required to use evaluated RSPs. The List of Evaluated RSPs can be found\nhere\n.\n2026 Round Information\nThe 2026 Round new gTLD application window opens 30 April through 12 August 2026. Find more information here.\nInterested in applying for a new gTLD?\nFind out how your organization can participate and the steps you can take to prepare to apply for a new gTLD.\nApply for a new gTLD.\nReview the application submission processes and apply through the TLD Application Management System (TAMS).\nQuicklinks\nApplicant Guidebook\nFrequently Asked Questions\n2026 Round Resources\nApplicant Journey\n© 2026 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers\nICANN.org\nICANN Privacy Policy\nNew gTLD Program Privacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookie Policy\nHelp", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2105, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 270}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "70aac9b3-5843-4099-b079-1ef6ba2fe135", "source_id": "77e95d064259d1e3f5f72838", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1310", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1310/", "artifact_sha256": "77e95d064259d1e3f5f728380c7dfe23cd9e07b348eb9f398a9d1a6669cb51eb", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 237135, "title": "RFC 1310: The Internet Standards Process", "language": "en", "text_length": 54213, "characters": 54213, "text": "RFC 1310: The Internet Standards Process | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1310\n:\nThe Internet Standards Process\nL. Chapin\nInformational\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n1602\n.\nNetwork Working Group                          Internet Activities Board\nRequest for Comments: 1310                           Lyman Chapin, Chair\n                                                              March 1992\nThe Internet Standards Process\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This informational memo presents the current procedures for creating\n   and documenting Internet Standards.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n1\n.  INTRODUCTION .................................................\n2\n1.1\n. Internet Standards .......................................\n2\n1.2\n. Organization .............................................\n3\n2\n.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ...............................\n4\n2.1\n. Introduction .............................................\n4\n2.2\n. The Internet Standards Track .............................\n5\n2.3\n. Requests for Comments (RFCs) .............................\n5\n2.4\n. Internet Drafts ..........................................\n6\n2.5\n. Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................\n7\n2.6\n. Review and Approval ......................................\n8\n2.7\n. Entering the Standards Track .............................\n9\n2.8\n. Advancing in the Standards Track .........................\n9\n2.9\n. Revising a Standard ......................................\n10\n3\n.  NOMENCLATURE .................................................\n10\n3.1\nTypes of Specifications ..................................\n10\n3.2\nStandards Track Maturity Levels ..........................\n12\n3.3\nNon-Standards Track Maturity Levels ......................\n13\n3.4\nRequirement Levels .......................................\n14\n4\n.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................\n15\n5\n.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS .................................\n17\n6\n.  PATENT POLICY ................................................\n17\n6.1\nStatement from Patent Holder .............................\n18\n6.2\nRecord of Statement ......................................\n18\n6.3\nNotice ...................................................\n18\n6.4\nIdentifying Patents ......................................\n19\n7\n.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES ...............................\n19\nAPPENDIX A: GLOSSARY .............................................\n20\nAPPENDIX B: UNRESOLVED ISSUES ....................................\n21\nSecurity Considerations ..........................................\n23\nAuthor's Address .................................................\n23\nIAB                                                             [Page 1]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\n1\n.  INTRODUCTION\n1.1  Internet Standards\n\n      This memo documents the process currently used for the\n      standardization of Internet protocols and procedures.\n\n      The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of\n      autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host\n      communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and\n      procedures defined by Internet Standards.  There are also many\n      isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, that\n      are not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards.\n      The architecture and technical specifications of the Internet are\n      the result of numerous research and development activities\n      conducted over a period of two decades, performed by the network\n      R&D community, by service and equipment vendors, and by government\n      agencies around the world.\n\n      In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable\n      and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,\n      independent, and interoperable implementations with operational\n      experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably\n      useful in some or all parts of the Internet.\n\n      The principal set of Internet Standards is commonly known as the\n      \"TCP/IP protocol suite\".  As the Internet evolves, new protocols\n      and services, in particular those for Open Systems Interconnection\n      (OSI), have been and will be deployed in traditional TCP/IP\n      environments, leading to an Internet that supports multiple\n      protocol suites.  This document concerns all protocols,\n      procedures, and conventions used in the Internet, not just the\n      TCP/IP protocols.\n\n      In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is\n      straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development\n      and several iterations of review by the Internet community and\n      perhaps revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard\n      by the appropriate body (see below), and is published.\n\n      In practice, the process is somewhat more complicated, due to (1)\n      the number and type of possible sources for specifications; (2)\n      the need to prepare and revise a specification in a manner that\n      preserves the interests of all of the affected parties;  (3) the\n      importance of establishing widespread community agreement on its\n      technical content; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating the\n      utility of a particular specification for the Internet community.\nIAB                                                             [Page 2]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nSome specifications that are candidates for Internet\n      standardization are the result of organized efforts directly\n      within the Internet community; others are the result of work that\n      was not originally organized as an Internet effort, but which was\n      later adopted by the Internet community.\n\n      From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to\n      remain, an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new\n      requirements and technology into the design and implementation of\n      the global Internet.  Users of the Internet and providers of the\n      equipment, software, and services that support it should\n      anticipate and embrace this adaptability as a major tenet of\n      Internet philosophy.\n\n      The procedures described in this document are the result of three\n      years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and\n      increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.\n      Comments and suggestions are invited for improvement in these\n      procedures.\n\n   1.2  Organization\n\n      The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the primary coordinating\n      committee for Internet design, engineering, and management [\n1\n].\n      The IAB has delegated to its Internet Engineering Task Force\n      (IETF) the primary responsibility for the development and review\n      of potential Internet Standards from all sources.  The IETF forms\n      Working Groups to pursue specific technical issues, frequently\n      resulting in the development of one or more specifications that\n      are proposed for adoption as Internet Standards.\n\n      Final decisions on Internet standardization are made by the IAB,\n      based upon recommendations from the Internet Engineering Steering\n      Group (IESG), the leadership body of the IETF.  IETF Working\n      Groups are organized into areas, and each area is coordinated by\n      an Area Director.  The Area Directors and the IETF Chairman are\n      included in the IESG.\n\n      Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is\n      urged to attend IETF meetings and to participate actively in one\n      or more IETF Working Groups.  Participation is by individual\n      technical contributors, rather than formal representatives of\n      organizations.  The process works because the IETF Working Groups\n      display a spirit of cooperation as well as a high degree of\n      technical maturity; most IETF members agree that the greatest\n      benefit for all members of the Internet community results from\n      cooperative development of technically superior protocols and\n      services.\nIAB                                                             [Page 3]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nA second body under the IAB, the Internet Research Task Force\n      (IRTF), investigates topics considered to be too uncertain, too\n      advanced, or insufficiently well-understood to be the subject of\n      Internet standardization.  When an IRTF activity generates a\n      specification that is sufficiently stable to be considered for\n      Internet standardization, it is processed through the IETF.\nSection 2\nof this document describes the process and rules for\n      Internet standardization.\nSection 3\npresents the nomenclature for\n      different kinds and levels of Internet standard technical\n      specifications and their applicability.\nSection 4\ndefines how\n      relevant externally-sponsored specifications and practices that\n      are developed and controlled by other bodies or by vendors are\n      handled in the Internet standardization process.\nSection 5\npresents the requirement for prior disclosure of the existence of\n      intellectual property rights.\nSection 6\ndescribes the rules for\n      Internet Standards that involve patents.\n2\n.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS\n2.1. Introduction\n\n      The procedures described in this document are intended to provide\n      a clear, open, and objective basis for developing, evaluating, and\n      adopting Internet Standards for protocols and services.  The\n      procedures provide ample opportunity for participation and comment\n      by all interested parties.  Before an Internet Standard is\n      adopted, it is repeatedly discussed (and perhaps debated) in open\n      open meetings and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is\n      available for review via world-wide on-line directories.\n\n      These procedures are explicitly aimed at developing and adopting\n      generally-accepted practices.  Thus, a candidate for Internet\n      standardization is implemented and tested for correct operation\n      and interoperability by multiple, independent parties, and\n      utilized in increasingly demanding environments, before it can be\n      adopted as an Internet Standard.\n\n      The procedures that are described here provide a great deal of\n      flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances that\n      occur in the Internet standardization process.  Experience has\n      shown this flexibility to be vital in achieving the following\n      goals for Internet standardization:\nIAB                                                             [Page 4]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\n*    high quality,\n\n      *    prior implementation and testing,\n\n      *    openness and fairness, and\n\n      *    timeliness.\n\n   2.2.  The Internet Standards Track\n\n      Specifications that are destined to become Internet Standards\n      evolve through a set of maturity levels known as the \"standards\n      track\".  These maturity levels -- \"Proposed Standard\", \"Draft\n      Standard\", and \"Standard\" -- are defined and discussed below in\nSection 3.2\n.\n\n      Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet\n      Standard, further evolution often occurs based on experience and\n      the recognition of new requirements.  The nomenclature and\n      procedures of Internet standardization provide for the replacement\n      of old Internet Standards with new ones, and the assignment of\n      descriptive labels to indicate the status of \"retired\" Internet\n      Standards.  A set of maturity levels is defined in\nSection 3.3\nto\n      cover these and other \"off-track\" specifications.\n\n   2.3.  Requests for Comments (RFCs)\n\n      Each distinct version of a specification is published as part of\n      the \"Request for Comments\" (RFC) document series.\n\n      RFCs form a series of publications of networking technical\n      documents, begun in 1969 as part of the original DARPA wide-area\n      networking (ARPANET) project (see\nAppendix A\nfor glossary of\n      acronyms).  RFCs cover a wide range of topics, from early\n      discussion of new research concepts to status memos about the\n      Internet.  The IAB views the RFC publication process to be\n      sufficiently important to warrant including the RFC Editor in the\n      IAB membership.\n\n      The status of specifications on the Internet standards track is\n      summarized periodically in a summary RFC entitled \"IAB Official\n      Protocol Standards\" [\n2\n].  This RFC shows the level of maturity and\n      other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service\n      specification.\nIAB                                                             [Page 5]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\n********************************************************\n             *   The \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\" RFC is the   *\n             *   authoritative statement of the status of any       *\n             *   particular Internet specification,                 *\n             ********************************************************\n\n      and it is the \"Publication of Record\" with respect to Internet\n      standardization.\n\n      The STD documents form a subseries of the RFC series.  When a\n      specification has been adopted as a Standard, its RFC is labeled\n      with a STDxxx number [\n9\n] in addition to its RFC number.\n\n      Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet\n      should or will become Internet Standards.  Such non-standards\n      track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet\n      standardization; generally, they will be published directly as\n      RFCs at the discretion of the RFC editor.  These RFCs will be\n      marked as \"Experimental\" or \"Informational\" (see\nsection 3.3\n).\n\n             ********************************************************\n             *   It is important to remember that not all RFCs      *\n             *   are standards track documents, and that not all    *\n             *   standards track documents reach the level of       *\n             *   Standard.                                          *\n             ********************************************************\n\n   2.4.  Internet Drafts\n\n      During the development of a specification, draft versions of the\n      document are made available for informal review and comment by\n      placing them in the IETF's \"Internet Drafts\" directory, which is\n      replicated on a number of Internet hosts.  This makes an evolving\n      working document readily available to a wide audience,\n      facilitating the process of review and revision.\n\n      After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the\n      cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter or\n      advance in the Internet standardization process shall be made\n      available as an Internet Draft.  It shall remain as an Internet\n      Draft for a period of time that permits useful community review,\n      at least two weeks, before submission to the IESG.\n\n      An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the\n      Internet Draft directory.  A document that has remained unchanged\n      in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without\n      being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC is simply\n      removed from the Internet Draft directory.  At any time, an\nIAB                                                             [Page 6]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nInternet Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same\n      specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.\n\n      An Internet Draft is NOT a means of \"publishing\" a specification;\n      specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described\n      in the next section.  Internet Drafts have no formal status, and\n      are not part of the permanent archival record of Internet\n      activity, and they are subject to change or removal at any time.\n      Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft be referenced by\n      any paper, report, or Request for Proposal.\n\n   2.5.  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)\n\n      Many protocol specifications include numbers, keywords, and other\n      parameters that must be uniquely assigned.  Examples include\n      version numbers, protocol numbers, port numbers, and MIB numbers.\n      The IAB has delegated to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\n      (IANA) the task of assigning such protocol parameters for the\n      Internet.  The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned\n      numbers and parameters in RFCs titled \"Assigned Numbers\" [\n8\n].\n\n      Each category of assigned numbers typically arises from some\n      protocol that is on the standards track or is an Internet\n      Standard.  For example, TCP port numbers are assigned because TCP\n      is a Standard.  A particular value within a category may be\n      assigned in a variety of circumstances; the specification\n      requiring the parameter may be in the standards track, it may be\n      Experimental, or it may be private.\n\n      Chaos could result from accidental conflicts of parameter values,\n      so we urge that every protocol parameter, for either public or\n      private usage, be explicitly assigned by the IANA.  Private\n      protocols often become public.  Programmers are often tempted to\n      choose a \"random\" value, or guess the next unassigned value of a\n      parameter; both are hazardous.\n\n      The IANA is tasked to avoid frivolous assignments and to\n      distinguish different assignments uniquely.  The IANA accomplishes\n      both goals by requiring a technical description of each protocol\n      or service to which a value is to be assigned.  Judgment on the\n      adequacy of the description resides with the IANA.  In the case of\n      a standards track or Experimental protocol, the corresponding\n      technical specifications provide the required documentation for\n      IANA.  For a proprietary protocol, the IANA will keep confidential\n      any writeup that is supplied, but at least a short (2 page)\n      writeup is still required for an assignment.\n\n      To contact the IANA for information or to request a number,\nIAB                                                             [Page 7]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nkeyword or parameter assignment send an email message to\n      \"iana@isi.edu\".\n\n   2.6.  Review and Approval\n\n      A standards action -- entering a particular specification into, or\n      advancing it within, the standards track -- shall be recommended\n      to the appropriate IETF Area Director, or to the Chairman of the\n      IETF, by the individual or group that is responsible for the\n      specification.  Usually, the recommendation will come from an IETF\n      Working Group.  The Area Director or IETF chairman, in\n      consultation with the IESG, shall determine if an independent\n      technical review of the specification is required, and shall\n      commission one if necessary.\n\n      When a specification is sufficiently important in terms of its\n      potential impact on the Internet or on the suite of Internet\n      protocols, the IESG shall form a special review and analysis\n      committee to prepare an evaluation of the specification.  Such a\n      committee is commissioned to provide an objective basis for\n      agreement within the Internet community that the specification is\n      ready for advancement.  Furthermore, when the criteria for\n      advancement along the standards track for an important class of\n      specifications (e.g., routing protocols [\n6\n]) are not universally\n      recognized, the IESG shall commission the development and\n      publication of category-specific acceptance criteria.\n\n      The IESG shall determine whether a specification satisfies the\n      applicable criteria for the recommended action (see Sections\n3.2\nand 3.3 of this document) and shall communicate its findings to\n      the IETF to permit a final review by the general Internet\n      community.  This IETF notification shall be via electronic mail to\n      the IETF mailing list; in addition, there will often be a\n      presentation or statement by the appropriate working group or Area\n      Director during an IETF plenary meeting.  Any significant issues\n      that have not been resolved satisfactorily during the development\n      of the specification may be raised at this time for final\n      resolution by the IESG.\n\n      The IESG shall communicate to the IAB its recommendation for\n      action, with a citation to the most current version of the\n      document.  The IETF shall be notified by email of any such\n      recommendation.  If the IAB finds a significant problem, or needs\n      clarification on a particular point, it shall resolve the matter\n      with the Working Group and its chairperson and/or the document\n      author, with the assistance and concurrence of the IESG and the\n      relevant IETF Area Director.\nIAB                                                             [Page 8]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nFollowing IAB approval and any necessary editorial work, the RFC\n      Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC.  The\n      specification shall then be removed from the Internet Drafts\n      directory.\n\n   2.7.  Entering the Standards Track\n\n      A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may\n      originate from:\n\n      (a)  an IAB-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),\n\n      (b)  independent activity by individuals, or\n\n      (c)  an external organization.\n\n      In cases (b) and (c), the work might be tightly integrated with\n      the work of an existing IETF Working Group, or it might be offered\n      for standardization without prior IETF involvement.  In most\n      cases, a specification resulting from an effort that took place\n      outside of an IETF Working Group context will be submitted to an\n      appropriate Working Group for evaluation and refinement; if\n      necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be created.\n\n      For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated\n      with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to\n      afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability\n      of the specification.  If a Working Group is unable to resolve all\n      technical and usage questions, additional independent review may\n      be necessary.  Such reviews may be done within a Working Group\n      context, or by an ad hoc review committee established specifically\n      for that purpose.  It is the responsibility of the appropriate\n      IETF Area Director to determine what, if any, review of an\n      external specification is needed and how it shall be conducted.\n\n   2.8.  Advancing in the Standards Track\n\n      A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at\n      least 6 months and at the Draft Standard level for at least 4\n      months.\n\n      A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it\n      advances through the standards track.  At each stage, the IESG\n      shall determine the scope and significance of the revision to the\n      specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the\n      recommended action.  Minor revisions are expected, and they will\n      not affect advancement through the standards track.  A significant\n      revision may require that the specification accumulate more\nIAB                                                             [Page 9]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nexperience at its current maturity level before progressing.\n      Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly,\n      the IESG may decide to treat the revision as if it were a new\n      document, re-entering the standards track at the beginning.\n\n      A specification that has not reached the maturity level of\n      Standard within twenty-four months of first becoming a Proposed\n      Standard shall be reviewed for viability by the IESG, which shall\n      recommend either termination or continuation of the development\n      effort to the IAB.  Such a recommendation shall be communicated to\n      the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list, to allow\n      the Internet community an opportunity to comment.  This provision\n      is not intended to threaten legitimate and active Working Group\n      efforts, but rather to provide an administrative mechanism for\n      terminating a moribund effort.\n\n   2.9.  Revising a Standard\n\n      A recommendation to revise an established Internet Standard shall\n      be evaluated by the IESG with respect to the operational impact of\n      introducing a new version while the previous version is still in\n      use.  If the IESG accepts the recommendation, the new version must\n      progress through the full Internet standardization process as if\n      it were a completely new specification.\n\n      Once the new version has reached the Standard level, it may\n      immediately replace the previous version.  In some cases, both\n      versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the\n      requirements of an installed base; however, the relationship\n      between the previous and the new versions must be explicitly\n      stated in the text of the new version or in another appropriate\n      document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see\nSection 3.1.2\n).\n3\n.  NOMENCLATURE\n3.1.  Types of Specifications\n\n      The specifications subject to the Internet standardization process\n      fall into two categories:  Technical Specifications (TS) and\n      Applicability Statements (AS).\n\n      3.1.1.  Technical Specification (TS)\n\n         A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol,\n         service, procedure, convention, or format.  It may completely\n         describe all of the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may\n         leave one or more parameters or options unspecified.  A TS may\n         be completely self-contained, or it may incorporate material\nIAB                                                            [Page 10]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nfrom other specifications by reference to other documents\n         (which may or may not be Internet Standards).\n\n         A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general\n         intent for its use (domain of applicability).  Thus, a TS that\n         is inherently specific to a particular context shall contain a\n         statement to that effect.  However, a TS does not specify\n         requirements for its use within the Internet; these\n         requirements, which depend on the particular context in which\n         the TS is incorporated by different system configurations, is\n         defined by an Applicability Statement.\n\n      3.1.2.  Applicability Statement (AS)\n\n         An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what\n         circumstances, one or more TSs are to be applied to support a\n         particular Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs\n         that are not Internet Standards, as discussed in\nSection 4\n.\n\n         An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which\n         they are to be combined, and may also specify particular values\n         or ranges of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol\n         that must be implemented.  An AS also specifies the\n         circumstances in which the use of a particular TS is required,\n         recommended, or elective.\n\n         An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a\n         restricted \"domain of applicability\", such as Internet routers,\n         terminal servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets,\n         or datagram-based database servers.\n\n         The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance\n         specification, commonly called a \"requirements document\", for a\n         particular class of Internet systems [\n3\n,\n4\n,\n5\n], such as Internet\n         routers or Internet hosts.\n\n         An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards\n         track than any TS to which the AS applies.  For example, a TS\n         at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS at the\n         Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not an AS at the\n         Standard level.  Like a TS, an AS does not come into effect\n         until it reaches Standard level.\n\n      Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice an\n      Internet Standard RFC may include elements of both an AS and one\n      or more TSs in a single document.  For example, Technical\n      Specifications that are developed specifically and exclusively for\n      some particular domain of applicability, e.g., for mail server\nIAB                                                            [Page 11]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nhosts, often contain within a single specification all of the\n      relevant AS and TS information.  In such cases, no useful purpose\n      would be served by deliberately distributing the information among\n      several documents just to preserve the formal AS/TS distinction.\n      However, a TS that is likely to apply to more than one domain of\n      applicability should be developed in a modular fashion, to\n      facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs.\n\n   3.2.  Standards Track Maturity Levels\n\n      ASs and TSs go through stages of development, testing, and\n      acceptance.  Within the Internet standards process, these stages\n      are formally labeled \"maturity levels\".\n\n      This section describes the maturity levels and the expected\n      characteristics of specifications at each level.  The general\n      procedures for developing a specification and processing it\n      through the maturity levels along the standards track were\n      discussed in\nSection 2\nabove.\n\n      3.2.1. Proposed Standard\n\n         The entry-level maturity for the standards track is \"Proposed\n         Standard\".  A Proposed Standard specification is generally\n         stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be\n         well-understood, has received significant community review, and\n         appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered\n         valuable.\n\n         Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is\n         required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed\n         Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and\n         will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed\n         Standard designation.  Furthermore, the IAB may require\n         implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting\n         Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially\n         affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies behavior\n         that may have significant operational impact on the Internet.\n         Typically, such a specification will be published initially in\n         the Experimental state (see below), which is not part of the\n         standards track, and moved to the standards track only after\n         sufficient implementation or operational experience has been\n         obtained.\n\n         A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions\n         with respect to the requirements placed upon it.  In some\n         cases, the IESG may recommend that the requirements be\n         explicitly reduced in order to allow a protocol to advance into\nIAB                                                            [Page 12]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nthe Proposed Standard state.  This can happen if the\n         specification is considered to be useful and necessary (and\n         timely), even absent the missing features.  For example, some\n         protocols have been advanced by explicitly deciding to omit\n         security features at the Proposed Standard level, since an\n         overall security architecture was still under development.\n\n      3.2.2. Draft Standard\n\n         A specification from which at least two independent and\n         interoperable implementations have been developed, and for\n         which adequate operational experience has been obtained, may be\n         elevated to the \"Draft Standard\" level.  This is a major\n         advance in status, indicating a strong belief that the\n         specification is mature and will be useful.\n\n         A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite\n         stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an\n         implementation.  A Draft Standard may still require additional\n         or more widespread field experience, since it is possible for\n         implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to\n         demonstrate unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale\n         use in production environments.\n\n      3.2.3. Standard\n\n         A specification for which significant implementation and\n         operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the\n         Standard level.  A Standard is characterized by a high degree\n         of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the\n         specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to\n         the Internet community.\n\n   3.3. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels\n\n      Not every TS or AS is on the standards track.  A TS may not be\n      intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended for\n      eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards\n      track.  A TS or AS may have been superseded by more recent\n      Internet Standards, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or\n      disfavor.  Such specifications are labeled with one of three\n      \"non-standards track\" maturity levels: \"Historic\", \"Experimental\",\n      and \"Informational\".\n\n      3.3.1. Historic\n\n         A TS or AS that has been superseded by a more recent\n         specification or is for any other reason considered to be\nIAB                                                            [Page 13]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nobsolete is assigned to the \"Historic\" level.  (Purists have\n         suggested that the word should be \"Historical\"; however, at\n         this point the use of \"Historic\" is historical.)\n\n      3.3.2. Experimental\n\n         The \"Experimental\" designation on a TS permits widespread\n         dissemination (through publication according to the procedures\n         defined by this document) with explicit caveats:  it may\n         specify behavior that has not been thoroughly analyzed or is\n         poorly understood;  it may be subject to considerable change;\n         it may never be a candidate for the formal standards track;\n         and it may be discarded in favor of some other proposal.\n\n         Any TS that is not an immediate candidate for Internet\n         standardization is appropriate for publication as Experimental.\n         Interested parties are thereby given the opportunity to gain\n         experience with implementations and to report their findings to\n         the community of interest, but the specification is explicitly\n         not recommended for general production use.\n\n      3.3.3. Informational\n\n         An \"Informational\" specification is published for the general\n         information of the Internet community, and does not represent\n         an Internet community consensus or recommendation.\n\n         Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet\n         community and are not incorporated into the Internet standards\n         process by any of the provisions of\nSection 4\nmay be published\n         as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner.  Such\n         a document is not an Internet Standard in any sense.\n\n   3.4.  Requirement Levels\n\n      An AS may apply one of the following \"requirement levels\" to each\n      of the TSs to which it refers:\n\n      (a)  Required:  Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified\n           by the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance.  For\n           example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet\n           systems using the TCP/IP Protocol Suite.\n\n      (b)  Recommended:  Implementation of the referenced TS is not\n           required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or\n           generally accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability\n           in the domain of applicability of the AS.  Vendors are\n           strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, and\nIAB                                                            [Page 14]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nprotocols of Recommended TSs in their products, and should\n           omit them only if the omission is justified by some special\n           circumstance.\n\n      (c)  Elective:  Implementation of the referenced TS is optional\n           within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS\n           creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS.  However, a\n           particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular\n           user may decide that it is a necessity in a specific\n           environment.\n\n      As noted in\nSection 2.5\n, there are TSs that are not in the\n      standards track or that have been retired from the standards\n      track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective.\n      Two additional \"requirement level\" designations are available for\n      such TSs:\n\n      (d)  Limited Use:  The TS is considered appropriate for use only\n           in limited or unique circumstances.  For example, the usage\n           of a protocol with the \"Experimental\" designation should\n           generally be limited to those actively involved with the\n           experiment.\n\n      (e)  Not Recommended:  A TS that is considered to be inappropriate\n           for general use is labeled \"Not Recommended\".  This may be\n           because of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or\n           historic status.\n\n      The \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\" RFC lists a general\n      requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in\n      this section.  In many cases, more detailed descriptions of the\n      requirement levels of particular protocols and of individual\n      features of the protocols will be found in appropriate ASs.\n4\n.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS\nMany de facto and de jure standards groups other than the IAB/IETF\n   create and publish standards documents for network protocols and\n   services.  When these external specifications play an important role\n   in the Internet, it is desirable to reach common agreements on their\n   usage -- i.e., to establish Internet Standards relating to these\n   external specifications.\n\n   There are two categories of external specifications:\n\n   (1)  Open Standards\n\n        Accredited national and international standards bodies, such as\nIAB                                                            [Page 15]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nANSI, ISO, IEEE, and CCITT, develop a variety of protocol and\n        service specifications that are similar to Technical\n        Specifications (see glossary in\nAppendix A\n).  These\n        specifications are generally de jure standards.  Similarly,\n        national and international groups publish \"implementors'\n        agreements\" that are analogous to Applicability Statements,\n        capturing a body of implementation-specific detail concerned\n        with the practical application of their standards.\n\n   (2)  Vendor Specifications\n\n        A vendor-specific specification that has come to be widely used\n        in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as a de\n        facto \"standard\".  Such a specification is not generally\n        developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is\n        controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it.\n\n   To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the\n   Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an\n   \"Internet version\" of an existing external specification, unless an\n   explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made.  There are,\n   however, several ways in which an external specification that is\n   important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be\n   adopted for Internet use:\n\n   (a)  Incorporation of an Open Standard\n\n        An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external\n        standard by reference.  The reference must be to a specific\n        version of the external standard, e.g., by publication date or\n        by edition number, according to the prevailing convention of the\n        organization that is responsible for the specification.\n\n        For example, many Internet Standards incorporate by reference\n        the ANSI standard character set \"ASCII\" [\n7\n].\n\n   (b)  Incorporation of a Vendor Specification\n\n        Vendor-proprietary specifications may also be incorporated, by\n        reference to a specific version of the vendor standard.  If the\n        vendor-proprietary specification is not widely and readily\n        available, the IAB may request that it be published as an\n        Informational RFC.\n\n        In order for a vendor-proprietary specification to be\n        incorporated within the Internet standards process, the\n        proprietor must agree in writing to the IAB that \"right to use\"\n        licenses will be available on a non-discriminatory basis and at\nIAB                                                            [Page 16]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\na reasonable cost.  See also Sections\n5\nand\n6\n.\n\n        In addition, the IAB/IETF will generally not favor a particular\n        vendor's proprietary specification over the technically\n        equivalent and competing specifications of other vendors by\n        making it \"required\" or \"recommended\".\n\n   (c)  Assumption\n\n        An IETF Working Group may start with a vendor's (or other\n        body's) voluntarily contributed specification, and independently\n        evolve the specification into a TS or AS.  Here \"independently\"\n        means that the IETF work is not constrained by conditions\n        imposed by the owner of the original specification;  however,\n        the continued participation of the original owner in the IETF\n        work is likely to be valuable, and is encouraged.  The IAB must\n        receive a formal delegation of responsibility from the original\n        owner that gives the IAB/IETF responsibility for evolution of\n        the specification.\n\n   As provided by\nsection 3.1.2\n, an AS that specifies how an external\n   technical specification should be applied in the Internet,\n   incorporating the external specification by reference, may become an\n   Internet Standard.\n5\n.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS\nPrior to the approval of a specification as a Proposed Standard, all\n   interested parties are required to disclose to the IAB the existence\n   of any intellectual property right claims known to them that might\n   apply to any aspect of the Proposed Standard.\n\n   This requirement refers specifically to disclosure of the *existence*\n   of a current or anticipated claim of an intellectual property right,\n   not the details of the asserted right itself.\n6\n.  PATENT POLICY\nThis section is tentative, subject to legal review.\n\n   There is no objection in principle to drafting an Internet Standard\n   in terms that include an item or items subject to patent rights that\n   may have been asserted in one or more countries, if it is considered\n   that technical reasons justify this approach.  In such cases the\n   procedure described in this section shall be followed.\nIAB                                                            [Page 17]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\n6.1 Statement from Patent Holder\n\n      Prior to approval of the specification as a Proposed Standard, the\n      IAB shall receive from the known patent holders, in a form\n      acceptable to and approved by the IAB, either (a) assurance in the\n      form of a general disclaimer to the effect that the patent holder\n      does not hold and does not anticipate holding any right that would\n      be violated as a consequence of conformance to the standard, or\n      (b) assurance that\n\n      (1)  a license will be made available without compensation to all\n           applicants desiring to utilize the patented items for the\n           purpose of implementing the standard, or\n\n      (2)  a license will be made available to applicants under\n           specified reasonable terms and conditions that are, to the\n           satisfaction of the IAB, demonstrably free of any unfair\n           discrimination.\n\n      The terms and conditions of any license falling under (1) or (2)\n      shall be submitted to the IAB for review, together with a\n      statement of the number of independent licenses, if any, that have\n      accepted or indicated their acceptance of the terms and conditions\n      of the license.\n\n      In addition, the letter to the IAB must contain (c) assurance that\n      the patent holder does have the right to grant the license, and\n      (d) a notification of any other patent licenses that are required,\n      or else the assurance that no other licenses are required.\n\n   6.2  Record of Statement\n\n      A record of the patent holder's statement (and a statement from\n      the IAB of the basis for considering such terms and conditions to\n      be free of any unfair discrimination) shall be placed and retained\n      in the files of the IAB.\n\n   6.3  Notice\n\n      When the IAB receives from a patent holder the assurance set forth\n      in\nsection 5.1\n(1) or 5.1(2), the corresponding Internet Standard\n      shall include a note as follows:\n\n      \"NOTE:  The user's attention is called to the possibility that\n      compliance with this standard may require the use of an invention\n      or work covered by patent claims.\n\n      \"By publication of this standard, no position is taken with\nIAB                                                            [Page 18]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nrespect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in\n      connection therewith.  The patent holder has, however, filed a\n      statement of willingness to grant a license under these rights, on\n      reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, to\n      applicants desiring to obtain such a license.  Details may be\n      obtained from the IAB.\"\n\n   6.4  Identifying Patents\n\n      The IAB shall not be responsible for identifying all patents for\n      which a license may be required by an Internet Standard, nor for\n      conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those\n      patents that are brought to its attention.\n7\n.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES\nThis document represents the combined output of the Internet\n   Activities Board and the Internet Engineering Steering Group, the\n   groups charged with managing the processes described in this\n   document.  Major contributions to the text were made by Bob Braden,\n   Vint Cerf, Lyman Chapin, Dave Crocker, and Barry Leiner.  Helpful\n   comments and suggestions were made by a number of IETF members.\n\n   [\n1\n]  Cerf, V., \"The Internet Activities Board\",\nRFC 1160\n, IAB, May\n        1990.\n\n   [\n2\n]  Postel, J., \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\",\nRFC 1280\n, IAB,\n        March 1992.\n\n   [\n3\n]  Braden, R., Editor, \"Requirements for Internet Hosts --\n        Communication Layers\",\nRFC 1122\n, IETF, October 1989.\n\n   [\n4\n]  Braden, R., Editor, \"Requirements for Internet Hosts --\n        Application and Support\",\nRFC 1123\n, IETF, October 1989.\n\n   [\n5\n]  Almquist, P., Editor, \"Requirements for IP Routers\", in\n        preparation.\n\n   [\n6\n]  Hinden, R., \"Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing\n        Protocol Standardization Criteria\",\nRFC 1264\n, BBN, October 1991.\n\n   [\n7\n]  ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for\n        Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.\n\n   [\n8\n]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\",\nRFC 1060\n, ISI,\n        March 1990.\nIAB                                                            [Page 19]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\n[\n9\n]  Postel, J., \"Introduction to the STD Notes\",\nRFC 1311\n, ISI,\n        March 1992.\n\nAPPENDIX A: GLOSSARY\n\n   ANSI:  American National Standards Institute\n\n   CCITT: Consultative Committee for International Telephone and\n             Telegraphy.\n\n             A part of the UN Treaty Organization: the International\n             Telecommunications Union (ITU).\n\n   DARPA: (U.S.) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency\n\n   ISO:   International Organization for Standardization\nIAB                                                            [Page 20]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nAPPENDIX B: FUTURE ISSUES\n\n   This memo resulted from an effort to document the current standards\n   procedures in the Internet community.  At the time of publication,\n   Sections\n5\nand\n6\nare still undergoing legal review.  In addition,\n   there are important issues under consideration of how to handle\n   copyrights and other issues of intellectual property.  This memo is\n   being published with these matters unresolved, due to its importance.\n\n   Pre-publication review of this document resulted in a number of\n   useful suggestions from members of the Internet community, and opened\n   up several new issues.  The IAB and IESG will continue to consider\n   these questions and attempt to resolve these issues; the results will\n   be be incorporated in future versions of this memo.\n\n   For future reference, this appendix records the outstanding\n   suggestions and issues.\n\n   It has been suggested that additional procedures in the following\n   areas should be considered.\n\n   o    Appeals Procedure\n\n        Should there be some formal appeals procedure for correcting\n        abuses or procedural failures, at each decision point in the\n        process?\n\n   o    Tracking Procedure\n\n        Should there be a formal procedure for tracking problems and\n        change requests, as a specification moves through the standards\n        track?  Such a procedure might include written responses, which\n        were cataloged and disseminated, or simply a database that\n        listed changes between versions.\n\n   o    Rationale Documentation\n\n        Should the procedures require written documentation of the\n        rationale for the design decisions behind each specification at\n        the Draft Standard and Standard levels?\n\n   o    Application-Layer Standards\n\n        Should there be some way to \"standardize\" application-layer\n        protocols that are not going to become Internet Standards?\n\n   There were suggestions for fine-tuning of the existing procedures:\nIAB                                                            [Page 21]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\no    Increase minimum time in Internet Draft directory from 2 weeks\n        to 1 month.\n\n   o    Place explicit time limit, on IESG and IAB action on suggested\n        standards changes.  Limits suggested: three months.\n\n        If it were necessary to extend the time for some reason, the\n        IETF would have to be explicitly notified.\n\n   o    Change minimum time at Draft Standard from 4 to 5 months, to\n        ensure that an IETF meeting will intervene.\n\n   o    There were differing suggestions on how to balance between early\n        implementation of specifications available only as Internet\n        Drafts, and ensuring that everyone is clear that such an\n        Internet Draft has no official status and is subject to change\n        at any time.  One suggestion was that vendors should not claim\n        compliance with an Internet Draft.\n\n   Finally, there were suggestions for improvements in the documentation\n   of the standards procedures.\n\n   o    Discuss the impact, if any, of export control laws on the\n        Internet standardization process.\n\n        It was observed that the Requirements RFCs contain \"negative\"\n        requirement levels: MUST NOT and SHOULD NOT.  Such levels are\n        not recognized in this Procedures document.\n\n   o    Document needs to more clearly explain the criteria for choosing\n        the Experimental vs. Informational category for an off-track\n        specification.  Ref. sections\n3.3.2\n,\n3.3.4\n.\n\n   o    Develop recommended wording for citations to Internet Drafts,\n        which makes clear the provisional, unofficial nature of that\n        document.\n\n   o    Consider changing the name attached to a fully-adopted standard\n        from \"Standard\" to some qualified term like \"Full Standard\".\n\n   o    It has been suggested that the document should more strongly\n        encourage the use of specifications from other standards bodies,\n        with Internet-specific changes to be made only for compelling\n        reasons.  Further, the justification of the compelling\n        requirement would be subject to special review.\nIAB                                                            [Page 22]\nRFC 1310\nInternet Standards Process             March 1992\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not substantially discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   A. Lyman Chapin\n   BBN Communications Corporation\n   150 Cambridge Park Drive\n   Cambridge, MA  02140\n\n   Phone: 617-873-3133\n   Fax:   617-873-4086\n\n   Email: Lyman@BBN.COM\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIAB                                                            [Page 23]\nRFC\n1310\n: The Internet Standards Process\nInformational\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n1602\nThe Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-03-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-03-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-03-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:04.990053+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "715e7330-8158-4f0b-b0dc-085588d8165b", "source_id": "84e70aff846981759edbe360", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3233", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3233/", "artifact_sha256": "16e7668df5970a1351c6c67fa5f3a298c43521963b12443e85418b1309d0e619", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 92326, "title": "RFC 3233: Defining the IETF | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 6260, "characters": 6260, "text": "RFC 3233: Defining the IETF | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3233\nInfo\nRFC\n3233\n:\nBCP\n58\n:\nDefining the IETF\nP. Hoffman\n,\nS. Bradner\nBest Current Practice\nNetwork Working Group P. Hoffman\nRequest for Comments: 3233 Internet Mail Consortium\nBCP: 58 S. Bradner\nCategory: Best Current Practice Harvard University\nFebruary 2002\nDefining the IETF\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis document gives a more concrete definition of \"the IETF\" as it\nunderstood today. Many RFCs refer to \"the IETF\". Many important\nIETF documents speak of the IETF as if it were an already-defined\nentity. However, no IETF document correctly defines what the IETF\nis.\n1\n. Introduction\nMany RFCs refer to \"the IETF\". Many important IETF documents speak\nof the IETF as if it were an already-defined entity. However, no\nIETF document correctly defines what the IETF is. This document\ngives a more concrete definition of \"the IETF\" as it understood\ntoday.\n2\n. Defining the IETF\nBCP 9\n(\"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\") [BCP 9], the\nprimary document that describes the Internet standards process, never\ndefines the IETF. As described in\nBCP 11\n(\"The Organizations\nInvolved in the IETF Standards Process\") [BCP 11], the Internet\nEngineering Task Force (IETF) is an open global community of network\ndesigners, operators, vendors, and researchers producing technical\nspecifications for the evolution of the Internet architecture and the\nsmooth operation of the Internet.\nHoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3233\nDefining the IETF February 2002\nIt is important to note that the IETF is not a corporation: it is an\nunincorporated, freestanding organization. The IETF is partially\nsupported by the Internet Society (ISOC). ISOC is an international\nnon-profit organization incorporated in the US with thousands of\nindividual and corporate members throughout the world who pay\nmembership fees to join. The Internet Society provides many services\nto the IETF, including insurance and some financial and logistical\nsupport.\n\nAs described in\nBCP 11\n, Internet standardization is an organized\nactivity of the ISOC, with the ISOC Board of Trustees being\nresponsible for ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet\nstandards process. However, the IETF is not a formal subset of ISOC;\nfor example, one does not have to join ISOC to be a member of the\nIETF.\n\nThere is no board of directors for the IETF, no formally signed\nbylaws, no treasurer, and so on. The structure of the IETF (its\nleadership, its working groups, the definition of IETF membership,\nand so on) are described in detail in\nBCP 11\n. Procedures for\nchoosing leadership are described in detail in\nBCP 10\n.\n\nThus, when RFCs say \"the IETF\", they are describing the group that\nacts in accordance with\nBCP 9\n,\nBCP 10\n, and\nBCP 11\n.\n3\n. Security Considerations\nAll IETF protocols must describe the security aspects of the\nenvironment in which they will be used. Also, the IETF has a\nSecurity Area which discusses the security aspects of IETF protocols.\nHowever, descriptive documents such as this one do not affect the\nsecurity of the Internet.\nHoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3233\nDefining the IETF February 2002\nA\n. References\n[BCP 9] Bradner, S., \"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\",\nBCP 9\n,\nRFC 2026\n, October 1996.\n\n[BCP 10] Galvin, J., \"IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and\nRecall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall\nCommittees\",\nBCP 10\n,\nRFC 2727\n, February 2000.\n\n[BCP 11] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, \"The Organizations Involved in the\nIETF Standards Process\",\nBCP 11\n,\nRFC 2028\n, October 1996.\nB\n. Editors' Addresses\nPaul Hoffman\nInternet Mail Consortium\n127 Segre Place\nSanta Cruz, CA 95060 USA\n\nEMail: phoffman@imc.org\n\nScott Bradner\nHarvard University\n29 Oxford St\nCambridge MA 02138\n\nEMail: sob@harvard.edu\nHoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3233\nDefining the IETF February 2002\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.\n\nThe limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nHoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC\n3233\n: Defining the IETF\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. Defining the IETF\n3. Security Considerations\nA. References\nB. Editors' Addresses\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "0225de5c-0c61-4c8c-b73d-60c73a5d7723", "document_id": "715e7330-8158-4f0b-b0dc-085588d8165b", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 3233: Defining the IETF | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3233\nInfo\nRFC\n3233\n:\nBCP\n58\n:\nDefining the IETF\nP. Hoffman\n,\nS. Bradner\nBest Current Practice\nNetwork Working Group P. Hoffman\nRequest for Comments: 3233 Internet Mail Consortium\nBCP: 58 S. Bradner\nCategory: Best Current Practice Harvard University\nFebruary 2002\nDefining the IETF\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis document gives a more concrete definition of \"the IETF\" as it\nunderstood today. Many RFCs refer to \"the IETF\". Many important\nIETF documents speak of the IETF as if it were an already-defined\nentity. However, no IETF document correctly defines what the IETF\nis.\n1\n. Introduction\nMany RFCs refer to \"the IETF\". Many important IETF documents speak\nof the IETF as if it were an already-defined entity. However, no\nIETF document correctly defines what the IETF is. This document\ngives a more concrete definition of \"the IETF\" as it understood\ntoday.\n2\n. Defining the IETF\nBCP 9\n(\"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\") [BCP 9], the\nprimary document that describes the Internet standards process, never\ndefines the IETF. As described in\nBCP 11\n(\"The Organizations\nInvolved in the IETF Standards Process\") [BCP 11], the Internet\nEngineering Task Force (IETF) is an open global community of network\ndesigners, operators, vendors, and researchers producing technical\nspecifications for the evolution of the Internet architecture and the\nsmooth operation of the Internet.\nHoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3233\nDefining the IETF February 2002\nIt is important to note that the IETF is not a corporation: it is an\nunincorporated, freestanding organization. The IETF is partially\nsupported by the Internet Society (ISOC). ISOC is an international\nnon-profit organization incorporated in the US with thousands of\nindividual and corporate members throughout the world who pay\nmembership fees to join. The Internet Society provides many services\nto the IETF, including insurance and some financial and logistical\nsupport.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2340, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 367}}, {"segment_id": "7fb28e4e-7566-4983-ac31-4acc0e8c494f", "document_id": "715e7330-8158-4f0b-b0dc-085588d8165b", "ordinal": 1, "text": "As described in\nBCP 11\n, Internet standardization is an organized\nactivity of the ISOC, with the ISOC Board of Trustees being\nresponsible for ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet\nstandards process. However, the IETF is not a formal subset of ISOC;\nfor example, one does not have to join ISOC to be a member of the\nIETF.\n\nThere is no board of directors for the IETF, no formally signed\nbylaws, no treasurer, and so on. The structure of the IETF (its\nleadership, its working groups, the definition of IETF membership,\nand so on) are described in detail in\nBCP 11\n. Procedures for\nchoosing leadership are described in detail in\nBCP 10\n.\n\nThus, when RFCs say \"the IETF\", they are describing the group that\nacts in accordance with\nBCP 9\n,\nBCP 10\n, and\nBCP 11\n.\n3\n. Security Considerations\nAll IETF protocols must describe the security aspects of the\nenvironment in which they will be used. Also, the IETF has a\nSecurity Area which discusses the security aspects of IETF protocols.\nHowever, descriptive documents such as this one do not affect the\nsecurity of the Internet.\nHoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3233\nDefining the IETF February 2002\nA\n. References\n[BCP 9] Bradner, S., \"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\",\nBCP 9\n,\nRFC 2026\n, October 1996.\n\n[BCP 10] Galvin, J., \"IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and\nRecall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall\nCommittees\",\nBCP 10\n,\nRFC 2727\n, February 2000.\n\n[BCP 11] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, \"The Organizations Involved in the\nIETF Standards Process\",\nBCP 11\n,\nRFC 2028\n, October 1996.\nB\n. Editors' Addresses\nPaul Hoffman\nInternet Mail Consortium\n127 Segre Place\nSanta Cruz, CA 95060 USA\n\nEMail: phoffman@imc.org\n\nScott Bradner\nHarvard University\n29 Oxford St\nCambridge MA 02138\n\nEMail: sob@harvard.edu\nHoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3233\nDefining the IETF February 2002\nFull Copyright Statement", "char_start": 2342, "char_end": 4260, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 329}}, {"segment_id": "d40f4c58-3652-46da-889a-078748950274", "document_id": "715e7330-8158-4f0b-b0dc-085588d8165b", "ordinal": 2, "text": "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.\n\nThe limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nHoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC\n3233\n: Defining the IETF\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. Defining the IETF\n3. Security Considerations\nA. References\nB. Editors' Addresses\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 4262, "char_end": 6260, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 311}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "71676794-3923-47f6-b2f1-3b3d5c7de112", "source_id": "7febe9e5b1defb7c39fdfae6", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/history", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/history", "artifact_sha256": "1239ed07920bf5d4fa738341b0b8401d8eb5839afe04246dd0c9d1b182dd1add", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 23323, "title": "ICANN History Project - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 5786, "characters": 5786, "text": "ICANN History Project - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nICANN History Project\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nThe History of ICANN\nThe history of ICANN traces back to the creation and the evolution of the Internet itself.\nIn 1969, the first message was sent via the Arpanet, a U.S. Department of Defense network and precursor to the global Internet. Three years later, Jon Postel started to record socket numbers for the Arpanet in his notebook. His registry eventually became the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which manages the coordination of the Domain Name System (DNS).\nICANN was founded in 1998 and grew out of a U.S. Government commitment to transfer the policy and technical management of the DNS to a non-profit corporation based in the U.S. with global participation. The IANA Stewardship Transition was completed in October 2016 thanks to the work and dedication of the Internet community worldwide.\nTo learn more about ICANN’s history, check out the interviews, interactive timelines, and other resources under the thematic tracks below.\nExplore\nICANN Turns 25 (1998-2023)\nICANN's Historical Relationship with the U.S. Government\nICANN's Early Days\nICANN's Global Expansion\nAbout the ICANN History Project\nOther Resources\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "6000d5cd-e550-4a61-8528-022c01433005", "document_id": "71676794-3923-47f6-b2f1-3b3d5c7de112", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN History Project - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nICANN History Project\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nThe History of ICANN\nThe history of ICANN traces back to the creation and the evolution of the Internet itself.\nIn 1969, the first message was sent via the Arpanet, a U.S. Department of Defense network and precursor to the global Internet. Three years later, Jon Postel started to record socket numbers for the Arpanet in his notebook. His registry eventually became the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which manages the coordination of the Domain Name System (DNS).\nICANN was founded in 1998 and grew out of a U.S. Government commitment to transfer the policy and technical management of the DNS to a non-profit corporation based in the U.S. with global participation. The IANA Stewardship Transition was completed in October 2016 thanks to the work and dedication of the Internet community worldwide.\nTo learn more about ICANN’s history, check out the interviews, interactive timelines, and other resources under the thematic tracks below.\nExplore\nICANN Turns 25 (1998-2023)\nICANN's Historical Relationship with the U.S. Government\nICANN's Early Days\nICANN's Global Expansion\nAbout the ICANN History Project\nOther Resources\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5786, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 828}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "7172d698-452e-45fd-884a-88dccfcf24ae", "source_id": "048310f8d97bcc14eb6eddb8", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-remote-hubs", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-remote-hubs", "artifact_sha256": "7c47076e9a91741fba28b55e11ac722a02619ee323f803cd2bbdc6d52dac5b2e", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 84789, "title": "IGF Remote Hubs | Internet Governance Forum", "language": "en", "text_length": 6271, "characters": 6271, "text": "IGF Remote Hubs | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIGF Remote Hubs\nCall to all stakeholders to register remote hubs\nOnline participation, and specifically the hubs structure, have been successful in previous IGFs. Through the hubs structure, stakeholders can follow the discussions from home or office; watch the webcast of the event; follow real-time closed captioning; and participate live. Hubs can\nbe\nregistered as an individual online participant. Or stakeholders can also expand the discussions and\norganize an\nIGF\nHUB\nin your city\n!\nOnline participants/Remote hubs are able to interact with the meeting by asking for the floor when the panel moderator opens it for questions from the audience, and sending text questions and/or video/audio interventions by using the online participation platform.\nHubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the\nIGF\n. People can watch the webcast of\nIGF\nsessions together and send interventions (via text, audio or video) that can be answered by panelists in\nIGF\n. In addition, hub organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the\nIGF\nfrom their local perspective. Training sessions for Remote Hubs will be made available.\nThere are several advantages in creating a hub, such as:\nhelping to raise awareness about Internet Governance issues\nfostering networking among participants and community building\nencouraging follow-up activities\nHow to organize a hub?\nThe requirements to organize a hub are very simple:\nPhysical or virtual place.\nComputer with a broadband Internet connection and a projector equipment, to enable the hub participants to watch the video.\nHub moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the local discussions as well as transmit the hub participants’ questions or comments to the\nIGF\nthrough the remote participation channels.\nGeneral call in lists, forums etc. to invite the interested local community.\nConsult the\nIGF Guidelines for Remote Hubs\ndeveloped in cooperation with national and regional\nIGF\ninitiatives.\nRegister your hub for\nIGF\n2026\n(until\n31 July 2026, 23:59 UTC\n)\nRegistration Form\nStakeholders interested in organizing a remote hub will be invited to register through a registration form that the\nIGF\nSecretariat publishes each year, containing the following information:\nCountry / City\nInstitution hosting the hub\nPossible area(s) of interest\nNumber of expected participants within the hub\nPlanned pre-meeting activities\nType of expenditures and estimated costs\nHub Coordinator\nContact email\nHub Technical coordinator (IT)\nTechnical coordinator contact email\nPlease note that the local hub and technical coordinators have to be present at the hub site. Stakeholders are welcome to register their hubs until the meeting's start.\nSubject to availability of funds, and considering the level of organization and participation scope of the hub, hubs from developing countries that register in the first two weeks after the call opens may receive small support grants.\nThe list of registered remote hubs is made available as submitted.\nDISCLAIMER:\nRemote Hubs are the responsibility of the local organizers and should be held in accordance to the local rules, regulations and advice of the local health authorities with regard to the health requirements.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "618d77fc-fb54-4f2e-9704-6f4dd86c9c21", "document_id": "7172d698-452e-45fd-884a-88dccfcf24ae", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IGF Remote Hubs | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIGF Remote Hubs\nCall to all stakeholders to register remote hubs\nOnline participation, and specifically the hubs structure, have been successful in previous IGFs. Through the hubs structure, stakeholders can follow the discussions from home or office; watch the webcast of the event; follow real-time closed captioning; and participate live. Hubs can\nbe\nregistered as an individual online participant. Or stakeholders can also expand the discussions and\norganize an\nIGF\nHUB\nin your city\n!\nOnline participants/Remote hubs are able to interact with the meeting by asking for the floor when the panel moderator opens it for questions from the audience, and sending text questions and/or video/audio interventions by using the online participation platform.\nHubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the\nIGF\n. People can watch the webcast of\nIGF\nsessions together and send interventions (via text, audio or video) that can be answered by panelists in\nIGF\n. In addition, hub organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the\nIGF\nfrom their local perspective. Training sessions for Remote Hubs will be made available.\nThere are several advantages in creating a hub, such as:\nhelping to raise awareness about Internet Governance issues\nfostering networking among participants and community building\nencouraging follow-up activities\nHow to organize a hub?\nThe requirements to organize a hub are very simple:\nPhysical or virtual place.\nComputer with a broadband Internet connection and a projector equipment, to enable the hub participants to watch the video.\nHub moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the local discussions as well as transmit the hub participants’ questions or comments to the\nIGF\nthrough the remote participation channels.\nGeneral call in lists, forums etc. to invite the interested local community.\nConsult the\nIGF Guidelines for Remote Hubs\ndeveloped in cooperation with national and regional\nIGF\ninitiatives.\nRegister your hub for\nIGF\n2026\n(until\n31 July 2026, 23:59 UTC\n)\nRegistration Form\nStakeholders interested in organizing a remote hub will be invited to register through a registration form that the\nIGF\nSecretariat publishes each year, containing the following information:\nCountry / City\nInstitution hosting the hub\nPossible area(s) of interest\nNumber of expected participants within the hub\nPlanned pre-meeting activities\nType of expenditures and estimated costs\nHub Coordinator\nContact email\nHub Technical coordinator (IT)\nTechnical coordinator contact email\nPlease note that the local hub and technical coordinators have to be present at the hub site. Stakeholders are welcome to register their hubs until the meeting's start.\nSubject to availability of funds, and considering the level of organization and participation scope of the hub, hubs from developing countries that register in the first two weeks after the call opens may receive small support grants.\nThe list of registered remote hubs is made available as submitted.\nDISCLAIMER:\nRemote Hubs are the responsibility of the local organizers and should be held in accordance to the local rules, regulations and advice of the local health authorities with regard to the health requirements.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6271, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 960}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "719e868c-e8b0-4db1-be3f-1366b72312f3", "source_id": "36bb2661ae26ba52b7af54dd", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1250", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1250/", "artifact_sha256": "36bb2661ae26ba52b7af54dd91bfde205d8949edc9e6f1e528d0c7cd6166c712", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 308053, "title": "RFC 1250: IAB Official Protocol Standards", "language": "en", "text_length": 62914, "characters": 62914, "text": "RFC 1250: IAB Official Protocol Standards | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1250\n:\nIAB Official Protocol Standards\nJ. Postel\nHistoric\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n1280\n,\nRFC\n2200\n.\nNetwork Working Group                          Internet Activities Board\nRequest for Comments: 1250                             J. Postel, Editor\nObsoletes: RFCs\n1200\n,                                        August 1991\n1100\n,\n1083\n,\n1130\n,\n1140\nIAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS\n\n\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in\n   the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).\n   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n\n   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n1\n.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n2\n.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n5\n3\n.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.1\n.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.2\n.  Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.3\n.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.4\n.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.5\n.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n4\n.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n7\n4.1\n.  Definitions of Protocol State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n8\n4.1.1\n.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n8\n4.1.2\n.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.3\n.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.4\n.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.5\n.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.6\n.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.2\n.  Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.1\n.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.2\n.  Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.3\n.  Elective Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.4\n.  Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.5\n.  Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5\n.  The Standards Track  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5.1\n.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5.2\n.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n12\n6\n.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1\n.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1.1\n.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1.2\n.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n17\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 1]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n6.2\n.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n18\n6.3\n.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .\n19\n6.4\n.  Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n20\n6.5\n.  Proposed Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n21\n6.6\n.  Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n22\n6.7\n.  Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n23\n6.8\n.  Informational Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n23\n6.9\n.  Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n24\n7\n.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n24\n7.1\n.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n24\n7.1.1\n.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . . .\n24\n7.1.2\n.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .\n25\n7.1.3\n.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact  . . . . .\n25\n7.2\n.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .\n26\n7.3\n.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .\n27\n7.4\n.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .\n27\n7.5\n.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . .\n28\n8\n.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\n9\n.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\nIntroduction\n\n   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series\n   is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.\n   Sections\n6.2\n-\n6.9\ncontain the lists of protocols in each stage of\n   standardization.  Finally come pointers to references and contacts\n   for further information.\n\n   This memo is intended to be issued quarterly; please be sure the copy\n   you are reading is current.  Current copies may be obtained from the\n   Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers\n   Authority (see the contact information at the end of this memo).  Do\n   not use this edition after 30-Nov-91.\n\n   See\nSection 6.1\nfor a description of recent changes.  In the official\n   lists in sections\n6.2\n-\n6.9\n, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol\n   denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one\n   protocol level to another.\n1\n.  The Standardization Process\nThe Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents that\n   define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see\nRFC-1160\nfor an\n   explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its\n   subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the\n   Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)).  The IAB provides these\n   standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the\n   Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 2]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nthe Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use.\n\n   The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization\n   activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force.\n\n   Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a\n   series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard)\n   involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and experimental testing.\n   At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the\n   IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol and\n   the IAB must ratify it.  If a recommendation is not ratified, the\n   protocol is remanded to the IETF for further work.\n\n   To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to\n   standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 4\n   months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard\n   and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.\n\n   It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted\n   to draft standard without at least two independent implementations\n   (and the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard\n   to standard generally requires operational experience and\n   demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the\n   recommendation of the IESG).\n\n   In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision\n   concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee\n   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the\n   purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.\n\n   Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step\n   since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization\n   (it puts the protocol \"on the standards track\").  Advancement to\n   draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless\n   major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is\n   likely to be advanced to standard in six months.\n\n   Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise\n   unused.  Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with\n   the designation \"historic\".\n\n   Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of\n   early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs\n   document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.  The\n   protocols are designated \"experimental\" in this memorandum.  They\n   appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as\n   evidence of their standardization.\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 3]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nOther protocols, such as those developed by other standards\n   organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be\n   recommended for use in the Internet.  The specifications of such\n   protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the\n   Internet community.  These protocols are labeled \"informational\" in\n   this memorandum.\n\n   In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development\n   and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the\n   research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of\n   other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.  The\n   IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC\n   series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for\n   standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance\n   the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved\n   this step.\n\n   A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the\n   approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols\n   have become very important to the Internet community even though they\n   have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.\n   However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process\n   be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize\n   interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements\n   from arising).  The IAB reserves the use of the terms \"standard\",\n   \"draft standard\", and \"proposed standard\" in any RFC or other\n   publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the\n   IAB has approved.\n\n   In addition to a state (like \"Proposed Standard\"), a protocol is also\n   assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.  The\n   possible requirement levels (\"Required\", \"Recommended\", \"Elective\",\n   \"Limited Use\", and \"Not Recommended\") are defined in\nSection 4.2\n.\n   When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed\n   standard, draft standard, or standard state (see\nSection 5\n), the\n   status shown in\nSection 6\nis the current status.  For a proposed or\n   draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the\n   eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.\n\n   Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is\n   because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,\n   gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.  The\n   requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label,\n   which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation\n   requirements for a protocol in all situations.  For some protocols,\n   this document contains an additional status paragraph (an\n   applicability statement).  In addition, more detailed status\n   information is contained in separate requirements documents (see\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 4]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nSection 3\n).\n2\n.  The Request for Comments Documents\nThe documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working\n   notes of the \"Network Working Group\", that is the Internet research\n   and development community.  A document in this series may be on\n   essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be\n   anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.\n\n   Notice:\n\n      All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify\n      standards.\n\n   Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions\n   must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact\n   information at the end of this memo).\n\n   While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical\n   review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC\n   Editor, as appropriate.\n\n   The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from\n   informational documents of general interests to specifications of\n   standard Internet protocols.  In cases where submission is intended\n   to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard\n   protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the\n   approval of both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing\n   experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before\n   publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant\n   IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments\n   to the author.  See\nSection 5.1\nfor more detail.\n\n   Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is\n   never revised or re-issued with the same number.  There is never a\n   question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.\n   However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be\n   improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.  It\n   is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a\n   particular protocol.  This \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\" memo is\n   the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current\n   specification of each protocol.\n\n   The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI\n   International, and a number of other sites.  For more information\n   about obtaining RFCs, see Sections\n7.4\nand\n7.5\n.\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 5]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n3\n.  Other Reference Documents\nThere are four other reference documents of interest in checking the\n   current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These\n   are the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet Protocols, the\n   Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements.  Note that these\n   documents are revised and updated at different times; in case of\n   differences between these documents, the most recent must prevail.\n\n   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,\n   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in\nSection 3.5\n.\n3.1\n.  Assigned Numbers\nThis document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the\n   various protocols.  For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,\n   Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.\n   Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as\nRFC-1060\n.\n\n   Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network\n   numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was\n   most recently issued as\nRFC-1166\n.\n3.2\n.  Annotated Internet Protocols\nThis document lists the protocols and describes any known problems\n   and ongoing experiments.  This document was most recently issued as\nRFC-1011\n.\n3.3\n.  Gateway Requirements\nThis document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and\n   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway\n   Requirements is\nRFC-1009\n.  A working group of the IETF is actively\n   preparing a revision.\n3.4\n.  Host Requirements\nThis pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that\n   apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any\n   ambiguities.  Host Requirements was issued as\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n.\n3.5\n.  The MIL-STD Documents\nThe Internet community specifications for IP (\nRFC-791\n) and TCP (\nRFC-\n793\n) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe\n   exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols\n   specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 6]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nthe IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style\n   and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of\n   documents be used together, along with\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n.\n\n   The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and\n   Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,\n   854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the\n   current Internet specification for FTP is\nRFC-959\n(as modified by\nRFC-1123\n).\n\n   Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.  The Gateway\n   Requirements (\nRFC-1009\n) and Host Requirements (\nRFC-1122\n,\nRFC-1123\n)\n   take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.\n\n          Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777\n          Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778\n          File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780\n          Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781\n          Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782\n\n   These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms\n   Center.  Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;\n   however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if\n   possible.  These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol\n   Handbook (available from the Network Information Center, see\nSection\n7.4\n).\n\n          Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015\n          5801 Tabor Ave\n          Philadelphia, PA 19120\n          Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)\n                 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)\n4\n.  Explanation of Terms\nThere are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is\n   the STATE of standardization, one of \"standard\", \"draft standard\",\n   \"proposed standard\", \"experimental\", \"informational\" or \"historic\".\n   The second is the STATUS (requirement level or applicability) of this\n   protocol, one of \"required\", \"recommended\", \"elective\", \"limited\n   use\", or \"not recommended\".\n\n   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word\n   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an\n   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,\n   should be consulted.\n\n   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 7]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nit is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also\n   notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it\n   reaches the standard state.\n\n   At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.\n   Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following\n   proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).  A new protocol\n   is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or\n   the (experimental, not recommended) cell.\n\n                             S T A T U S\n                     Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not\n                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |\n       S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |\n       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |     |\n       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |  X  |\n       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |\n       E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Hist    |     |     |     |  X  | XXX |\n                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n\n   What is a \"system\"?\n\n      Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few\n      protocols are used in both.  The definitions of the terms below\n      will refer to a \"system\" which is either a host or a gateway (or\n      both).  It should be clear from the context of the particular\n      protocol which types of systems are intended.\n4.1\n.  Definitions of Protocol State\nEvery protocol listed in this document is assigned to a STATE of\n   standardization: \"standard\", \"draft standard\", \"proposed standard\",\n   \"experimental\", or \"historic\".\n\n   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol\n\n      The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for\n      the Internet.  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP\n      protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet;\n      and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of\n      how to do IP on particular types of networks.\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 8]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol\n\n      The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible\n      Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment\n      are desired.  Comments and test results should be submitted to the\n      IAB.  There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft\n      Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.\n\n   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol\n\n      These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for\n      standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by\n      several groups is desirable.  Revision of the protocol\n      specification is likely.\n\n   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol\n\n      A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it\n      is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of\n      the protocol with the developer of the protocol.\n\n      Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as\n      part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational\n      service offering.  While they may be proposed as a service\n      protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,\n      draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a\n      protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that\n      the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for\n      operational use.\n\n   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol\n\n      Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,\n      or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, may\n      be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community\n      as informational protocols.  Such protocols may in some cases also\n      be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.\n\n   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol\n\n      These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in\n      the Internet either because they have been superseded by later\n      developments or due to lack of interest.\nInternet Activities Board                                       [Page 9]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n4.2\n.  Definitions of Protocol Status\nThis document lists a STATUS (requirement level or applicability)\n      for each protocol.  The status is one of \"required\",\n      \"recommended\", \"elective\", \"limited use\", or \"not recommended\".\n\n   4.2.1.  Required Protocol\n\n      A system must implement the required protocols.\n\n   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol\n\n      A system should implement the recommended protocols.\n\n   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol\n\n      A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The\n      general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,\n      you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols\n      in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail\n      protocols, and several routing protocols.\n\n   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol\n\n      These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be\n      because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited\n      functionality, or historic state.\n\n   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol\n\n      These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be\n      because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or\n      experimental or historic state.\n5\n.  The Standards Track\nThis section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC\n   Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling and\n   publishing of protocols as standards.\n5.1\n.  The RFC Processing Decision Table\nHere is the current decision table for processing submissions by the\n   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the\n   status they want it to have.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 10]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n+==========================================================+\n      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |\n      +==========================================================+\n      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |\n      | Status       |          |          |  or RG   |          |\n      +==========================================================+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      | Standard     |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |\n      | or           |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |\n      | Draft        |          |          |          |          |\n      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |\n      | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |\n      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |\n      | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |\n      | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|\n      | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |\n      | Paper        |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +==========================================================+\n\n      (1) Publish.\n\n      (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying\n          Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.\n\n      (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do\n          Refer (4).\n\n      (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see\n          the document again only after approval by the IESG and the\n          IAB.\n\n      (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no concerns are raised in\n          two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve\n          the concerns or do Refer (4).\n\n      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 11]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nis needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or\n          not.\n\n   Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor\n   changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.\n\n   The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for\n   forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns\n   in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor.  Documents from\n   Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same\n   way as documents from \"other\".\n5.2\n.  The Standards Track Diagram\nThere is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called\n   the standards track.  Actually, only the changes of state are\n   significant to the progression along the standards track, though the\n   status assignments may be changed as well.\n\n   The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,\n   those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.  A\n   protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for\n   several months (minimum four months for proposed standard, minimum\n   six months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term\n   state for many years.\n\n   A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation\n   of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to\n   another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by\n   action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to\n   either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.\n\n   Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is\n   made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability\n   (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although\n   a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then\n   is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.  So\n   the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1.  At any time the\n   STATUS decision may be revisited.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 12]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n|\n         +<----------------------------------------------+\n         |                                               ^\n         V    0                                          |    4\n   +-----------+                                   +===========+\n   |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |\n   +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+\n                                   |                     |\n                                   V    1                |\n                             +-----------+               V\n                             | proposed  |-------------->+\n                        +--->+-----+-----+               |\n                        |          |                     |\n                        |          V    2                |\n                        +<---+-----+-----+               V\n                             | draft std |-------------->+\n                        +--->+-----+-----+               |\n                        |          |                     |\n                        |          V    3                |\n                        +<---+=====+=====+               V\n                             | standard  |-------------->+\n                             +=====+=====+               |\n                                                         |\n                                                         V    5\n                                                   +=====+=====+\n                                                   | historic  |\n                                                   +===========+\n\n   The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can\n   only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and\n   only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least\n   four months.\n\n   The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by\n   action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after\n   the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least six months.\n\n   Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for\n   standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).\n   This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted\n   to enter the standards track after further work.  There are other\n   paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve\n   IAB action.\n\n   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes\n   historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is\n   in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and\n   becomes historic (state 5).\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 13]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n6\n.  The Protocols\nSub\nsection 6.1\nlists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections\n6.2\n- 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state.\n6.1\n.  Recent Changes\n6.1.1\n.  New RFCs:\n1252 - OSPF Version 2 MIB\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1251 - Who's Who in the Internet\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1250 - This memo.\n\n      1249 - DIXIE Protocol Specification\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1248 - OSPF Version 2 MIB\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1247 - OSPF Version 2\n\n             A Draft Standard protocol.\n\n      1246 - Experience with the OSPF Protocol\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1245 - OSPF Protocol Analysis\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1244 - Site Security Handbook\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 14]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n1243 - AppleTalk Management Information Base\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1242 - Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection\n             Devices\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1241 - A Scheme for an Internet Encapsulation Protocol: Version 1\n\n             This is a new Experimental protocol.\n\n      1240 - OSI Connectionless Transport Services\n             on top of UDP - Version: 1\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1239 - Reassignment of Experimental MIBs to Standard MIBs\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1238 - CLNS MIB - for use with Connectionless Network\n             Protocol (ISO 8473) and End System to Intermediate\n             System (ISO 9542)\n\n             This is a new Experimental protocol.\n\n      1237 - Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1236 - IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1235 - The Coherent File Distribution Protocol\n\n             This is a new Experimental protocol.\n\n      1234 - Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Networks\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 15]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n1233 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3 Interface Type\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1232 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 Interface Type\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1231 - IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1230 - IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1229 - Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1228 - SNMP-DPI - Simple Network Management Protocol Distributed\n             Program Interface\n\n             This is a new Experimental protocol.\n\n      1227 - SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB\n\n             This is a new Experimental protocol.\n\n      1226 - Internet Protocol Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames\n\n             This is a new Experimental protocol.\n\n      1225 - Post Office Protocol - Version 3\n\n             A Draft Standard protocol.\n\n      1224 - Techniques for Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts\n\n             This is a new Experimental protocol.\n\n      1223 - OSI CLNS and LLC1 Protocols on Network Systems HYPERchannel\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 16]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n1222 - Advancing the NSFNET Routing Architecture\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1221 - Host Access Protocol (HAP) Specification - Version 2\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1220 - Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions for Bridging\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1219 - On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n6.1.2\n.  Other Changes:\nThe following are changes to protocols listed in the previous\n   edition.\n\n      1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management\n             of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II\n\n             Advanced to Standard protocol.\n\n      1212 - Concise MIB Definitions\n\n             Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.\nSection 6.6\non Telnet Options has been added.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 17]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n6.2\n.  Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                      Status         RFC\n========   =====================================     ============= =====\n--------   Assigned Numbers                          Required      1060\n--------   Gateway Requirements                      Required      1009\n--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Required      1122\n--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Required      1123\nIP         Internet Protocol                         Required       791\n            as amended by:\n--------     IP Subnet Extension                     Required       950\n--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Required       919\n--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Required       922\nICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Required       792\nIGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Recommended   1112\nUDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Recommended    768\nTCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Recommended    793\nSMI        Structure of Management Information       Recommended   1155\nMIB-I      Management Information Base               Recommended   1156\nMIB-II     Management Information Base-II            Recommended   1213*\nSNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Recommended   1157\nDOMAIN     Domain Name System                     Recommended 1034,1035\nTELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Recommended    854\nFTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Recommended    959\nSMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Recommended    821\nMAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Recommended    822\nDNS-MX     Mail Routing and the Domain System        Recommended    974\nCONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Recommended   1049\nEGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Recommended    904\nECHO       Echo Protocol                             Recommended    862\nNTP        Network Time Protocol                     Recommended   1119\nNETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Elective 1001,1002\nDISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Elective       863\nCHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Elective       864\nQUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Elective       865\nUSERS      Active Users Protocol                     Elective       866\nDAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Elective       867\nTIME       Time Server Protocol                      Elective       868\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards general\n   adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than\n   broadcasting for many applications.  The host interface has been\n   standardized in\nRFC-1112\n; however, multicast-routing gateways are in\n   the experimental stage and are not widely available.  An Internet\n   host should support all of\nRFC-1112\n, except for the IGMP protocol\n   itself which is optional; see\nRFC-1122\nfor more details.  Even\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 18]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nwithout IGMP, implementation of\nRFC-1112\nwill provide an important\n   advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.  It\n   is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and\n   gateways at some future date.\n\n   SMI, MIB-I, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends\n   that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  At the\n   current time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-I\n   (\nRFC-1156\n), the extensions in MIB-II (\nRFC-1213\n), and at least the\n   recommended management protocol SNMP (\nRFC-1157\n).\n6.3\n.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Elective        826\nRARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Elective        903\nIP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Elective   BBN 1822\nIP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Elective        907\nIP-X25     Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks       Elective        877\nIP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Elective        894\nIP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Elective        895\nIP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Elective       1042\nIP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Elective        891\nIP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel        Elective       1044\nIP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Elective       1051\nIP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Elective       1055\nIP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Elective       1088\nIP-FDDI    Transmission of IP over FDDI             Elective       1188\nIP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Elective       1132\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   It is expected that a system will support one or more physical\n   networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate\n   protocols from the above list must be supported.  That is, it is\n   elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for\n   the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be\n   supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.  See\n   also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific\n   information on network-specific (\"link layer\") protocols.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 19]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n6.4\n.  Draft Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nOSPF2      Open Shortest Path First Routing V2      Elective       1247*\nPOP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective       1225*\nConcise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions                 Elective       1212*\nFINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective       1196\nIP-FDDI    Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks       Elective       1188\nTOPT-LINE  Telnet Linemode Option                   Elective       1184\nPPP        Point to Point Protocol                  Elective       1171\n--------   Mail Privacy: Procedures                 Elective       1113\n--------   Mail Privacy: Key Management             Elective       1114\n--------   Mail Privacy: Algorithms                 Elective       1115\nBOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                      Recommended 951,1084\nRIP        Routing Information Protocol             Elective       1058\nTP-TCP     ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP  Elective       1006\nNICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective        954\nTFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol           Elective        783\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented\n   and used in the Internet.  However, both implementors and users\n   should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a\n   routing protocol.  The IETF is currently developing several\n   candidates for a new standard \"open\" routing protocol with better\n   properties than RIP.  The IAB urges the Internet community to track\n   these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is\n   standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.\n\n   TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,\n   there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the\n   TCP/IP protocols.  The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating\n   strategies for interoperation.\nRFC-1006\nprovides one interoperation\n   mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI\n   applications.  Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented\n   applications in this mode should use the procedure described in\nRFC-\n1006\n.  In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the\n   Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols\n   in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications\n   across the Internet using full OSI protocol \"stacks\".\n\n   PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial\n   lines, which are a type of physical network.  It is anticipated that\n   PPP will be advanced to the network-specific standard protocol state\n   in the future.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 20]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n6.5\n.  Proposed Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nOSPF-MIB   OSPF Version 2 MIB                       Elective  1248,1252*\nAT-MIB     Appletalk MIB                            Elective       1243*\nOSI-UDP    OSI TS on UDP                            Elective       1240*\nSTD-MIBs   Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs     Elective       1239*\nOSI-NSAP   Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation       Elective       1237*\nIPX-IP     Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets    Elective       1234*\nDS3-MIB    DS3 Interface Objects                    Elective       1233*\nDS1-MIB    DS1 Interface Objects                    Elective       1232*\n802.5-MIB  IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB                Elective       1231*\n802.4-MIP  IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB                 Elective       1230*\nGINT-MIB   Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB  Elective       1229*\nPPP-EXT    PPP Extensions for Bridging              Elective       1220*\nOIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II          Elective       1214\nIP-SMDS    IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service       Elective       1209\nIP-ARCNET  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Elective       1201\nIS-IS      OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments   Elective       1195\nIP-MTU     Path MTU Discovery                       Elective       1191\nCMOT       Common Management Information Services   Elective       1189\n           and Protocol over TCP/IP\nPPP-INIT   PPP Initial Configuration Options        Elective       1172\nBGP        Border Gateway Protocol                  Elective  1163,1164\nIP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective       1144\nISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473                       Elective       1139\nSUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective       1094\nSUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective       1057\nPCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective       1056\nNFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective       1037\n-------    Mapping between X.400(84) and\nRFC-822\nElective   987,1026\nNNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective        977\nHOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                        Elective        953\nSFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol            Elective        913\nRLP        Resource Location Protocol               Elective        887\nSUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                          Elective        734\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP over\n   particular network types.  It is anticipated that these will be\n   advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in the\n   future.\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 21]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n6.6\n.  Telnet Options\nFor convenience all the Telnet Options are collected here with both\ntheir state and status.\n\nProtocol   Name                           Number    State   Status  RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nTOPT-BIN   Binary Transmission                 0    Std     Rec     856*\nTOPT-ECHO  Echo                                1    Std     Rec     857*\nTOPT-RECN  Reconnection                        2    Prop    Ele     ...*\nTOPT-SUPP  Suppress Go Ahead                   3    Std     Rec     858*\nTOPT-APRX  Approx Message Size Negotiation     4    Prop    Ele     ...*\nTOPT-STAT  Status                              5    Std     Rec     859*\nTOPT-TIM   Timing Mark                         6    Std     Rec     860*\nTOPT-REM   Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    7    Prop    Ele     726*\nTOPT-OLW   Output Line Width                   8    Prop    Ele     ...*\nTOPT-OPS   Output Page Size                    9    Prop    Ele     ...*\nTOPT-OCRD  Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10    Prop    Ele     652*\nTOPT-OHT   Output Horizontal Tabstops         11    Prop    Ele     653*\nTOPT-OHTD  Output Horizontal Tab Disposition  12    Prop    Ele     654*\nTOPT-OFD   Output Formfeed Disposition        13    Prop    Ele     655*\nTOPT-OVT   Output Vertical Tabstops           14    Prop    Ele     656*\nTOPT-OVTD  Output Vertical Tab Disposition    15    Prop    Ele     657*\nTOPT-OLD   Output Linefeed Disposition        16    Prop    Ele     658*\nTOPT-EXT   Extended ASCII                     17    Prop    Ele     698*\nTOPT-LOGO  Logout                             18    Prop    Ele     727*\nTOPT-BYTE  Byte Macro                         19    Prop    Ele     735*\nTOPT-DATA  Data Entry Terminal                20    Prop    Ele    1043*\nTOPT-SUP   SUPDUP                             21    Prop    Ele     734*\nTOPT-SUPO  SUPDUP Output                      22    Prop    Ele     749*\nTOPT-SNDL  Send Location                      23    Prop    Ele     779*\nTOPT-TERM  Terminal Type                      24    Prop    Ele     930*\nTOPT-EOR   End of Record                      25    Prop    Ele     885*\nTOPT-TACACS  TACACS User Identification       26    Prop    Ele     927*\nTOPT-OM    Output Marking                     27    Prop    Ele     933*\nTOPT-TLN   Terminal Location Number           28    Prop    Ele     946*\nTOPT-3270  Telnet 3270 Regime                 29    Prop    Ele    1041*\nTOPT-X.3   X.3 PAD                            30    Prop    Ele    1053*\nTOPT-NAWS  Negotiate About Window Size        31    Prop    Ele    1073*\nTOPT-TS    Terminal Speed                     32    Prop    Ele    1079*\nTOPT-RFC   Remote Flow Control                33    Prop    Ele    1080*\nTOPT-LINE  Linemode                           34    Draft   Ele    1184*\nTOPT-XDL   X Display Location                 35    Prop    Ele    1096*\nTOPT-EXTOP  Extended-Options-List            255    Std     Rec     861*\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 22]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n6.7\n.  Experimental Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nIN-ENCAP   Internet Encapsulation Protocol          Limited Use    1241*\nCLNS-MIB   CLNS-MIB                                 Limited Use    1238*\nCFDP       Coherent File Distribution Protocol      Limited Use    1235*\nSNMP-DPI   SNMP Distributed Program Interface       Limited Use    1228*\nSNMP-MUX   SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB                Limited Use    1227*\nIP-AX25    IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames         Limited Use    1226*\nALERTS     Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts Limited Use    1224*\nMPP        Message Posting Protocol                 Limited Use    1204\nST-II      Stream Protocol                          Limited Use    1190\nSNMP-BULK  Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP       Limited Use    1187\nDNS-RR     New DNS RR Definitions                   Limited Use    1183\nNTP-OSI    NTP over OSI Remote Operations           Limited Use    1165\nMSP        Message Send Protocol                    Limited Use    1159\nEHF-MAIL   Encoding Header Field for Mail           Elective       1154\nDMF-MAIL   Digest Message Format for Mail           Elective       1153\nRDP        Reliable Data Protocol                  Limited Use 908,1151\n--------   Mapping between X.400(88) and\nRFC-822\nElective       1148\nTCP-ACO    TCP Alternate Checksum Option           Not Recommended 1146\n--------   Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822       Elective       1137\nIP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing    Not Recommended 1075\nTCP-LDP    TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths      Limited Use    1072\nIMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol       Limited Use 1176,1064\nIMAP3      Interactive Mail Access Protocol         Limited Use    1203\nVMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol   Elective       1045\nCOOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                   Not Recommended 1004\nNETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol              Not Recommended 998\nIRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol   Not Recommended 938\nAUTH       Authentication Service                   Not Recommended 931\nLDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                 Not Recommended 909\nNVP-II     Network Voice Protocol                  Limited Use ISI-memo\nPVP        Packet Video Protocol                   Limited Use ISI-memo\n6.8\n.  Informational Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                    Status           RFC\n=======    ====================================    =============== =====\nDIXIE      DIXIE Protocol Specification            Limited Use     1249*\nIP-X.121   IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN     Limited Use     1236*\nOSI-HYPER  OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel            Limited Use     1223*\nHAP2       Host Access Protocol                    Limited Use     1221*\nSUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers     Limited Use     1219*\nSNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP        Limited Use     1215\nDAS        Directory Assistance Service            Limited Use     1202\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 23]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nMD4        MD4 Message Digest Algorithm            Limited Use     1186\nLPDP       Line Printer Daemon Protocol            Limited Use     1179\n6.9\n.  Historic Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n=======    =====================================    ============== =====\nSGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol      Not Recommended 1028\nHEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol   Not Recommended 1021\nSTATSRV    Statistics Server                        Not Recommended 996\nPOP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2          Not Recommended 937\nRATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  Not Recommended 916\nHFEP       Host - Front End Protocol                Not Recommended 929*\nTHINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                        Not Recommended 914\nHMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                 Not Recommended 869\nGGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                 Not Recommended 823\nRTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                    Not Recommended 818\nCLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol               Not Recommended 778\nMPM        Internet Message Protocol                Not Recommended 759\nNETRJS     Remote Job Service                       Not Recommended 740\nNETED      Network Standard Text Editor             Not Recommended 569\nRJE        Remote Job Entry                         Not Recommended 407\nXNET       Cross Net Debugger                   Not Recommended IEN-158\nNAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol            Not Recommended IEN-116\nMUX        Multiplexing Protocol                 Not Recommended IEN-90\nGRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                  Not Recommended NIC-24308\n7\n.  Contacts\n7.1\n.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts\n7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact\n\n   Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially\n   about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board\n   care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.\n\n      Contacts:\n\n         Bob Braden\n         Executive Director of the IAB\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-213-822-1511\n\n         Braden@ISI.EDU\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 24]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nVinton G. Cerf\n         Chair of the IAB\n         Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n         Reston, VA 22091\n\n         1-703-620-8990\n\n         VCerf@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact\n\n      Contacts:\n\n         Phill Gross\n         Chair of the IETF\n         Advanced Network and Services\n         100 Clearbrook Road\n         Elmsford, NY  10523\n\n         1-914-789-5300\n\n         PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n         Greg Vaudreuil\n         IESG Secretary\n         Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n         Reston, VA 22091\n\n         1-703-620-8990\n\n         gvaudre@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact\n\n      Contact:\n\n         David D. Clark\n         Chair of the IRTF\n         Massachusetts Institute of Technology\n         Laboratory for Computer Science\n         545 Main Street\n         Cambridge, MA 02139\n\n         1-617-253-6003\n\n         ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 25]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n7.2\n.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact\nContact:\n\n         Joyce K. Reynolds\n         Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-213-822-1511\n\n         IANA@ISI.EDU\n\n   The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet\n   Assigned Numbers Authority.\n\n   Please refer to the documents \"Assigned Numbers\" (\nRFC-1060\n) and\n   \"Official Internet Protocols\" (\nRFC-1011\n) for further information\n   about the status of protocol documents.  There are two documents that\n   summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet,\n   \"Host Requirements\" (\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n) and \"Gateway\n   Requirements\" (\nRFC-1009\n).\n\n      How to obtain the most recent edition of this \"IAB Official\n      Protocol Standards\" memo:\n\n         The file \"in-notes/iab-standards.txt\" may be copied via FTP\n         from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username\n         \"anonymous\" and FTP password \"guest\".\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 26]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\n7.3\n.  Request for Comments Editor Contact\nContact:\n\n         Jon Postel\n         RFC Editor\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-213-822-1511\n\n         Postel@ISI.EDU\n\n   Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for\n   consideration for publication as RFC.  If you are not familiar with\n   the format or style requirements please request the \"Instructions for\n   RFC Authors\".  In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as\n   a guide.\n7.4\n.  The Network Information Center and\nRequests for Comments Distribution Contact\nContact:\n\n         DDN Network Information Center\n         SRI International\n         Room EJ291\n         333 Ravenswood Avenue\n         Menlo Park, CA  94025\n\n         1-800-235-3155\n         1-415-859-3695\n\n         NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL\n\n   The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information\n   services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the\n   Requests for Comments (RFC) library.\n\n   RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NISC.SRI.COM, with the pathname\n   \"rfc/rfcnnnn.txt\" where \"nnnn\" refers to the number of the RFC.  A\n   list of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file \"rfc/rfc-\n   index.txt\".  Log in with FTP username \"anonymous\" and password\n   \"guest\".\n\n   The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which\n   cannot use FTP.  Address the request to MAIL-SERVER@NISC.SRI.COM and\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 27]\nRFC 1250\nIAB Standards                   August 1991\nin the body of the message indicate the file name, as in \"send\n   rfc:rfcnnnn.txt\".\n\n   Some RFCs are now available in PostScript, these may be obtained from\n   the NIC in a similar fashion by substituting \".ps\" for \".txt\".\n\n      How to obtain the most recent edition of this \"IAB Official\n      Protocol Standards\" memo:\n\n         The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the\n         NIC.DDN.MIL computer following the same procedures used to\n         obtain RFCs.\n7.5\n.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments\nInformation about other sources for RFCs and the procedures for\n   copying RFCs form those sources may be found in the file \"in-\n   notes/rfc-retrieval.txt\" on the host VENERA.ISI.EDU.\n8\n.  Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not addressed in this memo.\n9\n.  Author's Address\nJon Postel\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA 90292\n\n   Phone: 213-822-1511\n   Fax:   213-823-6714\n\n   Email: Postel@ISI.EDU\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInternet Activities Board                                      [Page 28]\nRFC\n1250\n: IAB Official Protocol Standards\nHistoric\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n2200\nInternet Official Protocol Standards\nRFC\n1280\nIAB Official Protocol Standards", "segments": [], "published_at": "1991-08-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1991-08-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1991-08-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:56.067428+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "727c789d-5c6f-4398-899f-260b450fafbb", "source_id": "8fc3bbc85f2e860c611b94e2", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/stocktaking/", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/stocktaking/", "artifact_sha256": "71645e32e186ad195c1fd7df24c4e116f1a2b77b0e1291d49bcca9d82acd5e20", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 14790, "title": "World Summit on the Information Society: Stocktaking", "language": null, "text_length": 1835, "characters": 1835, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society: Stocktaking\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\n|\nMore\nSTOCKTAKING : GENERAL\nINFORMATION\nWelcome to the WSIS\nStocktaking Process\nThe WSIS Stocktaking Process was\nlaunched in October 2004. Its aim is to provide a register of activities\ncarried out by governments, international organizations, the business\nsector, civil society and other entities. To this end, in accordance with\n§120 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society\nadopted by the\nSummit, ITU has been maintaining the WSIS Stocktaking Database as a publicly\naccessible system providing information on ICT-related initiatives and\nprojects with reference to the 11 WSIS Action Lines. In this context you are\nkindly invited to participate in the\nWSIS Stocktaking Platform\nwhich\nis available\nhere\n.\nBe part of the WSIS\nStocktaking Platform!\nThe goals of the WSIS Stocktaking Platform are to\nprovide opportunity for stakeholders to extend network, create partnerships\nand provide more visibility, thereby adding value to the projects at the\nglobal level\nWSIS Stocktaking Platform\nclick here to enter\nN\new\nfunctionalities of the\nWSIS Stocktaking Platform:\nGlobal Events Calendar\nGlobal Repository on WSIS-Related Documents and Publications\nCase Studies\nComing Soon!\nCALL FOR ENTRIES\n2011\nenglish [en]\n,\nfrench [fr]\n,\nspanish [es]\n,\narabic [ar]\n,\nrussian [ru]\n,\nchinese [zh]\nThank you for your contributions to the WSIS Stocktaking Report 2012.\nThe report will be released in\nMay 2012.\nBe part of the WSIS\nStocktaking Exercise: Embedded Interface\nTo\ne\nmbed the WSIS Stocktaking Interface, please click\nhere\n.\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2015\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2012-05-17", "segments": [{"segment_id": "25af88b6-5b65-44ac-996e-97ba15e7b665", "document_id": "727c789d-5c6f-4398-899f-260b450fafbb", "ordinal": 0, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society: Stocktaking\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\n|\nMore\nSTOCKTAKING : GENERAL\nINFORMATION\nWelcome to the WSIS\nStocktaking Process\nThe WSIS Stocktaking Process was\nlaunched in October 2004. Its aim is to provide a register of activities\ncarried out by governments, international organizations, the business\nsector, civil society and other entities. To this end, in accordance with\n§120 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society\nadopted by the\nSummit, ITU has been maintaining the WSIS Stocktaking Database as a publicly\naccessible system providing information on ICT-related initiatives and\nprojects with reference to the 11 WSIS Action Lines. In this context you are\nkindly invited to participate in the\nWSIS Stocktaking Platform\nwhich\nis available\nhere\n.\nBe part of the WSIS\nStocktaking Platform!\nThe goals of the WSIS Stocktaking Platform are to\nprovide opportunity for stakeholders to extend network, create partnerships\nand provide more visibility, thereby adding value to the projects at the\nglobal level\nWSIS Stocktaking Platform\nclick here to enter\nN\new\nfunctionalities of the\nWSIS Stocktaking Platform:\nGlobal Events Calendar\nGlobal Repository on WSIS-Related Documents and Publications\nCase Studies\nComing Soon!\nCALL FOR ENTRIES\n2011\nenglish [en]\n,\nfrench [fr]\n,\nspanish [es]\n,\narabic [ar]\n,\nrussian [ru]\n,\nchinese [zh]\nThank you for your contributions to the WSIS Stocktaking Report 2012.\nThe report will be released in\nMay 2012.\nBe part of the WSIS\nStocktaking Exercise: Embedded Interface\nTo\ne\nmbed the WSIS Stocktaking Interface, please click\nhere\n.\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2015\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2012-05-17", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1835, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 295}}], "published_at": "2004-10-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2004-10-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\nlaunched in October 2004.", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "73f63b39-5680-4cae-9857-db4b6907e5e0", "source_id": "ea0b7579856cd302bb50f6ba", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1327", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1327/", "artifact_sha256": "ea0b7579856cd302bb50f6ba48c298175bbff257b1024d7cfa232b9760cceda2", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 1024144, "title": "RFC 1327: X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading", "language": "en", "text_length": 224369, "characters": 224369, "text": "RFC 1327: Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822 | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1327\n:\nMapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822\nS. Hardcastle-Kille\nProposed Standard\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n2156\n.\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n1495\n.\nNetwork Working Group                                S. Hardcastle-Kille\nRequest for Comments: 1327                     University College London\nObsoletes: RFCs\n987\n,\n1026\n,\n1138\n,\n1148\nMay 1992\nUpdates: RFC\n822\nMapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and\nRFC 822\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet\n   community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.\n   Please refer to the current edition of the \"IAB Official Protocol\n   Standards\" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.\n   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\n   This document describes a set of mappings which will enable\n   interworking between systems operating the CCITT X.400 1988)\n   Recommendations on Message Handling Systems / ISO IEC 10021 Message\n   Oriented Text Interchange Systems (MOTIS) [CCITT/ISO88a], and systems\n   using the\nRFC 822\nmail protocol [Crocker82a] or protocols derived\n   from\nRFC 822\n.  The approach aims to maximise the services offered\n   across the boundary, whilst not requiring unduly complex mappings.\n   The mappings should not require any changes to end systems. This\n   document is a revision based on RFCs 987, 1026, 1138, and 1148\n   [Kille86a,Kille87a] which it obsoletes.\n\n   This document specifies a mapping between two protocols.  This\n   specification should be used when this mapping is performed on the\n   DARPA Internet or in the UK Academic Community.  This specification\n   may be modified in the light of implementation experience, but no\n   substantial changes are expected.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n- Overview ......................................\n3\n1.1\n- X.400 .........................................\n3\n1.2\n-\nRFC 822\n.......................................\n3\n1.3\n- The need for conversion .......................\n4\n1.4\n- General approach ..............................\n4\n1.5\n- Gatewaying Model ..............................\n5\n1.6\n- X.400 (1984) ..................................\n8\n1.7\n- Compatibility with previous versions ..........\n8\n1.8\n- Aspects not covered ...........................\n8\n1.9\n- Subsetting ....................................\n9\n1.10\n- Document Structure ............................\n9\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 1]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n1.11\n- Acknowledgements ..............................\n9\n2\n- Service Elements ..............................\n10\n2.1\n- The Notion of Service Across a Gateway ........\n10\n2.2\n-\nRFC 822\n.......................................\n11\n2.3\n- X.400 .........................................\n15\n3\n- Basic Mappings ................................\n24\n3.1\n- Notation ......................................\n24\n3.2\n- ASCII and IA5 .................................\n26\n3.3\n- Standard Types ................................\n26\n3.4\n- Encoding ASCII in Printable String ............\n28\n4\n- Addressing ....................................\n30\n4.1\n- A textual representation of MTS.ORAddress .....\n30\n4.2\n- Basic Representation ..........................\n31\n4.3\n- EBNF.822-address <-> MTS.ORAddress ............\n36\n4.4\n- Repeated Mappings .............................\n48\n4.5\n- Directory Names ...............................\n50\n4.6\n- MTS Mappings ..................................\n50\n4.7\n- IPMS Mappings .................................\n55\n5\n- Detailed Mappings .............................\n59\n5.1\n-\nRFC 822\n-> X.400 ..............................\n59\n5.2\n- Return of Contents ............................\n67\n5.3\n- X.400 ->\nRFC 822\n..............................\n67\nAppendix A\n- Mappings Specific to SMTP .....................\n91\nAppendix B\n- Mappings specific to the JNT Mail .............\n91\n1\n- Introduction ..................................\n91\n2\n- Domain Ordering ...............................\n91\n3\n- Addressing ....................................\n91\n4\n- Acknowledge-To:  ..............................\n91\n5\n- Trace .........................................\n92\n6\n- Timezone specification ........................\n92\n7\n- Lack of 822-MTS originator specification ......\n92\nAppendix C\n- Mappings specific to UUCP Mail ................\n93\nAppendix D\n- Object Identifier Assignment ..................\n94\nAppendix E\n- BNF Summary ...................................\n94\nAppendix F\n- Format of address mapping tables ..............\n101\n1\n- Global Mapping Information ....................\n101\n2\n- Syntax Definitions ............................\n102\n3\n- Table Lookups .................................\n103\n4\n- Domain -> O/R Address format ..................\n104\n5\n- O/R Address -> Domain format ..................\n104\n6\n- Domain -> O/R Address of Gateway table ........\n104\nAppendix G\n- Mapping with X.400(1984) ......................\n105\nAppendix H\n-\nRFC 822\nExtensions for X.400 access ...........\n106\nAppendix I\n- Conformance ...................................\n106\nAppendix J\n- Change History:\nRFC 987\n, 1026, 1138, 1148 .....\n107\n1\n- Introduction ..................................\n108\n2\n- Service Elements ..............................\n108\n3\n- Basic Mappings ................................\n108\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 2]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n4\n- Addressing ....................................\n108\n5\n- Detailed Mappings .............................\n109\n6\n- Appendices ....................................\n109\nAppendix K\n- Change History:\nRFC 1148\nto this Document .....\n109\n1\n- General .......................................\n109\n2\n- Basic Mappings ................................\n110\n3\n- Addressing ....................................\n110\n4\n- Detailed Mappings .............................\n110\n5\n- Appendices ....................................\n110\nReferences .................................................\n111\nSecurity Considerations ....................................\n113\nAuthor's Address ...........................................\n113\nChapter 1 -- Overview\n1.1\n.  X.400\nThis document relates to the CCITT 1988 X.400 Series Recommendations\n   / ISO IEC 10021 on the Message Oriented Text Interchange Service\n   (MOTIS).  This ISO/CCITT standard is referred to in this document as\n   \"X.400\", which is a convenient shorthand.  Any reference to the 1984\n   CCITT Recommendations will be explicit.  X.400 defines an\n   Interpersonal Messaging System (IPMS), making use of a store and\n   forward Message Transfer System.  This document relates to the IPMS,\n   and not to wider application of X.400.  It is expected that X.400\n   will be implemented very widely.\n1.2\n.\nRFC 822\nRFC 822\nevolved as a messaging standard on the DARPA (the US Defense\n   Advanced Research Projects Agency) Internet.  It specifies and end to\n   end message format.  It is used in conjunction with a number of\n   different message transfer protocol environments.\n\n   SMTP Networks\n       On the DARPA Internet and other TCP/IP networks,\nRFC 822\nis\n       used in conjunction with two other standards:\nRFC 821\n, also\n       known as Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [Postel82a],\n       and\nRFC 920\nwhich is a Specification for domains and a\n       distributed name service [Postel84a].\n\n   UUCP Networks\n       UUCP is the UNIX to UNIX CoPy protocol, which is usually\n       used over dialup telephone networks to provide a simple\n       message transfer mechanism.  There are some extensions to\nRFC 822\n, particularly in the addressing.  They use domains\n       which conform to\nRFC 920\n, but not the corresponding domain\n       nameservers [Horton86a].\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 3]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nBitnet\n       Some parts of Bitnet and related networks use\nRFC 822\nrelated protocols, with EBCDIC encoding.\n\n   JNT Mail Networks\n       A number of X.25 networks, particularly those associated\n       with the UK Academic Community, use the JNT (Joint Network\n       Team) Mail Protocol, also known as Greybook [Kille84a].\n       This is used with domains and name service specified by the\n       JNT NRS (Name Registration Scheme) [Larmouth83a].\n\n   The mappings specified here are appropriate for all of these\n   networks.\n1.3\n.  The need for conversion\nThere is a large community using\nRFC 822\nbased protocols for mail\n   services, who will wish to communicate with users of the IPMS\n   provided by X.400 systems.  This will also be a requirement in cases\n   where communities intend to make a transition to use of an X.400\n   IPMS, as conversion will be needed to ensure a smooth service\n   transition.  It is expected that there will be more than one gateway,\n   and this specification will enable them to behave in a consistent\n   manner.  Note that the term gateway is used to describe a component\n   performing the protocol mappings between\nRFC 822\nand X.400.  This is\n   standard usage amongst mail implementors, but should be noted\n   carefully by transport and network service implementors.\n\n   Consistency between gateways is desirable to provide:\n\n   1.   Consistent service to users.\n\n   2.   The best service in cases where a message passes through\n        multiple gateways.\n1.4\n.  General approach\nThere are a number of basic principles underlying the details of the\n   specification.  These principles are goals, and are not achieved in\n   all aspects of the specification.\n\n   1.   The specification should be pragmatic.  There should not be\n        a requirement for complex mappings for \"Academic\" reasons.\n        Complex mappings should not be required to support trivial\n        additional functionality.\n\n   2.   Subject to 1), functionality across a gateway should be as\n        high as possible.\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 4]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n3.   It is always a bad idea to lose information as a result of\n        any transformation.  Hence, it is a bad idea for a gateway\n        to discard information in the objects it processes.  This\n        includes requested services which cannot be fully mapped.\n\n   4.   All mail gateways actually operate at exactly one level\n        above the layer on which they conceptually operate.  This\n        implies that the gateway must not only be cognisant of the\n        semantics of objects at the gateway level, but also be\n        cognisant of higher level semantics.  If meaningful\n        transformation of the objects that the gateway operates on\n        is to occur, then the gateway needs to understand more than\n        the objects themselves.\n\n   5.   Subject to 1), the specification should be reversible.  That\n        is, a double transformation should bring you back to where\n        you started.\n1.5\n.  Gatewaying Model\n1.5.1\n.  X.400\nX.400 defines the IPMS Abstract Service in X.420/ISO 10021-7,\n   [CCITT/ISO88b] which comprises of three basic services:\n\n   1.   Origination\n\n   2.   Reception\n\n   3.   Management\n\n   Management is a local interaction between the user and the IPMS, and\n   is therefore not relevant to gatewaying.  The first two services\n   consist of operations to originate and receive the following two\n   objects:\n\n   1.   IPM (Interpersonal Message). This has two components: a\n        heading, and a body.  The body is structured as a sequence\n        of body parts, which may be basic components (e.g., IA5\n        text, or G3 fax), or IP Messages.  The heading consists of\n        fields containing end to end user information, such as\n        subject, primary recipients (To:), and importance.\n\n   2.   IPN (Inter Personal Notification).  A notification  about\n        receipt of a given IPM at the UA level.\n\n   The Origination service also allows for origination of a probe, which\n   is an object to test whether a given IPM could be correctly received.\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 5]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThe Reception service also allows for receipt of Delivery Reports\n   DR), which indicate delivery success or failure.\n\n   These IPMS Services utilise the Message Transfer (MT) Abstract\n   Service [CCITT/ISO88c].  The MT Abstract Service provides the\n   following three basic services:\n\n   1.   Submission (used by IPMS Origination)\n\n   2.   Delivery (used by IPMS Reception)\n\n   3.   Administration (used by IPMS Management)\n\n   Administration is a local issue, and so does not affect this\n   standard.  Submission and delivery relate primarily to the MTS\n   Message (comprising Envelope and Content), which carries an IPM or\n   IPN (or other uninterpreted contents).  There is also an Envelope,\n   which includes an ID, an originator, and a list of recipients.\n   Submission also includes the probe service, which supports the IPMS\n   Probe. Delivery also includes Reports, which indicate whether a given\n   MTS Message has been delivered or not.\n\n   The MTS is REFINED into the MTA (Message Transfer Agent) Service,\n   which defines the interaction between MTAs, along with the procedures\n   for distributed operation.  This service provides for transfer of MTS\n   Messages, Probes, and Reports.\n1.5.2\n.\nRFC 822\nRFC 822\nis based on the assumption that there is an underlying\n   service, which is here called the 822-MTS service.  The 822-MTS\n   service provides three basic functions:\n\n   1.   Identification of a list of recipients.\n\n   2.   Identification of an error return address.\n\n   3.   Transfer of an\nRFC 822\nmessage.\n\n   It is possible to achieve 2) within the\nRFC 822\nheader.  Some 822-MTS\n   protocols, in particular SMTP, can provide additional functionality,\n   but as these are neither mandatory in SMTP, nor available in other\n   822-MTS protocols, they are not considered here.  Details of aspects\n   specific to two 822-MTS protocols are given in Appendices B and C.\n   An\nRFC 822\nmessage consists of a header, and content which is\n   uninterpreted ASCII text.  The header is divided into fields, which\n   are the protocol elements.  Most of these fields are analogous to P2\n   heading fields, although some are analogous to MTS Service Elements\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 6]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nor MTA Service Elements.\n1.5.3\n.  The Gateway\nGiven this functional description of the two services, the functional\n   nature of a gateway can now be considered.  It would be elegant to\n   consider the 822-MTS service mapping onto the MTS Service Elements\n   and\nRFC 822\nmapping onto an IPM, but reality just does not fit.\n   Another elegant approach would be to treat this document as the\n   definition of an X.400 Access Unit (AU).  Again, reality does not\n   fit.  It is necessary to consider that the IPM format definition, the\n   IPMS Service Elements, the MTS Service Elements, and MTA Service\n   Elements on one side are mapped into\nRFC 822\n+ 822-MTS on the other\n   in a slightly tangled manner.  The details of the tangle will be made\n   clear in Chapter 5.  Access to the MTA Service Elements is minimised.\n\n   The following basic mappings are thus defined.  When going from\nRFC\n822\nto X.400, an\nRFC 822\nmessage and the associated 822-MTS\n   information is always mapped into an IPM (MTA, MTS, and IPMS\n   Services).  Going from X.400 to\nRFC 822\n, an\nRFC 822\nmessage and the\n   associated 822-MTS information may be derived from:\n\n   1.   A Report (MTA, and MTS Services)\n\n   2.   An IPN (MTA, MTS, and IPMS services)\n\n   3.   An IPM (MTA, MTS, and IPMS services)\n\n   Probes (MTA Service) must be processed by the gateway, as discussed\n   in Chapter 5.  MTS Messages containing Content Types other than those\n   defined by the IPMS are not mapped by the gateway, and should be\n   rejected at the gateway.\n1.5.4\n.  Repeated Mappings\nThe primary goal of this specification is to support single mappings,\n   so that X.400 and\nRFC 822\nusers can communicate with maximum\n   functionality.\n\n   The mappings specified here are designed to work where a message\n   traverses multiple times between X.400 and\nRFC 822\n. This is often\n   essential, particularly in the case of distribution lists.  However,\n   in general, this will lead to a level of service which is the lowest\n   common denominator (approximately the services offered by\nRFC 822\n).\n\n   Some\nRFC 822\nnetworks may wish to use X.400 as an interconnection\n   mechanism (typically for policy reasons), and this is fully\n   supported.\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 7]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nWhere an X.400 messages transfers to\nRFC 822\nand then back to X.400,\n   there is no expectation of X.400 services which do not have an\n   equivalent service in standard\nRFC 822\nbeing preserved - although\n   this may be possible in some cases.\n1.6\n.  X.400 (1984)\nMuch of this work is based on the initial specification of\nRFC 987\nand in its addendum\nRFC 1026\n, which defined a mapping between\n   X.400(1984) and\nRFC 822\n.  A basic decision is that the mapping\n   defined in this document is to the full 1988 version of X.400, and\n   not to a 1984 compatible subset. New features of X.400(1988) can be\n   used to provide a much cleaner mapping than that defined in\nRFC 987\n.\n   This is important, to give good support to communities which will\n   utilise full X.400 at an early date.   To interwork with 1984\n   systems,\nAppendix G\nshall be followed.\n\n   If a message is being transferred to an X.400(1984) system by way of\n   X.400(1988) MTA it will give a slightly better service to follow the\n   rules of\nAppendix G\n.\n1.7\n.  Compatibility with previous versions\nThe changes between this and older versions of the document are given\n   in Appendices I and J.    These are RFCs 987, 1026, 1138, and 1148.\n   This document is a revision of\nRFC 1148\n[Kille90a].  As far as\n   possible, changes have been made in a compatible fashion.\n1.8\n.  Aspects not covered\nThere have been a number of cases where\nRFC 987\nwas used in a manner\n   which was not intended.  This section is to make clear some\n   limitations of scope.  In particular, this specification does not\n   specify:\n\n   -   Extensions of\nRFC 822\nto provide access to all X.400\n       services\n\n   -    X.400 user interface definition\n\n   -    Mapping X.400 to extended versions of\nRFC 822\n, with support\n        for multimedia content.\n\n   The first two of these are really coupled.  To map the X.400\n   services, this specification defines a number of extensions to\nRFC\n822\n.  As a side effect, these give the 822 user access to SOME X.400\n   services.  However, the aim on the\nRFC 822\nside is to preserve\n   current service, and it is intentional that access is not given to\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 8]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nall X.400 services.  Thus, it will be a poor choice for X.400\n   implementors to use\nRFC 987\n(88) as an interface - there are too many\n   aspects of X.400 which cannot be accessed through it.  If a text\n   interface is desired, a specification targeted at X.400, without\nRFC\n822\nrestrictions, would be more appropriate.  Some optional and\n   limited extensions in this area have proved useful, and are defined\n   in\nAppendix H\n.\n1.9\n.  Subsetting\nThis proposal specifies a mapping which is appropriate to preserve\n   services in existing\nRFC 822\ncommunities.  Implementations and\n   specifications which subset this specification are strongly\n   discouraged.\n1.10\n.  Document Structure\nThis document has five chapters:\n\n   1.   Overview - this chapter.\n\n   2.   Service Elements - This describes the (end user) services\n        mapped by a gateway.\n\n   3.   Basic mappings - This describes some basic notation used in\n        Chapters 3-5, the mappings between character sets, and some\n        fundamental protocol elements.\n\n   4.   Addressing - This considers the mapping between X.400 O/R\n        names and\nRFC 822\naddresses, which is a fundamental gateway\n        component.\n\n   5.   Detailed Mappings - This describes the details of all other\n        mappings.\n\n   There are also eleven appendices.\n\n   WARNING:\n        THE REMAINDER OF THIS SPECIFICATION IS TECHNICALLY DETAILED.\n        IT WILL NOT MAKE SENSE, EXCEPT IN THE CONTEXT OF\nRFC 822\nAND\n        X.400 (1988).  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO READ THIS DOCUMENT UNLESS\n        YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THESE SPECIFICATIONS.\n1.11\n.  Acknowledgements\nThe work in this specification was substantially based on\nRFC 987\nand\nRFC 1148\n, which had input from many people, who are credited in the\n   respective documents.\nHardcastle-Kille                                                [Page 9]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nA number of comments from people on\nRFC 1148\nlead to this document.\n   In particular, there were comments and suggestions from:  Maurice\n   Abraham (HP); Harald Alvestrand (Sintef); Peter Cowen (X-Tel); Jim\n   Craigie (JNT); Ella Gardener (MITRE); Christian Huitema (Inria); Erik\n   Huizer (SURFnet); Neil Jones DEC); Ignacio Martinez (IRIS); Julian\n   Onions (X-Tel); Simon Poole (SWITCH); Clive Roberts (Data General);\n   Pete Vanderbilt SUN); Alan Young (Concurrent).\n\nChapter 2 - Service Elements\n\n   This chapter considers the services offered across a gateway built\n   according to this specification.  It gives a view of the\n   functionality provided by such a gateway for communication with users\n   in the opposite domain.  This chapter considers service mappings in\n   the context of SINGLE transfers only, and not repeated mappings\n   through multiple gateways.\n2.1\n.  The Notion of Service Across a Gateway\nRFC 822\nand X.400 provide a number of services to the end user.  This\n   chapter describes the extent to which each service can be supported\n   across an X.400 <->\nRFC 822\ngateway.  The cases considered are single\n   transfers across such a gateway, although the problems of multiple\n   crossings are noted where appropriate.\n2.1.1\n.  Origination of Messages\nWhen a user originates a message, a number of services are available.\n   Some of these imply actions (e.g., delivery to a recipient), and some\n   are insertion of known data (e.g., specification of a subject field).\n   This chapter describes, for each offered service, to what extent it\n   is supported for a recipient accessed through a gateway.  There are\n   three levels of support:\n\n   Supported\n        The corresponding protocol elements map well, and so the\n        service can be fully provided.\n\n   Not Supported\n        The service cannot be provided, as there is a complete\n        mismatch.\n\n   Partial Support\n        The service can be partially fulfilled.\n\n   In the first two cases, the service is simply marked as Supported\" or\n   \"Not Supported\".  Some explanation may be given if there are\n   additional implications, or the (non) support is not intuitive.  For\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 10]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\npartial support, the level of partial support is summarised.  Where\n   partial support is good,  this will be described by a phrase such as\n   \"Supported by use of.....\".  A common case of this is where the\n   service is mapped onto a non- standard service on the other side of\n   the gateway, and this would have lead to support if it had been a\n   standard service.  In many cases, this is equivalent to support.  For\n   partial support, an indication of the mechanism is given, in order to\n   give a feel for the level of support provided.  Note that this is not\n   a replacement for Chapter 5, where the mapping is fully specified.\n\n   If a service is described as supported, this implies:\n\n   -    Semantic correspondence.\n\n   -    No (significant) loss of information.\n\n   -    Any actions required by the service element.\n\n   An example of a service gaining full support: If an\nRFC 822\noriginator specifies a Subject:  field, this is considered to be\n   supported, as an X.400 recipient will get a subject indication.\n\n   In many cases, the required action will simply be to make the\n   information available to the end user.  In other cases, actions may\n   imply generating a delivery report.\n\n   All\nRFC 822\nservices are supported or partially supported for\n   origination.  The implications of non-supported X.400 services is\n   described under X.400.\n2.1.2\n.  Reception of Messages\nFor reception, the list of service elements required to support this\n   mapping is specified.  This is really an indication of what a\n   recipient might expect to see in a message which has been remotely\n   originated.\n2.2\n.\nRFC 822\nRFC 822\ndoes not explicitly define service elements, as distinct from\n   protocol elements.  However, all of the\nRFC 822\nheader fields, with\n   the exception of trace, can be regarded as corresponding to implicit\nRFC 822\nservice elements.\n2.2.1\n.  Origination in\nRFC 822\nA mechanism of mapping, used in several cases, is to map the\nRFC 822\nheader into a heading extension in the IPM (InterPersonal Message).\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 11]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThis can be regarded as partial support, as it makes the information\n   available to any X.400 implementations which are interested in these\n   services. Communities which require significant\nRFC 822\ninterworking\n   are recommended to require that their X.400 User Agents are able to\n   display these heading extensions.  Support for the various service\n   elements (headers) is now listed.\n\n   Date:\n        Supported.\n\n   From:\n        Supported.  For messages where there is also a sender field,\n        the mapping is to \"Authorising Users Indication\", which has\n        subtly different semantics to the general\nRFC 822\nusage of\n        From:.\n\n   Sender:\n        Supported.\n\n   Reply-To:\n        Supported.\n\n   To:  Supported.\n\n   Cc:  Supported.\n\n   Bcc: Supported.\n\n   Message-Id:\n        Supported.\n\n   In-Reply-To:\n        Supported, for a single reference.  Where multiple\n        references are given, partial support is given by mapping to\n        \"Cross Referencing Indication\".  This gives similar\n        semantics.\n\n   References:\n        Supported.\n\n   Keywords:\n        Supported by use of a heading extension.\n\n   Subject:\n        Supported.\n\n   Comments:\n        Supported by use of an extra body part.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 12]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nEncrypted:\n        Supported by use of a heading extension.\n\n   Resent-*\n        Supported by use of a heading extension.  Note that\n        addresses in these fields are mapped onto text, and so are\n        not accessible to the X.400 user as addresses.  In\n        principle, fuller support would be possible by mapping onto\n        a forwarded IP Message, but this is not suggested.\n\n   Other Fields\n        In particular X-* fields, and \"illegal\" fields in common\n        usage (e.g., \"Fruit-of-the-day:\") are supported by use of\n        heading extensions.\n2.2.2\n.  Reception by\nRFC 822\nThis considers reception by an\nRFC 822\nUser Agent of a message\n   originated in an X.400 system and transferred across a gateway.  The\n   following standard services (headers) may be present in such a\n   message:\n\n   Date:\n\n   From:\n\n   Sender:\n\n   Reply-To:\n\n   To:\n\n   Cc:\n\n   Bcc:\n\n   Message-Id:\n\n   In-Reply-To:\n\n   References:\n\n   Subject:\n\n   The following non-standard services (headers) may be present.  These\n   are defined in more detail in Chapter 5 (5.3.4, 5.3.6, 5.3.7):\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 13]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nAutoforwarded:\n\n   Content-Identifier:\n\n   Conversion:\n\n   Conversion-With-Loss:\n\n   Delivery-Date:\n\n   Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions:\n\n   Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions:\n\n   DL-Expansion-History:\n\n   Deferred-Delivery:\n\n   Expiry-Date:\n\n   Importance:\n\n   Incomplete-Copy:\n\n   Language:\n\n   Latest-Delivery-Time:\n\n   Message-Type:\n\n   Obsoletes:\n\n   Original-Encoded-Information-Types:\n\n   Originator-Return-Address:\n\n   Priority:\n\n   Reply-By:\n\n   Requested-Delivery-Method:\n\n   Sensitivity:\n\n   X400-Content-Type:\n\n   X400-MTS-Identifier:\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 14]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nX400-Originator:\n\n   X400-Received:\n\n   X400-Recipients:\n2.3\n.  X.400\n2.3.1\n.  Origination in X.400\nWhen mapping services from X.400 to\nRFC 822\nwhich are not supported\n   by\nRFC 822\n, new\nRFC 822\nheaders are defined.  It is intended that\n   these fields will be registered, and that co- operating\nRFC 822\nsystems may use them.  Where these new fields are used, and no system\n   action is implied, the service can be regarded as being partially\n   supported.  Chapter 5 describes how to map X.400 services onto these\n   new headers.  Other elements are provided, in part, by the gateway as\n   they cannot be provided by\nRFC 822\n.\n\n   Some service elements are marked N/A (not applicable).  There are\n   five cases, which are marked with different comments:\n\n   N/A (local)\n        These elements are only applicable to User Agent / Message\n        Transfer Agent interaction and so they cannot apply to\nRFC\n822\nrecipients.\n\n   N/A (PDAU)\n        These service elements are only applicable where the\n        recipient is reached by use of a Physical Delivery Access\n        Unit (PDAU), and so do not need to be mapped by the gateway.\n\n   N/A (reception)\n        These services  are only applicable for reception.\n\n   N/A (prior)\n        If requested, this service must be performed prior to the\n        gateway.\n\n   N/A (MS)\n        These services are only applicable to Message Store (i.e., a\n        local service).\n\n   Finally, some service elements are not supported.  In particular, the\n   new security services are not mapped onto\nRFC 822\n.  Unless otherwise\n   indicated, the behaviour of service elements marked as not supported\n   will depend on the criticality marking supplied by the user.  If the\n   element is marked as critical for transfer or delivery, a non-\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 15]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\ndelivery notification will be generated.  Otherwise, the service\n   request will be ignored.\n2.3.1.1\n.  Basic Interpersonal Messaging Service\nThese are the mandatory IPM services as listed in\nSection 19.8\nof\n   X.400 / ISO/IEC 10021-1, listed here in the order given.\nSection 19.8\nhas cross references to short definitions of each service.\n\n   Access management\n        N/A (local).\n\n   Content Type Indication\n        Supported by a new\nRFC 822\nheader (Content-Type:).\n\n   Converted Indication\n        Supported by a new\nRFC 822\nheader (X400-Received:).\n\n   Delivery Time Stamp Indication\n        N/A (reception).\n\n   IP Message Identification\n        Supported.\n\n   Message Identification\n        Supported, by use of a new\nRFC 822\nheader\n        (X400-MTS-Identifier).  This new header is required, as\n        X.400 has two message-ids whereas\nRFC 822\nhas only one (see\n        previous service).\n\n   Non-delivery Notification\n        Not supported, although in general an\nRFC 822\nsystem will\n        return error reports by use of IP messages.  In other\n        service elements, this pragmatic result can be treated as\n        effective support of this service element.\n\n   Original Encoded Information Types Indication\n        Supported as a new\nRFC 822\nheader\n        (Original-Encoded-Information-Types:).\n\n   Submission Time Stamp Indication\n        Supported.\n\n   Typed Body\n        Some types supported.  IA5 is fully supported.\n        ForwardedIPMessage is supported, with some loss of\n        information.  Other types get some measure of support,\n        dependent on X.400 facilities for conversion to IA5.  This\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 16]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nwill only be done where content conversion is not\n        prohibited.\n\n   User Capabilities Registration\n        N/A (local).\n2.3.1.2\n.  IPM Service Optional User Facilities\nThis section describes support for the optional (user selectable) IPM\n   services as listed in\nSection 19.9\nof X.400 / ISO/IEC 10021- 1,\n   listed here in the order given.\nSection 19.9\nhas cross references to\n   short definitions of each service.\n\n   Additional Physical Rendition\n        N/A (PDAU).\n\n   Alternate Recipient Allowed\n        Not supported.  There is no\nRFC 822\nservice equivalent to\n        prohibition of alternate recipient assignment (e.g., an\nRFC\n822\nsystem may freely send an undeliverable message to a\n        local postmaster).  Thus, the gateway cannot prevent\n        assignment of alternative recipients on the\nRFC 822\nside.\n        This service really means giving the user control as to\n        whether or not an alternate recipient is allowed. This\n        specification requires transfer of messages to\nRFC 822\nirrespective of this service request, and so this service is\n        not supported.\n\n   Authorising User's Indication\n        Supported.\n\n   Auto-forwarded Indication\n        Supported as new\nRFC 822\nheader (Auto-Forwarded:).\n\n   Basic Physical Rendition\n        N/A (PDAU).\n\n   Blind Copy Recipient Indication\n        Supported.\n\n   Body Part Encryption Indication\n        Supported by use of a new\nRFC 822\nheader\n        (Original-Encoded-Information-Types:), although in most\n        cases it will not be possible to map the body part in\n        question.\n\n   Content Confidentiality\n        Not supported.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 17]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nContent Integrity\n        Not supported.\n\n   Conversion Prohibition\n        Supported.  In this case, only messages with IA5 body parts,\n        other body parts which contain only IA5, and Forwarded IP\n        Messages (subject recursively to the same restrictions),\n        will be mapped.\n\n   Conversion Prohibition in Case of Loss of Information\n        Supported.\n\n   Counter Collection\n        N/A (PDAU).\n\n   Counter Collection with Advice\n        N/A (PDAU).\n\n   Cross Referencing Indication\n        Supported.\n\n   Deferred Delivery\n        N/A (prior).  This service should always be provided by the\n        MTS prior to the gateway.  A new\nRFC 822\nheader\n        Deferred-Delivery:) is provided to transfer information on\n        this service to the recipient.\n\nDeferred Delivery Cancellation\n      N/A (local).\n\nDelivery Notification\n      Supported.  This is performed at the gateway.  Thus, a\n      notification is sent by the gateway to the originator.  If\n      the 822-MTS protocol is JNT Mail, a notification may also be\n      sent by the recipient UA.\n\nDelivery via Bureaufax Service\n      N/A (PDAU).\n\nDesignation of Recipient by Directory Name\n      N/A (local).\n\nDisclosure of Other Recipients\n      Supported by use of a new\nRFC 822\nheader (X400-Recipients:).\n      This is descriptive information for the\nRFC 822\nrecipient,\n      and is not reverse mappable.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 18]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nDL Expansion History Indication\n      Supported by use of a new\nRFC 822\nheader\n      DL-Expansion-History:).\n\nDL Expansion Prohibited\n      Distribution List means MTS supported distribution list, in\n      the manner of X.400.  This service does not exist in the\nRFC\n822\nworld.\nRFC 822\ndistribution lists should be regarded as\n      an informal redistribution mechanism, beyond the scope of\n      this control.  Messages will be sent to\nRFC 822\n,\n      irrespective of whether this service is requested.\n      Theoretically therefore, this service is supported, although\n      in practice it may appear that it is not supported.\n\nExpress Mail Service\n      N/A (PDAU).\n\nExpiry Date Indication\n      Supported as new\nRFC 822\nheader (Expiry-Date:).  In general,\n      no automatic action can be expected.\n\nExplicit Conversion\n      N/A (prior).\n\nForwarded IP Message Indication\n      Supported, with some loss of information.  The message is\n      forwarded in an\nRFC 822\nbody, and so can only be interpreted\n      visually.\n\nGrade of Delivery Selection\n      N/A (PDAU)\n\nImportance Indication\n      Supported as new\nRFC 822\nheader (Importance:).\n\nIncomplete Copy Indication\n      Supported as new\nRFC 822\nheader (Incomplete-Copy:).\n\nLanguage Indication\n      Supported as new\nRFC 822\nheader (Language:).\n\nLatest Delivery Designation\n      Not supported.  A new\nRFC 822\nheader (Latest-Delivery-Time:)\n      is provided, which may be used by the recipient.\n\nMessage Flow Confidentiality\n      Not supported.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 19]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nMessage Origin Authentication\n      N/A (reception).\n\nMessage Security Labelling\n      Not supported.\n\nMessage Sequence Integrity\n      Not supported.\n\nMulti-Destination Delivery\n      Supported.\n\nMulti-part Body\n      Supported, with some loss of information, in that the\n      structuring cannot be formalised in\nRFC 822\n.\n\nNon Receipt Notification Request\n      Not supported.\n\nNon Repudiation of Delivery\n      Not supported.\n\nNon Repudiation of Origin\n      N/A (reception).\n\nNon Repudiation of Submission\n      N/A (local).\n\nObsoleting Indication\n      Supported as new\nRFC 822\nheader (Obsoletes:).\n\nOrdinary Mail\n      N/A (PDAU).\n\nOriginator Indication\n      Supported.\n\nOriginator Requested Alternate Recipient\n      Not supported, but is placed as comment next to address\n      X400-Recipients:).\n\nPhysical Delivery Notification by MHS\n      N/A (PDAU).\n\nPhysical Delivery Notification by PDS\n      N/A (PDAU).\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 20]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nPhysical Forwarding Allowed\n      Supported by use of a comment in a new\nRFC 822\nheader\n      X400-Recipients:), associated with the recipient in\n      question.\n\nPhysical Forwarding Prohibited\n      Supported by use of a comment in a new\nRFC 822\nheader\n      X400-Recipients:), associated with the recipient in\n      question.\n\nPrevention of Non-delivery notification\n      Supported, as delivery notifications cannot be generated by\nRFC 822\n.  In practice, errors will be returned as IP\n      Messages, and so this service may appear not to be supported\n      see Non-delivery Notification).\n\nPrimary and Copy Recipients Indication\n      Supported\n\nProbe\n      Supported at the gateway (i.e., the gateway services the\n      probe).\n\nProbe Origin Authentication\n      N/A (reception).\n\nProof of Delivery\n      Not supported.\n\nProof of Submission\n      N/A (local).\n\nReceipt Notification Request Indication\n      Not supported.\n\nRedirection Allowed by Originator\n      Redirection means MTS supported redirection, in the manner\n      of X.400.  This service does not exist in the\nRFC 822\nworld.\nRFC 822\nredirection (e.g., aliasing) should be regarded as\n      an informal redirection mechanism, beyond the scope of this\n      control.  Messages will be sent to\nRFC 822\n, irrespective of\n      whether this service is requested.  Theoretically therefore,\n      this service is supported, although in practice it may\n      appear that it is not supported.\n\nRegistered Mail\n      N/A (PDAU).\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 21]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nRegistered Mail to Addressee in Person\n      N/A (PDAU).\n\nReply Request Indication\n      Supported as comment next to address.\n\nReplying IP Message Indication\n      Supported.\n\nReport Origin Authentication\n      N/A (reception).\n\nRequest for Forwarding Address\n      N/A (PDAU).\n\nRequested Delivery Method\n      N/A (local).   The services required must be dealt with at\n      submission time.  Any such request is made available through\n      the gateway by use of a comment associated with the\n      recipient in question.\n\nReturn of Content\n      In principle, this is N/A, as non-delivery notifications are\n      not supported.  In practice, most\nRFC 822\nsystems will\n      return part or all of the content along with the IP Message\n      indicating an error (see Non-delivery Notification).\n\nSensitivity Indication\n      Supported as new\nRFC 822\nheader (Sensitivity:).\n\nSpecial Delivery\n      N/A (PDAU).\n\nStored Message Deletion\n      N/A (MS).\n\nStored Message Fetching\n      N/A (MS).\n\nStored Message Listing\n      N/A (MS).\n\nStored Message Summary\n      N/A (MS).\n\nSubject Indication\n      Supported.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 22]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nUndeliverable Mail with Return of Physical Message\n      N/A (PDAU).\n\nUse of Distribution List\n      In principle this applies only to X.400 supported\n      distribution lists (see DL Expansion Prohibited).\n      Theoretically, this service is N/A (prior).  In practice,\n      because of informal\nRFC 822\nlists, this service can be\n      regarded as supported.\n2.3.2\n.  Reception by X.400\n2.3.2.1\n.  Standard Mandatory Services\nThe following standard IPM mandatory  user facilities are required\n   for reception of\nRFC 822\noriginated mail by an X.400 UA.\n\n   Content Type Indication\n\n   Delivery Time Stamp Indication\n\n   IP Message Identification\n\n   Message Identification\n\n   Non-delivery Notification\n\n   Original Encoded Information Types Indication\n\n   Submission Time Stamp Indication\n\n   Typed Body\n2.3.2.2\n.  Standard Optional Services\nThe following standard IPM optional user facilities are required for\n   reception of\nRFC 822\noriginated mail by an X.400 UA.\n\n   Authorising User's Indication\n\n   Blind Copy Recipient Indication\n\n   Cross Referencing Indication\n\n   Originator Indication\n\n   Primary and Copy Recipients Indication\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 23]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nReplying IP Message Indication\n\n   Subject Indication\n2.3.2.3\n.  New Services\nA new service \"\nRFC 822\nHeader Field\" is defined using the extension\n   facilities.  This allows for any\nRFC 822\nheader field to be\n   represented.  It may be present in\nRFC 822\noriginated messages, which\n   are received by an X.400 UA.\n\nChapter 3 Basic Mappings\n3.1\n.  Notation\nThe X.400 protocols are encoded in a structured manner according to\n   ASN.1, whereas\nRFC 822\nis text encoded.  To define a detailed\n   mapping, it is necessary to refer to detailed protocol elements in\n   each format.  A notation to achieve this is described in this\n   section.\n3.1.1\n.\nRFC 822\nStructured text is defined according to the Extended Backus Naur Form\n   (EBNF) defined in\nSection 2 of RFC 822\n[Crocker82a].  In the EBNF\n   definitions used in this specification, the syntax rules given in\nAppendix D of RFC 822\nare assumed.  When these EBNF tokens are\n   referred to outside an EBNF definition, they are identified by the\n   string \"822.\" appended to the beginning of the string (e.g.,\n   822.addr-spec).  Additional syntax rules, to be used throughout this\n   specification, are defined in this chapter.\n\n   The EBNF is used in two ways.\n\n   1.   To describe components of\nRFC 822\nmessages (or of 822-MTS\n        components).  In this case, the lexical analysis defined in\nSection 3 of RFC 822\nshall be used.  When these new EBNF\n        tokens are referred to outside an EBNF definition, they are\n        identified by the string \"EBNF.\" appended to the beginning\n        of the string (e.g., EBNF.importance).\n\n   2.   To describe the structure of IA5 or ASCII information not in\n        an\nRFC 822\nmessage.  In these cases, tokens will either be\n        self delimiting, or be delimited by self delimiting tokens.\n        Comments and LWSP are not used as delimiters, except for the\n        following cases, where LWSP may be inserted according to\nRFC\n822\nrules.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 24]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n-         Around the \":\" in all headers\n\n   -         EBNF.labelled-integer\n\n   -         EBNF.object-identifier\n\n   -         EBNF.encoded-info\nRFC 822\nfolding rules are applied to all headers.\n3.1.2\n.  ASN.1\nAn element is referred to with the following syntax, defined in EBNF:\n\n        element         = service \".\" definition *( \".\" definition )\n        service         = \"IPMS\" / \"MTS\" / \"MTA\"\n        definition      = identifier / context\n        identifier      = ALPHA *< ALPHA or DIGIT or \"-\" >\n        context         = \"[\" 1*DIGIT \"]\"\n\n   The EBNF.service keys are shorthand for the following service\n   specifications:\n\n      IPMS IPMSInformationObjects defined in Annex E of X.420 / ISO\n           10021-7.\n\n      MTS  MTSAbstractService defined in\nSection 9\nof X.411 / ISO\n           10021-4.\n\n      MTA  MTAAbstractService defined in\nSection 13\nof X.411 / ISO\n           10021-4.\n\n   The first EBNF.identifier identifies a type or value key in the\n   context of the defined service specification.   Subsequent\n   EBNF.identifiers identify a value label or type in the context of the\n   first identifier (SET or SEQUENCE).  EBNF.context indicates a context\n   tag, and is used where there is no label or type to uniquely identify\n   a component.  The special EBNF.identifier keyword \"value\" is used to\n   denote an element of a sequence.\n\n   For example, IPMS.Heading.subject defines the subject element of the\n   IPMS heading.  The same syntax is also used to refer to element\n   values.  For example,\n\n   MTS.EncodedInformationTypes.[0].g3Fax refers to a value of\n   MTS.EncodedInformationTypes.[0] .\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 25]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n3.2\n.  ASCII and IA5\nA gateway will interpret all IA5 as ASCII.  Thus, mapping between\n   these forms is conceptual.\n3.3\n.  Standard Types\nThere is a need to convert between ASCII text, and some of the types\n   defined in ASN.1 [CCITT/ISO88d].  For each case, an EBNF syntax\n   definition is given, for use in all of this specification, which\n   leads to a mapping between ASN.1, and an EBNF construct.  All EBNF\n   syntax definitions of ASN.1 types are in lower case, whereas ASN.1\n   types are referred to with the first letter in upper case.  Except as\n   noted, all mappings are symmetrical.\n3.3.1\n.  Boolean\nBoolean is encoded as:\n\n           boolean = \"TRUE\" / \"FALSE\"\n3.3.2\n.  NumericString\nNumericString is encoded as:\n\n           numericstring = *DIGIT\n3.3.3\n.  PrintableString\nPrintableString is a restricted IA5String defined as:\n\n           printablestring  = *( ps-char )\n           ps-restricted-char      = 1DIGIT /  1ALPHA / \" \" / \"'\" / \"+\"\n                              / \",\" / \"-\" / \".\" / \"/\" / \":\" / \"=\" / \"?\"\n           ps-delim         = \"(\" / \")\"\n           ps-char          = ps-delim / ps-restricted-char\n\n   This can be used to represent real printable strings in EBNF.\n3.3.4\n.  T.61String\nIn cases where T.61 strings are only used for conveying human\n   interpreted information, the aim of a mapping is  to render the\n   characters appropriately in the remote character set, rather than to\n   maximise reversibility.  For these cases, the mappings to IA5 defined\n   in CCITT Recommendation X.408 (1988) shall be used [CCITT/ISO88a].\n   These will then be encoded in ASCII.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 26]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThere is also a need to represent Teletex Strings in ASCII, for some\n   aspects of O/R Address.  For these, the following encoding is used:\n\n           teletex-string   = *( ps-char / t61-encoded )\n           t61-encoded      = \"{\" 1* t61-encoded-char \"}\"\n           t61-encoded-char = 3DIGIT\n\n   Common characters are mapped simply.  Other octets are mapped using a\n   quoting mechanism similar to the printable string mechanism.  Each\n   octet is represented as 3 decimal digits.\n\n   There are a number of places where a string may have a Teletex and/or\n   Printable String representation.  The following BNF is used to\n   represent this.\n\n      teletex-and-or-ps = [ printablestring ] [ \"*\" teletex-string ]\n\n   The natural mapping is restricted to EBNF.ps-char, in order to make\n   the full BNF easier to parse.\n3.3.5\n.  UTCTime\nBoth UTCTime and the\nRFC 822\n822.date-time syntax contain:  Year\n   (lowest two digits), Month, Day of Month, hour, minute, second\n   (optional), and Timezone.  822.date-time also contains an optional\n   day of the week, but this is redundant.  Therefore a symmetrical\n   mapping can be made between these constructs.\n\n   Note:\n        In practice, a gateway will need to parse various illegal\n        variants on 822.date-time.  In cases where 822.date-time\n        cannot be parsed, it is recommended that the derived UTCTime\n        is set to the value at the time of translation.\n\n   When mapping to X.400, the UTCTime format which specifies the\n   timezone offset shall be used.\n\n   When mapping to\nRFC 822\n, the 822.date-time format shall include a\n   numeric timezone offset (e.g., +0000).\n\n   When mapping time values, the timezone shall be preserved as\n   specified.  The date shall not be normalised to any other timezone.\n3.3.6\n.  Integer\nA basic ASN.1 Integer will be mapped onto EBNF.numericstring.  In\n   many cases ASN.1 will enumerate Integer values or use ENUMERATED.  An\n   EBNF encoding labelled-integer is provided. When mapping from EBNF to\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 27]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nASN.1, only the integer value is mapped, and the associated text is\n   discarded.  When mapping from ASN.1 to EBNF, addition of an\n   appropriate text label is strongly encouraged.\n\n        labelled-integer ::= [ key-string ] \"(\" numericstring \")\"\n\n        key-string      = *key-char\n        key-char        = <a-z, A-Z, 0-9, and \"-\">\n3.3.7\n.  Object Identifier\nObject identifiers are represented in a form similar to that given in\n   ASN.1.  The order is the same as for ASN.1 (big-endian).  The numbers\n   are mandatory, and used when mapping from the ASCII to ASN.1.  The\n   key-strings are optional.  It is recommended that as many strings as\n   possible are generated when mapping from ASN.1 to ASCII, to\n   facilitate user recognition.\n\n        object-identifier  ::= oid-comp object-identifier\n                        | oid-comp\n\n        oid-comp ::= [ key-string ] \"(\" numericstring \")\"\n\nAn example representation of an object identifier is:\n\n        joint-iso-ccitt(2) mhs (6) ipms (1) ep (11) ia5-text (0)\n\n        or\n\n        (2) (6) (1)(11)(0)\n3.4\n.  Encoding ASCII in Printable String\nSome information in\nRFC 822\nis represented in ASCII, and needs to be\n   mapped into X.400 elements encoded as printable string.  For this\n   reason, a mechanism to represent ASCII encoded as PrintableString is\n   needed.\n\n   A structured subset of EBNF.printablestring is now defined.  This\n   shall be used to encode ASCII in the PrintableString character set.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 28]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nps-encoded       = *( ps-restricted-char / ps-encoded-char )\n        ps-encoded-char  = \"(a)\"               ; (@)\n                         / \"(p)\"               ; (%)\n                         / \"(b)\"               ; (!)\n                         / \"(q)\"               ; (\")\n                         / \"(u)\"               ; (_)\n                         / \"(l)\"               ; \"(\"\n                         / \"(r)\"               ; \")\"\n                         / \"(\" 3DIGIT \")\"\n\n   The 822.3DIGIT in EBNF.ps-encoded-char must have range 0-127, and is\n   interpreted in decimal as the corresponding ASCII character.  Special\n   encodings are given for: at sign (@), percent (%), exclamation\n   mark/bang (!), double quote (\"), underscore (_), left bracket ((),\n   and right bracket ()).  These characters, with the exception of round\n   brackets, are not included in PrintableString, but are common in\nRFC\n822\naddresses.  The abbreviations will ease specification of\nRFC 822\naddresses from an X.400 system.  These special encodings shall be\n   interpreted in a case insensitive manner, but always generated in\n   lower case.\n\n   A reversible mapping between PrintableString and ASCII can now be\n   defined.  The reversibility means that some values of printable\n   string (containing round braces) cannot be generated from ASCII.\n   Therefore, this mapping must only be used in cases where the\n   printable strings may only be derived from ASCII (and will therefore\n   have a restricted domain).  For example, in this specification, it is\n   only applied to a Domain Defined Attribute which will have been\n   generated by use of this specification and a value such as \"(\" would\n   not be possible.\n\n   To encode ASCII as PrintableString, the EBNF.ps-encoded syntax is\n   used, with all EBNF.ps-restricted-char mapped directly.  All other\n   822.CHAR are encoded as EBNF.ps-encoded-char.\n\n   To encode PrintableString as ASCII, parse PrintableString as\n   EBNF.ps-encoded, and then reverse the previous mapping.  If the\n   PrintableString cannot be parsed, then the mapping is being applied\n   in to an inappropriate value, and an error shall be given to the\n   procedure doing the mapping. In some cases, it may be preferable to\n   pass the printable string through unaltered.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 29]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nSome examples are now given.  Note the arrows which indicate\n   asymmetrical mappings:\n\n                PrintableString           ASCII\n\n                'a demo.'         <->   'a demo.'\n                foo(a)bar         <->   foo@bar\n                (q)(u)(p)(q)      <->   \"_%\"\n                (a)               <->   @\n                (A)               ->    @\n                (l)a(r)           <->   (a)\n                (126)             <->   ~\n                (                 ->    (\n                (l)               <->   (\n\nChapter 4 - Addressing\n\n   Addressing is probably the trickiest problem of an X.400 <->\nRFC 822\ngateway.  Therefore it is given a separate chapter.  This chapter, as\n   a side effect, also defines a textual representation of an X.400 O/R\n   Address.\n\n   Initially we consider an address in the (human) mail user sense of\n   \"what is typed at the mailsystem to reference a mail user\".  A basic\nRFC 822\naddress is defined by the EBNF EBNF.822-address:\n\n           822-address     = [ route ] addr-spec\n\n   In an 822-MTS protocol, the originator and each recipient are\n   considered to be defined by such a construct.  In an\nRFC 822\nheader,\n   the EBNF.822-address is encapsulated in the 822.address syntax rule,\n   and there may also be associated comments.  None of this extra\n   information has any semantics, other than to the end user.\n\n   The basic X.400 O/R Address, used by the MTS for routing, is defined\n   by MTS.ORAddress.  In IPMS, the MTS.ORAddress is encapsulated within\n   IPMS.ORDescriptor.\n\n   It can be seen that\nRFC 822\n822.address must be mapped with\n   IPMS.ORDescriptor, and that\nRFC 822\nEBNF.822-address must be mapped\n   with MTS.ORAddress.\n4.1\n.  A textual representation of MTS.ORAddress\nMTS.ORAddress is structured as a set of attribute value pairs.  It is\n   clearly necessary to be able to encode this in ASCII for gatewaying\n   purposes.  All components shall be encoded, in order to guarantee\n   return of error messages, and to optimise third party replies.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 30]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n4.2\n.  Basic Representation\nAn O/R Address has a number of structured and unstructured\n   attributes.  For each unstructured attribute, a key and an encoding\n   is specified.  For structured attributes, the X.400 attribute is\n   mapped onto one or more attribute value pairs.  For domain defined\n   attributes, each element of the sequence will be mapped onto a triple\n   (key and two values), with each value having the same encoding.  The\n   attributes are as follows, with 1984 attributes given in the first\n   part of the table.  For each attribute, a reference is given,\n   consisting of the relevant sections in X.402 / ISO 10021-2, and the\n   extension identifier for 88 only attributes:\n\n  Attribute (Component)                Key          Enc     Ref     Id\n\n84/88 Attributes\n\nMTS.CountryName                        C              P     18.3.3\nMTS.AdministrationDomainName           ADMD           P     18.3.1\nMTS.PrivateDomainName                  PRMD           P     18.3.21\nMTS.NetworkAddress                     X121           N     18.3.7\nMTS.TerminalIdentifier                 T-ID           P     18.3.23\nMTS.OrganizationName                   O              P/T   18.3.9\nMTS.OrganizationalUnitNames.value      OU             P/T   18.3.10\nMTS.NumericUserIdentifier              UA-ID          N     18.3.8\nMTS.PersonalName                       PN             P/T   18.3.12\nMTS.PersonalName.surname               S              P/T   18.3.12\nMTS.PersonalName.given-name            G              P/T   18.3.12\nMTS.PersonalName.initials              I              P/T   18.3.12\nMTS.PersonalName\n   .generation-qualifier               GQ             P/T   18.3.12\nMTS.DomainDefinedAttribute.value       DD             P/T   18.1\n88\nAttributes\nMTS.CommonName                         CN             P/T   18.3.2    1\nMTS.TeletexCommonName                  CN             P/T   18.3.2    2\nMTS.TeletexOrganizationName            O              P/T   18.3.9    3\nMTS.TeletexPersonalName                PN             P/T   18.3.12   4\nMTS.TeletexPersonalName.surname        S              P/T   18.3.12   4\nMTS.TeletexPersonalName.given-name     G              P/T   18.3.12   4\nMTS.TeletexPersonalName.initials       I              P/T   18.3.12   4\nMTS.TeletexPersonalName\n    .generation-qualifier              GQ             P/T   18.3.12   4\nMTS.TeletexOrganizationalUnitNames\n   .value                              OU             P/T   18.3.10   5\nMTS.TeletexDomainDefinedAttribute\n   .value                              DD             P/T   18.1      6\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 31]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nMTS.PDSName                            PD-SERVICE     P     18.3.11   7\nMTS.PhysicalDeliveryCountryName        PD-C           P     18.3.13   8\nMTS.PostalCode                         PD-CODE        P     18.3.19   9\nMTS.PhysicalDeliveryOfficeName         PD-OFFICE      P/T   18.3.14   10\nMTS.PhysicalDeliveryOfficeNumber       PD-OFFICE-NUM  P/T   18.3.15   11\nMTS.ExtensionORAddressComponents       PD-EXT-ADDRESS P/T   18.3.4    12\nMTS.PhysicalDeliveryPersonName         PD-PN          P/T   18.3.17   13\nMTS.PhysicalDeliveryOrganizationName   PD-O           P/T   18.3.16   14\nMTS.ExtensionPhysicalDelivery\n   AddressComponents                  PD-EXT-DELIVERY P/T   18.3.5    15\nMTS.UnformattedPostalAddress           PD-ADDRESS     P/T   18.3.25   16\nMTS.StreetAddress                      PD-STREET      P/T   18.3.22   17\nMTS.PostOfficeBoxAddress               PD-BOX         P/T   18.3.18   18\nMTS.PosteRestanteAddress               PD-RESTANTE    P/T   18.3.20   19\nMTS.UniquePostalName                   PD-UNIQUE      P/T   18.3.26   20\nMTS.LocalPostalAttributes              PD-LOCAL       P/T   18.3.6    21\nMTS.ExtendedNetworkAddress\n   .e163-4-address.number              NET-NUM        N     18.3.7    22\nMTS.ExtendedNetworkAddress\n   .e163-4-address.sub-address         NET-SUB        N     18.3.7    22\nMTS.ExtendedNetworkAddress\n   .psap-address                       NET-PSAP       X     18.3.7    22\nMTS.TerminalType                       T-TY           I     18.3.24   23\n\n   The following keys identify different EBNF encodings, which are\n   associated with the ASCII representation of MTS.ORAddress.\n\n                   Key         Encoding\n\n                   P     printablestring\n                   N     numericstring\n                   T     teletex-string\n                   P/T   teletex-and-or-ps\n                   I     labelled-integer\n                   X     presentation-address\n\n   The BNF for presentation-address is taken from the specification \"A\n   String Encoding of Presentation Address\" [Kille89a].\n\n   In most cases, the EBNF encoding maps directly to the ASN.1 encoding\n   of the attribute.  There are a few exceptions. In cases where an\n   attribute can be encoded as either a PrintableString or NumericString\n   (Country, ADMD, PRMD), either form is mapped into the BNF.  When\n   generating ASN.1, the NumericString encoding shall be used if the\n   string contains only digits.\n\n   There are a number of cases where the P/T (teletex-and-or-ps)\n   representation is used.  Where the key maps to a single attribute,\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 32]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nthis choice is reflected in the encoding of the attribute (attributes\n   10-21).  For most of the 1984 attributes and common name, there is a\n   printablestring and a teletex variant.   This pair of attributes is\n   mapped onto the single component here.  This will give a clean\n   mapping for the common cases where only one form of the name is used.\n\n   Recently, ISO has undertaken work to specify a string form of O/R\n   Address [CCITT/ISO91a].  This has specified a number of string\n   keywords for attributes.  As\nRFC 1148\nwas an input to this work, many\n   of the keywords are the same.  To increase compatability, the\n   following alternative values shall be recognised when mapping from\nRFC 822\nto X.400.  These shall not be generated when mapping from\n   X.400 to\nRFC 822\n.\n\n                   Keyword          Alternative\n\n               ADMD               A\n               PRMD               P\n               GQ                 Q\n               X121               X.121\n               UA-ID              N-ID\n               PD-OFFICE-NUMBER   PD-OFFICE NUMBER\n\n   When mapping from\nRFC 822\nto X.400, the keywords: OU1, OU2, OU3, and\n   OU4, shall be recognised.    If these are present, no keyword OU\n   shall be present.  These will be treated as ordered values of OU.\n4.2.1\n.  Encoding of Personal Name\nHandling of Personal Name and Teletex Personal Name based purely on\n   the EBNF.standard-type syntax defined above is likely to be clumsy.\n   It seems desirable to utilise the \"human\" conventions for encoding\n   these components.  A syntax is defined, which is designed to provide\n   a clean encoding for the common cases of O/R Address specification\n   where:\n\n   1.   There is no generational qualifier\n\n   2.   Initials contain only letters\n\n   3.   Given Name does not contain full stop (\".\"), and is at least\n        two characters long.\n\n   4.   Surname does not contain full stop in the first two\n        characters.\n\n   5    If Surname is the only component, it does not contain full\n        stop.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 33]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThe following EBNF is defined:\n\n           encoded-pn      = [ given \".\" ] *( initial \".\" ) surname\n\n           given           = 2*<ps-char not including \".\">\n\n           initial         = ALPHA\n\n           surname         = printablestring\n\n   This is used to map from any string containing only printable string\n   characters to an O/R address personal name.  To map from a string to\n   O/R Address components, parse the string according to the EBNF.  The\n   given name and surname are assigned directly.  All EBNF.initial\n   tokens are concatenated without intervening full stops to generate\n   the initials component.\n\n   For an O/R address which follows the above restrictions, a string is\n   derived in the natural manner.  In this case, the mapping will be\n   reversible.\n\n   For example:\n\n        GivenName       = \"Marshall\"\n        Surname         = \"Rose\"\n\n        Maps with  \"Marshall.Rose\"\n\n        Initials        = \"MT\"\n        Surname         = \"Rose\"\n\n        Maps with  \"M.T.Rose\"\n\n        GivenName       = \"Marshall\"\n        Initials        = \"MT\"\n        Surname         = \"Rose\"\n\n        Maps with  \"Marshall.M.T.Rose\"\n\n   Note that X.400 suggest that Initials is used to encode ALL initials.\n   Therefore, the defined encoding is \"natural\" when either GivenName or\n   Initials, but not both, are present.  The case where both are present\n   can be encoded, but this appears to be contrived!\n4.2.2\n.  Standard Encoding of MTS.ORAddress\nGiven this structure, we can specify a BNF representation of an O/R\n   Address.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 34]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nstd-or-address  = 1*( \"/\" attribute \"=\" value ) \"/\"\n        attribute       = standard-type\n                        / \"\nRFC-822\n\"\n                        / registered-dd-type\n                        / dd-key \".\" std-printablestring\n        standard-type   = key-string\n\n        registered-dd-type\n                        = key-string\n        dd-key          = key-string\n\n        value           = std-printablestring\n\n        std-printablestring\n                        = *( std-char / std-pair )\n        std-char        = <\"{\", \"}\", \"*\", and any ps-char\n                                        except \"/\" and \"=\">\n        std-pair        = \"$\" ps-char\n\n   The standard-type is any key defined in the table in\nSection 4.2\n,\n   except PN, and DD.  The BNF leads to a set of attribute/value pairs.\n   The value is interpreted according to the EBNF encoding defined in\n   the table.\n\n   If the standard-type is PN, the value is interpreted according to\n   EBNF.encoded-pn, and the components of MTS.PersonalName and/or\n   MTS.TeletexPersonalName derived accordingly.\n\n   If dd-key is the recognised Domain Defined string (DD), then the type\n   and value are interpreted according to the syntax implied from the\n   encoding, and aligned to either the teletex or printable string form.\n   Key and value shall have the same encoding.\n\n   If value is \"\nRFC-822\n\", then the (printable string) Domain Defined\n   Type of \"\nRFC-822\n\" is assumed.  This is an optimised encoding of the\n   domain defined type defined by this specification.\n\n   The matching of all keywords shall be done in a case-independent\n   manner.\n\n   EBNF.std-or-address uses the characters \"/\" and \"=\" as delimiters.\n   Domain Defined Attributes and any value may contain these characters.\n   A quoting mechanism, using the non-printable string \"$\" is used to\n   allow these characters to be represented.\n\n   If the value is registered-dd-type, and the value is registered at\n   the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as an accepted Domain\n   Defined Attribute type, then the value shall be interpreted\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 35]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\naccordingly.  This restriction maximises the syntax checking which\n   can be done at a gateway.\n4.3\n.  EBNF.822-address <-> MTS.ORAddress\nIdeally, the mapping specified would be entirely symmetrical and\n   global, to enable addresses to be referred to transparently in the\n   remote system, with the choice of gateway being left to the Message\n   Transfer Service.  There are two fundamental reasons why this is not\n   possible:\n\n   1.   The syntaxes are sufficiently different to make this\n        awkward.\n\n   2.   In the general case, there would not be the necessary\n        administrative co-operation between the X.400 and\nRFC 822\nworlds, which would be needed for this to work.\n\n   Therefore, an asymmetrical mapping is defined, which can be\n   symmetrical where there is appropriate administrative control.\n4.3.1\n.  X.400 encoded in\nRFC 822\nThe std-or-address syntax is  used to encode O/R Address information\n   in the 822.local-part of EBNF.822-address.  In some cases, further\n   O/R Address information is associated with the 822.domain component.\n   This cannot be used in the general case, due to character set\n   problems, and to the variants of X.400 O/R Addresses which use\n   different attribute types.  The only way to encode the full\n   PrintableString character set in a domain is by use of the\n   822.domain-ref syntax (i.e. 822.atom).  This is likely to cause\n   problems on many systems.  The effective character set of domains is\n   in practice reduced from the\nRFC 822\nset, by restrictions imposed by\n   domain conventions and policy, and by restrictions in\nRFC 821\n.\n\n   A generic 822.address consists of a 822.local-part and a sequence of\n   822.domains (e.g., <@domain1,@domain2:user@domain3>).  All except the\n   822.domain associated with the 822.local-part (domain3 in this case)\n   are considered to specify routing within the\nRFC 822\nworld, and will\n   not be interpreted by the gateway (although they may have identified\n   the gateway from within the\nRFC 822\nworld).\n\n   The  822.domain associated with the 822.local-part identifies the\n   gateway from within the\nRFC 822\nworld.  This final 822.domain may be\n   used to determine some number of O/R Address attributes, where this\n   does not conflict with the first role.\nRFC 822\nrouting to gateways\n   will usually be set up to facilitate the 822.domain being used for\n   both purposes.  The following O/R Address attributes are considered\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 36]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nas a hierarchy, and may be specified by the domain.  They are (in\n   order of hierarchy):\n\n        Country, ADMD, PRMD, Organisation, Organisational Unit\n\n   There may be multiple Organisational Units.\n\n   A global mapping is defined between domain specifications, and some\n   set of attributes.  This association proceeds hierarchically.  For\n   example, if a domain implies ADMD, it also implies country.\n   Subdomains under this are associated according to the O/R Address\n   hierarchy.  For example:\n\n        => \"AC.UK\" might be associated with\n        C=\"GB\", ADMD=\"GOLD 400\", PRMD=\"UK.AC\"\n\n        then domain \"R-D.Salford.AC.UK\" maps with\n        C=\"GB\", ADMD=\"GOLD 400\", PRMD=\"UK.AC\", O=\"Salford\", OU=\"R-D\"\n\n   There are three basic reasons why a domain/attribute mapping might be\n   maintained, as opposed to using simply subdomains:\n\n   1.   As a shorthand to avoid redundant X.400 information.  In\n        particular, there will often be only one ADMD per country,\n        and so it does not need to be given explicitly.\n\n   2.   To deal with cases where attribute values do not fit the\n        syntax:\n\n           domain-syntax   = alphanum [ *alphanumhyphen alphanum ]\n           alphanum        = <ALPHA or DIGIT>\n           alphanumhyphen  = <ALPHA or DIGIT or HYPHEN>\n\n\n        Although\nRFC 822\nallows for a more general syntax, this\n        restricted syntax is chosen as it is the one chosen by the\n        various domain service administrations.\n\n   3.   To deal with missing elements in the hierarchy.  A domain\n        may be associated with an omitted attribute in conjunction\n        with several present ones.  When performing the algorithmic\n        insertion of components lower in the hierarchy, the omitted\n        value shall be skipped.  For example, if \"HNE.EGM\" is\n        associated with \"C=TC\", \"ADMD=ECQ\", \"PRMD=HNE\", and omitted\n        organisation, then \"ZI.HNE.EGM\" is mapped with \"C=TC\",\n        \"ADMD=ECQ\", \"PRMD=HNE\", \"OU=ZI\". Attributes may have null\n        values, and  this is treated separately from omitted\n        attributes (whilst it would be bad practice to treat these\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 37]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\ntwo cases differently, they must be allowed for).\n\n   This set of mappings needs  be known by the gateways relaying between\n   the\nRFC 822\nworld, and the O/R Address space associated with the\n   mapping in question.  There needs to be a single global definition of\n   this set of mappings.  A mapping implies an adminstrative equivalence\n   between the two parts of the namespaces which are mapped together.\n   To correctly route in all cases, it is necessary for all gateways to\n   know the mapping.  To facilitate distribution of a global set of\n   mappings, a format for the exchange of this information is defined in\nAppendix F\n.\n\n   The remaining attributes are encoded on the LHS, using the EBNF.std-\n   or-address syntax.  For example:\n\n        /I=J/S=Linnimouth/GQ=5/@Marketing.Widget.COM\n\n   encodes the MTS.ORAddress consisting of:\n\n        MTS.CountryName                       = \"TC\"\n        MTS.AdministrationDomainName          = \"BTT\"\n        MTS.OrganizationName                  = \"Widget\"\n        MTS.OrganizationalUnitNames.value     = \"Marketing\"\n        MTS.PersonalName.surname              = \"Linnimouth\"\n        MTS.PersonalName.initials             = \"J\"\n        MTS.PersonalName.generation-qualifier = \"5\"\n\n   The first three attributes are determined by the domain Widget.COM.\n   Then, the first element of OrganizationalUnitNames is determined\n   systematically, and the remaining attributes are encoded on the LHS.\n   In an extreme case, all of the attributes will be on the LHS.  As the\n   domain cannot be null, the RHS will simply be a domain indicating the\n   gateway.\n\n   The RHS (domain) encoding is designed to deal cleanly with common\n   addresses, and so the amount of information on the RHS is maximised.\n   In particular, it covers the Mnemonic O/R Address using a 1984\n   compatible encoding.  This is seen as the dominant form of O/R\n   Address.  Use of other forms of O/R Address, and teletex encoded\n   attributes will require an LHS encoding.\n\n   There is a further mechanism to simplify the encoding of common\n   cases, where the only attributes to be encoded on the LHS is a (non-\n   Teletex) Personal Name attributes which comply with the restrictions\n   of 4.2.1.  To achieve this, the 822.local-part shall be encoded as\n   EBNF.encoded-pn.  In the previous example, if the GenerationQualifier\n   was not present in the previous example O/R Address, it would map\n   with the\nRFC 822\naddress: J.Linnimouth@Marketing.Widget.COM.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 38]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nFrom the standpoint of the\nRFC 822\nMessage Transfer System, the\n   domain specification is simply used to route the message in the\n   standard manner.  The standard domain mechanisms are used to select\n   appropriate gateways for the corresponding O/R Address space.  In\n   most cases, this will be done by registering the higher levels, and\n   assuming that the gateway can handle the lower levels.\n4.3.2\n.\nRFC 822\nencoded in X.400\nIn some cases, the encoding defined above may be reversed, to give a\n   \"natural\" encoding of genuine\nRFC 822\naddresses.  This depends\n   largely on the allocation of appropriate management domains.\n\n   The general case is mapped by use of domain defined attributes.  A\n   Domain defined type \"\nRFC-822\n\" is defined. The associated attribute\n   value is an ASCII string encoded according to\nSection 3.3.3\nof this\n   specification. The interpretation of the ASCII string depends on the\n   context of the gateway.\n\n   1.   In the context of\nRFC 822\n, and\nRFC 920\n[Crocker82a,Postel84a], the string can be used directly.\n\n   2.   In the context of the JNT Mail protocol, and the NRS\n        [Kille84a,Larmouth83a], the string shall be interpreted\n        according to Mailgroup Note 15 [Kille84b].\n\n   3.   In the context of UUCP based systems, the string shall be\n        interpreted as defined in [Horton86a].\n\n   Other O/R Address attributes will be used to identify a context in\n   which the O/R Address will be interpreted.  This might be a\n   Management Domain, or some part of a Management Domain which\n   identifies a gateway MTA.  For example:\n\n           C               = \"GB\"\n           ADMD            = \"GOLD 400\"\n           PRMD            = \"UK.AC\"\n           O               = \"UCL\"\n           OU              = \"CS\"\n           \"\nRFC-822\n\"      =  \"Jimmy(a)WIDGET-LABS.CO.UK\"\n\n   OR\n\n           C               = \"TC\"\n           ADMD            = \"Wizz.mail\"\n           PRMD            = \"42\"\n           \"\nrfc-822\n\"       = \"postel(a)venera.isi.edu\"\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 39]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nNote in each case the PrintableString encoding of \"@\" as \"(a)\".  In\n   the second example, the \"\nRFC-822\n\" domain defined attribute is\n   interpreted everywhere within the (Private) Management Domain.  In\n   the first example, further attributes are needed within the\n   Management Domain to identify a gateway.  Thus, this scheme can be\n   used with varying levels of Management Domain co-operation.\n\n   There is a limit of 128 characters in the length of value of a domain\n   defined attribute, and an O/R Address can have a maxmimum of four\n   domain defined attributes.  Where the printable string generated from\n   the\nRFC 822\naddress exceeeds this value, additional domain defined\n   attributes are used to enable up to 512 characters to be encoded.\n   These attributes shall be filled completely before the next one is\n   started.   The DDA keywords are:  RFC822C1; RFC822C2; RFC822C3.\n   Longer addresses cannot be encoded.\n\n   There is, analagous with 4.3.1, a means to associate parts of the O/R\n   Address hierarchy with domains.  There is an analogous global\n   mapping, which in most cases will be the inverse of the domain to O/R\n   address mapping.  The mapping is maintained separately, as there may\n   be differences (e.g., two alternate domain names map to the same set\n   of O/R address components).\n4.3.3\n.  Component Ordering\nIn most cases, ordering of O/R Address components is not significant\n   for the mappings specified.  However, Organisational Units (printable\n   string and teletex forms) and Domain Defined Attributes are specified\n   as SEQUENCE in MTS.ORAddress, and so their order may be significant.\n   This specification needs to take account of this:\n\n   1.   To allow consistent mapping into the domain hierarchy\n\n   2.   To ensure preservation of order over multiple mappings.\n\n   There are three places where an order is specified:\n\n   1.   The text encoding (std-or-address) of MTS.ORAddress as used\n        in the local-part of an\nRFC 822\naddress.  An order is needed\n        for those components which may have multiple values\n        (Organisational Unit, and Domain Defined Attributes). When\n        generating an 822.std-or-address, components of a given type\n        shall be in hierarchical order with the most significant\n        component on the RHS.  If there is an Organisation\n        Attribute, it shall be to the right of any Organisational\n        Unit attributes.  These requirements are for the following\n        reasons:\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 40]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n-         Alignment to the hierarchy of other components in\nRFC\n822\naddresses (thus, Organisational Units will appear\n             in the same order, whether encoded on the RHS or LHS).\n             Note the differences of JNT Mail as described in\nAppendix B\n.\n\n   -         Backwards compatibility with\nRFC 987\n/1026.\n\n   -         To ensure that gateways generate consistent addresses.\n             This is both to help end users, and to generate\n             identical message ids.\n\n        Further, it is recommended that all other attributes are\n        generated according to this ordering, so that all attributes\n        so encoded follow a consistent hierarchy.   When generating\n        822.msg-id, this order shall be followed.\n\n   2.   For the Organisational Units (OU) in MTS.ORAddress, the\n        first OU in the SEQUENCE is the most significant, as\n        specified in X.400.\n\n   3.   For the Domain Defined Attributes in MTS.ORAddress, the\n        First Domain Defined Attribute in the SEQUENCE is the most\n        significant.\n\n        Note that although this ordering is mandatory for this\n        mapping, there are NO implications on ordering significance\n        within X.400, where this is a Management Domain issue.\n4.3.4\n.\nRFC 822\n-> X.400\nThere are two basic cases:\n\n   1.   X.400 addresses encoded in\nRFC 822\n.  This will also include\nRFC 822\naddresses which are given reversible encodings.\n\n   2.   \"Genuine\"\nRFC 822\naddresses.\n\n   The mapping shall proceed as follows, by first assuming case 1).\n\nSTAGE I.\n\n   1.   If the 822-address is not of the form:\n\n                local-part \"@\" domain\n\n        take the domain which will be routed on and apply step 2 of\n        stage 1 to derive (a possibly null) set of attributes. Then\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 41]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\ngo to stage II.\n\n        NOTE:It may be appropriate to reduce a source route address\n             to this form by removal of all bar the last domain.  In\n             terms of the design intentions of\nRFC 822\n, this would\n             be an incorrect action.  However, in most real cases,\n             it will do the \"right\" thing and provide a better\n             service to the end user.  This is a reflection on the\n             excessive and inappropriate use of source routing in\nRFC 822\nbased systems.  Either approach, or the\n             intermediate approach of stripping only domain\n             references which reference the local gateway are\n             conformant to this specification.\n\n   2.   Attempt to parse EBNF.domain as:\n\n                *( domain-syntax \".\" ) known-domain\n\n        Where EBNF.known-domain is the longest possible match in the\n        set of globally defined mappings (see\nAppendix F\n).  If this\n        fails, and the EBNF.domain does not explicitly identify the\n        local gateway, go to stage II.  If the domain explicitly\n        identifies the gateway, allocate no attributes.  Otherwise,\n        allocate the attributes associated with EBNF.known-domain.\n        For each component, systematically allocate the attribute\n        implied by each EBNF.domain-syntax component in the order:\n        C, ADMD, PRMD, O, OU.  Note that if the mapping used\n        identifies an \"omitted attribute\", then this attribute\n        should be omitted in the systematic allocation.  If this new\n        component exceed an upper bound (ADMD: 16; PRMD: 16; O: 64;\n        OU:  32) or it would lead to more than four OUs, then go to\n        stage II with the attributes derived.\n\n        At this stage, a set of attributes has been derived, which\n        will give appropriate routing within X.400.  If any of the\n        later steps of Stage I force use of Stage II, then these\n        attributes should be used in Stage II.\n\n   3.   If the 822.local-part uses the 822.quoted-string encoding,\n        remove this quoting.  If this unquoted 822.local-part has\n        leading space, trailing space, or two adjacent space go to\n        stage II.\n\n   4.   If the unquoted 822.local-part contains any characters not\n        in PrintableString, go to stage II.\n\n   5.   Parse the (unquoted) 822.local-part according to the EBNF\n        EBNF.std-or-address.  Checking of upper bounds should not be\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 42]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\ndone at this point.  If this parse fails, parse the local-\n        part according to the EBNF EBNF.encoded-pn.  If this parse\n        fails, go to stage II.  The result is a set of type/value\n        pairs.  If the set of attributes leads to an address of any\n        form other than mnemonic form, then only these attributes\n        should be taken. If (for mnemonic form) the values generated\n        conflict with those derived in step 2 (e.g., a duplicated\n        country attribute), the domain is assumed to be a remote\n        gateway.  In this case, take only the LHS derived\n        attributes, together with any RHS dericed attributes which\n        are more significant thant the most signicant attribute\n        which is duplicated (e.g., if there is a duplicate PRMD, but\n        no LHS derived ADMD and country, then the ADMD and country\n        should be taken from the RHS).  therwise add LHS and RHS\n        derived attributes together.\n\n   6.   Associate the EBNF.attribute-value syntax (determined from\n        the identified type) with each value, and check that it\n        conforms.  If not, go to stage II.\n\n   7.   Ensure that the set of attributes conforms both to the\n        MTS.ORAddress specification and to the restrictions on this\n        set given in X.400, and that no upper bounds are exceeded\n        for any attribute.  If not go to stage II.\n\n   8.   Build the O/R Address from this information.\n\nSTAGE II.\n\n   This will only be reached if the\nRFC 822\nEBNF.822-address is not a\n   valid X.400 encoding.  This implies that the address must refer to a\n   recipient on an\nRFC 822\nsystem.  Such addresses shall be encoded in\n   an X.400 O/R Address using a domain defined attribute.\n\n   1.   Convert the EBNF.822-address to PrintableString, as\n        specified in Chapter 3.\n\n   2.   Generate the \"\nRFC-822\n\" domain defined attribute  from this\n        string.\n\n   3.   Build the rest of the O/R Address in the manner described\n        below.\n\n   It may not be possible to encode the domain defined attribute due to\n   length restrictions.  If the limit is exceeded by a mapping at the\n   MTS level, then the gateway shall reject the message in question.  If\n   this occurs at the IPMS level, then the action will depend on the\n   policy being taken for IPMS encoding, which is discussed in Section\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 43]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n5.1.3.\n\n   If Stage I has identified a set of attributes, use these to build the\n   remainder of the address.  The administrative equivalence of the\n   mappings will ensure correct routing throug X.400 to a gateway back\n   to\nRFC 822\n.\n\n   If Stage I has not identified a set of attributes, the remainder of\n   the O/R address effectively identifies a source route to a gateway\n   from the X.400 side.  There are three cases, which are handled\n   differently:\n\n   822-MTS Return Address\n        This shall be set up so that errors are returned through the\n        same gateway.  Therefore, the O/R Address of the local\n        gateway shall be used.\n\n   IPMS Addresses\n        These are optimised for replying.  In general, the message\n        may end up anywhere within the X.400 world, and so this\n        optimisation identifies a gateway appropriate for  the\nRFC\n822\naddress being converted.  The 822.domain to which the\n        address would be routed is used to select an appropriate\n        gateway. A globally defined set of mappings is used, which\n        identifies (the O/R Address components of) appropriate\n        gateways for parts of the domain namespace.  The longest\n        possible match on the 822.domain defines which gateway to\n        use.  The table format for distribution of this information\n        is defined in\nAppendix F\n.\n\n        This global mapping is used for parts of the\nRFC 822\nnamespace which do not have an administrative equivalence\n        with any part of the X.400 namespace, but for which it is\n        desirable to identify a preferred X.400 gateway in order to\n        optimise routing.\n\n        If no mapping is found for the 822.domain, a default value\n        (typically that of the local gateway) is used.  It is never\n        appropriate to ignore the globally defined mappings.  In\n        some cases, it may be appropriate to locally override the\n        globally defined mappings (e.g., to identify a gateway close\n        to a recipient of the message).  This is likely to be where\n        the global mapping identifies a public gateway, and the\n        local gateway has an agreement with a private gateway which\n        it prefers to use.\n\n   822-MTS Recipient\n        As the\nRFC 822\nand X.400 worlds are fully connected, there\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 44]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nis no technical reason for this situation to occur.  In some\n        cases, routing may be configured to connect two parts of the\nRFC 822\nworld using X.400.  The information that this part\n        of the domain space should be routed by X.400 rather than\n        remaining within the\nRFC 822\nworld will be configured\n        privately into the gateway in question.  The O/R address\n        shall then be generated in the same manner as for an IPMS\n        address, using the globally defined mappings. It is to\n        support this case that the definition of the global domain\n        to gateway mapping is important, as the use of this mapping\n        will lead to a remote X.400 address, which can be routed by\n        X.400 routing procedures.  The information in this mapping\n        shall not be used as a basis for deciding to convert a\n        message from\nRFC 822\nto X.400.\n4.3.4.1\n.  Heuristics for mapping\nRFC 822\nto X.400\nRFC 822\nusers will often use an LHS encoded address to identify an\n   X.400 recipient.  Because the syntax is fairly complex, a number of\n   heuristics may be applied to facilitate this form of usage.  A\n   gateway should take care not to be overly \"clever\" with heuristics,\n   as this may cause more confusion than a more mechanical approach.\n   The heuristics are as follows:\n\n   1.   Ignore the omission of a trailing \"/\" in the std-or syntax.\n\n   2.   If there is no ADMD component, and both country and PRMD are\n        present, the value of /ADMD= / (single space) is assumed.\n\n   3.   Parse the unquoted local part according to the EBNF colon-\n        or-address.  This may facilitate users used to this\n        delimiter.\n\n        colon-or-address = 1*(attribute \"=\" value \";\" *(LWSP-char))\n\n   The remaining heuristic relates to ordering of address components.\n   The ordering of attributes may be inverted or mixed.  For this\n   reason, the following heuristics may be applied:\n\n   4.   If there is an Organisation attribute to the left of any Org\n        Unit attribute, assume that the hierarchy is inverted.\n4.3.5\n.  X.400 ->\nRFC 822\nThere are two basic cases:\n\n   1.\nRFC 822\naddresses encoded in X.400.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 45]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n2.   \"Genuine\" X.400 addresses.  This may include symmetrically\n        encoded\nRFC 822\naddresses.\n\n   When a MTS Recipient O/R Address is interpreted, gatewaying will be\n   selected if there is a single \"\nRFC-822\n\" domain defined attribute\n   present and the local gateway is identified by the remainder of the\n   O/R Address.  In this case, use mapping A.  For other O/R Addresses\n   which\n\n   1.   Contain the special attribute.\n\n        AND\n\n   2.   Identifies the local gateway or any other known gateway with\n        the other attributes.\n\n   use mapping A.  In other cases, use mapping B.\n\n   NOTE:\n        A pragmatic approach would  be to assume that any O/R\n        Address with the special domain defined attribute identifies\n        an\nRFC 822\naddress. This will usually work correctly, but is\n        in principle not correct.  Use of this approach is\n        conformant to this specification.\n\nMapping A\n\n   1.   Map the domain defined attribute value to ASCII, as defined\n        in Chapter 3.\n\nMapping B\n\n   This is used for X.400 addresses which do not use the explicit\nRFC\n822\nencoding.\n\n   1.   For all string encoded attributes, remove any leading or\n        trailing spaces, and replace adjacent spaces with a single\n        space.\n\n        The only attribute which is permitted to have zero length is\n        the ADMD.  This should be mapped onto a single space.\n\n        These transformations are for lookup only.   If an\n        EBNF.std-or-address mapping is used as in 4), then the\n        orginal values should be used.\n\n   2.   Map numeric country codes to the two letter values.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 46]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n3.   Noting the hierarchy specified in 4.3.1 and including\n        omitted attributes, determine the maximum set of attributes\n        which have an associated domain specification in the\n        globally defined mapping.  If no match is found, allocate\n        the domain as the domain specification of the local gateway,\n        and go to step 5.\n\n   Note:     It might be appropriate to use a non-local domain.\n             This would be selected by a global mapping analagous to\n             the one described at the end of 4.3.4.  This is not\n             done, primarily because use of\nRFC 822\nto connect X.400\n             systems is not expected to be significant.\n\n        In cases where the address refers to an X.400 UA, it is\n        important that the generated domain will correctly route to\n        a gateway.  In general, this is achieved by carefully co-\n        ordinating\nRFC 822\nrouting with the definition of the global\n        mappings, as there is no easy way for the gateway to make\n        this check.  One rule that shall be used is that domains\n        with only one component will not route to a gateway.  If the\n        generated domain does not route correctly, the address is\n        treated as if no match is found.\n\n   4.   The mapping identified  in 3) gives a domain, and an O/R\n        address prefix.  Follow the hierarchy: C, ADMD, PRMD, O, OU.\n        For each successive component below the O/R address prefix,\n        which conforms to the syntax EBNF.domain-syntax (as defined\n        in 4.3.1), allocate the next subdomain.  At least one\n        attribute of the X.400 address shall not be mapped onto\n        subdomain, as 822.local-part cannot be null.  If there are\n        omitted attributes in the O/R address prefix, these will\n        have correctly and uniquely mapped to a domain component.\n        Where there is an attribute omitted below the prefix, all\n        attributes remaining in the O/R address shall be encoded on\n        the LHS.  This is to ensure a reversible mapping. For\n        example, if the is an addres /S=XX/O=YY/ADMD=A/C=NN/ and a\n        mapping for /ADMD=A/C=NN/ is used, then /S=XX/O=YY/ is\n        encoded on the LHS.\n\n   5.   If the address is not  mnemonic form (form 1 variant 1),\n        then all of the attributes in the address should be encoded\n        on the LHS in EBNF.std-or-address syntax, as described\n        below.\n\n        For addresses of mnemonic form, if the remaining components\n        are personal-name components, conforming to the restrictions\n        of 4.2.1, then EBNF.encoded-pn is derived to form\n        822.local-part.  In other cases the remaining components are\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 47]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nsimply encoded as 822.local-part using the\n        EBNF.std-or-address syntax.  If necessary, the\n        822.quoted-string encoding is used.  The following are\n        examples of legal quoting: \"a b\".c@x; \"a b.c\"@x.  Either\n        form may be generated, but the latter is preferred.\n\n        If the derived 822.local-part can only be encoded by use of\n        822.quoted-string, then use of the mapping defined\n        in [Kille89b] may be appropriate.  Use of this mapping is\n        discouraged.\n4.4\n.  Repeated Mappings\nThere are two types of repeated mapping:\n\n   1.   A recursive mapping, where the repeat is within one gateway\n\n   2    A source route, where the repetition occurs across multiple\n        gateways\n4.4.1\n.  Recursive Mappings\nIt is possible to supply an address which is recurive at a single\n   gateway.  For example:\n\n           C          = \"XX\"\n           ADMD       = \"YY\"\n           O          = \"ZZ\"\n           \"\nRFC-822\n\"  = \"Smith(a)ZZ.YY.XX\"\n\n   This is mapped first to an\nRFC 822\naddress, and then back to the\n   X.400 address:\n\n           C          = \"XX\"\n           ADMD       = \"YY\"\n           O          = \"ZZ\"\n           Surname    = \"Smith\"\n\n   In some situations this type of recursion may be frequent.  It is\n   important that where this occurs, that no unnecessary protocol\n   conversion occurs. This will minimise loss of service.\n4.4.2\n.  Source Routes\nThe mappings defined are symmetrical and reversible across a single\n   gateway.  The symmetry is particularly useful in cases of (mail\n   exploder type) distribution list expansion.  For example, an X.400\n   user sends to a list on an\nRFC 822\nsystem which he belongs to.  The\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 48]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nreceived message will have the originator and any 3rd party X.400 O/R\n   Addresses in correct format (rather than doubly encoded).  In cases\n   (X.400 or\nRFC 822\n) where there is common agreement on gateway\n   identification, then this will apply to multiple gateways.\n\n   When a message traverses multiple gateways, the mapping will always\n   be reversible, in that a reply can be generated which will correctly\n   reverse the path.  In many cases, the mapping will also be\n   symmetrical, which will appear clean to the end user.  For example,\n   if countries \"AB\" and \"XY\" have\nRFC 822\nnetworks, but are\n   interconnected by X.400, the following may happen:  The originator\n   specifies:\n\n           Joe.Soap@Widget.PTT.XY\n\n   This is routed to a gateway, which generates:\n\n           C               = \"XY\"\n           ADMD            = \"PTT\"\n           PRMD            = \"Griddle MHS Providers\"\n           Organisation    = \"Widget Corporation\"\n           Surname         = \"Soap\"\n           Given Name      = \"Joe\"\n\n   This is then routed to another gateway where the mapping is reversed\n   to give:\n\n           Joe.Soap@Widget.PTT.XY\n\n   Here, use of the gateway is transparent.\n\n   Mappings will only be symmetrical where mapping tables are defined.\n   In other cases, the reversibility is more important, due to the (far\n   too frequent) cases where\nRFC 822\nand X.400 services are partitioned.\n\n   The syntax may be used to source route.  THIS IS STRONGLY\n   DISCOURAGED.  For example:\n\n         X.400 ->\nRFC 822\n-> X.400\n\n         C             = \"UK\"\n         ADMD          = \"Gold 400\"\n         PRMD          = \"UK.AC\"\n         \"\nRFC-822\n\"     = \"/PN=Duval/DD.Title=Manager/(a)Inria.ATLAS.FR\"\n\n   This will be sent to an arbitrary UK Academic Community gateway by\n   X.400.  Then it will be sent by JNT Mail to another gateway\n   determined by the domain Inria.ATLAS.FR (FR.ATLAS.Inria).  This will\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 49]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nthen derive the X.400 O/R Address:\n\n           C             = \"FR\"\n           ADMD          = \"ATLAS\"\n           PRMD          = \"Inria\"\n           PN.S          = \"Duval\"\n           \"Title\"       = \"Manager\"\n\n   Similarly:\nRFC 822\n-> X.400 ->\nRFC 822\n\"/C=UK/ADMD=BT/PRMD=AC/RFC-822=jj(a)seismo.css.gov/\"@monet.berkeley.edu\n\n   This will be sent to monet.berkeley.edu by\nRFC 822\n, then to the AC\n   PRMD by X.400, and then to jj@seismo.css.gov by\nRFC 822\n.\n4.5\n.  Directory Names\nDirectory Names are an optional part of O/R Name, along with O/R\n   Address.  The\nRFC 822\naddresses are mapped onto the O/R Address\n   component. As there is no functional mapping for the Directory Name\n   on the\nRFC 822\nside, a textual mapping is used.  There is no\n   requirement for reversibility in terms of the goals of this\n   specification.  There may be some loss of functionality in terms of\n   third party recipients where only a directory name is given, but this\n   seems preferable to the significant extra complexity of adding a full\n   mapping for Directory Names.\n\n   Note:There is ongoing work on specification of a \"user friendly\"\n        format for directory names.  If this is adopted as an\n        internet standard, it will be recommended, but not required,\n        for use here.\n4.6\n.  MTS Mappings\nThe basic mappings at the MTS level are:\n\n   1) 822-MTS originator ->\n                 MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.originator-name\n      MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name ->\n                 822-MTS originator\n\n   2) 822-MTS recipient ->\n                 MTS.PerRecipientMessageSubmissionFields\n      MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name ->\n                 822-MTS recipient\n\n   822-MTS recipients and return addresses are encoded as EBNF.822-\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 50]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\naddress.\n\n   The MTS Originator is always encoded as MTS.OriginatorName, which\n   maps onto MTS.ORAddressAndOptionalDirectoryName, which in turn maps\n   onto MTS.ORName.\n4.6.1\n.\nRFC 822\n-> X.400\nFrom the 822-MTS Originator, use the basic ORAddress mapping, to\n   generate MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.originator-name (MTS.ORName),\n   without a DirectoryName.\n\n   For recipients, the following settings are made for each component of\n   MTS.PerRecipientMessageSubmissionFields.\n\n   recipient-name\n        This is derived from the 822-MTS recipient by the basic\n        ORAddress mapping.\n\n   originator-report-request\n        This is be set according to content return policy, as\n        discussed in\nSection 5.2\n.\n\n   explicit-conversion\n        This optional component is omitted, as this service is not\n        needed\n\n   extensions\n        The default value (no extensions) is used\n4.6.2\n.  X.400 ->\nRFC 822\nThe basic functionality is to generate the 822-MTS originator and\n   recipients.  There is information present on the X.400 side, which\n   cannot be mapped into analogous 822-MTS services.  For this reason,\n   new\nRFC 822\nfields are added for the MTS Originator and Recipients.\n   The information discarded at the 822-MTS level will be present in\n   these fields. In some cases a (positive) delivery report will be\n   generated.\n4.6.2.1\n.  822-MTS Mappings\nUse the basic ORAddress mapping, to generate the 822-MTS originator\n   (return address) from MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name\n   (MTS.ORName).  If MTS.ORName.directory-name is present, it is\n   discarded.  (Note that it will be presented to the user, as described\n   in 4.6.2.2).\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 51]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThe 822-MTS recipient is conceptually generated from\n   MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name.  This is done by\n   taking MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name, and\n   generating an 822-MTS recipient according to the basic ORAddress\n   mapping, discarding MTS.ORName.directory-name if present.  However,\n   if this model was followed exactly, there would be no possibility to\n   have multiple 822-MTS recipients on a single message.  This is\n   unacceptable, and so layering is violated.  The mapping needs to use\n   the MTA level information, and map each value of\n   MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.recipient-name, where the\n   responsibility bit is set, onto an 822-MTS recipient.\n4.6.2.2\n.  Generation of\nRFC 822\nHeaders\nNot all per-recipient information can be passed at the 822-MTS level.\n   For this reason, two new\nRFC 822\nheaders are created, in order to\n   carry this information to the\nRFC 822\nrecipient.  These fields are\n   \"X400-Originator:\"  and \"X400-Recipients:\".\n\n   The \"X400-Originator:\" field is set to the same value as the 822-MTS\n   originator.  In addition, if\n   MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name (MTS.ORName) contains\n   MTS.ORName.directory-name then this Directory Name shall be\n   represented in an 822.comment.\n\n   Recipient names, taken from each value of\n   MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name and\n   MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.other-recipient-names are made\n   available to the\nRFC 822\nuser by use of the \"X400-Recipients:\" field.\n   By taking the recipients at the MTS level, disclosure of recipients\n   will be dealt with correctly.  However, this conflicts with a desire\n   to optimise mail transfer.  There is no problem when disclosure of\n   recipients is allowed. Similarly, there is no problem if there is\n   only one\nRFC 822\nrecipient, as the \"X400-Recipients field is only\n   given one address.\n\n   There is a problem if there are multiple\nRFC 822\nrecipients, and\n   disclosure of recipients is prohibited.  Two options are allowed:\n\n   1.   Generate one copy of the message for each\nRFC 822\nrecipient,\n        with the \"X400-Recipients field correctly set to the\n        recipient of that copy.  This is functionally correct, but\n        is likely to be more expensive.\n\n   2.   Discard the per-recipient information, and insert a field:\n\n                X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 52]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThis is the recommended option.\n\n   A third option of ignoring the disclosure flag is not allowed.  If\n   any MTS.ORName.directory-name is present, it shall be represented in\n   an 822.comment.\n\n   If MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.orignally-intended-recipient-name\n   is present, then there has been redirection, or there has been\n   distribution list expansion.  Distribution list expansion is a per-\n   message option, and the information associated with this is\n   represented by the \"DL-Expansion-History:\" field descrined in\nSection\n5.3.6\n.  Other information is represented in an 822.comment associated\n   associated with MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name,\n   The message may be delivered to different\nRFC 822\nrecipients, and so\n   several addresses in the \"X400-Recipients:\" field may have such\n   comments.  The non-commented recipient is the\nRFC 822\nrecipient. The\n   EBNF of the comment is:\n\n\n           redirect-comment  =\n                    [ \"Originally To:\" ] mailbox \"Redirected\"\n                    [ \"Again\" ] \"on\" date-time\n                    \"To:\"  redirection-reason\n\n           redirection-reason =\n                    \"Recipient Assigned Alternate Recipient\"\n                    / \"Originator Requested Alternate Recipient\"\n                    / \"Recipient MD Assigned Alternate Recipient\"\n\n   It is derived from\n   MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.extension.redirection-history.\n   An example of this is:\n\n   X400-Recipients: postmaster@widget.com (Originally To:\n         sales-manager@sales.widget.com Redirected\n         on Thu, 30 May 91 14:39:40 +0100 To: Originator Assigned\n         Alternate Recipient postmaster@sales.widget.com Redirected\n         Again on Thu, 30 May 91 14:41:20 +0100 To: Recipient MD\n         Assigned Alternate Recipient)\n\n   In addition, the following per-recipient services from\n   MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.extensions are represented in comments\n   if they are used.  None of these services can be provided on\nRFC 822\nnetworks, and so in general these will be informative strings\n   associated with other MTS recipients. In some cases, string values\n   are defined.  For the remainder, the string value shall be chosen by\n   the implementor.   If the parameter has a default value, then no\n   comment shall be inserted when the parameter has that default value.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 53]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nrequested-delivery-method\n\n   physical-forwarding-prohibited\n        \"(Physical Forwarding Prohibited)\".\n\n   physical-forwarding-address-request\n        \"(Physical Forwarding Address Requested)\".\n\n   physical-delivery-modes\n\n   registered-mail-type\n\n   recipient-number-for-advice\n\n   physical-rendition-attributes\n\n   physical-delivery-report-request\n        \"(Physical Delivery Report Requested)\".\n\n   proof-of-delivery-request\n        \"(Proof of Delivery Requested)\".\n4.6.2.3\n.  Delivery Report Generation\nIf MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.per-recipient-indicators\n   requires a positive delivery notification, this shall be generated by\n   the gateway.  Supplementary Information shall be set to indicate that\n   the report is gateway generated.  This information shall include the\n   name of the gateway generating the report.\n4.6.3\n.  Message IDs (MTS)\nA mapping from 822.msg-id to MTS.MTSIdentifier is defined.  The\n   reverse mapping is not needed, as MTS.MTSIdentifier is always mapped\n   onto new\nRFC 822\nfields.  The value of MTS.MTSIdentifier.local-part\n   will facilitate correlation of gateway errors.\n\n   To map from 822.msg-id, apply the standard mapping to 822.msg-id, in\n   order to generate an MTS.ORAddress.  The Country, ADMD, and PRMD\n   components of this are used to generate MTS.MTSIdentifier.global-\n   domain-identifier.  MTS.MTSIdentifier.local-identifier is set to the\n   822.msg-id, including the braces \"<\" and \">\".   If this string is\n   longer than MTS.ub-local-id-length (32), then it is truncated to this\n   length.\n\n   The reverse mapping is not used in this specification.  It would be\n   applicable where MTS.MTSIdentifier.local-identifier is of syntax\n   822.msg-id, and it algorithmically identifies MTS.MTSIdentifier.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 54]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n4.7\n.  IPMS Mappings\nAll\nRFC 822\naddresses are assumed to use the 822.mailbox syntax.\n   This includes all 822.comments associated with the lexical tokens of\n   the 822.mailbox.  In the IPMS O/R Names are encoded as MTS.ORName.\n   This is used within the  IPMS.ORDescriptor, IPMS.RecipientSpecifier,\n   and IPMS.IPMIdentifier.  An asymmetrical mapping is defined between\n   these components.\n4.7.1\n.\nRFC 822\n-> X.400\nTo derive IPMS.ORDescriptor from an\nRFC 822\naddress.\n\n   1.   Take the address, and extract an EBNF.822-address.  This can\n        be derived trivially from either the 822.addr-spec or\n        822.route-addr syntax.  This is mapped to MTS.ORName as\n        described above, and used as IMPS.ORDescriptor.formal-name.\n\n   2.   A string shall be built consisting of (if present):\n\n   -         The 822.phrase component if the 822.address is an\n             822.phrase 822.route-addr construct.\n\n   -         Any 822.comments, in order, retaining the parentheses.\n\n        This string is then encoded into T.61 use a human oriented\n        mapping (as described in Chapter 3).  If the string is not\n        null, it is assigned to IPMS.ORDescriptor.free-form-name.\n\n   3.   IPMS.ORDescriptor.telephone-number is omitted.\n\n   If IPMS.ORDescriptor is being used in IPMS.RecipientSpecifier,\n   IPMS.RecipientSpecifier.reply-request and\n   IPMS.RecipientSpecifier.notification-requests are set to default\n   values (none and false).\n\n   If the 822.group construct is present, any included 822.mailbox is\n   encoded as above to generate a separate IPMS.ORDescriptor.  The\n   822.group is  mapped to T.61, and a IPMS.ORDescriptor with only an\n   free-form-name component built from it.\n4.7.2\n.  X.400 ->\nRFC 822\nMapping from IPMS.ORDescriptor to\nRFC 822\naddress.  In the basic\n   case, where IPMS.ORDescriptor.formal-name is present, proceed as\n   follows.\n\n   1.   Encode IPMS.ORDescriptor.formal-name (MTS.ORName) as\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 55]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nEBNF.822-address.\n\n   2a.  If IPMS.ORDescriptor.free-form-name is present, convert it\n        to ASCII (Chapter 3), and use this as the 822.phrase\n        component of 822.mailbox using the 822.phrase 822.route-addr\n        construct.\n\n   2b.  If IPMS.ORDescriptor.free-form-name is absent.  If\n        EBNF.822-address is parsed as 822.addr-spec use this as the\n        encoding of 822.mailbox.  If EBNF.822-address is parsed as\n        822.route 822.addr-spec, then a 822.phrase taken from\n        822.local-part is added.\n\n   3.   If IPMS.ORDescriptor.telephone-number is present, this is\n        placed in an 822.comment, with the string \"Tel \".  The\n        normal international form of number is used.  For example:\n\n                (Tel +44-1-387-7050)\n\n   4.   If IPMS.ORDescriptor.formal-name.directory-name is present,\n        then a text representation is placed in a trailing\n        822.comment.\n\n   5.   If IPMS.RecipientSpecifier.report-request has any non-\n        default values, then an 822.comment \"(Receipt Notification\n        Requested)\", and/or \"(Non Receipt Notification Requested)\",\n        and/or \"(IPM Return Requested)\" is appended to the address.\n        If both receipt and non-receipt notfications are requested,\n        the comment relating to the latter may be omitted, to make\n        the\nRFC 822\naddress cleaner.  The effort of correlating P1\n        and P2 information is too great to justify the gateway\n        sending Receipt Notifications.\n\n   6.   If IPMS.RecipientSpecifier.reply-request is True, an\n        822.comment \"(Reply requested)\"  is appended to the address.\n\n   If IPMS.ORDescriptor.formal-name is absent, IPMS.ORDescriptor.free-\n   form-name is converted to ASCII, and used as 822.phrase within the\nRFC 822\n822.group syntax.  For example:\n\n           Free Form Name \":\" \";\"\n\n   Steps 3-6 are then followed.\n4.7.3\n.  IP Message IDs\nThere is a need to map both ways between 822.msg-id and\n   IPMS.IPMIdentifier.  This allows for X.400 Receipt Notifications,\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 56]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nReplies, and Cross References to reference an\nRFC 822\nMessage ID,\n   which is preferable to a gateway generated ID.  A reversible and\n   symmetrical mapping is defined.  This allows for good things to\n   happen when messages pass multiple times across the X.400/RFC 822\n   boundary.\n\n   An important issue with messages identifiers is mapping to the exact\n   form, as many systems use these ids as uninterpreted keys.  The use\n   of table driven mappings is not always symmetrical, particularly in\n   the light of alternative domain names, and alternative management\n   domains.  For this reason, a purely algorithmic mapping is used.  A\n   mapping which is simpler than that for addresses can be used for two\n   reasons:\n\n   -    There is no major requirement to make message IDs \"natural\"\n\n   -    There is no issue about being able to reply to message IDs.\n        (For addresses, creating a return path which works is more\n        important than being symmetrical).\n\n   The mapping works by defining a way in which message IDs generated on\n   one side of the gateway can be represented on the other side in a\n   systematic manner.  The mapping is defined so that the possibility of\n   clashes is is low enough to be treated as impossible.\n4.7.3.1\n.  822.msg-id represented in X.400\nIPMS.IPMIdentifier.user is omitted.  The IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-\n   relative-identifier is set to a printable string encoding of the\n   822.msg-id with the angle braces (\"<\" and \">\") removed.  The upper\n   bound on this component is 64.  The options for handling this are\n   discussed in\nSection 5.1.3\n.\n4.7.3.2\n.  IPMS.IPMIdentifier represented in\nRFC 822\nThe 822.domain of 822.msg-id is set to the value \"MHS\". The\n   822.local-part of 822.msg-id is built as\n\n           [ printablestring ] \"*\"  [ std-or-address ]\n\n   with EBNF.printablestring being the IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-\n   relative-identifier, and std-or-address being an encoding of the\n   IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user.  If necessary, the 822.quoted-string\n   encoding is used.  For example:\n\n   <\"147*/S=Dietrich/O=Siemens/ADMD=DBP/C=DE/\"@MHS>\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 57]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n4.7.3.3\n.  822.msg-id -> IPMS.IPMIdentifier\nIf the 822.local-part can be parsed as:\n\n           [ printablestring ] \"*\"  [ std-or-address ]\n\n   and the 822.domain is \"MHS\", then this ID was X.400 generated.  If\n   EBNF.printablestring is present, the value is assigned to\n   IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative-identifier.  If EBNF.std-or-address\n   is present, the O/R Address components derived from it are used to\n   set IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user.\n\n   Otherwise, this is an\nRFC 822\ngenerated ID.  In this case, set\n   IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative-identifier to a printable string\n   encoding of the 822.msg-id without the angle braces.\n4.7.3.4\n.  IPMS.IPMIdentifier -> 822.msg-id\nIf IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user is absent, and IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-\n   relative-identifier mapped to ASCII and angle braces added parses as\n   822.msg-id, then this is an\nRFC 822\ngenerated ID.\n\n   Otherwise, the ID is X.400 generated.  Use the\n   IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user to generate an EBNF.std-or-address form\n   string.  Build the 822.local-part of the 822.msg-id with the syntax:\n\n           [ printablestring ] \"*\"  [ std-or-address ]\n\n   The printablestring is taken from IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative-\n   identifier.  Use 822.quoted-string if necessary.  The 822.msg-id is\n   generated with this 822.local-part, and \"MHS\" as the 822.domain.\n4.7.3.5\n.  Phrase form\nIn \"InReply-To:\" and \"References:\", the encoding 822.phrase may be\n   used as an alternative to 822.msg-id.  To map from 822.phrase to\n   IPMS.IPMIdentifier, assign IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative-\n   identifier to the phrase.  When mapping from IPMS.IPMIdentifier for\n   \"In-Reply-To:\" and \"References:\", if IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user is\n   absent and IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative-identifier does not parse\n   as 822.msg-id, generate an 822.phrase rather than adding the domain\n   MHS.\n4.7.3.6\n.\nRFC 987\nbackwards compatibility\nThe mapping defined here is different to that used in\nRFC 987\n, as the\nRFC 987\nmapping lead to changed message IDs in many cases.  Fixing\n   the problems is preferable to retaining backwards compatibility.  An\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 58]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nimplementation of this standard is encouraged to recognise message\n   IDs generated by\nRFC 987\n.  This is not required.\nRFC 987\ngenerated encodings may be recognised as follows.  When\n   mapping from X.400 to\nRFC 822\n, if the IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-\n   relative-identifier is \"\nRFC-822\n\" the id is\nRFC 987\ngenerated. When\n   mapping from\nRFC 822\nto X.400, if the 822.domain is not \"MHS\", and\n   the 822.local-part can be parsed as\n\n           [ printablestring ] \"*\"  [ std-or-address ]\n\n   then it is\nRFC 987\ngenerated.  In each of these cases, it is\n   recommended to follow the\nRFC 987\nrules.\n\nChapter 5 - Detailed Mappings\n\n   This chapter specifies  detailed mappings for the functions outlined\n   in Chapters 1 and 2.  It makes extensive use of the notations and\n   mappings defined in Chapters 3 and 4.\n5.1\n.\nRFC 822\n-> X.400\n5.1.1\n.  Basic Approach\nA single IP Message is generated from an\nRFC 822\nmessage The\nRFC 822\nheaders are used to generate the IPMS.Heading.  The IP Message will\n   have one IA5 IPMS.BodyPart containing the\nRFC 822\nmessage body.\n\n   Some\nRFC 822\nfields cannot be mapped onto a standard IPM Heading\n   field, and so an extended field is defined in\nSection 5.1.2\n.  This is\n   then used for fields which cannot be mapped onto existing services.\n\n   The message is submitted to the MTS, and the services required can be\n   defined by specifying MTS.MessageSubmissionEnvelope.  A few\n   parameters of the MTA Abstract service are also specified, which are\n   not in principle available to the MTS User.  Use of these services\n   allows\nRFC 822\nMTA level parameters to be carried in the analogous\n   X.400 service elements.  The advantages of this mapping far outweigh\n   the layering violation.\n5.1.2\n.  X.400 Extension Field\nAn IPMS Extension is defined:\nrfc-822\n-field HEADING-EXTENSION\n                VALUE RFC822FieldList\n                ::= id-rfc-822-field-list\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 59]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nRFC822FieldList ::= SEQUENCE OF RFC822Field\n\n        RFC822Field ::= IA5String\n\n   The Object Identifier id-rfc-822-field-list is defined in\nAppendix D\n.\n\n   To encode any\nRFC 822\nHeader using this extension, an RFC822Field\n   element is built using the 822.field omitting the trailing CRLF\n   (e.g., \"Fruit-Of-The-Day: Kiwi Fruit\"). Structured fields shall be\n   unfolded.  There shall be no space before the \":\".  The reverse\n   mapping builds the\nRFC 822\nfield in a straightforward manner.  This\n   RFC822Field is appended to the RFC822FieldList, which is added to the\n   IPM Heading as an extension field.\n5.1.3\n.  Generating the IPM\nThe IPM (IPMS Service Request) is generated according to the rules of\n   this section. The IPMS.IPM.body usually consists of one IPMS.BodyPart\n   of type IPMS.IA5TextBodyPart with\n   IPMS.IA5TextBodyPart.parameters.repertoire set to the default (ia5)\n   which contains the body of the\nRFC 822\nmessage.  The exception is\n   where there is a \"Comments:\" field in the\nRFC 822\nheader.\n\n   If no specific 1988 features are used, the IPM generated is encoded\n   as content type 2.  Otherwise, it is encoded as content type 22.  The\n   latter will always be the case if extension heading fields are\n   generated.\n\n   When generating the IPM, the issue of upper bounds must be\n   considered.  At the MTS and MTA level, this specification is strict\n   about enforcing upper bounds. Three options are available at the IPM\n   level.  Use of any of these options conforms to this standard.\n\n   1.   Ignore upper bounds, and generate messages in the natural\n        manner.  This assumes that if any truncation is done, it\n        will happen at the recipient UA.  This will maximise\n        transfer of information, but is likely break some recipient\n        UAs.\n\n   2.   Reject any inbound message which would cause a message\n        violating constraints to be generated.  This will be robust,\n        but may prevent useful communication.\n\n   3.   Truncate fields to the upper bounds specified in X.400.\n\n        This will prevent problems with UAs which enforce upper\n        bounds, but will sometimes discard useful information.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 60]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nIf the Free Form name is truncated, it may lead to breaking\nRFC 822\ncomments, which will cause an awkward reverse\n        mapping.\n\n   These options have different advantages and disadvantages, and the\n   choice will depend on the exact application of the gateway.\n\n   The rest of this section concerns IPMS.IPM.heading (IPMS.Heading).\n   The only mandatory component of IPMS.Heading is the\n   IPMS.Heading.this-IPM (IPMS.IPMIdentifier).  A default is generated\n   by the gateway.  With the exception of \"Received:\", the values of\n   multiple fields are merged (e.g., If there are two \"To:\" fields, then\n   the mailboxes of both are merged to generate a single list which is\n   used in the IPMS.Heading.primary-recipients.  Information shall be\n   generated from the standard\nRFC 822\nHeaders as follows:\n\n   Date:\n        Ignore (Handled at MTS level)\n\n   Received:\n        Ignore (Handled at MTA level)\n\n   Message-Id:\n        Mapped to IPMS.Heading.this-IPM.  For these, and all other\n        fields containing 822.msg-id the mappings of Chapter 4 are\n        used for each 822.msg-id.\n\n   From:\n        If Sender: is present, this is mapped to\n        IPMS.Heading.authorizing-users.  If not, it is mapped to\n        IPMS.Heading.originator.  For this, and other components\n        containing addresses, the mappings of Chapter 4 are used for\n        each address.\n\n   Sender:\n        Mapped to IPMS.Heading.originator.\n\n   Reply-To:\n        Mapped to IPMS.Heading.reply-recipients.\n\n   To:  Mapped to IPMS.Heading.primary-recipients\n\n   Cc:  Mapped to IPMS.Heading.copy-recipients.\n\n   Bcc: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.blind-copy-recipients if there is at\n        least one BCC:  recipient.  If there are no recipients in\n        this field, it should be mapped to a zero length sequence.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 61]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nIn-Reply-To:\n        If there is one value, it is mapped to\n        IPMS.Heading.replied-to-IPM, using the 822.phrase or\n        822.msg-id mapping as appropriate.  If there are several\n        values, they are mapped to IPMS.Heading.related-IPMs, along\n        with any values from a \"References:\" field.\n\n   References:\n        Mapped to IPMS.Heading.related-IPMs.\n\n   Keywords:\n        Mapped onto a heading extension.\n\n   Subject:\n        Mapped to IPMS.Heading.subject.  The field-body uses the\n        human oriented mapping referenced in Chapter 3 from ASCII to\n        T.61.\n\n   Comments:\n        Generate an IPMS.BodyPart of type IPMS.IA5TextBodyPart with\n        IPMS.IA5TextBodyPart.parameters.repertoire set to the\n        default (ia5), containing the value of the fields, preceded\n        by the string \"Comments: \".  This body part shall precede\n        the other one.\n\n   Encrypted:\n        Mapped onto a heading extension.\n\n   Resent-*\n        Mapped onto a heading extension.\n\n        Note that it would be possible to use a ForwardedIPMessage\n        for these fields, but the semantics are (arguably) slightly\n        different, and it is probably not worth the effort.\n\n   Other Fields\n\n        In particular X-* fields, and \"illegal\" fields in common\n        usage (e.g., \"Fruit-of-the-day:\") are mapped onto a heading\n        extension, unless covered by another section or appendix of\n        this specification.  The same treatment is applied to\nRFC\n822\nfields where the content of the field does not conform\n        to\nRFC 822\n(e.g., a Date: field with unparseable syntax).\n5.1.4\n.  Mappings to the MTS Abstract Service\nThe MTS.MessageSubmissionEnvelope comprises\n   MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields, and\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 62]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nMTS.PerRecipientMessageSubmissionFields.  The mandatory parameters\n   are defaulted as follows.\n\n   MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.originator-name\n        This is always generated from 822-MTS, as defined in\n        Chapter 4.\n\n   MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.content-type\n        Set to the value implied by the encoding of the IPM (2 or\n        22).\n\n   MTS.PerRecipientMessageSubmissionFields.recipient-name\n        These will always be supplied from 822-MTS, as defined in\n        Chapter 4.\n\n   Optional components are omitted, and default components defaulted.\n   This means that disclosure of recipients is prohibited and conversion\n   is allowed.  There are two exceptions to the defaulting. For\n   MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.per-message-indicators, the following\n   settings are made:\n\n   -    Alternate recipient is allowed, as it seems desirable to\n        maximise the opportunity for (reliable) delivery.\n\n   -    Content return request is set according to the issues\n        discussed in\nSection 5.2\n.\n\n   MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.original-encoded-information-types is\n   a set of one element BuiltInEncodedInformationTypes.ia5-text.\n\n   The MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.content-correlator is encoded as\n   IA5String, and contains the Subject:, Message-ID:, Date:,  and\n\n   To: fields (if present).  This  includes the strings \"Subject:\",\n   \"Date:\", \"To:\", \"Message-ID:\", and appropriate folding.  This shall\n   be truncated to MTS.ub-content-correlator-length (512) characters.\n   In addition, if there is a \"Subject:\" field, the\n   MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.content-identifier, is set to a\n   printable string representation of the contents of it.   If the\n   length of this string is greater than MTS.ub-content-id-length (16),\n   it should be truncated to 13 characters and the string \"...\"\n   appended. Both are used, due to the much larger upper bound of the\n   content correlator, and that the content id is available in\n   X.400(1984).\n5.1.5\n.  Mappings to the MTA Abstract Service\nThere is a need to map directly onto some aspects of the MTA Abstract\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 63]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nservice, for the following reasons:\n\n   -    So the the MTS Message Identifier can be generated from the\nRFC 822\nMessage-ID:.\n\n   -    So that the submission date can be generated from the\n        822.Date.\n\n   -    To prevent loss of trace information\n\n   -    To prevent\nRFC 822\n/X.400 looping caused by distribution\n        lists or redirects\n\n   The following mappings are defined.\n\n   Message-Id:\n        If this is present, the\n        MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.message-identifier is generated\n        from it, using the mappings described in Chapter 4.\n\n   Date:\n        This is used to set the first component of\n        MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-information\n        (MTA.TraceInformationElement).  The 822-MTS originator is\n        mapped into an MTS.ORAddress, and used to derive\n        MTA.TraceInformationElement.global-domain-identifier.  The\n        optional components of\n        MTA.TraceInformationElement.domain-supplied-information are\n        omitted, and the mandatory components are set as follows:\n\n          MTA.DomainSuppliedInformation.arrival-time\n             This is set to the date derived from Date:\n\n          MTA.DomainSuppliedInformation.routing-action\n             Set to relayed.\n\n        The first element of\n        MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information is\n        generated in an analogous manner, although this can be\n        dropped later in certain circumstances (see the procedures\n        for \"Received:\").  The\n        MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.mta-name is derived from\n        the 822.domain in the 822 MTS Originator address.\n\n   Received:\n        All\nRFC 822\ntrace is used to derive\n        MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-information and\n        MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 64]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nProcessing of Received: lines  follows processing of Date:,\n        and is be done from the the bottom to the top of the\nRFC 822\nheader (i.e., in chronological order).  When other trace\n        elements are processed (X400-Received: in all cases and Via:\n        if\nAppendix B\nis supported), the relative ordering shall be\n        retained correctly.  The initial element of\n        MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-information will be\n        generated already (from Date:), unless the message has\n        previously been in X.400, when it will be derived from the\n        X.400 trace information.\n\n        Consider the Received: field in question.  If the \"by\"  part\n        of the received is present, use it to derive an\n        MTS.GlobalDomainIdentifier.  If this is different from the\n        one in the last element of\n        MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-information\n        (MTA.TraceInformationElement.global-domain-identifier)\n        create a new MTA.TraceInformationElement, and optionally\n        remove\n        MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information.\n        This removal shall be done in cases where the message is\n        being transferred to another MD where there is no bilateral\n        agreement to preserve internal trace beyond the local MD.\n        The trace creation is as for internal trace described below,\n        except that no MTA field is needed.\n\n        Then add a new element (MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement)\n        to MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information,\n        creating this if needed.  This shall be done, even if\n        inter-MD trace is created.  The\n        MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.global-domain-identifier\n        is set to the value derived.  The\n        MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.mta-supplied-information\n        (MTA.MTASuppliedInformation) is set as follows:\n\n          MTA.MTASuppliedInformation.arrival-time\n             Derived from the date of the Received: line\n\n          MTA.MTASuppliedInformation.routing-action\n             Set to relayed\n\n        The MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.mta-name is taken\n        from the \"by\" component of the \"Received:\" field, truncated\n        to MTS.ub-mta-name-length (32).  For example:\n\n           Received: from computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk by\n              vs6.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP  id aa03794;\n              28 Mar 89 16:38 GMT\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 65]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nGenerates the string\n\n           vs6.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK\n\n   Note that before transferring the message to some ADMDs, additional\n   trace stripping may be required, as the implied path through multiple\n   MDs would violate ADMD policy.   This will depend on bilateral\n   agreement with the ADMD.\n5.1.6\n.  Mapping New Fields\nThis specification defines a number of new fields for Reports,\n   Notifications and IP Messages in\nSection 5.3\n.  As this specification\n   only aims to preserve existing services, a gateway conforming to this\n   specification does not need to map all of these fields to X.400.\n\n   Two  extended fields must be mapped, in order to prevent looping.\n   \"DL-Expansion-History:\" is mapped to\n\n   MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.extensions.dl-expansion-history X400-\n   Received: must be mapped to MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-\n   information and MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-\n   information.  In cases where X400-Received: is present, the usual\n   mapping of Date: to generate the first element of trace should not be\n   done.   This is because the message has come from X.400, and so the\n   first element of trace can be taken from the first X400-Received:.\n\n   Some field that shall not be mapped, and should be discarded.  The\n   following cannot be mapped back:\n\n   -    Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions:\n\n   -    Message-Type:\n\n   -    Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions:\n\n   If Message-Type: is set to \"Multiple Part\", then the messge is\n   encoded according to\nRFC 934\n, and this may be mapped on to the\n   corresponding X.400 structures.\n\n   The following may cause problems, due to other information not being\n   mapped back (e.g., extension numbers), or due to changes made on the\nRFC 822\nside due to list expansion:\n\n   -    X400-Content-Type:\n\n   -    X400-Originator:\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 66]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n-    X400-Recipients:\n\n   -    X400-MTS-Identifier:\n\n   Other fields may be either discarded or mapped to X.400.  It is\n   usually desirable and beneficial to do map, particularly to\n   facilitate support of a message traversing multiple gateways.  These\n   mappings may be onto MTA, MTS, or IPMS services.  The level of\n   support for this reverse mapping should be indicated in the gateway\n   conformace statement.\n5.2\n.  Return of Contents\nIt is not clear how widely supported the X.400 return of contents\n   service will be.  Experience with X.400(1984) suggests that support\n   of this service may not be universal.  As this service is expected in\n   the\nRFC 822\nworld, two approaches are specified.  The choice will\n   depend on the use of X.400 return of contents withing the X.400\n   community being serviced by the gateway.\n\n   In environments where return of contents is widely supported, content\n   return can be requested as a service.  The content return service can\n   then be passed back to the end (\nRFC 822\n) user in a straightforward\n   manner.\n\n   In environments where return of contents is not widely supported, a\n   gateway must make special provision to handle return of contents.\n   For every message passing from\nRFC 822\n-> X.400, content return\n   request will not be requested, and report request always will be.\n   When the delivery report comes back, the gateway can note that the\n   message has been delivered to the recipient(s) in question.  If a\n   non-delivery report is received, a meaningful report (containing some\n   or all of the original message) can be sent to the 822-MTS\n   originator.  If no report is received for a recipient, a (timeout)\n   failure notice shall be sent to the 822-MTS originator.  The gateway\n   may retransmit the X.400 message if it wishes.  When this approach is\n   taken, routing must be set up so that error reports are returned\n   through the same MTA.  This approach may be difficult to use in\n   conjunction with some routing strategies.\n5.3\n.  X.400 ->\nRFC 822\n5.3.1\n.  Basic Approach\nA single\nRFC 822\nmessage is generated from the incoming IP Message,\n   Report, or IP Notification.   All IPMS.BodyParts are mapped onto a\n   single\nRFC 822\nbody.  Other services are mapped onto\nRFC 822\nheader\n   fields.  Where there is no appropriate existing field, new fields are\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 67]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\ndefined for IPMS, MTS and MTA services.\n\n   The gateway mechanisms will correspond to MTS Delivery.  As with\n   submission, there are aspects where the MTA (transfer) services are\n   also used. In particular, there is an optimisation to allow for\n   multiple 822-MTS recipients.\n5.3.2\n.\nRFC 822\nSettings\nAn\nRFC 822\nService requires to have a number of mandatory fields in\n   the\nRFC 822\nHeader.  Some 822-MTS services mandate specification of\n   an 822-MTS Originator.  Even in cases where this is optional, it is\n   usually desirable to specify a value.  The following defaults are\n   defined, which shall be used if the mappings specified do not derive\n   a value:\n\n   822-MTS Originator\n        If this is not generated by the mapping (e.g., for a\n        Delivery Report), a value pointing at a gateway\n        administrator shall be assigned.\n\n   Date:\n        A value will always be generated\n\n   From:If this is not generated by the mapping, it is assigned\n        equal to the 822-MTS Originator.  If this is gateway\n        generated, an appropriate 822.phrase shall be added.\n\n   At least one recipient field\n        If no recipient fields are generated, a field \"To: list:;\",\n        shall be added.\n\n   This will ensure minimal\nRFC 822\ncompliance.  When generating\nRFC 822\nheaders, folding may be used.  It is recommended to do this,\n   following the guidelines of\nRFC 822\n.\n5.3.3\n.  Basic Mappings\n5.3.3.1\n.  Encoded Information Types\nThis mapping from MTS.EncodedInformationTypes is needed in several\n   disconnected places.  EBNF is defined as follows:\n\n           encoded-info    = 1#encoded-type\n\n           encoded-type    = built-in-eit / object-identifier\n\n           built-in-eit    = \"Undefined\"         ; undefined (0)\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 68]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n/ \"Telex\"             ; tLX (1)\n                           / \"IA5-Text\"          ; iA5Text (2)\n                           / \"G3-Fax\"            ; g3Fax (3)\n                           / \"TIF0\"              ; tIF0 (4)\n                           / \"Teletex\"           ; tTX (5)\n                           / \"Videotex\"          ; videotex (6)\n                           / \"Voice\"             ; voice (7)\n                           / \"SFD\"               ; sFD (8)\n                           / \"TIF1\"              ; tIF1 (9)\n\n   MTS.EncodedInformationTypes is mapped onto EBNF.encoded-info.\n   MTS.EncodedInformationTypes.non-basic-parameters is ignored.  Built\n   in types are mapped onto fixed strings (compatible with X.400(1984)\n   and\nRFC 987\n), and other types are mapped onto EBNF.object-identifier.\n5.3.3.2\n.  Global Domain Identifier\nThe following simple EBNF is used to represent\n   MTS.GlobalDomainIdentifier:\n\n           global-id = std-or-address\n\n   This is encoded using the std-or-address syntax, for the attributes\n   within the Global Domain Identifier.\n5.3.4\n.  Mappings from the IP Message\nConsider that an IPM has to be mapped to\nRFC 822\n.  The IPMS.IPM\n   comprises an IPMS.IPM.heading and IPMS.IPM.body.   The heading is\n   considered first.  Some EBNF for new fields is defined:\n\n        ipms-field = \"Obsoletes\" \":\" 1#msg-id\n                   / \"Expiry-Date\" \":\" date-time\n                   / \"Reply-By\" \":\" date-time\n                   / \"Importance\" \":\" importance\n                   / \"Sensitivity\" \":\" sensitivity\n                   / \"Autoforwarded\" \":\" boolean\n                   / \"Incomplete-Copy\" \":\"\n                   / \"Language\" \":\" language\n                   / \"Message-Type\" \":\" message-type\n                   / \"Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions\" \":\" 1#oid\n\n\n\n        importance      = \"low\" / \"normal\" / \"high\"\n\n\n        sensitivity     = \"Personal\" / \"Private\" /\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 69]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n\"Company-Confidential\"\n\n        language        = 2*ALPHA [ language-description ]\n        language-description = printable-string\n\n\n\n        message-type    = \"Delivery Report\"\n                        / \"InterPersonal Notification\"\n                        / \"Multiple Part\"\n\n   The mappings and actions for the IPMS.Heading is now specified for\n   each element.  Addresses, and Message Identifiers are mapped\n   according to Chapter 4.  Other mappings are explained, or are\n   straightforward (algorithmic).  If a field with addresses contains\n   zero elements, it should be discarded, execpt for\n   IPMS.Heading.blind-copy-recipients, which can be mapped onto BCC:\n   (the only\nRFC 822\nfield which allows zero recipients).\n\n   IPMS.Heading.this-IPM\n        Mapped to \"Message-ID:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.originator\n        If IPMS.Heading.authorizing-users is present this is mapped\n        to Sender:, if not to \"From:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.authorizing-users\n        Mapped to \"From:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.primary-recipients\n        Mapped to \"To:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.copy-recipients\n        Mapped to \"Cc:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.blind-copy-recipients\n        Mapped to \"Bcc:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.replied-to-ipm\n        Mapped to \"In-Reply-To:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.obsoleted-IPMs\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Obsoletes:\"\n\n   IPMS.Heading.related-IPMs\n        Mapped to \"References:\".\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 70]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nIPMS.Heading.subject\n        Mapped to \"Subject:\".  The contents are converted to ASCII\n        (as defined in Chapter 3).  Any CRLF are not mapped, but are\n        used as points at which the subject field must be folded.\n\n   IPMS.Heading.expiry-time\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Expiry-Date:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.reply-time\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Reply-By:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.reply-recipients\n        Mapped to \"Reply-To:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.importance\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Importance:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.sensitivity\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Sensitivity:\".\n\n   IPMS.Heading.autoforwarded\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Autoforwarded:\".\n\n   The standard extensions (Annex H of X.420 / ISO 10021-7) are\n   mapped as follows:\n\n   incomplete-copy\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Incomplete-Copy:\".\n\n   language\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Language:\", filling in\n        the two letter code. The language-description may filled in\n        with a human readable description of the language, and it is\n        recommended to do this.\n\n   If the\nRFC 822\nextended header is found, this shall be mapped onto an\nRFC 822\nheader, as described in\nSection 5.1.2\n.\n\n   If a non-standard extension is found, it shall be discarded, unless\n   the gateway understands the extension and can perform an appropriate\n   mapping onto an\nRFC 822\nheader field.  If extensions are discarded,\n   the list is indicated in the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Discarded-X400-\n   IPMS-Extensions:\".\n\n   The IPMS.Body is mapped into the\nRFC 822\nmessage body.  Each\n   IPMS.BodyPart is converted to ASCII as follows:\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 71]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nIPMS.IA5Text\n        The mapping is straightforward (see Chapter 3).\n\n   IPMS.MessageBodyPart\n        The X.400 ->\nRFC 822\nmapping  is recursively applied, to\n        generate an\nRFC 822\nMessage.  If present, the\n        IPMS.MessageBodyPart.parameters.delivery-envelope is used\n        for the MTS Abstract Service Mappings.  If present, the\n        IPMS.MessageBodyPart.parameters.delivery-time is mapped to\n        the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Delivery-Date:\".\n\n   Other\n        If other body parts can be mapped to IA5, either by use of\n        mappings defined in X.408 [CCITT88a], or by other reasonable\n        mappings, this shall be done unless content conversion is\n        prohibited.\n\n   If some or all of the body parts cannot be converted there are three\n   options.  All of these conform to this standard.  A different choice\n   may be made for the case where no body part can be converted:\n\n   1.   The first option is to reject the message, and send a non-\n        delivery notification.  This must always be done if\n        conversion is prohibited.\n\n   2.   The second option is to map a missing body part to something\n        of the style:\n\n                *********************************\n\n                There was a foobarhere\n\n                The widget gateway ate it\n\n                *********************************\n\n        This will allow some useful information to be transferred.\n        As the recipient is likely to be a human (IPMS), then\n        suitable action will usually be possible.\n\n   3.   Finally both may be done.  In this case, the supplementary\n        information in the (positive) Delivery Report shall make\n        clear that something was sent on to the recipient with\n        substantial loss of information.\n\n   Where there is more than one IPMS.BodyPart, the mapping defined by\n   Rose and Stefferud in [Rose85a], is used to map the separate\n   IPMS.BodyParts in the single\nRFC 822\nmessage body.  If this is done,\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 72]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\na \"Message-Type:\" field with value \"Multiple part\" shall be added,\n   which will indicate to a receiving gateway that the message may be\n   unfolded according to\nRFC 934\n.\n\n   Note:There is currently work ongoing to produce an upgrade to\nRFC\n934\n, which also allows for support of body parts with non-\n        ASCII content (MIME).  When this work is released as an RFC,\n        this specification will be updated to refer to it instead\n        for\nRFC 934\n.\n\n   For backwards compatibility with\nRFC 987\n, the following procedures\n   shall also be followed.  If there are two IA5 body parts, and the\n   first starts with the string \"\nRFC-822\n-Headers:\" as the first line,\n   then the remainder of this body part shall be appended to the\nRFC 822\nheader.\n\n   An example message, illustrating a number of aspects is given below.\n\nReturn-Path:<@mhs-relay.ac.uk:stephen.harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gb>\nReceived: from mhs-relay.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk via JANET\n          with NIFTP id <7906-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>;\n          Thu, 30 May 1991 18:24:55 +0100\nX400-Received: by mta \"mhs-relay.ac.uk\" in\n               /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed;\n               Thu, 30 May 1991 18:23:26 +0100\nX400-Received: by /PRMD=HMG/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/; Relayed;\n               Thu, 30 May 1991 18:20:27 +0100\nMessage-Type: Multiple Part\nDate: Thu, 30 May 1991 18:20:27 +0100\nX400-Originator: Stephen.Harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gb\nX400-MTS-Identifier:\n     [/PRMD=HMG/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/;PC1000-910530172027-57D8]\nOriginal-Encoded-Information-Types: ia5, undefined\nX400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)\nContent-Identifier: Email Problems\nFrom: Stephen.Harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gb (Tel +44 71 217 3487)\nMessage-ID: <PC1000-910530172027-57D8*@MHS>\nTo: Jim Craigie <NTIN36@gec-b.rutherford.ac.uk>\n (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt Notification Requested),\n Tony Bates <tony@ean-relay.ac.uk> (Receipt Notification Requested),\n Steve Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk> (Receipt Notification Requested)\nSubject: Email Problems\nSender: Stephen.Harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gb\n\n\n------------------------------ Start of body part 1\n\nHope you gentlemen.......\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 73]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nRegards,\n\nStephen Harrison\nUK GOSIP Project\n\n------------------------------ Start of forwarded message 1\n\nFrom: Urs Eppenberger <Eppenberger@verw.switch.ch>\nMessage-ID:\n  <562*/S=Eppenberger/OU=verw/O=switch/PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/@MHS>\nTo: \"Stephen.Harrison\" <Stephen.Harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gb>\nCc: kimura@bsdarc.bsd.fc.nec.co.jp\nSubject: Response to Email link\n\n\n- ------------------------------ Start of body part 1\n\nDear Mr Harrison......\n\n\n- ------------------------------ End of body part 1\n\n------------------------------ End of forwarded message 1\n5.3.5\n.  Mappings from an IP Notification\nA message is generated, with the following fields:\n\n   From:\n        Set to the IPMS.IPN.ipn-originator.\n\n   To:  Set to the recipient from MTS.MessageSubmissionEnvelope.\n        If there have been redirects, the original address should be\n        used.\n\n   Subject:\n        Set to the string  \"X.400 Inter-Personal Notification\" for a\n        receipt notification and to \"X.400 Inter-Personal\n        Notification (failure)\" for a non-receipt notification.\n\n   Message-Type:\n        Set to \"InterPersonal Notification\"\n\n   References:\n        Set to IPMS.IPN.subject-ipm\n\n   The following EBNF is defined for the body of the Message.  This\n   format is defined to ensure that all information from an\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 74]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\ninterpersonal notification is available to the end user in a uniform\n   manner.\n\n        ipn-body-format = ipn-description <CRLF>\n                        [ ipn-extra-information <CRLF> ]\n                        [ ipn-content-return ]\n\n        ipn-description = ipn-receipt / ipn-non-receipt\n\n        ipn-receipt = \"Your message to:\" preferred-recipient <CRLF>\n                 \"was received at\" receipt-time <CRLF> <CRLF>\n                 \"This notification was generated\"\n                 acknowledgement-mode <CRLF>\n                 \"The following extra information was given:\" <CRLF>\n                 ipn-suppl <CRLF>\n\n        ipn-non-receipt \"Your message to:\"\n                preferred-recipient <CRLF>\n                ipn-reason\n\n\n        ipn-reason = ipn-discarded / ipn-auto-forwarded\n\n        ipn-discarded = \"was discarded for the following reason:\"\n                        discard-reason <CRLF>\n\n        ipn-auto-forwarded = \"was automatically forwarded.\" <CRLF>\n                        [ \"The following comment was made:\"\n                                auto-comment ]\n\n\n        ipn-extra-information =\n                 \"The following information types were converted:\"\n                 encoded-info\n\n        ipn-content-return = \"The Original Message is not available\"\n                        / \"The Original Message follows:\"\n                          <CRLF> <CRLF> message\n\n        preferred-recipient = mailbox\n        receipt-time        = date-time\n        auto-comment        = printablestring\n        ipn-suppl           = printablestring\n\n\n        discard-reason     = \"Expired\" / \"Obsoleted\" /\n                                \"User Subscription Terminated\"\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 75]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nacknowledgement-mode = \"Manually\" / \"Automatically\"\n\n   The mappings for elements of the common fields of IPMS.IPN\n   (IPMS.CommonFields) onto this structure and the message header are:\n\n   subject-ipm\n        Mapped to \"References:\"\n\n   ipn-originator\n        Mapped  to \"From:\".\n\n   ipn-preferred-recipient\n        Mapped to EBNF.preferred-recipient\n\n   conversion-eits\n        Mapped to EBNF.encoded-info in EBNF.ipn-extra-information\n\n   The mappings for elements of IPMS.IPN.non-receipt-fields\n   (IPMS.NonReceiptFields) are:\n\n   non-receipt-reason\n        Used to select between EBNF.ipn-discarded and\n        EBNF.ipn-auto-forwarded\n\n   discard-reason\n        Mapped to EBNF.discard-reason\n\n   auto-forward-comment\n        Mapped to EBNF.auto-comment\n\n   returned-ipm\n        This applies only to non-receipt notifications.\n        EBNF.ipn-content-return should always be omitted for receipt\n        notifications, and always be present in non-receipt\n        notifications.  If present, the second option of\n        EBNF.ipn-content-return is chosen, and an\nRFC 822\nmapping of\n        the message included.  Otherwise the first option is chosen.\n\n   The mappings for elements of IPMS.IPN.receipt-fields\n   (IPMS.ReceiptFields) are:\n\n   receipt-time\n        Mapped to EBNF.receipt-time\n\n   acknowledgement-mode\n        Mapped to EBNF.acknowledgement-mode\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 76]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nsuppl-receipt-info\n        Mapped to EBNF.ipn-suppl\n\n   An example notification is:\n\n           From: Steve Kille <steve@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\n           To: Julian Onions <jpo@computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk>\n           Subject: X.400 Inter-personal Notification\n           Message-Type: InterPersonal Notification\n           References: <1229.614418325@UK.AC.NOTT.CS>\n           Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 08:45:25 +0100\n\n           Your message to: Steve Kille <steve@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\n           was automatically forwarded.\n           The following comment was made:\n                   Sent on to a random destination\n\n           The following information types were converted: g3fax\n5.3.6\n.  Mappings from the MTS Abstract Service\nThis section describes the MTS mappings for User Messages (IPM and\n   IPN).  This mapping is defined by specifying the mapping of\n   MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.  The following extensions to\nRFC 822\nare\n   defined to support this mapping:\n\n        mts-field = \"X400-MTS-Identifier\" \":\" mts-msg-id\n                  / \"X400-Originator\" \":\" mailbox\n                  / \"X400-Recipients\" \":\" 1#mailbox\n                  / \"Original-Encoded-Information-Types\" \":\"\n                                  encoded-info\n                  / \"X400-Content-Type\" \":\" mts-content-type\n                  / \"Content-Identifier\" \":\" printablestring\n                  / \"Priority\" \":\" priority\n                  / \"Originator-Return-Address\" \":\" 1#mailbox\n                  / \"DL-Expansion-History\" \":\" mailbox \";\" date-time \";\"\n                  / \"Conversion\" \":\" prohibition\n                  / \"Conversion-With-Loss\" \":\" prohibition\n                  / \"Requested-Delivery-Method\" \":\"\n                                  1*( labelled-integer )\n                  / \"Delivery-Date\" \":\" date-time\n                  / \"Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions\" \":\"\n                                   1#( oid / labelled-integer )\n\n\n        prohibition     = \"Prohibited\" / \"Allowed\"\n\n        mts-msg-id       = \"[\" global-id \";\" *text \"]\"\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 77]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nmts-content-type = \"P2\" /  labelled-integer\n                        / object-identifer\n\n        priority        = \"normal\" / \"non-urgent\" / \"urgent\"\n\n   The mappings for each element of MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope can now\n   be considered.\n\n   MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.message-delivery-identifier\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"X400-MTS-Identifier:\".\n\n   MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.message-delivery-time\n        Discarded, as this time will be represented in an\n        appropriate trace element.\n\n   The mappings for elements of\n   MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.other-fields\n   (MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields) are:\n\n   content-type\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"X400-Content-Type:\".\n        The string \"P2\" is retained for backwards compatibility with\nRFC 987\n. This shall not be generated, and either the\n        EBNF.labelled-integer  or EBNF.object-identifier encoding\n        used.\n\n   originator-name\n        Mapped to the 822-MTS originator, and to the extended\nRFC\n822\nfield \"X400-Originator:\".  This is described in\nSection 4.6.2\n.\n\n   original-encoded-information-types\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield\n        \"Original-Encoded-Information-Types:\".\n\n   priority\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Priority:\".\n\n   delivery-flags\n        If the conversion-prohibited bit is set, add an extended\nRFC\n822\nfield \"Conversion:\".\n\n   this-recipient-name and other-recipient-names\n\n   originally-intended-recipient-name\n        The handling of these elements is described in\nSection 4.6.2\n.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 78]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nconverted-encoded-information-types\n        Discarded, as it will always be IA5 only.\n\n   message-submission-time\n        Mapped to Date:.\n\n   content-identifier\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Content-Identifier:\".\n\n   If any extensions (MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.other-\n   fields.extensions) are present, and they are marked as critical for\n   transfer or delivery, then the message shall be rejected.  The\n   extensions (MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.other-fields.extensions) are\n   mapped as follows.\n\n   conversion-with-loss-prohibited\n     If set to\n     MTS.ConversionWithLossProhibited.conversion-with-loss-prohibited,\n     then add the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"Conversion-With-Loss:\".\n\n   requested-delivery-method\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield\n        \"Requested-Delivery-Method:\".\n\n   originator-return-address\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield\n        \"Originator-Return-Address:\".\n\n   physical-forwarding-address-request\n   physical-delivery-modes\n   registered-mail-type\n   recipient-number-for-advice\n   physical-rendition-attributes\n   physical-delivery-report-request\n   physical-forwarding-prohibited\n\n\n        These elements are only appropriate for physical delivery.\n        They are represented as comments in the \"X400-Recipients:\"\n        field, as described in\nSection 4.6.2.2\n.\n\n   originator-certificate\n   message-token\n   content-confidentiality-algorithm-identifier\n   content-integrity-check\n   message-origin-authentication-check\n   message-security-label\n   proof-of-delivery-request\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 79]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThese elements imply use of security services not available\n        in the\nRFC 822\nenvironment.  If they are marked as critical\n        for transfer or delivery, then the message shall be\n        rejected.  Otherwise they are discarded.\n\n   redirection-history\n        This is described in\nSection 4.6.2\n.\n\n   dl-expansion-history\n        Each element is mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield\n        \"DL-Expansion-History:\".  They shall be ordered in the\n        message header, so that the most recent expansion comes\n        first (same order as trace).\n\n   If any MTS (or MTA) Extensions not specified in X.400 are present,\n   and they are marked as critical for transfer or delivery, then the\n   message shall be rejected.  If they are not so marked, they can\n   safely be discarded.  The list of discarded fields shall be indicated\n   in the extended header \"Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions:\".\n5.3.7\n.  Mappings from the MTA Abstract Service\nThere are some mappings at the MTA Abstract Service level which are\n   done for IPM and IPN.  These can be derived from\n   MTA.MessageTransferEnvelope.  The reasons for the mappings at this\n   level, and the violation of layering are:\n\n   -    Allowing for multiple recipients to share a single\nRFC 822\nmessage\n\n   -    Making the X.400 trace information available on the\nRFC 822\nside\n\n   -    Making any information on deferred delivery available\n\n   The 822-MTS recipients are calculated from the full list of X.400\n   recipients.  This is all of the members of\n   MTA.MessageTransferEnvelope.per-recipient-fields being passed through\n   the gateway, where the responsibility bit is set.  In some cases, a\n   different\nRFC 822\nmessage would be calculated for each recipient, due\n   to differing service requests for each recipient.  As discussed in\n   4.6.2..2, this specification allows either for multiple messages to\n   be generated, or for the per- recipient information to be discarded.\n\n   The following EBNF is defined for extended\nRFC 822\nheaders:\n\n        mta-field       = \"X400-Received\" \":\" x400-trace\n                        / \"Deferred-Delivery\" \":\" date-time\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 80]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n/ \"Latest-Delivery-Time\" \":\" date-time\n\n        x400-trace       = \"by\" md-and-mta \";\"\n                         [ \"deferred until\" date-time \";\" ]\n                         [ \"converted\" \"(\" encoded-info \")\" \";\" ]\n                         [ \"attempted\" md-or-mta \";\"  ]\n                            action-list\n                            \";\" arrival-time\n\n\n        md-and-mta       = [ \"mta\" mta \"in\" ]  global-id\n        mta              = word\n        arrival-time     = date-time\n\n        md-or-mta        = \"MD\" global-id\n                         / \"MTA\" mta\n\n        Action-list      = 1#action\n        action           = \"Redirected\"\n                         / \"Expanded\"\n                         / \"Relayed\"\n                         / \"Rerouted\"\n\n   Note the EBNF.mta is encoded as 822.word.  If the character set does\n   no allow encoding as 822.atom, the 822.quoted-string encoding is\n   used.\n\n   If MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.deferred-delivery-time is present, it\n   is used to generate a Deferred-Delivery: field.  For some reason,\n   X.400 does not make this information available at the MTS level on\n   delivery.  X.400 profiles, and in particular the CEN/CENELEC profile\n   for X.400(1984) [Systems85a], specify that this element must be\n   supported at the first MTA.  If it is not, the function may\n   optionally be implemented by the gateway: that is, the gateway may\n   hold the message until the time specified in the protocol element.\n   Thus, the value of this element will usually be in the past.  For\n   this reason, the extended\nRFC 822\nfield is primarily for information.\n\n   Merge MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-information, and\n   MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information to produce a\n   single ordered trace list.  If Internal trace from other management\n   domains has not been stripped, this may require complex interleaving.\n   Where an element of internal trace and external trace are identical,\n   except for the MTA in the internal trace, only the internal trace\n   element shall be presented. Use this to generate a sequence of\n   \"X400-Received:\" fields. The only difference between external trace\n   and internal trace will be the extra MTA information in internal\n   trace elements.\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 81]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nWhen generating an\nRFC 822\nmessage all trace fields (X400-Received\n   and Received) shall be at the beginning of the header, before any\n   other fields.  Trace shall be in chronological order, with the most\n   recent element at the front of the message.  This ordering is\n   determined from the order of the fields, not from timestamps in the\n   trace, as there is no guarantee of clock synchronisation.  A simple\n   example trace (external) is:\n\n   X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ;\n           Tue, 20 Jun 89 19:25:11 +0100\n\n   A more complex example (internal):\n\n   X400-Received: by mta \"UK.AC.UCL.CS\"\n         in  /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/ ;\n         deferred until  Tue, 20 Jun 89 14:24:22 +0100 ;\n         converted (undefined, g3fax) \";\" attempted /ADMD=Foo/C=GB/ ;\n         Relayed, Expanded, Redirected ; Tue, 20 Jun 89 19:25:11 +0100\n5.3.8\n.  Mappings from Report Delivery\nDelivery reports are mapped at the MTS service level.  This means\n   that only reports destined for the MTS user will be mapped.  Some\n   additional services are also taken from the MTA service.\n5.3.8.1\n.  MTS Mappings\nA Delivery Report service will be represented as\n   MTS.ReportDeliveryEnvelope, which comprises of per-report-fields\n   (MTS.PerReportDeliveryFields) and per-recipient-fields.\n\n   A message is generated with the following fields:\n\n   From:\n        An administrator at the gateway system.  This is also the\n        822-MTS originator.\n\n   To:  A mapping of the\n        MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.report-destination-name.  This is\n        also the 822-MTS recipient.\n\n   Message-Type:\n        Set to \"Delivery Report\".\n\n   Subject:\n        The EBNF for the subject line is:\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 82]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nsubject-line  = \"Delivery-Report\" \"(\" status \")\"\n                         [ \"for\" destination ]\n\n         status        = \"success\" / \"failure\" / \"success and failures\"\n\n         destination   = mailbox / \"MTA\" word\n\n   The format of the body of the message is defined to ensure that all\n   information is conveyed to the\nRFC 822\nuser in a consistent manner.\n   The format is structured as if it was a message coming from X.400,\n   with the description in one body part, and a forwarded message\n   (return of content) in the second.  This structure is useful to the\nRFC 822\nrecipient, as it enables the original message to be\n   extracted.  The first body part is structured as follows:\n1\n.   A few lines giving keywords to indicate the original\nmessage.\n2\n.   A human summary of the status of each recipient being\nreported on.\n3\n.   A clearly marked section which contains detailed information\nextracted from the report.  This is marked clearly, as it\nwill not be comprehensible to the average user.  It is\n     retained, as it may be critical to diagnosing an obscure\n     problem.\n\n     This section may be omitted in positive DRs, and it is\n     recommended that this is appropriate for most gateways.\n\n        dr-body-format = dr-summary <CRLF>\n                        dr-recipients <CRLF>\n                        dr-administrator-info-envelope <CRLF>\n                        dr-content-return\n\n\n        dr-content-return = \"The Original Message is not available\"\n             / \"The Original Message follows:\"\n\n        dr-summary = \"This report relates to your message:\" <CRLF>\n                        content-correlator <CRLF> <CRLF>\n                     \"of\" date-time <CRLF> <CRLF>\n\n\n        dr-recipients = *(dr-recipient <CRLF> <CRLF>)\n\n        dr-recipient = dr-recip-success / dr-recip-failure\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 83]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\ndr-recip-success =\n                        \"Your message was successfully delivered to:\"\n                         mailbox \"at\" date-time\n\n\n        dr-recip-failure = \"Your message was not delivered to:\"\n                                mailbox <CRLF>\n                        \"for the following reason:\" *word\n\n\n        dr-administrator-info-envelope = 3*( \"*\" text <CRLF> )\n\n\n        dr-administrator-info =\n         \"**** The following information is directed towards\"\n         \"the local administrator\" <CRLF>\n         \"**** and is not intended for the end user\" <CRLF> <CRLF>\n         \"DR generated by:\" report-point <CRLF>\n         \"at\" date-time <CRLF> <CRLF>\n         \"Converted to\nRFC 822\nat\" mta <CRLF>\n         \"at\" date-time <CRLF> <CRLF>\n         \"Delivery Report Contents:\" <CRLF> <CRLF>\n         drc-field-list <CRLF>\n         \"***** End of administration information\"\n\n        drc-field-list       = *(drc-field <CRLF>)\n\n        drc-field = \"Subject-Submision-Identifier\" \":\"\n                                        mts-msg-id\n                  / \"Content-Identifier\" \":\" printablestring\n                  / \"Content-Type\" \":\" mts-content-type\n                  / \"Original-Encoded-Information-Types\" \":\"\n                                encoded-info\n                  / \"Originator-and-DL-Expansion-History\" \":\"\n                                dl-history\n                  / \"Reporting-DL-Name\" \":\" mailbox\n                  / \"Content-Correlator\" \":\" content-correlator\n                  / \"Recipient-Info\" \":\" recipient-info\n                  / \"Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information\" \":\"\n                                          x400-trace\n\n\n        recipient-info  = mailbox \",\" std-or \";\"\n                    report-type\n                    [ \"converted eits\" encoded-info \";\" ]\n                    [ \"originally intended recipient\"\n                            mailbox \",\" std-or \";\" ]\n                    [ \"last trace\" [ encoded-info ] date-time \";\" ]\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 84]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n[ \"supplementary info\" <\"> printablestring <\"> \";\" ]\n                    [ \"redirection history\" 1#redirection \";\"\n                    [ \"physical forwarding address\"\n                                          printablestring \";\" ]\n\n\n        report-type     = \"SUCCESS\" drc-success\n                        / \"FAILURE\" drc-failure\n\n        drc-success     = \"delivered at\" date-time \";\"\n                        [ \"type of MTS user\" labelled-integer \";\" ]\n\n        drc-failure     = \"reason\" labelled-integer \";\"\n                        [ \"diagnostic\" labelled-integer \";\" ]\n\n\n        report-point = [ \"mta\" word \"in\" ] global-id\n        content-correlator = *word\n        dl-history = 1#( mailbox \"(\" date-time \")\")\n\n   The format is defined as a fixed definition of an the outer level\n   (EBNF.dr-body-format).  The element EBNF.dr-administrator-info-\n   envelope, provides a means of encapsulating a section of the header\n   in a manner which is clear to the end user.  Each line of this\n   section begins with \"*\".  Each element of EBNF.text within %EBNF.dr-\n   administrator-info-envelope must not contain <CRLF>.  This is used to\n   wrap up EBNF.dr-administrator-info, which will generate a sequenece\n   of lines not starting with \"*\".  EBNF.drc-fields may be folded using\n   the\nRFC 822\nfolding rules.\n\n   The elements of MTS.ReportDeliveryEnvelope.per-report-fields are\n   mapped as follows onto extended\nRFC 822\nfields:\n\n   subject-submission-identifier\n        Mapped to EBNF.drc-field (Subject-Submission-Identifier)\n\n   content-identifier\n        Mapped to EBNF.drc-field (Content-Identifier).  This should\n        also be used in EBNF.dr-summary if there is no Content\n        Correlator present.\n\n   content-type\n        Mapped to EBNF.drc-field (Content-Type)\n\n   original-encoded-information-types\n        Mapped to EBNF.drc-field (Encoded-Info)\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 85]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThe extensions from MTS.ReportDeliveryEnvelope.per-report-\n   fields.extensions are mapped as follows:\n\n   originator-and-DL-expansion-history\n        Mapped to EBNF.drc-field (Originator-and-DL-Expansion-\n        History)\n\n   reporting-DL-name\n        Mapped to EBNF.drc-field (Reporting-DL-Name)\n\n   content-correlator\n        Mapped to EBNF.content-correlator, provided that the\n        encoding is IA5String (this will always be the case).  This\n        is used in EBNF.dr-summary and EBNF.drc-field-list.  In the\n        former, LWSP may be added, in order to improve the layout of\n        the message.\n\n   message-security-label reporting-MTA-certificate report-origin-\n   authentication-check\n\n        These security parameters will not be present unless there\n        is an error in a remote MTA.  If they are present, they\n        shall be discarded in preference to discarding the whole\n        report.\n\n   For each element of MTS.ReportDeliveryEnvelope.per-recipient-fields,\n   a value of EBNF.dr-recipient, and an EBNF.drc-field (Recipient-Info)\n   is generated.  The components are mapped as follows.\n\n   actual-recipient-name\n        Used to generate the first EBNF.mailbox and EBNF.std-or in\n        EBNF.recipient-info.  Both\nRFC 822\nand X.400 forms are\n        given, as there may be a problem in the mapping tables.  It\n        also generates the EBNF.mailbox in EBNF.dr-recip-success or\n        EBNF.dr-recip-failure.\n\n   report\n        If it is MTS.Report.delivery, then set EBNF.dr-recipient to\n        EBNF.dr-recip-success, and similarly set EBNF.report-type,\n        filling in EBNF.drc-success.  If it is a failure, set\n        EBNF.dr-recipient to EBNF.dr-recip-failure, making a human\n        interpretation of the reason and diagnostic codes, and\n        including any supplementary information.  EBNF.drc-failure\n        is filled in systematically.\n\n   converted-encoded-information-types\n        Set EBNF.drc-field (\"converted eits\")\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 86]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\noriginally-intended-recipient\n        Set the second (\"originally intended recipient\") mailbox and\n        std-or in EBNF.drc-field.\n\n   supplementary-info\n        Set EBNF.drc-field (\"supplementary info\"), and include this\n        information in EBNF.dr-recip-failure.\n\n   redirection-history\n        Set EBNF.drc-field (\"redirection history\")\n\n   physical-forwarding-address\n        Set ENBF.drc-field (\"physical forwarding address\")\n\n   recipient-certificate\n        Discard\n\n   proof-of-delivery\n        Discard\n\n   Any unknown extensions shall be discarded, irrespective of\n   criticality.\n\n   The original message, or an extract from it, shall be included in the\n   delivery port if it is available.  The original message will usually\n   be available at the gateway, as discussed in\nSection 5.2\n.  If the\n   original message is available, but of erroneous format, a dump of the\n   ASN.1 may be included.  This is recommended, but not required.\n5.3.8.2\n.  MTA Mappings\nThe single 822-MTS recipient is constructed from\n   MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.report-destination-name, using the\n   mappings of Chapter 4.  Unlike with a user message, this information\n   is not available at the MTS level.\n\n   The following additional mappings are made:\n\n   MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.report-destination-name\n        This is used to generate the To: field.\n\n   MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.identifier\n        Mapped to the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"X400-MTS-Identifier:\".\n        It may also be used to derive a \"Message-Id:\" field.\n\n   MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.trace-information\n        and\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 87]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nMTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.internal-trace-information\n        Mapped onto the extended\nRFC 822\nfield \"X400-Received:\", as\n        described in\nSection 5.3.7\n.  The first element is also used\n        to generate the \"Date:\" field, and the EBNF.report-point.\n\n   MTA.PerRecipientReportTransferFields.last-trace-information\n        Mapped to EBNF.recipient-info (last trace)\n\n   MTA.PerReportTransferFields.subject-intermediate-trace-\n        information Mapped to EBNF.drc-field (Subject-Intermediate-\n        Trace-Information). These fields are ordered so that the\n        most recent trace element comes first.\n5.3.8.3\n.  Example Delivery Reports\nExample Delivery Report 1:\n\n   Return-Path: <postmaster@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\n   Received: from cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk\n      via Delivery Reports Channel id <27699-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>;\n      Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:39 +0000\n   From: UCL-CS MTA <postmaster@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\n   To: S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk\n   Subject: Delivery Report (failure) for H.Hildegard@bbn.com\n   Message-Type: Delivery Report\n   Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:39 +0000\n   Message-ID: <\"bells.cs.u.694:07.01.91.15.48.34\"@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\n   Content-Identifier: Greetings.\n\n\n   ------------------------------ Start of body part 1\n\n   This report relates to your message: Greetings.\n           of Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:20 +0000\n\n   Your message was not delivered to\n           H.Hildegard@bbn.com for the following reason:\n           Bad Address\n           MTA 'bbn.com' gives error message  (USER) Unknown user\n           name in \"H.Hildegard@bbn.com\"\n\n\n***** The following information is directed towards the local\n***** administrator and is not intended for the end user\n*\n* DR generated by mta bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk\n*         in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/\n*         at Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:34 +0000\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 88]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n*\n* Converted to\nRFC 822\nat bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk\n*         at Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:40 +0000\n*\n ..... continued on next page\n\n* Delivery Report Contents:\n*\n* Subject-Submission-Identifier:\n*      [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/;<1803.665941698@UK.AC.UCL.CS>]\n* Content-Identifier: Greetings.\n* Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:\n           /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/;\n*          arrival Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:20 +0000 action Relayed\n\n* Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:\n           /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/;\n*          arrival Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:18 +0000 action Relayed\n* Recipient-Info: H.Hildegard@bbn.com,\n*  /RFC-822=H.Hildegard(a)bbn.com/OU=cs/O=ucl\n          /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/;\n*         FAILURE reason Unable-To-Transfer (1);\n*         diagnostic Unrecognised-ORName (0);\n*         last trace (ia5) Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:18 +0000;\n*         supplementary info \"MTA 'bbn.com' gives error message  (USER)\n*         Unknown user name in \"H.Hildegard@bbn.com\"\";\n****** End of administration information\n\nThe Original Message follows:\n\n\n------------------------------ Start of forwarded message 1\n\nReceived: from glenlivet.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk\n  with SMTP inbound id <27689-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>;\n  Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:21 +0000\nTo: H.Hildegard@bbn.com\nSubject: Greetings.\nPhone: +44-71-380-7294\nDate: Thu, 07 Feb 91 15:48:18 +0000\nMessage-ID: <1803.665941698@UK.AC.UCL.CS>\nFrom: Steve Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\n\n\nSteve\n\n------------------------------ End of forwarded message 1\nExample Delivery Report 2:\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 89]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nReturn-Path: <postmaster@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\nReceived: from cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk\n  via Delivery Reports Channel id <27718-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>;\n  Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:49:11 +0000\nX400-Received: by mta bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk in\n  /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/;\n  Relayed; Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:49:08 +0000\nX400-Received: by /PRMD=DGC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/; Relayed;\n  Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:40 +0000\nFrom: UCL-CS MTA <postmaster@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\nTo: S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk\nSubject: Delivery Report (failure) for\n         j.nosuchuser@dle.cambridge.DGC.gold-400.gb\nMessage-Type: Delivery Report\nDate: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:49:11 +0000\nMessage-ID: <\"DLE/910207154840Z/000\"@cs.ucl.ac.uk>\nContent-Identifier: A useful mess...\n\nThis report relates to your message: A useful mess...\nYour message was not delivered to\n        j.nosuchuser@dle.cambridge.DGC.gold-400.gb\n        for the following reason:\n        Bad Address\n        DG 21187: (CEO POA) Unknown addressee.\n\n\n***** The following information is directed towards the local\n***** administrator and is not intended for the end user\n*\n* DR generated by /PRMD=DGC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/\n*         at Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:40 +0000\n*\n* Converted to\nRFC 822\nat bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk\n*         at Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:49:12 +0000\n*\n* Delivery Report Contents:\n*\n* Subject-Submission-Identifier:\n*  [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/;<1796.665941626@UK.AC.UCL.CS>]\n* Content-Identifier: A useful mess...\n* Recipient-Info: j.nosuchuser@dle.cambridge.DGC.gold-400.gb,\n*     /I=j/S=nosuchuser/OU=dle/O=cambridge/PRMD=DGC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/;\n*     FAILURE reason Unable-To-Transfer (1);\n*     diagnostic Unrecognised-ORName (0);\n*     supplementary info \"DG 21187: (CEO POA) Unknown addressee.\";\n****** End of administration information\n\nThe Original Message is not available\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 90]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n5.3.9\n.  Probe\nThis is an MTS internal issue.  Any probe shall be serviced by the\n   gateway, as there is no equivalent\nRFC 822\nfunctionality.  The value\n   of the reply is dependent on whether the gateway could service an MTS\n   Message with the values specified in the probe.  The reply shall make\n   use of MTS.SupplementaryInformation to indicate that the probe was\n   serviced by the gateway.\n\nAppendix A - Mappings Specific to SMTP\n\n   This Appendix is specific to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (\nRFC\n821\n).  It describes specific changes in the context of this protocol.\n   When servicing a probe, as described in\nsection 5.3.9\n, use may be\n   made of the SMTP VRFY command to increase the accuracy of information\n   contained in the delivery report.\n\nAppendix B - Mappings specific to the JNT Mail\n\n   This Appendix is specific to the JNT Mail Protocol.  It describes\n   specific changes in the context of this protocol.\n\n   1.  Introduction\n\n      There are five aspects of a gateway which are JNT Mail Specific.\n      These are each given a section of this appendix.\n\n   2.  Domain Ordering\n\n      When interpreting and generating domains, the UK NRS domain\n      ordering shall be used, both in headers, and in text generated for\n      human description.\n\n   3.  Addressing\n\n      A gateway which maps to JNT Mail should recognise the Domain\n      Defined Attribute JNT-MAIL.  The value associated with this\n      attribute should be interpreted according to the JNT Mail\n      Specification.  This DDA shall never be generated by a gateway.\n      For this reason, the overflow mechanism is not required.\n\n   4.  Acknowledge-To:\n\n      This field has no direct functional equivalent in X.400.  However,\n      it can be supported to an extent, and can be used to improve X.400\n      support.\n\n      If an Acknowledge-To: field is present when going from JNT Mail to\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 91]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nX.400, there are two different situations.  The first case is\n      where there is one address in the Acknowledge-To: field, and it is\n      equal to the 822-MTS return address.  In this case, the\n      MTS.PerRecipientSubmissionFields.originator-request-report.report\n      shall be set for each recipient, and the Acknowledge-To: field\n      discarded.  Here, X.400 can provide the equivalent service.\n\n      In all other cases two actions are taken.\n\n         1. Acknowledgement(s) may be generated by the gateway.  The\n            text of these acknowledgements shall indicate that they are\n            generated by the gateway, and do not correspond to delivery.\n\n         2. The Acknowledge-To: field shall be passed as an extension\n            heading.\n\n      When going from X.400 to JNT Mail, in cases where\n      MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.per-recipient-indicators.\n      originator-report bit is set for all recipients (i.e., there is a\n      user request for a positive delivery report for every recipeint),\n      generate an Acknowledge-To: field containing the\n      MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name.  Receipt\n      notification requests are not mapped onto Acknowledge-To:, as no\n      association can be guaranteed between IPMS and MTS level\n      addressing information.\n\n   5.  Trace\n\n      JNT Mail trace uses the Via: syntax.  When going from JNT Mail to\n      X.400, a mapping similar to that for Received:  is used. No\n      MTS.GlobalDomainIdentifier of the site making the trace can be\n      derived from the Via:, so a value for the gateway is used.  The\n      trace text, including the \"Via:\", is unfolded, truncated to\n      MTS.ub-mta-name-length (32), and mapped to\n      MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.mta-name.  There is no JNT\n      Mail specific mapping for the reverse direction.\n\n   6.  Timezone specification\n\n      The extended syntax of zone defined in the JNT Mail Protocol shall\n      be used in the mapping of UTCTime defined in Chapter 3.\n\n   7.  Lack of 822-MTS originator specification\n\n      In JNT Mail the default mapping of the\n      MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name is to the Sender:\n      field.  This can cause a problem when going from X.400 to JNT Mail\n      if the mapping of IPMS.Heading has already generated a Sender:\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 92]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nfield.  To overcome this, new extended JNT Mail field is defined.\n      This is chosen to align with the JNT recommendation for\n      interworking with full\nRFC 822\nsystems [Kille84b].\n\n              original-sender     = \"Original-Sender\" \":\" mailbox\n\n      If an IPM has no IPMS.Heading.authorizing-users component and\n      IPMS.Heading.originator.formal-name is different from\n      MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name, map\n      MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name, onto the Sender:\n      field.\n\n      If an IPM has a IPMS.Heading.authorizing-users component, and\n      IPMS.Heading.originator.formal-name is different from\n      MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name,\n      MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name is mapped onto the\n      Sender: field, and IPMS.Heading.originator mapped onto the\n      Original-Sender: field.\n\n      In other cases the MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name,\n      is already correctly represented.\n\nAppendix C - Mappings specific to UUCP Mail\n\n   Gatewaying of UUCP and X.400 is handled by first gatewaying the UUCP\n   address into\nRFC 822\nsyntax (using\nRFC 976\n) and then gatewaying the\n   resulting\nRFC 822\naddress into X.400.  For example, an X.400 address\n\n           Country         US\n           Organisation    Xerox\n           Personal Name   John Smith\n\n   might be expressed from UUCP as\n\n           inthop!gate!gatehost.COM!/C=US/O=Xerox/PN=John.Smith/\n\n   (assuming gate is a UUCP-ARPA gateway and gatehost.COM is an ARPA-\n   X.400 gateway) or\n\n           inthop!gate!Xerox.COM!John.Smith\n\n   (assuming that Xerox.COM and /C=US/O=Xerox/ are equivalent.)\n\n   In the other direction, a UUCP address Smith@ATT.COM, integrated into\n   822, would be handled as any other 822 address.  A non-integrated\n   address such as inthop!dest!user might be handled through a pair of\n   gateways:\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 93]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nCountry         US\n           ADMD            ATT\n           PRMD            ARPA\n           Organisation    GateOrg\nRFC-822\ninthop!dest!user@gatehost.COM\n\n   or through a single X.400 to UUCP gateway:\n\n           Country         US\n           ADMD            ATT\n           PRMD            UUCP\n           Organisation    GateOrg\nRFC-822\ninthop!dest!user\n\nAppendix D - Object Identifier Assignment\n\n   An object identifier is needed for the extension IPMS element.  The\n   following value shall be used.\nrfc-987\n-88 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=\n       {ccitt data(9) pss(2342) ucl(234219200300)\nrfc-987\n-88(200)}\n\n   id-rfc-822-field-list OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {\nrfc987\n-88 field(1)}\n\nAppendix E - BNF Summary\n\n        boolean = \"TRUE\" / \"FALSE\"\n\n\n        numericstring = *DIGIT\n\n\n        printablestring  = *( ps-char )\n        ps-restricted-char      = 1DIGIT /  1ALPHA / \" \" / \"'\" / \"+\"\n                           / \",\" / \"-\" / \".\" / \"/\" / \":\" / \"=\" / \"?\"\n        ps-delim         = \"(\" / \")\"\n        ps-char          = ps-delim / ps-restricted-char\n\n\n        ps-encoded       = *( ps-restricted-char / ps-encoded-char )\n        ps-encoded-char  = \"(a)\"               ; (@)\n                         / \"(p)\"               ; (%)\n                         / \"(b)\"               ; (!)\n                         / \"(q)\"               ; (\")\n                         / \"(u)\"               ; (_)\n                         / \"(l)\"               ; \"(\"\n                         / \"(r)\"               ; \")\"\n                         / \"(\" 3DIGIT \")\"\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 94]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nteletex-string   = *( ps-char / t61-encoded )\n        t61-encoded      = \"{\" 1* t61-encoded-char \"}\"\n        t61-encoded-char = 3DIGIT\n\n\n        teletex-and-or-ps = [ printablestring ] [ \"*\" teletex-string ]\n\n\n        labelled-integer ::= [ key-string ] \"(\" numericstring \")\"\n\n        key-string      = *key-char\n        key-char        = <a-z, A-Z, 0-9, and \"-\">\n\n        object-identifier  ::= oid-comp object-identifier\n                        | oid-comp\n\n        oid-comp ::= [ key-string ] \"(\" numericstring \")\"\n\n\n        encoded-info    = 1#encoded-type\n\n        encoded-type    = built-in-eit / object-identifier\n\n        built-in-eit    = \"Undefined\"         ; undefined (0)\n                        / \"Telex\"             ; tLX (1)\n                        / \"IA5-Text\"          ; iA5Text (2)\n                        / \"G3-Fax\"            ; g3Fax (3)\n                        / \"TIF0\"              ; tIF0 (4)\n                        / \"Teletex\"           ; tTX (5)\n                        / \"Videotex\"          ; videotex (6)\n                        / \"Voice\"             ; voice (7)\n                        / \"SFD\"               ; sFD (8)\n                        / \"TIF1\"              ; tIF1 (9)\n\n\n\n        encoded-pn      = [ given \".\" ] *( initial \".\" ) surname\n\n        given           = 2*<ps-char not including \".\">\n\n        initial         = ALPHA\n\n        surname         = printablestring\n\n        std-or-address  = 1*( \"/\" attribute \"=\" value ) \"/\"\n        attribute       = standard-type\n                        / \"\nRFC-822\n\"\n                        / registered-dd-type\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 95]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n/ dd-key \".\" std-printablestring\n        standard-type   = key-string\n\n        registered-dd-type\n                        = key-string\n        dd-key          = key-string\n\n        value           = std-printablestring\n\n        std-printablestring\n                        = *( std-char / std-pair )\n        std-char        = <\"{\", \"}\", \"*\", and any ps-char\n                                        except \"/\" and \"=\">\n        std-pair        = \"$\" ps-char\n\n\n        dmn-or-address  = dmn-part *( \".\" dmn-part )\n        dmn-part        = attribute \"$\" value\n        attribute       = standard-type\n                        / \"~\" dmn-printablestring\n        value           = dmn-printablestring\n                        / \"@\"\n        dmn-printablestring =\n                        = *( dmn-char / dmn-pair )\n        dmn-char        = <\"{\", \"}\", \"*\", and any ps-char\n                                                except \".\">\n        dmn-pair        = \"\\.\"\n\n\n        global-id = std-or-address\n\n\n\n        mta-field       = \"X400-Received\" \":\" x400-trace\n                        / \"Deferred-Delivery\" \":\" date-time\n                        / \"Latest-Delivery-Time\" \":\" date-time\n\n        x400-trace       = \"by\" md-and-mta \";\"\n                         [ \"deferred until\" date-time \";\" ]\n                         [ \"converted\" \"(\" encoded-info \")\" \";\" ]\n                         [ \"attempted\" md-or-mta \";\"  ]\n                            action-list\n                            \";\" arrival-time\n\n\n        md-and-mta       = [ \"mta\" mta \"in\" ]  global-id\n        mta              = word\n        arrival-time     = date-time\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 96]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nmd-or-mta        = \"MD\" global-id\n                         / \"MTA\" mta\n\n        Action-list      = 1#action\n        action           = \"Redirected\"\n                         / \"Expanded\"\n                         / \"Relayed\"\n                         / \"Rerouted\"\n\n        dr-body-format = dr-summary <CRLF>\n                        dr-recipients <CRLF>\n                        dr-administrator-info-envelope <CRLF>\n                        dr-content-return\n\n\n        dr-content-return = \"The Original Message is not available\"\n             / \"The Original Message follows:\"\n\n        dr-summary = \"This report relates to your message:\" <CRLF>\n                        content-correlator <CRLF> <CRLF>\n                     \"of\" date-time <CRLF> <CRLF>\n\n\n        dr-recipients = *(dr-recipient <CRLF> <CRLF>)\n\n        dr-recipient = dr-recip-success / dr-recip-failure\n\n        dr-recip-success =\n                        \"Your message was successfully delivered to:\"\n                         mailbox \"at\" date-time\n\n\n        dr-recip-failure = \"Your message was not delivered to:\"\n                                mailbox <CRLF>\n                        \"for the following reason:\" *word\n\n\n        dr-administrator-info-envelope = 3*( \"*\" text <CRLF> )\n\n\n        dr-administrator-info =\n         \"**** The following information is directed towards\"\n         \"the local administrator\" <CRLF>\n         \"**** and is not intended for the end user\" <CRLF> <CRLF>\n         \"DR generated by:\" report-point <CRLF>\n         \"at\" date-time <CRLF> <CRLF>\n         \"Converted to\nRFC 822\nat\" mta <CRLF>\n         \"at\" date-time <CRLF> <CRLF>\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 97]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n\"Delivery Report Contents:\" <CRLF> <CRLF>\n         drc-field-list <CRLF>\n         \"***** End of administration information\"\n\n        drc-field-list       = *(drc-field <CRLF>)\n\n        drc-field = \"Subject-Submision-Identifier\" \":\"\n                                        mts-msg-id\n                  / \"Content-Identifier\" \":\" printablestring\n                  / \"Content-Type\" \":\" mts-content-type\n                  / \"Original-Encoded-Information-Types\" \":\"\n                                encoded-info\n                  / \"Originator-and-DL-Expansion-History\" \":\"\n                                dl-history\n                  / \"Reporting-DL-Name\" \":\" mailbox\n                  / \"Content-Correlator\" \":\" content-correlator\n                  / \"Recipient-Info\" \":\" recipient-info\n                  / \"Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information\" \":\"\n                                          x400-trace\n\n\n        recipient-info  = mailbox \",\" std-or \";\"\n                    report-type\n                    [ \"converted eits\" encoded-info \";\" ]\n                    [ \"originally intended recipient\"\n                            mailbox \",\" std-or \";\" ]\n                    [ \"last trace\" [ encoded-info ] date-time \";\" ]\n                    [ \"supplementary info\" <\"> printablestring <\"> \";\" ]\n                    [ \"redirection history\" 1#redirection \";\"\n                    [ \"physical forwarding address\"\n                                          printablestring \";\" ]\n\n\n        report-type     = \"SUCCESS\" drc-success\n                        / \"FAILURE\" drc-failure\n\n        drc-success     = \"delivered at\" date-time \";\"\n                        [ \"type of MTS user\" labelled-integer \";\" ]\n\n        drc-failure     = \"reason\" labelled-integer \";\"\n                        [ \"diagnostic\" labelled-integer \";\" ]\n\n\n        report-point = [ \"mta\" word \"in\" ] global-id\n        content-correlator = *word\n        dl-history = 1#( mailbox \"(\" date-time \")\")\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 98]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nmts-field = \"X400-MTS-Identifier\" \":\" mts-msg-id\n                  / \"X400-Originator\" \":\" mailbox\n                  / \"X400-Recipients\" \":\" 1#mailbox\n                  / \"Original-Encoded-Information-Types\" \":\"\n                                  encoded-info\n                  / \"X400-Content-Type\" \":\" mts-content-type\n                  / \"Content-Identifier\" \":\" printablestring\n                  / \"Priority\" \":\" priority\n                  / \"Originator-Return-Address\" \":\" 1#mailbox\n                  / \"DL-Expansion-History\" \":\" mailbox \";\" date-time \";\"\n                  / \"Conversion\" \":\" prohibition\n                  / \"Conversion-With-Loss\" \":\" prohibition\n                  / \"Requested-Delivery-Method\" \":\"\n                                  1*( labelled-integer )\n                  / \"Delivery-Date\" \":\" date-time\n                  / \"Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions\" \":\"\n                                   1#( oid / labelled-integer )\n\n\n        prohibition     = \"Prohibited\" / \"Allowed\"\n\n        mts-msg-id       = \"[\" global-id \";\" *text \"]\"\n\n        mts-content-type = \"P2\" /  labelled-integer\n                        / object-identifer\n\n        priority        = \"normal\" / \"non-urgent\" / \"urgent\"\n\n        ipn-body-format = ipn-description <CRLF>\n                        [ ipn-extra-information <CRLF> ]\n                        [ ipn-content-return ]\n\n        ipn-description = ipn-receipt / ipn-non-receipt\n\n        ipn-receipt = \"Your message to:\" preferred-recipient <CRLF>\n                 \"was received at\" receipt-time <CRLF> <CRLF>\n                 \"This notification was generated\"\n                 acknowledgement-mode <CRLF>\n                 \"The following extra information was given:\" <CRLF>\n                 ipn-suppl <CRLF>\n\n        ipn-non-receipt \"Your message to:\"\n                preferred-recipient <CRLF>\n                ipn-reason\n\n\n        ipn-reason = ipn-discarded / ipn-auto-forwarded\nHardcastle-Kille                                               [Page 99]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nipn-discarded = \"was discarded for the following reason:\"\n                        discard-reason <CRLF>\n\n        ipn-auto-forwarded = \"was automatically forwarded.\" <CRLF>\n                        [ \"The following comment was made:\"\n                                auto-comment ]\n\n\n        ipn-extra-information =\n                 \"The following information types were converted:\"\n                 encoded-info\n\n        ipn-content-return = \"The Original Message is not available\"\n                        / \"The Original Message follows:\"\n                          <CRLF> <CRLF> message\n\n\n        preferred-recipient = mailbox\n        receipt-time        = date-time\n        auto-comment        = printablestring\n        ipn-suppl           = printablestring\n\n        discard-reason     = \"Expired\" / \"Obsoleted\" /\n                                \"User Subscription Terminated\"\n\n        acknowledgement-mode = \"Manually\" / \"Automatically\"\n\n\n        ipms-field = \"Obsoletes\" \":\" 1#msg-id\n                   / \"Expiry-Date\" \":\" date-time\n                   / \"Reply-By\" \":\" date-time\n                   / \"Importance\" \":\" importance\n                   / \"Sensitivity\" \":\" sensitivity\n                   / \"Autoforwarded\" \":\" boolean\n                   / \"Incomplete-Copy\" \":\"\n                   / \"Language\" \":\" language\n                   / \"Message-Type\" \":\" message-type\n                   / \"Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions\" \":\" 1#oid\n\n\n\n        importance      = \"low\" / \"normal\" / \"high\"\n\n\n        sensitivity     = \"Personal\" / \"Private\" /\n                               \"Company-Confidential\"\n\n        language        = 2*ALPHA [ language-description ]\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 100]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nlanguage-description = printable-string\n\n\n\n        message-type    = \"Delivery Report\"\n                        / \"InterPersonal Notification\"\n                        / \"Multiple Part\"\n\n        redirect-comment  =\n                 [ \"Originally To:\" ] mailbox \"Redirected\"\n                 [ \"Again\" ] \"on\" date-time\n                 \"To:\"  redirection-reason\n\n        redirection-reason =\n                 \"Recipient Assigned Alternate Recipient\"\n                 / \"Originator Requested Alternate Recipient\"\n                 / \"Recipient MD Assigned Alternate Recipient\"\n\n\n        subject-line  = \"Delivery-Report\" \"(\" status \")\"\n                        [ \"for\" destination ]\n\n        status        = \"success\" / \"failure\" / \"success and failures\"\n\n        destination   = mailbox / \"MTA\" word\n\n\n        extended-heading =\n            \"Prevent-NonDelivery-Report\" \":\"\n            / \"Generate-Delivery-Report\" \":\"\n            / \"Alternate-Recipient\" \":\" prohibition\n            / \"Disclose-Recipients\" \":\"  prohibition\n            / \"Content-Return\" \":\" prohibition\n\nAppendix F - Format of address mapping tables\n\n   1.  Global Mapping Information\n\n      The consistent operation of gateways which follow this\n      specification relies of the existence of three globally defined\n      mappings:\n\n      1.   Domain Name Space -> O/R Address Space\n\n      2.   O/R Address Space -> Domain Name Space\n\n      3.   Domain Name Space -> O/R Address of preferred gateway\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 101]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nAll gateways conforming to this specification shall have access to\n      these mappings.  The gateway may use standardised or private\n      mechanisms to access this mapping information.\n\n      One means of distributing this information is in three files.\n      This appendix defines a format for these files.  Other\n      standardised mechanisms to distribute the mapping information are\n      expected.  In particular, mechanisms for using the Domain Name\n      Scheme, and X.500 are planned.\n\n      The definition of  global mapping information is being co-\n      ordinated by the COSINE-MHS project, on behalf of the Internet and\n      other X.400 and\nRFC 822\nusers.  For information on accessing this\n      information contact:\n\n           COSINE MHS Project Team\n           SWITCH\n           Weinbergstrasse 18\n           8001 Zuerich\n           Switzerland\n\n           tel: +41 1 262 3143\n           fax: +41 1 262 3151\n           email:\n           C=ch;ADMD=arcom;PRMD=switch;O=switch;OU=cosine-mhs;\n           S=project-team\n           or\n           project-team@cosine-mhs.switch.ch\n\n   2.  Syntax Definitions\n\n      An address syntax is defined, which is compatible with the syntax\n      used for 822.domains.  By representing the O/R addresses as\n      domains, all lookups can be mechanically implemented as domain ->\n      domain mappings.  This syntax defined is initially for use in\n      table format, but the syntax is defined in a manner which makes it\n      suitable to be adapted for  use with the  Domain Name Service.\n      This syntax allows for a general representation of O/R addresses,\n      so that it can be used in other applications.  Not all attributes\n      are used in the table formats defined.\n\n      To allow the mapping of null attributes  to be represented, the\n      pseudo-value \"@\" (not a printable string character) is used to\n      indicate omission of a level in the hierarchy.  This is distinct\n      from the form including the element with no value, although a\n      correct X.400 implementation will interpret both in the same\n      manner.\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 102]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nThis syntax is not intended to be handled by users.\n\n              dmn-or-address  = dmn-part *( \".\" dmn-part )\n              dmn-part        = attribute \"$\" value\n              attribute       = standard-type\n                              / \"~\" dmn-printablestring\n              value           = dmn-printablestring\n                              / \"@\"\n              dmn-printablestring =\n                              = *( dmn-char / dmn-pair )\n              dmn-char        = <\"{\", \"}\", \"*\", and any ps-char\n                                                      except \".\">\n              dmn-pair        = \"\\.\"\n\n      An example usage:\n\n              ~ROLE$Big\\.Chief.ADMD$ATT.C$US\n              PRMD$DEC.ADMD$@.C$US\n\n      The first example illustrates quoting of a \".\", and the second\n      omission of the ADMD level. There must be a strict ordering of all\n      components in this table, with the most significant components on\n      the RHS.   This allows the encoding to be treated as a domain.\n\n      Various further restrictions are placed on the usage of dmn-or-\n      address in the address space mapping tables.\n\n      1.   Only C, ADMD, PRMD, O, and up to four OUs may be used.\n\n      2.   No components shall be omitted from this hierarchy, although\n           the hierarchy may terminate at any level.  If the mapping is\n           to an omitted component, the \"@\" syntax is used.\n\n   3.  Table Lookups\n\n      When determining a match, there are aspects which apply to all\n      lookups.  Matches are always case independent. The key for all\n      three  tables is a domain. The longest possible match shall be\n      obtained.  Suppose the table has two entries with the following\n      keys:\n\n              K.L\n              J.K.L\n\n      Domain \"A.B.C\" will not return any matches.  Domain \"I.J.K.L\" will\n      match the entry \"J.K.L:.\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 103]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n4.  Domain -> O/R Address format\n\n      The BNF is:\n\n              domain-syntax \"#\" dmn-or-address \"#\"\n\n      Note that the trailing \"#\" is used for clarity, as the dmn-or-\n      address syntax might lead to values with trailing blanks.  Lines\n      staring with \"#\" are comments.\n\n              For example:\n              AC.UK#PRMD$UK\\.AC.ADMD$GOLD 400.C$GB#\n              XEROX.COM#O$Xerox.ADMD$ATT.C$US#\n              GMD.DE#O$@.PRMD$GMD.ADMD$DBP.C$DE#\n\n      A domain is looked up to determine the top levels of an O/R\n      Address.  Components of the domain which are not matched are used\n      to build the remainder of the O/R address, as described in\nSection\n4.3.4\n.\n\n   5.  O/R Address -> Domain format\n\n      The syntax of this table is:\n\n              dmn-or-address \"#\" domain-syntax \"#\"\n\n\n              For example:\n\n              #\n              # Mapping table\n              #\n              PRMD$UK\\.AC.ADMD$GOLD 400.C$GB#AC.UK#\n\n      The O/R Address is used to generate a domain key.  It is important\n      to order the components correctly, and to fill in missing\n      components in the hierarchy.  Use of this mapping is described in\nSection 4.3.2\n.\n\n   6.  Domain -> O/R Address of Gateway table\n\n      This uses the same format as the domain -> O/R address mapping.\n      In this case, the two restrictions (omitted components and\n      restrictions on components) do not apply.  Use of this mapping is\n      described in\nSection 4.3.4\n.\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 104]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nAppendix G - Mapping with X.400(1984)\n\n   This appendix defines modification to the  mapping for use with\n   X.400(1984).\n\n   The X.400(1984) protocols are a proper subset of X.400(1988).  When\n   mapping from X.400(1984) to\nRFC 822\n, no changes to this specification\n   are needed.\n\n   When mapping from\nRFC 822\nto X.400(1984), no use can be made of 1988\n   specific features.   No use of such features is made at the MTS\n   level.  One feature is used at the IPMS level, and this must be\n   replaced by the\nRFC 987\napproach.  All header information which would\n   usually be mapped into the\nrfc-822\n-heading-list extension, together\n   with any Comments: field in the\nRFC 822\nheader is mapped into a\n   single IA5 body part, which is the first body part in the message.\n   This body part will start with the string \"\nRFC-822\n-Headers:\" as the\n   first line.  The headers then follow this line.  This specification\n   requires correct reverse mapping of this format, either from 1988 or\n   1984.\n\n   In an environment where\nRFC 822\nis of major importance, it may be\n   desirable for downgrading to consider the case where the message was\n   originated in an\nRFC 822\nsystem, and mapped according to this\n   specification.  The\nrfc-822\n-heading-list extension may be mapped\n   according to this appendix.\n\n   When parsing std-or, the following restrictions must be observed:\n\n   -    Only the 84/88 attributes identified in the table in\nSection 4.2\nare present.\n\n   -    No teletex encoding is allowed.\n\n   If an address violates this, it should be treated as an\nRFC 822\naddress, which will usually lead to encoding as a DDA \"\nRFC-822\n\".\n\n   It is possible that null attributes may be present in an O/R Address.\n   This is not legal in 1988, except for ADMD where the case is\n   explicitly described in\nSection 4.3.5\n.  Null attributes are\n   deprecated (the attribute should be omitted), and should therefore be\n   unusual.  However, some systems generate them and rely on them.\n   Therefore, any null attribute shall be enoded using the std-or\n   encoding (e.g., /O=/).\n\n   If a non-Teletex Common Name (CN) is present, it should be mapped\n   onto a Domain Defined Attribute \"Common\".  This is in line with\nRFC\n1328\non X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading [Hardcastle-K92].\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 105]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nAppendix H -\nRFC 822\nExtensions for X.400 access\n\n   This appendix defines a number of optional mappings which may be\n   provided to give access from\nRFC 822\nto a number of X.400 services.\n   These mappings are beyond the basic scope of this specification.\n   There has been a definite demand to use extended\nRFC 822\nas a\n   mechanism to acccess X.400, and these extensions provide access to\n   certain features.  If this functionality is provided, this appendix\n   shall be followed.  The following headings are defined:\n\n        extended-heading =\n            \"Prevent-NonDelivery-Report\" \":\"\n            / \"Generate-Delivery-Report\" \":\"\n            / \"Alternate-Recipient\" \":\" prohibition\n            / \"Disclose-Recipients\" \":\"  prohibition\n            / \"Content-Return\" \":\" prohibition\n\n   Prevent-NonDelivery-Report and Generate-Delivery-Report allow setting\n   of MTS.PerRecipientSubmissionFields.originator-report-request.  The\n   setting will be the same for all recipients.\n\n   Alternate-Recipient, Disclose-Recipients, and Content-Return allow\n   for override of the default settings for MTS.PerMessageIndicators.\n\nAppendix I - Conformance\n\n   This appendix defines a number of options, which a conforming gateway\n   should specify.  Conformance to this specification shall not be\n   claimed if any of the mandatory features are not implemented.  In\n   particular:\n\n   -    Formats for all fields shall be followed.\n\n   -    Formats for subject lines, delivery reports and IPNs shall\n        be followed.   A system which followed the syntax, but\n        translated text into a language other than english would be\n        conformant.\n\n   -\nRFC 1137\nshall not be followed when mapping to SMTP or to\n        JNT Mail\n\n   -    All mappings of trace shall be implemented.\n\n   -    There must be a mechanism to access all three global\n        mappings.\n\n   A gateway should specify:\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 106]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n-    Which 822-MTS protocols are supported.  The relevant\n        appendices must be followed to claim support of a given\n        protocol: SMTP (A); JNT Mail (B); UUCP (C).\n\n   -    Which X.400 versions  are supported (84 and/or 88).\n\n   -    The means by which it can access the global mappings.\n        Currently, the tables of the formats define in\nAppendix F\nis the only means available.\n\n   -    The approach taken when upper bounds are exceeded at the IPM\n        level  (5.1.3)\n\n   -    The approach taken to return of contents (5.2)\n\n   -    The approach taken to body parts which cannot be converted\n        (5.3.4)\n\n   -    The approach taken to multiple copies vs non-disclosure\n        (4.6.2.2)\n\n   The following are optional parts of this specification.  A conforming\n   implementation should specify which of these it supports.\n\n   -    Generation of extended\nRFC 822\nfields is mandatory.\n        Optionally, they may be parsed and mapped back to X.400.  A\n        gateway should should indicate if this is done.\n\n   -    Support for the extension mappings of\nAppendix H\n.\n\n   -    Support for returning illegal format content in a delivery\n        report\n\n   -    Which address interpretation heuristics are supported\n        (4.3.4.1)\n\n   -    If\nRFC 987\ngenerated message ids are handled in a backwards\n        compatible manner (4.7.3.6)\n\nAppendix J - Change History:\nRFC 987\n, 1026, 1138, 1148\nRFC 987\nwas the original document, and contained the key elements of\n   this specification.  It was specific to X.400(1984).\nRFC 1026\nspecified a small number of necessary changes to\nRFC 987\n.\nRFC 1138\nwas based on the\nRFC 987\nwork.  It contained an editorial\n   error, and was reissued a few months later as\nRFC 1148\n.\nRFC 1148\nwill be referred to here, as it is the document which is widely\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 107]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nreferred to elsewhere. The major goal of\nRFC 1148\nwas to upgrade\nRFC\n987\nto X.400(1988).  It did this, but did not obsolete\nRFC 987\n, which\n   was recommended for use with X.400(1984).  This appendix summarises\n   the changes made in going from\nRFC 987\nto\nRFC 1148\n.\nRFC 1148\nnoted the following about its upgrade from\nRFC 987\n:\n   Unnecessary change is usually a bad idea.  Changes on the\nRFC 822\nside are avoided as far as possible,  so that\nRFC 822\nusers do not\n   see arbitrary differences between systems conforming to this\n   specification, and those following\nRFC 987\n.  Changes on the X.400\n   side are minimised, but are more  acceptable, due to the mapping onto\n   a new set of services and protocols.\n\n   1.  Introduction\n\n      The model has shifted from a protocol based mapping to a service\n      based mapping.  This has increased the generality of the\n      specification, and improved the model.  This change affects the\n      entire document.\n\n      A restriction on scope has been added.\n\n   2.  Service Elements\n\n      -    The new service elements of X.400 are dealt with.\n\n      -    A clear distinction is made between origination and\n           reception\n\n   3.  Basic Mappings\n\n      -    Add teletex support\n\n      -    Add object identifier support\n\n      -    Add labelled integer support\n\n      -    Make PrintableString <-> ASCII mapping reversible\n\n      -    The printable string mapping is aligned to the NBS mapping\n           derived from\nRFC 987\n.\n\n   4.  Addressing\n\n      -    Support for new addressing attributes\n\n      -    The message ID mapping is changed to not be table driven\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 108]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n5.  Detailed Mappings\n\n      -    Define extended IPM Header, and use instead of second body\n           part for\nRFC 822\nextensions\n\n      -    Realignment of element names\n\n      -    New syntax for reports, simplifying the header and\n           introducing a mandatory body format (the\nRFC 987\nheader\n           format was unusable)\n\n      -    Drop complex autoforwarded mapping\n\n      -    Add full mapping for IP Notifications, defining a body\n           format\n\n      -    Adopt an MTS Identifier syntax in line with the O/R Address\n           syntax\n\n      -    A new format for X400 Trace representation on the\nRFC 822\nside\n\n   6.  Appendices\n\n      -    Move Appendix on restricted 822 mappings to a separate RFC\n\n      -    Delete Phonenet and SMTP Appendixes\n\nAppendix K - Change History:\nRFC 1148\nto this Document\n\n   1.  General\n\n      -    The scope of the document was changed to cover X.400(1984),\n           and so obsolete\nRFC 987\n.\n\n      -    Changes were made to allow usage to connect\nRFC 822\nnetworks\n           using X.400\n\n      -    Text was tightened to be clear about optional and mandatory\n           aspects\n\n      -    A good deal of clarification\n\n      -    A number of minor EBNF errors\n\n      -    Better examples are given\n\n      -    Further X.400 upper bounds are handled correctly\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 109]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n2.  Basic Mappings\n\n      -    The encoding of object identifier is changed slightly\n\n   3.  Addressing\n\n      -    A global mapping of domain to preferred gateway is\n           introduced.\n\n      -    An overflow mechanism is defined for\nRFC 822\naddresses of\n           greater than 128 bytes.\n\n      -    Changes were made to improve compatability with the PDAM on\n           writing O/R Addresses.\n\n      +         The PD and Terminal Type keywords were aligned to the\n                PDAM.  It is believed that minimal use has been made of\n                the\nRFC 1148\nkeywords.\n\n      +         P and A are allowed as alternate keys for PRMD and ADMD\n\n      +         Where keywords are different, the PDAM keywords are\n                alternatives on input.  This is mandatory.\n\n   4.  Detailed Mappings\n\n      -    The format of the Subject: lines is defined.\n\n      -    Illegal use (repetition) of the heading EXTENSION is\n           corrected, and a new object identifier assigned.\n\n      -    The Delivery Report format is extensively revised in light\n           of operational experience.\n\n      -    The handling of redirects is significantly changed, as the\n           previous mechanism did not work.\n\n   5.  Appendices\n\n      -    An SMTP appendix is added, allowing optional use of the VRFY\n           command to improve probe information.\n\n      -    Handling of JNT Mail Acknowledge-To is changed slightly.\n\n      -    A DDA JNT-MAIL is allowed on input.\n\n      -    The format definitions of\nAppendix F\nare explained further,\n           and a third table definition added.\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 110]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\n-    An appendix on use with X.400(1984) is added.\n\n      -    Optional extensions are defined to give\nRFC 822\naccess to\n           further X.400 facilities.\n\n      -    An appendix on conformance is added.\n\nReferences\n\n      CCITT88a.\n           CCITT, \"CCITT Recommendations X.408,\" Message Handling\n           Systems: Encoded Information Type Conversion Rules, December\n           1988.\n\n      CCITT/ISO88a.\n           CCITT/ISO, \"CCITT Recommendations X.400/ ISO IS 10021-1,\"\n           Message Handling: System and Service Overview , December\n           1988.\n\n      CCITT/ISO88b.\n           CCITT/ISO, \"CCITT Recommendations X.420/ ISO IS 10021-7,\"\n           Message Handling Systems: Interpersonal Messaging System,\n           December 1988.\n\n      CCITT/ISO88c.\n           CCITT/ISO, \"CCITT Recommendations X.411/ ISO IS 10021-4,\"\n           Message Handling Systems: Message Transfer System: Abstract\n           Service Definition and Procedures, December 1988.\n\n      CCITT/ISO88d.\n           CCITT/ISO, \"Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One\n           (ASN.1),\" CCITT Recommendation X.208 / ISO IS 8824, December\n           1988.\n\n      CCITT/ISO91a.\n           CCITT/ISO, \"Representation of O/R Addresses for Human\n           Usage,\" PDAM to CCITT X.401 / ISO/IEC 10021-2, February\n           1991.\n\n      Crocker82a.\n           Crocker, D., \"Standard of the Format of ARPA Internet Text\n           Messages,\"\nRFC 822\n, UDEL, August 1982.\n\n      Hardcastle-K92.\n           Hardcastle-Kille, S., \"X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading,\"\nRFC\n1328\n, UCL, May 1992.\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 111]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nHorton86a.\n           Horton, M., \"UUCP Mail Interchange Format Standard,\"\nRFC\n976\n, February 1986.\n\n      Kille84b.\n           Kille, S., \"Gatewaying between\nRFC 822\nand JNT Mail,\" JNT\n           Mailgroup Note 15, May 1984.\n\n      Kille84a.\n           Kille, S., (Editor), JNT Mail Protocol (revision 1.0), Joint\n           Network Team, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, March 1984.\n\n      Kille86a.\n           Kille, S., \"Mapping Between X.400 and\nRFC 822\n,\" UK Academic\n           Community Report (MG.19) /\nRFC 987\n, June 1986.\n\n      Kille87a.\n           Kille, S., \"Addendum to\nRFC 987\n,\" UK Academic Community\n           Report (MG.23) /\nRFC 1026\n, August 1987.\n\n      Kille89a.\n           Kille, S., \"A String Encoding of Presentation Address,\" UCL\n           Research Note 89/14, March 1989.\n\n      Kille89b.\n           Kille, S., \"Mapping between full\nRFC 822\nand\nRFC 822\nwith\n           restricted encoding,\"\nRFC 1137\n, October 1989.\n\n      Kille90a.\n           Kille, S., \"Mapping Between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and\nRFC\n822\n,\"\nRFC 1148\n, March 1990.\n\n      Larmouth83a.\n           Larmouth, J., \"JNT Name Registration Technical Guide,\"\n           Salford University Computer Centre, April 1983.\n\n      Postel84a.\n           Postel J., and J. Reynolds, \"Domain Requirements,\"\nRFC 920\n,\n           USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1984.\n\n      Postel82a.\n           Postel, J., \"Simple Mail Transfer Protocol\",\nRFC 821\n,\n           USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.\n\n      Rose85a.\n           Rose M., and E. Stefferud, \"Proposed Standard for Message\n           Encapsulation,\"\nRFC 934\n, January 1985.\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 112]\nRFC 1327\nMapping between X.400(1988) and\nRFC 822\nMay 1992\nSystems85a.\n           CEN/CENELEC/Information Technology/Working Group on Private\n           Message Handling Systems, \"FUNCTIONAL STANDARD A/3222,\"\n           CEN/CLC/IT/WG/PMHS N 17, October 1985.\n\nSECURITY CONSIDERATIONS\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAUTHOR'S ADDRESS\n\n   Steve Hardcastle-Kille\n   Department of Computer Science\n   University College London\n   Gower Street\n   WC1E 6BT\n   England\n\n   Phone: +44-71-380-7294\n   EMail: S.Kille@CS.UCL.AC.UK\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHardcastle-Kille                                              [Page 113]\nRFC\n1327\n: Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822\nProposed Standard\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n2156\nMIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay): Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-05-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-05-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-05-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:07.605492+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "766b3fe4-40e8-463d-8ce3-eed1c9413bb1", "source_id": "8aab4bc8fb6295fbd030c098", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9499.pdf", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9499.pdf", "artifact_sha256": "8aab4bc8fb6295fbd030c098b771a9eff9067aba57e50879dca5e8c2ed323e7c", "content_type": "application/pdf", "extraction_method": "pypdf", "byte_size": 711209, "title": "RFC 9499: DNS Terminology", "language": "en", "text_length": 107693, "characters": 107693, "text": "RFC 9499\nDNS Terminology\nAbstract\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology\nused by implementers and developers of DNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has\nchanged in the decades since the DNS was first defined. This document gives current definitions\nfor many of the terms used in the DNS in a single document.\nThis document updates RFC 2308 by clarifying the definitions of \"forwarder\" and \"QNAME\". It\nobsoletes RFC 8499 by adding multiple terms and clarifications. Comprehensive lists of changed\nand new definitions can be found in Appendices A and B.\nStream:\nRFC:\nBCP:\nObsoletes:\nUpdates:\nCategory:\nPublished:\nISSN:\nAuthors:\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\n9499\n219\n8499 \n2308 \nBest Current Practice\nMarch 2024 \n2070-1721\n  P. Hoffman\nICANN\nK. Fujiwara\nJPRS\nStatus of This Memo \nThis memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.\nThis document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the\nconsensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for\npublication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is\navailable in Section 2 of RFC 7841.\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback\non it may be obtained at .https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9499\nCopyright Notice \nCopyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights\nreserved.\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 1\n\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF\nDocuments ( ) in effect on the date of publication of this\ndocument. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions\nwith respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include\nRevised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are\nprovided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.\nhttps://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\nTable of Contents \n1.  Introduction\n2.  Names\n3.  DNS Response Codes\n4.  DNS Transactions\n5.  Resource Records\n6.  DNS Servers and Clients\n7.  Zones\n8.  Wildcards\n9.  Registration Model\n10. General DNSSEC\n11. DNSSEC States\n12. Security Considerations\n13. IANA Considerations\n14. References\n14.1.  Normative References\n14.2.  Informative References\nAppendix A.  Definitions Updated by This Document\nAppendix B.  Definitions First Defined in This Document\nAcknowledgements\nIndex\nAuthors' Addresses\n3\n4\n8\n9\n11\n13\n18\n22\n23\n24\n28\n29\n29\n29\n29\n32\n35\n35\n37\n37\n45\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 2\n\n1. Introduction \nThe Domain Name System (DNS) is a simple query-response protocol whose messages in both\ndirections have the same format. (Section 2 gives a definition of \"global DNS\", which is often what\npeople mean when they say \"the DNS\".) The protocol and message format are defined in \n and . These RFCs defined some terms, and later documents defined others.\nSome of the terms from  and  have somewhat different meanings now than\nthey did in 1987.\nThis document contains a collection of a wide variety of DNS-related terms, organized loosely by\ntopic. Some of them have been precisely defined in earlier RFCs, some have been loosely defined\nin earlier RFCs, and some are not defined in an earlier RFC at all.\nOther organizations sometimes define DNS-related terms in their own way. For example, the\nWHATWG defines \"domain\" at . The Root Server System Advisory\nCommittee (RSSAC) has a good lexicon .\nMost of the definitions listed here represent the consensus definition of the DNS community --\nboth protocol developers and operators. Some of the definitions differ from earlier RFCs, and\nthose differences are noted. In this document, where the consensus definition is the same as the\none in an RFC, that RFC is quoted. Where the consensus definition has changed somewhat, the\nRFC is mentioned but the new stand-alone definition is given. See Appendix A for a list of the\ndefinitions that this document updates.\nIt is important to note that, during the development of this document, it became clear that some\nDNS-related terms are interpreted quite differently by different DNS experts. Further, some\nterms that are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions that are generally agreed to, but\nthat are different from the original definitions. This document is a small revision to ;\nthat document was a substantial revision to .\nNote that there is no single consistent definition of \"the DNS\". It can be considered to be some\ncombination of the following: a commonly used naming scheme for objects on the Internet; a\ndistributed database representing the names and certain properties of these objects; an\narchitecture providing distributed maintenance, resilience, and loose coherency for this\ndatabase; and a simple query-response protocol (as mentioned below) implementing this\narchitecture. Section 2 defines \"global DNS\" and \"private DNS\" as a way to deal with these\ndiffering definitions.\nCapitalization in DNS terms is often inconsistent among RFCs and various DNS practitioners. The\ncapitalization used in this document is a best guess at current practices, and is not meant to\nindicate that other capitalization styles are wrong or archaic. In some cases, multiple styles of\ncapitalization are used for the same term due to quoting from different RFCs.\nIn this document, the words \"byte\" and \"octet\" are used interchangeably. They appear here\nbecause they both appear in the earlier RFCs that defined terms in the DNS.\n[RFC1034] [RFC1035]\n[RFC1034] [RFC1035]\n<https://url.spec.whatwg.org/>\n[RSSAC026]\n[RFC8499]\n[RFC7719]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 3\n\nReaders should note that the terms in this document are grouped by topic. Someone who is not\nalready familiar with the DNS probably cannot learn about the DNS from scratch by reading this\ndocument from front to back. Instead, skipping around may be the only way to get enough\ncontext to understand some of the definitions. This document has an index that might be useful\nfor readers who are attempting to learn the DNS by reading this document.\nNaming system:\nDomain name:\n2. Names \n A naming system associates names with data. Naming systems have many\nsignificant facets that help differentiate them from each other. Some commonly identified\nfacets include:\nComposition of names \nFormat of names \nAdministration of names \nTypes of data that can be associated with names \nTypes of metadata for names \nProtocol for getting data from a name \nContext for resolving a name \nNote that this list is a small subset of facets that people have identified over time for naming\nsystems, and the IETF has yet to agree on a good set of facets that can be used to compare\nnaming systems. For example, other facets might include \"protocol to update data in a name\",\n\"privacy of names\", and \"privacy of data associated with names\", but those are not as well\ndefined as the ones listed above. The list here is chosen because it helps describe the DNS and\nnaming systems similar to the DNS. \nAn ordered list of one or more labels. \nNote that this is a definition independent of the DNS RFCs ( and ), and the\ndefinition here also applies to systems other than the DNS.  defines the \"domain\nname space\" using mathematical trees and their nodes in graph theory, and that definition\nhas the same practical result as the definition here. Any path of a directed acyclic graph can\nbe represented by a domain name consisting of the labels of its nodes, ordered by decreasing\ndistance from the root(s) (which is the normal convention within the DNS, including this\ndocument). A domain name whose last label identifies a root of the graph is fully qualified;\nother domain names whose labels form a strict prefix of a fully qualified domain name are\nrelative to its first omitted node. \nAlso note that different IETF and non-IETF documents have used the term \"domain name\" in\nmany different ways. It is common for earlier documents to use \"domain name\" to mean\n\"names that match the syntax in \", but possibly with additional rules such as \"and\nare, or will be, resolvable in the global DNS\" or \"but only using the presentation format\". \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n[RFC1034] [RFC1035]\n[RFC1034]\n[RFC1035]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 4\n\nLabel:\nGlobal DNS:\nComposition of names:\nFormat of names:\nWire format:\nPresentation format:\nCommon display format:\nAdministration of names:\nAn ordered list of zero or more octets that makes up a portion of a domain name. Using\ngraph theory, a label identifies one node in a portion of the graph of all possible domain\nnames. \nUsing the short set of facets listed in \"Naming system\", the global DNS can be\ndefined as follows. Most of the rules here come from  and , although the\nterm \"global DNS\" has not been defined before now. \nA name in the global DNS has one or more labels. The length of each\nlabel is between 0 and 63 octets inclusive. In a fully qualified domain name, the last label\nin the ordered list is 0 octets long; it is the only label whose length may be 0 octets, and it is\ncalled the \"root\" or \"root label\". A domain name in the global DNS has a maximum total\nlength of 255 octets in the wire format; the root represents one octet for this calculation.\n(Multicast DNS  allows names up to 255 bytes plus a terminating zero byte based\non a different interpretation of RFC 1035 and what is included in the 255 octets.) \nNames in the global DNS are domain names. There are three formats:\nwire format, presentation format, and common display. \nThe basic wire format for names in the global DNS is a list of labels ordered\nby decreasing distance from the root, with the root label last. Each label is preceded by\na length octet.  also defines a compression scheme that modifies this format. \nThe presentation format for names in the global DNS is a list of\nlabels ordered by decreasing distance from the root, encoded as ASCII, with a \".\"\ncharacter between each label. In presentation format, a fully qualified domain name\nincludes the root label and the associated separator dot. For example, in presentation\nformat, a fully qualified domain name with two non-root labels is always shown as\n\"example.tld.\" instead of \"example.tld\".  defines a method for showing octets\nthat do not display in ASCII. \nThe common display format is used in applications and free\ntext. It is the same as the presentation format, but showing the root label and the \".\"\nbefore it is optional and is rarely done. For example, in common display format, a fully\nqualified domain name with two non-root labels is usually shown as \"example.tld\"\ninstead of \"example.tld.\". Names in the common display format are normally written\nsuch that the directionality of the writing system presents labels by decreasing distance\nfrom the root (so, in both English and the C programming language, the root or Top-\nLevel Domain (TLD) label in the ordered list is rightmost; but in Arabic, it may be\nleftmost, depending on local conventions). \nAdministration is specified by delegation (see the definition of\n\"delegation\" in Section 7). Policies for administration of the root zone in the global DNS are\ndetermined by the names operational community, which convenes itself in the Internet\nCorporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The names operational\ncommunity selects the IANA Functions Operator for the global DNS root zone. The name\nservers that serve the root zone are provided by independent root operators. Other zones\nin the global DNS have their own policies for administration. \n[RFC1034] [RFC1035]\n[RFC6762]\n[RFC1035]\n[RFC1035]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 5\n\nTypes of data that can be associated with names:\nTypes of metadata for names:\nProtocol for getting data from a name:\nContext for resolving a name:\nPrivate DNS:\nMulticast DNS (mDNS):\nLocally served DNS zone:\nFully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN):\nA name can have zero or more resource\nrecords associated with it. There are numerous types of resource records with unique data\nstructures defined in many different RFCs and in the IANA registry at \n. \nAny name that is published in the DNS appears as a set of\nresource records (see the definition of \"RRset\" in Section 5). Some names do not,\nthemselves, have data associated with them in the DNS, but they \"appear\" in the DNS\nanyway because they form part of a longer name that does have data associated with it\n(see the definition of \"empty non-terminals\" in Section 7). \nThe protocol described in . \nThe global DNS root zone distributed by Public Technical\nIdentifiers (PTI). \nNames that use the protocol described in  but do not rely on the global\nDNS root zone or names that are otherwise not generally available on the Internet but are\nusing the protocol described in . A system can use both the global DNS and one or\nmore private DNS systems; for example, see \"Split DNS\" in Section 6. \nNote that domain names that do not appear in the DNS and that are intended never to be\nlooked up using the DNS protocol are not part of the global DNS or a private DNS, even though\nthey are domain names. \n\"Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to perform DNS-like\noperations on the local link in the absence of any conventional Unicast DNS server. In\naddition, Multicast DNS designates a portion of the DNS namespace to be free for local use,\nwithout the need to pay any annual fee, and without the need to set up delegations or\notherwise configure a conventional DNS server to answer for those names.\" (Quoted from \n, Abstract) Although it uses a compatible wire format, mDNS is, strictly speaking, a\ndifferent protocol than DNS. Also, where the above quote says \"a portion of the DNS\nnamespace\", it would be clearer to say \"a portion of the domain name space\". The names in\nmDNS are not intended to be looked up in the DNS. \nA locally served DNS zone is a special case of private DNS. Names are\nresolved using the DNS protocol in a local context.  defines subdomains of IN-\nADDR.ARPA that are locally served zones. Resolution of names through locally served zones\nmay result in ambiguous results. For example, the same name may resolve to different results\nin different locally served DNS zone contexts. The context for a locally served DNS zone may\nbe explicit, such as those that are listed in  and , or implicit, such as those\ndefined by local DNS administration and not known to the resolution client. \nThis is often just a clear way of saying the same thing as\n\"domain name of a node\", as outlined above. However, the term is ambiguous. Strictly\nspeaking, a fully qualified domain name would include every label, including the zero-length\nlabel of the root; such a name would be written \"www.example.net.\" (note the terminating\ndot). But, because every name eventually shares the common root, names are often written\n[IANA_Resource_Registry]\n[RFC1035]\n[RFC1035]\n[RFC1035]\n[RFC6762]\n[RFC6303]\n[RFC6303] [RFC7793]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 6\n\nHost name:\nTop-Level Domain (TLD):\nInternationalized Domain Name (IDN):\nSubdomain:\nrelative to the root (such as \"www.example.net\") and are still called \"fully qualified\". This\nterm first appeared in . In this document, names are often written relative to the\nroot. \nThe need for the term \"fully qualified domain name\" comes from the existence of partially\nqualified domain names, which are names where one or more of the last labels in the ordered\nlist are omitted (for example, a domain name of \"www\" relative to \"example.net\" identifies\n\"www.example.net\"). Such relative names are understood only by context. \nThis term and its equivalent, \"hostname\", have been widely used but are not\ndefined in , , , or . The DNS was originally deployed\ninto the Host Tables environment as outlined in , and it is likely that the term\nfollowed informally from the definition there. Over time, the definition seems to have shifted.\n\"Host name\" is often meant to be a domain name that follows the rules in \n, which is also called the \"preferred name syntax\". (In that syntax, every character\nin each label is a letter, a digit, or a hyphen). Note that any label in a domain name can\ncontain any octet value; hostnames are generally considered to be domain names where\nevery label follows the rules in the \"preferred name syntax\", with the amendment that labels\ncan start with ASCII digits (this amendment comes from ). \nPeople also sometimes use the term \"hostname\" to refer to just the first label of an FQDN, such\nas \"printer\" in \"printer.admin.example.com\". (Sometimes this is formalized in configuration in\noperating systems.) In addition, people sometimes use this term to describe any name that\nrefers to a machine, and those might include labels that do not conform to the \"preferred\nname syntax\". \nA Top-Level Domain is a zone that is one layer below the root, such as\n\"com\" or \"jp\". There is nothing special, from the point of view of the DNS, about TLDs. Most of\nthem are also delegation-centric zones (defined in Section 7), and there are significant policy\nissues around their operation. TLDs are often divided into sub-groups such as Country Code\nTop-Level Domains (ccTLDs), Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), and others; the division is a\nmatter of policy and beyond the scope of this document. \nThe Internationalized Domain Names for Applications\n(IDNA) protocol is the standard mechanism for handling domain names with non-ASCII\ncharacters in applications in the DNS. The current standard at the time of this writing,\nnormally called \"IDNA2008\", is defined in , , , , and \n. These documents define many IDN-specific terms such as \"LDH label\", \"A-label\",\nand \"U-label\".  defines more terms that relate to internationalization (some of which\nrelate to IDNs);  has a much more extensive discussion of IDNs, including some new\nterminology. \n\"A domain is a subdomain of another domain if it is contained within that domain.\nThis relationship can be tested by seeing if the subdomain's name ends with the containing\ndomain's name.\" (Quoted from ) For example, in the host name\n\"nnn.mmm.example.com\", both \"mmm.example.com\" and \"nnn.mmm.example.com\" are\nsubdomains of \"example.com\". Note that the comparisons here are done on whole labels; that\nis, \"ooo.example.com\" is not a subdomain of \"oo.example.com\". \n[RFC819]\n[RFC1034] [RFC1035] [RFC1123] [RFC2181]\n[RFC952]\nSection 3.5 of\n[RFC1034]\nSection 2.1 of [RFC1123]\n[RFC5890] [RFC5891] [RFC5892] [RFC5893]\n[RFC5894]\n[RFC6365]\n[RFC6055]\n[RFC1034], Section 3.1\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 7\n\nAlias:\nCanonical name:\nCNAME:\nThe owner of a CNAME resource record, or a subdomain of the owner of a DNAME\nresource record (DNAME records are defined in ). See also \"canonical name\". \nA CNAME resource record \"identifies its owner name as an alias, and specifies\nthe corresponding canonical name in the RDATA section of the RR.\" (Quoted from \n) This usage of the word \"canonical\" is related to the mathematical concept of\n\"canonical form\". \n\"It has been traditional to refer to the [owner] of a CNAME record as 'a CNAME'. This is\nunfortunate, as 'CNAME' is an abbreviation of 'canonical name', and the [owner] of a CNAME\nrecord is most certainly not a canonical name.\" (Quoted from . The\nquoted text has been changed from \"label\" to \"owner\".) \n[RFC6672]\n[RFC1034], \nSection 3.6.2\n[RFC2181], Section 10.1.1\nNOERROR:\nFORMERR:\nSERVFAIL:\nNXDOMAIN:\nNOTIMP:\nREFUSED:\nNODATA:\n3. DNS Response Codes \nSome of the response codes (RCODEs) that are defined in  have acquired their own\nshorthand names. All of the RCODEs are listed at , although that list\nuses mixed-case capitalization, while most documents use all caps. Some of the common names\nfor values defined in  are described in this section. This section also includes an\nadditional RCODE and a general definition. The official list of all RCODEs is in the IANA registry.\nThis RCODE appears as \"No error condition\" in . \nThis RCODE appears as \"Format error - The name server was unable to interpret the\nquery\" in . \nThis RCODE appears as \"Server failure - The name server was unable to process this\nquery due to a problem with the name server\" in . \nThis RCODE appears as \"Name Error [...] this code signifies that the domain name\nreferenced in the query does not exist.\" in .  established\nNXDOMAIN as a synonym for Name Error. \nThis RCODE appears as \"Not Implemented - The name server does not support the\nrequested kind of query\" in . \nThis RCODE appears as \"Refused - The name server refuses to perform the specified\noperation for policy reasons. For example, a name server may not wish to provide the\ninformation to the particular requester, or a name server may not wish to perform a\nparticular operation (e.g., zone transfer) for particular data.\" in . \n\"A pseudo RCODE which indicates that the name is valid, for the given class, but\n[there] are no records of the given type. A NODATA response has to be inferred from the\nanswer.\" (Quoted from ) \"NODATA is indicated by an answer with the\nRCODE set to NOERROR and no relevant answers in the Answer section. The Authority section\nwill contain an SOA record, or there will be no NS records there.\" (Quoted from \n) Note that referrals have a similar format to NODATA replies;  explains\nhow to distinguish them. \n[RFC1035]\n[IANA_Resource_Registry]\n[RFC1035]\nSection 4.1.1 of [RFC1035]\nSection 4.1.1 of [RFC1035]\nSection 4.1.1 of [RFC1035]\nSection 4.1.1 of [RFC1035] [RFC2308]\nSection 4.1.1 of [RFC1035]\nSection 4.1.1 of [RFC1035]\n[RFC2308], Section 1\n[RFC2308], \nSection 2.2 [RFC2308]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 8\n\nNegative response:\nThe term \"NXRRSET\" is sometimes used as a synonym for NODATA. However, this is a mistake,\ngiven that NXRRSET is a specific error code defined in . \nA response that indicates that a particular RRset does not exist or whose\nRCODE indicates that the nameserver cannot answer. Sections 2 and 7 of  describe\nthe types of negative responses in detail. \n[RFC2136]\n[RFC2308]\nClass:\nQNAME:\n4. DNS Transactions \nThe header of a DNS message is its first 12 octets. Many of the fields and flags in the diagrams in\nSections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of  are referred to by their names in each diagram. For\nexample, the response codes are called \"RCODEs\", the data for a record is called the \"RDATA\", and\nthe authoritative answer bit is often called \"the AA flag\" or \"the AA bit\".\nA class \"identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol\". (Quoted from \n) \"The DNS tags all data with a class as well as the type, so that we can allow\nparallel use of different formats for data of type address.\" (Quoted from \n) In practice, the class for nearly every query is \"IN\" (the Internet). There are some queries\nfor \"CH\" (the Chaos class), but they are usually for the purposes of information about the\nserver itself rather than for a different type of address. \nThe most commonly used rough definition is that the QNAME is a field in the Question\nsection of a query. \"A standard query specifies a target domain name (QNAME), query type\n(QTYPE), and query class (QCLASS) and asks for RRs which match.\" (Quoted from \n) Strictly speaking, the definition comes from , where the\nQNAME is defined in respect of the Question section. This definition appears to be applied\nconsistently, as the discussion of inverse queries in  refers to the\n\"owner name of the query RR and its TTL\" because inverse queries populate the Answer\nsection and leave the Question section empty. (Inverse queries are deprecated in ;\nthus, relevant definitions do not appear in this document.) \nHowever,  has an alternate definition that puts the QNAME in the answer (or series\nof answers) instead of the query. It defines QNAME as \"...the name in the query section of an\nanswer, or where this resolves to a CNAME, or CNAME chain, the data field of the last CNAME.\nThe last CNAME in this sense is that which contains a value which does not resolve to another\nCNAME.\" This definition has a certain internal logic, because of the way CNAME substitution\nworks and the definition of CNAME. If a name server does not find an RRset that matches a\nquery, but does find the same name in the same class with a CNAME record, then the name\nserver \"includes the CNAME record in the response and restarts the query at the domain\nname specified in the data field of the CNAME record.\" (Quoted from )\nThis is made explicit in the resolution algorithm outlined in , which\nsays to \"change QNAME to the canonical name in the CNAME RR, and go back to step 1\" in the\ncase of a CNAME RR. Since a CNAME record explicitly declares that the owner name is\ncanonically named what is in the RDATA, then there is a way to view the new name (i.e., the\nname that was in the RDATA of the CNAME RR) as also being the QNAME. \n[RFC1035]\n[RFC1034], \nSection 3.6\n[RFC1034], Section\n2.2\n[RFC1034], \nSection 3.7.1 [RFC1035], Section 4.1.2\nSection 6.4.1 of [RFC1035]\n[RFC3425]\n[RFC2308]\n[RFC1034], Section 3.6.2\nSection 4.3.2 of [RFC1034]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 9\n\nQNAME (original):\nQNAME (effective):\nQNAME (final):\nReferrals:\nHowever, this creates confusion because the response to a query that results in CNAME\nprocessing contains in the echoed Question section one QNAME (the name in the original\nquery) and a second QNAME that is in the data field of the last CNAME. The confusion comes\nfrom the iterative/recursive mode of resolution, which finally returns an answer that need\nnot actually have the same owner name as the QNAME contained in the original query. \nTo address this potential confusion, it is helpful to distinguish between three meanings:\nThe name actually sent in the Question section in the original query,\nwhich is always echoed in the (final) reply in the Question section when the QR bit is set to\n1. \nA name actually resolved, which is either the name originally queried or\na name received in a CNAME chain response. \nThe name actually resolved, which is either the name actually queried or\nelse the last name in a CNAME chain response. \nNote that, because the definition in  is actually for a different concept than what\nwas in , it would have been better if  had used a different name for that\nconcept. In general use today, QNAME almost always means what is defined above as\n\"QNAME (original)\". \nA type of response in which a server, signaling that it is not (completely)\nauthoritative for an answer, provides the querying resolver with an alternative place to send\nits query. Referrals can be partial. \nA referral arises when a server is not performing recursive service while answering a query.\nIt appears in step 3(b) of the algorithm in . \nThere are two types of referral response. The first is a downward referral (sometimes\ndescribed as \"delegation response\"), where the server is authoritative for some portion of the\nQNAME. The Authority section RRset's RDATA contains the name servers specified at the\nreferred-to zone cut. In normal DNS operation, this kind of response is required in order to\nfind names beneath a delegation. The bare use of \"referral\" means this kind of referral, and\nmany people believe that this is the only legitimate kind of referral in the DNS. \nThe second is an upward referral (sometimes described as \"root referral\"), where the server is\nnot authoritative for any portion of the QNAME. When this happens, the referred-to zone in\nthe Authority section is usually the root zone (\".\"). In normal DNS operation, this kind of\nresponse is not required for resolution or for correctly answering any query. There is no\nrequirement that any server send upward referrals. Some people regard upward referrals as\na sign of a misconfiguration or error. Upward referrals always need some sort of qualifier\n(such as \"upward\" or \"root\") and are never identified simply by the word \"referral\". \nA response that has only a referral contains an empty Answer section. It contains the NS\nRRset for the referred-to zone in the Authority section. It may contain RRs that provide\naddresses in the Additional section. The AA bit is clear. \n[RFC2308]\n[RFC1034] [RFC2308]\n[RFC1034], Section 4.3.2\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 10\n\nIn the case where the query matches an alias, and the server is not authoritative for the target\nof the alias but is authoritative for some name above the target of the alias, the resolution\nalgorithm will produce a response that contains both the authoritative answer for the alias\nand a referral. Such a partial answer and referral response has data in the Answer section. It\nhas the NS RRset for the referred-to zone in the Authority section. It may contain RRs that\nprovide addresses in the Additional section. The AA bit is set because the first name in the\nAnswer section matches the QNAME and the server is authoritative for that answer (see \n). [RFC1035], Section 4.1.1\nRR:\nRRset:\nMaster file:\nPresentation format:\nEDNS:\nOPT:\nOwner:\n5. Resource Records \nAn acronym for resource record. (See .) \nA set of resource records \"with the same label, class and type, but with different data\"\n(according to ). Also written as \"RRSet\" in some documents. As a\nclarification, \"same label\" in this definition means \"same owner name\". In addition, \nstates that \"the TTLs of all RRs in an RRSet must be the same\". \nNote that RRSIG resource records do not match this definition.  says:\nAn RRset  have multiple RRSIG RRs associated with it. Note that as RRSIG RRs are\nclosely tied to the RRsets whose signatures they contain, RRSIG RRs, unlike all other DNS\nRR types, do not form RRsets. In particular, the TTL values among RRSIG RRs with a\ncommon owner name do not follow the RRset rules described in .\n\"Master files are text files that contain RRs in text form. Since the contents of a zone\ncan be expressed in the form of a list of RRs a master file is most often used to define a zone,\nthough it can be used to list a cache's contents.\" (Quoted from ) Master\nfiles are sometimes called \"zone files\". \nThe text format used in master files. This format is shown but not\nformally defined in  or . The term \"presentation format\" first appears in \n. \nThe extension mechanisms for DNS, defined in . Sometimes called \"EDNS0\" or\n\"EDNS(0)\" to indicate the version number. EDNS allows DNS clients and servers to specify\nmessage sizes larger than the original 512-octet limit, to expand the response code space, and\nto carry additional options that affect the handling of a DNS query. \nA pseudo-RR (sometimes called a \"meta-RR\") that is used only to contain control\ninformation pertaining to the question-and-answer sequence of a specific transaction.\n(Definition paraphrased from .) It is used by EDNS. \n\"The domain name where the RR is found.\" (Quoted from ) Often\nappears in the term \"owner name\". \n[RFC1034], Section 3.6\n[RFC2181], Section 5\n[RFC2181]\n[RFC4035]\nMAY\n[RFC2181]\n[RFC1035], Section 5\n[RFC1034] [RFC1035]\n[RFC4034]\n[RFC6891]\n[RFC6891], Section 6.1.1\n[RFC1034], Section 3.6\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 11\n\nSOA field names:\nTTL:\nClass independent:\nAddress records:\nDNS documents, including the definitions here, often refer to the fields in the\nRDATA of an SOA resource record by field name. \"SOA\" stands for \"start of a zone of\nauthority\". Those fields are defined in . The names (in the order\nthey appear in the SOA RDATA) are MNAME, RNAME, SERIAL, REFRESH, RETRY, EXPIRE, and\nMINIMUM. Note that the meaning of the MINIMUM field is updated in ;\nthe new definition is that the MINIMUM field is only \"the TTL to be used for negative\nresponses\". This document tends to use field names instead of terms that describe the fields. \nThe maximum \"time to live\" of a resource record. \"A TTL value is an unsigned number,\nwith a minimum value of 0, and a maximum value of 2147483647. That is, a maximum of\n2^31 - 1. When transmitted, this value shall be encoded in the less significant 31 bits of the 32\nbit TTL field, with the most significant, or sign, bit set to zero.\" (Quoted from \n) Note that  erroneously stated that this is a signed integer; that was fixed\nby . \nThe TTL \"specifies the time interval that the resource record may be cached before the source\nof the information should again be consulted.\" (Quoted from ) \n states \"the time interval (in seconds) that the resource record may be\ncached before it should be discarded\". Despite being defined for a resource record, the TTL of\nevery resource record in an RRset is required to be the same ( ). \nThe reason that the TTL is the maximum time to live is that a cache operator might decide to\nshorten the time to live for operational purposes, for example, if there is a policy to disallow\nTTL values over a certain number. Some servers are known to ignore the TTL on some RRsets\n(such as when the authoritative data has a very short TTL) even though this is against the\nadvice in . An RRset can be flushed from the cache before the end of the TTL\ninterval, at which point, the value of the TTL becomes unknown because the RRset with\nwhich it was associated no longer exists. \nThere is also the concept of a \"default TTL\" for a zone, which can be a configuration\nparameter in the server software. This is often expressed by a default for the entire server,\nand a default for a zone using the $TTL directive in a zone file. The $TTL directive was added\nto the master file format by . \nA resource record type whose syntax and semantics are the same for every\nDNS class. A resource record type that is not class independent has different meanings,\ndepending on the DNS class of the record or if the meaning is undefined for some classes.\nMost resource record types are defined for class 1 (IN, the Internet), but many are undefined\nfor other classes. \nRecords whose type is either A or AAAA.  informally defines these as\n\"(A, AAAA, etc)\". Note that new types of address records could be defined in the future. \nSection 3.3.13 of [RFC1035]\nSection 4 of [RFC2308]\n[RFC2181], \nSection 8 [RFC1035]\n[RFC2181]\n[RFC1035], Section 3.2.1Section\n4.1.3 of [RFC1035]\n[RFC2181], Section 5.2\n[RFC1035]\n[RFC2308]\n[RFC2181]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 12\n\nResolver:\nStub resolver:\nIterative mode:\nRecursive mode:\n6. DNS Servers and Clients \nThis section defines the terms used for the systems that act as DNS clients, DNS servers, or both.\nIn past RFCs, DNS servers are sometimes called \"name servers\", \"nameservers\", or just \"servers\".\nThere is no formal definition of \"DNS server\", but RFCs generally assume that it is an Internet\nserver that listens for queries and sends responses using the DNS protocol defined in \nand its successors.\nIt is important to note that the terms \"DNS server\" and \"name server\" require context in order to\nunderstand the services being provided. Both authoritative servers and recursive resolvers are\noften called \"DNS servers\" and \"name servers\" even though they serve different roles (but may\nbe part of the same software package).\nFor terminology specific to the global DNS root server system, see . That document\ndefines terms such as \"root server\", \"root server operator\", and terms that are specific to the way\nthat the root zone of the global DNS is served.\nA program \"that extract[s] information from name servers in response to client\nrequests.\" (Quoted from ) A resolver performs queries for a name, type,\nand class, and receives responses. The logical function is called \"resolution\". In practice, the\nterm is usually referring to some specific type of resolver (some of which are defined below),\nand understanding the use of the term depends on understanding the context. \nA related term is \"resolve\", which is not formally defined in  or . An\nimputed definition might be \"asking a question that consists of a domain name, class, and\ntype, and receiving some sort of response\". Similarly, an imputed definition of \"resolution\"\nmight be \"the response received from resolving\". \nA resolver that cannot perform all resolution itself. Stub resolvers generally\ndepend on a recursive resolver to undertake the actual resolution function. Stub resolvers are\ndiscussed but never fully defined in . They are fully defined in \n. \nA resolution mode of a server that receives DNS queries and responds with a\nreferral to another server.  describes this as \"The server refers the\nclient to another server and lets the client pursue the query.\" A resolver that works in\niterative mode is sometimes called an \"iterative resolver\". See also \"iterative resolution\" later\nin this section. \n A resolution mode of a server that receives DNS queries and either responds\nto those queries from a local cache or sends queries to other servers in order to get the final\nanswers to the original queries.  describes this as \"the first server\npursues the query for the client at another server\".  says: \"in\n[recursive] mode the name server acts in the role of a resolver and returns either an error or\nthe answer, but never referrals.\" That same section also says:\n[RFC1035]\n[RSSAC026]\n[RFC1034], Section 2.4\n[RFC1034] [RFC1035]\nSection 5.3.1 of [RFC1034]\nSection 6.1.3.1 of [RFC1123]\nSection 2.3 of [RFC1034]\nSection 2.3 of [RFC1034]\nSection 4.3.1 of [RFC1034]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 13\n\nRecursive resolver:\nRecursive query:\nNon-recursive query:\nIterative resolution:\nFull resolver:\nFull-service resolver:\nPriming:\nThe recursive mode occurs when a query with RD set arrives at a server which is willing to\nprovide recursive service; the client can verify that recursive mode was used by checking\nthat both RA and RD are set in the reply.\nA server operating in recursive mode may be thought of as having a name server side (which\nis what answers the query) and a resolver side (which performs the resolution function).\nSystems operating in this mode are commonly called \"recursive servers\". Sometimes they are\ncalled \"recursive resolvers\". In practice, it is not possible to know in advance whether the\nserver that one is querying will also perform recursion; both terms can be observed in use\ninterchangeably. \nA resolver that acts in recursive mode. In general, a recursive resolver is\nexpected to cache the answers it receives (which would make it a full-service resolver), but\nsome recursive resolvers might not cache. \n tried to differentiate between a recursive resolver and an iterative resolver. \nA query with the Recursion Desired (RD) bit set to 1 in the header. (See \n.) If recursive service is available and is requested by the RD bit in the query,\nthe server uses its resolver to answer the query. (See .) \nA query with the Recursion Desired (RD) bit set to 0 in the header. A\nserver can answer non-recursive queries using only local information: the response contains\neither an error, the answer, or a referral to some other server \"closer\" to the answer. (See \n.) \nA name server may be presented with a query that can only be answered\nby some other server. The two general approaches to dealing with this problem are\n\"recursive\", in which the first server pursues the query on behalf of the client at another\nserver, and \"iterative\", in which the server refers the client to another server and lets the\nclient pursue the query there. (See .) \nIn iterative resolution, the client repeatedly makes non-recursive queries and follows\nreferrals and/or aliases. The iterative resolution algorithm is described in \n. \nThis term is used in , but it is not defined there. RFC 1123 defines a \"full-\nservice resolver\" that may or may not be what was intended by \"full resolver\" in .\nThis term is not properly defined in any RFC, and there is no consensus on what the term\nmeans. The use of this term without proper context is discouraged. \n defines this term as a resolver that acts in\nrecursive mode with a cache (and meets other requirements). \n\"The act of finding the list of root servers from a configuration that lists some or all of\nthe purported IP addresses of some or all of those root servers.\" (Quoted from \n) In order to operate in recursive mode, a resolver needs to know the address of at\nleast one root server. Priming is most often done from a configuration setting that contains a\nlist of authoritative servers for the root zone. \n[RFC4697]\nSection\n4.1.1 of [RFC1035]\nSection 4.3.2 of [RFC1034]\nSection 4.3.1 of [RFC1034]\nSection 2.3 of [RFC1034]\nSection 5.3.3 of\n[RFC1034]\n[RFC1035]\n[RFC1035]\nSection 6.1.3.1 of [RFC1123]\n[RFC8109], \nSection 2\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 14\n\nRoot hints:\nNegative caching:\nAuthoritative server:\nAuthoritative-only server:\nZone transfer:\nSlave server:\nSecondary server:\nMaster server:\nPrimary server:\n\"Operators who manage a DNS recursive resolver typically need to configure a 'root\nhints file'. This file contains the names and IP addresses of the authoritative name servers for\nthe root zone, so the software can bootstrap the DNS resolution process. For many pieces of\nsoftware, this list comes built into the software.\" (Quoted from ) This file is\noften used in priming. \n\"The storage of knowledge that something does not exist, cannot or does not\ngive an answer.\" (Quoted from ) \n\"A server that knows the content of a DNS zone from local knowledge, and\nthus can answer queries about that zone without needing to query other servers.\" (Quoted\nfrom ) An authoritative server is named in the NS (\"name server\") record\nin a zone. It is a system that responds to DNS queries with information about zones for which\nit has been configured to answer with the AA flag in the response header set to 1. It is a server\nthat has authority over one or more DNS zones. Note that it is possible for an authoritative\nserver to respond to a query without the parent zone delegating authority to that server.\nAuthoritative servers also provide \"referrals\", usually to child zones delegated from them;\nthese referrals have the AA bit set to 0 and come with referral data in the Authority and (if\nneeded) the Additional sections. \nA name server that only serves authoritative data and ignores\nrequests for recursion. It will \"not normally generate any queries of its own. Instead it\nanswers non-recursive queries from iterative resolvers looking for information in zones it\nserves.\" (Quoted from ) In this case, \"ignores requests for recursion\"\nmeans \"responds to requests for recursion with responses indicating that recursion was not\nperformed\". \nThe act of a client requesting a copy of a zone and an authoritative server\nsending the needed information. (See Section 7 for a description of zones.) There are two\ncommon standard ways to do zone transfers: the AXFR (\"Authoritative Transfer\") mechanism\nto copy the full zone (described in , and the IXFR (\"Incremental Transfer\")\nmechanism to copy only parts of the zone that have changed (described in ). Many\nsystems use non-standard methods for zone transfers outside the DNS protocol. \nSee \"Secondary server\". \n\"An authoritative server which uses zone transfer to retrieve the zone.\"\n(Quoted from ) Secondary servers are also discussed in . \n describes secondary servers in more detail. Although early DNS RFCs such as \n referred to this as a \"slave\", the current common usage has shifted to calling it a\n\"secondary\". \nSee \"Primary server\". \n\"Any authoritative server configured to be the source of zone transfer for one\nor more [secondary] servers.\" (Quoted from ) Or, more specifically, \n calls it \"an authoritative server configured to be the source of AXFR or IXFR data\n[IANA_RootFiles]\n[RFC2308], Section 1\n[RFC2182], Section 2\n[RFC4697], Section 2.4\n[RFC5936]\n[RFC1995]\n[RFC1996], Section 2.1 [RFC1034]\n[RFC2182]\n[RFC1996]\n[RFC1996], Section 2.1\n[RFC2136]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 15\n\nPrimary master:\nStealth server:\nHidden master:\nForwarding:\nForwarder:\nPolicy-implementing resolver:\nfor one or more [secondary] servers\". Primary servers are also discussed in .\nAlthough early DNS RFCs such as  referred to this as a \"master\", the current\ncommon usage has shifted to \"primary\". \n\"The primary master is named in the zone's SOA MNAME field and optionally\nby an NS RR.\" (Quoted from )  defines \"primary master\" as\n\"Master server at the root of the AXFR/IXFR dependency graph. The primary master is named\nin the zone's SOA MNAME field and optionally by an NS RR. There is by definition only one\nprimary master server per zone.\" \nThe idea of a primary master is only used in  and . A modern\ninterpretation of the term \"primary master\" is a server that is both authoritative for a zone\nand that gets its updates to the zone from configuration (such as a master file) or from\nUPDATE transactions. \nThis is \"like a slave server except not listed in an NS RR for the zone.\" (Quoted\nfrom ) \nA stealth server that is a primary server for zone transfers. \"In this\narrangement, the master name server that processes the updates is unavailable to general\nhosts on the Internet; it is not listed in the NS RRset.\" (Quoted from ) \n said that the hidden master's name \"appears in the SOA RRs MNAME field\";\nhowever, the name does not appear at all in the global DNS in some setups. A hidden master\ncan also be a secondary server for the zone itself. \nThe process of one server sending a DNS query with the RD bit set to 1 to another\nserver to resolve that query. Forwarding is a function of a DNS resolver; it is different than\nsimply blindly relaying queries. \n does not give a specific definition for forwarding, but describes in detail what\nfeatures a system that forwards needs to support. Systems that forward are sometimes called\n\"DNS proxies\", but that term has not yet been defined (even in ). \n describes a forwarder as \"a nameserver used to resolve\nqueries instead of directly using the authoritative nameserver chain\".  further says\n\"The forwarder typically either has better access to the internet, or maintains a bigger cache\nwhich may be shared amongst many resolvers.\" That definition appears to suggest that\nforwarders normally only query authoritative servers. In current use, however, forwarders\noften stand between stub resolvers and recursive servers.  is silent on whether a\nforwarder is iterative-only or can be a full-service resolver. \nA resolver acting in recursive mode that changes some of the\nanswers that it returns based on policy criteria, such as to prevent access to malware sites or\nobjectionable content. In general, a stub resolver has no idea whether upstream resolvers\nimplement such policy or, if they do, the exact policy about what changes will be made. In\nsome cases, the user of the stub resolver has selected the policy-implementing resolver with\nthe explicit intention of using it to implement the policies. In other cases, policies are imposed\nwithout the user of the stub resolver being informed. \n[RFC1034]\n[RFC1996]\n[RFC1996], Section 2.1[RFC2136]\n[RFC1996] [RFC2136]\n[RFC1996], Section 2.1\n[RFC6781], Section 3.4.3\n[RFC4641]\n[RFC5625]\n[RFC5625]\nSection 1 of [RFC2308]\n[RFC2308]\n[RFC2308]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 16\n\nOpen resolver:\nSplit DNS:\nView:\nPassive DNS:\nAnycast:\nInstance:\nPrivacy-enabling DNS server:\nDNS-over-TLS (DoT):\nA full-service resolver that accepts and processes queries from any (or nearly\nany) client. This is sometimes also called a \"public resolver\", although the term \"public\nresolver\" is used more with open resolvers that are meant to be open, as compared to the vast\nmajority of open resolvers that are probably misconfigured to be open. Open resolvers are\ndiscussed in . \nThe terms \"split DNS\" and \"split-horizon DNS\" have long been used in the DNS\ncommunity without formal definition. In general, they refer to situations in which DNS\nservers that are authoritative for a particular set of domains provide partly or completely\ndifferent answers in those domains depending on the source of the query. Nevertheless, the\neffect of this is that a domain name that is notionally globally unique has different meanings\nfor different network users. This can sometimes be the result of a \"view\" configuration, as\ndescribed below. \n gives a related definition that is too specific to be generally useful. \nA configuration for a DNS server that allows it to provide different responses depending\non attributes of the query, such as for \"split DNS\". Typically, views differ by the source IP\naddress of a query, but can also be based on the destination IP address, the type of query\n(such as AXFR), whether it is recursive, and so on. Views are often used to provide more\nnames or different addresses to queries from \"inside\" a protected network than to those\n\"outside\" that network. Views are not a standardized part of the DNS, but they are widely\nimplemented in server software. \nA mechanism to collect DNS data by storing DNS responses from name servers.\nSome of these systems also collect the DNS queries associated with the responses, although\ndoing so raises some privacy concerns. Passive DNS databases can be used to answer\nhistorical questions about DNS zones, such as which values were present at a given time in\nthe past, or when a name was spotted first. Passive DNS databases allow searching of the\nstored records on keys other than just the name and type, such as \"find all names which have\nA records of a particular value\". \n\"The practice of making a particular service address available in multiple, discrete,\nautonomous locations, such that datagrams sent are routed to one of several available\nlocations.\" (Quoted from ) See  for more detail on Anycast and\nother terms that are specific to its use. \n\"When anycast routing is used to allow more than one server to have the same IP\naddress, each one of those servers is commonly referred to as an 'instance'.\" It goes on to say:\n\"An instance of a server, such as a root server, is often referred to as an 'Anycast instance'.\"\n(Quoted from ) \n\"A DNS server that implements DNS over TLS  and may\noptionally implement DNS over DTLS .\" (Quoted from ) Other\ntypes of DNS servers might also be considered privacy-enabling, such as those running DNS-\nover-HTTPS  or DNS-over-QUIC . \nDNS over TLS as defined in  and its successors. \n[RFC5358]\nSection 3.8 of [RFC2775]\n[RFC4786], Section 2 [RFC4786]\n[RSSAC026]\n[RFC7858]\n[RFC8094] [RFC8310], Section 2\n[RFC8484] [RFC9250]\n[RFC7858]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 17\n\nDNS-over-HTTPS (DoH):\nDNS-over-QUIC (DoQ):\nClassic DNS:\nRecursive DoT (RDoT):\nAuthoritative DoT (ADoT):\nXFR-over-TLS (XoT):\nDNS over HTTPS as defined in  and its successors. \nDNS over QUIC as defined in  and its successors. \nspecifically defines DoQ as general-purpose transport for DNS that can be used in stub to\nrecursive, recursive to authoritative, and zone transfer scenarios. \nDNS over UDP or DNS over TCP as defined in  and its successors. Classic\nDNS applies to DNS communication between stub resolvers and recursive resolvers, and\nbetween recursive resolvers and authoritative servers. This has sometimes been called\n\"Do53\". Classic DNS is not encrypted. \nRDoT specifically means DNS-over-TLS for transport between a stub\nresolver and a recursive resolver, or between a recursive resolver and another recursive\nresolver. This term is necessary because it is expected that DNS-over-TLS will later be defined\nas a transport between recursive resolvers and authoritative servers. \nIf DNS-over-TLS is later defined as a transport between recursive\nresolvers and authoritative servers, ADoT specifically means DNS-over-TLS for transport\nbetween recursive resolvers and authoritative servers. \nDNS zone transfer over TLS, as specified in . This term applies to\nboth AXFR over TLS (AXoT) and IXFR over TLS (IXoT). \n[RFC8484]\n[RFC9250] [RFC9250]\n[RFC1035]\n[RFC9103]\nZone:\nChild:\nParent:\nOrigin:\n(a)\n7. Zones \nThis section defines terms that are used when discussing zones that are being served or\nretrieved.\n\"Authoritative information is organized into units called ZONEs, and these zones can be\nautomatically distributed to the name servers which provide redundant service for the data\nin a zone.\" (Quoted from ) \n\"The entity on record that has the delegation of the domain from the Parent.\" (Quoted\nfrom ) \n\"The domain in which the Child is registered.\" (Quoted from )\nEarlier, \"parent name server\" was defined in  as \"the name server that has\nauthority over the place in the domain name space that will hold the new domain\". (Note that \n was obsoleted by  and .)  also has some description of\nthe relationship between parents and children. \nThere are two different uses for this term:\n\"The domain name that appears at the top of a zone (just below the cut that separates\nthe zone from its parent)... The name of the zone is the same as the name of the domain\nat the zone's origin.\" (Quoted from ) These days, this sense of\n\"origin\" and \"apex\" (defined below) are often used interchangeably. \n[RFC1034], Section 2.4\n[RFC7344], Section 1.1\n[RFC7344], Section 1.1\n[RFC0882]\n[RFC0882] [RFC1034] [RFC1035] [RFC819]\n[RFC2181], Section 6\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 18\n\n(b)\nApex:\nZone cut:\nDelegation:\nAuthoritative data:\nLame delegation:\nThe domain name within which a given relative domain name appears in zone files.\nGenerally seen in the context of \"$ORIGIN\", which is a control entry defined in \n, as part of the master file format. For example, if the $ORIGIN is\nset to \"example.org.\", then a master file line for \"www\" is in fact an entry for\n\"www.example.org.\". \nThe point in the tree at an owner of an SOA and corresponding authoritative NS RRset.\nThis is also called the \"zone apex\".  defines it as \"the name at the child's side of a\nzone cut\". The \"apex\" can usefully be thought of as a data-theoretic description of a tree\nstructure, and \"origin\" is the name of the same concept when it is implemented in zone files.\nThe distinction is not always maintained in use, however, and one can find uses that conflict\nsubtly with this definition.  uses the term \"top node of the zone\" as a synonym of\n\"apex\", but that term is not widely used. These days, the first sense of \"origin\" (above) and\n\"apex\" are often used interchangeably. \nThe delimitation point between two zones where the origin of one of the zones is the\nchild of the other zone. \n\"Zones are delimited by 'zone cuts'. Each zone cut separates a 'child' zone (below the cut) from\na 'parent' zone (above the cut).\" (Quoted from ; note that this is barely an\nostensive definition.)  uses \"cuts\" instead of \"zone cut\". \nThe process by which a separate zone is created in the name space beneath the\napex of a given domain. Delegation happens when an NS RRset is added in the parent zone for\nthe child origin. Delegation inherently happens at a zone cut. The term is also commonly a\nnoun: the new zone that is created by the act of delegating. \n\"All of the RRs attached to all of the nodes from the top node of the zone\ndown to leaf nodes or nodes above cuts around the bottom edge of the zone.\" (Quoted from \n) Note that this definition might inadvertently also cause any NS\nrecords that appear in the zone to be included, even those that might not truly be\nauthoritative, because there are identical NS RRs below the zone cut. This reveals the\nambiguity in the notion of authoritative data, because the parent-side NS records\nauthoritatively indicate the delegation, even though they are not themselves authoritative\ndata. \n, defines \"Authoritative RRset\", which is related to authoritative data but\nhas a more precise definition. \n\"A lame delegations exists [sic] when a nameserver is delegated responsibility\nfor providing nameservice for a zone (via NS records) but is not performing nameservice for\nthat zone (usually because it is not set up as a primary or secondary for the zone).\" (Quoted\nfrom ) Another definition is that a lame delegation \"...happens when a\nname server is listed in the NS records for some domain and in fact it is not a server for that\ndomain. Queries are thus sent to the wrong servers, who don't know nothing [sic] (at least not\nas expected) about the queried domain. Furthermore, sometimes these hosts (if they exist!)\ndon't even run name servers.\" (Quoted from ) \n[RFC1035], Section 5.1\n[RFC4033]\n[RFC1034]\n[RFC2181], Section 6\nSection 4.2 of [RFC1034]\n[RFC1034], Section 4.2.1\n[RFC4033], Section 2\n[RFC1912], Section 2.8\n[RFC1713], Section 2.3\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 19\n\nGlue records:\nThese early definitions do not match the current use of the term \"lame delegation\", but there\nis no consensus on what a lame delegation is. The term is used not only for the specific case\ndescribed above, but for a variety of other flaws in delegations that lead to non-authoritative\nanswers or no answers at all, such as:\na nameserver with an NS record for a zone that does not answer DNS queries; \na nameserver with an IP address that is not reachable by the resolver; and \na nameserver that responds to a query for a specific name with an error or without the\nauthoritative bit set. \nBecause the term in current usage has drifted from the original definition, and now is not\nspecific or clear as to the intended meaning, it should be considered historic and avoided in\nfavor of terms that are specific and clear. \n\"...[Resource records] which are not part of the authoritative data [of the zone],\nand are address RRs for the [name] servers [in subzones]. These RRs are only necessary if the\nname server's name is 'below' the cut, and are only used as part of a referral response.\"\nWithout glue \"we could be faced with the situation where the NS RRs tell us that in order to\nlearn a name server's address, we should contact the server using the address we wish to\nlearn.\" (Quoted from ) \nA later definition is that glue \"includes any record in a zone file that is not properly part of\nthat zone, including nameserver records of delegated sub-zones (NS records), address records\nthat accompany those NS records (A, AAAA, etc), and any other stray data that might appear.\"\n(Quoted from ) Although glue is sometimes used today with this wider\ndefinition in mind, the context surrounding the definition in  suggests it is intended\nto apply to the use of glue within the document itself and not necessarily beyond. \nIn an NS record, there are three types of relationships between the owner name of the record,\nthe name in the NS RDATA, and the zone origin: unrelated, in-domain, and sibling domain.\nThe application of these three types of relationships to glue records is defined in . \nAn unrelated relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server that is not\nsubordinate to the zone origin and therefore is not part of the same zone. \nAn in-domain relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server whose name is\neither subordinate to or (rarely) the same as the owner name of the NS resource records. For\nexample, a delegation for \"child.example.com\" might have an in-domain name server called\n\"ns.child.example.com\". \nA sibling domain relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server whose\nname is either subordinate to or (rarely) the same as the zone origin of the parent and not\nsubordinate to or the same as the owner name of the NS resource records. For example, a\ndelegation for \"child.example.com\" in \"example.com\" zone might have a sibling domain name\nserver called \"ns.another.example.com\". \nThe following table shows examples of delegation types: \n• \n• \n• \n[RFC1034], Section 4.2.1\n[RFC2181], Section 5.4.1\n[RFC2181]\n[RFC9471]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 20\n\nBailiwick:\nRoot zone:\nEmpty non-terminals (ENTs):\nDelegation-centric zone:\nOccluded name:\nFast flux DNS:\n\"In-bailiwick\" and \"Out-of-bailiwick\" are modifiers used to describe the relationship\nbetween a zone and the name servers for that zone. The dictionary definition of bailiwick has\nbeen observed to cause more confusion than meaning for this use. These terms should be\nconsidered historic in nature. \nThe zone of a DNS-based tree whose apex is the zero-length label. Also sometimes\ncalled \"the DNS root\". \n\"Domain names that own no resource records but have\nsubdomains that do.\" (Quoted from ) A typical example is in SRV\nrecords: in the name \"_sip._tcp.example.com\", it is likely that \"_tcp.example.com\" has no\nRRsets, but that \"_sip._tcp.example.com\" has (at least) an SRV RRset. \nA zone that consists mostly of delegations to child zones. This term is\nused in contrast to a zone that might have some delegations to child zones but also has many\ndata resource records for the zone itself and/or for child zones. The term is used in \nand , but it is not defined in either document. \n\"The addition of a delegation point via dynamic update will render all\nsubordinate domain names to be in a limbo, still part of the zone but not available to the\nlookup process. The addition of a DNAME resource record has the same impact. The\nsubordinate names are said to be 'occluded'.\" (Quoted from ) \nThis \"occurs when a domain is [found] in DNS using A records to multiple IP\naddresses, each of which has a very short Time-to-Live (TTL) value associated with it. This\nmeans that the domain resolves to varying IP addresses over a short period of time.\" (Quoted\nfrom , with a typo corrected) In addition to having legitimate uses, fast\nflux DNS can be used to deliver malware. Because the addresses change so rapidly, it is\ndifficult to ascertain all the hosts. It should be noted that the technique also works with AAAA\nrecords, but such use is not frequently observed on the Internet as of this writing. \nDelegationParent Name Server NameType\ncom . a.gtld-servers.net sibling domain\nnet . a.gtld-servers.net in-domain\nexample.orgorg ns.example.org in-domain\nexample.orgorg ns.ietf.org sibling domain\nexample.orgorg ns.example.com unrelated\nexample.jp jp ns.example.jp in-domain\nexample.jp jp ns.example.ne.jp sibling domain\nexample.jp jp ns.example.com unrelated\nTable 1\n[RFC4592], Section 2.2.2\n[RFC4956]\n[RFC5155]\n[RFC5936], Section 3.5\n[RFC6561], Section 1.1.5\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 21\n\nReverse DNS, reverse lookup:\nForward lookup:\narpa (Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain):\nService name:\n\"The process of mapping an address to a name is generally\nknown as a 'reverse lookup', and the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones are said to support\nthe 'reverse DNS'.\" (Quoted from ) \n\"Hostname-to-address translation\". (Quoted from ) \n\"The 'arpa' domain was originally\nestablished as part of the initial deployment of the DNS to provide a transition mechanism\nfrom the Host Tables that were common in the ARPANET, as well as a home for the IPv4\nreverse mapping domain. During 2000, the abbreviation was redesignated to 'Address and\nRouting Parameter Area' in the hope of reducing confusion with the earlier network name.\"\n(Quoted from ) .arpa is an \"infrastructure domain\", a domain whose \"role\nis to support the operating infrastructure of the Internet\". (Quoted from )\nSee  for more history of this name. \n\"Service names are the unique key in the Service Name and Transport Protocol\nPort Number registry. This unique symbolic name for a service may also be used for other\npurposes, such as in DNS SRV records.\" (Quoted from ) \n[RFC5855], Section 1\n[RFC3493], Section 6\n[RFC3172], Section 2\n[RFC3172], Section 2\n[RFC3172]\n[RFC6335], Section 5\nWildcard:\nAsterisk label:\nWildcard domain name:\nClosest encloser:\nClosest provable encloser:\nNext closer name:\n8. Wildcards \n defined \"wildcard\", but in a way that turned out to be confusing to\nimplementers. For an extended discussion of wildcards, including clearer definitions, see \n. Special treatment is given to RRs with owner names starting with the label \"*\".\n\"Such RRs are called 'wildcards'. Wildcard RRs can be thought of as instructions for\nsynthesizing RRs.\" (Quoted from ) \n\"The first octet is the normal label type and length for a 1-octet-long label, and\nthe second octet is the ASCII representation  for the '*' character. A descriptive name\nof a label equaling that value is an 'asterisk label'.\" (Quoted from ) \n\"A 'wildcard domain name' is defined by having its initial (i.e., leftmost\nor least significant) label, in binary format: 0000 0001 0010 1010 (binary) = 0x01 0x2a\n(hexadecimal)\". (Quoted from ) The second octet in this label is the\nASCII representation for the \"*\" character. \n\"The longest existing ancestor of a name.\" (Quoted from \n) An earlier definition is \"The node in the zone's tree of existing domain names that has the\nmost labels matching the query name (consecutively, counting from the root label\ndownward). Each match is a 'label match' and the order of the labels is the same.\" (Quoted\nfrom ) \n\"The longest ancestor of a name that can be proven to exist. Note\nthat this is only different from the closest encloser in an Opt-Out zone.\" (Quoted from \n) See Section 10 for more on \"opt-out\". \n\"The name one label longer than the closest provable encloser of a name.\"\n(Quoted from ) \n[RFC1034]\n[RFC4592]\n[RFC1034], Section 4.3.3\n[RFC20]\n[RFC4592], Section 2.1.1\n[RFC4592], Section 2.1.1\n[RFC5155], Section\n1.3\n[RFC4592], Section 3.3.1\n[RFC5155], Section 1.3\n[RFC5155], Section 1.3\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 22\n\nSource of Synthesis: \"The source of synthesis is defined in the context of a query process as that\nwildcard domain name immediately descending from the closest encloser, provided that this\nwildcard domain name exists. 'Immediately descending' means that the source of synthesis\nhas a name of the form:\n<asterisk label>.<closest encloser>.\"\n(Quoted from )[RFC4592], Section 3.3.1\nRegistry:\nRegistrant:\nRegistrar:\nEPP:\nWHOIS:\nRDAP:\nDNS operator:\nPublic suffix:\n9. Registration Model \nThe administrative operation of a zone that allows registration of names within that\nzone. People often use this term to refer only to those organizations that perform registration\nin large delegation-centric zones (such as TLDs); but formally, whoever decides what data\ngoes into a zone is the registry for that zone. This definition of \"registry\" is from a DNS point\nof view; for some zones, the policies that determine what can go in the zone are decided by\nzones that are superordinate and not the registry operator. \nAn individual or organization on whose behalf a name in a zone is registered by the\nregistry. In many zones, the registry and the registrant may be the same entity, but in TLDs\nthey often are not. \nA service provider that acts as a go-between for registrants and registries. Not all\nregistrations require a registrar, though it is common to have registrars involved in\nregistrations in TLDs. \nThe Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), which is commonly used for communication\nof registration information between registries and registrars. EPP is defined in . \nA protocol specified in , often used for querying registry databases. WHOIS\ndata is frequently used to associate registration data (such as zone management contacts)\nwith domain names. The term \"WHOIS data\" is often used as a synonym for the registry\ndatabase, even though that database may be served by different protocols, particularly RDAP.\nThe WHOIS protocol is also used with IP address registry data. \nThe Registration Data Access Protocol, defined in , , , \n, , and . The RDAP protocol and data format are meant as a\nreplacement for WHOIS. \nAn entity responsible for running DNS servers. For a zone's authoritative\nservers, the registrant may act as their own DNS operator, their registrar may do it on their\nbehalf, or they may use a third-party operator. For some zones, the registry function is\nperformed by the DNS operator plus other entities who decide about the allowed contents of\nthe zone. \n\"A domain that is controlled by a public registry.\" (Quoted from \n) A common definition for this term is a domain under which subdomains can be\nregistered by third parties and on which HTTP cookies (which are described in detail in \n[RFC5730]\n[RFC3912]\n[RFC7480] [RFC7481] [RFC7485]\n[RFC9082] [RFC9083] [RFC9224]\n[RFC6265], Section\n5.3\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 23\n\nSubordinate and Superordinate:\n) should not be set. There is no indication in a domain name whether it is a public\nsuffix; that can only be determined by outside means. In fact, both a domain and a subdomain\nof that domain can be public suffixes. \nThere is nothing inherent in a domain name to indicate whether it is a public suffix. One\nresource for identifying public suffixes is the Public Suffix List (PSL) maintained by Mozilla \n. \nFor example, at the time this document is published, the \"com.au\" domain is listed as a public\nsuffix in the PSL. (Note that this example might change in the future.) \nNote that the term \"public suffix\" is controversial in the DNS community for many reasons,\nand it may be significantly changed in the future. One example of the difficulty of calling a\ndomain a public suffix is that designation can change over time as the registration policy for\nthe zone changes, such as was the case with the \"uk\" TLD in 2014. \nThese terms are introduced in  for use in the\nregistration model, but not defined there. Instead, they are given in examples. \"For example,\ndomain name 'example.com' has a superordinate relationship to host name\nns1.example.com'... For example, host ns1.example1.com is a subordinate host of domain\nexample1.com, but it is a not a subordinate host of domain example2.com.\" (Quoted from \n) These terms are strictly ways of referring to the relationship standing\nof two domains where one is a subdomain of the other. \n[RFC6265]\n<https://publicsuffix.org/>\n[RFC5731]\n[RFC5731], Section 1.1\nDNSSEC-aware and DNSSEC-unaware:\nSigned zone:\n10. General DNSSEC \nMost DNSSEC terms are defined in , , , and . The terms\nthat have caused confusion in the DNS community are highlighted here.\nThese two terms, which are used in some RFCs, have not\nbeen formally defined. However,  defines many types of resolvers and\nvalidators, including \"non-validating security-aware stub resolver\", \"non-validating stub\nresolver\", \"security-aware name server\", \"security-aware recursive name server\", \"security-\naware resolver\", \"security-aware stub resolver\", and \"security-oblivious 'anything'\". (Note that\nthe term \"validating resolver\", which is used in some places in DNSSEC-related documents, is\nalso not defined in those RFCs, but is defined below.) \n\"A zone whose RRsets are signed and that contains properly constructed DNSKEY,\nResource Record Signature (RRSIG), Next Secure (NSEC), and (optionally) DS records.\"\n(Quoted from ) It has been noted in other contexts that the zone itself is\nnot really signed, but all the relevant RRsets in the zone are signed. Nevertheless, if a zone\nthat should be signed contains any RRsets that are not signed (or opted out), those RRsets will\nbe treated as bogus, so the whole zone needs to be handled in some way. \n[RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035] [RFC5155]\nSection 2 of [RFC4033]\n[RFC4033], Section 2\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 24\n\nOnline signing:\nUnsigned zone:\nNSEC:\nNSEC3:\nOpt-out:\nInsecure delegation:\nIt should also be noted that, since the publication of , NSEC records are no longer\nrequired for signed zones: a signed zone might include NSEC3 records instead. \nprovides additional background commentary and some context for the NSEC and NSEC3\nmechanisms used by DNSSEC to provide authenticated denial-of-existence responses. NSEC\nand NSEC3 are described below. \n defines \"on-line signing\" (note the hyphen) as \"generating and\nsigning these records on demand\", where \"these\" was defined as NSEC records. The current\ndefinition expands that to generating and signing RRSIG, NSEC, and NSEC3 records on\ndemand. \n defines this as \"a zone that is not signed\". \n defines this as a \"zone that does not include these records [properly constructed\nDNSKEY, Resource Record Signature (RRSIG), Next Secure (NSEC), and (optionally) DS records]\naccording to the rules in this section...\" There is an important note at the end of \n that defines an additional situation in which a zone is considered unsigned: \"If the\nresolver does not support any of the algorithms listed in an authenticated DS RRset, then the\nresolver will not be able to verify the authentication path to the child zone. In this case, the\nresolver  treat the child zone as if it were unsigned.\" \n\"The NSEC record allows a security-aware resolver to authenticate a negative reply for\neither name or type non-existence with the same mechanisms used to authenticate other DNS\nreplies.\" (Quoted from ) In short, an NSEC record provides authenticated\ndenial of existence. \n\"The NSEC resource record lists two separate things: the next owner name (in the canonical\nordering of the zone) that contains authoritative data or a delegation point NS RRset, and the\nset of RR types present at the NSEC RR's owner name.\" (Quoted from ) \nLike the NSEC record, the NSEC3 record also provides authenticated denial of existence;\nhowever, NSEC3 records mitigate zone enumeration and support Opt-Out. NSEC3 resource\nrecords require associated NSEC3PARAM resource records. NSEC3 and NSEC3PARAM\nresource records are defined in . \nNote that  says that  \"is now considered part of the DNS Security\nDocument Family as described by \". This means that some of the\ndefinitions from earlier RFCs that only talk about NSEC records should probably be\nconsidered to be talking about both NSEC and NSEC3. \n\"The Opt-Out Flag indicates whether this NSEC3 RR may cover unsigned delegations.\"\n(Quoted from ) Opt-out tackles the high costs of securing a delegation\nto an insecure zone. When using Opt-Out, names that are an insecure delegation (and empty\nnon-terminals that are only derived from insecure delegations) don't require an NSEC3 record\nor its corresponding RRSIG records. Opt-Out NSEC3 records are not able to prove or deny the\nexistence of the insecure delegations. (Adapted from ) \n\"A signed name containing a delegation (NS RRset), but lacking a DS RRset,\nsignifying a delegation to an unsigned subzone.\" (Quoted from ) \n[RFC6840]\n[RFC7129]\n[RFC4470]\nSection 2 of [RFC4033] Section 2 of\n[RFC4035]\nSection 5.2 of\n[RFC4035]\nSHOULD\n[RFC4033], Section 3.2\n[RFC4034], Section 4\n[RFC5155]\n[RFC6840] [RFC5155]\nSection 10 of [RFC4033]\n[RFC5155], Section 3.1.2.1\n[RFC7129], Section 5.1\n[RFC4956], Section 2\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 25\n\nZone enumeration:\nValidation:\nValidating resolver:\nKey signing key (KSK):\n\"The practice of discovering the full content of a zone via successive\nqueries.\" (Quoted from ) This is also sometimes called \"zone walking\".\nZone enumeration is different from zone content guessing where the guesser uses a large\ndictionary of possible labels and sends successive queries for them, or matches the contents\nof NSEC3 records against such a dictionary. \n Validation, in the context of DNSSEC, refers to one of the following:\nChecking the validity of DNSSEC signatures, \nChecking the validity of DNS responses, such as those including authenticated denial of\nexistence, or \nBuilding an authentication chain from a trust anchor to a DNS response or individual\nDNS RRsets in a response. \nThe first two definitions above consider only the validity of individual DNSSEC components,\nsuch as the RRSIG validity or NSEC proof validity. The third definition considers the\ncomponents of the entire DNSSEC authentication chain; thus, it requires \"configured\nknowledge of at least one authenticated DNSKEY or DS RR\" (as described in \n). \n, says that a \"Validating Security-Aware Stub Resolver... performs\nsignature validation\" and uses a trust anchor \"as a starting point for building the\nauthentication chain to a signed DNS response\"; thus, it uses the first and third definitions\nabove. The process of validating an RRSIG resource record is described in \n. \n refers to validating responses throughout the document in the context of hashed\nauthenticated denial of existence; this uses the second definition above. \nThe term \"authentication\" is used interchangeably with \"validation\", in the sense of the third\ndefinition above. , describes the chain linking trust anchor to DNS data as\nthe \"authentication chain\". A response is considered to be authentic if \"all RRsets in the\nAnswer and Authority sections of the response [are considered] to be authentic\" (Quoted from\n) DNS data or responses deemed to be authentic or validated have a security status\nof \"secure\" ( ; ). \"Authenticating both DNS keys and\ndata is a matter of local policy, which may extend or even override the [DNSSEC] protocol\nextensions...\" (Quoted from ) \nThe term \"verification\", when used, is usually a synonym for \"validation\". \nA security-aware recursive name server, security-aware resolver, or\nsecurity-aware stub resolver that is applying at least one of the definitions of validation\n(above) as appropriate to the resolution context. For the same reason that the generic term\n\"resolver\" is sometimes ambiguous and needs to be evaluated in context (see Section 6),\n\"validating resolver\" is a context-sensitive term. \nDNSSEC keys that \"only sign the apex DNSKEY RRset in a zone.\" (Quoted\nfrom ) \n[RFC5155], Section 1.3\n• \n• \n• \n[RFC4035], Section\n5\n[RFC4033], Section 2\n[RFC4035], Section\n5.3\n[RFC5155]\n[RFC4033], Section 2\n[RFC4035]\n[RFC4035], Section 4.3[RFC4033], Section 5\n[RFC4033], Section 3.1\n[RFC6781], Section 3.1\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 26\n\nZone signing key (ZSK):\nCombined signing key (CSK):\nSecure Entry Point (SEP):\nTrust anchor:\nDNSSEC Policy (DP):\nDNSSEC Practice Statement (DPS):\nHardware security module (HSM):\n\"DNSSEC keys that can be used to sign all the RRsets in a zone that\nrequire signatures, other than the apex DNSKEY RRset.\" (Quoted from )\nAlso note that a ZSK is sometimes used to sign the apex DNSKEY RRset. \n\"In cases where the differentiation between the KSK and ZSK is\nnot made, i.e., where keys have the role of both KSK and ZSK, we talk about a Single-Type\nSigning Scheme.\" (Quoted from ) This is sometimes called a \"combined\nsigning key\" or \"CSK\". It is operational practice, not protocol, that determines whether a\nparticular key is a ZSK, a KSK, or a CSK. \nA flag in the DNSKEY RDATA that \"can be used to distinguish between\nkeys that are intended to be used as the secure entry point into the zone when building chains\nof trust, i.e., they are (to be) pointed to by parental DS RRs or configured as a trust anchor....\nTherefore, it is suggested that the SEP flag be set on keys that are used as KSKs and not on\nkeys that are used as ZSKs, while in those cases where a distinction between a KSK and ZSK is\nnot made (i.e., for a Single-Type Signing Scheme), it is suggested that the SEP flag be set on all\nkeys.\" (Quoted from ) Note that the SEP flag is only a hint, and its\npresence or absence may not be used to disqualify a given DNSKEY RR from use as a KSK or\nZSK during validation. \nThe original definition of SEPs was in . That definition clearly indicated that the SEP\nwas a key, not just a bit in the key. The abstract of  says: \"With the Delegation Signer\n(DS) resource record (RR), the concept of a public key acting as a secure entry point (SEP) has\nbeen introduced. During exchanges of public keys with the parent there is a need to\ndifferentiate SEP keys from other public keys in the Domain Name System KEY (DNSKEY)\nresource record set. A flag bit in the DNSKEY RR is defined to indicate that DNSKEY is to be\nused as a SEP.\" That definition of the SEP as a key was made obsolete by , and the\ndefinition from  is consistent with . \n\"A configured DNSKEY RR or DS RR hash of a DNSKEY RR. A validating security-\naware resolver uses this public key or hash as a starting point for building the authentication\nchain to a signed DNS response. In general, a validating resolver will have to obtain the initial\nvalues of its trust anchors via some secure or trusted means outside the DNS protocol.\"\n(Quoted from ) \nA statement that \"sets forth the security requirements and standards to be\nimplemented for a DNSSEC-signed zone.\" (Quoted from ) \n\"A practices disclosure document that may support and be a\nsupplemental document to the DNSSEC Policy (if such exists), and it states how the\nmanagement of a given zone implements procedures and controls at a high level.\" (Quoted\nfrom ) \nA specialized piece of hardware that is used to create keys\nfor signatures and to sign messages without ever disclosing the private key. In DNSSEC, HSMs\nare often used to hold the private keys for KSKs and ZSKs and to create the signatures used in\nRRSIG records at periodic intervals. \n[RFC6781], Section 3.1\n[RFC6781], Section 3.1\n[RFC6781], Section 3.2.3\n[RFC3757]\n[RFC3757]\n[RFC4034]\n[RFC6781] [RFC4034]\n[RFC4033], Section 2\n[RFC6841], Section 2\n[RFC6841], Section 2\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 27\n\nSigning software:Authoritative DNS servers that support DNSSEC often contain software that\nfacilitates the creation and maintenance of DNSSEC signatures in zones. There is also stand-\nalone software that can be used to sign a zone regardless of whether the authoritative server\nitself supports signing. Sometimes signing software can support particular HSMs as part of the\nsigning process. \nSecure:\nInsecure:\nBogus:\nIndeterminate:\nSecure:\n11. DNSSEC States \nA validating resolver can determine that a response is in one of four states: secure, insecure,\nbogus, or indeterminate. These states are defined in  and , although the\ndefinitions in the two documents differ a bit. This document makes no effort to reconcile the\ndefinitions in the two documents and takes no position as to whether they need to be reconciled.\n says:\nA validating resolver can determine the following 4 states:\nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor, has a chain of trust, and is able to\nverify all the signatures in the response. \nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor, a chain of trust, and, at some\ndelegation point, signed proof of the non-existence of a DS record. This indicates that\nsubsequent branches in the tree are provably insecure. A validating resolver may\nhave a local policy to mark parts of the domain space as insecure. \nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor and a secure delegation indicating\nthat subsidiary data is signed, but the response fails to validate for some reason:\nmissing signatures, expired signatures, signatures with unsupported algorithms, data\nmissing that the relevant NSEC RR says should be present, and so forth. \nThere is no trust anchor that would indicate that a specific portion of\nthe tree is secure. This is the default operation mode. \n says:\nA security-aware resolver must be able to distinguish between four cases:\nAn RRset for which the resolver is able to build a chain of signed DNSKEY and\nDS RRs from a trusted security anchor to the RRset. In this case, the RRset should be\nsigned and is subject to signature validation, as described above. \n[RFC4033] [RFC4035]\nSection 5 of [RFC4033]\nSection 4.3 of [RFC4035]\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 28\n\n[IANA_RootFiles]\n[RFC0882]\n[RFC1034]\n[RFC1035]\n14. References \n14.1. Normative References \n, , . \n, , , \n, November 1983, . \n, , , , \n, November 1987, . \n, , , \n, , November 1987, \n. \nInsecure:\nBogus:\nIndeterminate:\nAn RRset for which the resolver knows that it has no chain of signed DNSKEY\nand DS RRs from any trusted starting point to the RRset. This can occur when the\ntarget RRset lies in an unsigned zone or in a descendent [sic] of an unsigned zone. In\nthis case, the RRset may or may not be signed, but the resolver will not be able to\nverify the signature. \nAn RRset for which the resolver believes that it ought to be able to establish a\nchain of trust but for which it is unable to do so, either due to signatures that for\nsome reason fail to validate or due to missing data that the relevant DNSSEC RRs\nindicate should be present. This case may indicate an attack but may also indicate a\nconfiguration error or some form of data corruption. \nAn RRset for which the resolver is not able to determine whether the\nRRset should be signed, as the resolver is not able to obtain the necessary DNSSEC\nRRs. This can occur when the security-aware resolver is not able to contact security-\naware name servers for the relevant zones. \n12. Security Considerations \nThese definitions do not change any security considerations for either the global DNS or private\nDNS.\n13. IANA Considerations \nReferences to RFC 8499 in the IANA registries have been replaced with references to this\ndocument.\nIANA\"Root Files\"<https://www.iana.org/domains/root/files>\nMockapetris, P.\"Domain names: Concepts and facilities\"RFC 882DOI 10.17487/\nRFC0882 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc882>\nMockapetris, P.\"Domain names - concepts and facilities\"STD 13RFC 1034DOI\n10.17487/RFC1034 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>\nMockapetris, P.\"Domain names - implementation and specification\"STD 13\nRFC 1035DOI 10.17487/RFC1035 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/\ninfo/rfc1035>\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 29\n\n[RFC1123]\n[RFC1912]\n[RFC1996]\n[RFC2136]\n[RFC2181]\n[RFC2182]\n[RFC2308]\n[RFC4033]\n[RFC4034]\n[RFC4035]\n[RFC4592]\n[RFC5155]\n[RFC5358]\n[RFC5730]\n, , \n, , , October 1989, \n. \n, , , \n, February 1996, . \n, , \n, , August 1996, \n. \n, , , and , \n, , , April\n1997, . \n and , , , \n, July 1997, . \n, , , and , \n, , , , July 1997, \n. \n, , , \n, March 1998, . \n, , , , and , \n, , , March 2005, \n. \n, , , , and , \n, , , March 2005, \n. \n, , , , and , \n, , \n, March 2005, . \n, , , \n, July 2006, . \n, , , and , \n, , , March\n2008, . \n and , \n, , , , October 2008, \n. \n, , , , \n, August 2009, . \nBraden, R., Ed.\"Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support\"\nSTD 3RFC 1123DOI 10.17487/RFC1123 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc1123>\nBarr, D.\"Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors\"RFC 1912DOI\n10.17487/RFC1912 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1912>\nVixie, P.\"A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)\"\nRFC 1996DOI 10.17487/RFC1996 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc1996>\nVixie, P., Ed.Thomson, S.Rekhter, Y. J. Bound\"Dynamic Updates in the\nDomain Name System (DNS UPDATE)\"RFC 2136DOI 10.17487/RFC2136\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>\nElz, R. R. Bush\"Clarifications to the DNS Specification\"RFC 2181DOI\n10.17487/RFC2181 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>\nElz, R.Bush, R.Bradner, S. M. Patton\"Selection and Operation of\nSecondary DNS Servers\"BCP 16RFC 2182DOI 10.17487/RFC2182\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2182>\nAndrews, M.\"Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)\"RFC 2308DOI\n10.17487/RFC2308 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2308>\nArends, R.Austein, R.Larson, M.Massey, D. S. Rose\"DNS Security\nIntroduction and Requirements\"RFC 4033DOI 10.17487/RFC4033\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>\nArends, R.Austein, R.Larson, M.Massey, D. S. Rose\"Resource Records for\nthe DNS Security Extensions\"RFC 4034DOI 10.17487/RFC4034\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>\nArends, R.Austein, R.Larson, M.Massey, D. S. Rose\"Protocol\nModifications for the DNS Security Extensions\"RFC 4035DOI 10.17487/\nRFC4035 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>\nLewis, E.\"The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name System\"RFC 4592DOI\n10.17487/RFC4592 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4592>\nLaurie, B.Sisson, G.Arends, R. D. Blacka\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed\nAuthenticated Denial of Existence\"RFC 5155DOI 10.17487/RFC5155\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>\nDamas, J. F. Neves\"Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector\nAttacks\"BCP 140RFC 5358DOI 10.17487/RFC5358 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5358>\nHollenbeck, S.\"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)\"STD 69RFC 5730DOI\n10.17487/RFC5730 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 30\n\n[RFC5731]\n[RFC5855]\n[RFC5936]\n[RFC6561]\n[RFC6781]\n[RFC6840]\n[RFC6841]\n[RFC6891]\n[RFC7344]\n[RFC7719]\n[RFC8310]\n[RFC8499]\n[RFC9250]\n, ,\n, , , August 2009, \n. \n and , , \n, , , May 2010, \n. \n and , , , \n, June 2010, . \n, , and , \n, , , March\n2012, . \n, , and , \n, , , December 2012, \n. \n and , \n, , , February 2013, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , \nJanuary 2013, . \n, , and , , \n, , , April 2013, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , September 2014, \n. \n, , and , , , \n, December 2015, . \n, , and , \n, , , March 2018, \n. \n, , and , , , \n, , January 2019, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , May 2022, \n. \nHollenbeck, S.\"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping\"\nSTD 69RFC 5731DOI 10.17487/RFC5731 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc5731>\nAbley, J. T. Manderson\"Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones\"BCP\n155RFC 5855DOI 10.17487/RFC5855 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/\ninfo/rfc5855>\nLewis, E. A. Hoenes, Ed.\"DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR)\"RFC 5936\nDOI 10.17487/RFC5936 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5936>\nLivingood, J.Mody, N. M. O'Reirdan\"Recommendations for the\nRemediation of Bots in ISP Networks\"RFC 6561DOI 10.17487/RFC6561\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6561>\nKolkman, O.Mekking, W. R. Gieben\"DNSSEC Operational Practices,\nVersion 2\"RFC 6781DOI 10.17487/RFC6781 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc6781>\nWeiler, S., Ed.D. Blacka, Ed.\"Clarifications and Implementation Notes for\nDNS Security (DNSSEC)\"RFC 6840DOI 10.17487/RFC6840\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6840>\nLjunggren, F.Eklund Lowinder, AM.T. Okubo\"A Framework for DNSSEC\nPolicies and DNSSEC Practice Statements\"RFC 6841DOI 10.17487/RFC6841\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6841>\nDamas, J.Graff, M. P. Vixie\"Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))\"\nSTD 75RFC 6891DOI 10.17487/RFC6891 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc6891>\nKumari, W.Gudmundsson, O.G. Barwood\"Automating DNSSEC Delegation\nTrust Maintenance\"RFC 7344DOI 10.17487/RFC7344 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7344>\nHoffman, P.Sullivan, A. K. Fujiwara\"DNS Terminology\"RFC 7719DOI\n10.17487/RFC7719 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>\nDickinson, S.Gillmor, D. T. Reddy\"Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and\nDNS over DTLS\"RFC 8310DOI 10.17487/RFC8310 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8310>\nHoffman, P.Sullivan, A. K. Fujiwara\"DNS Terminology\"BCP 219RFC\n8499DOI 10.17487/RFC8499 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc8499>\nHuitema, C.Dickinson, S. A. Mankin\"DNS over Dedicated QUIC\nConnections\"RFC 9250DOI 10.17487/RFC9250 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc9250>\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 31\n\n[RFC9471]\n[IANA_Resource_Registry]\n[RFC20]\n[RFC819]\n[RFC952]\n[RFC1713]\n[RFC1995]\n[RFC2775]\n[RFC3172]\n[RFC3425]\n[RFC3493]\n[RFC3757]\n[RFC3912]\n[RFC4470]\n, , , and , \n, , , September 2023, \n. \n14.2. Informative References \n, , \n. \n, , , , \n, October 1969, . \n and , \n, , , August 1982, \n. \n, , and , , \n, , October 1985, \n. \n, , , , , \nNovember 1994, . \n, , , , \nAugust 1996, . \n, , , , \nFebruary 2000, . \n, \n, , , \n, September 2001, . \n, , , , November\n2002, . \n, , , , and , \n, , , February 2003, \n. \n, , and , \n, , \n, April 2004, . \n, , , , \nSeptember 2004, . \n and , \n, , , April 2006, \n. \nAndrews, M.Huque, S.Wouters, P. D. Wessels\"DNS Glue Requirements in\nReferral Responses\"RFC 9471DOI 10.17487/RFC9471 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9471>\nIANA\"Resource Record (RR) TYPEs\"<https://www.iana.org/\nassignments/dns-parameters/>\nCerf, V.\"ASCII format for network interchange\"STD 80RFC 20DOI 10.17487/\nRFC0020 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>\nSu, Z. J. Postel\"The Domain Naming Convention for Internet User\nApplications\"RFC 819DOI 10.17487/RFC0819 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc819>\nHarrenstien, K.Stahl, M. E. Feinler\"DoD Internet host table specification\"\nRFC 952DOI 10.17487/RFC0952 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc952>\nRomao, A.\"Tools for DNS debugging\"FYI 27RFC 1713DOI 10.17487/RFC1713\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1713>\nOhta, M.\"Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS\"RFC 1995DOI 10.17487/RFC1995\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1995>\nCarpenter, B.\"Internet Transparency\"RFC 2775DOI 10.17487/RFC2775\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2775>\nHuston, G., Ed.\"Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the\nAddress and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\"BCP 52RFC 3172DOI\n10.17487/RFC3172 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3172>\nLawrence, D.\"Obsoleting IQUERY\"RFC 3425DOI 10.17487/RFC3425\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3425>\nGilligan, R.Thomson, S.Bound, J.McCann, J. W. Stevens\"Basic Socket\nInterface Extensions for IPv6\"RFC 3493DOI 10.17487/RFC3493\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>\nKolkman, O.Schlyter, J. E. Lewis\"Domain Name System KEY (DNSKEY)\nResource Record (RR) Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag\"RFC 3757DOI 10.17487/\nRFC3757 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3757>\nDaigle, L.\"WHOIS Protocol Specification\"RFC 3912DOI 10.17487/RFC3912\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>\nWeiler, S. J. Ihren\"Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line\nSigning\"RFC 4470DOI 10.17487/RFC4470 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc4470>\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 32\n\n[RFC4641]\n[RFC4697]\n[RFC4786]\n[RFC4956]\n[RFC5625]\n[RFC5890]\n[RFC5891]\n[RFC5892]\n[RFC5893]\n[RFC5894]\n[RFC6055]\n[RFC6265]\n[RFC6303]\n[RFC6335]\n and , , , \n, September 2006, . \n and , , , \n, , October 2006, \n. \n and , , , , \n, December 2006, \n. \n, , and , , ,\n, July 2007, . \n, , , , \n, August 2009, . \n, \n, , , \nAugust 2010, . \n, , \n, , August 2010, \n. \n, \n, , , August 2010, \n. \n and , \n, , , \nAugust 2010, . \n, \n, , , \nAugust 2010, . \n, , and , \n, , , February\n2011, . \n, , , \n, April 2011, . \n, , , , \n, July 2011, . \n, , , , and , \n, , ,\n, August 2011, . \nKolkman, O. R. Gieben\"DNSSEC Operational Practices\"RFC 4641DOI\n10.17487/RFC4641 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4641>\nLarson, M. P. Barber\"Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior\"BCP 123RFC\n4697DOI 10.17487/RFC4697 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc4697>\nAbley, J. K. Lindqvist\"Operation of Anycast Services\"BCP 126RFC 4786\nDOI 10.17487/RFC4786 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc4786>\nArends, R.Kosters, M. D. Blacka\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In\"RFC 4956\nDOI 10.17487/RFC4956 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4956>\nBellis, R.\"DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines\"BCP 152RFC 5625DOI\n10.17487/RFC5625 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5625>\nKlensin, J.\"Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA):\nDefinitions and Document Framework\"RFC 5890DOI 10.17487/RFC5890\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>\nKlensin, J.\"Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol\"\nRFC 5891DOI 10.17487/RFC5891 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc5891>\nFaltstrom, P., Ed.\"The Unicode Code Points and Internationalized Domain\nNames for Applications (IDNA)\"RFC 5892DOI 10.17487/RFC5892\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5892>\nAlvestrand, H., Ed.C. Karp\"Right-to-Left Scripts for Internationalized\nDomain Names for Applications (IDNA)\"RFC 5893DOI 10.17487/RFC5893\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5893>\nKlensin, J.\"Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA):\nBackground, Explanation, and Rationale\"RFC 5894DOI 10.17487/RFC5894\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5894>\nThaler, D.Klensin, J. S. Cheshire\"IAB Thoughts on Encodings for\nInternationalized Domain Names\"RFC 6055DOI 10.17487/RFC6055\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6055>\nBarth, A.\"HTTP State Management Mechanism\"RFC 6265DOI 10.17487/\nRFC6265 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6265>\nAndrews, M.\"Locally Served DNS Zones\"BCP 163RFC 6303DOI 10.17487/\nRFC6303 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6303>\nCotton, M.Eggert, L.Touch, J.Westerlund, M.S. Cheshire\"Internet\nAssigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the\nService Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry\"BCP 165RFC 6335\nDOI 10.17487/RFC6335 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 33\n\n[RFC6365]\n[RFC6672]\n[RFC6762]\n[RFC7129]\n[RFC7480]\n[RFC7481]\n[RFC9082]\n[RFC9083]\n[RFC9224]\n[RFC7485]\n[RFC7793]\n[RFC7858]\n[RFC8094]\n and , \n, , , , September 2011, \n. \n and , , , \n, June 2012, . \n and , , , ,\nFebruary 2013, . \n and , , \n, , February 2014, \n. \n, , and , \n, , , , March 2015, \n. \n and , \n, , , , March 2015, \n. \n and , \n, , , , June 2021, \n. \n and , \n, , , , June 2021, \n. \n, \n, , , , March 2022, \n. \n, , , , and , \n, , , March 2015, \n. \n, \n, , , , May 2016, \n. \n, , , , , and , \n, , \n, May 2016, . \n, , and , \n, , , February 2017, \n. \nHoffman, P. J. Klensin\"Terminology Used in Internationalization in the\nIETF\"BCP 166RFC 6365DOI 10.17487/RFC6365 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>\nRose, S. W. Wijngaards\"DNAME Redirection in the DNS\"RFC 6672DOI\n10.17487/RFC6672 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6672>\nCheshire, S. M. Krochmal\"Multicast DNS\"RFC 6762DOI 10.17487/RFC6762\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>\nGieben, R. W. Mekking\"Authenticated Denial of Existence in the DNS\"RFC\n7129DOI 10.17487/RFC7129 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/\nrfc7129>\nNewton, A.Ellacott, B. N. Kong\"HTTP Usage in the Registration Data\nAccess Protocol (RDAP)\"STD 95RFC 7480DOI 10.17487/RFC7480\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>\nHollenbeck, S.N. Kong\"Security Services for the Registration Data Access\nProtocol (RDAP)\"STD 95RFC 7481DOI 10.17487/RFC7481 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>\nHollenbeck, S.A. Newton\"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query\nFormat\"STD 95RFC 9082DOI 10.17487/RFC9082 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc9082>\nHollenbeck, S.A. Newton\"JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access\nProtocol (RDAP)\"STD 95RFC 9083DOI 10.17487/RFC9083 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>\nBlanchet, M.\"Finding the Authoritative Registration Data Access Protocol\n(RDAP) Service\"STD 95RFC 9224DOI 10.17487/RFC9224 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9224>\nZhou, L.Kong, N.Shen, S.Sheng, S. A. Servin\"Inventory and Analysis of\nWHOIS Registration Objects\"RFC 7485DOI 10.17487/RFC7485\n<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7485>\nAndrews, M.\"Adding 100.64.0.0/10 Prefixes to the IPv4 Locally-Served DNS\nZones Registry\"BCP 163RFC 7793DOI 10.17487/RFC7793 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7793>\nHu, Z.Zhu, L.Heidemann, J.Mankin, A.Wessels, D. P. Hoffman\n\"Specification for DNS over Transport Layer Security (TLS)\"RFC 7858DOI\n10.17487/RFC7858 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>\nReddy, T.Wing, D. P. Patil\"DNS over Datagram Transport Layer Security\n(DTLS)\"RFC 8094DOI 10.17487/RFC8094 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc8094>\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 34\n\n[RFC8109]\n[RFC8484]\n[RFC9103]\n[RSSAC026]\n, , and , \n, , , , March 2017, \n. \n and , , , \n, October 2018, . \n, , , , and , \n, , , August 2021, \n. \n, , \n2017, . \nKoch, P.Larson, M. P. Hoffman\"Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming\nQueries\"BCP 209RFC 8109DOI 10.17487/RFC8109 <https://\nwww.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8109>\nHoffman, P. P. McManus\"DNS Queries over HTTPS (DoH)\"RFC 8484DOI\n10.17487/RFC8484 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>\nToorop, W.Dickinson, S.Sahib, S.Aras, P. A. Mankin\"DNS Zone Transfer\nover TLS\"RFC 9103DOI 10.17487/RFC9103 <https://www.rfc-\neditor.org/info/rfc9103>\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\"RSSAC0226 RSSAC Lexicon\"\n<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-026-14mar17-en.pdf>\nAppendix A. Definitions Updated by This Document \nThe following definitions from RFCs are updated by this document:\nForwarder in  \nQNAME in  \nSecure Entry Point (SEP) in ; note, however, that this RFC is already obsolete (see \n, , ). \n• [RFC2308]\n• [RFC2308]\n• [RFC3757]\n[RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035]\nAppendix B. Definitions First Defined in This Document \nThe following definitions are first defined in this document:\n\"Alias\" in Section 2 \n\"Apex\" in Section 7 \n\"arpa\" in Section 7 \n\"Authoritative DoT (ADot)\" in Section 6 \n\"Bailiwick\" in Section 7 \n\"Class independent\" in Section 5 \n\"Classic DNS\" in Section 6 \n\"Delegation-centric zone\" in Section 7 \n\"Delegation\" in Section 7 \n\"DNS operator\" in Section 9 \n\"DNSSEC-aware\" in Section 10 \n\"DNSSEC-unaware\" in Section 10 \n\"Forwarding\" in Section 6 \n\"Full resolver\" in Section 6 \n\"Fully Qualified Domain Name\" in Section 2 \n\"Global DNS\" in Section 2 \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 35\n\n\"Hardware Security Module (HSM)\" in Section 10 \n\"Host name\" in Section 2 \n\"IDN\" in Section 2 \n\"In-domain\" in Section 7 \n\"Iterative resolution\" in Section 6 \n\"Label\" in Section 2 \n\"Locally served DNS zone\" in Section 2 \n\"Naming system\" in Section 2 \n\"Negative response\" in Section 3 \n\"Non-recursive query\" in Section 6 \n\"Open resolver\" in Section 6 \n\"Passive DNS\" in Section 6 \n\"Policy-implementing resolver\" in Section 6 \n\"Presentation format\" in Section 5 \n\"Priming\" in Section 6 \n\"Private DNS\" in Section 2 \n\"Recursive DoT (RDot)\" in Section 6 \n\"Recursive resolver\" in Section 6 \n\"Referrals\" in Section 4 \n\"Registrant\" in Section 9 \n\"Registrar\" in Section 9 \n\"Registry\" in Section 9 \n\"Root zone\" in Section 7 \n\"Secure Entry Point (SEP)\" in Section 10 \n\"Sibling domain\" in Section 7 \n\"Signing software\" in Section 10 \n\"Split DNS\" in Section 6 \n\"Stub resolver\" in Section 6 \n\"Subordinate\" in Section 8 \n\"Superordinate\" in Section 8 \n\"TLD\" in Section 2 \n\"Validating resolver\" in Section 10 \n\"Validation\" in Section 10 \n\"View\" in Section 6 \n\"Zone transfer\" in Section 6 \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \n• \nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 36\n\nAddress and Routing Parameter Area Domain (arpa)\nAddress records\nADoT\nAlias\nAnycast\nApex\nAsterisk label\nAuthoritative data\nAuthoritative server\nAuthoritative-only server\nAXoT\nBailiwick\nIndex \n \nSection 7\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 8\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 7\nAcknowledgements \n and its predecessor, , were co-authored by . The current\ndocument, which is a small update to , has just two authors. Andrew's work on the\nearlier documents is greatly appreciated.\nNumerous people made significant contributions to  and . Please see the\nacknowledgements sections in those two documents for the extensive list of contributors.\nEven though the current document is a small revision, many people in the DNSOP Working\nGroup have contributed to it, and their work is greatly appreciated.\n[RFC8499] [RFC7719] Andrew Sullivan\n[RFC8499]\n[RFC8499] [RFC7719]\nA B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Z\nA\nB\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 37\n\nCanonical name\nChild\nClass\nClass independent\nClassic DNS\nClosest encloser\nClosest provable encloser\nCNAME\nCombined signing key (CSK)\nDelegation\nDelegation-centric zone\nDNS operator\nDNS-over-HTTPS\nDNS-over-QUIC\nDNS-over-TLS\nDNSSEC Policy (DP)\nDNSSEC Practice Statement (DPS)\nDNSSEC-aware and DNSSEC-unaware\nDoH\nDomain name\nDoQ\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 4\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 8\n \nSection 8\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 2\n \nC\nD\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 38\n\nDoT\nEDNS\nEmpty non-terminals (ENTs)\nEPP\nFast flux DNS\nFORMERR\nForward lookup\nForwarder\nForwarding\nFull resolver\nFull-service resolver\nFully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)\nGlobal DNS\nGlue records\nHardware security module (HSM)\nHidden master\nHost name\nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 3\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 2\nE\nF\nG\nH\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 39\n\nIDN\nIn-bailiwick\nIn-domain\nInsecure delegation\nInstance\nInternationalized Domain Name\nIterative mode\nIterative resolution\nIXoT\nKey signing key (KSK)\nLabel\nLame delegation\nLocally served DNS zone\nMaster file\nMaster server\nmDNS\nMulticast DNS\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 2\nI\nK\nL\nM\nN\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 40\n\nNaming system\nNegative caching\nNegative response\nNext closer name\nNODATA\nNOERROR\nNon-recursive query\nNOTIMP\nNS\nNSEC\nNSEC3\nNXDOMAIN\nOccluded name\non-line signing\nonline signing\nOpen resolver\nOPT\nOpt-out\nOrigin\nOut-of-bailiwick\nOwner\n \nSection 2, Paragraph 1.2.1\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 3\n \nSection 8\n \nSection 3\n \nSection 3\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 3\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 3\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 5\nO\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 41\n\nParent\nPassive DNS\nPolicy-implementing resolver\nPresentation format\nPrimary master\nPrimary server\nPriming\nPrivacy-enabling DNS server\nPrivate DNS\nPublic suffix\nQNAME\nRDAP\nRDoT\nRecursive DoT\nRecursive mode\nRecursive query\nRecursive resolver\nReferrals\nREFUSED\nRegistrant\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 4\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6, Paragraph 4.10.1\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 4\n \nSection 3\n \nP\nQ\nR\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 42\n\nRegistrar\nRegistry\nResolver\nReverse DNS, reverse lookup\nRoot hints\nRoot zone\nRR\nRRset\nSecondary server\nSecure Entry Point (SEP)\nSERVFAIL\nService name\nSibling domain\nSigned zone\nSigning software\nSlave server\nSOA\nSOA field names\nSource of Synthesis\nSplit DNS\nSplit-horizon DNS\nSection 9\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 3\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 8, Paragraph 1.14.1\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\nS\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 43\n\nStealth server\nStub resolver\nSubdomain\nSubordinate\nSuperordinate\nTLD\nTrust anchor\nTTL\nUnsigned zone\nValidating resolver\nValidation\nView\nWHOIS\nWildcard\nWildcard domain name\nXoT\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 2\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 5\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 10, Paragraph 2.26.1\n \nSection 6\n \nSection 9\n \nSection 8\n \nSection 8\n \nSection 6\nT\nU\nV\nW\nX\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 44\n\nZone\nZone cut\nZone enumeration\nZone signing key (ZSK)\nZone transfer\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 7\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 10\n \nSection 6\nZ\nAuthors' Addresses \nPaul Hoffman\nICANN\n paul.hoffman@icann.org Email:\nKazunori Fujiwara\nJapan Registry Services Co., Ltd.\n fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Email:\nRFC 9499 DNS Terminology March 2024\nHoffman & Fujiwara Best Current Practice Page 45", "segments": [], "published_at": "2023-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2023-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "2023-07-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:37:42.764410+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "768264ca-6f8e-4806-9de7-d2b4b89f91af", "source_id": "d87a8ca794151085edeaacf7", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-blockchain-assurance-and-standardization-dc-bas", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-blockchain-assurance-and-standardization-dc-bas", "artifact_sha256": "62efb894d3dd11722bf466e1d9f9ed6c911f124cb62d2f64fad39b5e444adcf9", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 91806, "title": "Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization | Internet Governance Forum", "language": "en", "text_length": 5461, "characters": 5461, "text": "Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nDynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization (DC-BAS)\nIntroduction\nThis Dynamic Coalition is committed to advancing standards and best practices that foster a secure and trustworthy internet ecosystem. As part of this mission, it contributes to the development of industry standards & frameworks such as the\nBlockchain Maturity Model (BMM)\nand its corresponding\nfamily of standards\n, which support the assurance and standardization of blockchain technologies.\nIn addition,\nDC\n-BAS promotes the adoption of high-trust solutions by showcasing those that have earned recognized industry certifications and ratings, establishing a benchmark for reliability and excellence. The solutions listed below have been independently reviewed against globally accepted criteria for trustworthiness and reliability.\n·\nBMM Assessment Results\nThe\nDC\n-BAS is hosted by the\nGovernment Blockchain Association (GBA)\n, a non-profit organization with members that work in\nover 500 government offices around the world\n. The GBA has\nover 50 working groups\nsupporting the use of blockchain technology to solve public sector needs and challenges. Its mission is to “Help the public and private sector connect, communicate, and collaborate by using blockchain and emerging technologies to improve public services.”\nFor more information visit the\nGBA Blockchain Assurance & Standardization\nwebpage.\nAction Plan\nPlease visit the\nDC-BAS Website\nfor the current action plan.\nMailing List\nJoin the Google Group to receive information about activities and ways to get involved, Subscribe to the mailing list at\nhttps://groups.google.com/g/dc-blockchain_assurance_and_standardization\n.\nTo become actively involved join the\nDC\n-BAS by completing the\nDC-BAS-Registration Form\n.\nStakeholders\nThis group includes hundreds of members and extends an open invitation to people affiliated with:\n·\nLegislative bodies\n·\nGovernment administration\n·\nPrivate sector startups, companies and enterprises\n·\nSchools, colleges & universities\n·\nNon-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)\nDocuments/Reports\nAnnual Report 2025\nPlease visit the\nDC-BAS Resources Page\nfor all documents and reports published by this group.\nWebsite\nhttps://gbaglobal.org/igf-dc-bas\nContacts\nEmail:\nIGF\n-BAS [at] GBAglobal.org\nDino Cataldo Dell'Accio – dellaccio[at]un.org\nGerard Dache – gerard.dache[at]gbaglobal.org\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "5b3aa658-6f64-4d3d-ba9c-57758f03a435", "document_id": "768264ca-6f8e-4806-9de7-d2b4b89f91af", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nDynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization (DC-BAS)\nIntroduction\nThis Dynamic Coalition is committed to advancing standards and best practices that foster a secure and trustworthy internet ecosystem. As part of this mission, it contributes to the development of industry standards & frameworks such as the\nBlockchain Maturity Model (BMM)\nand its corresponding\nfamily of standards\n, which support the assurance and standardization of blockchain technologies.\nIn addition,\nDC\n-BAS promotes the adoption of high-trust solutions by showcasing those that have earned recognized industry certifications and ratings, establishing a benchmark for reliability and excellence. The solutions listed below have been independently reviewed against globally accepted criteria for trustworthiness and reliability.\n·\nBMM Assessment Results\nThe\nDC\n-BAS is hosted by the\nGovernment Blockchain Association (GBA)\n, a non-profit organization with members that work in\nover 500 government offices around the world\n. The GBA has\nover 50 working groups\nsupporting the use of blockchain technology to solve public sector needs and challenges. Its mission is to “Help the public and private sector connect, communicate, and collaborate by using blockchain and emerging technologies to improve public services.”\nFor more information visit the\nGBA Blockchain Assurance & Standardization\nwebpage.\nAction Plan\nPlease visit the\nDC-BAS Website\nfor the current action plan.\nMailing List\nJoin the Google Group to receive information about activities and ways to get involved, Subscribe to the mailing list at\nhttps://groups.google.com/g/dc-blockchain_assurance_and_standardization\n.\nTo become actively involved join the\nDC\n-BAS by completing the\nDC-BAS-Registration Form\n.\nStakeholders\nThis group includes hundreds of members and extends an open invitation to people affiliated with:\n·\nLegislative bodies\n·\nGovernment administration\n·\nPrivate sector startups, companies and enterprises\n·\nSchools, colleges & universities\n·\nNon-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)\nDocuments/Reports\nAnnual Report 2025\nPlease visit the\nDC-BAS Resources Page\nfor all documents and reports published by this group.\nWebsite\nhttps://gbaglobal.org/igf-dc-bas\nContacts\nEmail:\nIGF\n-BAS [at] GBAglobal.org\nDino Cataldo Dell'Accio – dellaccio[at]un.org\nGerard Dache – gerard.dache[at]gbaglobal.org\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5461, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 791}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "7810a064-2a14-48c6-9445-946dcebb3996", "source_id": "22762de4edf5974feb6d419c", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/default.aspx", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/default.aspx", "artifact_sha256": "91c7d06d676aa064d40643d5bebdf19071f29f5c2c3bbb8ecdc1debb5c9de879", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 98887, "title": "About ITU", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 4683, "characters": 4683, "text": "About ITU\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nAbout The International Telecommunication Union (ITU)\nRollup Image\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nAbout ITU\nShare\nPage Content 19\n​​ITU is connecting the world. As the United Nations ​agency for digital technologies, we are working towards harnessing innovation and connecting everyone to ensure a better future for all. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\nPage Content 20\nPage Content\nPage Content 11\nPage Content 12\nWho we are\nPage Content 2\nITU is the United Nations specialized agency for digital technologies (ICTs). ​The Organization is made up of a membership of 194​ Member States and more than 1000 companies, universities and international and regional organizations. Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and with regional offices on every continent, ITU is the oldest agency in the UN family – has been connecting people for over 160 years.\nWhat we do\nPage Content 3\n​\nWe facilitate international connectivity in communication networks. We allocate global radio spectrum and satellite orbits, develop the technical standards that ensure networks and technologies connect seamlessly, and work to improve access to digital technologies in underserved communities worldwide. ITU works to bring digital connectivity to everyone, providing a trusted, multilateral platform to broker international agreements and standards, share knowledge, build capacity, and work with members and partners to spread access to technology around the world.​​\nWhy we matter\nPage Content 4\nTechnology has become the backbone of modern life. Networks and devices everywhere rely on ITU's work. Every time we use a mobile phone, send an e-mail, access the Internet, watch TV or streaming services, take a plane, consult the weather forecast, or use satellite images to navigate or explore, we are relying on ITU's work. 2.2​​​​ billion people, largely in developing countries, remain unconnected. ITU works to close this digital divide through universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation.\n​\n10 ways ITU connects the world\nDiscover how ITU drives global connectivity, innovation, and digital cooperation to build a digital future for all.​\nDownload the card\n​​\n2025 year in review\nAs the digital landscape evolves, ITU continues shaping the future for the good of everyone.\nCheck out the highlights\nITU Strategic Plan 2024-27\nITU Member States have set two clear strategic goals for ​the Union for 2024 to 2027: universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation.​\nLearn more\n​​\nITU Management team\nITU Member States from around the wor​ld elected the Organization's top five officials during the 21st Plenipotentiary Conference.\nMeet the team\n​​\n​​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\nOrganizational entities\n​\n​​\nRadiocommunication\n​\nStandardization\n​\nDevelopment\n​​​​​\nGeneral Secretariat​​​​\n​\n​\nPage Content 5\nPage Content 17\nPage Content 16\n​\n​Not a member yet?\nWith 194​ Member States and over 1000 Sector Members, ITU is a powerhouse in the world of technology. Join ITU as a member to have a direct voice in the decisions impacting your business, organization, or economy.\nLearn more\nITU history\nITU's story is one of innovation. Established in 1865 to manage the first international telegraph networks, ITU has worked ceaselessly since then to connect the world. Over the years, the Union's mandate has expanded to cover the invention of voice telephony, the development of radiocommunications, the launch of the first communications satellites, and most recently, artificial intelligence and metaverse.\nVisit the History of ITU Portal\n​\n​Data protection\nThe protection of personal data has become increasingly crucial for intergovernmental organizations in general, the organizations of the United Nations system, and ITU in particular.\nRead more\n. ITU is committed to protecting the personal data it processes and respecting the right to privacy of individuals. ITU adopted its own\nData Protection and Privacy Policy\nin 2023. For any questions or requests concerning the processing of your personal data by ITU, please contact\nhere\n. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\nPage Content 9\nPage Content 10\nPage Content 18\nSave language (?)\nDisclaimer & Feedback\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "segments": [{"segment_id": "625515fd-5092-4e75-a14d-9550a4dfd624", "document_id": "7810a064-2a14-48c6-9445-946dcebb3996", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About ITU\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nAbout The International Telecommunication Union (ITU)\nRollup Image\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nAbout ITU\nShare\nPage Content 19\n​​ITU is connecting the world. As the United Nations ​agency for digital technologies, we are working towards harnessing innovation and connecting everyone to ensure a better future for all. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\nPage Content 20\nPage Content\nPage Content 11\nPage Content 12\nWho we are\nPage Content 2\nITU is the United Nations specialized agency for digital technologies (ICTs). ​The Organization is made up of a membership of 194​ Member States and more than 1000 companies, universities and international and regional organizations. Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and with regional offices on every continent, ITU is the oldest agency in the UN family – has been connecting people for over 160 years.\nWhat we do\nPage Content 3\n​\nWe facilitate international connectivity in communication networks. We allocate global radio spectrum and satellite orbits, develop the technical standards that ensure networks and technologies connect seamlessly, and work to improve access to digital technologies in underserved communities worldwide. ITU works to bring digital connectivity to everyone, providing a trusted, multilateral platform to broker international agreements and standards, share knowledge, build capacity, and work with members and partners to spread access to technology around the world.​​\nWhy we matter\nPage Content 4\nTechnology has become the backbone of modern life. Networks and devices everywhere rely on ITU's work. Every time we use a mobile phone, send an e-mail, access the Internet, watch TV or streaming services, take a plane, consult the weather forecast, or use satellite images to navigate or explore, we are relying on ITU's work. 2.2​​​​ billion people, largely in developing countries, remain unconnected. ITU works to close this digital divide through universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation.\n​\n10 ways ITU connects the world\nDiscover how ITU drives global connectivity, innovation, and digital cooperation to build a digital future for all.​\nDownload the card\n​​\n2025 year in review\nAs the digital landscape evolves, ITU continues shaping the future for the good of everyone.\nCheck out the highlights\nITU Strategic Plan 2024-27\nITU Member States have set two clear strategic goals for ​the Union for 2024 to 2027: universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation.​\nLearn more\n​​\nITU Management team\nITU Member States from around the wor​ld elected the Organization's top five officials during the 21st Plenipotentiary Conference.\nMeet the team\n​​\n​​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\n​\nOrganizational entities\n​\n​​\nRadiocommunication\n​\nStandardization\n​\nDevelopment\n​​​​​\nGeneral Secretariat​​​​\n​\n​\nPage Content 5\nPage Content 17\nPage Content 16\n​\n​Not a member yet?\nWith 194​ Member States and over 1000 Sector Members, ITU is a powerhouse in the world of technology. Join ITU as a member to have a direct voice in the decisions impacting your business, organization, or economy.\nLearn more\nITU history\nITU's story is one of innovation. Established in 1865 to manage the first international telegraph networks, ITU has worked ceaselessly since then to connect the world. Over the years, the Union's mandate has expanded to cover the invention of voice telephony, the development of radiocommunications, the launch of the first communications satellites, and most recently, artificial intelligence and metaverse.\nVisit the History of ITU Portal\n​\n​Data protection\nThe protection of personal data has become increasingly crucial for intergovernmental organizations in general, the organizations of the United Nations system, and ITU in particular.\nRead more\n. ITU is committed to protecting the personal data it processes and respecting the right to privacy of individuals. ITU adopted its own\nData Protection and Privacy Policy\nin 2023. For any questions or requests concerning the processing of your personal data by ITU, please contact\nhere\n. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​\nPage Content 9\nPage Content 10\nPage Content 18\nSave language (?)\nDisclaimer & Feedback\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4683, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 723}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "source_id": "36a37ba686cce1604ee861b8", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1591/", "artifact_sha256": "8a3135af5b789021c5d4bf24e397959212dcaff5e6c430579e68ea020482cfc8", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 119241, "title": "RFC 1591: Domain Name System Structure and Delegation | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 15318, "characters": 15318, "text": "RFC 1591: Domain Name System Structure and Delegation | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 1591\nInfo\nRFC\n1591\n:\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation\nJ. Postel\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group J. Postel\nRequest for Comments: 1591 ISI\nCategory: Informational March 1994\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo\ndoes not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of\nthis memo is unlimited.\n1\n. Introduction\nThis memo provides some information on the structure of the names in\nthe Domain Name System (DNS), specifically the top-level domain\nnames; and on the administration of domains. The Internet Assigned\nNumbers Authority (IANA) is the overall authority for the IP\nAddresses, the Domain Names, and many other parameters, used in the\nInternet. The day-to-day responsibility for the assignment of IP\nAddresses, Autonomous System Numbers, and most top and second level\nDomain Names are handled by the Internet Registry (IR) and regional\nregistries.\n2\n. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names\nIn the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a\nhierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set\nof what are called \"top-level domain names\" (TLDs). These are the\ngeneric TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two\nletter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that\nany other TLDs will be created.\n\nUnder each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally, under\nthe generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is, many\norganizations are registered directly under the TLD, and any further\nstructure is up to the individual organizations.\n\nIn the country TLDs, there is a wide variation in the structure, in\nsome countries the structure is very flat, in others there is\nsubstantial structural organization. In some country domains the\nsecond levels are generic categories (such as, AC, CO, GO, and RE),\nin others they are based on political geography, and in still others,\norganization names are listed directly under the country code. The\norganization for the US country domain is described in\nRFC 1480\n[\n1\n].\nPostel [Page 1]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\nEach of the generic TLDs was created for a general category of\norganizations. The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR,\nUS) are each organized by an administrator for that country. These\nadministrators may further delegate the management of portions of the\nnaming tree. These administrators are performing a public service on\nbehalf of the Internet community. Descriptions of the generic\ndomains and the US country domain follow.\n\nOf these generic domains, five are international in nature, and two\nare restricted to use by entities in the United States.\n\nWorld Wide Generic Domains:\n\nCOM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is\ncompanies. This domain has grown very large and there is\nconcern about the administrative load and system performance if\nthe current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is\nbeing taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future\ncommercial registrations in the subdomains.\n\nEDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational\ninstitutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools,\neducational service organizations, and educational consortia\nhave registered here. More recently a decision has been taken\nto limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and\nuniversities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered\nin the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC,\nbelow).\n\nNET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network\nproviders, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the\nadministrative computers, and the network node computers. The\ncustomers of the network provider would have domain names of\ntheir own (not in the NET TLD).\n\nORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for\norganizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-\ngovernment organizations may fit here.\n\nINT - This domain is for organizations established by international\ntreaties, or international databases.\n\nUnited States Only Generic Domains:\n\nGOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government\noffice or agency. More recently a decision was taken to\nregister only agencies of the US Federal government in this\ndomain. State and local agencies are registered in the country\nPostel [Page 2]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\ndomains (see US Domain, below).\n\nMIL - This domain is used by the US military.\n\nExample country code Domain:\n\nUS - As an example of a country domain, the US domain provides for\nthe registration of all kinds of entities in the United States\non the basis of political geography, that is, a hierarchy of\n<entity-name>.<locality>.<state-code>.US. For example,\n\"IBM.Armonk.NY.US\". In addition, branches of the US domain are\nprovided within each state for schools (K12), community colleges\n(CC), technical schools (TEC), state government agencies\n(STATE), councils of governments (COG),libraries (LIB), museums\n(MUS), and several other generic types of entities (see\nRFC 1480\nfor details [\n1\n]).\n\nTo find a contact for a TLD use the \"whois\" program to access the\ndatabase on the host rs.internic.net. Append \"-dom\" to the name of\nTLD you are interested in. For example:\n\nwhois -h rs.internic.net us-dom\nor\nwhois -h rs.internic.net edu-dom\n3\n. The Administration of Delegated Domains\nThe Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is responsible for the\noverall coordination and management of the Domain Name System (DNS),\nand especially the delegation of portions of the name space called\ntop-level domains. Most of these top-level domains are two-letter\ncountry codes taken from the ISO standard 3166.\n\nA central Internet Registry (IR) has been selected and designated to\nhandled the bulk of the day-to-day administration of the Domain Name\nSystem. Applications for new top-level domains (for example, country\ncode domains) are handled by the IR with consultation with the IANA.\nThe central IR is INTERNIC.NET. Second level domains in COM, EDU,\nORG, NET, and GOV are registered by the Internet Registry at the\nInterNIC. The second level domains in the MIL are registered by the\nDDN registry at NIC.DDN.MIL. Second level names in INT are\nregistered by the PVM at ISI.EDU.\n\nWhile all requests for new top-level domains must be sent to the\nInternic (at hostmaster@internic.net), the regional registries are\noften enlisted to assist in the administration of the DNS, especially\nin solving problems with a country administration. Currently, the\nRIPE NCC is the regional registry for Europe and the APNIC is the\nPostel [Page 3]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\nregional registry for the Asia-Pacific region, while the INTERNIC\nadministers the North America region, and all the as yet undelegated\nregions.\n\nThe contact mailboxes for these regional registries are:\n\nINTERNIC hostmaster@internic.net\nAPNIC hostmaster@apnic.net\nRIPE NCC ncc@ripe.net\n\nThe policy concerns involved when a new top-level domain is\nestablished are described in the following. Also mentioned are\nconcerns raised when it is necessary to change the delegation of an\nestablished domain from one party to another.\n\nA new top-level domain is usually created and its management\ndelegated to a \"designated manager\" all at once.\n\nMost of these same concerns are relevant when a sub-domain is\ndelegated and in general the principles described here apply\nrecursively to all delegations of the Internet DNS name space.\n\nThe major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is\nthat it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have\nthe ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job.\n\n1) The key requirement is that for each domain there be a designated\nmanager for supervising that domain's name space. In the case of\ntop-level domains that are country codes this means that there is\na manager that supervises the domain names and operates the domain\nname system in that country.\n\nThe manager must, of course, be on the Internet. There must be\nInternet Protocol (IP) connectivity to the nameservers and email\nconnectivity to the management and staff of the manager.\n\nThere must be an administrative contact and a technical contact\nfor each domain. For top-level domains that are country codes at\nleast the administrative contact must reside in the country\ninvolved.\n\n2) These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated\ndomain, and have a duty to serve the community.\n\nThe designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for\nboth the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global\nInternet community.\nPostel [Page 4]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\nConcerns about \"rights\" and \"ownership\" of domains are\ninappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about\n\"responsibilities\" and \"service\" to the community.\n\n3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the\ndomain that request domain names.\n\nThis means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all\nrequests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and\nacademic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal\nbasis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come\nfrom customers of some other business related to the manager --\ne.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data\nnetwork provider. There can be no requirement that a particular\nmail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used.\n\nThere are no requirements on subdomains of top-level domains\nbeyond the requirements on higher-level domains themselves. That\nis, the requirements in this memo are applied recursively. In\nparticular, all subdomains shall be allowed to operate their own\ndomain name servers, providing in them whatever information the\nsubdomain manager sees fit (as long as it is true and correct).\n\n4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that\nthe designated manager is the appropriate party.\n\nThe IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement\namong themselves, and generally takes no action to change things\nunless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the\ndesignated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA\nstep in.\n\nHowever, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have\nsome voice in selecting the designated manager.\n\nThere are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may\nestablish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of\nit: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the\napplying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole\ncountry. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a\ncountry is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a\ncountry -- this is sometimes called a \"proxy\" DNS service.\n\nThe Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee\nestablished by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in\nwhich the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The\nIDNB's decisions will be binding.\nPostel [Page 5]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\n5) The designated manager must do a satisfactory job of operating the\nDNS service for the domain.\n\nThat is, the actual management of the assigning of domain names,\ndelegating subdomains and operating nameservers must be done with\ntechnical competence. This includes keeping the central IR (in\nthe case of top-level domains) or other higher-level domain\nmanager advised of the status of the domain, responding to\nrequests in a timely manner, and operating the database with\naccuracy, robustness, and resilience.\n\nThere must be a primary and a secondary nameserver that have IP\nconnectivity to the Internet and can be easily checked for\noperational status and database accuracy by the IR and the IANA.\n\nIn cases when there are persistent problems with the proper\noperation of a domain, the delegation may be revoked, and possibly\ndelegated to another designated manager.\n\n6) For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one\norganization to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA\nin the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from\nboth the old organization and the new organization that assure the\nIANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new\norganization understands its responsibilities.\n\nIt is also very helpful for the IANA to receive communications\nfrom other parties that may be concerned or affected by the\ntransfer.\n4\n. Rights to Names\n1) Names and Trademarks\n\nIn case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the\nrights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have\nno role or responsibility other than to provide the contact\ninformation to both parties.\n\nThe registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark\nstatus. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating\nanyone else's Trademark.\n\n2) Country Codes\n\nThe IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is\nnot a country.\nPostel [Page 6]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\nThe selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code\ntop-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a\nprocedure for determining which entities should be and should not\nbe on that list.\n5\n. Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\n6\n. Acknowledgements\nMany people have made comments on draft version of these descriptions\nand procedures. Steve Goldstein and John Klensin have been\nparticularly helpful.\n7\n. Author's Address\nJon Postel\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute\n4676 Admiralty Way\nMarina del Rey, CA 90292\n\nPhone: 310-822-1511\nFax: 310-823-6714\nEMail: Postel@ISI.EDU\n7\n. References\n[\n1\n] Cooper, A., and J. Postel, \"The US Domain\",\nRFC 1480\n,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, June 1993.\n\n[\n2\n] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\", STD 2,\nRFC 1340\n,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.\n\n[\n3\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities\", STD\n13,\nRFC 1034\n, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987.\n\n[\n4\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Implementation and\nSpecification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, USC/Information Sciences\nInstitute, November 1987.\n\n[\n6\n] Partridge, C., \"Mail Routing and the Domain System\", STD 14,\nRFC\n974\n, CSNET CIC BBN, January 1986.\n\n[\n7\n] Braden, R., Editor, \"Requirements for Internet Hosts --\nApplication and Support\", STD 3,\nRFC 1123\n, Internet Engineering\nTask Force, October 1989.\n\nPostel [Page 7]\nRFC\n1591\n: Domain Name System Structure and Delegation\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names\n3. The Administration of Delegated Domains\n4. Rights to Names\n5. Security Considerations\n6. Acknowledgements\n7. Author's Address\n7. References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "6ea1f69b-9bdd-4173-9092-e909a4bca246", "document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 1591: Domain Name System Structure and Delegation | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 1591\nInfo\nRFC\n1591\n:\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation\nJ. Postel\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group J. Postel\nRequest for Comments: 1591 ISI\nCategory: Informational March 1994\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo\ndoes not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of\nthis memo is unlimited.\n1\n. Introduction\nThis memo provides some information on the structure of the names in\nthe Domain Name System (DNS), specifically the top-level domain\nnames; and on the administration of domains. The Internet Assigned\nNumbers Authority (IANA) is the overall authority for the IP\nAddresses, the Domain Names, and many other parameters, used in the\nInternet. The day-to-day responsibility for the assignment of IP\nAddresses, Autonomous System Numbers, and most top and second level\nDomain Names are handled by the Internet Registry (IR) and regional\nregistries.\n2\n. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names\nIn the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a\nhierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set\nof what are called \"top-level domain names\" (TLDs). These are the\ngeneric TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two\nletter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that\nany other TLDs will be created.\n\nUnder each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally, under\nthe generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is, many\norganizations are registered directly under the TLD, and any further\nstructure is up to the individual organizations.\n\nIn the country TLDs, there is a wide variation in the structure, in\nsome countries the structure is very flat, in others there is\nsubstantial structural organization. In some country domains the\nsecond levels are generic categories (such as, AC, CO, GO, and RE),\nin others they are based on political geography, and in still others,\norganization names are listed directly under the country code. The\norganization for the US country domain is described in\nRFC 1480\n[\n1\n].\nPostel [Page 1]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\nEach of the generic TLDs was created for a general category of\norganizations. The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR,\nUS) are each organized by an administrator for that country. These\nadministrators may further delegate the management of portions of the\nnaming tree. These administrators are performing a public service on\nbehalf of the Internet community. Descriptions of the generic\ndomains and the US country domain follow.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2763, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 451}}, {"segment_id": "eac90170-89fa-4cc1-bad7-c4522ca13dd4", "document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "ordinal": 1, "text": "Of these generic domains, five are international in nature, and two\nare restricted to use by entities in the United States.\n\nWorld Wide Generic Domains:\n\nCOM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is\ncompanies. This domain has grown very large and there is\nconcern about the administrative load and system performance if\nthe current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is\nbeing taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future\ncommercial registrations in the subdomains.\n\nEDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational\ninstitutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools,\neducational service organizations, and educational consortia\nhave registered here. More recently a decision has been taken\nto limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and\nuniversities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered\nin the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC,\nbelow).\n\nNET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network\nproviders, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the\nadministrative computers, and the network node computers. The\ncustomers of the network provider would have domain names of\ntheir own (not in the NET TLD).\n\nORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for\norganizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-\ngovernment organizations may fit here.\n\nINT - This domain is for organizations established by international\ntreaties, or international databases.\n\nUnited States Only Generic Domains:\n\nGOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government\noffice or agency. More recently a decision was taken to\nregister only agencies of the US Federal government in this\ndomain. State and local agencies are registered in the country\nPostel [Page 2]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\ndomains (see US Domain, below).", "char_start": 2765, "char_end": 4622, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 289}}, {"segment_id": "c43f5d20-ecfa-4c28-a9bf-c50fd8c99c0e", "document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "ordinal": 2, "text": "MIL - This domain is used by the US military.\n\nExample country code Domain:\n\nUS - As an example of a country domain, the US domain provides for\nthe registration of all kinds of entities in the United States\non the basis of political geography, that is, a hierarchy of\n<entity-name>.<locality>.<state-code>.US. For example,\n\"IBM.Armonk.NY.US\". In addition, branches of the US domain are\nprovided within each state for schools (K12), community colleges\n(CC), technical schools (TEC), state government agencies\n(STATE), councils of governments (COG),libraries (LIB), museums\n(MUS), and several other generic types of entities (see\nRFC 1480\nfor details [\n1\n]).\n\nTo find a contact for a TLD use the \"whois\" program to access the\ndatabase on the host rs.internic.net. Append \"-dom\" to the name of\nTLD you are interested in. For example:\n\nwhois -h rs.internic.net us-dom\nor\nwhois -h rs.internic.net edu-dom\n3\n. The Administration of Delegated Domains\nThe Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is responsible for the\noverall coordination and management of the Domain Name System (DNS),\nand especially the delegation of portions of the name space called\ntop-level domains. Most of these top-level domains are two-letter\ncountry codes taken from the ISO standard 3166.\n\nA central Internet Registry (IR) has been selected and designated to\nhandled the bulk of the day-to-day administration of the Domain Name\nSystem. Applications for new top-level domains (for example, country\ncode domains) are handled by the IR with consultation with the IANA.\nThe central IR is INTERNIC.NET. Second level domains in COM, EDU,\nORG, NET, and GOV are registered by the Internet Registry at the\nInterNIC. The second level domains in the MIL are registered by the\nDDN registry at NIC.DDN.MIL. Second level names in INT are\nregistered by the PVM at ISI.EDU.", "char_start": 4624, "char_end": 6456, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 291}}, {"segment_id": "b421bd6c-d48d-4f99-9f8d-7b2148b7a918", "document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "ordinal": 3, "text": "While all requests for new top-level domains must be sent to the\nInternic (at hostmaster@internic.net), the regional registries are\noften enlisted to assist in the administration of the DNS, especially\nin solving problems with a country administration. Currently, the\nRIPE NCC is the regional registry for Europe and the APNIC is the\nPostel [Page 3]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\nregional registry for the Asia-Pacific region, while the INTERNIC\nadministers the North America region, and all the as yet undelegated\nregions.\n\nThe contact mailboxes for these regional registries are:\n\nINTERNIC hostmaster@internic.net\nAPNIC hostmaster@apnic.net\nRIPE NCC ncc@ripe.net\n\nThe policy concerns involved when a new top-level domain is\nestablished are described in the following. Also mentioned are\nconcerns raised when it is necessary to change the delegation of an\nestablished domain from one party to another.\n\nA new top-level domain is usually created and its management\ndelegated to a \"designated manager\" all at once.\n\nMost of these same concerns are relevant when a sub-domain is\ndelegated and in general the principles described here apply\nrecursively to all delegations of the Internet DNS name space.\n\nThe major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is\nthat it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have\nthe ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job.\n\n1) The key requirement is that for each domain there be a designated\nmanager for supervising that domain's name space. In the case of\ntop-level domains that are country codes this means that there is\na manager that supervises the domain names and operates the domain\nname system in that country.\n\nThe manager must, of course, be on the Internet. There must be\nInternet Protocol (IP) connectivity to the nameservers and email\nconnectivity to the management and staff of the manager.", "char_start": 6458, "char_end": 8378, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 303}}, {"segment_id": "a368c549-9289-4c53-856e-2a336a086fca", "document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "ordinal": 4, "text": "There must be an administrative contact and a technical contact\nfor each domain. For top-level domains that are country codes at\nleast the administrative contact must reside in the country\ninvolved.\n\n2) These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated\ndomain, and have a duty to serve the community.\n\nThe designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for\nboth the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global\nInternet community.\nPostel [Page 4]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\nConcerns about \"rights\" and \"ownership\" of domains are\ninappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about\n\"responsibilities\" and \"service\" to the community.\n\n3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the\ndomain that request domain names.\n\nThis means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all\nrequests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and\nacademic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal\nbasis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come\nfrom customers of some other business related to the manager --\ne.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data\nnetwork provider. There can be no requirement that a particular\nmail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used.\n\nThere are no requirements on subdomains of top-level domains\nbeyond the requirements on higher-level domains themselves. That\nis, the requirements in this memo are applied recursively. In\nparticular, all subdomains shall be allowed to operate their own\ndomain name servers, providing in them whatever information the\nsubdomain manager sees fit (as long as it is true and correct).\n\n4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that\nthe designated manager is the appropriate party.", "char_start": 8380, "char_end": 10198, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 286}}, {"segment_id": "06e2217a-9781-43c5-bc94-9b9b78c44890", "document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "ordinal": 5, "text": "The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement\namong themselves, and generally takes no action to change things\nunless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the\ndesignated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA\nstep in.\n\nHowever, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have\nsome voice in selecting the designated manager.\n\nThere are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may\nestablish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of\nit: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the\napplying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole\ncountry. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a\ncountry is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a\ncountry -- this is sometimes called a \"proxy\" DNS service.\n\nThe Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee\nestablished by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in\nwhich the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The\nIDNB's decisions will be binding.\nPostel [Page 5]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\n5) The designated manager must do a satisfactory job of operating the\nDNS service for the domain.\n\nThat is, the actual management of the assigning of domain names,\ndelegating subdomains and operating nameservers must be done with\ntechnical competence. This includes keeping the central IR (in\nthe case of top-level domains) or other higher-level domain\nmanager advised of the status of the domain, responding to\nrequests in a timely manner, and operating the database with\naccuracy, robustness, and resilience.\n\nThere must be a primary and a secondary nameserver that have IP\nconnectivity to the Internet and can be easily checked for\noperational status and database accuracy by the IR and the IANA.", "char_start": 10200, "char_end": 12019, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 300}}, {"segment_id": "a3144d4f-93c9-4a85-9a25-519ea915439d", "document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "ordinal": 6, "text": "In cases when there are persistent problems with the proper\noperation of a domain, the delegation may be revoked, and possibly\ndelegated to another designated manager.\n\n6) For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one\norganization to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA\nin the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from\nboth the old organization and the new organization that assure the\nIANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new\norganization understands its responsibilities.\n\nIt is also very helpful for the IANA to receive communications\nfrom other parties that may be concerned or affected by the\ntransfer.\n4\n. Rights to Names\n1) Names and Trademarks\n\nIn case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the\nrights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have\nno role or responsibility other than to provide the contact\ninformation to both parties.\n\nThe registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark\nstatus. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating\nanyone else's Trademark.\n\n2) Country Codes\n\nThe IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is\nnot a country.\nPostel [Page 6]\nRFC 1591\nDomain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994\nThe selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code\ntop-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a\nprocedure for determining which entities should be and should not\nbe on that list.\n5\n. Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\n6\n. Acknowledgements\nMany people have made comments on draft version of these descriptions\nand procedures. Steve Goldstein and John Klensin have been\nparticularly helpful.\n7\n. Author's Address\nJon Postel\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute\n4676 Admiralty Way\nMarina del Rey, CA 90292", "char_start": 12021, "char_end": 13864, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 304}}, {"segment_id": "69e60a8a-e6ed-490a-9d04-371884ea01ca", "document_id": "787adc5b-cd37-4bed-9866-fb54d53f312a", "ordinal": 7, "text": "Phone: 310-822-1511\nFax: 310-823-6714\nEMail: Postel@ISI.EDU\n7\n. References\n[\n1\n] Cooper, A., and J. Postel, \"The US Domain\",\nRFC 1480\n,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, June 1993.\n\n[\n2\n] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\", STD 2,\nRFC 1340\n,\nUSC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.\n\n[\n3\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities\", STD\n13,\nRFC 1034\n, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987.\n\n[\n4\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Implementation and\nSpecification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, USC/Information Sciences\nInstitute, November 1987.\n\n[\n6\n] Partridge, C., \"Mail Routing and the Domain System\", STD 14,\nRFC\n974\n, CSNET CIC BBN, January 1986.\n\n[\n7\n] Braden, R., Editor, \"Requirements for Internet Hosts --\nApplication and Support\", STD 3,\nRFC 1123\n, Internet Engineering\nTask Force, October 1989.\n\nPostel [Page 7]\nRFC\n1591\n: Domain Name System Structure and Delegation\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names\n3. The Administration of Delegated Domains\n4. Rights to Names\n5. Security Considerations\n6. Acknowledgements\n7. Author's Address\n7. References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 13866, "char_end": 15318, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 227}}], "published_at": "1994-03-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1994-03-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 1591 ISI\nCategory: Informational March 1994", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "790489d7-b951-4324-bf92-250125e093e1", "source_id": "9b5080aeb73452faa6c1d459", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/dataprotectionprivacy", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/dataprotectionprivacy", "artifact_sha256": "05498f5819d1f67697bedc48e3ec39cd1e3118c2e740dc642e9f7423d86e372a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 77579, "title": "Data Protection and Privacy - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 15432, "characters": 15432, "text": "Data Protection and Privacy - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nData Protection and Privacy\nAs privacy legislation continues to evolve, ICANN has been focused on implementing policies and building systems to facilitate access to registration data related to generic top-level domains (gTLDs), while at the same time complying with the law. The ongoing goal is to strike a balance between securing individual privacy rights and maintaining the safety and security of the Internet.\nSome of the key priorities are:\nTo create and maintain a collaborative platform that provides visibility and clarity over ICANN org's data protection and privacy-related initiatives and projects, and allows for the formation and execution of a centralized strategy; and\nTo establish a structure to aggregate information as it relates to the various data protection and privacy initiatives.\nTable of Contents:\nLatest Announcements, Updates, and Blogs\nRelated Correspondence\nMeetings and Work Sessions\nGovernment Engagement\nLegislative Initiatives\nICANN and the EU's GDPR\nOther Initiatives\nICANN Organization Internal Data Protection Practices\nResources for More Information\nLatest Announcements, Updates, and Blogs\nFind the latest news and information about Data Protection and Privacy\nhere\n.\nRelated Correspondence\nAll correspondence related to Data Protection / Privacy issues can be found\nhere\n.\nMeetings and Work Sessions\nAll meetings related to Data Protection and Privacy issues can be found\nhere\n.\nGovernment Engagement\nICANN org participates in a range of forums and engages with a variety of stakeholders on issues relating to ICANN's mission. The org's engagement strategy is two-pronged: 1) focusing on raising awareness, including of privacy-related aspects of ICANN's work, such as WHOIS and associated procedures; and 2) focusing on capacity development and educating local participants on Internet policymaking, technical coordination, and implementation.\nICANN org continues to meet with data protection agencies within relevant government bodies around the world to gain a better understanding of how privacy legislation, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) in China, relates to the work of ICANN org and to its contracts with registries and registrars. This includes both monitoring for legislation, such as the European Union Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems (NIS2), and providing policy makers with factual information on ICANN's mission and remit. ICANN also follows developments in international law possibly affecting gTLDs, such as the negotiation and agreement of the second additional protocol to the Budapest convention.\nLegislative Initiatives\nEuropean Union (EU) GDPR -\nThe\nGDPR\nwas adopted by the EU on 14 April 2016 and took effect on 25 May 2018 uniformly across the EU countries. ICANN organization executives, subject matter experts from various departments, and Board members are guiding the organization's activities related to the GDPR. More information can be found\nhere\n.\nEU NIS2 -\nThe revision of the Directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union (NIS2) was adopted in November 2022. EU Member states will have 21 months from the entry into force of the directive in which to incorporate the provisions into their national law. The NIS2 directive imposes cybersecurity measures and cyber incident related reporting obligations to operators of essential and important entities and applies to all providers of DNS services, with the exception of root servers.\nChina Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) -\nMore information can be found here:\nChina's Personal Information Protection Law: A Gentle Reminder\nICANN Advisory: Chinese Privacy Law and Its Impact on Registration Data Disclosure\nOther initiatives\nCouncil of Europe\nThe\nSecond Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime\nand enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence (also known as the Budapest Convention) was approved in November 2021 and opened for signature in May 2022. The protocol contains provisions related to registration data. It applies to countries and entities within those countries that have signed and ratified it.\nICANN Organization Internal Data Protection Practices\nClick\nhere\nfor ICANN org's data protection practices related to use of the content and services available at or through any website operated by ICANN.\nResources for More Information\nFAQ on ICANN Organization's Chief Data Protection Officer Role\nICANN's activities related to\nthe GDPR\nSummary of ICANN Organization's Contractual Compliance Team Data Processing Activities\nEuropean Union Data Protection website\nRegistration Data\nSingle Webpage for ICANN Registration Directory Services/WHOIS-Related Policies and Contract Provisions\nWHOIS History\nView / Download A4 [\nPDF\n, 556 KB, US Legal [\nPDF\n, 560 KB]\nRegistration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)\nICANN Registration Data lookup tool that uses RDAP\nContractual Compliance\nDeveloping Policy at ICANN\nImplementing Policy at ICANN\nSpecific Reviews\nBoard Advice\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "99476242-edca-4f25-93cf-91552579f76a", "document_id": "790489d7-b951-4324-bf92-250125e093e1", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Data Protection and Privacy - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nData Protection and Privacy\nAs privacy legislation continues to evolve, ICANN has been focused on implementing policies and building systems to facilitate access to registration data related to generic top-level domains (gTLDs), while at the same time complying with the law. The ongoing goal is to strike a balance between securing individual privacy rights and maintaining the safety and security of the Internet.\nSome of the key priorities are:\nTo create and maintain a collaborative platform that provides visibility and clarity over ICANN org's data protection and privacy-related initiatives and projects, and allows for the formation and execution of a centralized strategy; and\nTo establish a structure to aggregate information as it relates to the various data protection and privacy initiatives.\nTable of Contents:\nLatest Announcements, Updates, and Blogs\nRelated Correspondence\nMeetings and Work Sessions\nGovernment Engagement\nLegislative Initiatives\nICANN and the EU's GDPR\nOther Initiatives\nICANN Organization Internal Data Protection Practices\nResources for More Information\nLatest Announcements, Updates, and Blogs\nFind the latest news and information about Data Protection and Privacy\nhere\n.\nRelated Correspondence\nAll correspondence related to Data Protection / Privacy issues can be found\nhere\n.\nMeetings and Work Sessions\nAll meetings related to Data Protection and Privacy issues can be found\nhere\n.\nGovernment Engagement\nICANN org participates in a range of forums and engages with a variety of stakeholders on issues relating to ICANN's mission. The org's engagement strategy is two-pronged: 1) focusing on raising awareness, including of privacy-related aspects of ICANN's work, such as WHOIS and associated procedures; and 2) focusing on capacity development and educating local participants on Internet policymaking, technical coordination, and implementation.\nICANN org continues to meet with data protection agencies within relevant government bodies around the world to gain a better understanding of how privacy legislation, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) in China, relates to the work of ICANN org and to its contracts with registries and registrars. This includes both monitoring for legislation, such as the European Union Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems (NIS2), and providing policy makers with factual information on ICANN's mission and remit. ICANN also follows developments in international law possibly affecting gTLDs, such as the negotiation and agreement of the second additional protocol to the Budapest convention.\nLegislative Initiatives\nEuropean Union (EU) GDPR -\nThe\nGDPR\nwas adopted by the EU on 14 April 2016 and took effect on 25 May 2018 uniformly across the EU countries. ICANN organization executives, subject matter experts from various departments, and Board members are guiding the organization's activities related to the GDPR. More information can be found\nhere\n.\nEU NIS2 -\nThe revision of the Directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union (NIS2) was adopted in November 2022. EU Member states will have 21 months from the entry into force of the directive in which to incorporate the provisions into their national law. The NIS2 directive imposes cybersecurity measures and cyber incident related reporting obligations to operators of essential and important entities and applies to all providers of DNS services, with the exception of root servers.\nChina Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) -\nMore information can be found here:\nChina's Personal Information Protection Law: A Gentle Reminder\nICANN Advisory: Chinese Privacy Law and Its Impact on Registration Data Disclosure\nOther initiatives\nCouncil of Europe\nThe\nSecond Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime\nand enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence (also known as the Budapest Convention) was approved in November 2021 and opened for signature in May 2022. The protocol contains provisions related to registration data. It applies to countries and entities within those countries that have signed and ratified it.\nICANN Organization Internal Data Protection Practices\nClick\nhere\nfor ICANN org's data protection practices related to use of the content and services available at or through any website operated by ICANN.\nResources for More Information\nFAQ on ICANN Organization's Chief Data Protection Officer Role\nICANN's activities related to\nthe GDPR\nSummary of ICANN Organization's Contractual Compliance Team Data Processing Activities\nEuropean Union Data Protection website\nRegistration Data\nSingle Webpage for ICANN Registration Directory Services/WHOIS-Related Policies and Contract Provisions\nWHOIS History\nView / Download A4 [\nPDF\n, 556 KB, US Legal [\nPDF\n, 560 KB]\nRegistration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)\nICANN Registration Data lookup tool that uses RDAP\nContractual Compliance\nDeveloping Policy at ICANN\nImplementing Policy at ICANN\nSpecific Reviews\nBoard Advice\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 15432, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 11, "word_count": 2123}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "7a180755-7b54-4eda-a3bf-baf0082293f4", "source_id": "131cad33f3e9b2f2bbe6ba00", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/basic/about.html", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/basic/about.html", "artifact_sha256": "eeeb2a880e1395f817701dc95b0a31dfe39ccd6033d822d6346e2d4c6abc4d18", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 13259, "title": "World Summit on the Information Society : About WSIS", "language": null, "text_length": 4158, "characters": 4158, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society : About WSIS\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nBASIC INFORMATION : ABOUT\nWSIS\nOverview\nThe UN General Assembly\nResolution 56/183\n(21 December 2001) endorsed the\nholding of the\nWorld Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)\nin two phases. The\nfirst phase\ntook place in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003\nand the second phase took place in Tunis, from 16 to 18 November 2005.\nGeneva Phase: 10-12 December 2003\nThe\nobjective of the first phase was to develop and foster a clear\nstatement of political will and take concrete steps to establish\nthe foundations for an Information Society for all, reflecting\nall the different interests at stake.\nNearly 50 Heads of state/government and Vice-Presidents, 82 Ministers, and\n26 Vice-Ministers from 175 countries as well as high-level representatives from\ninternational organizations, private sector, and civil society\nattended the Geneva Phase of WSIS and gave political support to the\nGeneva Declaration of Principles and\nGeneva Plan of Action\nthat were adopted on 12 December 2003.\nMore than 11,000 participants from\n175 countries\nattended the Summit and related events.\nFull texts of\nthe Geneva\nDeclaration of Principles and Geneva Plan of Action\nMore on the first phase of WSIS\nTunis Phase: 16-18 November 2005\nThe\nobjective of the second phase was to put Geneva's Plan of Action\ninto motion as well as to find solutions and reach agreements in the fields\nof Internet governance, financing mechanisms, and follow-up and\nimplementation of the Geneva and Tunis documents.\nNearly 50 Heads of state/government and Vice-Presidents and 197\nMinisters, Vice Ministers and Deputy Ministers from 174 countries as well as high-level representatives from\ninternational organizations, private sector, and civil society\nattended the Tunis Phase of WSIS and gave political support to the\nTunis\nCommitment and Tunis Agenda for the Information Society\nthat were adopted on 18\nNovember 2005.\nMore than 19,000 participants from\n174 countries\nattended the Summit and related events.\nFull texts of\nthe Tunis Commitment and Tunis Agenda for the Information Society\nMore on the second phase of WSIS\nBackground and Organization\nWhat is a UN Summit?\nWhy a Summit on the\n'Information Society'\nBackground and origins of WSIS\nPreparatory Process\nTaken individually, each phase of the Summit marked the culmination of many months of consultations\nand negotiations among Member States, UN experts, the private sector, and non-governmental representatives, who\nreviewed vast amounts of information and shared a broad spectrum of experiences in\nissues related to the Information Society. These consultations and negotiations\ntook place prior to the Summit itself and constituted the\nPreparatory Process\n.\nMore on the Preparatory Process\nOrganization\nA\nHigh-Level Summit Organizing Committee (HLSOC)\nwas\nestablished under the patronage of Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General. Its\npurpose was to coordinate the efforts of the international United Nations\nfamily in the preparation, organization and holding of WSIS. The UN agency\nholding the leading role in the organization of the Summit was the\nInternational\nTelecommunication Union (ITU)\n, based in Geneva (Switzerland). An\nExecutive\nSecretariat (WSIS-ES)\nbased at the ITU\nheadquarters was established under the authority of the HLSOC\nto assist in the preparation of the Summit. The\nhost countries\n, Switzerland and Tunisia,\nalso established Executive Secretariats.\nMore on HLSOC, WSIS-ES, ITU, and host\ncountry Executive Secretariats and their respective roles\nFunding and financial support for\nWSIS\nParticipation\nWSIS, while recommending representation from governments at the highest level\nalso\ninvited participation of all relevant UN bodies and other international organizations,\nnon-governmental organizations, private sector, civil society, and media to establish a truly\nmulti-stakeholder process\n.\nMore on participation\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2015\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2006-01-17", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f649aad5-cbba-4f6c-822e-e7e6f315f402", "document_id": "7a180755-7b54-4eda-a3bf-baf0082293f4", "ordinal": 0, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society : About WSIS\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nBASIC INFORMATION : ABOUT\nWSIS\nOverview\nThe UN General Assembly\nResolution 56/183\n(21 December 2001) endorsed the\nholding of the\nWorld Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)\nin two phases. The\nfirst phase\ntook place in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003\nand the second phase took place in Tunis, from 16 to 18 November 2005.\nGeneva Phase: 10-12 December 2003\nThe\nobjective of the first phase was to develop and foster a clear\nstatement of political will and take concrete steps to establish\nthe foundations for an Information Society for all, reflecting\nall the different interests at stake.\nNearly 50 Heads of state/government and Vice-Presidents, 82 Ministers, and\n26 Vice-Ministers from 175 countries as well as high-level representatives from\ninternational organizations, private sector, and civil society\nattended the Geneva Phase of WSIS and gave political support to the\nGeneva Declaration of Principles and\nGeneva Plan of Action\nthat were adopted on 12 December 2003.\nMore than 11,000 participants from\n175 countries\nattended the Summit and related events.\nFull texts of\nthe Geneva\nDeclaration of Principles and Geneva Plan of Action\nMore on the first phase of WSIS\nTunis Phase: 16-18 November 2005\nThe\nobjective of the second phase was to put Geneva's Plan of Action\ninto motion as well as to find solutions and reach agreements in the fields\nof Internet governance, financing mechanisms, and follow-up and\nimplementation of the Geneva and Tunis documents.\nNearly 50 Heads of state/government and Vice-Presidents and 197\nMinisters, Vice Ministers and Deputy Ministers from 174 countries as well as high-level representatives from\ninternational organizations, private sector, and civil society\nattended the Tunis Phase of WSIS and gave political support to the\nTunis\nCommitment and Tunis Agenda for the Information Society\nthat were adopted on 18\nNovember 2005.\nMore than 19,000 participants from\n174 countries\nattended the Summit and related events.\nFull texts of\nthe Tunis Commitment and Tunis Agenda for the Information Society\nMore on the second phase of WSIS\nBackground and Organization\nWhat is a UN Summit?\nWhy a Summit on the\n'Information Society'\nBackground and origins of WSIS\nPreparatory Process\nTaken individually, each phase of the Summit marked the culmination of many months of consultations\nand negotiations among Member States, UN experts, the private sector, and non-governmental representatives, who\nreviewed vast amounts of information and shared a broad spectrum of experiences in\nissues related to the Information Society. These consultations and negotiations\ntook place prior to the Summit itself and constituted the\nPreparatory Process\n.\nMore on the Preparatory Process\nOrganization\nA\nHigh-Level Summit Organizing Committee (HLSOC)\nwas\nestablished under the patronage of Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General. Its\npurpose was to coordinate the efforts of the international United Nations\nfamily in the preparation, organization and holding of WSIS. The UN agency\nholding the leading role in the organization of the Summit was the\nInternational\nTelecommunication Union (ITU)\n, based in Geneva (Switzerland). An\nExecutive\nSecretariat (WSIS-ES)\nbased at the ITU\nheadquarters was established under the authority of the HLSOC\nto assist in the preparation of the Summit. The\nhost countries\n, Switzerland and Tunisia,\nalso established Executive Secretariats.\nMore on HLSOC, WSIS-ES, ITU, and host\ncountry Executive Secretariats and their respective roles\nFunding and financial support for\nWSIS\nParticipation\nWSIS, while recommending representation from governments at the highest level\nalso\ninvited participation of all relevant UN bodies and other international organizations,\nnon-governmental organizations, private sector, civil society, and media to establish a truly\nmulti-stakeholder process\n.\nMore on participation\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2015\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2006-01-17", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4158, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 638}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "7be2037d-80f1-4441-8a13-493d8558f810", "source_id": "7ab0653adb62b5673c269254", "source": "ARIN", "source_url": "https://www.arin.net/", "final_url": "https://www.arin.net/", "artifact_sha256": "9b3455676a4915ed4c1d98e9a4acc598eec6bdcfba17bc43c30bb6e2835fe8f6", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 29572, "title": "American Registry for Internet Numbers", "language": "en-us", "text_length": 4765, "characters": 4765, "text": "American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nARIN is a nonprofit, member-based organization that administers IP addresses & ASNs in support of the operation and growth of the Internet.\nYour IP\naddress is\nAbout ARIN\nRequest IP Addresses & ASNs\nTransfers\nIPv6 Info\nRouting Security\nAnnouncements\nMeetings/Events\nARIN on the Road is heading to Jacksonville, Florida!\nTue, 04 Aug 2026\nGovernance\nASO AC Delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nTue, 28 Jul 2026\nService Update\nNew Features Added to ARIN Online\nTue, 28 Jul 2026\nARIN\nARIN’s IPv6 Fee Waiver expires 31 December 2026\nThu, 09 Jul 2026\nInternet Number Resources\nIPv4 Waiting List Distribution\nThu, 02 Jul 2026\nElections\nPublication of Received Nominations\nThu, 25 Jun 2026\n»\nView Archive\nEvents\nEducation. Policy. Discussion.\nARIN Meetings and Events are an important part of our open, transparent, bottom-up processes.\nUpcoming ARIN Events\nEvent\nLocation\nDate\nARIN on the Road: Jacksonville\nJacksonville, FL\n17 September 2026\nARIN 58\nMiami, Florida\n22–23 October 2026\nARIN 59\nCleveland, Ohio\n11–14 April 2027\nARIN 60\nNew Orleans, Louisiana\n21–22 October 2027\n»\nView all\nRecent Blog Posts\nVisit\nARIN’s blog homepage\nfor more.\nThe State of IPv6 in the Caribbean\n7 Aug 2026\nIt's time for our annual update on who’s leading the charge for IPv6 adoption in the Caribbean, featuring new leaders and new lessons emerging from this year’s data.\nYour Number Resource Record Is a Part of the Internet's Infrastructure — Respect It Like One\n5 Aug 2026\nLegacy IPv4 Internet number resource holders: Is your registration data still doing its job? Nearly half of ARIN's legacy networks have no validated Point of Contact. Find out why that matters, and how to fix it in minutes.\nDon’t Get Your Wires Crossed: Appropriate Use Cases for IPv6-Only vs. IPv6-Mostly\n21 Jul 2026\nTerms like IPv6-only and IPv6-mostly are a clear example of how IETF terminology often lacks clarity. IPv6 expert Jordi Palet Martínez, explains why the correct use of these terms requires specifying a scope of application.\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ea971b25-a0ce-4afc-8284-2dff370cf01f", "document_id": "7be2037d-80f1-4441-8a13-493d8558f810", "ordinal": 0, "text": "American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nARIN is a nonprofit, member-based organization that administers IP addresses & ASNs in support of the operation and growth of the Internet.\nYour IP\naddress is\nAbout ARIN\nRequest IP Addresses & ASNs\nTransfers\nIPv6 Info\nRouting Security\nAnnouncements\nMeetings/Events\nARIN on the Road is heading to Jacksonville, Florida!\nTue, 04 Aug 2026\nGovernance\nASO AC Delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nTue, 28 Jul 2026\nService Update\nNew Features Added to ARIN Online\nTue, 28 Jul 2026\nARIN\nARIN’s IPv6 Fee Waiver expires 31 December 2026\nThu, 09 Jul 2026\nInternet Number Resources\nIPv4 Waiting List Distribution\nThu, 02 Jul 2026\nElections\nPublication of Received Nominations\nThu, 25 Jun 2026\n»\nView Archive\nEvents\nEducation. Policy. Discussion.\nARIN Meetings and Events are an important part of our open, transparent, bottom-up processes.\nUpcoming ARIN Events\nEvent\nLocation\nDate\nARIN on the Road: Jacksonville\nJacksonville, FL\n17 September 2026\nARIN 58\nMiami, Florida\n22–23 October 2026\nARIN 59\nCleveland, Ohio\n11–14 April 2027\nARIN 60\nNew Orleans, Louisiana\n21–22 October 2027\n»\nView all\nRecent Blog Posts\nVisit\nARIN’s blog homepage\nfor more.\nThe State of IPv6 in the Caribbean\n7 Aug 2026\nIt's time for our annual update on who’s leading the charge for IPv6 adoption in the Caribbean, featuring new leaders and new lessons emerging from this year’s data.\nYour Number Resource Record Is a Part of the Internet's Infrastructure — Respect It Like One\n5 Aug 2026\nLegacy IPv4 Internet number resource holders: Is your registration data still doing its job? Nearly half of ARIN's legacy networks have no validated Point of Contact. Find out why that matters, and how to fix it in minutes.\nDon’t Get Your Wires Crossed: Appropriate Use Cases for IPv6-Only vs. IPv6-Mostly\n21 Jul 2026\nTerms like IPv6-only and IPv6-mostly are a clear example of how IETF terminology often lacks clarity. IPv6 expert Jordi Palet Martínez, explains why the correct use of these terms requires specifying a scope of application.\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4765, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 708}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "8154c08c-aa0e-4801-a7f2-88b65da3ce95", "source_id": "e5b90572bdd0a4ca51be056b", "source": "RIPE", "source_url": "https://www.ripe.net/analyse/", "final_url": "https://www.ripe.net/analyse/", "artifact_sha256": "9a82b16ef42b290c31b8afabce06dbd6fdbdebfca2ac565a6b7b1e9526f0da5b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 126825, "title": "Analyse — RIPE Network Coordination Centre", "language": "en", "text_length": 15008, "characters": 15008, "text": "Analyse — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of data about the Internet including IP addresses, network prefixes, BGP and routing data. Our data can be accessed using our suite of Internet measurement tools.\nRIPE Atlas: Access Real Time Data\nRIPE Atlas can be used to monitor network visibility from thousands of vantage points around the globe, investigate and troubleshoot network issues, check the responsiveness of DNS infrastructure, check IPv6 connectivity, and much more. Learn how network operators, researchers and regular users have benefitted from RIPE Atlas.\nAbout RIPE Atlas\nOur Internet Measurement Tools and Services\nHere is a comprehensive overview of the Internet measurement tools and services offered by the RIPE NCC.\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE Atlas is a global network that measures Internet connectivity and reachability, providing an unprecedented understanding of the state of the Internet in real time.\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIPEstat provides everything you ever wanted to know about IP address space, Autonomous System Numbers, and related information for hostnames and countries in one place.\nRIPEstat\nRouting Information Service (RIS)\nOur Routing Information Service (RIS) collects and stores Internet routing data from several locations around the world.\nRIS\nRIPE IPmap\nRIPE IPmap is an API that maps core Internet infrastructure by providing geolocation data for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), transit providers, and routers within autonomous systems.\nRIPE IPmap\nRIS Live\nRIS Live is a feed that offers BGP messages in real-time. It collects information from the RIS Route Collectors (RRCs) and uses a WebSocket JSON API to monitor and detect routing events around the world. A non-interactive full stream (\"firehose\") is also available.\nRIS Live\nDNSMON\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON) is an active measurement service that provides a comprehensive, objective and up-to-date overview of the quality of the service offered by high-level Domain Name System (DNS) servers.\nDNSMON\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nThe IXP Country Jedi provides visualisations of Internet traffic paths (traceroutes) between RIPE Atlas probes located in the same country to answer the following questions:\n\nDo the target paths take out-of-country detours?\nDo we see IXPs in the paths?\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nInternet Traffic Maps\nGet comprehensive insights into Internet measurements and performance data with interactive maps showing DNS root instances, root server performance, RTT to fixed destinations, comparative DNS root RTT and reachability.\nInternet Traffic Maps\nSupport Internet Measurements\nOur suite of tools, including RIPE Atlas, provide invaluable insights that for operators making Internet infrastructure decisions globally.\nAlign your organisation with cutting-edge technological advancements and contribute to the development of tools that are crucial for maintaining the Internet's technical core.\nLearn more about sponsorship\nDNS\nThe RIPE NCC operates two independent DNS services. Both of these are provided by distributed nodes using IPv4 and IPv6 anycast.\nThe first service is K-root, one of the 13 Internet root name servers.\nThe second is Authoritative DNS (AuthDNS), which hosts reverse DNS zones, ripe.net, e164.arpa and some other infrastructure zones, and provides secondary DNS for various ccTLDs.\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nUse Cases and Analyses on RIPE Labs\nDelve into the latest research and analyses, get updates on our services and tools, and share your own experiences and ideas on our community blog.\nRIPE Labs is a trusted source of information for those working toward the good of the Internet. It's a place to showcase and test new tools and prototypes, where experts share analyses and discuss topics relevant to the state of the Internet right now, and where those new to the community can get the resources they need to find their way into the conversation.\nRIPE Labs\nLatest news\nNRO NC Nominations 2026: Call to Fill One Seat\nNRO call for nomination to fill one seat for October 2026.\nPublish Date:\n30 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nRIPE NCC Member Update: July 2026\nRead the monthly RIPE NCC Member Update for July 2026.\nPublish Date:\n29 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nmember update\nASO AC delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nThe Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has delivered Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC.\nPublish Date:\n28 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE NCC Quarterly Sanctions Transparency Report (Q3 2026) Published\nWe have published our third sanctions transparency report of the year.\nPublish Date:\n24 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\nRIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 Published\nThe RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 is now available. This strategy builds upon our existing vision, mission and values and sets the long-term direction for the organisation. The document explains RIPE NCC’s role in the Internet ecosystem, sets out six strategic focus areas for the coming five-year period and the external factors that influence our operating environment.\nPublish Date:\n13 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE 95: Call for Host\nThe RIPE NCC is looking for a host for RIPE 95 that will take place in Madrid at the Meliá Castilla Hotel from 15-19 November 2027.\nPublish Date:\n09 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nView all news\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f7422f61-4061-4ca9-b130-ac229318af2e", "document_id": "8154c08c-aa0e-4801-a7f2-88b65da3ce95", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Analyse — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of data about the Internet including IP addresses, network prefixes, BGP and routing data. Our data can be accessed using our suite of Internet measurement tools.\nRIPE Atlas: Access Real Time Data\nRIPE Atlas can be used to monitor network visibility from thousands of vantage points around the globe, investigate and troubleshoot network issues, check the responsiveness of DNS infrastructure, check IPv6 connectivity, and much more. Learn how network operators, researchers and regular users have benefitted from RIPE Atlas.\nAbout RIPE Atlas\nOur Internet Measurement Tools and Services\nHere is a comprehensive overview of the Internet measurement tools and services offered by the RIPE NCC.\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE Atlas is a global network that measures Internet connectivity and reachability, providing an unprecedented understanding of the state of the Internet in real time.\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIPEstat provides everything you ever wanted to know about IP address space, Autonomous System Numbers, and related information for hostnames and countries in one place.\nRIPEstat\nRouting Information Service (RIS)\nOur Routing Information Service (RIS) collects and stores Internet routing data from several locations around the world.\nRIS\nRIPE IPmap\nRIPE IPmap is an API that maps core Internet infrastructure by providing geolocation data for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), transit providers, and routers within autonomous systems.\nRIPE IPmap\nRIS Live\nRIS Live is a feed that offers BGP messages in real-time. It collects information from the RIS Route Collectors (RRCs) and uses a WebSocket JSON API to monitor and detect routing events around the world. A non-interactive full stream (\"firehose\") is also available.\nRIS Live\nDNSMON\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON) is an active measurement service that provides a comprehensive, objective and up-to-date overview of the quality of the service offered by high-level Domain Name System (DNS) servers.\nDNSMON\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nThe IXP Country Jedi provides visualisations of Internet traffic paths (traceroutes) between RIPE Atlas probes located in the same country to answer the following questions:", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 10407, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1527}}, {"segment_id": "a3a25ac4-b206-41f6-9964-5ba3097d584a", "document_id": "8154c08c-aa0e-4801-a7f2-88b65da3ce95", "ordinal": 1, "text": "Do the target paths take out-of-country detours?\nDo we see IXPs in the paths?\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nInternet Traffic Maps\nGet comprehensive insights into Internet measurements and performance data with interactive maps showing DNS root instances, root server performance, RTT to fixed destinations, comparative DNS root RTT and reachability.\nInternet Traffic Maps\nSupport Internet Measurements\nOur suite of tools, including RIPE Atlas, provide invaluable insights that for operators making Internet infrastructure decisions globally.\nAlign your organisation with cutting-edge technological advancements and contribute to the development of tools that are crucial for maintaining the Internet's technical core.\nLearn more about sponsorship\nDNS\nThe RIPE NCC operates two independent DNS services. Both of these are provided by distributed nodes using IPv4 and IPv6 anycast.\nThe first service is K-root, one of the 13 Internet root name servers.\nThe second is Authoritative DNS (AuthDNS), which hosts reverse DNS zones, ripe.net, e164.arpa and some other infrastructure zones, and provides secondary DNS for various ccTLDs.\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nUse Cases and Analyses on RIPE Labs\nDelve into the latest research and analyses, get updates on our services and tools, and share your own experiences and ideas on our community blog.\nRIPE Labs is a trusted source of information for those working toward the good of the Internet. It's a place to showcase and test new tools and prototypes, where experts share analyses and discuss topics relevant to the state of the Internet right now, and where those new to the community can get the resources they need to find their way into the conversation.\nRIPE Labs\nLatest news\nNRO NC Nominations 2026: Call to Fill One Seat\nNRO call for nomination to fill one seat for October 2026.\nPublish Date:\n30 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nRIPE NCC Member Update: July 2026\nRead the monthly RIPE NCC Member Update for July 2026.\nPublish Date:\n29 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nmember update\nASO AC delivers Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC\nThe Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has delivered Recommended Draft RIR Governance Document to NRO EC.\nPublish Date:\n28 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE NCC Quarterly Sanctions Transparency Report (Q3 2026) Published\nWe have published our third sanctions transparency report of the year.\nPublish Date:\n24 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\nRIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 Published\nThe RIPE NCC Strategy 2027-31 is now available. This strategy builds upon our existing vision, mission and values and sets the long-term direction for the organisation. The document explains RIPE NCC’s role in the Internet ecosystem, sets out six strategic focus areas for the coming five-year period and the external factors that influence our operating environment.\nPublish Date:\n13 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+2\nRIPE 95: Call for Host\nThe RIPE NCC is looking for a host for RIPE 95 that will take place in Madrid at the Meliá Castilla Hotel from 15-19 November 2027.\nPublish Date:\n09 Jul 2026\nThis news item has been tagged with:\nnews\n+1\nView all news\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "char_start": 10409, "char_end": 15008, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 711}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "81826eac-eb02-4864-bce0-c3bf639b5e15", "source_id": "22f1d18bcb2a9b4427819c15", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-brochures-select-publication", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-brochures-select-publication", "artifact_sha256": "f1f76dfbd066c64b31bd0373d905149ac7171c44a0dcffdc561276f081aaf0ee", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 105882, "title": "IGF Brochures and Select Publications | Internet Governance Forum", "language": "en", "text_length": 8680, "characters": 8680, "text": "IGF Brochures and Select Publications | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIGF Brochures & Select Publications\nThis section contains recent\nIGF\nbrochures and selected publications.\nIGF Achievements and Impact\n2005-2025 Brochure\nAs the Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) marks twenty years since its creation, this booklet takes you through the Forum’s journey, impact, and future.\nClick here to get the Brochure\n.\nAbout the Internet Governance Forum\n2025 Brochure\nThis brochure provides background information and an overview of the\nIGF\nprocess, including intersessional work, National and Regional\nIGF\ninitiatives (\nNRIs\n) and its annual meeting.\nClick here to get the Brochure\n.\nInternet Governance Forum: Introduction to NRIs\nNational, Sub-regional, Regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs) Publication\nOver the years, the\nIGF\nhas inspired multistakeholder teams from various countries and regions to launch the national and regional\nIGF\nprocesses, mirroring the procedures and processes of the\nIGF\n. These National and Regional Initiatives (\nNRIs\n) facilitate dialogue and cooperation on Internet policy issues of utmost relevance for their respective communities.\nDownload short version\n|\nDownload long version\n| ​​\nSee translated versions\nIGF Initiatives\nA Toolkit to Assist Communities in Establishing the IGF Initiatives\nThis Toolkit is based on inputs from existing and emerging\nIGF\nInitiatives, and draws on their\nsuggestions for information that describes the basic requirements for an\nIGF\ninitiative to be listed on the\nIGF\nwebsite. It also offers suggestions about organizing structures.\nThe Toolkit stands as an advisory document and is a result of the\nNRIs\ncollaborative process on establishing basic requirements such as adhering to the\nIGF\nprinciples.\nClick here to get the Toolkit in\nE\nnglish\n|\nعربي\n|\n中文\n|\nFrançais\n|\nРусский\n|\nEspañol\n.\nNewcomer's One-pager\nNew to the Internet Governance Forum? Start here!\nThis brochure gives a short introduction to the\nIGF\nand meant to guide newcomers to participate according to what interest them through\nnewcomer's page\n. It's short and meant to be distributed at\nIGF\nevents to attract newcomers.\nClick here to get the Publication\n.\nYouth Engagement at the IGF: Existing Practices\nYouth IGF Initiatives and Other Capacity Development Programmes\nThis document provides a high-level perspective on some\nIGF\nyouth-focused initiatives, and describes some of the existing practices for incorporating youth into Internet-focused discussions that have developed within the broader\nIGF\ncommunity\nClick here to get the Publication\n.\nGuide to Key Digital Policy Issues and Related Processes and Organizations\nToolkit for Parliamentarians\nThis toolkit is intended to provide Members of Parliament (MPs) with an overview of the\nIGF\necosystem and its relevance for parliamentary activities. It also serves to assist MPs navigate several key Internet and digital policy issues as well as related processes and organizations.\nClick here to get the Toolkit\n.\nIGF 2025: Lillestrøm, Norway\nBuilding Digital Governance Together\nThe\nIGF\n2025 Report outlines key highlights of the\nIGF\n2025 process and 20th annual\nIGF\nmeeting. It also contains the thematic messages called Lillestrøm\nIGF\nMessages.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nIGF 2024: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia\nBuilding our Multistakeholder Digital Future\nThe\nIGF\n2024 Report outlines key highlights of the\nIGF\n2024 process and 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting. It also contains the thematic messages called Riyadh\nIGF\nMessages.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nBest Practice Forum on Securing Access to the Internet and Protecting Core Internet Resources in Contexts of Conflict and Crises\n2025 BPF on Cybersecurity Report\nThe Best Practice Forum (\nBPF\n) is an\nIGF\nintersessional activity, providing a platform for community driven discussion on Internet policy issues and sharing of experiences. The\nIGF\n2025\nBPF\nexplores the roles and responsibilities of the multistakeholder Internet community in maintaining civilian access to the Internet and ensuring the protection of the public core of the Internet during times of conflict and crisis.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nLessons, Impact on Global AI Governance, and Multistakeholder Vision for 2026 and Beyond\n2025 PNAI Report\nThis report summarizes the activities of the Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI) in 2025, highlights key outcomes and presents recommendations. In 2025, the PNAI’s primary objective was to develop actionable recommendations on how the\nIGF\ncan maximize its impact as a central, inclusive and bottom-up multistakeholder platform for AI dialogue.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nFrom Knowledge to Implementation: The PNMA's Contribution to WSIS+20 and GDC\n2025 PNMA Report\nDuring the 2025 process, the expansion of advocacy and consolidation of the policy network continued. The PNMA offers itself as a benchmark for the implementation of the GDC’s meaningful access objectives. Moreover, its output report continues to be a public portfolio of knowledge and activities that the PNMA can engage in and contribute to the\nWSIS\n+20 process after the UN renewal and onwards to GDC implementation.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation\n2025 PNIF Report\nBased on the discussions in 2025, the PNIF compiled a set of draft recommendations and shared them for community review. The recommendations are intended to inform and support ongoing and future deliberations on the role of the multistakeholder model in preserving an open, free, and global Internet, within the context of the\nWSIS\n+20 review, the operationalisation of the GDC, and beyond.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a53742d0-45d9-4b96-8dbd-0f8f1b304ce0", "document_id": "81826eac-eb02-4864-bce0-c3bf639b5e15", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IGF Brochures and Select Publications | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIGF Brochures & Select Publications\nThis section contains recent\nIGF\nbrochures and selected publications.\nIGF Achievements and Impact\n2005-2025 Brochure\nAs the Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) marks twenty years since its creation, this booklet takes you through the Forum’s journey, impact, and future.\nClick here to get the Brochure\n.\nAbout the Internet Governance Forum\n2025 Brochure\nThis brochure provides background information and an overview of the\nIGF\nprocess, including intersessional work, National and Regional\nIGF\ninitiatives (\nNRIs\n) and its annual meeting.\nClick here to get the Brochure\n.\nInternet Governance Forum: Introduction to NRIs\nNational, Sub-regional, Regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs) Publication\nOver the years, the\nIGF\nhas inspired multistakeholder teams from various countries and regions to launch the national and regional\nIGF\nprocesses, mirroring the procedures and processes of the\nIGF\n. These National and Regional Initiatives (\nNRIs\n) facilitate dialogue and cooperation on Internet policy issues of utmost relevance for their respective communities.\nDownload short version\n|\nDownload long version\n| ​​\nSee translated versions\nIGF Initiatives\nA Toolkit to Assist Communities in Establishing the IGF Initiatives\nThis Toolkit is based on inputs from existing and emerging\nIGF\nInitiatives, and draws on their\nsuggestions for information that describes the basic requirements for an\nIGF\ninitiative to be listed on the\nIGF\nwebsite. It also offers suggestions about organizing structures.\nThe Toolkit stands as an advisory document and is a result of the\nNRIs\ncollaborative process on establishing basic requirements such as adhering to the\nIGF\nprinciples.\nClick here to get the Toolkit in\nE\nnglish\n|\nعربي\n|\n中文\n|\nFrançais\n|\nРусский\n|\nEspañol\n.\nNewcomer's One-pager\nNew to the Internet Governance Forum? Start here!\nThis brochure gives a short introduction to the\nIGF\nand meant to guide newcomers to participate according to what interest them through\nnewcomer's page\n. It's short and meant to be distributed at\nIGF\nevents to attract newcomers.\nClick here to get the Publication\n.\nYouth Engagement at the IGF: Existing Practices\nYouth IGF Initiatives and Other Capacity Development Programmes\nThis document provides a high-level perspective on some\nIGF\nyouth-focused initiatives, and describes some of the existing practices for incorporating youth into Internet-focused discussions that have developed within the broader\nIGF\ncommunity\nClick here to get the Publication\n.\nGuide to Key Digital Policy Issues and Related Processes and Organizations\nToolkit for Parliamentarians\nThis toolkit is intended to provide Members of Parliament (MPs) with an overview of the\nIGF\necosystem and its relevance for parliamentary activities. It also serves to assist MPs navigate several key Internet and digital policy issues as well as related processes and organizations.\nClick here to get the Toolkit\n.\nIGF 2025: Lillestrøm, Norway\nBuilding Digital Governance Together\nThe\nIGF\n2025 Report outlines key highlights of the\nIGF\n2025 process and 20th annual\nIGF\nmeeting. It also contains the thematic messages called Lillestrøm\nIGF\nMessages.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nIGF 2024: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia\nBuilding our Multistakeholder Digital Future\nThe\nIGF\n2024 Report outlines key highlights of the\nIGF\n2024 process and 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting. It also contains the thematic messages called Riyadh\nIGF\nMessages.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nBest Practice Forum on Securing Access to the Internet and Protecting Core Internet Resources in Contexts of Conflict and Crises\n2025 BPF on Cybersecurity Report\nThe Best Practice Forum (\nBPF\n) is an\nIGF\nintersessional activity, providing a platform for community driven discussion on Internet policy issues and sharing of experiences. The\nIGF\n2025\nBPF\nexplores the roles and responsibilities of the multistakeholder Internet community in maintaining civilian access to the Internet and ensuring the protection of the public core of the Internet during times of conflict and crisis.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nLessons, Impact on Global AI Governance, and Multistakeholder Vision for 2026 and Beyond\n2025 PNAI Report\nThis report summarizes the activities of the Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI) in 2025, highlights key outcomes and presents recommendations. In 2025, the PNAI’s primary objective was to develop actionable recommendations on how the\nIGF\ncan maximize its impact as a central, inclusive and bottom-up multistakeholder platform for AI dialogue.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nFrom Knowledge to Implementation: The PNMA's Contribution to WSIS+20 and GDC\n2025 PNMA Report\nDuring the 2025 process, the expansion of advocacy and consolidation of the policy network continued. The PNMA offers itself as a benchmark for the implementation of the GDC’s meaningful access objectives. Moreover, its output report continues to be a public portfolio of knowledge and activities that the PNMA can engage in and contribute to the\nWSIS\n+20 process after the UN renewal and onwards to GDC implementation.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation\n2025 PNIF Report\nBased on the discussions in 2025, the PNIF compiled a set of draft recommendations and shared them for community review. The recommendations are intended to inform and support ongoing and future deliberations on the role of the multistakeholder model in preserving an open, free, and global Internet, within the context of the\nWSIS\n+20 review, the operationalisation of the GDC, and beyond.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 8680, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 7, "word_count": 1339}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "8262e1db-e1df-4f5a-a160-c7bd131a7cf2", "source_id": "54419dfe34e5f57c9ba8b42a", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/public-comments", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment", "artifact_sha256": "8f51fbd0f1c452789359759ccc6b1c3c2337794b261e0532293851ddf2f49723", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 303528, "title": "Public Comment", "language": "en", "text_length": 4764, "characters": 4764, "text": "Public Comment\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nPublic Comment\nICANN org publishes information about Upcoming Proceedings, Open Proceedings, Submissions, and Summary Reports. You can also search and review Closed Proceedings. Proceedings are open for a minimum of 40 days with exceptions as documented in the ICANN Bylaws or ICANN community operational procedures. All dates and times are based on UTC, and Open Proceedings close at 23:59 UTC.\nOpen Proceedings\nProceedings\nSubmissions\nClose Date\nProposed Implementation of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Recommendations\nShow description\n7\n10 Aug 2026\nClosing Today\nPending Reports\nProceedings\nSubmissions\nReport Due\nAdditional Reference Label Generation Rules and Related Updates\nShow description\n34\n13 Aug 2026\nReview of Reviews Draft Report\nShow description\n21\n18 Aug 2026\nIRP-IOT – Proposed updates to the IRP Supplementary Procedures\nShow description\n9\n1 Sep 2026\nUpcoming Proceedings\nProceedings\nEstimated Timeframe\nInitial Report of the TSG on gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems\nShow description\nAug 2026\nDNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Initial Report\nShow description\nSep 2026\nSee All Upcoming Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nSearch for Closed Public Comment Proceedings, and their respective Summary Reports and Submissions by clicking the Search Closed Proceedings button below.\nSearch Closed Proceedings\nRecent Submissions\nPhilip Busca\nSubmitted on\nProposed Implementation of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Recommendations\nRead more\nLeap of Faith Financial Services Inc.\nSubmitted on\nProposed Implementation of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Recommendations\nRead more\nRon Jackson\nSubmitted on\nProposed Implementation of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Recommendations\nRead more\nRecent Reports\nPublic Comment Summary Report Proposed Language for the Draft CPE Evaluation Guide\n(pdf, 146.14 KB)\nPublic Comment Summary Report Draft Guidelines for Advancing UA Adoption\n(pdf, 236.82 KB)\nPublic Comment Summary Report Proposed Root KSK Algorithm Rollover\n(pdf, 157.3 KB)\nHow Public Comment Works\nThe ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN org can open a proceeding, outlining specific issues for feedback. Stakeholders provide opinions and recommendations, and their submissions are public.\nLearn More\nHow to Provide Input\nInterested in making a submission? You need to create or log in to ICANN Account to make submissions. Read our guide to learn more.\nDownload Guide\nICANN Expected Standards of Behavior\nSubmissions must adhere to the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.\nICANN Expected Standards of Behavior\nICANN Terms of Service\nSubmissions are subject to the ICANN Terms of Service. All submissions are captured and displayed for each proceeding and are visible by the public.\nICANN Terms of Service\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "bd9b79ec-40ce-442a-a7bd-21ea7d2a5489", "document_id": "8262e1db-e1df-4f5a-a160-c7bd131a7cf2", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Public Comment\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nPublic Comment\nICANN org publishes information about Upcoming Proceedings, Open Proceedings, Submissions, and Summary Reports. You can also search and review Closed Proceedings. Proceedings are open for a minimum of 40 days with exceptions as documented in the ICANN Bylaws or ICANN community operational procedures. All dates and times are based on UTC, and Open Proceedings close at 23:59 UTC.\nOpen Proceedings\nProceedings\nSubmissions\nClose Date\nProposed Implementation of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Recommendations\nShow description\n7\n10 Aug 2026\nClosing Today\nPending Reports\nProceedings\nSubmissions\nReport Due\nAdditional Reference Label Generation Rules and Related Updates\nShow description\n34\n13 Aug 2026\nReview of Reviews Draft Report\nShow description\n21\n18 Aug 2026\nIRP-IOT – Proposed updates to the IRP Supplementary Procedures\nShow description\n9\n1 Sep 2026\nUpcoming Proceedings\nProceedings\nEstimated Timeframe\nInitial Report of the TSG on gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems\nShow description\nAug 2026\nDNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Initial Report\nShow description\nSep 2026\nSee All Upcoming Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nSearch for Closed Public Comment Proceedings, and their respective Summary Reports and Submissions by clicking the Search Closed Proceedings button below.\nSearch Closed Proceedings\nRecent Submissions\nPhilip Busca\nSubmitted on\nProposed Implementation of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Recommendations\nRead more\nLeap of Faith Financial Services Inc.\nSubmitted on\nProposed Implementation of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Recommendations\nRead more\nRon Jackson\nSubmitted on\nProposed Implementation of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Recommendations\nRead more\nRecent Reports\nPublic Comment Summary Report Proposed Language for the Draft CPE Evaluation Guide\n(pdf, 146.14 KB)\nPublic Comment Summary Report Draft Guidelines for Advancing UA Adoption\n(pdf, 236.82 KB)\nPublic Comment Summary Report Proposed Root KSK Algorithm Rollover\n(pdf, 157.3 KB)\nHow Public Comment Works\nThe ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN org can open a proceeding, outlining specific issues for feedback. Stakeholders provide opinions and recommendations, and their submissions are public.\nLearn More\nHow to Provide Input\nInterested in making a submission? You need to create or log in to ICANN Account to make submissions. Read our guide to learn more.\nDownload Guide\nICANN Expected Standards of Behavior\nSubmissions must adhere to the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.\nICANN Expected Standards of Behavior\nICANN Terms of Service\nSubmissions are subject to the ICANN Terms of Service. All submissions are captured and displayed for each proceeding and are visible by the public.\nICANN Terms of Service\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4764, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 676}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "8396c79f-7d21-4982-b5b2-ddfe20c4a4d3", "source_id": "9402f8f9ec59755dac89938f", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.ietf.org/topics/", "final_url": "https://www.ietf.org/technologies/", "artifact_sha256": "1e09c77c831634077c6dc71b53ff71793a6db27325d7cc024e3fd24c43ce8378", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 81796, "title": "IETF  | Technologies", "language": "en", "text_length": 6205, "characters": 6205, "text": "IETF | Technologies\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nAutomated network management\nAs the individual networks that make up the Internet become larger and more complex, IETF standards help make operating and managing them easier and more efficient.\nThe Internet of Things\nThe Internet of Things is the network of physical objects or \"things\" embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and connectivity to enable objects to exchange data with the manufacturer, operator and/or other connected devices.\nNew transport technology\nThe development of new transport technologies in the IETF provides capabilities that improve the ability of Internet applications to send data over the Internet.\nSecurity & privacy\nTrust by users in security and privacy on the Internet is a critical part of its success. A range of components, including robust implementations, careful deployment, and appropriate use of security technologies, is required to create a trusted Internet.\nIETF Areas\nThe IETF divides its work into a number of Areas, each comprised of working groups that relate to that Area's focus.\nWorking Group keywords\nIETF Working Groups have volunteered key words related to technologies they are working on.\nDomain Name System\nThe IETF and the Domain Name System (DNS) emerged around the same time and in conjunction with one another. The first DNS-related RFC was published in 1983, and the IETF has continued to be intimately involved in the stability and evolution of the DNS.\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "segments": [{"segment_id": "9faf8d72-2f82-432f-be27-58d1995d6c20", "document_id": "8396c79f-7d21-4982-b5b2-ddfe20c4a4d3", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IETF | Technologies\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nAutomated network management\nAs the individual networks that make up the Internet become larger and more complex, IETF standards help make operating and managing them easier and more efficient.\nThe Internet of Things\nThe Internet of Things is the network of physical objects or \"things\" embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and connectivity to enable objects to exchange data with the manufacturer, operator and/or other connected devices.\nNew transport technology\nThe development of new transport technologies in the IETF provides capabilities that improve the ability of Internet applications to send data over the Internet.\nSecurity & privacy\nTrust by users in security and privacy on the Internet is a critical part of its success. A range of components, including robust implementations, careful deployment, and appropriate use of security technologies, is required to create a trusted Internet.\nIETF Areas\nThe IETF divides its work into a number of Areas, each comprised of working groups that relate to that Area's focus.\nWorking Group keywords\nIETF Working Groups have volunteered key words related to technologies they are working on.\nDomain Name System\nThe IETF and the Domain Name System (DNS) emerged around the same time and in conjunction with one another. The first DNS-related RFC was published in 1983, and the IETF has continued to be intimately involved in the stability and evolution of the DNS.\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6205, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 907}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "848fb871-101a-4071-9640-72b1e8bc1873", "source_id": "4aee813e02b53ec5a780380c", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://atlarge.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://atlarge.icann.org/", "artifact_sha256": "f4d90d7cbe969a81e4a13afd94c0a5753415f8a9b127523634ff685c2e9fe107", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 41393, "title": "At-Large Community", "language": "en", "text_length": 8362, "characters": 8362, "text": "At-Large Community\nFollow Us:\nTranslation Tools\nToggle navigation\nABOUT\nPOLICY\nNEWS & EVENTS\nNews\nCalendar\nFeatured Events\nTAKE PART\nGet Involved\nMembership\nALS Application Tracking\nCOMMUNITY\nALAC\nAFRALO\nAPRALO\nEURALO\nLACRALO\nNARALO\nALSes\nIndividual Members\nWe are the At-Large Community\nHelp Us Shape the Internet.\nSearch AtLarge Website\nSearch\nGet Started\nLearn About At-Large\nGet Involved\nFind an Event\nWelcome to the new At-Large Site\nWe hope you enjoy the new experience. This website will continue to evolve. For more information on coming features or to provide feedback, please look\nhere\n.\nPolicy Comments & Advice\nTopics and Policy Working Groups\nThe\nAt-Large Advisory Committee\nparticipates in many activities leading to it issuing including statements, comments, correspondences, proposals, briefings, declarations and formal advice on ICANN policies and issues impacting Internet users.\nTopics\nPolicy Working Groups\nAt-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)\nCo-chaired by\nAvri Doria\nand\nOlivier-Crepin Leblond\n, the CPWG merges together the At-Large Registration Issues Working Group, At-Large New gTLDs Working Group and At-Large ICANN Evolution Working Group. The focus of CPWG is to drive policy comments and advice within the At-Large community, and create best practices for identifying Internet end user issues within ICANN.\nMore working groups\nLatest Comments & Advice\nALAC Statement on Additional Reference Label Generation Rules and Related Updates\nStatus: Submitted 23 Jun 2026\nALAC Statement on the Draft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation\nStatus: Submitted 04 May 2026\nALAC Correspondence: Next Round Applicant Support Program (ASP)\nStatus: Submitted 17 Apr 2026\nALAC Statement on Standard Bylaws Amendment Transition Article on Specific Reviews\"\nStatus: Submitted 13 Apr 2026\nALAC Statement on the Draft Guidelines for Advancing UA Adoption\nStatus: Submitted 13 Apr 2026\nRead more\nPolicy Advice\nRegional Activities\nGlobal Presence\nAt-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual members form the basis of our community representing the interests of internet users worldwide. The five Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) unite our members based on their regions.\nRALOs\nALSes\nArgentina - 11 ALSes\nArmenia - 4 ALSes\nAustralia - 2 ALSes\nAustria - 3 ALSes\nBangladesh - 2 ALSes\nBarbados - 3 ALSes\nBelgium - 2 ALSes\nBenin - 4 ALSes\nBolivia - 2 ALSes\nBrazil - 6 ALSes\nBulgaria - 2 ALSes\nBurkina Faso - 3 ALSes\nCameroon - 3 ALSes\nCanada - 11 ALSes\nChad - 6 ALSes\nChile - 3 ALSes\nChina - 3 ALSes\nColombia - 4 ALSes\nCongo (Dem. Rep.) - 4 ALSes\nCook Islands - 2 ALSes\nCôte D'Ivoire - 4 ALSes\nEcuador - 5 ALSes\nEl Salvador - 3 ALSes\nFiji - 2 ALSes\nFrance - 4 ALSes\nGermany - 6 ALSes\nGhana - 3 ALSes\nHaiti - 2 ALSes\nHong Kong - 3 ALSes\nIndia - 12 ALSes\nJamaica - 3 ALSes\nKenya - 3 ALSes\nLebanon - 3 ALSes\nLiberia - 2 ALSes\nLibya - 3 ALSes\nMadagascar - 2 ALSes\nMalaysia - 2 ALSes\nMali - 4 ALSes\nMexico - 3 ALSes\nMorocco - 3 ALSes\nNepal - 5 ALSes\nNew Zealand - 2 ALSes\nNiger - 2 ALSes\nNigeria - 10 ALSes\nPakistan - 3 ALSes\nPanama - 2 ALSes\nPapua New Guinea - 2 ALSes\nParaguay - 3 ALSes\nPeru - 3 ALSes\nPuerto Rico - 5 ALSes\nSenegal - 4 ALSes\nSpain - 2 ALSes\nTaiwan - 2 ALSes\nTanzania - 3 ALSes\nTogo - 2 ALSes\nTrinidad and Tobago - 3 ALSes\nTunisia - 2 ALSes\nUkraine - 2 ALSes\nUnited Kingdom - 2 ALSes\nUnited States of America - 10 ALSes\nUruguay - 2 ALSes\nVenezuela - 4 ALSes\nYemen - 2 ALSes\nExplore ALSes\nAFRALO\nAPRALO\nEURALO\nLACRALO\nNARALO\nLatest Activities\n27 Oct 2025\nMeet the Recipient of ICANN's 2025 Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building\n26 Oct 2021\nMeet the Recipient of ICANN's 2021 Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building\n7 Oct 2021\nSee NARALO Activities at ICANN72\n7 Oct 2021\nAt-Large @ ICANN72\n6 Oct 2021\nThe ICANN72 Policy Outlook Report is Now Available\n13 Sep 2021\nALAC Unanimously Ratifies the ALAC Minority Statement on EPDP-TempSpec Phase 2A Final Report\n16 Aug 2021\nLearn How You Can Help Build a More Digitally Inclusive Internet\nRead more\nAt-Large News\nWorking Groups\nThe At-Large community operates within three workstreams: Policy, Operations, and Community Engagement. At-Large Working Groups generally operate within one of the three workstreams. Policy Working Groups are dedicated to ICANN policy discussions and advice development activities. Operations Working Groups are focused on issues related to ICANN\nfinance and budget, strategy, and operational initiatives, reviews, internet governance issues,\nreviewing expressions of interest for various ALAC appointments, and planning for ICANN Public Meetings. Community Engagement\nreview requests for mobilization and develop campaigns that will utilize the global At-Large networks.\nAlmost all of our working groups are open to everyone regardless of membership status in At-Large\n.\nICANN is now fielding enrollments through a centralized application called “ICANN Join”, which allows ICANN Account-holders to observe and participate in various community groups across the ICANN ecosystem. Please refer to these\ninstructions\nto learn how to create an ICANN Account and gain access to the ICANN Join application. If a group you are interested in is not yet available on the application, please contact staff@atlarge.icann.org.\nPolicy\nAt-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)\nCo-chaired by\nAvri Doria\nand\nOlivier-Crepin Leblond\n, the CPWG merges together the At-Large Registration Issues Working Group, At-Large New gTLDs Working Group and At-Large ICANN Evolution Working Group. The focus of CPWG is to drive policy comments and advice within the At-Large community, and create best practices for identifying Internet end user issues within ICANN.\nOperations\nALAC Subcommittee on Appointee Selection (AASC)\nReceives and reviews Expressions of Interest (EOI) for various ALAC appointments.\nAt-Large Operations, Finance and Budget Working Group (OFB-WG)\nThe At-Large Operations, Finance and Budget Working Group (OFBWG) is an At-Large Working Group within the Operations section of the At-Large Organization, tasked with preparing statements and requests related to ICANN finance and budget, strategy, and operational initiatives.\nAt-Large ICANN Meeting Planning Committee\nICANN holds meetings three times a year in locations around the world. These meetings constitute an essential part of ICANN's global consensus-development and outreach efforts, so members of the public should join these face-to-face when feasible. The At-Large ICANN Meeting Planning Committee is a collaborative effort with At-Large Support staff to plan and schedule sessions from one ICANN Meeting to the next.\nAt-Large RALO Secretariat Leadership Team\nA group formed to allow for cross-RALO interactions among RALO leaders across topics of Policy, Outreach & Engagement, and Operations.\nCommunity Engagement\nALAC Community Engagement Subcommittee (ACES)\nThe ALAC Community Engagement Subcommittee\n(ACES)\nhas been created to review requests for mobilization and develop campaigns that will utilize the global At-Large networks.\nThis Subcommittee works with the broader At-Large Community to ensure its strategy is implemented successfully.\nFeatured Events\nAt-Large @ ICANN86 Policy Forum\n08 Jun 2026\nCongratulations to Justine Chew for being nominated by the At-Large community to the ICANN Board Seat 15!\n26 Feb 2026\nAt-Large @ ICANN85 Community Forum\n07 Mar 2026\nMore Events\nAbout Us\nAt-Large Structures\nIndividual Members of At-Large\nRoles & Responsibilities of RALOs\nRoles of the ALAC\nStructure of the ALAC\nWhat Does the ALAC Do\nHow ALAC Differs from At-Large\nHow Do I\nBecome An At-Large Member\nParticipate in At-Large Meetings\nSubscribe to Event Calendar\nUse Confluence Community Wiki\nFind Mailing Lists\nParticipate in Vote\nChat with At-Large Members\nStay Connected\nFacebook\nFlickr\nStaff Contact\nCommunity Websites\nICANN\nGNSO\nccNSO\nASO\nGAC\nICANN Acronyms\nWebsite Feedback\nAll Content © ICANN 2019, except where otherwise stated\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nA note about our privacy policies and terms of service:\nWe have updated our privacy policies and certain website terms of service to provide greater transparency, promote simplification, and align with recent changes in privacy laws applicable to us.\nLearn more\n.\nThis site uses cookies to deliver an efficient user experience and to help us see how the site is used.\nLearn more\n.\nOK", "segments": [{"segment_id": "69ba23f8-bbf8-453e-afe7-bacebfd527de", "document_id": "848fb871-101a-4071-9640-72b1e8bc1873", "ordinal": 0, "text": "At-Large Community\nFollow Us:\nTranslation Tools\nToggle navigation\nABOUT\nPOLICY\nNEWS & EVENTS\nNews\nCalendar\nFeatured Events\nTAKE PART\nGet Involved\nMembership\nALS Application Tracking\nCOMMUNITY\nALAC\nAFRALO\nAPRALO\nEURALO\nLACRALO\nNARALO\nALSes\nIndividual Members\nWe are the At-Large Community\nHelp Us Shape the Internet.\nSearch AtLarge Website\nSearch\nGet Started\nLearn About At-Large\nGet Involved\nFind an Event\nWelcome to the new At-Large Site\nWe hope you enjoy the new experience. This website will continue to evolve. For more information on coming features or to provide feedback, please look\nhere\n.\nPolicy Comments & Advice\nTopics and Policy Working Groups\nThe\nAt-Large Advisory Committee\nparticipates in many activities leading to it issuing including statements, comments, correspondences, proposals, briefings, declarations and formal advice on ICANN policies and issues impacting Internet users.\nTopics\nPolicy Working Groups\nAt-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)\nCo-chaired by\nAvri Doria\nand\nOlivier-Crepin Leblond\n, the CPWG merges together the At-Large Registration Issues Working Group, At-Large New gTLDs Working Group and At-Large ICANN Evolution Working Group. The focus of CPWG is to drive policy comments and advice within the At-Large community, and create best practices for identifying Internet end user issues within ICANN.\nMore working groups\nLatest Comments & Advice\nALAC Statement on Additional Reference Label Generation Rules and Related Updates\nStatus: Submitted 23 Jun 2026\nALAC Statement on the Draft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation\nStatus: Submitted 04 May 2026\nALAC Correspondence: Next Round Applicant Support Program (ASP)\nStatus: Submitted 17 Apr 2026\nALAC Statement on Standard Bylaws Amendment Transition Article on Specific Reviews\"\nStatus: Submitted 13 Apr 2026\nALAC Statement on the Draft Guidelines for Advancing UA Adoption\nStatus: Submitted 13 Apr 2026\nRead more\nPolicy Advice\nRegional Activities\nGlobal Presence\nAt-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual members form the basis of our community representing the interests of internet users worldwide. The five Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) unite our members based on their regions.\nRALOs\nALSes\nArgentina - 11 ALSes\nArmenia - 4 ALSes\nAustralia - 2 ALSes\nAustria - 3 ALSes\nBangladesh - 2 ALSes\nBarbados - 3 ALSes\nBelgium - 2 ALSes\nBenin - 4 ALSes\nBolivia - 2 ALSes\nBrazil - 6 ALSes\nBulgaria - 2 ALSes\nBurkina Faso - 3 ALSes\nCameroon - 3 ALSes\nCanada - 11 ALSes\nChad - 6 ALSes\nChile - 3 ALSes\nChina - 3 ALSes\nColombia - 4 ALSes\nCongo (Dem. Rep.) - 4 ALSes\nCook Islands - 2 ALSes\nCôte D'Ivoire - 4 ALSes\nEcuador - 5 ALSes\nEl Salvador - 3 ALSes\nFiji - 2 ALSes\nFrance - 4 ALSes\nGermany - 6 ALSes\nGhana - 3 ALSes\nHaiti - 2 ALSes\nHong Kong - 3 ALSes\nIndia - 12 ALSes\nJamaica - 3 ALSes\nKenya - 3 ALSes\nLebanon - 3 ALSes\nLiberia - 2 ALSes\nLibya - 3 ALSes\nMadagascar - 2 ALSes\nMalaysia - 2 ALSes\nMali - 4 ALSes\nMexico - 3 ALSes\nMorocco - 3 ALSes\nNepal - 5 ALSes\nNew Zealand - 2 ALSes\nNiger - 2 ALSes\nNigeria - 10 ALSes\nPakistan - 3 ALSes\nPanama - 2 ALSes\nPapua New Guinea - 2 ALSes\nParaguay - 3 ALSes\nPeru - 3 ALSes\nPuerto Rico - 5 ALSes\nSenegal - 4 ALSes\nSpain - 2 ALSes\nTaiwan - 2 ALSes\nTanzania - 3 ALSes\nTogo - 2 ALSes\nTrinidad and Tobago - 3 ALSes\nTunisia - 2 ALSes\nUkraine - 2 ALSes\nUnited Kingdom - 2 ALSes\nUnited States of America - 10 ALSes\nUruguay - 2 ALSes\nVenezuela - 4 ALSes\nYemen - 2 ALSes\nExplore ALSes\nAFRALO\nAPRALO\nEURALO\nLACRALO\nNARALO\nLatest Activities\n27 Oct 2025\nMeet the Recipient of ICANN's 2025 Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building\n26 Oct 2021\nMeet the Recipient of ICANN's 2021 Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building\n7 Oct 2021\nSee NARALO Activities at ICANN72\n7 Oct 2021\nAt-Large @ ICANN72\n6 Oct 2021\nThe ICANN72 Policy Outlook Report is Now Available\n13 Sep 2021\nALAC Unanimously Ratifies the ALAC Minority Statement on EPDP-TempSpec Phase 2A Final Report\n16 Aug 2021\nLearn How You Can Help Build a More Digitally Inclusive Internet\nRead more\nAt-Large News\nWorking Groups\nThe At-Large community operates within three workstreams: Policy, Operations, and Community Engagement. At-Large Working Groups generally operate within one of the three workstreams. Policy Working Groups are dedicated to ICANN policy discussions and advice development activities. Operations Working Groups are focused on issues related to ICANN\nfinance and budget, strategy, and operational initiatives, reviews, internet governance issues,\nreviewing expressions of interest for various ALAC appointments, and planning for ICANN Public Meetings. Community Engagement\nreview requests for mobilization and develop campaigns that will utilize the global At-Large networks.\nAlmost all of our working groups are open to everyone regardless of membership status in At-Large\n.\nICANN is now fielding enrollments through a centralized application called “ICANN Join”, which allows ICANN Account-holders to observe and participate in various community groups across the ICANN ecosystem. Please refer to these\ninstructions\nto learn how to create an ICANN Account and gain access to the ICANN Join application. If a group you are interested in is not yet available on the application, please contact staff@atlarge.icann.org.\nPolicy\nAt-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)\nCo-chaired by\nAvri Doria\nand\nOlivier-Crepin Leblond\n, the CPWG merges together the At-Large Registration Issues Working Group, At-Large New gTLDs Working Group and At-Large ICANN Evolution Working Group. The focus of CPWG is to drive policy comments and advice within the At-Large community, and create best practices for identifying Internet end user issues within ICANN.\nOperations\nALAC Subcommittee on Appointee Selection (AASC)\nReceives and reviews Expressions of Interest (EOI) for various ALAC appointments.\nAt-Large Operations, Finance and Budget Working Group (OFB-WG)\nThe At-Large Operations, Finance and Budget Working Group (OFBWG) is an At-Large Working Group within the Operations section of the At-Large Organization, tasked with preparing statements and requests related to ICANN finance and budget, strategy, and operational initiatives.\nAt-Large ICANN Meeting Planning Committee\nICANN holds meetings three times a year in locations around the world. These meetings constitute an essential part of ICANN's global consensus-development and outreach efforts, so members of the public should join these face-to-face when feasible. The At-Large ICANN Meeting Planning Committee is a collaborative effort with At-Large Support staff to plan and schedule sessions from one ICANN Meeting to the next.\nAt-Large RALO Secretariat Leadership Team\nA group formed to allow for cross-RALO interactions among RALO leaders across topics of Policy, Outreach & Engagement, and Operations.\nCommunity Engagement\nALAC Community Engagement Subcommittee (ACES)\nThe ALAC Community Engagement Subcommittee\n(ACES)\nhas been created to review requests for mobilization and develop campaigns that will utilize the global At-Large networks.\nThis Subcommittee works with the broader At-Large Community to ensure its strategy is implemented successfully.\nFeatured Events\nAt-Large @ ICANN86 Policy Forum\n08 Jun 2026\nCongratulations to Justine Chew for being nominated by the At-Large community to the ICANN Board Seat 15!\n26 Feb 2026\nAt-Large @ ICANN85 Community Forum\n07 Mar 2026\nMore Events\nAbout Us\nAt-Large Structures\nIndividual Members of At-Large\nRoles & Responsibilities of RALOs\nRoles of the ALAC\nStructure of the ALAC\nWhat Does the ALAC Do\nHow ALAC Differs from At-Large\nHow Do I\nBecome An At-Large Member\nParticipate in At-Large Meetings\nSubscribe to Event Calendar\nUse Confluence Community Wiki\nFind Mailing Lists\nParticipate in Vote\nChat with At-Large Members\nStay Connected\nFacebook\nFlickr\nStaff Contact\nCommunity Websites\nICANN\nGNSO\nccNSO\nASO\nGAC\nICANN Acronyms\nWebsite Feedback\nAll Content © ICANN 2019, except where otherwise stated\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nA note about our privacy policies and terms of service:\nWe have updated our privacy policies and certain website terms of service to provide greater transparency, promote simplification, and align with recent changes in privacy laws applicable to us.\nLearn more\n.\nThis site uses cookies to deliver an efficient user experience and to help us see how the site is used.\nLearn more\n.\nOK", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 8362, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 7, "word_count": 1327}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "855811da-e6c3-47c1-8626-4b525ab0051c", "source_id": "4c0b07820368ba953b83b2a4", "source": "ISOC", "source_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/policy-briefs/", "final_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/policy-briefs/", "artifact_sha256": "f0400ab57c7b5070ebe76f60277cf926d9f0faee9a0d574897caf2e08ac94289", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 189374, "title": "Policy Briefs - Internet Society", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 5053, "characters": 5053, "text": "Policy Briefs - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nPolicy Briefs\nOur perspective on critical Internet issues, including community-centered connectivity solutions, encryption, online safety, Internet governance, open Internet standards, spectrum policy, and more.\nTopic\nConnectivity\n(6)\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\n(2)\nInternet Exchange Points\n(3)\nHow the Internet Works\n(3)\nInternet Technologies\n(2)\nInternet Way of Networking\n(1)\nOpen Internet Standards\n(3)\nInternet Governance\n(2)\nInternet Policy\n(26)\nRebuilding Trust\n(11)\nPrivacy\n(9)\nSecurity\n(4)\n18 June 2026\nRebuilding Trust\nPolicy Brief: Solving Crime Without Breaking Encryption\nProtecting strong encryption is not an obstacle to public safety, child protection, or crime prevention. It is a prerequisite for all three, and a necessary condition for a secure and trustworthy Internet.\n19 December 2025\nConnectivity\nInternet Exchange Points\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Interconnection and Regulated Traffic Obligations\nThis policy brief examines the growing pressure to regulate the relationships between online services and telecommunications operators.\n4 December 2025\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nRebuilding Trust\nSecurity\nPolicy Brief: Age Restrictions and Online Safety\nWhile often well-intentioned, policies requiring age checks create risks for people’s privacy, security, and access to an open Internet.\n28 November 2025\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Licensing Approaches for Community-Centered Connectivity\nDiscover how community-centered connectivity solutions empower underserved areas. Explore updated licensing options and principles for meaningful connectivity today.\n26 November 2025\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Internet Governance\nThis policy brief explores the key considerations, challenges, and provides guiding principles of multistakeholder Internet governance of openness, inclusiveness, transparency, collaboration, shared responsibility, accountability, consensus-driven and pragmatic evidence-based approaches.\n13 November 2025\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nOpen Internet Standards\nPolicy Brief: Enhancing the Resilience of Submarine Internet Infrastructure\nThis document presents a forward-looking and optimistic approach to enhancing Internet resilience through practical and policy-driven solutions.\n29 October 2025\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Policy\nOpen Internet Standards\nPolicy Brief: Open Internet Standards\nBy actively promoting and formally recognizing open standards in public policy, we can protect the building blocks that enable interoperability, compatibility, and consistency across networks, countries and markets, to ensure the Internet remains a vibrant, interoperable, and open resource for the world.\n28 October 2025\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Internet Shutdowns\nThis policy brief urges policymakers to adopt policies that eliminate shutdowns as a tool and to analyze and weigh the effects of restricting access when addressing policy and security issues, while also advocating for a free and open Internet.\n7 October 2025\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Spectrum Policy\nWe need deliberate policy and regulatory measures to ensure spectrum availability for community-centered initiatives.\n1\n2\n3\n›\nThese documents are licensed under a\nCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License\n. You are welcome to share and re-use these documents. If you do, please ensure that you link back to this site and comply with the other terms of the license.\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nComments\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "segments": [{"segment_id": "4d02f548-72f4-4475-a42f-e7012f4f6ca6", "document_id": "855811da-e6c3-47c1-8626-4b525ab0051c", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Policy Briefs - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nPolicy Briefs\nOur perspective on critical Internet issues, including community-centered connectivity solutions, encryption, online safety, Internet governance, open Internet standards, spectrum policy, and more.\nTopic\nConnectivity\n(6)\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\n(2)\nInternet Exchange Points\n(3)\nHow the Internet Works\n(3)\nInternet Technologies\n(2)\nInternet Way of Networking\n(1)\nOpen Internet Standards\n(3)\nInternet Governance\n(2)\nInternet Policy\n(26)\nRebuilding Trust\n(11)\nPrivacy\n(9)\nSecurity\n(4)\n18 June 2026\nRebuilding Trust\nPolicy Brief: Solving Crime Without Breaking Encryption\nProtecting strong encryption is not an obstacle to public safety, child protection, or crime prevention. It is a prerequisite for all three, and a necessary condition for a secure and trustworthy Internet.\n19 December 2025\nConnectivity\nInternet Exchange Points\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Interconnection and Regulated Traffic Obligations\nThis policy brief examines the growing pressure to regulate the relationships between online services and telecommunications operators.\n4 December 2025\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nRebuilding Trust\nSecurity\nPolicy Brief: Age Restrictions and Online Safety\nWhile often well-intentioned, policies requiring age checks create risks for people’s privacy, security, and access to an open Internet.\n28 November 2025\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Licensing Approaches for Community-Centered Connectivity\nDiscover how community-centered connectivity solutions empower underserved areas. Explore updated licensing options and principles for meaningful connectivity today.\n26 November 2025\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Internet Governance\nThis policy brief explores the key considerations, challenges, and provides guiding principles of multistakeholder Internet governance of openness, inclusiveness, transparency, collaboration, shared responsibility, accountability, consensus-driven and pragmatic evidence-based approaches.\n13 November 2025\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nOpen Internet Standards\nPolicy Brief: Enhancing the Resilience of Submarine Internet Infrastructure\nThis document presents a forward-looking and optimistic approach to enhancing Internet resilience through practical and policy-driven solutions.\n29 October 2025\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Policy\nOpen Internet Standards\nPolicy Brief: Open Internet Standards\nBy actively promoting and formally recognizing open standards in public policy, we can protect the building blocks that enable interoperability, compatibility, and consistency across networks, countries and markets, to ensure the Internet remains a vibrant, interoperable, and open resource for the world.\n28 October 2025\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Internet Shutdowns\nThis policy brief urges policymakers to adopt policies that eliminate shutdowns as a tool and to analyze and weigh the effects of restricting access when addressing policy and security issues, while also advocating for a free and open Internet.\n7 October 2025\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Spectrum Policy\nWe need deliberate policy and regulatory measures to ensure spectrum availability for community-centered initiatives.\n1\n2\n3\n›\nThese documents are licensed under a\nCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License\n. You are welcome to share and re-use these documents. If you do, please ensure that you link back to this site and comply with the other terms of the license.\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nComments\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5053, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 697}}], "published_at": "2026-06-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-06-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\n18 June 2026\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "87cc90e9-6548-482e-accb-0a2cb95d3a05", "source_id": "551bfdc3cfa70745ac60de7e", "source": "EU", "source_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/european-declaration-digital-rights-and-principles-digital-decade", "final_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/page-not-found", "artifact_sha256": "551bfdc3cfa70745ac60de7e00a3a5f59a29246f3b254a5cfaba2a45d1042bb0", "content_type": "text/html; charset=UTF-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 46147, "title": "European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles", "language": "en", "text_length": 914, "characters": 914, "text": "Page not found | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nPage not found\nSorry, we could not find that page\nThe page or document you are looking for may have been moved or the URL may be incorrect.\nSome suggestions to help your search:\nUse the search box above\nBrowse the menu sections above\nReport any broken link via our\ncontact form\nPolicies\nFind out more about the Digital EU policies\nNews highlights\nCheck our latest news and publications\nJobs opportunities\nFind out about open vacancies\nSubscribe to the news\nCheck out our newsletters and register", "segments": [], "published_at": "2022-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2022-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "2022-07-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:34:27.422096+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "87e6deec-2b5e-434a-baaa-72718151ace4", "source_id": "7b5c2d19c4b707e0c1493d9a", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/terms-conditions-2012-02-25-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowship-terms-conditions", "artifact_sha256": "02166406a8b01a4b21824a2b693f59c4a4c8e5c8c791ac2a1be90ba1e0086224", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 82316, "title": "ICANN Fellowship Terms and Conditions - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 21370, "characters": 21370, "text": "ICANN Fellowship Terms and Conditions - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Fellowship Terms and Conditions\nICANN Fellowship Program\nLast Updated: 23 July 2020\nPrevious Fellowship Process and Terms\nApplication Process\nThe only way to apply for an ICANN fellowship is through the online application system. The online application form must be written in English. If English is not your first language, you are encouraged to translate your responses into English for the application.\nOnce you start the online application, you will have until the application round closes to submit the completed form.\nPlease take note of the application closing dates listed at\nhttp://icann.org/en/fellowships/\n. Active but incomplete applications will NOT be considered once application window is closed.\nThe Fellowship Program supports approximately 45 participants per ICANN Public Meeting, inclusive of newcomers, returning alumni, and mentors. The ICANN Policy Forum is open only to Fellowship Program alumni who are actively engaged in ICANN org's multi-stakeholder community. A successful candidate can receive a fellowship up to three times.\nA\nselection committee\nreviews all eligible applications and is made up of representatives nominated by their Supporting Organizations (SO) or Advisory Committees (AC) (collectively the \"Selection Committee\"). The Selection Committee assesses each application according to the\nICANN Fellowship Applicant Selection Criteria\nand will take into account comments from ICANN organization members on individual applications, the overall needs for each region and community group in ICANN org's multi-stakeholder model. Confidentiality is a crucial component of the selection process. During the review and selection process, the Selection Committee may have access to confidential information, including, but not limited to, your personal information, such as education history, employment history and information you choose to provide in your application. During the course of evaluating your application, ICANN org may also collect opinions, discussions, assessments results, and recommendations concerning your qualifications for the fellow position. You agree that this information is confidential to ICANN org and will not be shared with anyone during and following the selection process, except where the disclosure is required by applicable law.\nMembers of the Selection Committee may reside in locations outside of the United States or your country of residence and are committed to protecting and keeping each applicant's personal information confidential and in compliance with ICANN policies and applicable laws.\nAll successful candidates are announced on the ICANN website, within approximately eight (8) weeks after the online application process closes; actual dates of when successful candidates will be announced are posted on the\nFellowship web page\n. Successful candidates will receive a follow-up email to the e-mail address provided on their application and confirmation letter sent to the same email address at the time of the announcement. The confirmation letter must be returned within a week of receipt confirming a candidate's acceptance of the fellowship. If a candidate declines the fellowship, an established list of alternates will be used to fill the vacated position. Following acceptance of, and participation in the ICANN Fellowship Program, ICANN org will publish a list of the participants' names, country or region of residence and work sector/area on the\nICANN Fellowship Participants web page\n.\nTravel and Other Support Once Selected\nTravel will be booked by ICANN org through its designated Travel Management Company. This method ensures the lowest trip cost and allows ICANN Travel Support to ensure the security and well-being of supported travelers.\nICANN org will not purchase any travel tickets for a fellow unless they are in receipt and can show proof of all valid travel documents: passport and required final destination and transit visas.\nICANN org shall not be liable for any loss or expenses (including airfares) for travel delays incurred by the fellow as a result of inaccurate information provided by the fellow, delays in submitting the appropriate forms to the relevant authorities or refusals of host or transit country authorities to grant a visa to the fellow.\nICANN org will cover the cost of the lowest fare available economy airfare at the time of booking based on the fellow's approved dates of arrival and departure as provided in a separate email sent by ICANN Travel Support titled \"Welcome Email\". For the compete travel guidelines on air transportation booking, please refer to the\nICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines\n.\nICANN org will book and pay for a standard room (king or queen) on the fellow's behalf based on a single occupancy. Fellows are not allowed to self-book their hotel reservation. Any and all hotel surcharges (e.g., telephone calls, room service, laundry, movies) and other incidental expenses are the responsibility of the fellow. The hotel may request a credit card or cash deposit from the fellow to guarantee these expenses.\nFor ICANN meetings, a stipend not to exceed USD 500.00 will be provided to offset reasonable individual expenses (such as meals, transport to/from the airport and incidentals). The stipend will be wired to the fellows once they have proven that they have received their visa (if necessary) and their flight booking has been completed by ICANN org's Travel Management Company. Therefore, if fellows want to guarantee receipt of their stipend prior to the meeting, they must meet both visa and flight requirements 30 days prior to the ICANN Meeting. Anything less than 30 days will mean that fellows may not receive their stipend\nbefore the meeting\n. Those fellows who satisfactorily complete all aspects of the program and submit the post-meeting survey, as further detailed in the Terms and Conditions document found on the ICANN Fellowship website page\nhttps://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram\n, will receive a certificate of completion for the ICANN Fellowship Program.\nICANN org will reimburse costs incurred by fellows to obtain a visa up to USD 200.00 as allowed in the\nICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines\n.\nFellows agree to the abide by the\nICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines\nto determine the level and amount of travel support provided by ICANN org and acknowledge the responsibilities shared with the fellows.\nNational Laws and Legislation\nDuring the travel period covered under the ICANN Fellowship Program, it is the fellow's responsibility to comply with all local laws and legislation of the country or countries to which he or she will travel (including but not limited to laws pertaining to immigration, taxation, customs, employment and foreign exchange control).\nIt is the fellow's responsibility to comply with all regulations (including those dealing with visas and required vaccinations) of any country visited.\nICANN org is not responsible for obtaining visas for fellows, but MAY assist with communications regarding the visas, including a form invitation letter to the ICANN meeting for which the fellow has been granted a fellowship.\nICANN will not entertain any claim for work permits or any other costs relating to compliance with the national legislation of any country in the world from a fellow or any third party.\nICANN org is a California non-profit public benefit corporation incorporated in the United States and must therefore comply with all of the laws and regulations of California and the United States.\nRequired Travel Documents\nEach selected fellow must be in possession of a valid passport prior to ICANN org booking any travel (airfare and hotel).\nTravel documents as required by the fellow's country of origin or the country hosting the meeting. Destination visas and transit visas may be required to connect in certain cities or countries. Fellows should check with their local consulate agency.\nFellows should always carry proof of health insurance. Insurance is NOT supplied by ICANN org.\nAll travel documents must be consistent with the name on the fellow's valid passport.\nPersonal Safety and Health\nIt is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the fellow to acquire and pay for any and all insurance, including, but not limited to travel insurance.\nICANN is not responsible for the personal health, safety or belongings of the fellow.\nEach fellow is exclusively responsible for maintaining his or her personal health and safety during the period of the fellowship.\nICANN strongly suggests that fellows consult and comply with the views of the diplomatic and consular authorities of the country of their nationality in respect of travel conditions and safety of travelers applicable in the countries to be visited under this fellowship. It is not ICANN's responsibility to inform or provide advice to applicants or fellows about travel conditions or safety of travelers.\nIf the fellow makes a decision not to travel to the ICANN meeting following the advice of relevant authorities, the fellow must immediately advise the ICANN Fellowship Program administrator. ICANN will then make a determination whether to terminate the fellowship for that meeting.\nICANN also strongly suggests that fellows seek guidance from qualified health personnel concerning potential health risks in the areas to be visited. In preparing for a trip, fellows should receive, at their own expense, all required and recommended immunizations and take malaria prophylaxis if traveling to an area where malaria is endemic.\nBE AWARE THAT SOME TRANSIT REGIONS MAY ALSO REQUIRE CERTAIN VACCINATIONS OR LAPSE TIME IN TRAVEL DUE TO YOUR REGION OF ORIGIN.\nRequired Post Meeting Reporting\nEach fellow is required to complete a post-meeting survey within two weeks following the conclusion of the ICANN Meeting. The survey will gather details about the fellow's experiences in the Fellowship Program as well as his or her thoughts on future contributions to the ICANN community and processes.\nDeferment\nApplicants must re-apply for each fellowship round. The only exception is if the applicant is unable to obtain a visa for the meeting for which he or she was accepted, the Selection Committee can choose to defer the applicant's acceptance to the next eligible meeting, provided it is in the same fiscal year.\nFailure to Comply with Terms\nPlease note that if a fellow chooses to not comply with any one of the above mentioned terms of the ICANN Fellowship Program, ICANN reserves the right to determine the appropriate course of action including, but not limited to: (i) terminating the fellowship prior to the end of a meeting; (ii) causing the fellow's early departure from the program and ICANN Meeting; (iii) and/or asking the fellow to cover costs for expenditures.\nPrivacy Policy\nICANN respects the protection and privacy of personal information. ICANN will process each candidate's personal information as explained in ICANN's privacy policy. The ICANN Privacy Policy is available\nhere\n.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ac800e80-b9b5-4788-916c-38c547cccfcd", "document_id": "87e6deec-2b5e-434a-baaa-72718151ace4", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Fellowship Terms and Conditions - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Fellowship Terms and Conditions\nICANN Fellowship Program\nLast Updated: 23 July 2020\nPrevious Fellowship Process and Terms\nApplication Process\nThe only way to apply for an ICANN fellowship is through the online application system. The online application form must be written in English. If English is not your first language, you are encouraged to translate your responses into English for the application.\nOnce you start the online application, you will have until the application round closes to submit the completed form.\nPlease take note of the application closing dates listed at\nhttp://icann.org/en/fellowships/\n. Active but incomplete applications will NOT be considered once application window is closed.\nThe Fellowship Program supports approximately 45 participants per ICANN Public Meeting, inclusive of newcomers, returning alumni, and mentors. The ICANN Policy Forum is open only to Fellowship Program alumni who are actively engaged in ICANN org's multi-stakeholder community. A successful candidate can receive a fellowship up to three times.\nA\nselection committee\nreviews all eligible applications and is made up of representatives nominated by their Supporting Organizations (SO) or Advisory Committees (AC) (collectively the \"Selection Committee\"). The Selection Committee assesses each application according to the\nICANN Fellowship Applicant Selection Criteria\nand will take into account comments from ICANN organization members on individual applications, the overall needs for each region and community group in ICANN org's multi-stakeholder model. Confidentiality is a crucial component of the selection process. During the review and selection process, the Selection Committee may have access to confidential information, including, but not limited to, your personal information, such as education history, employment history and information you choose to provide in your application. During the course of evaluating your application, ICANN org may also collect opinions, discussions, assessments results, and recommendations concerning your qualifications for the fellow position. You agree that this information is confidential to ICANN org and will not be shared with anyone during and following the selection process, except where the disclosure is required by applicable law.\nMembers of the Selection Committee may reside in locations outside of the United States or your country of residence and are committed to protecting and keeping each applicant's personal information confidential and in compliance with ICANN policies and applicable laws.\nAll successful candidates are announced on the ICANN website, within approximately eight (8) weeks after the online application process closes; actual dates of when successful candidates will be announced are posted on the\nFellowship web page\n. Successful candidates will receive a follow-up email to the e-mail address provided on their application and confirmation letter sent to the same email address at the time of the announcement. The confirmation letter must be returned within a week of receipt confirming a candidate's acceptance of the fellowship. If a candidate declines the fellowship, an established list of alternates will be used to fill the vacated position. Following acceptance of, and participation in the ICANN Fellowship Program, ICANN org will publish a list of the participants' names, country or region of residence and work sector/area on the\nICANN Fellowship Participants web page\n.\nTravel and Other Support Once Selected\nTravel will be booked by ICANN org through its designated Travel Management Company. This method ensures the lowest trip cost and allows ICANN Travel Support to ensure the security and well-being of supported travelers.\nICANN org will not purchase any travel tickets for a fellow unless they are in receipt and can show proof of all valid travel documents: passport and required final destination and transit visas.\nICANN org shall not be liable for any loss or expenses (including airfares) for travel delays incurred by the fellow as a result of inaccurate information provided by the fellow, delays in submitting the appropriate forms to the relevant authorities or refusals of host or transit country authorities to grant a visa to the fellow.\nICANN org will cover the cost of the lowest fare available economy airfare at the time of booking based on the fellow's approved dates of arrival and departure as provided in a separate email sent by ICANN Travel Support titled \"Welcome Email\". For the compete travel guidelines on air transportation booking, please refer to the\nICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines\n.\nICANN org will book and pay for a standard room (king or queen) on the fellow's behalf based on a single occupancy. Fellows are not allowed to self-book their hotel reservation. Any and all hotel surcharges (e.g., telephone calls, room service, laundry, movies) and other incidental expenses are the responsibility of the fellow. The hotel may request a credit card or cash deposit from the fellow to guarantee these expenses.\nFor ICANN meetings, a stipend not to exceed USD 500.00 will be provided to offset reasonable individual expenses (such as meals, transport to/from the airport and incidentals). The stipend will be wired to the fellows once they have proven that they have received their visa (if necessary) and their flight booking has been completed by ICANN org's Travel Management Company. Therefore, if fellows want to guarantee receipt of their stipend prior to the meeting, they must meet both visa and flight requirements 30 days prior to the ICANN Meeting. Anything less than 30 days will mean that fellows may not receive their stipend\nbefore the meeting\n. Those fellows who satisfactorily complete all aspects of the program and submit the post-meeting survey, as further detailed in the Terms and Conditions document found on the ICANN Fellowship website page\nhttps://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram\n, will receive a certificate of completion for the ICANN Fellowship Program.\nICANN org will reimburse costs incurred by fellows to obtain a visa up to USD 200.00 as allowed in the\nICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines\n.\nFellows agree to the abide by the\nICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines\nto determine the level and amount of travel support provided by ICANN org and acknowledge the responsibilities shared with the fellows.\nNational Laws and Legislation\nDuring the travel period covered under the ICANN Fellowship Program, it is the fellow's responsibility to comply with all local laws and legislation of the country or countries to which he or she will travel (including but not limited to laws pertaining to immigration, taxation, customs, employment and foreign exchange control).\nIt is the fellow's responsibility to comply with all regulations (including those dealing with visas and required vaccinations) of any country visited.\nICANN org is not responsible for obtaining visas for fellows, but MAY assist with communications regarding the visas, including a form invitation letter to the ICANN meeting for which the fellow has been granted a fellowship.\nICANN will not entertain any claim for work permits or any other costs relating to compliance with the national legislation of any country in the world from a fellow or any third party.\nICANN org is a California non-profit public benefit corporation incorporated in the United States and must therefore comply with all of the laws and regulations of California and the United States.\nRequired Travel Documents\nEach selected fellow must be in possession of a valid passport prior to ICANN org booking any travel (airfare and hotel).\nTravel documents as required by the fellow's country of origin or the country hosting the meeting. Destination visas and transit visas may be required to connect in certain cities or countries. Fellows should check with their local consulate agency.\nFellows should always carry proof of health insurance. Insurance is NOT supplied by ICANN org.\nAll travel documents must be consistent with the name on the fellow's valid passport.\nPersonal Safety and Health\nIt is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the fellow to acquire and pay for any and all insurance, including, but not limited to travel insurance.\nICANN is not responsible for the personal health, safety or belongings of the fellow.\nEach fellow is exclusively responsible for maintaining his or her personal health and safety during the period of the fellowship.\nICANN strongly suggests that fellows consult and comply with the views of the diplomatic and consular authorities of the country of their nationality in respect of travel conditions and safety of travelers applicable in the countries to be visited under this fellowship. It is not ICANN's responsibility to inform or provide advice to applicants or fellows about travel conditions or safety of travelers.\nIf the fellow makes a decision not to travel to the ICANN meeting following the advice of relevant authorities, the fellow must immediately advise the ICANN Fellowship Program administrator. ICANN will then make a determination whether to terminate the fellowship for that meeting.\nICANN also strongly suggests that fellows seek guidance from qualified health personnel concerning potential health risks in the areas to be visited. In preparing for a trip, fellows should receive, at their own expense, all required and recommended immunizations and take malaria prophylaxis if traveling to an area where malaria is endemic.\nBE AWARE THAT SOME TRANSIT REGIONS MAY ALSO REQUIRE CERTAIN VACCINATIONS OR LAPSE TIME IN TRAVEL DUE TO YOUR REGION OF ORIGIN.\nRequired Post Meeting Reporting\nEach fellow is required to complete a post-meeting survey within two weeks following the conclusion of the ICANN Meeting. The survey will gather details about the fellow's experiences in the Fellowship Program as well as his or her thoughts on future contributions to the ICANN community and processes.\nDeferment\nApplicants must re-apply for each fellowship round. The only exception is if the applicant is unable to obtain a visa for the meeting for which he or she was accepted, the Selection Committee can choose to defer the applicant's acceptance to the next eligible meeting, provided it is in the same fiscal year.\nFailure to Comply with Terms\nPlease note that if a fellow chooses to not comply with any one of the above mentioned terms of the ICANN Fellowship Program, ICANN reserves the right to determine the appropriate course of action including, but not limited to: (i) terminating the fellowship prior to the end of a meeting; (ii) causing the fellow's early departure from the program and ICANN Meeting; (iii) and/or asking the fellow to cover costs for expenditures.\nPrivacy Policy\nICANN respects the protection and privacy of personal information. ICANN will process each candidate's personal information as explained in ICANN's privacy policy. The ICANN Privacy Policy is available\nhere\n.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 21370, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 16, "word_count": 3080}}], "published_at": "2012-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2012-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2012-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "88a34f78-2b65-495c-b808-c435a24f91dc", "source_id": "b7615e2f109350d0b92ad886", "source": "AFRINIC", "source_url": "https://www.afrinic.net/", "final_url": "https://www.afrinic.net/", "artifact_sha256": "3ad5fd95645b6c3a8de6c7ca3e3f12820ec6788c6171199ca307451093cecdc4", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 41086, "title": "AFRINIC - Regional Internet Registry for Africa", "language": "en", "text_length": 4683, "characters": 4683, "text": "AFRINIC - Regional Internet Registry for Africa\nSkip to main content\nWHOIS SEARCH\nLOGIN TO MYAFRINIC\nAbout us\nAbout Us\nHistory\nService Region\nStatistics\nAGMM\nSGMM 2026\nGovernance\nCorporate Documents\nCareers\nVacancies\nOur Team\nContact Us\nMembership\nMembership Services\nFees Schedule\nMembership Agreements\nLegacy Resource Holders\nOur Work\nResources Management\nReverse DNS\nResource Certification\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nIPv4 Exhaustion\nParticipate\nCode of Conduct\nEmail & Mailing Lists\nCommittees\nGovernment Working Group (AFGWG)\nInternet Development Programs\nICP 2 Review\nPolicy\nTraining Workshop\nSupport\nSupport & FAQs\nEvent\nWebinar Series\nCall for Hosting\nMedia\nNews\n×\nAbout us\nAbout Us\nHistory\nService Region\nStatistics\nAGMM\nSGMM 2026\nGovernance\nCorporate Documents\nCareers\nOur Team\nContact Us\nMembership\nMembership Services\nFees Schedule\nMembership Agreements\nLegacy Resource Holders\nOur Work\nResources Management\nReverse DNS\nResource Certification\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nIPv4 Exhaustion\nParticipate\nCode of Conduct\nEmail & Mailing Lists\nCommittees\nGovernment Working Group (AFGWG)\nInternet Development Programs\nICP 2 Review\nPolicy\nTraining Workshop\nSupport\nSupport & FAQs\nEvent\nWebinar Series\nCall for Hosting\nMedia\nNews\nBylaws Review Committee\nSecond round · Now open\nCommunity Consultation on the\nDraft Amended Constitution\nReview the proposed amendments section by section — the existing provision, the amendment, and the rationale — and submit your comments.\nOpen the consultation platform\n→\nConsultation Window\n04\nAug\n21\nAug\nCloses 21 August 2026 · 23:59 UTC\nLatest News\nView All News\nSecond Community Consultation on the Draft Amended AFRINIC Constitution\n4 August 2026\nThe Bylaws Review Committee has published the draft proposed amended Constitution for a second round of community consultation. Review the amendments section by section and share your comments from 04 to 21 August 2026.\nRead More »\nRIR Governance Document Delivered to the NRO EC\n28 July 2026\nThe NRO EC announces that the ASO AC has completed version 3 of the RIR Governance Document and formally delivered the Recommended Draft to the NRO Executive Council for its consideration.\nRead More »\nCall for Volunteers: Reconstitution of the AFRINIC Governance Committee\n17 July 2026\nThe AFRINIC Board of Directors invites volunteers from the community for appointment as the two Board-appointed members of the Governance Committee. Applications close Tuesday, 28 July 2026.\nRead More »\nLatest blog post\nView All Posts\nTechnology\nExploring the Potential of RPKI Signed Checklists\nNew tools that strengthen the resilience and trustworthiness of the Internet's routing system.\nUpdate\nNRO RPKI Program — 2025 in review\nReflecting on our achievements this year as part of the Number Resource Organization RPKI Program.\nResources\nA new NRO resource for operators\nA reference page to help network operators learn how to create Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs).\nCareer\nWe are hiring: Join our team!\nExplore exciting opportunities to contribute to Africa's digital transformation.\nView Vacancies\nWebinar Series\nInteractive Webinar Series\nGrow your skills with our expert-led online training and capacity building sessions.\nLearn More\nCommunity\nUpcoming Events & Meetings\nParticipate in the decisions that shape the internet policy landscape in Africa.\nLearn More\nafrinic.net\nAFRINIC Services\nRegistry services, policy participation, learning and community — in one place\nDISCOVER AFRINIC\nYour window into Africa's Internet Registry\nNEW MEMBERSHIP\nREGISTRATION PORTAL\nAccess the Member Registration Portal\nIPv6 RESOURCES\nManage Your Number Resources\nNAME SYSTEM\nANYCAST PROGRAMME\nAccess the DNS Anycast Programme\nSHAPE POLICY\nYour voice in how Internet Resources are managed\nPOLICY DEVELOPMENT\nPROCESS\nLearn about the Policy Development Process\nRESOURCE POLICY\nDISCUSSION LIST\nJoin the Resource Policy Discussion Mailing List\nCURRENT\nPOLICY PROPOSALS\nView Current Policy Proposals\nBUILD SKILLS\nGrow with us and earn credentials\nAFRINIC ACADEMY\nTRAINING\nVisit AFRINIC Academy for Training\nIPv6 TRAINING\nCERTIFICATION\nExplore Certi6 IPv6 Training Certification\nIPv6 DEPLOYMENT\nHELPDESK\nRegister for IPv6 Deployment Training\nCOMMUNITY\nParticipate in the decisions that lead Africa\nWEBINAR\nSERIES\nExplore the Webinar Series\nPUBLIC POLICY\nMEETING\nView the PPM Proceedings\nANNUAL GENERAL\nMEMBERS MEETING\nView the AGMM Proceedings\nGOVERNMENT WORKING GROUP\nLearn about the AFGWG\nELECTIONS\nPORTAL\nParticipate in AFRINIC Elections\nDate and time in Mauritius:\nYYYY/MM/DD --:--:--\nService Status\n|\nDisclaimer\n|\nPrivacy\n|\nWHOIS\n©Copyright\n2026\n. All Rights Reserved - African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC)", "segments": [{"segment_id": "c93fe7cb-3494-4aa1-954b-27ab2b36d7dc", "document_id": "88a34f78-2b65-495c-b808-c435a24f91dc", "ordinal": 0, "text": "AFRINIC - Regional Internet Registry for Africa\nSkip to main content\nWHOIS SEARCH\nLOGIN TO MYAFRINIC\nAbout us\nAbout Us\nHistory\nService Region\nStatistics\nAGMM\nSGMM 2026\nGovernance\nCorporate Documents\nCareers\nVacancies\nOur Team\nContact Us\nMembership\nMembership Services\nFees Schedule\nMembership Agreements\nLegacy Resource Holders\nOur Work\nResources Management\nReverse DNS\nResource Certification\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nIPv4 Exhaustion\nParticipate\nCode of Conduct\nEmail & Mailing Lists\nCommittees\nGovernment Working Group (AFGWG)\nInternet Development Programs\nICP 2 Review\nPolicy\nTraining Workshop\nSupport\nSupport & FAQs\nEvent\nWebinar Series\nCall for Hosting\nMedia\nNews\n×\nAbout us\nAbout Us\nHistory\nService Region\nStatistics\nAGMM\nSGMM 2026\nGovernance\nCorporate Documents\nCareers\nOur Team\nContact Us\nMembership\nMembership Services\nFees Schedule\nMembership Agreements\nLegacy Resource Holders\nOur Work\nResources Management\nReverse DNS\nResource Certification\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nIPv4 Exhaustion\nParticipate\nCode of Conduct\nEmail & Mailing Lists\nCommittees\nGovernment Working Group (AFGWG)\nInternet Development Programs\nICP 2 Review\nPolicy\nTraining Workshop\nSupport\nSupport & FAQs\nEvent\nWebinar Series\nCall for Hosting\nMedia\nNews\nBylaws Review Committee\nSecond round · Now open\nCommunity Consultation on the\nDraft Amended Constitution\nReview the proposed amendments section by section — the existing provision, the amendment, and the rationale — and submit your comments.\nOpen the consultation platform\n→\nConsultation Window\n04\nAug\n21\nAug\nCloses 21 August 2026 · 23:59 UTC\nLatest News\nView All News\nSecond Community Consultation on the Draft Amended AFRINIC Constitution\n4 August 2026\nThe Bylaws Review Committee has published the draft proposed amended Constitution for a second round of community consultation. Review the amendments section by section and share your comments from 04 to 21 August 2026.\nRead More »\nRIR Governance Document Delivered to the NRO EC\n28 July 2026\nThe NRO EC announces that the ASO AC has completed version 3 of the RIR Governance Document and formally delivered the Recommended Draft to the NRO Executive Council for its consideration.\nRead More »\nCall for Volunteers: Reconstitution of the AFRINIC Governance Committee\n17 July 2026\nThe AFRINIC Board of Directors invites volunteers from the community for appointment as the two Board-appointed members of the Governance Committee. Applications close Tuesday, 28 July 2026.\nRead More »\nLatest blog post\nView All Posts\nTechnology\nExploring the Potential of RPKI Signed Checklists\nNew tools that strengthen the resilience and trustworthiness of the Internet's routing system.\nUpdate\nNRO RPKI Program — 2025 in review\nReflecting on our achievements this year as part of the Number Resource Organization RPKI Program.\nResources\nA new NRO resource for operators\nA reference page to help network operators learn how to create Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs).\nCareer\nWe are hiring: Join our team!\nExplore exciting opportunities to contribute to Africa's digital transformation.\nView Vacancies\nWebinar Series\nInteractive Webinar Series\nGrow your skills with our expert-led online training and capacity building sessions.\nLearn More\nCommunity\nUpcoming Events & Meetings\nParticipate in the decisions that shape the internet policy landscape in Africa.\nLearn More\nafrinic.net\nAFRINIC Services\nRegistry services, policy participation, learning and community — in one place\nDISCOVER AFRINIC\nYour window into Africa's Internet Registry\nNEW MEMBERSHIP\nREGISTRATION PORTAL\nAccess the Member Registration Portal\nIPv6 RESOURCES\nManage Your Number Resources\nNAME SYSTEM\nANYCAST PROGRAMME\nAccess the DNS Anycast Programme\nSHAPE POLICY\nYour voice in how Internet Resources are managed\nPOLICY DEVELOPMENT\nPROCESS\nLearn about the Policy Development Process\nRESOURCE POLICY\nDISCUSSION LIST\nJoin the Resource Policy Discussion Mailing List\nCURRENT\nPOLICY PROPOSALS\nView Current Policy Proposals\nBUILD SKILLS\nGrow with us and earn credentials\nAFRINIC ACADEMY\nTRAINING\nVisit AFRINIC Academy for Training\nIPv6 TRAINING\nCERTIFICATION\nExplore Certi6 IPv6 Training Certification\nIPv6 DEPLOYMENT\nHELPDESK\nRegister for IPv6 Deployment Training\nCOMMUNITY\nParticipate in the decisions that lead Africa\nWEBINAR\nSERIES\nExplore the Webinar Series\nPUBLIC POLICY\nMEETING\nView the PPM Proceedings\nANNUAL GENERAL\nMEMBERS MEETING\nView the AGMM Proceedings\nGOVERNMENT WORKING GROUP\nLearn about the AFGWG\nELECTIONS\nPORTAL\nParticipate in AFRINIC Elections\nDate and time in Mauritius:\nYYYY/MM/DD --:--:--\nService Status\n|\nDisclaimer\n|\nPrivacy\n|\nWHOIS\n©Copyright\n2026\n. All Rights Reserved - African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC)", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4683, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 679}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "8a3e1516-88cb-4a42-a02f-78b03bc974f7", "source_id": "95e6a3aca9bf160ab0a61d0d", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-icann", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-icann", "artifact_sha256": "ca032103be25c8922100366b14792800d199c62d549633c84f37f177603edfc5", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 77393, "title": "About ICANN - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 14852, "characters": 14852, "text": "About ICANN - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nAbout ICANN\nIf you're new to ICANN, this page is for you. It contains resources to help you quickly understand who we are and what we do.\nOverview\nICANN is a California-based nonprofit, public-benefit organization accountable to a global community of stakeholders. Its enduring mission is to ensure the stable, secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. ICANN's primary responsibilities include helping coordinate the Internet's unique identifiers – domain names and numbers that comprise the Internet's \"address book\" and ensure that users reach the right computer or device. As a part of this, ICANN coordinates the root zone of the Domain Name System (DNS) and performs IANA functions, specifically, the management of Internet domain names, numbers, and protocol assignments.\nICANN follows a multistakeholder model in which individuals, businesses, civil society, governments, and technologists play important roles in its community-based, consensus-driven, policymaking approach. ICANN includes a community of volunteers on topics ranging from technical Internet governance and policy development to programs that have enabled the secure expansion of the DNS to more than 1,200 generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Another expansion through the New gTLD Program: Next Round is planned for 2026, giving businesses, communities and other organizations the chance to create an online space tailored to their audience, culture, or region.\nICANN is also working to ensure the Universal Acceptance of all domain names, regardless of language or script, in all Internet-enabled devices so everyone can communicate using a domain name and email address that best suits their needs. ICANN was formed in 1998 and its history traces back to the creation and evolution of the Internet itself. Learn more about ICANN's history, as well as interesting Internet facts and milestones at\nhttps://www.icann.org/en/history\n.\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nClick to open the full PDF\n.\n10 Key Facts About ICANN\nICANN is open and free to everyone.\nThere are \"\nkeys\n\" to the Internet that are changed regularly.\nICANN's staff\n, approximately 450 people, are based in more than 33 countries and speak over 40 languages fluently.\nThe Internet is a network of networks – no one person or entity controls it.\nICANN coordinates the Internet's unique identifiers including billions of domain names and IP addresses. These are critical elements used for Internet communication in every country in the world.\nMore than 1,200 new gTLDs have been delegated into the root zone.\n151 IDN TLDs\nhave been delegated in 37 languages and 23 scripts.\nICANN coordinates the world's\ntime zone database\nused in locales across the world.\nThe Internet has been up and running smoothly for several decades without fail, even as it has experienced significant growth in users and traffic.\nICANN is not the\nInternet content police\n.\nLearn More About ICANN\nLearn more about our history, what we do, how we work, and how your talents, expertise, and enthusiasm can help advance ICANN's mission in your region and globally.\nThe History of ICANN\n- Discover ICANN's history, which traces back to the creation and the evolution of the Internet itself.\nICANN for Beginners\n- New to ICANN? Find valuable information to help you get started on your ICANN journey. Explore our learning courses, infographics, videos, and other resources.\nNew gTLD Program: 2026 Round\n- The New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Program: 2026 Round is\nan ICANN initiative\nto enable the expansion of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) through the introduction of new top-level domains.\nICANN Shorthand - A\nmultilingual glossary\nis available to help people navigate many industry acronyms and terms.\nICANN Invites You to Participate\nIf you have an interest in ICANN and topics related to global Internet policy and the Domain Name System, we encourage you to participate. ICANN provides many online forums and through its Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SOs and ACs) including the following:\nAddress Supporting Organization (\nASO\n)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (\nALAC\n)\nCountry Code Domain Name Supporting Organization (\nccNSO\n)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (\nGNSO\n)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (\nGAC\n)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (\nRSSAC\n)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (\nSSAC\n)\nICANN on Social Media\n@icann\nfacebook.com/icannorg\nyoutube.com/icann.news\nflickr.com/icann\nlinkedin.com/company/icann\ninstgram.com/icann.org\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "74f10b83-f20b-4589-b6c7-16ef45e7066c", "document_id": "8a3e1516-88cb-4a42-a02f-78b03bc974f7", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About ICANN - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nAbout ICANN\nIf you're new to ICANN, this page is for you. It contains resources to help you quickly understand who we are and what we do.\nOverview\nICANN is a California-based nonprofit, public-benefit organization accountable to a global community of stakeholders. Its enduring mission is to ensure the stable, secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. ICANN's primary responsibilities include helping coordinate the Internet's unique identifiers – domain names and numbers that comprise the Internet's \"address book\" and ensure that users reach the right computer or device. As a part of this, ICANN coordinates the root zone of the Domain Name System (DNS) and performs IANA functions, specifically, the management of Internet domain names, numbers, and protocol assignments.\nICANN follows a multistakeholder model in which individuals, businesses, civil society, governments, and technologists play important roles in its community-based, consensus-driven, policymaking approach. ICANN includes a community of volunteers on topics ranging from technical Internet governance and policy development to programs that have enabled the secure expansion of the DNS to more than 1,200 generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Another expansion through the New gTLD Program: Next Round is planned for 2026, giving businesses, communities and other organizations the chance to create an online space tailored to their audience, culture, or region.\nICANN is also working to ensure the Universal Acceptance of all domain names, regardless of language or script, in all Internet-enabled devices so everyone can communicate using a domain name and email address that best suits their needs. ICANN was formed in 1998 and its history traces back to the creation and evolution of the Internet itself. Learn more about ICANN's history, as well as interesting Internet facts and milestones at\nhttps://www.icann.org/en/history\n.\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nClick to open the full PDF\n.\n10 Key Facts About ICANN\nICANN is open and free to everyone.\nThere are \"\nkeys\n\" to the Internet that are changed regularly.\nICANN's staff\n, approximately 450 people, are based in more than 33 countries and speak over 40 languages fluently.\nThe Internet is a network of networks – no one person or entity controls it.\nICANN coordinates the Internet's unique identifiers including billions of domain names and IP addresses. These are critical elements used for Internet communication in every country in the world.\nMore than 1,200 new gTLDs have been delegated into the root zone.\n151 IDN TLDs\nhave been delegated in 37 languages and 23 scripts.\nICANN coordinates the world's\ntime zone database\nused in locales across the world.\nThe Internet has been up and running smoothly for several decades without fail, even as it has experienced significant growth in users and traffic.\nICANN is not the\nInternet content police\n.\nLearn More About ICANN\nLearn more about our history, what we do, how we work, and how your talents, expertise, and enthusiasm can help advance ICANN's mission in your region and globally.\nThe History of ICANN\n- Discover ICANN's history, which traces back to the creation and the evolution of the Internet itself.\nICANN for Beginners\n- New to ICANN? Find valuable information to help you get started on your ICANN journey. Explore our learning courses, infographics, videos, and other resources.\nNew gTLD Program: 2026 Round\n- The New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Program: 2026 Round is\nan ICANN initiative\nto enable the expansion of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) through the introduction of new top-level domains.\nICANN Shorthand - A\nmultilingual glossary\nis available to help people navigate many industry acronyms and terms.\nICANN Invites You to Participate\nIf you have an interest in ICANN and topics related to global Internet policy and the Domain Name System, we encourage you to participate. ICANN provides many online forums and through its Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SOs and ACs) including the following:\nAddress Supporting Organization (\nASO\n)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (\nALAC\n)\nCountry Code Domain Name Supporting Organization (\nccNSO\n)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (\nGNSO\n)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (\nGAC\n)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (\nRSSAC\n)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (\nSSAC\n)\nICANN on Social Media\n@icann\nfacebook.com/icannorg\nyoutube.com/icann.news\nflickr.com/icann\nlinkedin.com/company/icann\ninstgram.com/icann.org\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 14852, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 11, "word_count": 2065}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "source_id": "085efb707f69348c343965ca", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4632", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632/", "artifact_sha256": "fae594e79b85375c41e8ad34c15fb2613fde21be8beb56b9018247ca88a4b892", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 331189, "title": "RFC 4632: Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 60816, "characters": 60816, "text": "RFC 4632: Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 4632\nInfo\nRFC\n4632\n:\nBCP\n122\n:\nClassless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan\nV. Fuller\n,\nT. Li\nBest Current Practice\nNetwork Working Group V. Fuller\nRequest for Comments: 4632 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 122 T. Li\nObsoletes:\n1519\nTropos Networks\nCategory: Best Current Practice August 2006\nClassless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR):\nThe Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan\nStatus of This Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the\nexisting 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the\naddress space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state.\nThis document obsoletes the original Classless Inter-domain Routing\n(CIDR) spec in\nRFC 1519\n, with changes made both to clarify the\nconcepts it introduced and, after more than twelve years, to update\nthe Internet community on the results of deploying the technology\ndescribed.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction ....................................................\n3\n2\n. History and Problem Description .................................\n3\n3\n. Classless Addressing as a Solution ..............................\n4\n3.1\n. Basic Concept and Prefix Notation ..........................\n5\n4\n. Address Assignment and Routing Aggregation ......................\n8\n4.1\n. Aggregation Efficiency and Limitations .....................\n8\n4.2\n. Distributed Assignment of Address Space ...................\n10\n5\n. Routing Implementation Considerations ..........................\n11\n5.1\n. Rules for Route Advertisement .............................\n11\n5.2\n. How the Rules Work ........................................\n12\n5.3\n. A Note on Prefix Filter Formats ...........................\n13\n5.4\n. Responsibility for and Configuration of Aggregation .......\n13\n5.5\n. Route Propagation and Routing Protocol Considerations .....\n15\n6\n. Example of New Address Assignments and Routing .................\n15\n6.1\n. Address Delegation ........................................\n15\n6.2\n. Routing Advertisements ....................................\n17\n7\n. Domain Name Service Considerations .............................\n18\n8\n. Transition to a Long-Term Solution .............................\n18\n9\n. Analysis of CIDR's Effect on Global Routing State ..............\n19\n10\n. Conclusions and Recommendations ...............................\n20\n11\n. Status Updates to CIDR Documents ..............................\n21\n12\n. Security Considerations .......................................\n23\n13\n. Acknowledgements ..............................................\n24\n14\n. References ....................................................\n25\n14.1\n. Normative References .....................................\n25\n14.2\n. Informative References ...................................\n25\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n1\n. Introduction\nThis memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the\nexisting 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the\naddress space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state.\nThis document obsoletes the original CIDR spec [\nRFC1519\n], with\nchanges made both to clarify the concepts it introduced and, after\nmore than twelve years, to update the Internet community on the\nresults of deploying the technology described.\n2\n. History and Problem Description\nWhat is now known as the Internet started as a research project in\nthe 1970s to design and develop a set of protocols that could be used\nwith many different network technologies to provide a seamless, end-\nto-end facility for interconnecting a diverse set of end systems.\nWhen it was determined how the 32-bit address space would be used,\ncertain assumptions were made about the number of organizations to be\nconnected, the number of end systems per organization, and total\nnumber of end systems on the network. The end result was the\nestablishment (see [\nRFC791\n]) of three classes of networks: Class A\n(most significant address bits '00'), with 128 possible networks each\nand 16777216 end systems (minus special bit values reserved for\nnetwork/broadcast addresses); Class B (MSB '10'), with 16384 possible\nnetworks each with 65536 end systems (less reserved values); and\nClass C (MSB '110'), and 2097152 possible networks each and 254 end\nsystems (256 bit combinations minus the reserved all-zeros and all-\nones patterns). The set of addresses with MSB '111' was reserved for\nfuture use; parts of this were eventually defined (MSB '1110') for\nuse with IPv4 multicast and parts are still reserved as of the\nwriting of this document.\n\nIn the late 1980s, the expansion and commercialization of the former\nresearch network resulted in the connection of many new organizations\nto the rapidly growing Internet, and each new organization required\nan address assignment according to the Class A/B/C addressing plan.\nAs demand for new network numbers (particularly in the Class B space)\ntook what appeared to be an exponential growth rate, some members of\nthe operations and engineering community started to have concerns\nover the long-term scaling properties of the class A/B/C system and\nbegan thinking about how to modify network number assignment policy\nand routing protocols to accommodate the growth. In November, 1991,\nthe Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) created the ROAD (Routing\nand Addressing) group to examine the situation. This group met in\nJanuary 1992 and identified three major problems:\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n1. Exhaustion of the Class B network address space. One fundamental\ncause of this problem is the lack of a network class of a size\nthat is appropriate for mid-sized organization. Class C, with a\nmaximum of 254 host addresses, is too small, whereas Class B,\nwhich allows up to 65534 host addresses, is too large for most\norganizations but was the best fit available for use with\nsubnetting.\n\n2. Growth of routing tables in Internet routers beyond the ability\nof current software, hardware, and people to effectively manage.\n\n3. Eventual exhaustion of the 32-bit IPv4 address space.\n\nIt was clear that then-current rates of Internet growth would\ncause the first two problems to become critical sometime between\n1993 and 1995. Work already in progress on topological\nassignment of addressing for Connectionless Network Service\n(CLNS), which was presented to the community at the Boulder IETF\nin December of 1990, led to thoughts on how to re-structure the\n32-bit IPv4 address space to increase its lifespan. Work in the\nROAD group followed and eventually resulted in the publication of\n[\nRFC1338\n], and later, [\nRFC1519\n].\n\nThe design and deployment of CIDR was intended to solve these\nproblems by providing a mechanism to slow the growth of global\nrouting tables and to reduce the rate of consumption of IPv4\naddress space. It did not and does not attempt to solve the\nthird problem, which is of a more long-term nature; instead, it\nendeavors to ease enough of the short- to mid-term difficulties\nto allow the Internet to continue to function efficiently while\nprogress is made on a longer-term solution.\n\nMore historical background on this effort and on the ROAD group\nmay be found in [\nRFC1380\n] and at [\nLWRD\n].\n3\n. Classless Addressing as a Solution\nThe solution that the community created was to deprecate the Class\nA/B/C network address assignment system in favor of using\n\"classless\", hierarchical blocks of IP addresses (referred to as\nprefixes). The assignment of prefixes is intended to roughly follow\nthe underlying Internet topology so that aggregation can be used to\nfacilitate scaling of the global routing system. One implication of\nthis strategy is that prefix assignment and aggregation is generally\ndone according to provider-subscriber relationships, since that is\nhow the Internet topology is determined.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nWhen originally proposed in [\nRFC1338\n] and [\nRFC1519\n], this addressing\nplan was intended to be a relatively short-term response, lasting\napproximately three to five years, during which a more permanent\naddressing and routing architecture would be designed and\nimplemented. As can be inferred from the dates on the original\ndocuments, CIDR has far outlasted its anticipated lifespan and has\nbecome the mid-term solution to the problems described above.\n\nNote that in the following text we describe the current policies and\nprocedures that have been put in place to implement the allocation\narchitecture discussed here. This description is not intended to be\ninterpreted as direction to IANA.\n\nCoupled with address management strategies implemented by the\nRegional Internet Registries (see [\nNRO\n] for details), the deployment\nof CIDR-style addressing has also reduced the rate at which IPv4\naddress space has been consumed, thus providing short- to medium-term\nrelief to problem #3, described above.\n\nNote that, as defined, this plan neither requires nor assumes the\nre-assignment of those parts of the legacy \"Class C\" space that are\nnot amenable to aggregation (sometimes called \"the swamp\"). Doing so\nwould somewhat reduce routing table sizes (current estimate is that\n\"the swamp\" contains approximately 15,000 entries), though at a\nsignificant renumbering cost. Similarly, there is no hard\nrequirement that any end site renumber when changing transit service\nprovider, but end sites are encouraged do so to eliminate the need\nfor explicit advertisement of their prefixes into the global routing\nsystem.\n3.1\n. Basic Concept and Prefix Notation\nIn the simplest sense, the change from Class A/B/C network numbers to\nclassless prefixes is to make explicit which bits in a 32-bit IPv4\naddress are interpreted as the network number (or prefix) associated\nwith a site and which are the used to number individual end systems\nwithin the site. In CIDR notation, a prefix is shown as a 4-octet\nquantity, just like a traditional IPv4 address or network number,\nfollowed by the \"/\" (slash) character, followed by a decimal value\nbetween 0 and 32 that describes the number of significant bits.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nFor example, the legacy \"Class B\" network 172.16.0.0, with an implied\nnetwork mask of 255.255.0.0, is defined as the prefix 172.16.0.0/16,\nthe \"/16\" indicating that the mask to extract the network portion of\nthe prefix is a 32-bit value where the most significant 16 bits are\nones and the least significant 16 bits are zeros. Similarly, the\nlegacy \"Class C\" network number 192.168.99.0 is defined as the prefix\n192.168.99.0/24; the most significant 24 bits are ones and the least\nsignificant 8 bits are zeros.\n\nUsing classless prefixes with explicit prefix lengths allows much\nmore flexible matching of address space blocks according to actual\nneed. Where formerly only three network sizes were available,\nprefixes may be defined to describe any power of two-sized block of\nbetween one and 2^32 end system addresses. In practice, the\nunallocated pool of addresses is administered by the Internet\nAssigned Numbers Authority ([\nIANA\n]). The IANA makes allocations from\nthis pool to Regional Internet Registries, as required. These\nallocations are made in contiguous bit-aligned blocks of 2^24\naddresses (a.k.a. /8 prefixes). The Regional Internet Registries\n(RIRs), in turn, allocate or assign smaller address blocks to Local\nInternet Registries (LIRs) or Internet Service Providers (ISPs).\nThese entities may make direct use of the assignment (as would\ncommonly be the case for an ISP) or may make further sub-allocations\nof addresses to their customers. These RIR address assignments vary\naccording to the needs of each ISP or LIR. For example, a large ISP\nmight be allocated an address block of 2^17 addresses (a /15 prefix),\nwhereas a smaller ISP may be allocated an address block of 2^11\naddresses (a /21 prefix).\n\nNote that the terms \"allocate\" and \"assign\" have specific meaning in\nthe Internet address registry system; \"allocate\" refers to the\ndelegation of a block of address space to an organization that is\nexpected to perform further sub-delegations, and \"assign\" is used for\nsites that directly use (i.e., number individual hosts) the block of\naddresses received.\n\nThe following table provides a convenient shortcut to all the CIDR\nprefix sizes, showing the number of addresses possible in each prefix\nand the number of prefixes of that size that may be numbered in the\n32-bit IPv4 address space:\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nnotation addrs/block # blocks\n-------- ----------- ----------\nn.n.n.n/32 1 4294967296 \"host route\"\nn.n.n.x/31 2 2147483648 \"p2p link\"\nn.n.n.x/30 4 1073741824\nn.n.n.x/29 8 536870912\nn.n.n.x/28 16 268435456\nn.n.n.x/27 32 134217728\nn.n.n.x/26 64 67108864\nn.n.n.x/25 128 33554432\nn.n.n.0/24 256 16777216 legacy \"Class C\"\nn.n.x.0/23 512 8388608\nn.n.x.0/22 1024 4194304\nn.n.x.0/21 2048 2097152\nn.n.x.0/20 4096 1048576\nn.n.x.0/19 8192 524288\nn.n.x.0/18 16384 262144\nn.n.x.0/17 32768 131072\nn.n.0.0/16 65536 65536 legacy \"Class B\"\nn.x.0.0/15 131072 32768\nn.x.0.0/14 262144 16384\nn.x.0.0/13 524288 8192\nn.x.0.0/12 1048576 4096\nn.x.0.0/11 2097152 2048\nn.x.0.0/10 4194304 1024\nn.x.0.0/9 8388608 512\nn.0.0.0/8 16777216 256 legacy \"Class A\"\nx.0.0.0/7 33554432 128\nx.0.0.0/6 67108864 64\nx.0.0.0/5 134217728 32\nx.0.0.0/4 268435456 16\nx.0.0.0/3 536870912 8\nx.0.0.0/2 1073741824 4\nx.0.0.0/1 2147483648 2\n0.0.0.0/0 4294967296 1 \"default route\"\n\nn is an 8-bit decimal octet value. Point-to-point links are\ndiscussed in more detail in [\nRFC3021\n].\n\nx is a 1- to 7-bit value, based on the prefix length, shifted into\nthe most significant bits of the octet and converted into decimal\nform; the least significant bits of the octet are zero.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nIn practice, prefixes of length shorter than 8 have not been\nallocated or assigned to date, although routes to such short prefixes\nmay exist in routing tables if or when aggressive aggregation is\nperformed. As of the writing of this document, no such routes are\nseen in the global routing system, but operator error and other\nevents have caused some of them (i.e., 128.0.0.0/1 and 192.0.0.0/2)\nto be observed in some networks at some times in the past.\n4\n. Address Assignment and Routing Aggregation\nClassless addressing and routing was initially developed primarily to\nimprove the scaling properties of routing on the global Internet.\nBecause the scaling of routing is very tightly coupled to the way\nthat addresses are used, deployment of CIDR had implications for the\nway in which addresses were assigned.\n4.1\n. Aggregation Efficiency and Limitations\nThe only commonly understood method for reducing routing state on a\npacket-switched network is through aggregation of information. For\nCIDR to succeed in reducing the size and growth rate of the global\nrouting system, the IPv4 address assignment process needed to be\nchanged to make possible the aggregation of routing information along\ntopological lines. Since, in general, the topology of the network is\ndetermined by the service providers who have built it, topologically\nsignificant address assignments are necessarily service-provider\noriented.\n\nAggregation is simple for an end site that is connected to one\nservice provider: it uses address space assigned by its service\nprovider, and that address space is a small piece of a larger block\nallocated to the service provider. No explicit route is needed for\nthe end site; the service provider advertises a single aggregate\nroute for the larger block. This advertisement provides reachability\nand routeability for all the customers numbered in the block.\n\nThere are two, more complex, situations that reduce the effectiveness\nof aggregation:\n\no An organization that is multi-homed. Because a multi-homed\norganization must be advertised into the system by each of its\nservice providers, it is often not feasible to aggregate its\nrouting information into the address space of any one of those\nproviders. Note that the organization still may receive its\naddress assignment out of a service provider's address space\n(which has other advantages), but that a route to the\norganization's prefix is, in the most general case, explicitly\nadvertised by all of its service providers. For this reason, the\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 8]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nglobal routing cost for a multi-homed organization is generally\nthe same as it was prior to the adoption of CIDR. A more detailed\nconsideration of multi-homing practices can be found in [\nRFC4116\n].\n\no An organization that changes service provider but does not\nrenumber. This has the effect of \"punching a hole\" in one of the\noriginal service provider's aggregated route advertisements. CIDR\nhandles this situation by requiring that the newer service\nprovider to advertise a specific advertisement for the re-homed\norganization; this advertisement is preferred over provider\naggregates because it is a longer match. To maintain efficiency\nof aggregation, it is recommended that an organization that\nchanges service providers plan eventually to migrate its network\ninto a an prefix assigned from its new provider's address space.\nTo this end, it is recommended that mechanisms to facilitate such\nmigration, such as dynamic host address assignment that uses\n[\nRFC2131\n]), be deployed wherever possible, and that additional\nprotocol work be done to develop improved technology for\nrenumbering.\n\nNote that some aggregation efficiency gain can still be had for\nmulti-homed sites (and, in general, for any site composed of\nmultiple, logical IPv4 networks); by allocating a contiguous power-\nof-two block address space to the site (as opposed to multiple,\nindependent prefixes), the site's routing information may be\naggregated into a single prefix. Also, since the routing cost\nassociated with assigning a multi-homed site out of a service\nprovider's address space is no greater than the old method of\nsequential number assignment by a central authority, it makes sense\nto assign all end-site address space out of blocks allocated to\nservice providers.\n\nIt is also worthwhile to mention that since aggregation may occur at\nmultiple levels in the system, it may still be possible to aggregate\nthese anomalous routes at higher levels of whatever hierarchy may be\npresent. For example, if a site is multi-homed to two relatively\nsmall providers that both obtain connectivity and address space from\nthe same large provider, then aggregation by the large provider of\nroutes from the smaller networks will include all routes to the\nmulti-homed site. The feasibility of this sort of second-level\naggregation depends on whether topological hierarchy exists among a\nsite, its directly-connected providers, and other providers to which\nthey are connected; it may be practical in some regions of the global\nInternet but not in others.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 9]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nNote: In the discussion and examples that follow, prefix notation is\nused to represent routing destinations. This is used for\nillustration only and does not require that routing protocols use\nthis representation in their updates.\n4.2\n. Distributed Assignment of Address Space\nIn the early days of the Internet, IPv4 address space assignment was\nperformed by the central Network Information Center (NIC). Class\nA/B/C network numbers were assigned in essentially arbitrary order,\nroughly according to the size of the organizations that requested\nthem. All assignments were recorded centrally, and no attempt was\nmade to assign network numbers in a manner that would allow routing\naggregation.\n\nWhen CIDR was originally deployed, the central assignment authority\ncontinued to exist but changed its procedures to assign large blocks\nof \"Class C\" network numbers to each service provider. Each service\nprovider, in turn, assigned bitmask-oriented subsets of the\nprovider's address space to each customer. This worked reasonably\nwell, as long as the number of service providers was relatively small\nand relatively constant, but it did not scale well, as the number of\nservice providers grew at a rapid rate.\n\nAs the Internet started to expand rapidly in the 1990s, it became\nclear that a single, centralized address assignment authority was\nproblematic. This function began being de-centralized when address\nspace assignment for European Internet sites was delegated in bit-\naligned blocks of 16777216 addresses (what CIDR would later define as\na /8) to the RIPE NCC ([\nRIPE\n]), effectively making it the first of\nthe RIRs. Since then, address assignment has been formally\ndistributed as a hierarchical function with IANA, the RIRs, and the\nservice providers. Removing the bottleneck of a single organization\nhaving responsibility for the global Internet address space greatly\nimproved the efficiency and response time for new assignments.\n\nHierarchical delegation of addresses in this manner implies that\nsites with addresses assigned out of a given service provider are,\nfor routing purposes, part of that service provider and will be\nrouted via its infrastructure. This implies that routing information\nabout multi-homed organizations (i.e., organizations connected to\nmore than one network service provider) will still need to be known\nby higher levels in the hierarchy.\n\nA historical perspective on these issues is described in [\nRFC1518\n].\nAdditional discussion may also be found in [\nRFC3221\n].\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 10]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n5\n. Routing Implementation Considerations\nWith the change from classful network numbers to classless prefixes,\nit is not possible to infer the network mask from the initial bit\npattern of an IPv4 address. This has implications for how routing\ninformation is stored and propagated. Network masks or prefix\nlengths must be explicitly carried in routing protocols. Interior\nrouting protocols, such as OSPF [\nRFC2328\n], Intermediate System to\nIntermediate System (IS-IS) [\nRFC1195\n], RIPv2 [\nRFC2453\n], and Cisco\nEnhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP), and the BGP4\nexterior routing protocol [\nRFC4271\n], all support this functionality,\nhaving been developed or modified as part of the deployment of\nclassless inter-domain routing during the 1990s.\n\nOlder interior routing protocols, such as RIP [\nRFC1058\n], HELLO, and\nCisco Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP), and older exterior\nrouting protocols, such as Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) [\nRFC904\n],\ndo not support explicit carriage of prefix length/mask and thus\ncannot be effectively used on the Internet other than in very limited\nstub configurations. Although their use may be appropriate in simple\nlegacy end-site configurations, they are considered obsolete and\nshould NOT be used in transit networks connected to the global\nInternet.\n\nSimilarly, routing and forwarding tables in layer-3 network equipment\nmust be organized to store both prefix and prefix length or mask.\nEquipment that organizes its routing/forwarding information according\nto legacy Class A/B/C network/subnet conventions cannot be expected\nto work correctly on networks connected to the global Internet; use\nof such equipment is not recommended. Fortunately, very little such\nequipment is in use today.\n5.1\n. Rules for Route Advertisement\n1. Forwarding in the Internet is done on a longest-match basis.\nThis implies that destinations that are multi-homed relative to a\nrouting domain must always be explicitly announced into that\nrouting domain (i.e., they cannot be summarized). If a network\nis multi-homed, all of its paths into a routing domain that is\n\"higher\" in the hierarchy of networks must be known to the\n\"higher\" network).\n\n2. A router that generates an aggregate route for multiple, more-\nspecific routes must discard packets that match the aggregate\nroute, but not any of the more-specific routes. In other words,\nthe \"next hop\" for the aggregate route should be the null\ndestination. This is necessary to prevent forwarding loops when\nsome addresses covered by the aggregate are not reachable.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 11]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nNote that during failures, partial routing of traffic to a site that\ntakes its address space from one service provider but that is\nactually reachable only through another (i.e., the case of a site\nthat has changed service providers) may occur because such traffic\nwill be forwarded along the path advertised by the aggregated route.\nRule #2 will prevent packet misdelivery by causing such traffic to be\ndiscarded by the advertiser of the aggregated route, but the output\nof \"traceroute\" and other similar tools will suggest that a problem\nexists within that network rather than in the network that is no\nlonger advertising the more-specific prefix. This may be confusing\nto those trying to diagnose connectivity problems; see the example in\nSection 6.2\nfor details. A solution to this perceived \"problem\" is\nbeyond the scope of this document; it lies with better education of\nthe user/operator community, not in routing technology.\n\nAn implementation following these rules should also be generalized,\nso that an arbitrary network number and mask are accepted for all\nrouting destinations. The only outstanding constraint is that the\nmask must be left contiguous. Note that the degenerate route to\nprefix 0.0.0.0/0 is used as a default route and MUST be accepted by\nall implementations. Further, to protect against accidental\nadvertisements of this route via the inter-domain protocol, this\nroute should only be advertised to another routing domain when a\nrouter is explicitly configured to do so, never as a non-configured,\n\"default\" option.\n5.2\n. How the Rules Work\nRule #1 guarantees that the forwarding algorithm used is consistent\nacross routing protocols and implementations. Multi-homed networks\nare always explicitly advertised by every service provider through\nwhich they are routed, even if they are a specific subset of one\nservice provider's aggregate (if they are not, they clearly must be\nexplicitly advertised). It may seem as if the \"primary\" service\nprovider could advertise the multi-homed site implicitly as part of\nits aggregate, but longest-match forwarding causes this not to work.\nMore details are provided in [\nRFC4116\n].\n\nRule #2 guarantees that no routing loops form due to aggregation.\nConsider a site that has been assigned 192.168.64/19 by its \"parent\"\nprovider, which has 192.168.0.0/16. The \"parent\" network will\nadvertise 192.168.0.0/16 to the \"child\" network. If the \"child\"\nnetwork were to lose internal connectivity to 192.168.65.0/24 (which\nis part of its aggregate), traffic from the \"parent\" to the to the\n\"child\" destined for 192.168.65.1 will follow the \"child's\"\nadvertised route. When that traffic gets to the \"child\", however,\nthe child *must not* follow the route 192.168.0.0/16 back up to the\n\"parent\", since that would result in a forwarding loop. Rule #2 says\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 12]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nthat the \"child\" may not follow a less-specific route for a\ndestination that matches one of its own aggregated routes (typically,\nthis is implemented by installing a \"discard\" or \"null\" route for all\naggregated prefixes that one network advertises to another). Note\nthat handling of the \"default\" route (0.0.0.0/0) is a special case of\nthis rule; a network must not follow the default to destinations that\nare part of one of its aggregated advertisements.\n5.3\n. A Note on Prefix Filter Formats\nSystems that process route announcements must be able to verify that\ninformation that they receive is acceptable according to policy\nrules. Implementations that filter route advertisements must allow\nmasks or prefix lengths in filter elements. Thus, filter elements\nthat formerly were specified as\n\naccept 172.16.0.0\naccept 172.25.120.0.0\naccept 172.31.0.0\ndeny 10.2.0.0\naccept 10.0.0.0\n\nnow look something like this:\n\naccept 172.16.0.0/16\naccept 172.25.0.0/16\naccept 172.31.0.0/16\ndeny 10.2.0.0/16\naccept 10.0.0.0/8\n\nThis is merely making explicit the network mask that was implied by\nthe Class A/B/C classification of network numbers. It is also useful\nto enhance filtering capability to allow the match of a prefix and\nall more-specific prefixes with the same bit pattern; fortunately,\nthis functionality has been implemented by most vendors of equipment\nused on the Internet.\n5.4\n. Responsibility for and Configuration of Aggregation\nUnder normal circumstances, a routing domain (or \"Autonomous System\")\nthat has been allocated or assigned a set of prefixes has sole\nresponsibility for aggregation of those prefixes. In the usual case,\nthe AS will install configuration in one or more of its routers to\ngenerate aggregate routes based on more-specific routes known to its\ninternal routing system. These aggregate routes are advertised into\nthe global routing system by the border routers for the routing\ndomain. The more-specific internal routes that overlap with the\naggregate routes should not be advertised globally. In some cases,\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 13]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nan AS may wish to delegate aggregation responsibility to another AS\n(for example, a customer may wish for its service provider to\ngenerate aggregated routing information on its behalf); in such\ncases, aggregation is performed by a router in the second AS\naccording to the routes that it receives from the first, combined\nwith configured policy information describing how those routes should\nbe aggregated.\n\nNote that one provider may choose to perform aggregation on the\nroutes it receives from another without explicit agreement; this is\ntermed \"proxy aggregation\". This can be a useful tool for reducing\nthe amount of routing state that an AS must carry and propagate to\nits customers and neighbors. However, proxy aggregation can also\ncreate unintended consequences in traffic engineering. Consider what\nhappens if both AS 2 and 3 receive routes from AS 1 but AS 2 performs\nproxy aggregation while AS 3 does not. Other ASes that receive\ntransit routing information from both AS 2 and AS 3 will see an\ninconsistent view of the routing information originated by AS 1.\nThis may cause an unexpected shift of traffic toward AS 1 through AS\n3 for AS 3's customers and any others receiving transit routes from\nAS 3. Because proxy aggregation can cause unanticipated consequences\nfor parts of the Internet that have no relationship with either the\nsource of the aggregated routes or the party providing aggregation,\nit should be used with extreme caution.\n\nConfiguration of the routes to be combined into aggregates is an\nimplementation of routing policy and requires some manually\nmaintained information. As an addition to the information that must\nbe maintained for a set of routeable prefixes, aggregation\nconfiguration is typically just a line or two defining the range of\nthe block of IPv4 addresses to be aggregated. A site performing its\nown aggregation is doing so for address blocks that it has been\nassigned; a site performing aggregation on behalf of another knows\nthis information because of an agreement to delegate aggregation.\nAssuming that the best common practice for network administrators is\nto exchange lists of prefixes to accept from each other,\nconfiguration of aggregation information does not introduce\nsignificant additional administrative overhead.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 14]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nThe generation of an aggregate route is usually specified either\nstatically or in response to learning an active dynamic route for a\nprefix contained within the aggregate route. If such dynamic\naggregate route advertisement is done, care should be taken that\nroutes are not excessively added or withdrawn (known as \"route\nflapping\"). In general, a dynamic aggregate route advertisement is\nadded when at least one component of the aggregate becomes reachable\nand it is withdrawn only when all components become unreachable.\nProperly configured, aggregated routes are more stable than non-\naggregated routes and thus improve global routing stability.\n\nImplementation note: Aggregation of the \"Class D\" (multicast) address\nspace is beyond the scope of this document.\n5.5\n. Route Propagation and Routing Protocol Considerations\nPrior to the original deployment of CIDR, common practice was to\npropagate routes learned via exterior routing protocols (i.e., EGP or\nBGP) through a site's interior routing protocol (typically, OSPF,\nIS-IS, or RIP). This was done to ensure that consistent and correct\nexit points were chosen for traffic to be sent to a destination\nlearned through those protocols. Four evolutionary effects -- the\nadvent of CIDR, explosive growth of global routing state, widespread\nadoption of BGP4, and a requirement to propagate full path\ninformation -- have combined to deprecate that practice. To ensure\nproper path propagation and prevent inter-AS routing inconsistency\n(BGP4's loop detection/prevention mechanism requires full path\npropagation), transit networks must use internal BGP (iBGP) for\ncarrying routes learned from other providers both within and through\ntheir networks.\n6\n. Example of New Address Assignments and Routing\n6.1\n. Address Delegation\nConsider the block of 524288 (2^19) addresses, beginning with\n10.24.0.0 and ending with 10.31.255.255, allocated to a single\nnetwork provider, \"PA\". This is equivalent in size to a block of\n2048 legacy \"Class C\" network numbers (or /24s). A classless route\nto this block would be described as 10.24.0.0 with a mask of\n255.248.0.0 and the prefix 10.24.0.0/13.\n\nAssume that this service provider connects six sites in the following\norder (significant because it demonstrates how temporary \"holes\" may\nform in the service provider's address space):\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 15]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\no \"C1\", requiring fewer than 2048 addresses (/21 or 8 x /24)\n\no \"C2\", requiring fewer than 4096 addresses (/20 or 16 x /24)\n\no \"C3\", requiring fewer than 1024 addresses (/22 or 4 x /24)\n\no \"C4\", requiring fewer than 1024 addresses (/22 or 4 x /24)\n\no \"C5\", requiring fewer than 512 addresses (/23 or 2 x /24)\n\no \"C6\", requiring fewer than 512 addresses (/23 or 2 x /24)\n\nIn all cases, the number of IPv4 addresses \"required\" by each site is\nassumed to allow for significant growth. The service provider\ndelegates its address space as follows:\n\no C1. assign 10.24.0 through 10.24.7. This block of networks is\ndescribed by the route 10.24.0.0/21 (mask 255.255.248.0).\n\no C2. Assign 10.24.16 through 10.24.31. This block is described by\nthe route 10.24.16.0/20 (mask 255.255.240.0).\n\no C3. Assign 10.24.8 through 10.24.11. This block is described by\nthe route 10.24.8.0/22 (mask 255.255.252.0).\n\no C4. Assign 10.24.12 through 10.24.15. This block is described by\nthe route 10.24.12.0/22 (mask 255.255.252.0).\n\no C5. Assign 10.24.32 and 10.24.33. This block is described by the\nroute 10.24.32.0/23 (mask 255.255.254.0).\n\no C6. Assign 10.24.34 and 10.24.35. This block is described by the\nroute 10.24.34.0/23 (mask 255.255.254.0).\n\nThese six sites should be represented as six prefixes of varying size\nwithin the provider's IGP. If, for some reason, the provider uses an\nobsolete IGP that doesn't support classless routing or variable-\nlength subnets, then explicit routes for all /24s will have to be\ncarried.\n\nTo make this example more realistic, assume that C4 and C5 are multi-\nhomed through some other service provider, \"PB\". Further assume the\nexistence of a site, \"C7\", that was originally connected to \"RB\" but\nthat has moved to \"PA\". For this reason, it has a block of network\nnumbers that are assigned out PB's block of (the next) 2048 x /24.\n\no C7. Assign 10.32.0 through 10.32.15. This block is described by\nthe route 10.32.0.0/20 (mask 255.255.240.0).\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 16]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nFor the multi-homed sites, assume that C4 is advertised as primary\nvia \"RA\" and secondary via \"RB\"; and that C5 is primary via \"RB\" and\nsecondary via \"RA\". In addition, assume that \"RA\" and \"RB\" are both\nconnected to the same transit service provider, \"BB\".\n\nGraphically, this topology looks something like this:\n\n10.24.0.0 -- 10.24.7.0__ __10.32.0.0 - 10.32.15.0\nC1: 10.24.0.0/21 \\ / C7: 10.32.0.0/20\n\\ /\n+----+ +----+\n10.24.16.0 - 10.24.31.0_ | | | |\nC2: 10.24.16.0/20 \\ | | _10.24.12.0 - 10.24.15.0__ | |\n\\| | / C4: 10.24.12.0/20 \\ | |\n| |/ \\| |\n10.24.8.0 - 10.24.11.0___/| PA |\\ | PB |\nC3: 10.24.8.0/22 | | \\__10.24.32.0 - 10.24.33.0___| |\n| | C5: 10.24.32.0/23 | |\n| | | |\n10.24.34.0 - 10.24.35.0__/| | | |\nC6: 10.24.34.0/23 | | | |\n+----+ +----+\n|| ||\nrouting advertisements: || ||\n|| ||\n10.24.12.0/22 (C4) || 10.24.12.0/22 (C4) ||\n10.32.0.0/20 (C7) || 10.24.32.0/23 (C5) ||\n10.24.0.0/13 (PA) || 10.32.0.0/13 (PB) ||\n|| ||\nVV VV\n+---------- BACKBONE NETWORK BB ----------+\n6.2\n. Routing Advertisements\nTo follow rule #1, PA will need to advertise the block of addresses\nthat it was given and C7. Since C4 is multi-homed and primary\nthrough PA, it must also be advertised. C5 is multi-homed and\nprimary through PB. In principle (and in the example above), it need\nnot be advertised, since longest match by PB will automatically\nselect PB as primary and the advertisement of PA's aggregate will be\nused as a secondary. In actual practice, C5 will normally be\nadvertised via both providers.\n\nAdvertisements from \"PA\" to \"BB\" will be\n\n10.24.12.0/22 primary (advertises C4)\n10.32.0.0/20 primary (advertises C7)\n10.24.0.0/13 primary (advertises remainder of PA)\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 17]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nFor PB, the advertisements must also include C4 and C5, as well as\nits block of addresses.\n\nAdvertisements from \"PB\" to \"BB\" will be\n\n10.24.12.0/22 secondary (advertises C4)\n10.24.32.0/23 primary (advertises C5)\n10.32.0.0/13 primary (advertises remainder of RB)\n\nTo illustrate the problem diagnosis issue mentioned in\nSection 5.1\n,\nconsider what happens if PA loses connectivity to C7 (the site that\nis assigned out of PB's space). In a stateful protocol, PA will\nannounce to BB that 10.32.0.0/20 has become unreachable. Now, when\nBB flushes this information out of its routing table, any future\ntraffic sent through it for this destination will be forwarded to PB\n(where it will be dropped according to Rule #2) by virtue of PB's\nless-specific match, 10.32.0.0/13. Although this does not cause an\noperational problem (C7 is unreachable in any case), it does create\nsome extra traffic across \"BB\" (and may also prove confusing to\nsomeone trying to debug the outage with \"traceroute\"). A mechanism\nto cache such unreachable state might be nice, but it is beyond the\nscope of this document.\n7\n. Domain Name Service Considerations\nOne aspect of Internet services that was notably affected by the move\nto CIDR was the mechanism used for address-to-name translation: the\nIN-ADDR.ARPA zone of the domain system. Because this zone is\ndelegated on octet boundaries only, the move to an address assignment\nplan that uses bitmask-oriented addressing caused some increase in\nwork for those who maintain parts of the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone.\n\nA description of techniques to populate the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone when\nand used address that blocks that do not align to octet boundaries is\ndescribed in [\nRFC2317\n].\n8\n. Transition to a Long-Term Solution\nCIDR was designed to be a short-term solution to the problems of\nrouting state and address depletion on the IPv4 Internet. It does\nnot change the fundamental Internet routing or addressing\narchitectures. It is not expected to affect any plans for transition\nto a more long-term solution except, perhaps, by delaying the urgency\nof developing such a solution.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 18]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n9\n. Analysis of CIDR's Effect on Global Routing State\nWhen CIDR was first proposed in the early 1990s, the original authors\nmade some observations about the growth rate of global routing state\nand offered projections on how CIDR deployment would, hopefully,\nreduce what appeared to be exponential growth to a more sustainable\nrate. Since that deployment, an ongoing effort, called \"The CIDR\nReport\" [\nCRPT\n], has attempted to quantify and track that growth rate.\nWhat follows is a brief summary of the CIDR report as of March 2005,\nwith an attempt to explain the various patterns and changes of growth\nrate that have occurred since measurements of the size of global\nrouting state began in 1988.\n\nWhen the graph of \"Active BGP Table Entries\" [\nCBGP\n] is examined,\nthere appear to be several different growth trends with distinct\ninflection points reflecting changes in policy and practice. The\ntrends and events that are believed to have caused them were as\nfollows:\n\n1. Exponential growth at the far left of the graph. This represents\nthe period of early expansion and commercialization of the former\nresearch network, from the late 1980s through approximately 1994.\nThe major driver for this growth was a lack of aggregation\ncapability for transit providers, and the widespread use of\nlegacy Class C allocations for end sites. Each time a new site\nwas connected to the global Internet, one or more new routing\nentries were generated.\n\n2. Acceleration of the exponential trend in late 1993 and early 1994\nas CIDR \"supernet\" blocks were first assigned by the NIC and\nrouted as separate legacy class-C networks by service provider.\n\n3. A sharp drop in 1994 as BGP4 deployment by providers allowed\naggregation of the \"supernet\" blocks. Note that the periods of\nlargest declines in the number of routing table entries typically\ncorrespond to the weeks following each meeting of the IETF CIDR\nDeployment Working Group.\n\n4. Roughly linear growth from mid-1994 to early 1999 as CIDR-based\naddress assignments were made and aggregated routes added\nthroughout the network.\n\n5. A new period of exponential growth again from early 1999 until\n2001 as the \"high-tech bubble\" fueled both rapid expansion of the\nInternet, as well as a large increase in more-specific route\nadvertisements for multi-homing and traffic engineering.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 19]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n6. Flattening of growth through 2001 caused by a combination of the\n\"dot-com bust\", which caused many organizations to cease\noperations, and the \"CIDR police\" [\nCPOL\n] work aimed at improving\naggregation efficiency.\n\n7. Roughly linear growth through 2002 and 2003. This most likely\nrepresents a resumption of the \"normal\" growth rate observed\nbefore the \"bubble\", as well as an end to the \"CIDR Police\"\neffort.\n\n8. A more recent trend of exponential growth beginning in 2004. The\nbest explanation would seem to be an improvement of the global\neconomy driving increased expansion of the Internet and the\ncontinued absence of the \"CIDR Police\" effort, which previously\nserved as an educational tool for new providers to improve\naggregation efficiency. There have also been some cases where\nservice providers have deliberately de-aggregated prefixes in an\nattempt to mitigate security problems caused by conflicting route\nadvertisements (see\nSection 12\n). Although this behavior may\nsolve the short-term problems seen by such providers, it is\nfundamentally non-scalable and quite detrimental to the community\nas a whole. In addition, there appear to be many providers\nadvertising both their allocated prefixes and all the /24\ncomponents thereof, probably due to a lack of consistent current\ninformation about recommended routing configuration.\n10\n. Conclusions and Recommendations\nIn 1992, when CIDR was first developed, there were serious problems\nfacing the continued growth of the Internet. Growth in routing state\ncomplexity and the rapid increase in consumption of address space\nmade it appear that one or both problems would preclude continued\ngrowth of the Internet within a few short years.\n\nDeployment of CIDR, in combination with BGP4's support for carrying\nclassless prefix routes, alleviated the short-term crisis. It was\nonly through a concerted effort by both the equipment manufacturers\nand the provider community that this was achieved. The threat (and,\nperhaps in some cases, actual implementation of) charging networks\nfor advertising prefixes may have offered an additional incentive to\nshare the address space, and thus the associated costs of advertising\nroutes to service providers.\n\nThe IPv4 routing system architecture carries topology information\nbased on aggregate address advertisements and a collection of more-\nspecific advertisements that are associated with traffic engineering,\nmulti-homing, and local configuration. As of March 2005, the base\naggregate address load in the routing system has some 75,000 entries.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 20]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nApproximately 85,000 additional entries are more specific entries of\nthis base \"root\" collection. There is reason to believe that many of\nthese additional entries exist to solve problems of regional or even\nlocal scope and should not need to be globally propagated.\n\nAn obvious question to ask is whether CIDR can continue to be a\nviable approach to keeping global routing state growth and address\nspace depletion at sustainable rates. Recent measurements indicate\nthat exponential growth has resumed, but further analysis suggests\nthat this trend can be mitigated by a more active effort to educate\nservice providers as to efficient aggregation strategies and proper\nequipment configuration. Looking farther forward, there is a clear\nneed for better multi-homing technology that does not require global\nrouting state for each site and for methods of performing traffic\nload balancing that do not require adding even more state. Without\nsuch developments and in the absence of major architectural change,\naggregation is the only tool available for making routing scale in\nthe global Internet.\n11\n. Status Updates to CIDR Documents\nThis memo renders obsolete and requests re-classification as Historic\nthe following RFCs describing CIDR usage and deployment:\n\no\nRFC 1467\n: Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet\n\nThis Informational RFC described the status of CIDR deployment in\n1993. As of 2005, CIDR has been thoroughly deployed, so this\nstatus note only provides a historical data point.\n\no\nRFC 1481\n: IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to\nAddress the Issue of Scaling\n\nThis very short Informational RFC described the IAB's endorsement\nof the use of CIDR to address scaling issues. Because the goal of\nRFC 1481\nhas been achieved, it is now only of historical value.\n\no\nRFC 1482\n: Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing\nDatabase\n\nThis Informational RFC describes plans for support of route\naggregation, as specified by CIDR, on the NSFNET. Because the\nNSFNET has long since ceased to exist and CIDR has been\nubiquitously deployed,\nRFC 1482\nnow only has historical relevance.\n\no\nRFC 1517\n: Applicability Statement for the Implementation of\nClassless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 21]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nThis Standards Track RFC described where CIDR was expected to be\nrequired and where it was expected to be (strongly) recommended.\nWith the full deployment of CIDR on the Internet, situations where\nCIDR is not required are of only historical interest.\n\no\nRFC 1518\n: An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR\n\nThis Standards Track RFC discussed routing and address aggregation\nconsiderations at some length. Some of these issues are\nsummarized in this document in section\nSection 3.1\n. Because\naddress assignment policies and procedures now reside mainly with\nthe RIRs, it is not appropriate to try to document those practices\nin a Standards Track RFC. In addition, [\nRFC3221\n] also describes\nmany of the same issues from point of view of the routing system.\n\no\nRFC 1520\n: Exchanging Routing Information Across Provider\nBoundaries in the CIDR Environment\n\nThis Informational RFC described transition scenarios where CIDR\nwas not fully supported for exchanging route information between\nproviders. With the full deployment of CIDR on the Internet, such\nscenarios are no longer operationally relevant.\n\no\nRFC 1817\n: CIDR and Classful Routing\n\nThis Informational RFC described the implications of CIDR\ndeployment in 1995; it notes that formerly-classful addresses were\nto be allocated using CIDR mechanisms and describes the use of a\ndefault route for non-CIDR-aware sites. With the full deployment\nof CIDR on the Internet, such scenarios are no longer\noperationally relevant.\n\no\nRFC 1878\n: Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4\n\nThis Informational RFC provided a table of pre-calculated subnet\nmasks and address counts for each subnet size. With the\nincorporation of a similar table into this document (see\nSection\n3.1\n), it is no longer necessary to document it in a separate RFC.\n\no\nRFC 2036\n: Observations on the use of Components of the Class A\nAddress Space within the Internet\n\nThis Informational RFC described several operational issues\nassociated with the allocation of classless prefixes from\npreviously-classful address space. With the full deployment of\nCIDR on the Internet and more than half a dozen years of\nexperience making classless prefix allocations out of historical\n\"Class A\" address space, this RFC now has only historical value.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 22]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n12\n. Security Considerations\nThe introduction of routing protocols that support classless prefixes\nand a move to a forwarding model that mandates that more-specific\n(longest-match) routes be preferred when they overlap with routes to\nless-specific prefixes introduces at least two security concerns:\n\n1. Traffic can be hijacked by advertising a prefix for a given\ndestination that is more specific than the aggregate that is\nnormally advertised for that destination. For example, assume\nthat a popular end system with the address 192.168.17.100 is\nconnected to a service provider that advertises 192.168.16.0/20.\nA malicious network operator interested in intercepting traffic\nfor this site might advertise, or at least attempt to advertise,\n192.168.17.0/24 into the global routing system. Because this\nprefix is more specific than the \"normal\" prefix, traffic will be\ndiverted away from the legitimate end system and to the network\nowned by the malicious operator. Prior to the advent of CIDR, it\nwas possible to induce traffic from some parts of the network to\nfollow a false advertisement that exactly matched a particular\nnetwork number; CIDR makes this problem somewhat worse, since\nlongest-match routing generally causes all traffic to prefer\nmore-specific routes over less-specific routes. The remedy for\nthe CIDR-based attack, though, is the same as for a pre-CIDR-\nbased attack: establishment of trust relationships between\nproviders, coupled with and strong route policy filters at\nprovider borders. Unfortunately, the implementation of such\nfilters is difficult in the highly de-centralized Internet. As a\nworkaround, many providers do implement generic filters that set\nupper bounds, derived from RIR guidelines for the sizes of blocks\nthat they allocate, on the lengths of prefixes that are accepted\nfrom other providers. Note that \"spammers\" have been observed\nusing this sort of attack to hijack address space temporarily in\norder to hide the origin of the traffic (\"spam\" email messages)\nthat they generate.\n\n2. Denial-of-service attacks can be launched against many parts of\nthe Internet infrastructure by advertising a large number of\nroutes into the system. Such an attack is intended to cause\nrouter failures by overflowing routing and forwarding tables. A\ngood example of a non-malicious incident that caused this sort of\nfailure was the infamous \"AS 7007\" event [\n7007\n], where a router\nmis-configuration by an operator caused a huge number of invalid\nroutes to be propagated through the global routing system.\nAgain, this sort of attack is not really new with CIDR; using\nlegacy Class A/B/C routes, it was possible to advertise a maximum\nof 16843008 unique network numbers into the global routing\nsystem, a number that is sufficient to cause problems for even\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 23]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nthe most modern routing equipment made in 2005. What is\ndifferent is that the moderate complexity of correctly\nconfiguring routers in the presence of CIDR tends to make\naccidental \"attacks\" of this sort more likely. Measures to\nprevent this sort of attack are much the same as those described\nabove for the hijacking, with the addition that best common\npractice is also to configure a reasonable maximum number of\nprefixes that a border router will accept from its neighbors.\n\nNote that this is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of the\nsorts of attacks that CIDR makes easier; a more comprehensive\nanalysis of security vulnerabilities in the global routing system is\nbeyond the scope of this document.\n13\n. Acknowledgements\nThe authors wish to express appreciation to the other original\nauthors of\nRFC 1519\n(Kannan Varadhan, Jessica Yu); to the ROAD group,\nwith whom many of the ideas behind CIDR were inspired and developed;\nand to the early reviewers of this re-spun version of the document\n(Barry Greene, Danny McPherson, Dave Meyer, Eliot Lear, Bill Norton,\nTed Seely, Philip Smith, Pekka Savola), whose comments, corrections,\nand suggestions were invaluable. We would especially like to thank\nGeoff Huston for contributions well above and beyond the call of\nduty.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 24]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n14\n. References\n14.1\n. Normative References\n[\nRFC791\n] Postel, J., \"Internet Protocol\", STD 5,\nRFC 791\n, September\n1981.\n14.2\n. Informative References\n[\n7007\n] \"NANOG mailing list discussion of the \"AS 7007\" incident\",\n<\nhttp://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1997-04/\nmsg00340.html\n>.\n\n[\nCBGP\n] \"Graph: Active BGP Table Entries, 1988 to Present\",\n<\nhttp://bgp.potaroo.net/as4637/\n>.\n\n[\nCPOL\n] \"CIDR Police - Please Pull Over and Show Us Your BGP\",\n<\nhttp://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/cidr.html\n>.\n\n[\nCRPT\n] \"The CIDR Report\", <\nhttp://www.cidr-report.org/\n>.\n\n[\nIANA\n] \"Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\",\n<\nhttp://www.iana.org\n>.\n\n[\nLWRD\n] \"The Long and Winding Road\",\n<\nhttp://rms46.vlsm.org/1/42.html\n>.\n\n[\nNRO\n] \"Number Resource Organization\", <\nhttp://www.nro.net\n>.\n\n[\nRFC904\n] Mills, D., \"Exterior Gateway Protocol formal\nspecification\",\nRFC 904\n, April 1 1984.\n\n[\nRFC1058\n] Hedrick, C., \"Routing Information Protocol\",\nRFC 1058\n,\nJune 1988.\n\n[\nRFC1195\n] Callon, R., \"Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and\ndual environments\",\nRFC 1195\n, December 1990.\n\n[\nRFC1338\n] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan,\n\"Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation\nStrategy\",\nRFC 1338\n, June 1992.\n\n[\nRFC1380\n] Gross, P. and P. Almquist, \"IESG Deliberations on Routing\nand Addressing\",\nRFC 1380\n, November 1992.\n\n[\nRFC1518\n] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, \"An Architecture for IP Address\nAllocation with CIDR\",\nRFC 1518\n, September 1993.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 25]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n[\nRFC1519\n] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan, \"Classless\nInter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and\nAggregation Strategy\",\nRFC 1519\n, September 1993.\n\n[\nRFC2131\n] Droms, R., \"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol\",\nRFC\n2131\n, March 1997.\n\n[\nRFC2328\n] Moy, J., \"OSPF Version 2\", STD 54,\nRFC 2328\n, April 1998.\n\n[\nRFC2317\n] Eidnes, H., de Groot, G., and P. Vixie, \"Classless IN-\nADDR.ARPA delegation\",\nBCP 20\n,\nRFC 2317\n, March 1998.\n\n[\nRFC2453\n] Malkin, G., \"RIP Version 2\", STD 56,\nRFC 2453\n, November\n1998.\n\n[\nRFC3021\n] Retana, A., White, R., Fuller, V., and D. McPherson,\n\"Using 31-Bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links\",\nRFC\n3021\n, December 2000.\n\n[\nRFC3221\n] Huston, G., \"Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the\nInternet\",\nRFC 3221\n, December 2001.\n\n[\nRFC4116\n] Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., and V.\nGill, \"IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations\",\nRFC\n4116\n, July 2005.\n\n[\nRFC4271\n] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, \"A Border Gateway\nProtocol 4 (BGP-4)\",\nRFC 4271\n, January 2006.\n\n[\nRIPE\n] \"RIPE Network Coordination Centre\", <\nhttp://www.ripe.net\n>.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nVince Fuller\n170 W. Tasman Drive\nSan Jose, CA 95134\nUSA\n\nEMail: vaf@cisco.com\n\nTony Li\n555 Del Rey Avenue\nSunnyvale, CA 94085\n\nEmail: tli@tropos.com\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 26]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).\n\nThis document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions\ncontained in\nBCP 78\n, and except as set forth therein, the authors\nretain all their rights.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein are provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS\nOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,\nINCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE\nINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nIntellectual Property\n\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has\nmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information\non the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be\nfound in\nBCP 78\nand\nBCP 79\n.\n\nCopies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any\nassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an\nattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of\nsuch proprietary rights by implementers or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at\nhttp://www.ietf.org/ipr\n.\n\nThe IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights that may cover technology that may be required to implement\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at\nietf-ipr@ietf.org.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF\nAdministrative Support Activity (IASA).\n\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 27]\nRFC\n4632\n: Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n7\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. History and Problem Description\n3. Classless Addressing as a Solution\n3.1. Basic Concept and Prefix Notation\n4. Address Assignment and Routing Aggregation\n4.1. Aggregation Efficiency and Limitations\n4.2. Distributed Assignment of Address Space\n5. Routing Implementation Considerations\n5.1. Rules for Route Advertisement\n5.2. How the Rules Work\n5.3. A Note on Prefix Filter Formats\n5.4. Responsibility for and Configuration of Aggregation\n5.5. Route Propagation and Routing Protocol Considerations\n6. Example of New Address Assignments and Routing\n6.1. Address Delegation\n6.2. Routing Advertisements\n7. Domain Name Service Considerations\n8. Transition to a Long-Term Solution\n9. Analysis of CIDR's Effect on Global Routing State\n10. Conclusions and Recommendations\n11. Status Updates to CIDR Documents\n12. Security Considerations\n13. Acknowledgements\n14. References\n14.1. Normative References\n14.2. Informative References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "cd83834f-d149-4895-a52a-1bbdf54176d7", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 4632: Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 4632\nInfo\nRFC\n4632\n:\nBCP\n122\n:\nClassless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan\nV. Fuller\n,\nT. Li\nBest Current Practice\nNetwork Working Group V. Fuller\nRequest for Comments: 4632 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 122 T. Li\nObsoletes:\n1519\nTropos Networks\nCategory: Best Current Practice August 2006\nClassless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR):\nThe Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan\nStatus of This Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the\nexisting 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the\naddress space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state.\nThis document obsoletes the original Classless Inter-domain Routing\n(CIDR) spec in\nRFC 1519\n, with changes made both to clarify the\nconcepts it introduced and, after more than twelve years, to update\nthe Internet community on the results of deploying the technology\ndescribed.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction ....................................................\n3\n2\n. History and Problem Description .................................\n3\n3\n. Classless Addressing as a Solution ..............................\n4\n3.1\n. Basic Concept and Prefix Notation ..........................\n5\n4\n. Address Assignment and Routing Aggregation ......................\n8\n4.1\n. Aggregation Efficiency and Limitations .....................\n8\n4.2\n. Distributed Assignment of Address Space ...................\n10\n5\n. Routing Implementation Considerations ..........................\n11\n5.1\n. Rules for Route Advertisement .............................\n11\n5.2\n. How the Rules Work ........................................\n12\n5.3\n. A Note on Prefix Filter Formats ...........................\n13\n5.4\n. Responsibility for and Configuration of Aggregation .......\n13\n5.5\n. Route Propagation and Routing Protocol Considerations .....\n15\n6\n. Example of New Address Assignments and Routing .................\n15\n6.1\n. Address Delegation ........................................\n15\n6.2\n. Routing Advertisements ....................................\n17\n7\n. Domain Name Service Considerations .............................\n18\n8\n. Transition to a Long-Term Solution .............................\n18\n9\n. Analysis of CIDR's Effect on Global Routing State ..............\n19\n10\n. Conclusions and Recommendations ...............................\n20\n11\n. Status Updates to CIDR Documents ..............................\n21\n12\n. Security Considerations .......................................\n23\n13\n. Acknowledgements ..............................................\n24\n14\n. References ....................................................\n25\n14.1\n. Normative References .....................................\n25\n14.2\n. Informative References ...................................\n25\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n1\n. Introduction\nThis memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the\nexisting 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the\naddress space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state.\nThis document obsoletes the original CIDR spec [\nRFC1519\n], with\nchanges made both to clarify the concepts it introduced and, after\nmore than twelve years, to update the Internet community on the\nresults of deploying the technology described.\n2\n. History and Problem Description\nWhat is now known as the Internet started as a research project in\nthe 1970s to design and develop a set of protocols that could be used\nwith many different network technologies to provide a seamless, end-\nto-end facility for interconnecting a diverse set of end systems.\nWhen it was determined how the 32-bit address space would be used,\ncertain assumptions were made about the number of organizations to be\nconnected, the number of end systems per organization, and total\nnumber of end systems on the network. The end result was the\nestablishment (see [\nRFC791\n]) of three classes of networks: Class A\n(most significant address bits '00'), with 128 possible networks each\nand 16777216 end systems (minus special bit values reserved for\nnetwork/broadcast addresses); Class B (MSB '10'), with 16384 possible\nnetworks each with 65536 end systems (less reserved values); and\nClass C (MSB '110'), and 2097152 possible networks each and 254 end\nsystems (256 bit combinations minus the reserved all-zeros and all-\nones patterns). The set of addresses with MSB '111' was reserved for\nfuture use; parts of this were eventually defined (MSB '1110') for\nuse with IPv4 multicast and parts are still reserved as of the\nwriting of this document.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5125, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 729}}, {"segment_id": "f6a26255-2077-4311-92dc-a2f570724953", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 1, "text": "In the late 1980s, the expansion and commercialization of the former\nresearch network resulted in the connection of many new organizations\nto the rapidly growing Internet, and each new organization required\nan address assignment according to the Class A/B/C addressing plan.\nAs demand for new network numbers (particularly in the Class B space)\ntook what appeared to be an exponential growth rate, some members of\nthe operations and engineering community started to have concerns\nover the long-term scaling properties of the class A/B/C system and\nbegan thinking about how to modify network number assignment policy\nand routing protocols to accommodate the growth. In November, 1991,\nthe Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) created the ROAD (Routing\nand Addressing) group to examine the situation. This group met in\nJanuary 1992 and identified three major problems:\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n1. Exhaustion of the Class B network address space. One fundamental\ncause of this problem is the lack of a network class of a size\nthat is appropriate for mid-sized organization. Class C, with a\nmaximum of 254 host addresses, is too small, whereas Class B,\nwhich allows up to 65534 host addresses, is too large for most\norganizations but was the best fit available for use with\nsubnetting.\n\n2. Growth of routing tables in Internet routers beyond the ability\nof current software, hardware, and people to effectively manage.\n\n3. Eventual exhaustion of the 32-bit IPv4 address space.\n\nIt was clear that then-current rates of Internet growth would\ncause the first two problems to become critical sometime between\n1993 and 1995. Work already in progress on topological\nassignment of addressing for Connectionless Network Service\n(CLNS), which was presented to the community at the Boulder IETF\nin December of 1990, led to thoughts on how to re-structure the\n32-bit IPv4 address space to increase its lifespan. Work in the\nROAD group followed and eventually resulted in the publication of\n[\nRFC1338\n], and later, [\nRFC1519\n].", "char_start": 5127, "char_end": 7201, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 334}}, {"segment_id": "287af60b-47ce-4f50-aac7-750afffbfed5", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 2, "text": "The design and deployment of CIDR was intended to solve these\nproblems by providing a mechanism to slow the growth of global\nrouting tables and to reduce the rate of consumption of IPv4\naddress space. It did not and does not attempt to solve the\nthird problem, which is of a more long-term nature; instead, it\nendeavors to ease enough of the short- to mid-term difficulties\nto allow the Internet to continue to function efficiently while\nprogress is made on a longer-term solution.\n\nMore historical background on this effort and on the ROAD group\nmay be found in [\nRFC1380\n] and at [\nLWRD\n].\n3\n. Classless Addressing as a Solution\nThe solution that the community created was to deprecate the Class\nA/B/C network address assignment system in favor of using\n\"classless\", hierarchical blocks of IP addresses (referred to as\nprefixes). The assignment of prefixes is intended to roughly follow\nthe underlying Internet topology so that aggregation can be used to\nfacilitate scaling of the global routing system. One implication of\nthis strategy is that prefix assignment and aggregation is generally\ndone according to provider-subscriber relationships, since that is\nhow the Internet topology is determined.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nWhen originally proposed in [\nRFC1338\n] and [\nRFC1519\n], this addressing\nplan was intended to be a relatively short-term response, lasting\napproximately three to five years, during which a more permanent\naddressing and routing architecture would be designed and\nimplemented. As can be inferred from the dates on the original\ndocuments, CIDR has far outlasted its anticipated lifespan and has\nbecome the mid-term solution to the problems described above.\n\nNote that in the following text we describe the current policies and\nprocedures that have been put in place to implement the allocation\narchitecture discussed here. This description is not intended to be\ninterpreted as direction to IANA.", "char_start": 7203, "char_end": 9183, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 321}}, {"segment_id": "39496633-db29-426b-90fd-776adef57653", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 3, "text": "Coupled with address management strategies implemented by the\nRegional Internet Registries (see [\nNRO\n] for details), the deployment\nof CIDR-style addressing has also reduced the rate at which IPv4\naddress space has been consumed, thus providing short- to medium-term\nrelief to problem #3, described above.\n\nNote that, as defined, this plan neither requires nor assumes the\nre-assignment of those parts of the legacy \"Class C\" space that are\nnot amenable to aggregation (sometimes called \"the swamp\"). Doing so\nwould somewhat reduce routing table sizes (current estimate is that\n\"the swamp\" contains approximately 15,000 entries), though at a\nsignificant renumbering cost. Similarly, there is no hard\nrequirement that any end site renumber when changing transit service\nprovider, but end sites are encouraged do so to eliminate the need\nfor explicit advertisement of their prefixes into the global routing\nsystem.\n3.1\n. Basic Concept and Prefix Notation\nIn the simplest sense, the change from Class A/B/C network numbers to\nclassless prefixes is to make explicit which bits in a 32-bit IPv4\naddress are interpreted as the network number (or prefix) associated\nwith a site and which are the used to number individual end systems\nwithin the site. In CIDR notation, a prefix is shown as a 4-octet\nquantity, just like a traditional IPv4 address or network number,\nfollowed by the \"/\" (slash) character, followed by a decimal value\nbetween 0 and 32 that describes the number of significant bits.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nFor example, the legacy \"Class B\" network 172.16.0.0, with an implied\nnetwork mask of 255.255.0.0, is defined as the prefix 172.16.0.0/16,\nthe \"/16\" indicating that the mask to extract the network portion of\nthe prefix is a 32-bit value where the most significant 16 bits are\nones and the least significant 16 bits are zeros. Similarly, the\nlegacy \"Class C\" network number 192.168.99.0 is defined as the prefix\n192.168.99.0/24; the most significant 24 bits are ones and the least\nsignificant 8 bits are zeros.", "char_start": 9185, "char_end": 11271, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 337}}, {"segment_id": "63aa0538-8760-4aad-8a88-7c0c39e74982", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 4, "text": "Using classless prefixes with explicit prefix lengths allows much\nmore flexible matching of address space blocks according to actual\nneed. Where formerly only three network sizes were available,\nprefixes may be defined to describe any power of two-sized block of\nbetween one and 2^32 end system addresses. In practice, the\nunallocated pool of addresses is administered by the Internet\nAssigned Numbers Authority ([\nIANA\n]). The IANA makes allocations from\nthis pool to Regional Internet Registries, as required. These\nallocations are made in contiguous bit-aligned blocks of 2^24\naddresses (a.k.a. /8 prefixes). The Regional Internet Registries\n(RIRs), in turn, allocate or assign smaller address blocks to Local\nInternet Registries (LIRs) or Internet Service Providers (ISPs).\nThese entities may make direct use of the assignment (as would\ncommonly be the case for an ISP) or may make further sub-allocations\nof addresses to their customers. These RIR address assignments vary\naccording to the needs of each ISP or LIR. For example, a large ISP\nmight be allocated an address block of 2^17 addresses (a /15 prefix),\nwhereas a smaller ISP may be allocated an address block of 2^11\naddresses (a /21 prefix).\n\nNote that the terms \"allocate\" and \"assign\" have specific meaning in\nthe Internet address registry system; \"allocate\" refers to the\ndelegation of a block of address space to an organization that is\nexpected to perform further sub-delegations, and \"assign\" is used for\nsites that directly use (i.e., number individual hosts) the block of\naddresses received.\n\nThe following table provides a convenient shortcut to all the CIDR\nprefix sizes, showing the number of addresses possible in each prefix\nand the number of prefixes of that size that may be numbered in the\n32-bit IPv4 address space:\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nnotation addrs/block # blocks\n-------- ----------- ----------\nn.n.n.n/32 1 4294967296 \"host route\"\nn.n.n.x/31 2 2147483648 \"p2p link\"\nn.n.n.x/30 4 1073741824\nn.n.n.x/29 8 536870912\nn.n.n.x/28 16 268435456\nn.n.n.x/27 32 134217728\nn.n.n.x/26 64 67108864\nn.n.n.x/25 128 33554432\nn.n.n.0/24 256 16777216 legacy \"Class C\"\nn.n.x.0/23 512 8388608\nn.n.x.0/22 1024 4194304\nn.n.x.0/21 2048 2097152\nn.n.x.0/20 4096 1048576\nn.n.x.0/19 8192 524288\nn.n.x.0/18 16384 262144\nn.n.x.0/17 32768 131072\nn.n.0.0/16 65536 65536 legacy \"Class B\"\nn.x.0.0/15 131072 32768\nn.x.0.0/14 262144 16384\nn.x.0.0/13 524288 8192\nn.x.0.0/12 1048576 4096\nn.x.0.0/11 2097152 2048\nn.x.0.0/10 4194304 1024\nn.x.0.0/9 8388608 512\nn.0.0.0/8 16777216 256 legacy \"Class A\"\nx.0.0.0/7 33554432 128\nx.0.0.0/6 67108864 64\nx.0.0.0/5 134217728 32\nx.0.0.0/4 268435456 16\nx.0.0.0/3 536870912 8\nx.0.0.0/2 1073741824 4\nx.0.0.0/1 2147483648 2\n0.0.0.0/0 4294967296 1 \"default route\"", "char_start": 11273, "char_end": 14081, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 421}}, {"segment_id": "6945df1c-b5f2-423f-bee0-b4499a0b1a91", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 5, "text": "n is an 8-bit decimal octet value. Point-to-point links are\ndiscussed in more detail in [\nRFC3021\n].\n\nx is a 1- to 7-bit value, based on the prefix length, shifted into\nthe most significant bits of the octet and converted into decimal\nform; the least significant bits of the octet are zero.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nIn practice, prefixes of length shorter than 8 have not been\nallocated or assigned to date, although routes to such short prefixes\nmay exist in routing tables if or when aggressive aggregation is\nperformed. As of the writing of this document, no such routes are\nseen in the global routing system, but operator error and other\nevents have caused some of them (i.e., 128.0.0.0/1 and 192.0.0.0/2)\nto be observed in some networks at some times in the past.\n4\n. Address Assignment and Routing Aggregation\nClassless addressing and routing was initially developed primarily to\nimprove the scaling properties of routing on the global Internet.\nBecause the scaling of routing is very tightly coupled to the way\nthat addresses are used, deployment of CIDR had implications for the\nway in which addresses were assigned.\n4.1\n. Aggregation Efficiency and Limitations\nThe only commonly understood method for reducing routing state on a\npacket-switched network is through aggregation of information. For\nCIDR to succeed in reducing the size and growth rate of the global\nrouting system, the IPv4 address assignment process needed to be\nchanged to make possible the aggregation of routing information along\ntopological lines. Since, in general, the topology of the network is\ndetermined by the service providers who have built it, topologically\nsignificant address assignments are necessarily service-provider\noriented.\n\nAggregation is simple for an end site that is connected to one\nservice provider: it uses address space assigned by its service\nprovider, and that address space is a small piece of a larger block\nallocated to the service provider. No explicit route is needed for\nthe end site; the service provider advertises a single aggregate\nroute for the larger block. This advertisement provides reachability\nand routeability for all the customers numbered in the block.", "char_start": 14083, "char_end": 16322, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 362}}, {"segment_id": "bc1545f1-8d4e-4ac4-91bf-b67aa08fe29c", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 6, "text": "There are two, more complex, situations that reduce the effectiveness\nof aggregation:\n\no An organization that is multi-homed. Because a multi-homed\norganization must be advertised into the system by each of its\nservice providers, it is often not feasible to aggregate its\nrouting information into the address space of any one of those\nproviders. Note that the organization still may receive its\naddress assignment out of a service provider's address space\n(which has other advantages), but that a route to the\norganization's prefix is, in the most general case, explicitly\nadvertised by all of its service providers. For this reason, the\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 8]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nglobal routing cost for a multi-homed organization is generally\nthe same as it was prior to the adoption of CIDR. A more detailed\nconsideration of multi-homing practices can be found in [\nRFC4116\n].\n\no An organization that changes service provider but does not\nrenumber. This has the effect of \"punching a hole\" in one of the\noriginal service provider's aggregated route advertisements. CIDR\nhandles this situation by requiring that the newer service\nprovider to advertise a specific advertisement for the re-homed\norganization; this advertisement is preferred over provider\naggregates because it is a longer match. To maintain efficiency\nof aggregation, it is recommended that an organization that\nchanges service providers plan eventually to migrate its network\ninto a an prefix assigned from its new provider's address space.\nTo this end, it is recommended that mechanisms to facilitate such\nmigration, such as dynamic host address assignment that uses\n[\nRFC2131\n]), be deployed wherever possible, and that additional\nprotocol work be done to develop improved technology for\nrenumbering.", "char_start": 16324, "char_end": 18138, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 284}}, {"segment_id": "7f15d3cb-c07a-4bf1-8d62-42c2d45dd6a1", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 7, "text": "Note that some aggregation efficiency gain can still be had for\nmulti-homed sites (and, in general, for any site composed of\nmultiple, logical IPv4 networks); by allocating a contiguous power-\nof-two block address space to the site (as opposed to multiple,\nindependent prefixes), the site's routing information may be\naggregated into a single prefix. Also, since the routing cost\nassociated with assigning a multi-homed site out of a service\nprovider's address space is no greater than the old method of\nsequential number assignment by a central authority, it makes sense\nto assign all end-site address space out of blocks allocated to\nservice providers.\n\nIt is also worthwhile to mention that since aggregation may occur at\nmultiple levels in the system, it may still be possible to aggregate\nthese anomalous routes at higher levels of whatever hierarchy may be\npresent. For example, if a site is multi-homed to two relatively\nsmall providers that both obtain connectivity and address space from\nthe same large provider, then aggregation by the large provider of\nroutes from the smaller networks will include all routes to the\nmulti-homed site. The feasibility of this sort of second-level\naggregation depends on whether topological hierarchy exists among a\nsite, its directly-connected providers, and other providers to which\nthey are connected; it may be practical in some regions of the global\nInternet but not in others.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 9]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nNote: In the discussion and examples that follow, prefix notation is\nused to represent routing destinations. This is used for\nillustration only and does not require that routing protocols use\nthis representation in their updates.\n4.2\n. Distributed Assignment of Address Space\nIn the early days of the Internet, IPv4 address space assignment was\nperformed by the central Network Information Center (NIC). Class\nA/B/C network numbers were assigned in essentially arbitrary order,\nroughly according to the size of the organizations that requested\nthem. All assignments were recorded centrally, and no attempt was\nmade to assign network numbers in a manner that would allow routing\naggregation.", "char_start": 18140, "char_end": 20342, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 346}}, {"segment_id": "fe0e5702-38f4-46a8-9975-e8b944329fac", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 8, "text": "When CIDR was originally deployed, the central assignment authority\ncontinued to exist but changed its procedures to assign large blocks\nof \"Class C\" network numbers to each service provider. Each service\nprovider, in turn, assigned bitmask-oriented subsets of the\nprovider's address space to each customer. This worked reasonably\nwell, as long as the number of service providers was relatively small\nand relatively constant, but it did not scale well, as the number of\nservice providers grew at a rapid rate.\n\nAs the Internet started to expand rapidly in the 1990s, it became\nclear that a single, centralized address assignment authority was\nproblematic. This function began being de-centralized when address\nspace assignment for European Internet sites was delegated in bit-\naligned blocks of 16777216 addresses (what CIDR would later define as\na /8) to the RIPE NCC ([\nRIPE\n]), effectively making it the first of\nthe RIRs. Since then, address assignment has been formally\ndistributed as a hierarchical function with IANA, the RIRs, and the\nservice providers. Removing the bottleneck of a single organization\nhaving responsibility for the global Internet address space greatly\nimproved the efficiency and response time for new assignments.\n\nHierarchical delegation of addresses in this manner implies that\nsites with addresses assigned out of a given service provider are,\nfor routing purposes, part of that service provider and will be\nrouted via its infrastructure. This implies that routing information\nabout multi-homed organizations (i.e., organizations connected to\nmore than one network service provider) will still need to be known\nby higher levels in the hierarchy.\n\nA historical perspective on these issues is described in [\nRFC1518\n].\nAdditional discussion may also be found in [\nRFC3221\n].\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 10]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n5\n. Routing Implementation Considerations\nWith the change from classful network numbers to classless prefixes,\nit is not possible to infer the network mask from the initial bit\npattern of an IPv4 address. This has implications for how routing\ninformation is stored and propagated. Network masks or prefix\nlengths must be explicitly carried in routing protocols. Interior\nrouting protocols, such as OSPF [\nRFC2328\n], Intermediate System to\nIntermediate System (IS-IS) [\nRFC1195\n], RIPv2 [\nRFC2453\n], and Cisco\nEnhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP), and the BGP4\nexterior routing protocol [\nRFC4271\n], all support this functionality,\nhaving been developed or modified as part of the deployment of\nclassless inter-domain routing during the 1990s.", "char_start": 20344, "char_end": 22991, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 410}}, {"segment_id": "22c9db12-6c90-4518-afdd-dabcdd0958c9", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 9, "text": "Older interior routing protocols, such as RIP [\nRFC1058\n], HELLO, and\nCisco Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP), and older exterior\nrouting protocols, such as Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) [\nRFC904\n],\ndo not support explicit carriage of prefix length/mask and thus\ncannot be effectively used on the Internet other than in very limited\nstub configurations. Although their use may be appropriate in simple\nlegacy end-site configurations, they are considered obsolete and\nshould NOT be used in transit networks connected to the global\nInternet.\n\nSimilarly, routing and forwarding tables in layer-3 network equipment\nmust be organized to store both prefix and prefix length or mask.\nEquipment that organizes its routing/forwarding information according\nto legacy Class A/B/C network/subnet conventions cannot be expected\nto work correctly on networks connected to the global Internet; use\nof such equipment is not recommended. Fortunately, very little such\nequipment is in use today.\n5.1\n. Rules for Route Advertisement\n1. Forwarding in the Internet is done on a longest-match basis.\nThis implies that destinations that are multi-homed relative to a\nrouting domain must always be explicitly announced into that\nrouting domain (i.e., they cannot be summarized). If a network\nis multi-homed, all of its paths into a routing domain that is\n\"higher\" in the hierarchy of networks must be known to the\n\"higher\" network).\n\n2. A router that generates an aggregate route for multiple, more-\nspecific routes must discard packets that match the aggregate\nroute, but not any of the more-specific routes. In other words,\nthe \"next hop\" for the aggregate route should be the null\ndestination. This is necessary to prevent forwarding loops when\nsome addresses covered by the aggregate are not reachable.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 11]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nNote that during failures, partial routing of traffic to a site that\ntakes its address space from one service provider but that is\nactually reachable only through another (i.e., the case of a site\nthat has changed service providers) may occur because such traffic\nwill be forwarded along the path advertised by the aggregated route.\nRule #2 will prevent packet misdelivery by causing such traffic to be\ndiscarded by the advertiser of the aggregated route, but the output\nof \"traceroute\" and other similar tools will suggest that a problem\nexists within that network rather than in the network that is no\nlonger advertising the more-specific prefix. This may be confusing\nto those trying to diagnose connectivity problems; see the example in\nSection 6.2\nfor details. A solution to this perceived \"problem\" is\nbeyond the scope of this document; it lies with better education of\nthe user/operator community, not in routing technology.", "char_start": 22993, "char_end": 25803, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 444}}, {"segment_id": "8cbb5d3c-505f-403d-a2f9-f32af768841d", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 10, "text": "An implementation following these rules should also be generalized,\nso that an arbitrary network number and mask are accepted for all\nrouting destinations. The only outstanding constraint is that the\nmask must be left contiguous. Note that the degenerate route to\nprefix 0.0.0.0/0 is used as a default route and MUST be accepted by\nall implementations. Further, to protect against accidental\nadvertisements of this route via the inter-domain protocol, this\nroute should only be advertised to another routing domain when a\nrouter is explicitly configured to do so, never as a non-configured,\n\"default\" option.\n5.2\n. How the Rules Work\nRule #1 guarantees that the forwarding algorithm used is consistent\nacross routing protocols and implementations. Multi-homed networks\nare always explicitly advertised by every service provider through\nwhich they are routed, even if they are a specific subset of one\nservice provider's aggregate (if they are not, they clearly must be\nexplicitly advertised). It may seem as if the \"primary\" service\nprovider could advertise the multi-homed site implicitly as part of\nits aggregate, but longest-match forwarding causes this not to work.\nMore details are provided in [\nRFC4116\n].\n\nRule #2 guarantees that no routing loops form due to aggregation.\nConsider a site that has been assigned 192.168.64/19 by its \"parent\"\nprovider, which has 192.168.0.0/16. The \"parent\" network will\nadvertise 192.168.0.0/16 to the \"child\" network. If the \"child\"\nnetwork were to lose internal connectivity to 192.168.65.0/24 (which\nis part of its aggregate), traffic from the \"parent\" to the to the\n\"child\" destined for 192.168.65.1 will follow the \"child's\"\nadvertised route. When that traffic gets to the \"child\", however,\nthe child *must not* follow the route 192.168.0.0/16 back up to the\n\"parent\", since that would result in a forwarding loop. Rule #2 says\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 12]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nthat the \"child\" may not follow a less-specific route for a\ndestination that matches one of its own aggregated routes (typically,\nthis is implemented by installing a \"discard\" or \"null\" route for all\naggregated prefixes that one network advertises to another). Note\nthat handling of the \"default\" route (0.0.0.0/0) is a special case of\nthis rule; a network must not follow the default to destinations that\nare part of one of its aggregated advertisements.\n5.3\n. A Note on Prefix Filter Formats\nSystems that process route announcements must be able to verify that\ninformation that they receive is acceptable according to policy\nrules. Implementations that filter route advertisements must allow\nmasks or prefix lengths in filter elements. Thus, filter elements\nthat formerly were specified as", "char_start": 25805, "char_end": 28556, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 431}}, {"segment_id": "4517d4cb-4079-4f10-8516-59bf0c40123a", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 11, "text": "accept 172.16.0.0\naccept 172.25.120.0.0\naccept 172.31.0.0\ndeny 10.2.0.0\naccept 10.0.0.0\n\nnow look something like this:\n\naccept 172.16.0.0/16\naccept 172.25.0.0/16\naccept 172.31.0.0/16\ndeny 10.2.0.0/16\naccept 10.0.0.0/8\n\nThis is merely making explicit the network mask that was implied by\nthe Class A/B/C classification of network numbers. It is also useful\nto enhance filtering capability to allow the match of a prefix and\nall more-specific prefixes with the same bit pattern; fortunately,\nthis functionality has been implemented by most vendors of equipment\nused on the Internet.\n5.4\n. Responsibility for and Configuration of Aggregation\nUnder normal circumstances, a routing domain (or \"Autonomous System\")\nthat has been allocated or assigned a set of prefixes has sole\nresponsibility for aggregation of those prefixes. In the usual case,\nthe AS will install configuration in one or more of its routers to\ngenerate aggregate routes based on more-specific routes known to its\ninternal routing system. These aggregate routes are advertised into\nthe global routing system by the border routers for the routing\ndomain. The more-specific internal routes that overlap with the\naggregate routes should not be advertised globally. In some cases,\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 13]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nan AS may wish to delegate aggregation responsibility to another AS\n(for example, a customer may wish for its service provider to\ngenerate aggregated routing information on its behalf); in such\ncases, aggregation is performed by a router in the second AS\naccording to the routes that it receives from the first, combined\nwith configured policy information describing how those routes should\nbe aggregated.\n\nNote that one provider may choose to perform aggregation on the\nroutes it receives from another without explicit agreement; this is\ntermed \"proxy aggregation\". This can be a useful tool for reducing\nthe amount of routing state that an AS must carry and propagate to\nits customers and neighbors. However, proxy aggregation can also\ncreate unintended consequences in traffic engineering. Consider what\nhappens if both AS 2 and 3 receive routes from AS 1 but AS 2 performs\nproxy aggregation while AS 3 does not. Other ASes that receive\ntransit routing information from both AS 2 and AS 3 will see an\ninconsistent view of the routing information originated by AS 1.\nThis may cause an unexpected shift of traffic toward AS 1 through AS\n3 for AS 3's customers and any others receiving transit routes from\nAS 3. Because proxy aggregation can cause unanticipated consequences\nfor parts of the Internet that have no relationship with either the\nsource of the aggregated routes or the party providing aggregation,\nit should be used with extreme caution.", "char_start": 28558, "char_end": 31335, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 438}}, {"segment_id": "2740bf0e-307b-48dc-8a3d-db905bbb5358", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 12, "text": "Configuration of the routes to be combined into aggregates is an\nimplementation of routing policy and requires some manually\nmaintained information. As an addition to the information that must\nbe maintained for a set of routeable prefixes, aggregation\nconfiguration is typically just a line or two defining the range of\nthe block of IPv4 addresses to be aggregated. A site performing its\nown aggregation is doing so for address blocks that it has been\nassigned; a site performing aggregation on behalf of another knows\nthis information because of an agreement to delegate aggregation.\nAssuming that the best common practice for network administrators is\nto exchange lists of prefixes to accept from each other,\nconfiguration of aggregation information does not introduce\nsignificant additional administrative overhead.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 14]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nThe generation of an aggregate route is usually specified either\nstatically or in response to learning an active dynamic route for a\nprefix contained within the aggregate route. If such dynamic\naggregate route advertisement is done, care should be taken that\nroutes are not excessively added or withdrawn (known as \"route\nflapping\"). In general, a dynamic aggregate route advertisement is\nadded when at least one component of the aggregate becomes reachable\nand it is withdrawn only when all components become unreachable.\nProperly configured, aggregated routes are more stable than non-\naggregated routes and thus improve global routing stability.\n\nImplementation note: Aggregation of the \"Class D\" (multicast) address\nspace is beyond the scope of this document.\n5.5\n. Route Propagation and Routing Protocol Considerations\nPrior to the original deployment of CIDR, common practice was to\npropagate routes learned via exterior routing protocols (i.e., EGP or\nBGP) through a site's interior routing protocol (typically, OSPF,\nIS-IS, or RIP). This was done to ensure that consistent and correct\nexit points were chosen for traffic to be sent to a destination\nlearned through those protocols. Four evolutionary effects -- the\nadvent of CIDR, explosive growth of global routing state, widespread\nadoption of BGP4, and a requirement to propagate full path\ninformation -- have combined to deprecate that practice. To ensure\nproper path propagation and prevent inter-AS routing inconsistency\n(BGP4's loop detection/prevention mechanism requires full path\npropagation), transit networks must use internal BGP (iBGP) for\ncarrying routes learned from other providers both within and through\ntheir networks.\n6\n. Example of New Address Assignments and Routing\n6.1\n. Address Delegation\nConsider the block of 524288 (2^19) addresses, beginning with\n10.24.0.0 and ending with 10.31.255.255, allocated to a single\nnetwork provider, \"PA\". This is equivalent in size to a block of\n2048 legacy \"Class C\" network numbers (or /24s). A classless route\nto this block would be described as 10.24.0.0 with a mask of\n255.248.0.0 and the prefix 10.24.0.0/13.", "char_start": 31337, "char_end": 34374, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 462}}, {"segment_id": "09d842cb-3826-4ddf-b97d-46dca30aa971", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 13, "text": "Assume that this service provider connects six sites in the following\norder (significant because it demonstrates how temporary \"holes\" may\nform in the service provider's address space):\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 15]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\no \"C1\", requiring fewer than 2048 addresses (/21 or 8 x /24)\n\no \"C2\", requiring fewer than 4096 addresses (/20 or 16 x /24)\n\no \"C3\", requiring fewer than 1024 addresses (/22 or 4 x /24)\n\no \"C4\", requiring fewer than 1024 addresses (/22 or 4 x /24)\n\no \"C5\", requiring fewer than 512 addresses (/23 or 2 x /24)\n\no \"C6\", requiring fewer than 512 addresses (/23 or 2 x /24)\n\nIn all cases, the number of IPv4 addresses \"required\" by each site is\nassumed to allow for significant growth. The service provider\ndelegates its address space as follows:\n\no C1. assign 10.24.0 through 10.24.7. This block of networks is\ndescribed by the route 10.24.0.0/21 (mask 255.255.248.0).\n\no C2. Assign 10.24.16 through 10.24.31. This block is described by\nthe route 10.24.16.0/20 (mask 255.255.240.0).\n\no C3. Assign 10.24.8 through 10.24.11. This block is described by\nthe route 10.24.8.0/22 (mask 255.255.252.0).\n\no C4. Assign 10.24.12 through 10.24.15. This block is described by\nthe route 10.24.12.0/22 (mask 255.255.252.0).\n\no C5. Assign 10.24.32 and 10.24.33. This block is described by the\nroute 10.24.32.0/23 (mask 255.255.254.0).\n\no C6. Assign 10.24.34 and 10.24.35. This block is described by the\nroute 10.24.34.0/23 (mask 255.255.254.0).\n\nThese six sites should be represented as six prefixes of varying size\nwithin the provider's IGP. If, for some reason, the provider uses an\nobsolete IGP that doesn't support classless routing or variable-\nlength subnets, then explicit routes for all /24s will have to be\ncarried.\n\nTo make this example more realistic, assume that C4 and C5 are multi-\nhomed through some other service provider, \"PB\". Further assume the\nexistence of a site, \"C7\", that was originally connected to \"RB\" but\nthat has moved to \"PA\". For this reason, it has a block of network\nnumbers that are assigned out PB's block of (the next) 2048 x /24.", "char_start": 34376, "char_end": 36496, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 348}}, {"segment_id": "88f6f30a-6436-42c2-b96b-72a34d1ef115", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 14, "text": "o C7. Assign 10.32.0 through 10.32.15. This block is described by\nthe route 10.32.0.0/20 (mask 255.255.240.0).\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 16]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nFor the multi-homed sites, assume that C4 is advertised as primary\nvia \"RA\" and secondary via \"RB\"; and that C5 is primary via \"RB\" and\nsecondary via \"RA\". In addition, assume that \"RA\" and \"RB\" are both\nconnected to the same transit service provider, \"BB\".\n\nGraphically, this topology looks something like this:\n\n10.24.0.0 -- 10.24.7.0__ __10.32.0.0 - 10.32.15.0\nC1: 10.24.0.0/21 \\ / C7: 10.32.0.0/20\n\\ /\n+----+ +----+\n10.24.16.0 - 10.24.31.0_ | | | |\nC2: 10.24.16.0/20 \\ | | _10.24.12.0 - 10.24.15.0__ | |\n\\| | / C4: 10.24.12.0/20 \\ | |\n| |/ \\| |\n10.24.8.0 - 10.24.11.0___/| PA |\\ | PB |\nC3: 10.24.8.0/22 | | \\__10.24.32.0 - 10.24.33.0___| |\n| | C5: 10.24.32.0/23 | |\n| | | |\n10.24.34.0 - 10.24.35.0__/| | | |\nC6: 10.24.34.0/23 | | | |\n+----+ +----+\n|| ||\nrouting advertisements: || ||\n|| ||\n10.24.12.0/22 (C4) || 10.24.12.0/22 (C4) ||\n10.32.0.0/20 (C7) || 10.24.32.0/23 (C5) ||\n10.24.0.0/13 (PA) || 10.32.0.0/13 (PB) ||\n|| ||\nVV VV\n+---------- BACKBONE NETWORK BB ----------+\n6.2\n. Routing Advertisements\nTo follow rule #1, PA will need to advertise the block of addresses\nthat it was given and C7. Since C4 is multi-homed and primary\nthrough PA, it must also be advertised. C5 is multi-homed and\nprimary through PB. In principle (and in the example above), it need\nnot be advertised, since longest match by PB will automatically\nselect PB as primary and the advertisement of PA's aggregate will be\nused as a secondary. In actual practice, C5 will normally be\nadvertised via both providers.\n\nAdvertisements from \"PA\" to \"BB\" will be\n\n10.24.12.0/22 primary (advertises C4)\n10.32.0.0/20 primary (advertises C7)\n10.24.0.0/13 primary (advertises remainder of PA)\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 17]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nFor PB, the advertisements must also include C4 and C5, as well as\nits block of addresses.", "char_start": 36498, "char_end": 38535, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 345}}, {"segment_id": "e46426e8-c2be-4cec-a060-2d256d9fdb1e", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 15, "text": "Advertisements from \"PB\" to \"BB\" will be\n\n10.24.12.0/22 secondary (advertises C4)\n10.24.32.0/23 primary (advertises C5)\n10.32.0.0/13 primary (advertises remainder of RB)\n\nTo illustrate the problem diagnosis issue mentioned in\nSection 5.1\n,\nconsider what happens if PA loses connectivity to C7 (the site that\nis assigned out of PB's space). In a stateful protocol, PA will\nannounce to BB that 10.32.0.0/20 has become unreachable. Now, when\nBB flushes this information out of its routing table, any future\ntraffic sent through it for this destination will be forwarded to PB\n(where it will be dropped according to Rule #2) by virtue of PB's\nless-specific match, 10.32.0.0/13. Although this does not cause an\noperational problem (C7 is unreachable in any case), it does create\nsome extra traffic across \"BB\" (and may also prove confusing to\nsomeone trying to debug the outage with \"traceroute\"). A mechanism\nto cache such unreachable state might be nice, but it is beyond the\nscope of this document.\n7\n. Domain Name Service Considerations\nOne aspect of Internet services that was notably affected by the move\nto CIDR was the mechanism used for address-to-name translation: the\nIN-ADDR.ARPA zone of the domain system. Because this zone is\ndelegated on octet boundaries only, the move to an address assignment\nplan that uses bitmask-oriented addressing caused some increase in\nwork for those who maintain parts of the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone.\n\nA description of techniques to populate the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone when\nand used address that blocks that do not align to octet boundaries is\ndescribed in [\nRFC2317\n].\n8\n. Transition to a Long-Term Solution\nCIDR was designed to be a short-term solution to the problems of\nrouting state and address depletion on the IPv4 Internet. It does\nnot change the fundamental Internet routing or addressing\narchitectures. It is not expected to affect any plans for transition\nto a more long-term solution except, perhaps, by delaying the urgency\nof developing such a solution.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 18]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n9\n. Analysis of CIDR's Effect on Global Routing State\nWhen CIDR was first proposed in the early 1990s, the original authors\nmade some observations about the growth rate of global routing state\nand offered projections on how CIDR deployment would, hopefully,\nreduce what appeared to be exponential growth to a more sustainable\nrate. Since that deployment, an ongoing effort, called \"The CIDR\nReport\" [\nCRPT\n], has attempted to quantify and track that growth rate.\nWhat follows is a brief summary of the CIDR report as of March 2005,\nwith an attempt to explain the various patterns and changes of growth\nrate that have occurred since measurements of the size of global\nrouting state began in 1988.", "char_start": 38537, "char_end": 41313, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 454}}, {"segment_id": "0bfe312c-861d-4634-bed8-29d3f97bbf72", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 16, "text": "When the graph of \"Active BGP Table Entries\" [\nCBGP\n] is examined,\nthere appear to be several different growth trends with distinct\ninflection points reflecting changes in policy and practice. The\ntrends and events that are believed to have caused them were as\nfollows:\n\n1. Exponential growth at the far left of the graph. This represents\nthe period of early expansion and commercialization of the former\nresearch network, from the late 1980s through approximately 1994.\nThe major driver for this growth was a lack of aggregation\ncapability for transit providers, and the widespread use of\nlegacy Class C allocations for end sites. Each time a new site\nwas connected to the global Internet, one or more new routing\nentries were generated.\n\n2. Acceleration of the exponential trend in late 1993 and early 1994\nas CIDR \"supernet\" blocks were first assigned by the NIC and\nrouted as separate legacy class-C networks by service provider.\n\n3. A sharp drop in 1994 as BGP4 deployment by providers allowed\naggregation of the \"supernet\" blocks. Note that the periods of\nlargest declines in the number of routing table entries typically\ncorrespond to the weeks following each meeting of the IETF CIDR\nDeployment Working Group.\n\n4. Roughly linear growth from mid-1994 to early 1999 as CIDR-based\naddress assignments were made and aggregated routes added\nthroughout the network.\n\n5. A new period of exponential growth again from early 1999 until\n2001 as the \"high-tech bubble\" fueled both rapid expansion of the\nInternet, as well as a large increase in more-specific route\nadvertisements for multi-homing and traffic engineering.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 19]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n6. Flattening of growth through 2001 caused by a combination of the\n\"dot-com bust\", which caused many organizations to cease\noperations, and the \"CIDR police\" [\nCPOL\n] work aimed at improving\naggregation efficiency.", "char_start": 41315, "char_end": 43236, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 310}}, {"segment_id": "42ea76fc-dc66-4a82-8af4-5748e29db383", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 17, "text": "7. Roughly linear growth through 2002 and 2003. This most likely\nrepresents a resumption of the \"normal\" growth rate observed\nbefore the \"bubble\", as well as an end to the \"CIDR Police\"\neffort.\n\n8. A more recent trend of exponential growth beginning in 2004. The\nbest explanation would seem to be an improvement of the global\neconomy driving increased expansion of the Internet and the\ncontinued absence of the \"CIDR Police\" effort, which previously\nserved as an educational tool for new providers to improve\naggregation efficiency. There have also been some cases where\nservice providers have deliberately de-aggregated prefixes in an\nattempt to mitigate security problems caused by conflicting route\nadvertisements (see\nSection 12\n). Although this behavior may\nsolve the short-term problems seen by such providers, it is\nfundamentally non-scalable and quite detrimental to the community\nas a whole. In addition, there appear to be many providers\nadvertising both their allocated prefixes and all the /24\ncomponents thereof, probably due to a lack of consistent current\ninformation about recommended routing configuration.\n10\n. Conclusions and Recommendations\nIn 1992, when CIDR was first developed, there were serious problems\nfacing the continued growth of the Internet. Growth in routing state\ncomplexity and the rapid increase in consumption of address space\nmade it appear that one or both problems would preclude continued\ngrowth of the Internet within a few short years.\n\nDeployment of CIDR, in combination with BGP4's support for carrying\nclassless prefix routes, alleviated the short-term crisis. It was\nonly through a concerted effort by both the equipment manufacturers\nand the provider community that this was achieved. The threat (and,\nperhaps in some cases, actual implementation of) charging networks\nfor advertising prefixes may have offered an additional incentive to\nshare the address space, and thus the associated costs of advertising\nroutes to service providers.", "char_start": 43238, "char_end": 45222, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 303}}, {"segment_id": "a449b0b1-cb1b-4a4e-9559-a5eb67f25ce6", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 18, "text": "The IPv4 routing system architecture carries topology information\nbased on aggregate address advertisements and a collection of more-\nspecific advertisements that are associated with traffic engineering,\nmulti-homing, and local configuration. As of March 2005, the base\naggregate address load in the routing system has some 75,000 entries.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 20]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nApproximately 85,000 additional entries are more specific entries of\nthis base \"root\" collection. There is reason to believe that many of\nthese additional entries exist to solve problems of regional or even\nlocal scope and should not need to be globally propagated.\n\nAn obvious question to ask is whether CIDR can continue to be a\nviable approach to keeping global routing state growth and address\nspace depletion at sustainable rates. Recent measurements indicate\nthat exponential growth has resumed, but further analysis suggests\nthat this trend can be mitigated by a more active effort to educate\nservice providers as to efficient aggregation strategies and proper\nequipment configuration. Looking farther forward, there is a clear\nneed for better multi-homing technology that does not require global\nrouting state for each site and for methods of performing traffic\nload balancing that do not require adding even more state. Without\nsuch developments and in the absence of major architectural change,\naggregation is the only tool available for making routing scale in\nthe global Internet.\n11\n. Status Updates to CIDR Documents\nThis memo renders obsolete and requests re-classification as Historic\nthe following RFCs describing CIDR usage and deployment:\n\no\nRFC 1467\n: Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet\n\nThis Informational RFC described the status of CIDR deployment in\n1993. As of 2005, CIDR has been thoroughly deployed, so this\nstatus note only provides a historical data point.", "char_start": 45224, "char_end": 47143, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 295}}, {"segment_id": "581c0ee7-77a7-40c1-bcbd-89e1c7555dfc", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 19, "text": "o\nRFC 1481\n: IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to\nAddress the Issue of Scaling\n\nThis very short Informational RFC described the IAB's endorsement\nof the use of CIDR to address scaling issues. Because the goal of\nRFC 1481\nhas been achieved, it is now only of historical value.\n\no\nRFC 1482\n: Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing\nDatabase\n\nThis Informational RFC describes plans for support of route\naggregation, as specified by CIDR, on the NSFNET. Because the\nNSFNET has long since ceased to exist and CIDR has been\nubiquitously deployed,\nRFC 1482\nnow only has historical relevance.\n\no\nRFC 1517\n: Applicability Statement for the Implementation of\nClassless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 21]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nThis Standards Track RFC described where CIDR was expected to be\nrequired and where it was expected to be (strongly) recommended.\nWith the full deployment of CIDR on the Internet, situations where\nCIDR is not required are of only historical interest.\n\no\nRFC 1518\n: An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR\n\nThis Standards Track RFC discussed routing and address aggregation\nconsiderations at some length. Some of these issues are\nsummarized in this document in section\nSection 3.1\n. Because\naddress assignment policies and procedures now reside mainly with\nthe RIRs, it is not appropriate to try to document those practices\nin a Standards Track RFC. In addition, [\nRFC3221\n] also describes\nmany of the same issues from point of view of the routing system.\n\no\nRFC 1520\n: Exchanging Routing Information Across Provider\nBoundaries in the CIDR Environment\n\nThis Informational RFC described transition scenarios where CIDR\nwas not fully supported for exchanging route information between\nproviders. With the full deployment of CIDR on the Internet, such\nscenarios are no longer operationally relevant.", "char_start": 47145, "char_end": 49055, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 305}}, {"segment_id": "cad244c9-050c-449d-ba02-109105ac3cb3", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 20, "text": "o\nRFC 1817\n: CIDR and Classful Routing\n\nThis Informational RFC described the implications of CIDR\ndeployment in 1995; it notes that formerly-classful addresses were\nto be allocated using CIDR mechanisms and describes the use of a\ndefault route for non-CIDR-aware sites. With the full deployment\nof CIDR on the Internet, such scenarios are no longer\noperationally relevant.\n\no\nRFC 1878\n: Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4\n\nThis Informational RFC provided a table of pre-calculated subnet\nmasks and address counts for each subnet size. With the\nincorporation of a similar table into this document (see\nSection\n3.1\n), it is no longer necessary to document it in a separate RFC.\n\no\nRFC 2036\n: Observations on the use of Components of the Class A\nAddress Space within the Internet\n\nThis Informational RFC described several operational issues\nassociated with the allocation of classless prefixes from\npreviously-classful address space. With the full deployment of\nCIDR on the Internet and more than half a dozen years of\nexperience making classless prefix allocations out of historical\n\"Class A\" address space, this RFC now has only historical value.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 22]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n12\n. Security Considerations\nThe introduction of routing protocols that support classless prefixes\nand a move to a forwarding model that mandates that more-specific\n(longest-match) routes be preferred when they overlap with routes to\nless-specific prefixes introduces at least two security concerns:\n\n1. Traffic can be hijacked by advertising a prefix for a given\ndestination that is more specific than the aggregate that is\nnormally advertised for that destination. For example, assume\nthat a popular end system with the address 192.168.17.100 is\nconnected to a service provider that advertises 192.168.16.0/20.\nA malicious network operator interested in intercepting traffic\nfor this site might advertise, or at least attempt to advertise,\n192.168.17.0/24 into the global routing system. Because this\nprefix is more specific than the \"normal\" prefix, traffic will be\ndiverted away from the legitimate end system and to the network\nowned by the malicious operator. Prior to the advent of CIDR, it\nwas possible to induce traffic from some parts of the network to\nfollow a false advertisement that exactly matched a particular\nnetwork number; CIDR makes this problem somewhat worse, since\nlongest-match routing generally causes all traffic to prefer\nmore-specific routes over less-specific routes. The remedy for\nthe CIDR-based attack, though, is the same as for a pre-CIDR-\nbased attack: establishment of trust relationships between\nproviders, coupled with and strong route policy filters at\nprovider borders. Unfortunately, the implementation of such\nfilters is difficult in the highly de-centralized Internet. As a\nworkaround, many providers do implement generic filters that set\nupper bounds, derived from RIR guidelines for the sizes of blocks\nthat they allocate, on the lengths of prefixes that are accepted\nfrom other providers. Note that \"spammers\" have been observed\nusing this sort of attack to hijack address space temporarily in\norder to hide the origin of the traffic (\"spam\" email messages)\nthat they generate.", "char_start": 49057, "char_end": 52316, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 505}}, {"segment_id": "d0b04460-bed7-43e5-b836-f9feaafb8e75", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 21, "text": "2. Denial-of-service attacks can be launched against many parts of\nthe Internet infrastructure by advertising a large number of\nroutes into the system. Such an attack is intended to cause\nrouter failures by overflowing routing and forwarding tables. A\ngood example of a non-malicious incident that caused this sort of\nfailure was the infamous \"AS 7007\" event [\n7007\n], where a router\nmis-configuration by an operator caused a huge number of invalid\nroutes to be propagated through the global routing system.\nAgain, this sort of attack is not really new with CIDR; using\nlegacy Class A/B/C routes, it was possible to advertise a maximum\nof 16843008 unique network numbers into the global routing\nsystem, a number that is sufficient to cause problems for even\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 23]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nthe most modern routing equipment made in 2005. What is\ndifferent is that the moderate complexity of correctly\nconfiguring routers in the presence of CIDR tends to make\naccidental \"attacks\" of this sort more likely. Measures to\nprevent this sort of attack are much the same as those described\nabove for the hijacking, with the addition that best common\npractice is also to configure a reasonable maximum number of\nprefixes that a border router will accept from its neighbors.\n\nNote that this is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of the\nsorts of attacks that CIDR makes easier; a more comprehensive\nanalysis of security vulnerabilities in the global routing system is\nbeyond the scope of this document.\n13\n. Acknowledgements\nThe authors wish to express appreciation to the other original\nauthors of\nRFC 1519\n(Kannan Varadhan, Jessica Yu); to the ROAD group,\nwith whom many of the ideas behind CIDR were inspired and developed;\nand to the early reviewers of this re-spun version of the document\n(Barry Greene, Danny McPherson, Dave Meyer, Eliot Lear, Bill Norton,\nTed Seely, Philip Smith, Pekka Savola), whose comments, corrections,\nand suggestions were invaluable. We would especially like to thank\nGeoff Huston for contributions well above and beyond the call of\nduty.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 24]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n14\n. References\n14.1\n. Normative References\n[\nRFC791\n] Postel, J., \"Internet Protocol\", STD 5,\nRFC 791\n, September\n1981.\n14.2\n. Informative References\n[\n7007\n] \"NANOG mailing list discussion of the \"AS 7007\" incident\",\n<\nhttp://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1997-04/\nmsg00340.html\n>.", "char_start": 52318, "char_end": 54814, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 404}}, {"segment_id": "fb232aaa-0a7d-41a3-a087-c279acc196c7", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 22, "text": "[\nCBGP\n] \"Graph: Active BGP Table Entries, 1988 to Present\",\n<\nhttp://bgp.potaroo.net/as4637/\n>.\n\n[\nCPOL\n] \"CIDR Police - Please Pull Over and Show Us Your BGP\",\n<\nhttp://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/cidr.html\n>.\n\n[\nCRPT\n] \"The CIDR Report\", <\nhttp://www.cidr-report.org/\n>.\n\n[\nIANA\n] \"Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\",\n<\nhttp://www.iana.org\n>.\n\n[\nLWRD\n] \"The Long and Winding Road\",\n<\nhttp://rms46.vlsm.org/1/42.html\n>.\n\n[\nNRO\n] \"Number Resource Organization\", <\nhttp://www.nro.net\n>.\n\n[\nRFC904\n] Mills, D., \"Exterior Gateway Protocol formal\nspecification\",\nRFC 904\n, April 1 1984.\n\n[\nRFC1058\n] Hedrick, C., \"Routing Information Protocol\",\nRFC 1058\n,\nJune 1988.\n\n[\nRFC1195\n] Callon, R., \"Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and\ndual environments\",\nRFC 1195\n, December 1990.\n\n[\nRFC1338\n] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan,\n\"Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation\nStrategy\",\nRFC 1338\n, June 1992.\n\n[\nRFC1380\n] Gross, P. and P. Almquist, \"IESG Deliberations on Routing\nand Addressing\",\nRFC 1380\n, November 1992.\n\n[\nRFC1518\n] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, \"An Architecture for IP Address\nAllocation with CIDR\",\nRFC 1518\n, September 1993.\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 25]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\n[\nRFC1519\n] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan, \"Classless\nInter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and\nAggregation Strategy\",\nRFC 1519\n, September 1993.\n\n[\nRFC2131\n] Droms, R., \"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol\",\nRFC\n2131\n, March 1997.\n\n[\nRFC2328\n] Moy, J., \"OSPF Version 2\", STD 54,\nRFC 2328\n, April 1998.\n\n[\nRFC2317\n] Eidnes, H., de Groot, G., and P. Vixie, \"Classless IN-\nADDR.ARPA delegation\",\nBCP 20\n,\nRFC 2317\n, March 1998.\n\n[\nRFC2453\n] Malkin, G., \"RIP Version 2\", STD 56,\nRFC 2453\n, November\n1998.\n\n[\nRFC3021\n] Retana, A., White, R., Fuller, V., and D. McPherson,\n\"Using 31-Bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links\",\nRFC\n3021\n, December 2000.", "char_start": 54816, "char_end": 56729, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 317}}, {"segment_id": "480a3a47-2046-4cd2-8f60-2cc51b8e5484", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 23, "text": "[\nRFC3221\n] Huston, G., \"Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the\nInternet\",\nRFC 3221\n, December 2001.\n\n[\nRFC4116\n] Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., and V.\nGill, \"IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations\",\nRFC\n4116\n, July 2005.\n\n[\nRFC4271\n] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, \"A Border Gateway\nProtocol 4 (BGP-4)\",\nRFC 4271\n, January 2006.\n\n[\nRIPE\n] \"RIPE Network Coordination Centre\", <\nhttp://www.ripe.net\n>.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nVince Fuller\n170 W. Tasman Drive\nSan Jose, CA 95134\nUSA\n\nEMail: vaf@cisco.com\n\nTony Li\n555 Del Rey Avenue\nSunnyvale, CA 94085\n\nEmail: tli@tropos.com\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 26]\nRFC 4632\nCIDR Address Strategy August 2006\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).\n\nThis document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions\ncontained in\nBCP 78\n, and except as set forth therein, the authors\nretain all their rights.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein are provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS\nOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,\nINCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE\nINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nIntellectual Property\n\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has\nmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information\non the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be\nfound in\nBCP 78\nand\nBCP 79\n.", "char_start": 56731, "char_end": 58638, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 313}}, {"segment_id": "ff9ef15d-5867-4cc4-80e4-9f2f239f97e9", "document_id": "8aed4787-fdf0-43e3-a92a-a949e5ecfc1e", "ordinal": 24, "text": "Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any\nassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an\nattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of\nsuch proprietary rights by implementers or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at\nhttp://www.ietf.org/ipr\n.\n\nThe IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights that may cover technology that may be required to implement\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at\nietf-ipr@ietf.org.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF\nAdministrative Support Activity (IASA).\n\nFuller & Li Best Current Practice [Page 27]\nRFC\n4632\n: Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n7\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. History and Problem Description\n3. Classless Addressing as a Solution\n3.1. Basic Concept and Prefix Notation\n4. Address Assignment and Routing Aggregation\n4.1. Aggregation Efficiency and Limitations\n4.2. Distributed Assignment of Address Space\n5. Routing Implementation Considerations\n5.1. Rules for Route Advertisement\n5.2. How the Rules Work\n5.3. A Note on Prefix Filter Formats\n5.4. Responsibility for and Configuration of Aggregation\n5.5. Route Propagation and Routing Protocol Considerations\n6. Example of New Address Assignments and Routing\n6.1. Address Delegation\n6.2. Routing Advertisements\n7. Domain Name Service Considerations\n8. Transition to a Long-Term Solution\n9. Analysis of CIDR's Effect on Global Routing State\n10. Conclusions and Recommendations\n11. Status Updates to CIDR Documents\n12. Security Considerations\n13. Acknowledgements\n14. References\n14.1. Normative References\n14.2. Informative References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 58640, "char_end": 60816, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 317}}], "published_at": "2006-08-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2006-08-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 4632 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 122 T. Li\nObsoletes:\n1519\nTropos Networks\nCategory: Best Current Practice August 2006", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "8c1561ad-ee56-42c5-9f6e-731d4cfa62ef", "source_id": "a8efae34d1882c0fa6ef3841", "source": "ARIN", "source_url": "https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/", "final_url": "https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/", "artifact_sha256": "657138c76c7c0ba7692b26adffd7b36e3562dac0f1a98f152f59097995db30d6", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 118757, "title": "Meeting Reports - ARIN's Vault", "language": "en-us", "text_length": 27515, "characters": 27515, "text": "Meeting Reports - ARIN's Vault\nSkip to main content\nVAULT\nFeedback\nWelcome to the ARIN Vault!\nThis is a repository of historical information, including policy archives, reports from policy meetings, public announcements and consultations, meeting minutes for the Advisory Council and Board of Trustees, and a collection of corporate documents.\nWhat's this?\nPolicy\nMeetings\nCorporate\nSearch\nVault home\nMeeting Reports Archive\nOUT OF DATE?\nHere in the Vault, information is published in its final form\nand then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links\nto other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.\nARIN 54 Public Policy and Members Meeting\nshow/hide list\nARIN 54 Attendees\nARIN 54 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 25 October 2024\nARIN 54 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 24 October 2024\nARIN 53 Public Policy and Members Meeting\nshow/hide list\nARIN 53 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 3 Transcript - Wednesday, 17 April 2024\nARIN 53 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 16 April 2024\nARIN 53 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 15 April 2024\nARIN 53 Attendees\nARIN 52 Public Policy and Members Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 52 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 20 October 2023\nARIN 52 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 19 October 2023\nARIN 52 Attendees\nARIN 51 Public Policy and Members Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 51 Attendees\nARIN 51 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 3 Transcript - Wednesday, 19 April 2023\nARIN 51 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 18 April 2023\nARIN 51 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 17 April 2023\nARIN 50 Public Policy and Members Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 50 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 21 October 2022\nARIN 50 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 20 October 2022\nARIN 50 Attendees\nARIN 49 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 49 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 3 Transcript - Wednesday, 27 April 2022\nARIN 49 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 25 April 2022\nARIN 49 Attendees\nARIN 49 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 26 April 2022\nARIN 48 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 48 Members Meeting Transcript - Thursday, 4 November 2021\nARIN 48 Election Forum Transcript - Thursday, 28 October 2021\nARIN 48 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Wednesday, 20 October 2021\nARIN 48 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Tuesday, 19 October 2021\nARIN 48 Live YouTube Stream\nARIN 48 Live Transcript Stream\nARIN 48 Attendees\nARIN 47 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 47 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 13 April 2021\nARIN 47 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 12 April 2021\nARIN 47 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 14 April 2021\nARIN 47 Attendees\nARIN 46 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 46 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Thursday, 15 October 2020\nARIN 46 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Wednesday, 14 October 2020\nARIN 46 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 23 October 2020\nARIN 46 Attendees\nARIN 45 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Wednesday, 17 June 2020\nARIN 45 Live Transcript\nARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Tuesday, 16 June 2020\nARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 45 - Registered Remote Participants and ARIN Support Staff\nARIN 44 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 44 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 1 November 2019\nARIN 44 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 1 November 2019\nARIN 44 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 44 Public Policy Report\nARIN 44 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 31 October 2019\nARIN 44 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 44 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 43 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 43 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 10 April 2019\nARIN 43 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 43 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 9 April 2019\nARIN 43 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 8 April 2019\nARIN 43 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 43 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 43 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 42 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 42 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 5 October 2018\nARIN 42 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 5 October 2018\nARIN 42 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 42 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 4 October 2018\nARIN 42 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 42 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 42 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 41 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 41 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 18 April 2018\nARIN 41 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 41 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 17 April 2018\nARIN 41 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 16 April 2018\nARIN 41 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 41 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 41 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 40 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 40 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 6 October 2017\nARIN 40 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 6 October 2017\nARIN 40 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 40 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 5 October 2017\nARIN 40 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 40 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 40 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 39 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 39 Webcast\nARIN 39 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 5 April 2017\nARIN 39 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 39 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 4 April 2017\nARIN 39 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 3 April 2017\nARIN 39 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 39 Live Transcript\nARIN 39 Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 39 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 38 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 21 October 2016\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - Friday, 21 October 2016\nARIN 38 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 21 October 2016\nARIN 38 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 38 Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 21 October 2016\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 20 October 2016\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - Thursday, 20 October 2016\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 38 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 37 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 37 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 20 April 2016\nARIN 37 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 37 Members Meeting Notes - Wednesday, 20 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 19 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 19 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 18 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - Monday, 18 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 37 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 66\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 66 Transcript - 09 February 2016\nARIN PPC at NANOG 66 Notes - 09 February 2016\nARIN PPC at NANOG 66 - Registered Participants\nARIN 36 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 9 October 2015\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - Friday, 9 October 2015\nARIN 36 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 9 October 2015\nARIN 36 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 36 Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 9 October 2015\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 8 October 2015\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - 08 October 2015\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 36 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 64 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 64 Transcript - 01 June 2015\nARIN PPC at NANOG 64 Notes - 01 June 2015\nARIN PPC at NANOG 64 - Registered Participants\nARIN 35 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 35 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 15 April 2015\nARIN 35 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 35 Members Meeting Notes - Wednesday, 15 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 14 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 14 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 13 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - Monday, 13 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 35 Premeeting Tutorials & Presentations - 12 April 2015\nARIN 35 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 63 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 63 Transcript - 03 February 2015\nARIN PPC at NANOG 63 Notes - 03 February 2015\nARIN PPC at NANOG 63 - Registered Participants\nARIN 34 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 34 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 10 October 2014\nARIN 34 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 34 Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 10 October 2014\nARIN 34 Public Policy Meeting Transcript - Thursday, 9 October 2014\nARIN 34 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 34 Public Policy Meeting Notes - Thursday, 9 October 2014\nARIN 34 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 62 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 62 Transcript - 07 October 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 62 Notes - 07 October 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 62 - Registered Participants\nARIN PPC At NANOG 61 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 61 Transcript - 05 June 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 61 Notes - 05 June 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 61 - Registered Participants\nARIN 33 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 33 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 16 April 2014\nARIN 33 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 33 Members Meeting Notes - Wednesday, 16 April 2014\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Transcript - Tuesday, 15 April 2014\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Notes - Tuesday, 15 April 2014\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Transcript - Monday, 14 April 2014\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Notes - Monday, 14 April 2014\nARIN 33 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants and ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 60 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 60 Transcript - 11 February 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 60 Notes - 11 February 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 60 - Registered Attendees\nARIN 32 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 32 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 11 October 2013\nARIN 32 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 32 Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 11 October 2013\nARIN 32 Public Policy Meeting Transcript - Thursday, 10 October 2013\nARIN 32 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 32 Public Policy Meeting Notes - Thursday, 10 October 2013\nARIN 32 Meeting Materials\nARIN 32 - Registered Attendees, Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 59 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 59 Transcript - 8 October 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 59 Notes - 8 October 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 59 - Registered Attendees\nARIN PPC At NANOG 58 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 58 Transcript - 4 June 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 58 Notes - 4 June 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 58 - Registered Attendees\nARIN 31 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 31 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 31 Members Meeting Notes - Wednesday, 24 April 2013\nARIN 31 Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 24 April 2013\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 23 April 2013\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Draft Transcript- 23 April 2013\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 22 April 2013\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 22 April 2013\nARIN 31 Meeting Materials\nARIN 31 Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 57 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC Registered Participants and ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC at NANOG 57 Transcript - 5 February 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 57 Notes - 5 February 2013\nARIN XXX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXX Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXX Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 26 October 2012\nARIN XXX Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 26 October 2012\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 25 October 2012\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Draft Transcript- 25 October 2012\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 24 October 2012\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 24 October 2012\nARIN XXX Meeting Materials\nARIN XXX Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXIX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXIX Members Meeting Report\nARIN XXIX Members Meeting Notes - 25 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 25 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 24 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 24 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 23 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 23 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Meeting Materials\nARIN XXIX Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXVIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXVIII Members Meeting Report\nARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN XXVIII Meeting Materials\nARIN XXVIII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXVII Premeeting Activities\nARIN XXVIII Members Meeting Notes - 13 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 13 April 2011\nARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 12 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 12 April 2011\nARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 11 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXVII Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXVII Members Meeting Notes - 13 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 13 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 12 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 12 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 11 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Premeeting Activities\nARIN XXVII Meeting Materials\nARIN XXVII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXVI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXVI Members Meeting Report\nARIN XXVI Members Meeting Notes - 8 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 8 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 7 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 7 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 6 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 6 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Premeeting Activities\nARIN XXVI Meeting Materials\nARIN XXVI Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXV Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXV Members Meeting Notes - 21 April 2010\nARIN XXV Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 21 April 2010\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 20 April 2010\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 20 April 2010\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 20 April 2010\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 19 April 2010\nARIN XXV Premeeting Activities\nARIN XXV Meeting Materials\nARIN XXV Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXIV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXIV Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXIV Members Meeting Notes - 23 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 23 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 22 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 22 October 2009\nNANOG 47 / ARIN XXIV Joint Session Draft Transcript - 21 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 21 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 21 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Premeeting Activities - Tuesday, 20 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXIII Members Meeting Report\nARIN XXIII Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXIII Members Meeting Notes - 29 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 29 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Meeting Report\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 28 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 28 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 27 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 27 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting\nARIN XXIII Premeeting Activities - Sunday, 26 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN Spring 2009 Caribbean Sector Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 February 2009\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 11 February 2009\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Tutorials\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Report\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Draft Transcript - 10 February 2009\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Attendees\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 10 February 2009\nARIN XXII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXII Members Meeting Report - Friday, 17 October 2008\nARIN XXII Members Meeting Notes - 17 October 2008\nARIN XXII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - Friday, 17 October 2008\nARIN XXII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 16 October 2008\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Thursday, 16 October 2008\nSpecial NANOG/ARIN Feature Presentation\nARIN XXII Public Policy Meeting Report - 15-16 October 2008\nARIN XXII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 15 October 2008\nARIN XXII Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 15 October 2008\nARIN XXII Premeeting Activities - 14-15 October 2008\nARIN XXII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN Fall 2008 Caribbean Sector Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nCaribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 17 September 2008\nCaribbean Sector Meeting Draft Transcript - 17 September 2008\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Report - 17 September 2008\nIPv6 Program Presentations\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Attendees And Staff\nARIN Spring 2008 Caribbean Sector Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Report - 21 May 2008\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 21 May 2008\nARIN XXI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXI Members Meeting Report - 9 April 2008\nARIN XXI Members Meeting Notes - 9 April 2008\nARIN XXI Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 9 April 2008\nARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - Tuesday, 8 April 2008\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 8 April 2008\nARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - Monday, 7 April 2008\nARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 7 April 2008\nARIN XXI Meeting Report\nARIN XXI Educational Activities - 6 April 2008 and 8 April 2008\nARIN XXI Attendees, Remote Participants, ARIN Staff\nARIN XX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XX Members Meeting Report - 19 October 2007\nARIN XX Members Meeting Notes - 19 October 2007\nARIN XX Members Meeting Draft Transcript - Friday, 19 October 2007\nARIN XX Public Policy Meeting Day 2, Draft Transcript - 18 October 2007\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Thursday, 18 October 2007\nARIN XX Public Policy Meeting Report - 17-18 October 2007\nARIN XX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 17 October 2007\nARIN XX Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 17 October 2007\nARIN XX Pre-meeting Activities - 14 and 16 October 2007\nARIN XX Meeting Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XIX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XIX Members Meeting Report - 25 April 2007\nARIN XIX Members Meeting Notes - 25 April 2007\nARIN XIX Members Meeting Draft Transcript - Wednesday, 25 April 2007\nARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Day 2, Draft Transcript - 24 April 2007\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 24 April 2007\nARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Report - 23-24 April 2007\nARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - Monday, 23 April 2007\nARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 23 April 2007\nARIN XIX Pre-meeting Activities - Sunday, 22 April 2007\nARIN XIX Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XVIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XVIII Members Meeting Summary Notes\nARIN XVIII Members Meeting Report - 13 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - Friday, 13 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 12 October 2006\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 12 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Report - 11-12 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 11 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Pre-meeting Activities - 8 October 2006 and 10 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XVII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XVII Members Meeting Summary Notes - 12 April 2006\nARIN XVII Members Meeting Report - 12 April 2006\nARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Report - 10-11 April 2006\nARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 April 2006\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Summary Notes - 11 April 2006\nARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 10 April 2006\nARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 10 April 2006\nARIN XVII Workshop, Tutorials, and Open Policy Hour - Sunday, 9 April 2006\nARIN XVII Attendees, Remote Participants, ARIN Staff\nARIN XVI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XVI, Presentation and Discussion Synopsis, Members Meeting\nARIN XVI Members Meeting Minutes - Friday, 28 October 2005\nARIN XVI, Presentation and Discussion Synopsis, Public Policy Meeting Day 2\nARIN XVI, Presentation and Discussion Synopsis, Public Policy Meeting Day 1\nARIN XVI Public Policy Meeting Minutes - 26-27 October 2005\nARIN XVI Tutorials and Open Policy Hour - Tuesday, 25 October 2005\nARIN XVI Attendees\nARIN XVI and NANOG 35 Workshop\nARIN XV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 3, 20 April 2005\nARIN XV Members Meeting Presentations - Orlando, FL - 20 April 2005\nARIN XV Members Meeting Minutes - 20 April 2005\nARIN XV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 19 April 2005 Minutes\nARIN XV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 18 April 2005\nARIN XV Public Policy Meeting Minutes - Orlando, FL - 18-20 April 2005\nARIN XV Tutorials and Open Policy Hour - 17 April 2005\nARIN XV Attendees, Remote Participants, ARIN Staff\nARIN XV and NAv6TF Summit - Exhibitors Hall\nARIN XIV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XIV Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations - 22 October 2004\nARIN XIV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2\nARIN XIV Members Meeting Minutes\nARIN XIV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1 - 20 October 2004\nARIN XIV Public Policy Meeting Minutes - 20-21 October, 2004\nARIN XIV Workshops and Policy BoF Presentations - 19 October 2004\nARIN XIV Meeting Attendees\nARIN XIV Photo Gallery\nARIN 2004 African Regional Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN African Regional Meeting Minutes - 23 June 2004\nARIN African Regional Meeting Documents\nARIN African Regional Meeting Attendees\nARIN XIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XIII Members Meeting Minutes - 21 April 2004\nARIN XIII Members Meeting - Vancouver, BC, Canada - 21 April 2004\nARIN XIII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 20 April 2004\nARIN XIII Public Policy Meeting - Vancouver, BC, Canada - 19-20 April 2004\nARIN XIII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 19 April 2004\nARIN XIII Meeting Attendees and ARIN Staff\nARIN XIII Workshops and Policy BoF - 18 April 2004\nARIN XII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XII Members Meeting Minutes\nARIN XII Members Meeting - Chicago, Illinois - 24 October 2003\nARIN XII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 23 October 2003\nARIN XII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 23 October 2003\nARIN XII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 22 October 2003\nARIN XII Public Policy Meeting - Chicago, Illinois - 22-23 October 2003\nARIN XII Meeting Attendees\nARIN XII Tutorial and Policy BoF - 21 October 2003\nARIN XI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XI Members Meeting Minutes\nARIN XI Members Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee - 9 April 2003\nARIN XI Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 8 April 2003\nARIN XI Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 7 April 2003\nARIN XI Public Policy Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee - 7-8 April 2003\nARIN XI Tutorial - IPv6 Mini-workshop - 6 April 2003\nARIN XI Meeting Attendees\nARIN X Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN X Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN X Members Meeting - Eugene, Oregon - 1 November 2002\nARIN X Public Policy Meeting - Eugene, Oregon - 30-31 October 2002\nARIN X Public Policy Meeting Minutes\nARIN X Meeting Attendees\nARIN IX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN IX Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN IX Members Meeting Minutes - Las Vegas, Nevada - 10 April 2002\nARIN IX Public Policy Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN IX Public Policy Meeting - Las Vegas, Nevada - 8-9 April 2002\nARIN IX Meeting Attendees\nARIN VIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN VIII Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VIII Members Meeting Minutes - Miami, Florida - 31 October 2001\nARIN VIII Public Policy Meeting - Miami, Florida - 29-30 October 2001\nARIN VIII Public Policy Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VIII Meeting Attendees\nARIN VII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN VII Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VII Members Meeting - San FrancisCo, California - 4 April 2001\nARIN VII Public Policy Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VII Public Policy Meeting - San Franciso, California - 2-3 April 2001\nSunday Tutorials - ARIN VII\nARIN VII Meeting Attendees\nARIN VI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN VI Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VI Members Meeting - Herndon, Virginia - 4 October 2000\nARIN VI Public Policy Meeting - Herndon, Virginia - 2-3 October 2000\nARIN VI Public Policy Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN V Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN V Members Meeting Minutes - Calgary, Alberta, Canada\nARIN V Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - 4 April 2000\nARIN V Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - 3 April 2000\nARIN V Public Policy Meeting Minutes - Calgary, Alberta, Canada\nARIN IV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN Members Meeting - Denver, CO - 20 October 1999\nARIN Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - 18-19 October, 1999\nARIN Public Policy Meeting - October 18-19, 1999\nARIN Public Policy Meeting - October 18-19, 1999\nARIN Public Policy Meeting - Denver, CO - 18-19 October 1999\nARIN IV Members Meeting\nARIN III Members Meeting - Atlanta, Georgia - April 13, 1999\nARIN II Members Meeting - October 16, 1998\nARIN I Members Meeting - March 20, 1998\nOUT OF DATE?\nHere in the Vault, information is published in its final form\nand then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links\nto other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.\nARIN home\nAccount login\nSearch ARIN/WHOIS\nTerms of Service\nAccessibility\nContact us\n© Copyright 1997 – 2026, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.", "segments": [{"segment_id": "5017666e-91c1-4068-85fe-10c1bc0a1d0e", "document_id": "8c1561ad-ee56-42c5-9f6e-731d4cfa62ef", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Meeting Reports - ARIN's Vault\nSkip to main content\nVAULT\nFeedback\nWelcome to the ARIN Vault!\nThis is a repository of historical information, including policy archives, reports from policy meetings, public announcements and consultations, meeting minutes for the Advisory Council and Board of Trustees, and a collection of corporate documents.\nWhat's this?\nPolicy\nMeetings\nCorporate\nSearch\nVault home\nMeeting Reports Archive\nOUT OF DATE?\nHere in the Vault, information is published in its final form\nand then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links\nto other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.\nARIN 54 Public Policy and Members Meeting\nshow/hide list\nARIN 54 Attendees\nARIN 54 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 25 October 2024\nARIN 54 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 24 October 2024\nARIN 53 Public Policy and Members Meeting\nshow/hide list\nARIN 53 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 3 Transcript - Wednesday, 17 April 2024\nARIN 53 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 16 April 2024\nARIN 53 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 15 April 2024\nARIN 53 Attendees\nARIN 52 Public Policy and Members Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 52 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 20 October 2023\nARIN 52 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 19 October 2023\nARIN 52 Attendees\nARIN 51 Public Policy and Members Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 51 Attendees\nARIN 51 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 3 Transcript - Wednesday, 19 April 2023\nARIN 51 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 18 April 2023\nARIN 51 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 17 April 2023\nARIN 50 Public Policy and Members Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 50 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 21 October 2022\nARIN 50 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 20 October 2022\nARIN 50 Attendees\nARIN 49 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 49 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 3 Transcript - Wednesday, 27 April 2022\nARIN 49 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 25 April 2022\nARIN 49 Attendees\nARIN 49 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 26 April 2022\nARIN 48 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 48 Members Meeting Transcript - Thursday, 4 November 2021\nARIN 48 Election Forum Transcript - Thursday, 28 October 2021\nARIN 48 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Wednesday, 20 October 2021\nARIN 48 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Tuesday, 19 October 2021\nARIN 48 Live YouTube Stream\nARIN 48 Live Transcript Stream\nARIN 48 Attendees\nARIN 47 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 47 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 13 April 2021\nARIN 47 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 12 April 2021\nARIN 47 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 14 April 2021\nARIN 47 Attendees\nARIN 46 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 46 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Thursday, 15 October 2020\nARIN 46 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Wednesday, 14 October 2020\nARIN 46 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 23 October 2020\nARIN 46 Attendees\nARIN 45 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Wednesday, 17 June 2020\nARIN 45 Live Transcript\nARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Tuesday, 16 June 2020\nARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 45 - Registered Remote Participants and ARIN Support Staff\nARIN 44 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 44 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 1 November 2019\nARIN 44 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 1 November 2019\nARIN 44 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 44 Public Policy Report\nARIN 44 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 31 October 2019\nARIN 44 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 44 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 43 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 43 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 10 April 2019\nARIN 43 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 43 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 9 April 2019\nARIN 43 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 8 April 2019\nARIN 43 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 43 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 43 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 42 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 42 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 5 October 2018\nARIN 42 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 5 October 2018\nARIN 42 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 42 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 4 October 2018\nARIN 42 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 42 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 42 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 41 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 41 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 18 April 2018\nARIN 41 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 41 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 17 April 2018\nARIN 41 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 16 April 2018\nARIN 41 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 41 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 41 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 40 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 40 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 6 October 2017\nARIN 40 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 6 October 2017\nARIN 40 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 40 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 5 October 2017\nARIN 40 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 40 Newcomer Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 40 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 39 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 39 Webcast\nARIN 39 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 5 April 2017\nARIN 39 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 39 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 4 April 2017\nARIN 39 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 3 April 2017\nARIN 39 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 39 Live Transcript\nARIN 39 Orientation & Tutorial Presentations\nARIN 39 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 38 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 21 October 2016\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - Friday, 21 October 2016\nARIN 38 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 21 October 2016\nARIN 38 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 38 Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 21 October 2016\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 20 October 2016\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - Thursday, 20 October 2016\nARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 38 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN 37 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 37 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 20 April 2016\nARIN 37 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 37 Members Meeting Notes - Wednesday, 20 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 19 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 19 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 18 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - Monday, 18 April 2016\nARIN 37 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 37 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 66\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 66 Transcript - 09 February 2016\nARIN PPC at NANOG 66 Notes - 09 February 2016\nARIN PPC at NANOG 66 - Registered Participants\nARIN 36 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 9 October 2015\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - Friday, 9 October 2015\nARIN 36 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 9 October 2015\nARIN 36 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 36 Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 9 October 2015\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Thursday, 8 October 2015\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - 08 October 2015\nARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 36 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 64 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 64 Transcript - 01 June 2015\nARIN PPC at NANOG 64 Notes - 01 June 2015\nARIN PPC at NANOG 64 - Registered Participants\nARIN 35 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 35 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 15 April 2015\nARIN 35 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 35 Members Meeting Notes - Wednesday, 15 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Tuesday, 14 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 14 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Transcript - Monday, 13 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - Monday, 13 April 2015\nARIN 35 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 35 Premeeting Tutorials & Presentations - 12 April 2015\nARIN 35 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 63 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 63 Transcript - 03 February 2015\nARIN PPC at NANOG 63 Notes - 03 February 2015\nARIN PPC at NANOG 63 - Registered Participants\nARIN 34 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 34 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 10 October 2014\nARIN 34 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 34 Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 10 October 2014\nARIN 34 Public Policy Meeting Transcript - Thursday, 9 October 2014\nARIN 34 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 34 Public Policy Meeting Notes - Thursday, 9 October 2014\nARIN 34 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 62 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 62 Transcript - 07 October 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 62 Notes - 07 October 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 62 - Registered Participants\nARIN PPC At NANOG 61 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 61 Transcript - 05 June 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 61 Notes - 05 June 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 61 - Registered Participants\nARIN 33 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 33 Members Meeting Transcript - Wednesday, 16 April 2014\nARIN 33 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 33 Members Meeting Notes - Wednesday, 16 April 2014\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Transcript - Tuesday, 15 April 2014\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Notes - Tuesday, 15 April 2014\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Transcript - Monday, 14 April 2014\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting Notes - Monday, 14 April 2014\nARIN 33 - Attendees, Registered Remote Participants and ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 60 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 60 Transcript - 11 February 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 60 Notes - 11 February 2014\nARIN PPC at NANOG 60 - Registered Attendees\nARIN 32 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 32 Members Meeting Transcript - Friday, 11 October 2013\nARIN 32 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 32 Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 11 October 2013\nARIN 32 Public Policy Meeting Transcript - Thursday, 10 October 2013\nARIN 32 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 32 Public Policy Meeting Notes - Thursday, 10 October 2013\nARIN 32 Meeting Materials\nARIN 32 - Registered Attendees, Remote Participants, And ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 59 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 59 Transcript - 8 October 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 59 Notes - 8 October 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 59 - Registered Attendees\nARIN PPC At NANOG 58 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC at NANOG 58 Transcript - 4 June 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 58 Notes - 4 June 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 58 - Registered Attendees\nARIN 31 Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN 31 Members Meeting Report\nARIN 31 Members Meeting Notes - Wednesday, 24 April 2013\nARIN 31 Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 24 April 2013\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 23 April 2013\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Draft Transcript- 23 April 2013\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 22 April 2013\nARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 22 April 2013\nARIN 31 Meeting Materials\nARIN 31 Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC At NANOG 57 Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN PPC Registered Participants and ARIN Staff\nARIN PPC at NANOG 57 Transcript - 5 February 2013\nARIN PPC at NANOG 57 Notes - 5 February 2013\nARIN XXX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXX Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXX Members Meeting Notes - Friday, 26 October 2012\nARIN XXX Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 26 October 2012\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 25 October 2012\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Draft Transcript- 25 October 2012\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 24 October 2012\nARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 24 October 2012\nARIN XXX Meeting Materials\nARIN XXX Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXIX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXIX Members Meeting Report\nARIN XXIX Members Meeting Notes - 25 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 25 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 24 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 24 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 23 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 23 April 2012\nARIN XXIX Meeting Materials\nARIN XXIX Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXVIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXVIII Members Meeting Report\nARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN XXVIII Meeting Materials\nARIN XXVIII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXVII Premeeting Activities\nARIN XXVIII Members Meeting Notes - 13 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 13 April 2011\nARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 12 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 12 April 2011\nARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 11 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXVII Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXVII Members Meeting Notes - 13 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 13 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 12 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 12 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 11 April 2011\nARIN XXVII Premeeting Activities\nARIN XXVII Meeting Materials\nARIN XXVII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXVI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXVI Members Meeting Report\nARIN XXVI Members Meeting Notes - 8 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 8 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 7 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 7 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Report\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 6 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 6 October 2010\nARIN XXVI Premeeting Activities\nARIN XXVI Meeting Materials\nARIN XXVI Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXV Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXV Members Meeting Notes - 21 April 2010\nARIN XXV Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 21 April 2010\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 20 April 2010\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 20 April 2010\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 20 April 2010\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 19 April 2010\nARIN XXV Premeeting Activities\nARIN XXV Meeting Materials\nARIN XXV Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXIV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXIV Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXIV Members Meeting Notes - 23 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 23 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 22 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 22 October 2009\nNANOG 47 / ARIN XXIV Joint Session Draft Transcript - 21 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 21 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 21 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Premeeting Activities - Tuesday, 20 October 2009\nARIN XXIV Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XXIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXIII Members Meeting Report\nARIN XXIII Members Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXIII Members Meeting Notes - 29 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 29 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Meeting Report\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 28 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 28 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Presentations\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 27 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting Day 1 Notes - 27 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting\nARIN XXIII Premeeting Activities - Sunday, 26 April 2009\nARIN XXIII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN Spring 2009 Caribbean Sector Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 February 2009\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 11 February 2009\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Tutorials\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Report\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Draft Transcript - 10 February 2009\nARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Attendees\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 10 February 2009\nARIN XXII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXII Members Meeting Report - Friday, 17 October 2008\nARIN XXII Members Meeting Notes - 17 October 2008\nARIN XXII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - Friday, 17 October 2008\nARIN XXII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 16 October 2008\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Thursday, 16 October 2008\nSpecial NANOG/ARIN Feature Presentation\nARIN XXII Public Policy Meeting Report - 15-16 October 2008\nARIN XXII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 15 October 2008\nARIN XXII Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 15 October 2008\nARIN XXII Premeeting Activities - 14-15 October 2008\nARIN XXII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN Fall 2008 Caribbean Sector Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nCaribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 17 September 2008\nCaribbean Sector Meeting Draft Transcript - 17 September 2008\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Report - 17 September 2008\nIPv6 Program Presentations\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Attendees And Staff\nARIN Spring 2008 Caribbean Sector Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Report - 21 May 2008\nARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 21 May 2008\nARIN XXI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XXI Members Meeting Report - 9 April 2008\nARIN XXI Members Meeting Notes - 9 April 2008\nARIN XXI Members Meeting Draft Transcript - 9 April 2008\nARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - Tuesday, 8 April 2008\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 8 April 2008\nARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - Monday, 7 April 2008\nARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 7 April 2008\nARIN XXI Meeting Report\nARIN XXI Educational Activities - 6 April 2008 and 8 April 2008\nARIN XXI Attendees, Remote Participants, ARIN Staff\nARIN XX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XX Members Meeting Report - 19 October 2007\nARIN XX Members Meeting Notes - 19 October 2007\nARIN XX Members Meeting Draft Transcript - Friday, 19 October 2007\nARIN XX Public Policy Meeting Day 2, Draft Transcript - 18 October 2007\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Thursday, 18 October 2007\nARIN XX Public Policy Meeting Report - 17-18 October 2007\nARIN XX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 17 October 2007\nARIN XX Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 17 October 2007\nARIN XX Pre-meeting Activities - 14 and 16 October 2007\nARIN XX Meeting Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XIX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XIX Members Meeting Report - 25 April 2007\nARIN XIX Members Meeting Notes - 25 April 2007\nARIN XIX Members Meeting Draft Transcript - Wednesday, 25 April 2007\nARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Day 2, Draft Transcript - 24 April 2007\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 24 April 2007\nARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Report - 23-24 April 2007\nARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - Monday, 23 April 2007\nARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 23 April 2007\nARIN XIX Pre-meeting Activities - Sunday, 22 April 2007\nARIN XIX Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XVIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XVIII Members Meeting Summary Notes\nARIN XVIII Members Meeting Report - 13 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Members Meeting Draft Transcript - Friday, 13 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 12 October 2006\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - 12 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Report - 11-12 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 11 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Pre-meeting Activities - 8 October 2006 and 10 October 2006\nARIN XVIII Attendees, Remote Participants, and ARIN Staff\nARIN XVII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XVII Members Meeting Summary Notes - 12 April 2006\nARIN XVII Members Meeting Report - 12 April 2006\nARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Report - 10-11 April 2006\nARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 April 2006\nARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Summary Notes - 11 April 2006\nARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 10 April 2006\nARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 10 April 2006\nARIN XVII Workshop, Tutorials, and Open Policy Hour - Sunday, 9 April 2006\nARIN XVII Attendees, Remote Participants, ARIN Staff\nARIN XVI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XVI, Presentation and Discussion Synopsis, Members Meeting\nARIN XVI Members Meeting Minutes - Friday, 28 October 2005\nARIN XVI, Presentation and Discussion Synopsis, Public Policy Meeting Day 2\nARIN XVI, Presentation and Discussion Synopsis, Public Policy Meeting Day 1\nARIN XVI Public Policy Meeting Minutes - 26-27 October 2005\nARIN XVI Tutorials and Open Policy Hour - Tuesday, 25 October 2005\nARIN XVI Attendees\nARIN XVI and NANOG 35 Workshop\nARIN XV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 3, 20 April 2005\nARIN XV Members Meeting Presentations - Orlando, FL - 20 April 2005\nARIN XV Members Meeting Minutes - 20 April 2005\nARIN XV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 19 April 2005 Minutes\nARIN XV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 18 April 2005\nARIN XV Public Policy Meeting Minutes - Orlando, FL - 18-20 April 2005\nARIN XV Tutorials and Open Policy Hour - 17 April 2005\nARIN XV Attendees, Remote Participants, ARIN Staff\nARIN XV and NAv6TF Summit - Exhibitors Hall\nARIN XIV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XIV Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations - 22 October 2004\nARIN XIV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2\nARIN XIV Members Meeting Minutes\nARIN XIV Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1 - 20 October 2004\nARIN XIV Public Policy Meeting Minutes - 20-21 October, 2004\nARIN XIV Workshops and Policy BoF Presentations - 19 October 2004\nARIN XIV Meeting Attendees\nARIN XIV Photo Gallery\nARIN 2004 African Regional Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN African Regional Meeting Minutes - 23 June 2004\nARIN African Regional Meeting Documents\nARIN African Regional Meeting Attendees\nARIN XIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XIII Members Meeting Minutes - 21 April 2004\nARIN XIII Members Meeting - Vancouver, BC, Canada - 21 April 2004\nARIN XIII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 20 April 2004\nARIN XIII Public Policy Meeting - Vancouver, BC, Canada - 19-20 April 2004\nARIN XIII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 19 April 2004\nARIN XIII Meeting Attendees and ARIN Staff\nARIN XIII Workshops and Policy BoF - 18 April 2004\nARIN XII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XII Members Meeting Minutes\nARIN XII Members Meeting - Chicago, Illinois - 24 October 2003\nARIN XII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 23 October 2003\nARIN XII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 23 October 2003\nARIN XII Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 22 October 2003\nARIN XII Public Policy Meeting - Chicago, Illinois - 22-23 October 2003\nARIN XII Meeting Attendees\nARIN XII Tutorial and Policy BoF - 21 October 2003\nARIN XI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN XI Members Meeting Minutes\nARIN XI Members Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee - 9 April 2003\nARIN XI Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 2, 8 April 2003\nARIN XI Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 7 April 2003\nARIN XI Public Policy Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee - 7-8 April 2003\nARIN XI Tutorial - IPv6 Mini-workshop - 6 April 2003\nARIN XI Meeting Attendees\nARIN X Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN X Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN X Members Meeting - Eugene, Oregon - 1 November 2002\nARIN X Public Policy Meeting - Eugene, Oregon - 30-31 October 2002\nARIN X Public Policy Meeting Minutes\nARIN X Meeting Attendees\nARIN IX Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN IX Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN IX Members Meeting Minutes - Las Vegas, Nevada - 10 April 2002\nARIN IX Public Policy Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN IX Public Policy Meeting - Las Vegas, Nevada - 8-9 April 2002\nARIN IX Meeting Attendees\nARIN VIII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN VIII Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VIII Members Meeting Minutes - Miami, Florida - 31 October 2001\nARIN VIII Public Policy Meeting - Miami, Florida - 29-30 October 2001\nARIN VIII Public Policy Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VIII Meeting Attendees\nARIN VII Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN VII Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VII Members Meeting - San FrancisCo, California - 4 April 2001\nARIN VII Public Policy Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VII Public Policy Meeting - San Franciso, California - 2-3 April 2001\nSunday Tutorials - ARIN VII\nARIN VII Meeting Attendees\nARIN VI Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN VI Members Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN VI Members Meeting - Herndon, Virginia - 4 October 2000\nARIN VI Public Policy Meeting - Herndon, Virginia - 2-3 October 2000\nARIN VI Public Policy Meeting Minutes and Presentations\nARIN V Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN V Members Meeting Minutes - Calgary, Alberta, Canada\nARIN V Public Policy Meeting, Day 2 Notes - 4 April 2000\nARIN V Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - 3 April 2000\nARIN V Public Policy Meeting Minutes - Calgary, Alberta, Canada\nARIN IV Meeting Report\nshow/hide list\nARIN Members Meeting - Denver, CO - 20 October 1999\nARIN Public Policy Meeting, Day 1 Notes - 18-19 October, 1999\nARIN Public Policy Meeting - October 18-19, 1999\nARIN Public Policy Meeting - October 18-19, 1999\nARIN Public Policy Meeting - Denver, CO - 18-19 October 1999\nARIN IV Members Meeting\nARIN III Members Meeting - Atlanta, Georgia - April 13, 1999\nARIN II Members Meeting - October 16, 1998\nARIN I Members Meeting - March 20, 1998\nOUT OF DATE?\nHere in the Vault, information is published in its final form\nand then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links\nto other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.\nARIN home\nAccount login\nSearch ARIN/WHOIS\nTerms of Service\nAccessibility\nContact us\n© Copyright 1997 – 2026, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 27515, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 24, "word_count": 4627}}], "published_at": "2024-10-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2024-10-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\nARIN 54 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 25 October 2024\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "source_id": "15568d805de2815d92f74062", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973/", "artifact_sha256": "9e5e1bb3660c07f5f27955f4d4c6309faf793727a1c04a0bb077610633b6137a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 402141, "title": "RFC 6973: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 81699, "characters": 81699, "text": "RFC 6973: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 6973\nInfo\nRFC\n6973\n:\nPrivacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\nA. Cooper\n,\nH. Tschofenig\n,\nB. Aboba\n,\nJ. Peterson\n,\nJ. Morris\n,\nM. Hansen\n,\nR. Smith\nInformational\nInternet Architecture Board (IAB) A. Cooper\nRequest for Comments: 6973 CDT\nCategory: Informational H. Tschofenig\nISSN: 2070-1721 Nokia Siemens Networks\nB. Aboba\nSkype\nJ. Peterson\nNeuStar, Inc.\nJ. Morris\n\nM. Hansen\nULD\nR. Smith\nJanet\nJuly 2013\nPrivacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\nAbstract\n\nThis document offers guidance for developing privacy considerations\nfor inclusion in protocol specifications. It aims to make designers,\nimplementers, and users of Internet protocols aware of privacy-\nrelated design choices. It suggests that whether any individual RFC\nwarrants a specific privacy considerations section will depend on the\ndocument's content.\n\nStatus of This Memo\n\nThis document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is\npublished for informational purposes.\n\nThis document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)\nand represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to\nprovide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the\nInternet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for\npublication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet\nStandard; see\nSection 2 of RFC 5741\n.\n\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata,\nand how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973\n.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 1]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to\nBCP 78\nand the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF\nDocuments\n(\nhttp://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect\nto this document.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 2]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction ....................................................\n4\n2\n. Scope of Privacy Implications of Internet Protocols .............\n5\n3\n. Terminology .....................................................\n6\n3.1\n. Entities ...................................................\n7\n3.2\n. Data and Analysis ..........................................\n8\n3.3\n. Identifiability ............................................\n9\n4\n. Communications Model ...........................................\n10\n5\n. Privacy Threats ................................................\n12\n5.1\n. Combined Security-Privacy Threats .........................\n13\n5.1.1\n. Surveillance .......................................\n13\n5.1.2\n. Stored Data Compromise .............................\n14\n5.1.3\n. Intrusion ..........................................\n14\n5.1.4\n. Misattribution .....................................\n14\n5.2\n. Privacy-Specific Threats ..................................\n15\n5.2.1\n. Correlation ........................................\n15\n5.2.2\n. Identification .....................................\n16\n5.2.3\n. Secondary Use ......................................\n16\n5.2.4\n. Disclosure .........................................\n17\n5.2.5\n. Exclusion ..........................................\n17\n6\n. Threat Mitigations .............................................\n18\n6.1\n. Data Minimization .........................................\n18\n6.1.1\n. Anonymity ..........................................\n19\n6.1.2\n. Pseudonymity .......................................\n20\n6.1.3\n. Identity Confidentiality ...........................\n20\n6.1.4\n. Data Minimization within Identity Management .......\n21\n6.2\n. User Participation ........................................\n21\n6.3\n. Security ..................................................\n22\n7\n. Guidelines .....................................................\n23\n7.1\n. Data Minimization .........................................\n24\n7.2\n. User Participation ........................................\n25\n7.3\n. Security ..................................................\n25\n7.4\n. General ...................................................\n26\n8\n. Example ........................................................\n26\n9\n. Security Considerations ........................................\n31\n10\n. Acknowledgements ..............................................\n31\n11\n. IAB Members at the Time of Approval ...........................\n32\n12\n. Informative References ........................................\n32\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 3]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n1\n. Introduction\n[\nRFC3552\n] provides detailed guidance to protocol designers about both\nhow to consider security as part of protocol design and how to inform\nreaders of protocol specifications about security issues. This\ndocument intends to provide a similar set of guidelines for\nconsidering privacy in protocol design.\n\nPrivacy is a complicated concept with a rich history that spans many\ndisciplines. With regard to data, often it is a concept applied to\n\"personal data\", commonly defined as information relating to an\nidentified or identifiable individual. Many sets of privacy\nprinciples and privacy design frameworks have been developed in\ndifferent forums over the years. These include the Fair Information\nPractices [\nFIPs\n], a baseline set of privacy protections pertaining to\nthe collection and use of personal data (often based on the\nprinciples established in [\nOECD\n], for example), and the Privacy by\nDesign concept, which provides high-level privacy guidance for\nsystems design (see [\nPbD\n] for one example). The guidance provided in\nthis document is inspired by this prior work, but it aims to be more\nconcrete, pointing protocol designers to specific engineering choices\nthat can impact the privacy of the individuals that make use of\nInternet protocols.\n\nDifferent people have radically different conceptions of what privacy\nmeans, both in general and as it relates to them personally [\nWestin\n].\nFurthermore, privacy as a legal concept is understood differently in\ndifferent jurisdictions. The guidance provided in this document is\ngeneric and can be used to inform the design of any protocol to be\nused anywhere in the world, without reference to specific legal\nframeworks.\n\nWhether any individual document warrants a specific privacy\nconsiderations section will depend on the document's content.\nDocuments whose entire focus is privacy may not merit a separate\nsection (for example, \"Private Extensions to the Session Initiation\nProtocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks\"\n[\nRFC3325\n]). For certain specifications, privacy considerations are a\nsubset of security considerations and can be discussed explicitly in\nthe security considerations section. Some documents will not require\ndiscussion of privacy considerations (for example, \"Definition of the\nOpus Audio Codec\" [\nRFC6716\n]). The guidance provided here can and\nshould be used to assess the privacy considerations of protocol,\narchitectural, and operational specifications and to decide whether\nthose considerations are to be documented in a stand-alone section,\nwithin the security considerations section, or throughout the\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 4]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ndocument. The guidance provided here is meant to help the thought\nprocess of privacy analysis; it does not provide specific directions\nfor how to write a privacy considerations section.\n\nThis document is organized as follows.\nSection 2\ndescribes the\nextent to which the guidance offered here is applicable within the\nIETF and within the larger Internet community.\nSection 3\nexplains\nthe terminology used in this document.\nSection 4\nreviews typical\ncommunications architectures to understand at which points there may\nbe privacy threats.\nSection 5\ndiscusses threats to privacy as they\napply to Internet protocols.\nSection 6\noutlines mitigations of those\nthreats.\nSection 7\nprovides the guidelines for analyzing and\ndocumenting privacy considerations within IETF specifications.\nSection 8\nexamines the privacy characteristics of an IETF protocol to\ndemonstrate the use of the guidance framework.\n2\n. Scope of Privacy Implications of Internet Protocols\nInternet protocols are often built flexibly, making them useful in a\nvariety of architectures, contexts, and deployment scenarios without\nrequiring significant interdependency between disparately designed\ncomponents. Although protocol designers often have a particular\ntarget architecture or set of architectures in mind at design time,\nit is not uncommon for architectural frameworks to develop later,\nafter implementations exist and have been deployed in combination\nwith other protocols or components to form complete systems.\n\nAs a consequence, the extent to which protocol designers can foresee\nall of the privacy implications of a particular protocol at design\ntime is limited. An individual protocol may be relatively benign on\nits own, and it may make use of privacy and security features at\nlower layers of the protocol stack (Internet Protocol Security,\nTransport Layer Security, and so forth) to mitigate the risk of\nattack. But when deployed within a larger system or used in a way\nnot envisioned at design time, its use may create new privacy risks.\nProtocols are often implemented and deployed long after design time\nby different people than those who did the protocol design. The\nguidelines in\nSection 7\nask protocol designers to consider how their\nprotocols are expected to interact with systems and information that\nexist outside the protocol bounds, but not to imagine every possible\ndeployment scenario.\n\nFurthermore, in many cases the privacy properties of a system are\ndependent upon the complete system design where various protocols are\ncombined together to form a product solution; the implementation,\nwhich includes the user interface design; and operational deployment\npractices, including default privacy settings and security processes\nof the company doing the deployment. These details are specific to\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 5]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nparticular instantiations and generally outside the scope of the work\nconducted in the IETF. The guidance provided here may be useful in\nmaking choices about these details, but its primary aim is to assist\nwith the design, implementation, and operation of protocols.\n\nTransparency of data collection and use -- often effectuated through\nuser interface design -- is normally relied on (whether rightly or\nwrongly) as a key factor in determining the privacy impact of a\nsystem. Although most IETF activities do not involve standardizing\nuser interfaces or user-facing communications, in some cases,\nunderstanding expected user interactions can be important for\nprotocol design. Unexpected user behavior may have an adverse impact\non security and/or privacy.\n\nIn sum, privacy issues, even those related to protocol development,\ngo beyond the technical guidance discussed herein. As an example,\nconsider HTTP [\nRFC2616\n], which was designed to allow the exchange of\narbitrary data. A complete analysis of the privacy considerations\nfor uses of HTTP might include what type of data is exchanged, how\nthis data is stored, and how it is processed. Hence the analysis for\nan individual's static personal web page would be different than the\nuse of HTTP for exchanging health records. A protocol designer\nworking on HTTP extensions (such as Web Distributed Authoring and\nVersioning (WebDAV) [\nRFC4918\n]) is not expected to describe the\nprivacy risks derived from all possible usage scenarios, but rather\nthe privacy properties specific to the extensions and any particular\nuses of the extensions that are expected and foreseen at design time.\n3\n. Terminology\nThis section defines basic terms used in this document, with\nreferences to pre-existing definitions as appropriate. As in\n[\nRFC4949\n], each entry is preceded by a dollar sign ($) and a space\nfor automated searching. Note that this document does not try to\nattempt to define the term 'privacy' with a brief definition.\nInstead, privacy is the sum of what is contained in this document.\nWe therefore follow the approach taken by [\nRFC3552\n]. Examples of\nseveral different brief definitions are provided in [\nRFC4949\n].\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 6]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n3.1\n. Entities\nSeveral of these terms are further elaborated in\nSection 4\n.\n\n$ Attacker: An entity that works against one or more privacy\nprotection goals. Unlike observers, attackers' behavior is\nunauthorized.\n\n$ Eavesdropper: A type of attacker that passively observes an\ninitiator's communications without the initiator's knowledge or\nauthorization. See [\nRFC4949\n].\n\n$ Enabler: A protocol entity that facilitates communication between\nan initiator and a recipient without being directly in the\ncommunications path.\n\n$ Individual: A human being.\n\n$ Initiator: A protocol entity that initiates communications with a\nrecipient.\n\n$ Intermediary: A protocol entity that sits between the initiator\nand the recipient and is necessary for the initiator and recipient\nto communicate. Unlike an eavesdropper, an intermediary is an\nentity that is part of the communication architecture and\ntherefore at least tacitly authorized. For example, a SIP\n[\nRFC3261\n] proxy is an intermediary in the SIP architecture.\n\n$ Observer: An entity that is able to observe and collect\ninformation from communications, potentially posing privacy\nthreats, depending on the context. As defined in this document,\ninitiators, recipients, intermediaries, and enablers can all be\nobservers. Observers are distinguished from eavesdroppers by\nbeing at least tacitly authorized.\n\n$ Recipient: A protocol entity that receives communications from an\ninitiator.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 7]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n3.2\n. Data and Analysis\n$ Attack: An intentional act by which an entity attempts to violate\nan individual's privacy. See [\nRFC4949\n].\n\n$ Correlation: The combination of various pieces of information that\nrelate to an individual or that obtain that characteristic when\ncombined.\n\n$ Fingerprint: A set of information elements that identifies a\ndevice or application instance.\n\n$ Fingerprinting: The process of an observer or attacker uniquely\nidentifying (with a sufficiently high probability) a device or\napplication instance based on multiple information elements\ncommunicated to the observer or attacker. See [\nEFF\n].\n\n$ Item of Interest (IOI): Any data item that an observer or attacker\nmight be interested in. This includes attributes, identifiers,\nidentities, communications content, and the fact that a\ncommunication interaction has taken place.\n\n$ Personal Data: Any information relating to an individual who can\nbe identified, directly or indirectly.\n\n$ (Protocol) Interaction: A unit of communication within a\nparticular protocol. A single interaction may be comprised of a\nsingle message between an initiator and recipient or multiple\nmessages, depending on the protocol.\n\n$ Traffic Analysis: The inference of information from observation of\ntraffic flows (presence, absence, amount, direction, timing,\npacket size, packet composition, and/or frequency), even if flows\nare encrypted. See [\nRFC4949\n].\n\n$ Undetectability: The inability of an observer or attacker to\nsufficiently distinguish whether an item of interest exists\nor not.\n\n$ Unlinkability: Within a particular set of information, the\ninability of an observer or attacker to distinguish whether two\nitems of interest are related or not (with a high enough degree of\nprobability to be useful to the observer or attacker).\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 8]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n3.3\n. Identifiability\n$ Anonymity: The state of being anonymous.\n\n$ Anonymity Set: A set of individuals that have the same attributes,\nmaking them indistinguishable from each other from the perspective\nof a particular attacker or observer.\n\n$ Anonymous: A state of an individual in which an observer or\nattacker cannot identify the individual within a set of other\nindividuals (the anonymity set).\n\n$ Attribute: A property of an individual.\n\n$ Identifiability: The extent to which an individual is\nidentifiable.\n\n$ Identifiable: A property in which an individual's identity is\ncapable of being known to an observer or attacker.\n\n$ Identification: The linking of information to a particular\nindividual to infer an individual's identity or to allow the\ninference of an individual's identity in some context.\n\n$ Identified: A state in which an individual's identity is known.\n\n$ Identifier: A data object uniquely referring to a specific\nidentity of a protocol entity or individual in some context. See\n[\nRFC4949\n]. Identifiers can be based upon natural names --\nofficial names, personal names, and/or nicknames -- or can be\nartificial (for example, x9z32vb). However, identifiers are by\ndefinition unique within their context of use, while natural names\nare often not unique.\n\n$ Identity: Any subset of an individual's attributes, including\nnames, that identifies the individual within a given context.\nIndividuals usually have multiple identities for use in different\ncontexts.\n\n$ Identity Confidentiality: A property of an individual where only\nthe recipient can sufficiently identify the individual within a\nset of other individuals. This can be a desirable property of\nauthentication protocols.\n\n$ Identity Provider: An entity (usually an organization) that is\nresponsible for establishing, maintaining, securing, and vouching\nfor the identities associated with individuals.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 9]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n$ Official Name: A personal name for an individual that is\nregistered in some official context (for example, the name on an\nindividual's birth certificate). Official names are often not\nunique.\n\n$ Personal Name: A natural name for an individual. Personal names\nare often not unique and often comprise given names in combination\nwith a family name. An individual may have multiple personal\nnames at any time and over a lifetime, including official names.\nFrom a technological perspective, it cannot always be determined\nwhether a given reference to an individual is, or is based upon,\nthe individual's personal name(s) (see Pseudonym).\n\n$ Pseudonym: A name assumed by an individual in some context,\nunrelated to the individual's personal names known by others in\nthat context, with an intent of not revealing the individual's\nidentities associated with his or her other names. Pseudonyms are\noften not unique.\n\n$ Pseudonymity: The state of being pseudonymous.\n\n$ Pseudonymous: A property of an individual in which the individual\nis identified by a pseudonym.\n\n$ Real Name: See Personal Name and Official Name.\n\n$ Relying Party: An entity that relies on assertions of individuals'\nidentities from identity providers in order to provide services to\nindividuals. In effect, the relying party delegates aspects of\nidentity management to the identity provider(s). Such delegation\nrequires protocol exchanges, trust, and a common understanding of\nsemantics of information exchanged between the relying party and\nthe identity provider.\n4\n. Communications Model\nTo understand attacks in the privacy-harm sense, it is helpful to\nconsider the overall communication architecture and different actors'\nroles within it. Consider a protocol entity, the \"initiator\", that\ninitiates communication with some recipient. Privacy analysis is\nmost relevant for protocols with use cases in which the initiator\nacts on behalf of an individual (or different individuals at\ndifferent times). It is this individual whose privacy is potentially\nthreatened (although in some instances an initiator communicates\ninformation about another individual, in which case both of their\nprivacy interests will be implicated).\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 10]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nCommunications may be direct between the initiator and the recipient,\nor they may involve an application-layer intermediary (such as a\nproxy, cache, or relay) that is necessary for the two parties to\ncommunicate. In some cases, this intermediary stays in the\ncommunication path for the entire duration of the communication;\nsometimes it is only used for communication establishment, for either\ninbound or outbound communication. In some cases, there may be a\nseries of intermediaries that are traversed. At lower layers,\nadditional entities involved in packet forwarding may interfere with\nprivacy protection goals as well.\n\nSome communications tasks require multiple protocol interactions with\ndifferent entities. For example, a request to an HTTP server may be\npreceded by an interaction between the initiator and an\nAuthentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) server for\nnetwork access and to a Domain Name System (DNS) server for name\nresolution. In this case, the HTTP server is the recipient and the\nother entities are enablers of the initiator-to-recipient\ncommunication. Similarly, a single communication with the recipient\nmight generate further protocol interactions between either the\ninitiator or the recipient and other entities, and the roles of the\nentities might change with each interaction. For example, an HTTP\nrequest might trigger interactions with an authentication server or\nwith other resource servers wherein the recipient becomes an\ninitiator in those later interactions.\n\nThus, when conducting privacy analysis of an architecture that\ninvolves multiple communications phases, the entities involved may\ntake on different -- or opposing -- roles from a privacy\nconsiderations perspective in each phase. Understanding the privacy\nimplications of the architecture as a whole may require a separate\nanalysis of each phase.\n\nProtocol design is often predicated on the notion that recipients,\nintermediaries, and enablers are assumed to be authorized to receive\nand handle data from initiators. As [\nRFC3552\n] explains, \"we assume\nthat the end systems engaging in a protocol exchange have not\nthemselves been compromised\". However, privacy analysis requires\nquestioning this assumption, since systems are often compromised for\nthe purpose of obtaining personal data.\n\nAlthough recipients, intermediaries, and enablers may not generally\nbe considered as attackers, they may all pose privacy threats\n(depending on the context) because they are able to observe, collect,\nprocess, and transfer privacy-relevant data. These entities are\ncollectively described below as \"observers\" to distinguish them from\ntraditional attackers. From a privacy perspective, one important\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 11]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ntype of attacker is an eavesdropper: an entity that passively\nobserves the initiator's communications without the initiator's\nknowledge or authorization.\n\nThe threat descriptions in the next section explain how observers and\nattackers might act to harm individuals' privacy. Different kinds of\nattacks may be feasible at different points in the communications\npath. For example, an observer could mount surveillance or\nidentification attacks between the initiator and intermediary, or\ninstead could surveil an enabler (e.g., by observing DNS queries from\nthe initiator).\n5\n. Privacy Threats\nPrivacy harms come in a number of forms, including harms to financial\nstanding, reputation, solitude, autonomy, and safety. A victim of\nidentity theft or blackmail, for example, may suffer a financial loss\nas a result. Reputational harm can occur when disclosure of\ninformation about an individual, whether true or false, subjects that\nindividual to stigma, embarrassment, or loss of personal dignity.\nIntrusion or interruption of an individual's life or activities can\nharm the individual's ability to be left alone. When individuals or\ntheir activities are monitored, exposed, or at risk of exposure,\nthose individuals may be stifled from expressing themselves,\nassociating with others, and generally conducting their lives freely.\nThey may also feel a general sense of unease, in that it is \"creepy\"\nto be monitored or to have data collected about them. In cases where\nsuch monitoring is for the purpose of stalking or violence (for\nexample, monitoring communications to or from a domestic abuse\nshelter), it can put individuals in physical danger.\n\nThis section lists common privacy threats (drawing liberally from\n[\nSolove\n], as well as [\nCoE\n]), showing how each of them may cause\nindividuals to incur privacy harms and providing examples of how\nthese threats can exist on the Internet. This threat modeling is\ninspired by security threat analysis. Although it is not a perfect\nfit for assessing privacy risks in Internet protocols and systems, no\nbetter methodology has been developed to date.\n\nSome privacy threats are already considered in Internet protocols as\na matter of routine security analysis. Others are more pure privacy\nthreats that existing security considerations do not usually address.\nThe threats described here are divided into those that may also be\nconsidered security threats and those that are primarily privacy\nthreats.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 12]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nNote that an individual's awareness of and consent to the practices\ndescribed below may change an individual's perception of and concern\nfor the extent to which they threaten privacy. If an individual\nauthorizes surveillance of his own activities, for example, the\nindividual may be able to take actions to mitigate the harms\nassociated with it or may consider the risk of harm to be tolerable.\n5.1\n. Combined Security-Privacy Threats\n5.1.1\n. Surveillance\nSurveillance is the observation or monitoring of an individual's\ncommunications or activities. The effects of surveillance on the\nindividual can range from anxiety and discomfort to behavioral\nchanges such as inhibition and self-censorship, and even to the\nperpetration of violence against the individual. The individual need\nnot be aware of the surveillance for it to impact his or her privacy\n-- the possibility of surveillance may be enough to harm individual\nautonomy.\n\nSurveillance can impact privacy, even if the individuals being\nsurveilled are not identifiable or if their communications are\nencrypted. For example, an observer or eavesdropper that conducts\ntraffic analysis may be able to determine what type of traffic is\npresent (real-time communications or bulk file transfers, for\nexample) or which protocols are in use, even if the observed\ncommunications are encrypted or the communicants are unidentifiable.\nThis kind of surveillance can adversely impact the individuals\ninvolved by causing them to become targets for further investigation\nor enforcement activities. It may also enable attacks that are\nspecific to the protocol, such as redirection to a specialized\ninterception point or protocol-specific denials of service.\nProtocols that use predictable packet sizes or timing or include\nfixed tokens at predictable offsets within a packet can facilitate\nthis kind of surveillance.\n\nSurveillance can be conducted by observers or eavesdroppers at any\npoint along the communications path. Confidentiality protections (as\ndiscussed in\nSection 3 of [RFC3552]\n) are necessary to prevent\nsurveillance of the content of communications. To prevent traffic\nanalysis or other surveillance of communications patterns, other\nmeasures may be necessary, such as [\nTor\n].\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 13]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n5.1.2\n. Stored Data Compromise\nEnd systems that do not take adequate measures to secure stored data\nfrom unauthorized or inappropriate access expose individuals to\npotential financial, reputational, or physical harm.\n\nProtecting against stored data compromise is typically outside the\nscope of IETF protocols. However, a number of common protocol\nfunctions -- key management, access control, or operational logging,\nfor example -- require the storage of data about initiators of\ncommunications. When requiring or recommending that information\nabout initiators or their communications be stored or logged by end\nsystems (see, e.g.,\nRFC 6302\n[\nRFC6302\n]), it is important to recognize\nthe potential for that information to be compromised and for that\npotential to be weighed against the benefits of data storage. Any\nrecipient, intermediary, or enabler that stores data may be\nvulnerable to compromise. (Note that stored data compromise is\ndistinct from purposeful disclosure, which is discussed in\nSection 5.2.4\n.)\n5.1.3\n. Intrusion\nIntrusion consists of invasive acts that disturb or interrupt one's\nlife or activities. Intrusion can thwart individuals' desires to be\nleft alone, sap their time or attention, or interrupt their\nactivities. This threat is focused on intrusion into one's life\nrather than direct intrusion into one's communications. The latter\nis captured in\nSection 5.1.1\n.\n\nUnsolicited messages and denial-of-service attacks are the most\ncommon types of intrusion on the Internet. Intrusion can be\nperpetrated by any attacker that is capable of sending unwanted\ntraffic to the initiator.\n5.1.4\n. Misattribution\nMisattribution occurs when data or communications related to one\nindividual are attributed to another. Misattribution can result in\nadverse reputational, financial, or other consequences for\nindividuals that are misidentified.\n\nMisattribution in the protocol context comes as a result of using\ninadequate or insecure forms of identity or authentication, and is\nsometimes related to spoofing. For example, as [\nRFC6269\n] notes,\nabuse mitigation is often conducted on the basis of the source IP\naddress, such that connections from individual IP addresses may be\nprevented or temporarily blacklisted if abusive activity is\ndetermined to be sourced from those addresses. However, in the case\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 14]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nwhere a single IP address is shared by multiple individuals, those\npenalties may be suffered by all individuals sharing the address,\neven if they were not involved in the abuse. This threat can be\nmitigated by using identity management mechanisms with proper forms\nof authentication (ideally with cryptographic properties) so that\nactions can be attributed uniquely to an individual to provide the\nbasis for accountability without generating false positives.\n5.2\n. Privacy-Specific Threats\n5.2.1\n. Correlation\nCorrelation is the combination of various pieces of information\nrelated to an individual or that obtain that characteristic when\ncombined. Correlation can defy people's expectations of the limits\nof what others know about them. It can increase the power that those\ndoing the correlating have over individuals as well as correlators'\nability to pass judgment, threatening individual autonomy and\nreputation.\n\nCorrelation is closely related to identification. Internet protocols\ncan facilitate correlation by allowing individuals' activities to be\ntracked and combined over time. The use of persistent or\ninfrequently replaced identifiers at any layer of the stack can\nfacilitate correlation. For example, an initiator's persistent use\nof the same device ID, certificate, or email address across multiple\ninteractions could allow recipients (and observers) to correlate all\nof the initiator's communications over time.\n\nAs an example, consider Transport Layer Security (TLS) session\nresumption [\nRFC5246\n] or TLS session resumption without server-side\nstate [\nRFC5077\n]. In\nRFC 5246\n[\nRFC5246\n], a server provides the client\nwith a session_id in the ServerHello message and caches the\nmaster_secret for later exchanges. When the client initiates a new\nconnection with the server, it re-uses the previously obtained\nsession_id in its ClientHello message. The server agrees to resume\nthe session by using the same session_id and the previously stored\nmaster_secret for the generation of the TLS Record Layer security\nassociation.\nRFC 5077\n[\nRFC5077\n] borrows from the session resumption\ndesign idea, but the server encapsulates all state information into a\nticket instead of caching it. An attacker who is able to observe the\nprotocol exchanges between the TLS client and the TLS server is able\nto link the initial exchange to subsequently resumed TLS sessions\nwhen the session_id and the ticket are exchanged in the clear (which\nis the case with data exchanged in the initial handshake messages).\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 15]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nIn theory, any observer or attacker that receives an initiator's\ncommunications can engage in correlation. The extent of the\npotential for correlation will depend on what data the entity\nreceives from the initiator and has access to otherwise. Often,\nintermediaries only require a small amount of information for message\nrouting and/or security. In theory, protocol mechanisms could ensure\nthat end-to-end information is not made accessible to these entities,\nbut in practice the difficulty of deploying end-to-end security\nprocedures, additional messaging or computational overhead, and other\nbusiness or legal requirements often slow or prevent the deployment\nof end-to-end security mechanisms, giving intermediaries greater\nexposure to initiators' data than is strictly necessary from a\ntechnical point of view.\n5.2.2\n. Identification\nIdentification is the linking of information to a particular\nindividual to infer an individual's identity or to allow the\ninference of an individual's identity. In some contexts, it is\nperfectly legitimate to identify individuals, whereas in others,\nidentification may potentially stifle individuals' activities or\nexpression by inhibiting their ability to be anonymous or\npseudonymous. Identification also makes it easier for individuals to\nbe explicitly controlled by others (e.g., governments) and to be\ntreated differentially compared to other individuals.\n\nMany protocols provide functionality to convey the idea that some\nmeans has been provided to validate that entities are who they claim\nto be. Often, this is accomplished with cryptographic\nauthentication. Furthermore, many protocol identifiers, such as\nthose used in SIP or the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol\n(XMPP), may allow for the direct identification of individuals.\nProtocol identifiers may also contribute indirectly to identification\nvia correlation. For example, a web site that does not directly\nauthenticate users may be able to match its HTTP header logs with\nlogs from another site that does authenticate users, rendering users\non the first site identifiable.\n\nAs with correlation, any observer or attacker may be able to engage\nin identification, depending on the information about the initiator\nthat is available via the protocol mechanism or other channels.\n5.2.3\n. Secondary Use\nSecondary use is the use of collected information about an individual\nwithout the individual's consent for a purpose different from that\nfor which the information was collected. Secondary use may violate\npeople's expectations or desires. The potential for secondary use\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 16]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ncan generate uncertainty as to how one's information will be used in\nthe future, potentially discouraging information exchange in the\nfirst place. Secondary use encompasses any use of data, including\ndisclosure.\n\nOne example of secondary use would be an authentication server that\nuses a network access server's Access-Requests to track an\ninitiator's location. Any observer or attacker could potentially\nmake unwanted secondary uses of initiators' data. Protecting against\nsecondary use is typically outside the scope of IETF protocols.\n5.2.4\n. Disclosure\nDisclosure is the revelation of information about an individual that\naffects the way others judge the individual. Disclosure can violate\nindividuals' expectations of the confidentiality of the data they\nshare. The threat of disclosure may deter people from engaging in\ncertain activities for fear of reputational harm, or simply because\nthey do not wish to be observed.\n\nAny observer or attacker that receives data about an initiator may\nengage in disclosure. Sometimes disclosure is unintentional because\nsystem designers do not realize that information being exchanged\nrelates to individuals. The most common way for protocols to limit\ndisclosure is by providing access control mechanisms (discussed in\nSection 5.2.5\n). A further example is provided by the IETF\ngeolocation privacy architecture [\nRFC6280\n], which supports a way for\nusers to express a preference that their location information not be\ndisclosed beyond the intended recipient.\n5.2.5\n. Exclusion\nExclusion is the failure to allow individuals to know about the data\nthat others have about them and to participate in its handling and\nuse. Exclusion reduces accountability on the part of entities that\nmaintain information about people and creates a sense of\nvulnerability in relation to individuals' ability to control how\ninformation about them is collected and used.\n\nThe most common way for Internet protocols to be involved in\nenforcing exclusion is through access control mechanisms. The\npresence architecture developed in the IETF is a good example where\nindividuals are included in the control of information about them.\nUsing a rules expression language (e.g., presence authorization rules\n[\nRFC5025\n]), presence clients can authorize the specific conditions\nunder which their presence information may be shared.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 17]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nExclusion is primarily considered problematic when the recipient\nfails to involve the initiator in decisions about data collection,\nhandling, and use. Eavesdroppers engage in exclusion by their very\nnature, since their data collection and handling practices are\ncovert.\n6\n. Threat Mitigations\nPrivacy is notoriously difficult to measure and quantify. The extent\nto which a particular protocol, system, or architecture \"protects\" or\n\"enhances\" privacy is dependent on a large number of factors relating\nto its design, use, and potential misuse. However, there are certain\nwidely recognized classes of mitigations against the threats\ndiscussed in\nSection 5\n. This section describes three categories of\nrelevant mitigations: (1) data minimization, (2) user participation,\nand (3) security. The privacy mitigations described in this section\ncan loosely be mapped to existing privacy principles, such as the\nFair Information Practices, but they have been adapted to fit the\ntarget audience of this document.\n6.1\n. Data Minimization\nData minimization refers to collecting, using, disclosing, and\nstoring the minimal data necessary to perform a task. Reducing the\namount of data exchanged reduces the amount of data that can be\nmisused or leaked.\n\nData minimization can be effectuated in a number of different ways,\nincluding by limiting collection, use, disclosure, retention,\nidentifiability, sensitivity, and access to personal data. Limiting\nthe data collected by protocol elements to only what is necessary\n(collection limitation) is the most straightforward way to help\nreduce privacy risks associated with the use of the protocol. In\nsome cases, protocol designers may also be able to recommend limits\nto the use or retention of data, although protocols themselves are\nnot often capable of controlling these properties.\n\nHowever, the most direct application of data minimization to protocol\ndesign is limiting identifiability. Reducing the identifiability of\ndata by using pseudonyms or no identifiers at all helps to weaken the\nlink between an individual and his or her communications. Allowing\nfor the periodic creation of new or randomized identifiers reduces\nthe possibility that multiple protocol interactions or communications\ncan be correlated back to the same individual. The following\nsections explore a number of different properties related to\nidentifiability that protocol designers may seek to achieve.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 18]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nData minimization mitigates the following threats: surveillance,\nstored data compromise, correlation, identification, secondary use,\nand disclosure.\n6.1.1\n. Anonymity\nTo enable anonymity of an individual, there must exist a set of\nindividuals that appear to have the same attribute(s) as the\nindividual. To the attacker or the observer, these individuals must\nappear indistinguishable from each other. The set of all such\nindividuals is known as the anonymity set, and membership of this set\nmay vary over time.\n\nThe composition of the anonymity set depends on the knowledge of the\nobserver or attacker. Thus, anonymity is relative with respect to\nthe observer or attacker. An initiator may be anonymous only within\na set of potential initiators -- its initiator anonymity set -- which\nitself may be a subset of all individuals that may initiate\ncommunications. Conversely, a recipient may be anonymous only within\na set of potential recipients -- its recipient anonymity set. Both\nanonymity sets may be disjoint, may overlap, or may be the same.\n\nAs an example, consider\nRFC 3325\n(P-Asserted-Identity (PAI))\n[\nRFC3325\n], an extension for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)\nthat allows an individual, such as a Voice over IP (VoIP) caller, to\ninstruct an intermediary that he or she trusts not to populate the\nSIP From header field with the individual's authenticated and\nverified identity. The recipient of the call, as well as any other\nentity outside of the individual's trust domain, would therefore only\nlearn that the SIP message (typically a SIP INVITE) was sent with a\nheader field 'From: \"Anonymous\" <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>'\nrather than the individual's address-of-record, which is typically\nthought of as the \"public address\" of the user. When PAI is used,\nthe individual becomes anonymous within the initiator anonymity set\nthat is populated by every individual making use of that specific\nintermediary.\n\nNote that this example ignores the fact that the recipient may infer\nor obtain personal data from the other SIP payloads (e.g., SIP Via\nand Contact headers, the Session Description Protocol (SDP)). The\nimplication is that PAI only attempts to address a particular threat,\nnamely the disclosure of identity (in the From header) with respect\nto the recipient. This caveat makes the analysis of the specific\nprotocol extension easier but cannot be assumed when conducting\nanalysis of an entire architecture.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 19]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n6.1.2\n. Pseudonymity\nIn the context of Internet protocols, almost all identifiers can be\nnicknames or pseudonyms, since there is typically no requirement to\nuse personal names in protocols. However, in certain scenarios it is\nreasonable to assume that personal names will be used (with vCard\n[\nRFC6350\n], for example).\n\nPseudonymity is strengthened when less personal data can be linked to\nthe pseudonym; when the same pseudonym is used less often and across\nfewer contexts; and when independently chosen pseudonyms are more\nfrequently used for new actions (making them, from an observer's or\nattacker's perspective, unlinkable).\n\nFor Internet protocols, the following are important considerations:\nwhether protocols allow pseudonyms to be changed without human\ninteraction, the default length of pseudonym lifetimes, to whom\npseudonyms are exposed, how individuals are able to control\ndisclosure, how often pseudonyms can be changed, and the consequences\nof changing them.\n6.1.3\n. Identity Confidentiality\nAn initiator has identity confidentiality when any party other than\nthe recipient cannot sufficiently identify the initiator within the\nanonymity set. The size of the anonymity set has a direct impact on\nidentity confidentiality, since the smaller the set is, the easier it\nis to identify the initiator. Identity confidentiality aims to\nprovide a protection against eavesdroppers and intermediaries rather\nthan against the intended communication endpoints.\n\nAs an example, consider the network access authentication procedures\nutilizing the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [\nRFC3748\n].\nEAP includes an identity exchange where the Identity Response is\nprimarily used for routing purposes and selecting which EAP method to\nuse. Since EAP Identity Requests and Identity Responses are sent in\ncleartext, eavesdroppers and intermediaries along the communication\npath between the EAP peer and the EAP server can snoop on the\nidentity, which is encoded in the form of the Network Access\nIdentifier (NAI) as defined in\nRFC 4282\n[\nRFC4282\n]. To address this\nthreat, as discussed in\nRFC 4282\n[\nRFC4282\n], the username part of the\nNAI (but not the realm part) can be hidden from these eavesdroppers\nand intermediaries with the cryptographic support offered by EAP\nmethods. Identity confidentiality has become a recommended design\ncriteria for EAP (see [\nRFC4017\n]). The EAP method for 3rd Generation\nAuthentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA) [\nRFC4187\n], for example,\nprotects the EAP peer's identity against passive adversaries by\nutilizing temporal identities. The EAP-Internet Key Exchange\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 20]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nProtocol version 2 (EAP-IKEv2) method [\nRFC5106\n] is an example of an\nEAP method that offers protection against active attackers with\nregard to the individual's identity.\n6.1.4\n. Data Minimization within Identity Management\nModern systems are increasingly relying on multi-party transactions\nto authenticate individuals. Many of these systems make use of an\nidentity provider that is responsible for providing AAA functionality\nto relying parties that offer some protected resources. To\nfacilitate these functions, an identity provider will usually go\nthrough a process of verifying the individual's identity and issuing\ncredentials to the individual. When an individual seeks to make use\nof a service provided by the relying party, the relying party relies\non the authentication assertions provided by its identity provider.\nNote that in more sophisticated scenarios the authentication\nassertions are traits that demonstrate the individual's capabilities\nand roles. The authorization responsibility may also be shared\nbetween the identity provider and the relying party and does not\nnecessarily need to reside only with the identity provider.\n\nSuch systems have the ability to support a number of properties that\nminimize data collection in different ways:\n\nIn certain use cases, relying parties do not need to know the real\nname or date of birth of an individual (for example, when the\nindividual's age is the only attribute that needs to be\nauthenticated).\n\nRelying parties that collude can be prevented from using an\nindividual's credentials to track the individual. That is, two\ndifferent relying parties can be prevented from determining that\nthe same individual has authenticated to both of them. This\ntypically requires identity management protocol support as well as\nsupport by both the relying party and the identity provider.\n\nThe identity provider can be prevented from knowing which relying\nparties an individual interacted with. This requires, at a\nminimum, avoiding direct communication between the identity\nprovider and the relying party at the time when access to a\nresource by the initiator is made.\n6.2\n. User Participation\nAs explained in\nSection 5.2.5\n, data collection and use that happen\n\"in secret\", without the individual's knowledge, are apt to violate\nthe individual's expectation of privacy and may create incentives for\nmisuse of data. As a result, privacy regimes tend to include\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 21]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nprovisions to require informing individuals about data collection and\nuse and involving them in decisions about the treatment of their\ndata. In an engineering context, supporting the goal of user\nparticipation usually means providing ways for users to control the\ndata that is shared about them. It may also mean providing ways for\nusers to signal how they expect their data to be used and shared.\nDifferent protocol and architectural designs can make supporting user\nparticipation (for example, the ability to support a dialog box for\nuser interaction) easier or harder; for example, OAuth-based services\nmay have more natural hooks for user input than AAA services.\n\nUser participation mitigates the following threats: surveillance,\nsecondary use, disclosure, and exclusion.\n6.3\n. Security\nKeeping data secure at rest and in transit is another important\ncomponent of privacy protection. As they are described in\nSection 2\nof [RFC3552]\n, a number of security goals also serve to enhance\nprivacy:\n\no Confidentiality: Keeping data secret from unintended listeners.\n\no Peer entity authentication: Ensuring that the endpoint of a\ncommunication is the one that is intended (in support of\nmaintaining confidentiality).\n\no Unauthorized usage: Limiting data access to only those users who\nare authorized. (Note that this goal also falls within data\nminimization.)\n\no Inappropriate usage: Limiting how authorized users can use data.\n(Note that this goal also falls within data minimization.)\n\nNote that even when these goals are achieved, the existence of items\nof interest -- attributes, identifiers, identities, communications,\nactions (such as the sending or receiving of a communication), or\nanything else an attacker or observer might be interested in -- may\nstill be detectable, even if they are not readable. Thus,\nundetectability, in which an observer or attacker cannot sufficiently\ndistinguish whether an item of interest exists or not, may be\nconsidered as a further security goal (albeit one that can be\nextremely difficult to accomplish).\n\nDetection of the protocols or applications in use via traffic\nanalysis may be particularly difficult to defend against. As with\nthe anonymity of individuals, achieving \"protocol anonymity\" requires\nthat multiple protocols or applications exist that appear to have the\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 22]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nsame attributes -- packet sizes, content, token locations, or\ninter-packet timing, for example. An attacker or observer will not\nbe able to use traffic analysis to identify which protocol or\napplication is in use if multiple protocols or applications are\nindistinguishable.\n\nDefending against the threat of traffic analysis will be possible to\ndifferent extents for different protocols, may depend on\nimplementation- or use-specific details, and may depend on which\nother protocols already exist and whether they share similar traffic\ncharacteristics. The defenses will also vary relative to what the\nprotocol is designed to do; for example, in some situations\nrandomizing packet sizes, timing, or token locations will reduce the\nthreat of traffic analysis, whereas in other situations (real-time\ncommunications, for example) holding some or all of those factors\nconstant is a more appropriate defense. See \"Guidelines for the Use\nof Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP\" [\nRFC6562\n] for an example\nof how these kinds of trade-offs should be evaluated.\n\nBy providing proper security protection, the following threats can be\nmitigated: surveillance, stored data compromise, misattribution,\nsecondary use, disclosure, and intrusion.\n7\n. Guidelines\nThis section provides guidance for document authors in the form of a\nquestionnaire about a protocol being designed. The questionnaire may\nbe useful at any point in the design process, particularly after\ndocument authors have developed a high-level protocol model as\ndescribed in [\nRFC4101\n].\n\nNote that the guidance provided in this section does not recommend\nspecific practices. The range of protocols developed in the IETF is\ntoo broad to make recommendations about particular uses of data or\nhow privacy might be balanced against other design goals. However,\nby carefully considering the answers to each question, document\nauthors should be able to produce a comprehensive analysis that can\nserve as the basis for discussion of whether the protocol adequately\nprotects against privacy threats. This guidance is meant to help the\nthought process of privacy analysis; it does not provide specific\ndirections for how to write a privacy considerations section.\n\nThe framework is divided into four sections: three sections that\naddress each of the mitigation classes from\nSection 6\n, plus a general\nsection. Security is not fully elaborated, since substantial\nguidance already exists in [\nRFC3552\n].\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 23]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n7.1\n. Data Minimization\na. Identifiers. What identifiers does the protocol use for\ndistinguishing initiators of communications? Does the protocol\nuse identifiers that allow different protocol interactions to be\ncorrelated? What identifiers could be omitted or be made less\nidentifying while still fulfilling the protocol's goals?\n\nb. Data. What information does the protocol expose about\nindividuals, their devices, and/or their device usage (other than\nthe identifiers discussed in (a))? To what extent is this\ninformation linked to the identities of the individuals? How\ndoes the protocol combine personal data with the identifiers\ndiscussed in (a)?\n\nc. Observers. Which information discussed in (a) and (b) is exposed\nto each other protocol entity (i.e., recipients, intermediaries,\nand enablers)? Are there ways for protocol implementers to\nchoose to limit the information shared with each entity? Are\nthere operational controls available to limit the information\nshared with each entity?\n\nd. Fingerprinting. In many cases, the specific ordering and/or\noccurrences of information elements in a protocol allow users,\ndevices, or software using the protocol to be fingerprinted. Is\nthis protocol vulnerable to fingerprinting? If so, how? Can it\nbe designed to reduce or eliminate the vulnerability? If not,\nwhy not?\n\ne. Persistence of identifiers. What assumptions are made in the\nprotocol design about the lifetime of the identifiers discussed\nin (a)? Does the protocol allow implementers or users to delete\nor replace identifiers? How often does the specification\nrecommend deleting or replacing identifiers by default? Can the\nidentifiers, along with other state information, be set to\nautomatically expire?\n\nf. Correlation. Does the protocol allow for correlation of\nidentifiers? Are there expected ways that information exposed by\nthe protocol will be combined or correlated with information\nobtained outside the protocol? How will such combination or\ncorrelation facilitate fingerprinting of a user, device, or\napplication? Are there expected combinations or correlations\nwith outside data that will make users of the protocol more\nidentifiable?\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 24]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ng. Retention. Does the protocol or its anticipated uses require\nthat the information discussed in (a) or (b) be retained by\nrecipients, intermediaries, or enablers? If so, why? Is the\nretention expected to be persistent or temporary?\n7.2\n. User Participation\na. User control. What controls or consent mechanisms does the\nprotocol define or require before personal data or identifiers\nare shared or exposed via the protocol? If no such mechanisms or\ncontrols are specified, is it expected that control and consent\nwill be handled outside of the protocol?\n\nb. Control over sharing with individual recipients. Does the\nprotocol provide ways for initiators to share different\ninformation with different recipients? If not, are there\nmechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide\ninitiators with such control?\n\nc. Control over sharing with intermediaries. Does the protocol\nprovide ways for initiators to limit which information is shared\nwith intermediaries? If not, are there mechanisms that exist\noutside of the protocol to provide users with such control? Is\nit expected that users will have relationships that govern the\nuse of the information (contractual or otherwise) with those who\noperate these intermediaries?\n\nd. Preference expression. Does the protocol provide ways for\ninitiators to express individuals' preferences to recipients or\nintermediaries with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure\nof their personal data?\n7.3\n. Security\na. Surveillance. How do the protocol's security considerations\nprevent surveillance, including eavesdropping and traffic\nanalysis? Does the protocol leak information that can be\nobserved through traffic analysis, such as by using a fixed token\nat fixed offsets, or packet sizes or timing that allow observers\nto determine characteristics of the traffic (e.g., which protocol\nis in use or whether the traffic is part of a real-time flow)?\n\nb. Stored data compromise. How do the protocol's security\nconsiderations prevent or mitigate stored data compromise?\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 25]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nc. Intrusion. How do the protocol's security considerations prevent\nor mitigate intrusion, including denial-of-service attacks and\nunsolicited communications more generally?\n\nd. Misattribution. How do the protocol's mechanisms for identifying\nand/or authenticating individuals prevent misattribution?\n7.4\n. General\na. Trade-offs. Does the protocol make trade-offs between privacy\nand usability, privacy and efficiency, privacy and\nimplementability, or privacy and other design goals? Describe\nthe trade-offs and the rationale for the design chosen.\n\nb. Defaults. If the protocol can be operated in multiple modes or\nwith multiple configurable options, does the default mode or\noption minimize the amount, identifiability, and persistence of\nthe data and identifiers exposed by the protocol? Does the\ndefault mode or option maximize the opportunity for user\nparticipation? Does it provide the strictest security features\nof all the modes/options? If the answer to any of these\nquestions is no, explain why less protective defaults were\nchosen.\n8\n. Example\nThe following section gives an example of the threat analysis and\nthreat mitigations recommended by this document. It covers a\nparticularly difficult application protocol, presence, to try to\ndemonstrate these principles on an architecture that is vulnerable to\nmany of the threats described above. This text is not intended as an\nexample of a privacy considerations section that might appear in an\nIETF specification, but rather as an example of the thinking that\nshould go into the design of a protocol when considering privacy as a\nfirst principle.\n\nA presence service, as defined in the abstract in [\nRFC2778\n], allows\nusers of a communications service to monitor one another's\navailability and disposition in order to make decisions about\ncommunicating. Presence information is highly dynamic and generally\ncharacterizes whether a user is online or offline, busy or idle, away\nfrom communications devices or nearby, and the like. Necessarily,\nthis information has certain privacy implications, and from the start\nthe IETF approached this work with the aim of providing users with\nthe controls to determine how their presence information would be\nshared. The Common Profile for Presence (CPP) [\nRFC3859\n] defines a\nset of logical operations for delivery of presence information. This\nabstract model is applicable to multiple presence systems. The SIP\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 26]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nfor Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE)\npresence system [\nRFC3856\n] uses CPP as its baseline architecture, and\nthe presence operations in the Extensible Messaging and Presence\nProtocol (XMPP) have also been mapped to CPP [\nRFC3922\n].\n\nThe fundamental architecture defined in\nRFC 2778\nand\nRFC 3859\nis a\nmediated one. Clients (presentities in\nRFC 2778\nterms) publish their\npresence information to presence servers, which in turn distribute\ninformation to authorized watchers. Presence servers thus retain\npresence information for an interval of time, until it either changes\nor expires, so that it can be revealed to authorized watchers upon\nrequest. This architecture mirrors existing pre-standard deployment\nmodels. The integration of an explicit authorization mechanism into\nthe presence architecture has been widely successful in involving the\nend users in the decision-making process before sharing information.\nNearly all presence systems deployed today provide such a mechanism,\ntypically through a reciprocal authorization system by which a pair\nof users, when they agree to be \"buddies\", consent to divulge their\npresence information to one another. Buddylists are managed by\nservers but controlled by end users. Users can also explicitly block\none another through a similar interface, and in some deployments it\nis desirable to provide \"polite blocking\" of various kinds.\n\nFrom a perspective of privacy design, however, the classical presence\narchitecture represents nearly a worst-case scenario. In terms of\ndata minimization, presentities share their sensitive information\nwith presence services, and while services only share this presence\ninformation with watchers authorized by the user, no technical\nmechanism constrains those watchers from relaying presence to further\nthird parties. Any of these entities could conceivably log or retain\npresence information indefinitely. The sensitivity cannot be\nmitigated by rendering the user anonymous, as it is indeed the\npurpose of the system to facilitate communications between users who\nknow one another. The identifiers employed by users are long-lived\nand often contain personal information, including personal names and\nthe domains of service providers. While users do participate in the\nconstruction of buddylists and blacklists, they do so with little\nprospect for accountability: the user effectively throws their\npresence information over the wall to a presence server that in turn\ndistributes the information to watchers. Users typically have no way\nto verify that presence is being distributed only to authorized\nwatchers, especially as it is the server that authenticates watchers,\nnot the end user. Moreover, connections between the server and all\npublishers and consumers of presence data are an attractive target\nfor eavesdroppers and require strong confidentiality mechanisms,\nthough again the end user has no way to verify what mechanisms are in\nplace between the presence server and a watcher.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 27]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nAdditionally, the sensitivity of presence information is not limited\nto the disposition and capability to communicate. Capabilities can\nreveal the type of device that a user employs, for example, and since\nmultiple devices can publish the same user's presence, there are\nsignificant risks of allowing attackers to correlate user devices.\nAn important extension to presence was developed to enable the\nsupport for location sharing. The effort to standardize protocols\nfor systems sharing geolocation was started in the GEOPRIV working\ngroup. During the initial requirements and privacy threat analysis\nin the process of chartering the working group, it became clear that\nthe system would require an underlying communication mechanism\nsupporting user consent to share location information. The\nresemblance of these requirements to the presence framework was\nquickly recognized, and this design decision was documented in\n[\nRFC4079\n]. Location information thus mingles with other presence\ninformation available through the system to intermediaries and to\nauthorized watchers.\n\nPrivacy concerns about presence information largely arise due to the\nbuilt-in mediation of the presence architecture. The need for a\npresence server is motivated by two primary design requirements of\npresence: in the first place, the server can respond with an\n\"offline\" indication when the user is not online; in the second\nplace, the server can compose presence information published by\ndifferent devices under the user's control. Additionally, to\nfacilitate the use of URIs as identifiers for entities, some service\nmust operate a host with the domain name appearing in a presence URI,\nand in practical terms no commercial presence architecture would\nforce end users to own and operate their own domain names. Many end\nusers of applications like presence are behind NATs or firewalls and\neffectively cannot receive direct connections from the Internet --\nthe persistent bidirectional channel these clients open and maintain\nwith a presence server is essential to the operation of the protocol.\n\nOne must first ask if the trade-off of mediation for presence is\nworthwhile. Does a server need to be in the middle of all\npublications of presence information? It might seem that end-to-end\nencryption of the presence information could solve many of these\nproblems. A presentity could encrypt the presence information with\nthe public key of a watcher and only then send the presence\ninformation through the server. The IETF defined an object format\nfor presence information called the Presence Information Data Format\n(PIDF), which for the purposes of conveying location information was\nextended to the PIDF Location Object (PIDF-LO) -- these XML objects\nwere designed to accommodate an encrypted wrapper. Encrypting this\ndata would have the added benefit of preventing stored cleartext\npresence information from being seized by an attacker who manages to\ncompromise a presence server. This proposal, however, quickly runs\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 28]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ninto usability problems. Discovering the public keys of watchers is\nthe first difficulty, one that few Internet protocols have addressed\nsuccessfully. This solution would then require the presentity to\npublish one encrypted copy of its presence information per authorized\nwatcher to the presence service, regardless of whether or not a\nwatcher is actively seeking presence information -- for a presentity\nwith many watchers, this may place an unacceptable burden on the\npresence server, especially given the dynamism of presence\ninformation. Finally, it prevents the server from composing presence\ninformation reported by multiple devices under the same user's\ncontrol. On the whole, these difficulties render object encryption\nof presence information a doubtful prospect.\n\nSome protocols that support presence information, such as SIP, can\noperate intermediaries in a redirecting mode rather than a publishing\nor proxying mode. Instead of sending presence information through\nthe server, in other words, these protocols can merely redirect\nwatchers to the presentity, and then presence information could pass\ndirectly and securely from the presentity to the watcher. It is\nworth noting that this would disclose the IP address of the\npresentity to the watcher, which has its own set of risks. In that\ncase, the presentity can decide exactly what information it would\nlike to share with the watcher in question, it can authenticate the\nwatcher itself with whatever strength of credential it chooses, and\nwith end-to-end encryption it can reduce the likelihood of any\neavesdropping. In a redirection architecture, a presence server\ncould still provide the necessary \"offline\" indication without\nrequiring the presence server to observe and forward all information\nitself. This mechanism is more promising than encryption but also\nsuffers from significant difficulties. It too does not provide for\ncomposition of presence information from multiple devices -- it in\nfact forces the watcher to perform this composition itself. The\nlargest single impediment to this approach is, however, the\ndifficulty of creating end-to-end connections between the\npresentity's device(s) and a watcher, as some or all of these\nendpoints may be behind NATs or firewalls that prevent peer-to-peer\nconnections. While there are potential solutions for this problem,\nlike Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) and Traversal Using\nRelays around NAT (TURN), they add complexity to the overall system.\n\nConsequently, mediation is a difficult feature of the presence\narchitecture to remove. It is hard to minimize the data shared with\nintermediaries, especially due to the requirement for composition.\nControl over sharing with intermediaries must therefore come from\nsome other explicit component of the architecture. As such, the\npresence work in the IETF focused on improving user participation in\nthe activities of the presence server. This work began in the\nGEOPRIV working group, with controls on location privacy, as location\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 29]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nof users is perceived as having especially sensitive properties.\nWith the aim of meeting the privacy requirements defined in\n[\nRFC2779\n], a set of usage indications, such as whether retransmission\nis allowed or when the retention period expires, have been added to\nthe PIDF-LO such that they always travel with the location\ninformation itself. These privacy preferences apply not only to the\nintermediaries that store and forward presence information but also\nto the watchers who consume it.\n\nThis approach very much follows the spirit of Creative Commons [\nCC\n],\nnamely the usage of a limited number of conditions (such as 'Share\nAlike' [\nCC-SA\n]). Unlike Creative Commons, the GEOPRIV working group\ndid not, however, initiate work to produce legal language or design\ngraphical icons, since this would fall outside the scope of the IETF.\nIn particular, the GEOPRIV rules state a preference on the retention\nand retransmission of location information; while GEOPRIV cannot\nforce any entity receiving a PIDF-LO object to abide by those\npreferences, if users lack the ability to express them at all, we can\nguarantee their preferences will not be honored. The GEOPRIV rules\ncan provide a means to establish accountability.\n\nThe retention and retransmission elements were envisioned as the most\nessential examples of preference expression in sharing presence. The\nPIDF object was designed for extensibility, and the rulesets created\nfor the PIDF-LO can also be extended to provide new expressions of\nuser preference. Not all user preference information should be bound\ninto a particular PIDF object, however; many forms of access control\npolicy assumed by the presence architecture need to be provisioned in\nthe presence server by some interface with the user. This\nrequirement eventually triggered the standardization of a general\naccess control policy language called the common policy framework\n(defined in [\nRFC4745\n]). This language allows one to express ways to\ncontrol the distribution of information as simple conditions,\nactions, and transformation rules expressed in an XML format. Common\nPolicy itself is an abstract format that needs to be instantiated:\ntwo examples can be found with the presence authorization rules\n[\nRFC5025\n] and the Geolocation Policy [\nRFC6772\n]. The former provides\nadditional expressiveness for presence-based systems, while the\nlatter defines syntax and semantics for location-based conditions and\ntransformations.\n\nUltimately, the privacy work on presence represents a compromise\nbetween privacy principles and the needs of the architecture and\nmarketplace. While it was not feasible to remove intermediaries from\nthe architecture entirely or prevent their access to presence\ninformation, the IETF did provide a way for users to express their\npreferences and provision their controls at the presence service. We\nhave not had great successes in the implementation space with privacy\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 30]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nmechanisms thus far, but by documenting and acknowledging the\nlimitations of these mechanisms, the designers were able to provide\nimplementers, and end users, with an informed perspective on the\nprivacy properties of the IETF's presence protocols.\n9\n. Security Considerations\nThis document describes privacy aspects that protocol designers\nshould consider in addition to regular security analysis.\n10\n. Acknowledgements\nWe would like to thank Christine Runnegar for her extensive helpful\nreview comments.\n\nWe would like to thank Scott Brim, Kasey Chappelle, Marc Linsner,\nBryan McLaughlin, Nick Mathewson, Eric Rescorla, Scott Bradner, Nat\nSakimura, Bjoern Hoehrmann, David Singer, Dean Willis, Lucy Lynch,\nTrent Adams, Mark Lizar, Martin Thomson, Josh Howlett, Mischa\nTuffield, S. Moonesamy, Zhou Sujing, Claudia Diaz, Leif Johansson,\nJeff Hodges, Stephen Farrell, Steven Johnston, Cullen Jennings, Ted\nHardie, Dave Thaler, Klaas Wierenga, Adrian Farrel, Stephane\nBortzmeyer, Dave Crocker, and Hector Santos for their useful feedback\non this document.\n\nFinally, we would like to thank the participants for the feedback\nthey provided during the December 2010 Internet Privacy workshop\nco-organized by MIT, ISOC, W3C, and the IAB.\n\nAlthough John Morris is currently employed by the U.S. Government, he\nparticipated in the development of this document in his personal\ncapacity, and the views expressed in the document may not reflect\nthose of his employer.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 31]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n11\n. IAB Members at the Time of Approval\nBernard Aboba\nJari Arkko\nMarc Blanchet\nRoss Callon\nAlissa Cooper\nSpencer Dawkins\nJoel Halpern\nRuss Housley\nEliot Lear\nXing Li\nAndrew Sullivan\nDave Thaler\nHannes Tschofenig\n12\n. Informative References\n[\nCC-SA\n] Creative Commons, \"Share Alike\", 2012,\n<\nhttp://wiki.creativecommons.org/Share_Alike\n>.\n\n[\nCC\n] Creative Commons, \"Creative Commons\", 2012,\n<\nhttp://creativecommons.org/\n>.\n\n[\nCoE\n] Council of Europe, \"Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)13 of the\nCommittee of Ministers to member states on the protection\nof individuals with regard to automatic processing of\npersonal data in the context of profiling\", November 2010,\n<\nhttps://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec%282010%2913\n>.\n\n[\nEFF\n] Electronic Frontier Foundation, \"Panopticlick\", 2013,\n<\nhttp://panopticlick.eff.org\n>.\n\n[\nFIPs\n] Gellman, B., \"Fair Information Practices: A Basic\nHistory\", 2012,\n<\nhttp://bobgellman.com/rg-docs/rg-FIPShistory.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nOECD\n] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,\n\"OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and\nTransborder Flows of Personal Data\", (adopted 1980),\nSeptember 2010, <\nhttp://www.oecd.org/\n>.\n\n[\nPbD\n] Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner,\nOntario, Canada, \"Privacy by Design\", 2013,\n<\nhttp://privacybydesign.ca/\n>.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 32]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n[\nRFC2616\n] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,\nMasinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1\",\nRFC 2616\n, June 1999.\n\n[\nRFC2778\n] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, \"A Model for\nPresence and Instant Messaging\",\nRFC 2778\n, February 2000.\n\n[\nRFC2779\n] Day, M., Aggarwal, S., Mohr, G., and J. Vincent, \"Instant\nMessaging / Presence Protocol Requirements\",\nRFC 2779\n,\nFebruary 2000.\n\n[\nRFC3261\n] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,\nA., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.\nSchooler, \"SIP: Session Initiation Protocol\",\nRFC 3261\n,\nJune 2002.\n\n[\nRFC3325\n] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, \"Private\nExtensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for\nAsserted Identity within Trusted Networks\",\nRFC 3325\n,\nNovember 2002.\n\n[\nRFC3552\n] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, \"Guidelines for Writing RFC\nText on Security Considerations\",\nBCP 72\n,\nRFC 3552\n,\nJuly 2003.\n\n[\nRFC3748\n] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.\nLevkowetz, \"Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)\",\nRFC 3748\n, June 2004.\n\n[\nRFC3856\n] Rosenberg, J., \"A Presence Event Package for the Session\nInitiation Protocol (SIP)\",\nRFC 3856\n, August 2004.\n\n[\nRFC3859\n] Peterson, J., \"Common Profile for Presence (CPP)\",\nRFC 3859\n, August 2004.\n\n[\nRFC3922\n] Saint-Andre, P., \"Mapping the Extensible Messaging and\nPresence Protocol (XMPP) to Common Presence and Instant\nMessaging (CPIM)\",\nRFC 3922\n, October 2004.\n\n[\nRFC4017\n] Stanley, D., Walker, J., and B. Aboba, \"Extensible\nAuthentication Protocol (EAP) Method Requirements for\nWireless LANs\",\nRFC 4017\n, March 2005.\n\n[\nRFC4079\n] Peterson, J., \"A Presence Architecture for the\nDistribution of GEOPRIV Location Objects\",\nRFC 4079\n,\nJuly 2005.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 33]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n[\nRFC4101\n] Rescorla, E. and IAB, \"Writing Protocol Models\",\nRFC 4101\n,\nJune 2005.\n\n[\nRFC4187\n] Arkko, J. and H. Haverinen, \"Extensible Authentication\nProtocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key\nAgreement (EAP-AKA)\",\nRFC 4187\n, January 2006.\n\n[\nRFC4282\n] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, \"The\nNetwork Access Identifier\",\nRFC 4282\n, December 2005.\n\n[\nRFC4745\n] Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Morris, J., Cuellar, J.,\nPolk, J., and J. Rosenberg, \"Common Policy: A Document\nFormat for Expressing Privacy Preferences\",\nRFC 4745\n,\nFebruary 2007.\n\n[\nRFC4918\n] Dusseault, L., \"HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed\nAuthoring and Versioning (WebDAV)\",\nRFC 4918\n, June 2007.\n\n[\nRFC4949\n] Shirey, R., \"Internet Security Glossary, Version 2\",\nRFC 4949\n, August 2007.\n\n[\nRFC5025\n] Rosenberg, J., \"Presence Authorization Rules\",\nRFC 5025\n,\nDecember 2007.\n\n[\nRFC5077\n] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,\n\"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without\nServer-Side State\",\nRFC 5077\n, January 2008.\n\n[\nRFC5106\n] Tschofenig, H., Kroeselberg, D., Pashalidis, A., Ohba, Y.,\nand F. Bersani, \"The Extensible Authentication Protocol-\nInternet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (EAP-IKEv2)\nMethod\",\nRFC 5106\n, February 2008.\n\n[\nRFC5246\n] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, \"The Transport Layer Security\n(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2\",\nRFC 5246\n, August 2008.\n\n[\nRFC6269\n] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.\nRoberts, \"Issues with IP Address Sharing\",\nRFC 6269\n,\nJune 2011.\n\n[\nRFC6280\n] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,\nTschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, \"An Architecture for\nLocation and Location Privacy in Internet Applications\",\nBCP 160\n,\nRFC 6280\n, July 2011.\n\n[\nRFC6302\n] Durand, A., Gashinsky, I., Lee, D., and S. Sheppard,\n\"Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers\",\nBCP 162\n,\nRFC 6302\n, June 2011.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 34]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n[\nRFC6350\n] Perreault, S., \"vCard Format Specification\",\nRFC 6350\n,\nAugust 2011.\n\n[\nRFC6562\n] Perkins, C. and JM. Valin, \"Guidelines for the Use of\nVariable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP\",\nRFC 6562\n,\nMarch 2012.\n\n[\nRFC6716\n] Valin, JM., Vos, K., and T. Terriberry, \"Definition of the\nOpus Audio Codec\",\nRFC 6716\n, September 2012.\n\n[\nRFC6772\n] Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Cuellar, J., Polk, J.,\nMorris, J., and M. Thomson, \"Geolocation Policy: A\nDocument Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for\nLocation Information\",\nRFC 6772\n, January 2013.\n\n[\nSolove\n] Solove, D., \"Understanding Privacy\", March 2010.\n\n[\nTor\n] The Tor Project, Inc., \"Tor\", 2013,\n<\nhttps://www.torproject.org/\n>.\n\n[\nWestin\n] Kumaraguru, P. and L. Cranor, \"Privacy Indexes: A Survey\nof Westin's Studies\", December 2005,\n<\nhttp://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/isri2005/\nCMU-ISRI-05-138.pdf\n>.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nAlissa Cooper\nCDT\n1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100\nWashington, DC 20006\nUS\n\nPhone: +1-202-637-9800\nEMail: acooper@cdt.org\nURI:\nhttp://www.cdt.org/\nHannes Tschofenig\nNokia Siemens Networks\nLinnoitustie 6\nEspoo 02600\nFinland\n\nPhone: +358 (50) 4871445\nEMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net\nURI:\nhttp://www.tschofenig.priv.at\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 35]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nBernard Aboba\nSkype\n\nEMail: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com\n\nJon Peterson\nNeuStar, Inc.\n1800 Sutter St. Suite 570\nConcord, CA 94520\nUS\n\nEMail: jon.peterson@neustar.biz\n\nJohn B. Morris, Jr.\n\nEMail: ietf@jmorris.org\n\nMarit Hansen\nULD\n\nEMail: marit.hansen@datenschutzzentrum.de\n\nRhys Smith\nJanet\n\nEMail: rhys.smith@ja.net\n\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 36]\nRFC\n6973\n: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. Scope of Privacy Implications of Internet Protocols\n3. Terminology\n3.1. Entities\n3.2. Data and Analysis\n3.3. Identifiability\n4. Communications Model\n5. Privacy Threats\n5.1. Combined Security-Privacy Threats\n5.1.1. Surveillance\n5.1.2. Stored Data Compromise\n5.1.3. Intrusion\n5.1.4. Misattribution\n5.2. Privacy-Specific Threats\n5.2.1. Correlation\n5.2.2. Identification\n5.2.3. Secondary Use\n5.2.4. Disclosure\n5.2.5. Exclusion\n6. Threat Mitigations\n6.1. Data Minimization\n6.1.1. Anonymity\n6.1.2. Pseudonymity\n6.1.3. Identity Confidentiality\n6.1.4. Data Minimization within Identity Management\n6.2. User Participation\n6.3. Security\n7. Guidelines\n7.1. Data Minimization\n7.2. User Participation\n7.3. Security\n7.4. General\n8. Example\n9. Security Considerations\n10. Acknowledgements\n11. IAB Members at the Time of Approval\n12. Informative References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a273251f-09fa-47c9-9502-889de49ea9b2", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 6973: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 6973\nInfo\nRFC\n6973\n:\nPrivacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\nA. Cooper\n,\nH. Tschofenig\n,\nB. Aboba\n,\nJ. Peterson\n,\nJ. Morris\n,\nM. Hansen\n,\nR. Smith\nInformational\nInternet Architecture Board (IAB) A. Cooper\nRequest for Comments: 6973 CDT\nCategory: Informational H. Tschofenig\nISSN: 2070-1721 Nokia Siemens Networks\nB. Aboba\nSkype\nJ. Peterson\nNeuStar, Inc.\nJ. Morris\n\nM. Hansen\nULD\nR. Smith\nJanet\nJuly 2013\nPrivacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\nAbstract\n\nThis document offers guidance for developing privacy considerations\nfor inclusion in protocol specifications. It aims to make designers,\nimplementers, and users of Internet protocols aware of privacy-\nrelated design choices. It suggests that whether any individual RFC\nwarrants a specific privacy considerations section will depend on the\ndocument's content.\n\nStatus of This Memo\n\nThis document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is\npublished for informational purposes.\n\nThis document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)\nand represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to\nprovide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the\nInternet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for\npublication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet\nStandard; see\nSection 2 of RFC 5741\n.\n\nInformation about the current status of this document, any errata,\nand how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973\n.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 1]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to\nBCP 78\nand the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF\nDocuments\n(\nhttp://trustee.ietf.org/license-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect\nto this document.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 2]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nTable of Contents\n1\n. Introduction ....................................................\n4\n2\n. Scope of Privacy Implications of Internet Protocols .............\n5\n3\n. Terminology .....................................................\n6\n3.1\n. Entities ...................................................\n7\n3.2\n. Data and Analysis ..........................................\n8\n3.3\n. Identifiability ............................................\n9\n4\n. Communications Model ...........................................\n10\n5\n. Privacy Threats ................................................\n12\n5.1\n. Combined Security-Privacy Threats .........................\n13\n5.1.1\n. Surveillance .......................................\n13\n5.1.2\n. Stored Data Compromise .............................\n14\n5.1.3\n. Intrusion ..........................................\n14\n5.1.4\n. Misattribution .....................................\n14\n5.2\n. Privacy-Specific Threats ..................................\n15\n5.2.1\n. Correlation ........................................\n15\n5.2.2\n. Identification .....................................\n16\n5.2.3\n. Secondary Use ......................................\n16\n5.2.4\n. Disclosure .........................................\n17\n5.2.5\n. Exclusion ..........................................\n17\n6\n. Threat Mitigations .............................................\n18\n6.1\n. Data Minimization .........................................\n18\n6.1.1\n. Anonymity ..........................................\n19\n6.1.2\n. Pseudonymity .......................................\n20\n6.1.3\n. Identity Confidentiality ...........................\n20\n6.1.4\n. Data Minimization within Identity Management .......\n21\n6.2\n. User Participation ........................................\n21\n6.3\n. Security ..................................................\n22\n7\n. Guidelines .....................................................\n23\n7.1\n. Data Minimization .........................................\n24\n7.2\n. User Participation ........................................\n25\n7.3\n. Security ..................................................\n25\n7.4\n. General ...................................................\n26\n8\n. Example ........................................................\n26\n9\n. Security Considerations ........................................\n31\n10\n. Acknowledgements ..............................................\n31\n11\n. IAB Members at the Time of Approval ...........................\n32\n12\n. Informative References ........................................\n32\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 3]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n1\n. Introduction\n[\nRFC3552\n] provides detailed guidance to protocol designers about both\nhow to consider security as part of protocol design and how to inform\nreaders of protocol specifications about security issues. This\ndocument intends to provide a similar set of guidelines for\nconsidering privacy in protocol design.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5166, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 621}}, {"segment_id": "642518aa-11d4-4082-9870-f6e840749d2b", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 1, "text": "Privacy is a complicated concept with a rich history that spans many\ndisciplines. With regard to data, often it is a concept applied to\n\"personal data\", commonly defined as information relating to an\nidentified or identifiable individual. Many sets of privacy\nprinciples and privacy design frameworks have been developed in\ndifferent forums over the years. These include the Fair Information\nPractices [\nFIPs\n], a baseline set of privacy protections pertaining to\nthe collection and use of personal data (often based on the\nprinciples established in [\nOECD\n], for example), and the Privacy by\nDesign concept, which provides high-level privacy guidance for\nsystems design (see [\nPbD\n] for one example). The guidance provided in\nthis document is inspired by this prior work, but it aims to be more\nconcrete, pointing protocol designers to specific engineering choices\nthat can impact the privacy of the individuals that make use of\nInternet protocols.\n\nDifferent people have radically different conceptions of what privacy\nmeans, both in general and as it relates to them personally [\nWestin\n].\nFurthermore, privacy as a legal concept is understood differently in\ndifferent jurisdictions. The guidance provided in this document is\ngeneric and can be used to inform the design of any protocol to be\nused anywhere in the world, without reference to specific legal\nframeworks.\n\nWhether any individual document warrants a specific privacy\nconsiderations section will depend on the document's content.\nDocuments whose entire focus is privacy may not merit a separate\nsection (for example, \"Private Extensions to the Session Initiation\nProtocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks\"\n[\nRFC3325\n]). For certain specifications, privacy considerations are a\nsubset of security considerations and can be discussed explicitly in\nthe security considerations section. Some documents will not require\ndiscussion of privacy considerations (for example, \"Definition of the\nOpus Audio Codec\" [\nRFC6716\n]). The guidance provided here can and\nshould be used to assess the privacy considerations of protocol,\narchitectural, and operational specifications and to decide whether\nthose considerations are to be documented in a stand-alone section,\nwithin the security considerations section, or throughout the\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 4]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ndocument. The guidance provided here is meant to help the thought\nprocess of privacy analysis; it does not provide specific directions\nfor how to write a privacy considerations section.", "char_start": 5168, "char_end": 7732, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 390}}, {"segment_id": "5d40e640-f706-4342-aec2-8f8dd677ede3", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 2, "text": "This document is organized as follows.\nSection 2\ndescribes the\nextent to which the guidance offered here is applicable within the\nIETF and within the larger Internet community.\nSection 3\nexplains\nthe terminology used in this document.\nSection 4\nreviews typical\ncommunications architectures to understand at which points there may\nbe privacy threats.\nSection 5\ndiscusses threats to privacy as they\napply to Internet protocols.\nSection 6\noutlines mitigations of those\nthreats.\nSection 7\nprovides the guidelines for analyzing and\ndocumenting privacy considerations within IETF specifications.\nSection 8\nexamines the privacy characteristics of an IETF protocol to\ndemonstrate the use of the guidance framework.\n2\n. Scope of Privacy Implications of Internet Protocols\nInternet protocols are often built flexibly, making them useful in a\nvariety of architectures, contexts, and deployment scenarios without\nrequiring significant interdependency between disparately designed\ncomponents. Although protocol designers often have a particular\ntarget architecture or set of architectures in mind at design time,\nit is not uncommon for architectural frameworks to develop later,\nafter implementations exist and have been deployed in combination\nwith other protocols or components to form complete systems.\n\nAs a consequence, the extent to which protocol designers can foresee\nall of the privacy implications of a particular protocol at design\ntime is limited. An individual protocol may be relatively benign on\nits own, and it may make use of privacy and security features at\nlower layers of the protocol stack (Internet Protocol Security,\nTransport Layer Security, and so forth) to mitigate the risk of\nattack. But when deployed within a larger system or used in a way\nnot envisioned at design time, its use may create new privacy risks.\nProtocols are often implemented and deployed long after design time\nby different people than those who did the protocol design. The\nguidelines in\nSection 7\nask protocol designers to consider how their\nprotocols are expected to interact with systems and information that\nexist outside the protocol bounds, but not to imagine every possible\ndeployment scenario.", "char_start": 7734, "char_end": 9919, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 331}}, {"segment_id": "58a5fef1-19d8-42c0-a173-e0a3eaba651b", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 3, "text": "Furthermore, in many cases the privacy properties of a system are\ndependent upon the complete system design where various protocols are\ncombined together to form a product solution; the implementation,\nwhich includes the user interface design; and operational deployment\npractices, including default privacy settings and security processes\nof the company doing the deployment. These details are specific to\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 5]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nparticular instantiations and generally outside the scope of the work\nconducted in the IETF. The guidance provided here may be useful in\nmaking choices about these details, but its primary aim is to assist\nwith the design, implementation, and operation of protocols.\n\nTransparency of data collection and use -- often effectuated through\nuser interface design -- is normally relied on (whether rightly or\nwrongly) as a key factor in determining the privacy impact of a\nsystem. Although most IETF activities do not involve standardizing\nuser interfaces or user-facing communications, in some cases,\nunderstanding expected user interactions can be important for\nprotocol design. Unexpected user behavior may have an adverse impact\non security and/or privacy.\n\nIn sum, privacy issues, even those related to protocol development,\ngo beyond the technical guidance discussed herein. As an example,\nconsider HTTP [\nRFC2616\n], which was designed to allow the exchange of\narbitrary data. A complete analysis of the privacy considerations\nfor uses of HTTP might include what type of data is exchanged, how\nthis data is stored, and how it is processed. Hence the analysis for\nan individual's static personal web page would be different than the\nuse of HTTP for exchanging health records. A protocol designer\nworking on HTTP extensions (such as Web Distributed Authoring and\nVersioning (WebDAV) [\nRFC4918\n]) is not expected to describe the\nprivacy risks derived from all possible usage scenarios, but rather\nthe privacy properties specific to the extensions and any particular\nuses of the extensions that are expected and foreseen at design time.\n3\n. Terminology\nThis section defines basic terms used in this document, with\nreferences to pre-existing definitions as appropriate. As in\n[\nRFC4949\n], each entry is preceded by a dollar sign ($) and a space\nfor automated searching. Note that this document does not try to\nattempt to define the term 'privacy' with a brief definition.\nInstead, privacy is the sum of what is contained in this document.\nWe therefore follow the approach taken by [\nRFC3552\n]. Examples of\nseveral different brief definitions are provided in [\nRFC4949\n].\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 6]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n3.1\n. Entities\nSeveral of these terms are further elaborated in\nSection 4\n.", "char_start": 9921, "char_end": 12730, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 443}}, {"segment_id": "36b894bd-254f-4e99-a450-c987480d85f7", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 4, "text": "$ Attacker: An entity that works against one or more privacy\nprotection goals. Unlike observers, attackers' behavior is\nunauthorized.\n\n$ Eavesdropper: A type of attacker that passively observes an\ninitiator's communications without the initiator's knowledge or\nauthorization. See [\nRFC4949\n].\n\n$ Enabler: A protocol entity that facilitates communication between\nan initiator and a recipient without being directly in the\ncommunications path.\n\n$ Individual: A human being.\n\n$ Initiator: A protocol entity that initiates communications with a\nrecipient.\n\n$ Intermediary: A protocol entity that sits between the initiator\nand the recipient and is necessary for the initiator and recipient\nto communicate. Unlike an eavesdropper, an intermediary is an\nentity that is part of the communication architecture and\ntherefore at least tacitly authorized. For example, a SIP\n[\nRFC3261\n] proxy is an intermediary in the SIP architecture.\n\n$ Observer: An entity that is able to observe and collect\ninformation from communications, potentially posing privacy\nthreats, depending on the context. As defined in this document,\ninitiators, recipients, intermediaries, and enablers can all be\nobservers. Observers are distinguished from eavesdroppers by\nbeing at least tacitly authorized.\n\n$ Recipient: A protocol entity that receives communications from an\ninitiator.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 7]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n3.2\n. Data and Analysis\n$ Attack: An intentional act by which an entity attempts to violate\nan individual's privacy. See [\nRFC4949\n].\n\n$ Correlation: The combination of various pieces of information that\nrelate to an individual or that obtain that characteristic when\ncombined.\n\n$ Fingerprint: A set of information elements that identifies a\ndevice or application instance.", "char_start": 12732, "char_end": 14534, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 266}}, {"segment_id": "63bced10-4281-4677-8ac1-30b8e0efe921", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 5, "text": "$ Fingerprinting: The process of an observer or attacker uniquely\nidentifying (with a sufficiently high probability) a device or\napplication instance based on multiple information elements\ncommunicated to the observer or attacker. See [\nEFF\n].\n\n$ Item of Interest (IOI): Any data item that an observer or attacker\nmight be interested in. This includes attributes, identifiers,\nidentities, communications content, and the fact that a\ncommunication interaction has taken place.\n\n$ Personal Data: Any information relating to an individual who can\nbe identified, directly or indirectly.\n\n$ (Protocol) Interaction: A unit of communication within a\nparticular protocol. A single interaction may be comprised of a\nsingle message between an initiator and recipient or multiple\nmessages, depending on the protocol.\n\n$ Traffic Analysis: The inference of information from observation of\ntraffic flows (presence, absence, amount, direction, timing,\npacket size, packet composition, and/or frequency), even if flows\nare encrypted. See [\nRFC4949\n].\n\n$ Undetectability: The inability of an observer or attacker to\nsufficiently distinguish whether an item of interest exists\nor not.\n\n$ Unlinkability: Within a particular set of information, the\ninability of an observer or attacker to distinguish whether two\nitems of interest are related or not (with a high enough degree of\nprobability to be useful to the observer or attacker).\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 8]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n3.3\n. Identifiability\n$ Anonymity: The state of being anonymous.\n\n$ Anonymity Set: A set of individuals that have the same attributes,\nmaking them indistinguishable from each other from the perspective\nof a particular attacker or observer.\n\n$ Anonymous: A state of an individual in which an observer or\nattacker cannot identify the individual within a set of other\nindividuals (the anonymity set).", "char_start": 14536, "char_end": 16428, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 287}}, {"segment_id": "0adbf53c-a8be-4963-8133-ae838df4a212", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 6, "text": "$ Attribute: A property of an individual.\n\n$ Identifiability: The extent to which an individual is\nidentifiable.\n\n$ Identifiable: A property in which an individual's identity is\ncapable of being known to an observer or attacker.\n\n$ Identification: The linking of information to a particular\nindividual to infer an individual's identity or to allow the\ninference of an individual's identity in some context.\n\n$ Identified: A state in which an individual's identity is known.\n\n$ Identifier: A data object uniquely referring to a specific\nidentity of a protocol entity or individual in some context. See\n[\nRFC4949\n]. Identifiers can be based upon natural names --\nofficial names, personal names, and/or nicknames -- or can be\nartificial (for example, x9z32vb). However, identifiers are by\ndefinition unique within their context of use, while natural names\nare often not unique.\n\n$ Identity: Any subset of an individual's attributes, including\nnames, that identifies the individual within a given context.\nIndividuals usually have multiple identities for use in different\ncontexts.\n\n$ Identity Confidentiality: A property of an individual where only\nthe recipient can sufficiently identify the individual within a\nset of other individuals. This can be a desirable property of\nauthentication protocols.\n\n$ Identity Provider: An entity (usually an organization) that is\nresponsible for establishing, maintaining, securing, and vouching\nfor the identities associated with individuals.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 9]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n$ Official Name: A personal name for an individual that is\nregistered in some official context (for example, the name on an\nindividual's birth certificate). Official names are often not\nunique.\n\n$ Personal Name: A natural name for an individual. Personal names\nare often not unique and often comprise given names in combination\nwith a family name. An individual may have multiple personal\nnames at any time and over a lifetime, including official names.\nFrom a technological perspective, it cannot always be determined\nwhether a given reference to an individual is, or is based upon,\nthe individual's personal name(s) (see Pseudonym).", "char_start": 16430, "char_end": 18622, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 334}}, {"segment_id": "c590206c-1f88-4099-8047-8db481f52aa6", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 7, "text": "$ Pseudonym: A name assumed by an individual in some context,\nunrelated to the individual's personal names known by others in\nthat context, with an intent of not revealing the individual's\nidentities associated with his or her other names. Pseudonyms are\noften not unique.\n\n$ Pseudonymity: The state of being pseudonymous.\n\n$ Pseudonymous: A property of an individual in which the individual\nis identified by a pseudonym.\n\n$ Real Name: See Personal Name and Official Name.\n\n$ Relying Party: An entity that relies on assertions of individuals'\nidentities from identity providers in order to provide services to\nindividuals. In effect, the relying party delegates aspects of\nidentity management to the identity provider(s). Such delegation\nrequires protocol exchanges, trust, and a common understanding of\nsemantics of information exchanged between the relying party and\nthe identity provider.\n4\n. Communications Model\nTo understand attacks in the privacy-harm sense, it is helpful to\nconsider the overall communication architecture and different actors'\nroles within it. Consider a protocol entity, the \"initiator\", that\ninitiates communication with some recipient. Privacy analysis is\nmost relevant for protocols with use cases in which the initiator\nacts on behalf of an individual (or different individuals at\ndifferent times). It is this individual whose privacy is potentially\nthreatened (although in some instances an initiator communicates\ninformation about another individual, in which case both of their\nprivacy interests will be implicated).\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 10]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nCommunications may be direct between the initiator and the recipient,\nor they may involve an application-layer intermediary (such as a\nproxy, cache, or relay) that is necessary for the two parties to\ncommunicate. In some cases, this intermediary stays in the\ncommunication path for the entire duration of the communication;\nsometimes it is only used for communication establishment, for either\ninbound or outbound communication. In some cases, there may be a\nseries of intermediaries that are traversed. At lower layers,\nadditional entities involved in packet forwarding may interfere with\nprivacy protection goals as well.", "char_start": 18624, "char_end": 20879, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 336}}, {"segment_id": "d4a8e1f0-4e97-473b-a7f7-821799f0eb1a", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 8, "text": "Some communications tasks require multiple protocol interactions with\ndifferent entities. For example, a request to an HTTP server may be\npreceded by an interaction between the initiator and an\nAuthentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) server for\nnetwork access and to a Domain Name System (DNS) server for name\nresolution. In this case, the HTTP server is the recipient and the\nother entities are enablers of the initiator-to-recipient\ncommunication. Similarly, a single communication with the recipient\nmight generate further protocol interactions between either the\ninitiator or the recipient and other entities, and the roles of the\nentities might change with each interaction. For example, an HTTP\nrequest might trigger interactions with an authentication server or\nwith other resource servers wherein the recipient becomes an\ninitiator in those later interactions.\n\nThus, when conducting privacy analysis of an architecture that\ninvolves multiple communications phases, the entities involved may\ntake on different -- or opposing -- roles from a privacy\nconsiderations perspective in each phase. Understanding the privacy\nimplications of the architecture as a whole may require a separate\nanalysis of each phase.\n\nProtocol design is often predicated on the notion that recipients,\nintermediaries, and enablers are assumed to be authorized to receive\nand handle data from initiators. As [\nRFC3552\n] explains, \"we assume\nthat the end systems engaging in a protocol exchange have not\nthemselves been compromised\". However, privacy analysis requires\nquestioning this assumption, since systems are often compromised for\nthe purpose of obtaining personal data.\n\nAlthough recipients, intermediaries, and enablers may not generally\nbe considered as attackers, they may all pose privacy threats\n(depending on the context) because they are able to observe, collect,\nprocess, and transfer privacy-relevant data. These entities are\ncollectively described below as \"observers\" to distinguish them from\ntraditional attackers. From a privacy perspective, one important\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 11]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ntype of attacker is an eavesdropper: an entity that passively\nobserves the initiator's communications without the initiator's\nknowledge or authorization.", "char_start": 20881, "char_end": 23184, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 330}}, {"segment_id": "aa3c6358-bf38-4c4d-bb50-c0e600bfdd01", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 9, "text": "The threat descriptions in the next section explain how observers and\nattackers might act to harm individuals' privacy. Different kinds of\nattacks may be feasible at different points in the communications\npath. For example, an observer could mount surveillance or\nidentification attacks between the initiator and intermediary, or\ninstead could surveil an enabler (e.g., by observing DNS queries from\nthe initiator).\n5\n. Privacy Threats\nPrivacy harms come in a number of forms, including harms to financial\nstanding, reputation, solitude, autonomy, and safety. A victim of\nidentity theft or blackmail, for example, may suffer a financial loss\nas a result. Reputational harm can occur when disclosure of\ninformation about an individual, whether true or false, subjects that\nindividual to stigma, embarrassment, or loss of personal dignity.\nIntrusion or interruption of an individual's life or activities can\nharm the individual's ability to be left alone. When individuals or\ntheir activities are monitored, exposed, or at risk of exposure,\nthose individuals may be stifled from expressing themselves,\nassociating with others, and generally conducting their lives freely.\nThey may also feel a general sense of unease, in that it is \"creepy\"\nto be monitored or to have data collected about them. In cases where\nsuch monitoring is for the purpose of stalking or violence (for\nexample, monitoring communications to or from a domestic abuse\nshelter), it can put individuals in physical danger.\n\nThis section lists common privacy threats (drawing liberally from\n[\nSolove\n], as well as [\nCoE\n]), showing how each of them may cause\nindividuals to incur privacy harms and providing examples of how\nthese threats can exist on the Internet. This threat modeling is\ninspired by security threat analysis. Although it is not a perfect\nfit for assessing privacy risks in Internet protocols and systems, no\nbetter methodology has been developed to date.", "char_start": 23186, "char_end": 25122, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 304}}, {"segment_id": "c997681b-b94a-442f-9a3e-781f89519840", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 10, "text": "Some privacy threats are already considered in Internet protocols as\na matter of routine security analysis. Others are more pure privacy\nthreats that existing security considerations do not usually address.\nThe threats described here are divided into those that may also be\nconsidered security threats and those that are primarily privacy\nthreats.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 12]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nNote that an individual's awareness of and consent to the practices\ndescribed below may change an individual's perception of and concern\nfor the extent to which they threaten privacy. If an individual\nauthorizes surveillance of his own activities, for example, the\nindividual may be able to take actions to mitigate the harms\nassociated with it or may consider the risk of harm to be tolerable.\n5.1\n. Combined Security-Privacy Threats\n5.1.1\n. Surveillance\nSurveillance is the observation or monitoring of an individual's\ncommunications or activities. The effects of surveillance on the\nindividual can range from anxiety and discomfort to behavioral\nchanges such as inhibition and self-censorship, and even to the\nperpetration of violence against the individual. The individual need\nnot be aware of the surveillance for it to impact his or her privacy\n-- the possibility of surveillance may be enough to harm individual\nautonomy.\n\nSurveillance can impact privacy, even if the individuals being\nsurveilled are not identifiable or if their communications are\nencrypted. For example, an observer or eavesdropper that conducts\ntraffic analysis may be able to determine what type of traffic is\npresent (real-time communications or bulk file transfers, for\nexample) or which protocols are in use, even if the observed\ncommunications are encrypted or the communicants are unidentifiable.\nThis kind of surveillance can adversely impact the individuals\ninvolved by causing them to become targets for further investigation\nor enforcement activities. It may also enable attacks that are\nspecific to the protocol, such as redirection to a specialized\ninterception point or protocol-specific denials of service.\nProtocols that use predictable packet sizes or timing or include\nfixed tokens at predictable offsets within a packet can facilitate\nthis kind of surveillance.", "char_start": 25124, "char_end": 27409, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 345}}, {"segment_id": "55fed4f6-15eb-45a6-8a76-0307084023a5", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 11, "text": "Surveillance can be conducted by observers or eavesdroppers at any\npoint along the communications path. Confidentiality protections (as\ndiscussed in\nSection 3 of [RFC3552]\n) are necessary to prevent\nsurveillance of the content of communications. To prevent traffic\nanalysis or other surveillance of communications patterns, other\nmeasures may be necessary, such as [\nTor\n].\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 13]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n5.1.2\n. Stored Data Compromise\nEnd systems that do not take adequate measures to secure stored data\nfrom unauthorized or inappropriate access expose individuals to\npotential financial, reputational, or physical harm.\n\nProtecting against stored data compromise is typically outside the\nscope of IETF protocols. However, a number of common protocol\nfunctions -- key management, access control, or operational logging,\nfor example -- require the storage of data about initiators of\ncommunications. When requiring or recommending that information\nabout initiators or their communications be stored or logged by end\nsystems (see, e.g.,\nRFC 6302\n[\nRFC6302\n]), it is important to recognize\nthe potential for that information to be compromised and for that\npotential to be weighed against the benefits of data storage. Any\nrecipient, intermediary, or enabler that stores data may be\nvulnerable to compromise. (Note that stored data compromise is\ndistinct from purposeful disclosure, which is discussed in\nSection 5.2.4\n.)\n5.1.3\n. Intrusion\nIntrusion consists of invasive acts that disturb or interrupt one's\nlife or activities. Intrusion can thwart individuals' desires to be\nleft alone, sap their time or attention, or interrupt their\nactivities. This threat is focused on intrusion into one's life\nrather than direct intrusion into one's communications. The latter\nis captured in\nSection 5.1.1\n.", "char_start": 27411, "char_end": 29255, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 277}}, {"segment_id": "4ee32aa2-8bfd-4f01-98c7-71f512be0fea", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 12, "text": "Unsolicited messages and denial-of-service attacks are the most\ncommon types of intrusion on the Internet. Intrusion can be\nperpetrated by any attacker that is capable of sending unwanted\ntraffic to the initiator.\n5.1.4\n. Misattribution\nMisattribution occurs when data or communications related to one\nindividual are attributed to another. Misattribution can result in\nadverse reputational, financial, or other consequences for\nindividuals that are misidentified.\n\nMisattribution in the protocol context comes as a result of using\ninadequate or insecure forms of identity or authentication, and is\nsometimes related to spoofing. For example, as [\nRFC6269\n] notes,\nabuse mitigation is often conducted on the basis of the source IP\naddress, such that connections from individual IP addresses may be\nprevented or temporarily blacklisted if abusive activity is\ndetermined to be sourced from those addresses. However, in the case\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 14]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nwhere a single IP address is shared by multiple individuals, those\npenalties may be suffered by all individuals sharing the address,\neven if they were not involved in the abuse. This threat can be\nmitigated by using identity management mechanisms with proper forms\nof authentication (ideally with cryptographic properties) so that\nactions can be attributed uniquely to an individual to provide the\nbasis for accountability without generating false positives.\n5.2\n. Privacy-Specific Threats\n5.2.1\n. Correlation\nCorrelation is the combination of various pieces of information\nrelated to an individual or that obtain that characteristic when\ncombined. Correlation can defy people's expectations of the limits\nof what others know about them. It can increase the power that those\ndoing the correlating have over individuals as well as correlators'\nability to pass judgment, threatening individual autonomy and\nreputation.", "char_start": 29257, "char_end": 31179, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 285}}, {"segment_id": "aa9ac8b5-03c3-47e1-bd19-cc0e60633e15", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 13, "text": "Correlation is closely related to identification. Internet protocols\ncan facilitate correlation by allowing individuals' activities to be\ntracked and combined over time. The use of persistent or\ninfrequently replaced identifiers at any layer of the stack can\nfacilitate correlation. For example, an initiator's persistent use\nof the same device ID, certificate, or email address across multiple\ninteractions could allow recipients (and observers) to correlate all\nof the initiator's communications over time.\n\nAs an example, consider Transport Layer Security (TLS) session\nresumption [\nRFC5246\n] or TLS session resumption without server-side\nstate [\nRFC5077\n]. In\nRFC 5246\n[\nRFC5246\n], a server provides the client\nwith a session_id in the ServerHello message and caches the\nmaster_secret for later exchanges. When the client initiates a new\nconnection with the server, it re-uses the previously obtained\nsession_id in its ClientHello message. The server agrees to resume\nthe session by using the same session_id and the previously stored\nmaster_secret for the generation of the TLS Record Layer security\nassociation.\nRFC 5077\n[\nRFC5077\n] borrows from the session resumption\ndesign idea, but the server encapsulates all state information into a\nticket instead of caching it. An attacker who is able to observe the\nprotocol exchanges between the TLS client and the TLS server is able\nto link the initial exchange to subsequently resumed TLS sessions\nwhen the session_id and the ticket are exchanged in the clear (which\nis the case with data exchanged in the initial handshake messages).\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 15]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nIn theory, any observer or attacker that receives an initiator's\ncommunications can engage in correlation. The extent of the\npotential for correlation will depend on what data the entity\nreceives from the initiator and has access to otherwise. Often,\nintermediaries only require a small amount of information for message\nrouting and/or security. In theory, protocol mechanisms could ensure\nthat end-to-end information is not made accessible to these entities,\nbut in practice the difficulty of deploying end-to-end security\nprocedures, additional messaging or computational overhead, and other\nbusiness or legal requirements often slow or prevent the deployment\nof end-to-end security mechanisms, giving intermediaries greater\nexposure to initiators' data than is strictly necessary from a\ntechnical point of view.\n5.2.2\n. Identification\nIdentification is the linking of information to a particular\nindividual to infer an individual's identity or to allow the\ninference of an individual's identity. In some contexts, it is\nperfectly legitimate to identify individuals, whereas in others,\nidentification may potentially stifle individuals' activities or\nexpression by inhibiting their ability to be anonymous or\npseudonymous. Identification also makes it easier for individuals to\nbe explicitly controlled by others (e.g., governments) and to be\ntreated differentially compared to other individuals.", "char_start": 31181, "char_end": 34246, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 454}}, {"segment_id": "76fd84b7-cb82-4399-b181-e75d5a446431", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 14, "text": "Many protocols provide functionality to convey the idea that some\nmeans has been provided to validate that entities are who they claim\nto be. Often, this is accomplished with cryptographic\nauthentication. Furthermore, many protocol identifiers, such as\nthose used in SIP or the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol\n(XMPP), may allow for the direct identification of individuals.\nProtocol identifiers may also contribute indirectly to identification\nvia correlation. For example, a web site that does not directly\nauthenticate users may be able to match its HTTP header logs with\nlogs from another site that does authenticate users, rendering users\non the first site identifiable.\n\nAs with correlation, any observer or attacker may be able to engage\nin identification, depending on the information about the initiator\nthat is available via the protocol mechanism or other channels.\n5.2.3\n. Secondary Use\nSecondary use is the use of collected information about an individual\nwithout the individual's consent for a purpose different from that\nfor which the information was collected. Secondary use may violate\npeople's expectations or desires. The potential for secondary use\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 16]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ncan generate uncertainty as to how one's information will be used in\nthe future, potentially discouraging information exchange in the\nfirst place. Secondary use encompasses any use of data, including\ndisclosure.\n\nOne example of secondary use would be an authentication server that\nuses a network access server's Access-Requests to track an\ninitiator's location. Any observer or attacker could potentially\nmake unwanted secondary uses of initiators' data. Protecting against\nsecondary use is typically outside the scope of IETF protocols.\n5.2.4\n. Disclosure\nDisclosure is the revelation of information about an individual that\naffects the way others judge the individual. Disclosure can violate\nindividuals' expectations of the confidentiality of the data they\nshare. The threat of disclosure may deter people from engaging in\ncertain activities for fear of reputational harm, or simply because\nthey do not wish to be observed.", "char_start": 34248, "char_end": 36434, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 328}}, {"segment_id": "1bbdd417-61f4-4ece-a017-db57b546d1a5", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 15, "text": "Any observer or attacker that receives data about an initiator may\nengage in disclosure. Sometimes disclosure is unintentional because\nsystem designers do not realize that information being exchanged\nrelates to individuals. The most common way for protocols to limit\ndisclosure is by providing access control mechanisms (discussed in\nSection 5.2.5\n). A further example is provided by the IETF\ngeolocation privacy architecture [\nRFC6280\n], which supports a way for\nusers to express a preference that their location information not be\ndisclosed beyond the intended recipient.\n5.2.5\n. Exclusion\nExclusion is the failure to allow individuals to know about the data\nthat others have about them and to participate in its handling and\nuse. Exclusion reduces accountability on the part of entities that\nmaintain information about people and creates a sense of\nvulnerability in relation to individuals' ability to control how\ninformation about them is collected and used.\n\nThe most common way for Internet protocols to be involved in\nenforcing exclusion is through access control mechanisms. The\npresence architecture developed in the IETF is a good example where\nindividuals are included in the control of information about them.\nUsing a rules expression language (e.g., presence authorization rules\n[\nRFC5025\n]), presence clients can authorize the specific conditions\nunder which their presence information may be shared.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 17]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nExclusion is primarily considered problematic when the recipient\nfails to involve the initiator in decisions about data collection,\nhandling, and use. Eavesdroppers engage in exclusion by their very\nnature, since their data collection and handling practices are\ncovert.\n6\n. Threat Mitigations\nPrivacy is notoriously difficult to measure and quantify. The extent\nto which a particular protocol, system, or architecture \"protects\" or\n\"enhances\" privacy is dependent on a large number of factors relating\nto its design, use, and potential misuse. However, there are certain\nwidely recognized classes of mitigations against the threats\ndiscussed in\nSection 5\n. This section describes three categories of\nrelevant mitigations: (1) data minimization, (2) user participation,\nand (3) security. The privacy mitigations described in this section\ncan loosely be mapped to existing privacy principles, such as the\nFair Information Practices, but they have been adapted to fit the\ntarget audience of this document.\n6.1\n. Data Minimization\nData minimization refers to collecting, using, disclosing, and\nstoring the minimal data necessary to perform a task. Reducing the\namount of data exchanged reduces the amount of data that can be\nmisused or leaked.", "char_start": 36436, "char_end": 39171, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 413}}, {"segment_id": "ab8e058e-5686-42fa-ae99-28ff12b27f3e", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 16, "text": "Data minimization can be effectuated in a number of different ways,\nincluding by limiting collection, use, disclosure, retention,\nidentifiability, sensitivity, and access to personal data. Limiting\nthe data collected by protocol elements to only what is necessary\n(collection limitation) is the most straightforward way to help\nreduce privacy risks associated with the use of the protocol. In\nsome cases, protocol designers may also be able to recommend limits\nto the use or retention of data, although protocols themselves are\nnot often capable of controlling these properties.\n\nHowever, the most direct application of data minimization to protocol\ndesign is limiting identifiability. Reducing the identifiability of\ndata by using pseudonyms or no identifiers at all helps to weaken the\nlink between an individual and his or her communications. Allowing\nfor the periodic creation of new or randomized identifiers reduces\nthe possibility that multiple protocol interactions or communications\ncan be correlated back to the same individual. The following\nsections explore a number of different properties related to\nidentifiability that protocol designers may seek to achieve.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 18]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nData minimization mitigates the following threats: surveillance,\nstored data compromise, correlation, identification, secondary use,\nand disclosure.\n6.1.1\n. Anonymity\nTo enable anonymity of an individual, there must exist a set of\nindividuals that appear to have the same attribute(s) as the\nindividual. To the attacker or the observer, these individuals must\nappear indistinguishable from each other. The set of all such\nindividuals is known as the anonymity set, and membership of this set\nmay vary over time.\n\nThe composition of the anonymity set depends on the knowledge of the\nobserver or attacker. Thus, anonymity is relative with respect to\nthe observer or attacker. An initiator may be anonymous only within\na set of potential initiators -- its initiator anonymity set -- which\nitself may be a subset of all individuals that may initiate\ncommunications. Conversely, a recipient may be anonymous only within\na set of potential recipients -- its recipient anonymity set. Both\nanonymity sets may be disjoint, may overlap, or may be the same.", "char_start": 39173, "char_end": 41475, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 349}}, {"segment_id": "4d51be77-de9e-4967-96c6-2126326c110f", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 17, "text": "As an example, consider\nRFC 3325\n(P-Asserted-Identity (PAI))\n[\nRFC3325\n], an extension for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)\nthat allows an individual, such as a Voice over IP (VoIP) caller, to\ninstruct an intermediary that he or she trusts not to populate the\nSIP From header field with the individual's authenticated and\nverified identity. The recipient of the call, as well as any other\nentity outside of the individual's trust domain, would therefore only\nlearn that the SIP message (typically a SIP INVITE) was sent with a\nheader field 'From: \"Anonymous\" <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>'\nrather than the individual's address-of-record, which is typically\nthought of as the \"public address\" of the user. When PAI is used,\nthe individual becomes anonymous within the initiator anonymity set\nthat is populated by every individual making use of that specific\nintermediary.\n\nNote that this example ignores the fact that the recipient may infer\nor obtain personal data from the other SIP payloads (e.g., SIP Via\nand Contact headers, the Session Description Protocol (SDP)). The\nimplication is that PAI only attempts to address a particular threat,\nnamely the disclosure of identity (in the From header) with respect\nto the recipient. This caveat makes the analysis of the specific\nprotocol extension easier but cannot be assumed when conducting\nanalysis of an entire architecture.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 19]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n6.1.2\n. Pseudonymity\nIn the context of Internet protocols, almost all identifiers can be\nnicknames or pseudonyms, since there is typically no requirement to\nuse personal names in protocols. However, in certain scenarios it is\nreasonable to assume that personal names will be used (with vCard\n[\nRFC6350\n], for example).\n\nPseudonymity is strengthened when less personal data can be linked to\nthe pseudonym; when the same pseudonym is used less often and across\nfewer contexts; and when independently chosen pseudonyms are more\nfrequently used for new actions (making them, from an observer's or\nattacker's perspective, unlinkable).", "char_start": 41477, "char_end": 43573, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 324}}, {"segment_id": "7cad6828-1b53-4cab-a12c-3e74c978af4a", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 18, "text": "For Internet protocols, the following are important considerations:\nwhether protocols allow pseudonyms to be changed without human\ninteraction, the default length of pseudonym lifetimes, to whom\npseudonyms are exposed, how individuals are able to control\ndisclosure, how often pseudonyms can be changed, and the consequences\nof changing them.\n6.1.3\n. Identity Confidentiality\nAn initiator has identity confidentiality when any party other than\nthe recipient cannot sufficiently identify the initiator within the\nanonymity set. The size of the anonymity set has a direct impact on\nidentity confidentiality, since the smaller the set is, the easier it\nis to identify the initiator. Identity confidentiality aims to\nprovide a protection against eavesdroppers and intermediaries rather\nthan against the intended communication endpoints.\n\nAs an example, consider the network access authentication procedures\nutilizing the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [\nRFC3748\n].\nEAP includes an identity exchange where the Identity Response is\nprimarily used for routing purposes and selecting which EAP method to\nuse. Since EAP Identity Requests and Identity Responses are sent in\ncleartext, eavesdroppers and intermediaries along the communication\npath between the EAP peer and the EAP server can snoop on the\nidentity, which is encoded in the form of the Network Access\nIdentifier (NAI) as defined in\nRFC 4282\n[\nRFC4282\n]. To address this\nthreat, as discussed in\nRFC 4282\n[\nRFC4282\n], the username part of the\nNAI (but not the realm part) can be hidden from these eavesdroppers\nand intermediaries with the cryptographic support offered by EAP\nmethods. Identity confidentiality has become a recommended design\ncriteria for EAP (see [\nRFC4017\n]). The EAP method for 3rd Generation\nAuthentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA) [\nRFC4187\n], for example,\nprotects the EAP peer's identity against passive adversaries by\nutilizing temporal identities. The EAP-Internet Key Exchange\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 20]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nProtocol version 2 (EAP-IKEv2) method [\nRFC5106\n] is an example of an\nEAP method that offers protection against active attackers with\nregard to the individual's identity.\n6.1.4\n. Data Minimization within Identity Management\nModern systems are increasingly relying on multi-party transactions\nto authenticate individuals. Many of these systems make use of an\nidentity provider that is responsible for providing AAA functionality\nto relying parties that offer some protected resources. To\nfacilitate these functions, an identity provider will usually go\nthrough a process of verifying the individual's identity and issuing\ncredentials to the individual. When an individual seeks to make use\nof a service provided by the relying party, the relying party relies\non the authentication assertions provided by its identity provider.\nNote that in more sophisticated scenarios the authentication\nassertions are traits that demonstrate the individual's capabilities\nand roles. The authorization responsibility may also be shared\nbetween the identity provider and the relying party and does not\nnecessarily need to reside only with the identity provider.", "char_start": 43575, "char_end": 46767, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 473}}, {"segment_id": "8a5cf687-d967-44d9-a2de-a15959f6fc2d", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 19, "text": "Such systems have the ability to support a number of properties that\nminimize data collection in different ways:\n\nIn certain use cases, relying parties do not need to know the real\nname or date of birth of an individual (for example, when the\nindividual's age is the only attribute that needs to be\nauthenticated).\n\nRelying parties that collude can be prevented from using an\nindividual's credentials to track the individual. That is, two\ndifferent relying parties can be prevented from determining that\nthe same individual has authenticated to both of them. This\ntypically requires identity management protocol support as well as\nsupport by both the relying party and the identity provider.\n\nThe identity provider can be prevented from knowing which relying\nparties an individual interacted with. This requires, at a\nminimum, avoiding direct communication between the identity\nprovider and the relying party at the time when access to a\nresource by the initiator is made.\n6.2\n. User Participation\nAs explained in\nSection 5.2.5\n, data collection and use that happen\n\"in secret\", without the individual's knowledge, are apt to violate\nthe individual's expectation of privacy and may create incentives for\nmisuse of data. As a result, privacy regimes tend to include\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 21]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nprovisions to require informing individuals about data collection and\nuse and involving them in decisions about the treatment of their\ndata. In an engineering context, supporting the goal of user\nparticipation usually means providing ways for users to control the\ndata that is shared about them. It may also mean providing ways for\nusers to signal how they expect their data to be used and shared.\nDifferent protocol and architectural designs can make supporting user\nparticipation (for example, the ability to support a dialog box for\nuser interaction) easier or harder; for example, OAuth-based services\nmay have more natural hooks for user input than AAA services.", "char_start": 46769, "char_end": 48782, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 320}}, {"segment_id": "9f0e0886-8264-4697-bf68-c6df2d7a4586", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 20, "text": "User participation mitigates the following threats: surveillance,\nsecondary use, disclosure, and exclusion.\n6.3\n. Security\nKeeping data secure at rest and in transit is another important\ncomponent of privacy protection. As they are described in\nSection 2\nof [RFC3552]\n, a number of security goals also serve to enhance\nprivacy:\n\no Confidentiality: Keeping data secret from unintended listeners.\n\no Peer entity authentication: Ensuring that the endpoint of a\ncommunication is the one that is intended (in support of\nmaintaining confidentiality).\n\no Unauthorized usage: Limiting data access to only those users who\nare authorized. (Note that this goal also falls within data\nminimization.)\n\no Inappropriate usage: Limiting how authorized users can use data.\n(Note that this goal also falls within data minimization.)\n\nNote that even when these goals are achieved, the existence of items\nof interest -- attributes, identifiers, identities, communications,\nactions (such as the sending or receiving of a communication), or\nanything else an attacker or observer might be interested in -- may\nstill be detectable, even if they are not readable. Thus,\nundetectability, in which an observer or attacker cannot sufficiently\ndistinguish whether an item of interest exists or not, may be\nconsidered as a further security goal (albeit one that can be\nextremely difficult to accomplish).\n\nDetection of the protocols or applications in use via traffic\nanalysis may be particularly difficult to defend against. As with\nthe anonymity of individuals, achieving \"protocol anonymity\" requires\nthat multiple protocols or applications exist that appear to have the\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 22]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nsame attributes -- packet sizes, content, token locations, or\ninter-packet timing, for example. An attacker or observer will not\nbe able to use traffic analysis to identify which protocol or\napplication is in use if multiple protocols or applications are\nindistinguishable.", "char_start": 48784, "char_end": 50782, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 300}}, {"segment_id": "e2d95cc4-7bab-40fe-91f8-2009ec2d7efb", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 21, "text": "Defending against the threat of traffic analysis will be possible to\ndifferent extents for different protocols, may depend on\nimplementation- or use-specific details, and may depend on which\nother protocols already exist and whether they share similar traffic\ncharacteristics. The defenses will also vary relative to what the\nprotocol is designed to do; for example, in some situations\nrandomizing packet sizes, timing, or token locations will reduce the\nthreat of traffic analysis, whereas in other situations (real-time\ncommunications, for example) holding some or all of those factors\nconstant is a more appropriate defense. See \"Guidelines for the Use\nof Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP\" [\nRFC6562\n] for an example\nof how these kinds of trade-offs should be evaluated.\n\nBy providing proper security protection, the following threats can be\nmitigated: surveillance, stored data compromise, misattribution,\nsecondary use, disclosure, and intrusion.\n7\n. Guidelines\nThis section provides guidance for document authors in the form of a\nquestionnaire about a protocol being designed. The questionnaire may\nbe useful at any point in the design process, particularly after\ndocument authors have developed a high-level protocol model as\ndescribed in [\nRFC4101\n].\n\nNote that the guidance provided in this section does not recommend\nspecific practices. The range of protocols developed in the IETF is\ntoo broad to make recommendations about particular uses of data or\nhow privacy might be balanced against other design goals. However,\nby carefully considering the answers to each question, document\nauthors should be able to produce a comprehensive analysis that can\nserve as the basis for discussion of whether the protocol adequately\nprotects against privacy threats. This guidance is meant to help the\nthought process of privacy analysis; it does not provide specific\ndirections for how to write a privacy considerations section.", "char_start": 50784, "char_end": 52717, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 295}}, {"segment_id": "9d14fedf-cf9b-4522-8a39-ad5fbdd4f446", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 22, "text": "The framework is divided into four sections: three sections that\naddress each of the mitigation classes from\nSection 6\n, plus a general\nsection. Security is not fully elaborated, since substantial\nguidance already exists in [\nRFC3552\n].\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 23]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n7.1\n. Data Minimization\na. Identifiers. What identifiers does the protocol use for\ndistinguishing initiators of communications? Does the protocol\nuse identifiers that allow different protocol interactions to be\ncorrelated? What identifiers could be omitted or be made less\nidentifying while still fulfilling the protocol's goals?\n\nb. Data. What information does the protocol expose about\nindividuals, their devices, and/or their device usage (other than\nthe identifiers discussed in (a))? To what extent is this\ninformation linked to the identities of the individuals? How\ndoes the protocol combine personal data with the identifiers\ndiscussed in (a)?\n\nc. Observers. Which information discussed in (a) and (b) is exposed\nto each other protocol entity (i.e., recipients, intermediaries,\nand enablers)? Are there ways for protocol implementers to\nchoose to limit the information shared with each entity? Are\nthere operational controls available to limit the information\nshared with each entity?\n\nd. Fingerprinting. In many cases, the specific ordering and/or\noccurrences of information elements in a protocol allow users,\ndevices, or software using the protocol to be fingerprinted. Is\nthis protocol vulnerable to fingerprinting? If so, how? Can it\nbe designed to reduce or eliminate the vulnerability? If not,\nwhy not?\n\ne. Persistence of identifiers. What assumptions are made in the\nprotocol design about the lifetime of the identifiers discussed\nin (a)? Does the protocol allow implementers or users to delete\nor replace identifiers? How often does the specification\nrecommend deleting or replacing identifiers by default? Can the\nidentifiers, along with other state information, be set to\nautomatically expire?", "char_start": 52719, "char_end": 54749, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 303}}, {"segment_id": "6bc8de01-db7b-430d-94e8-74d14a73c4a7", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 23, "text": "f. Correlation. Does the protocol allow for correlation of\nidentifiers? Are there expected ways that information exposed by\nthe protocol will be combined or correlated with information\nobtained outside the protocol? How will such combination or\ncorrelation facilitate fingerprinting of a user, device, or\napplication? Are there expected combinations or correlations\nwith outside data that will make users of the protocol more\nidentifiable?\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 24]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ng. Retention. Does the protocol or its anticipated uses require\nthat the information discussed in (a) or (b) be retained by\nrecipients, intermediaries, or enablers? If so, why? Is the\nretention expected to be persistent or temporary?\n7.2\n. User Participation\na. User control. What controls or consent mechanisms does the\nprotocol define or require before personal data or identifiers\nare shared or exposed via the protocol? If no such mechanisms or\ncontrols are specified, is it expected that control and consent\nwill be handled outside of the protocol?\n\nb. Control over sharing with individual recipients. Does the\nprotocol provide ways for initiators to share different\ninformation with different recipients? If not, are there\nmechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide\ninitiators with such control?\n\nc. Control over sharing with intermediaries. Does the protocol\nprovide ways for initiators to limit which information is shared\nwith intermediaries? If not, are there mechanisms that exist\noutside of the protocol to provide users with such control? Is\nit expected that users will have relationships that govern the\nuse of the information (contractual or otherwise) with those who\noperate these intermediaries?\n\nd. Preference expression. Does the protocol provide ways for\ninitiators to express individuals' preferences to recipients or\nintermediaries with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure\nof their personal data?\n7.3\n. Security\na. Surveillance. How do the protocol's security considerations\nprevent surveillance, including eavesdropping and traffic\nanalysis? Does the protocol leak information that can be\nobserved through traffic analysis, such as by using a fixed token\nat fixed offsets, or packet sizes or timing that allow observers\nto determine characteristics of the traffic (e.g., which protocol\nis in use or whether the traffic is part of a real-time flow)?", "char_start": 54751, "char_end": 57166, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 364}}, {"segment_id": "82a80b6f-e3bf-48d4-a8a5-93b5fa10a2af", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 24, "text": "b. Stored data compromise. How do the protocol's security\nconsiderations prevent or mitigate stored data compromise?\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 25]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nc. Intrusion. How do the protocol's security considerations prevent\nor mitigate intrusion, including denial-of-service attacks and\nunsolicited communications more generally?\n\nd. Misattribution. How do the protocol's mechanisms for identifying\nand/or authenticating individuals prevent misattribution?\n7.4\n. General\na. Trade-offs. Does the protocol make trade-offs between privacy\nand usability, privacy and efficiency, privacy and\nimplementability, or privacy and other design goals? Describe\nthe trade-offs and the rationale for the design chosen.\n\nb. Defaults. If the protocol can be operated in multiple modes or\nwith multiple configurable options, does the default mode or\noption minimize the amount, identifiability, and persistence of\nthe data and identifiers exposed by the protocol? Does the\ndefault mode or option maximize the opportunity for user\nparticipation? Does it provide the strictest security features\nof all the modes/options? If the answer to any of these\nquestions is no, explain why less protective defaults were\nchosen.\n8\n. Example\nThe following section gives an example of the threat analysis and\nthreat mitigations recommended by this document. It covers a\nparticularly difficult application protocol, presence, to try to\ndemonstrate these principles on an architecture that is vulnerable to\nmany of the threats described above. This text is not intended as an\nexample of a privacy considerations section that might appear in an\nIETF specification, but rather as an example of the thinking that\nshould go into the design of a protocol when considering privacy as a\nfirst principle.", "char_start": 57168, "char_end": 58972, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 266}}, {"segment_id": "3208bda7-b6c1-4eeb-98cc-1326e29dbea6", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 25, "text": "A presence service, as defined in the abstract in [\nRFC2778\n], allows\nusers of a communications service to monitor one another's\navailability and disposition in order to make decisions about\ncommunicating. Presence information is highly dynamic and generally\ncharacterizes whether a user is online or offline, busy or idle, away\nfrom communications devices or nearby, and the like. Necessarily,\nthis information has certain privacy implications, and from the start\nthe IETF approached this work with the aim of providing users with\nthe controls to determine how their presence information would be\nshared. The Common Profile for Presence (CPP) [\nRFC3859\n] defines a\nset of logical operations for delivery of presence information. This\nabstract model is applicable to multiple presence systems. The SIP\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 26]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nfor Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE)\npresence system [\nRFC3856\n] uses CPP as its baseline architecture, and\nthe presence operations in the Extensible Messaging and Presence\nProtocol (XMPP) have also been mapped to CPP [\nRFC3922\n].\n\nThe fundamental architecture defined in\nRFC 2778\nand\nRFC 3859\nis a\nmediated one. Clients (presentities in\nRFC 2778\nterms) publish their\npresence information to presence servers, which in turn distribute\ninformation to authorized watchers. Presence servers thus retain\npresence information for an interval of time, until it either changes\nor expires, so that it can be revealed to authorized watchers upon\nrequest. This architecture mirrors existing pre-standard deployment\nmodels. The integration of an explicit authorization mechanism into\nthe presence architecture has been widely successful in involving the\nend users in the decision-making process before sharing information.\nNearly all presence systems deployed today provide such a mechanism,\ntypically through a reciprocal authorization system by which a pair\nof users, when they agree to be \"buddies\", consent to divulge their\npresence information to one another. Buddylists are managed by\nservers but controlled by end users. Users can also explicitly block\none another through a similar interface, and in some deployments it\nis desirable to provide \"polite blocking\" of various kinds.", "char_start": 58974, "char_end": 61262, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 345}}, {"segment_id": "5370a060-3353-444e-a951-2ae767fa51bc", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 26, "text": "From a perspective of privacy design, however, the classical presence\narchitecture represents nearly a worst-case scenario. In terms of\ndata minimization, presentities share their sensitive information\nwith presence services, and while services only share this presence\ninformation with watchers authorized by the user, no technical\nmechanism constrains those watchers from relaying presence to further\nthird parties. Any of these entities could conceivably log or retain\npresence information indefinitely. The sensitivity cannot be\nmitigated by rendering the user anonymous, as it is indeed the\npurpose of the system to facilitate communications between users who\nknow one another. The identifiers employed by users are long-lived\nand often contain personal information, including personal names and\nthe domains of service providers. While users do participate in the\nconstruction of buddylists and blacklists, they do so with little\nprospect for accountability: the user effectively throws their\npresence information over the wall to a presence server that in turn\ndistributes the information to watchers. Users typically have no way\nto verify that presence is being distributed only to authorized\nwatchers, especially as it is the server that authenticates watchers,\nnot the end user. Moreover, connections between the server and all\npublishers and consumers of presence data are an attractive target\nfor eavesdroppers and require strong confidentiality mechanisms,\nthough again the end user has no way to verify what mechanisms are in\nplace between the presence server and a watcher.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 27]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nAdditionally, the sensitivity of presence information is not limited\nto the disposition and capability to communicate. Capabilities can\nreveal the type of device that a user employs, for example, and since\nmultiple devices can publish the same user's presence, there are\nsignificant risks of allowing attackers to correlate user devices.\nAn important extension to presence was developed to enable the\nsupport for location sharing. The effort to standardize protocols\nfor systems sharing geolocation was started in the GEOPRIV working\ngroup. During the initial requirements and privacy threat analysis\nin the process of chartering the working group, it became clear that\nthe system would require an underlying communication mechanism\nsupporting user consent to share location information. The\nresemblance of these requirements to the presence framework was\nquickly recognized, and this design decision was documented in\n[\nRFC4079\n]. Location information thus mingles with other presence\ninformation available through the system to intermediaries and to\nauthorized watchers.", "char_start": 61264, "char_end": 64005, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 400}}, {"segment_id": "39a9d9d9-bae2-4fc4-8bf5-f7a73699204a", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 27, "text": "Privacy concerns about presence information largely arise due to the\nbuilt-in mediation of the presence architecture. The need for a\npresence server is motivated by two primary design requirements of\npresence: in the first place, the server can respond with an\n\"offline\" indication when the user is not online; in the second\nplace, the server can compose presence information published by\ndifferent devices under the user's control. Additionally, to\nfacilitate the use of URIs as identifiers for entities, some service\nmust operate a host with the domain name appearing in a presence URI,\nand in practical terms no commercial presence architecture would\nforce end users to own and operate their own domain names. Many end\nusers of applications like presence are behind NATs or firewalls and\neffectively cannot receive direct connections from the Internet --\nthe persistent bidirectional channel these clients open and maintain\nwith a presence server is essential to the operation of the protocol.\n\nOne must first ask if the trade-off of mediation for presence is\nworthwhile. Does a server need to be in the middle of all\npublications of presence information? It might seem that end-to-end\nencryption of the presence information could solve many of these\nproblems. A presentity could encrypt the presence information with\nthe public key of a watcher and only then send the presence\ninformation through the server. The IETF defined an object format\nfor presence information called the Presence Information Data Format\n(PIDF), which for the purposes of conveying location information was\nextended to the PIDF Location Object (PIDF-LO) -- these XML objects\nwere designed to accommodate an encrypted wrapper. Encrypting this\ndata would have the added benefit of preventing stored cleartext\npresence information from being seized by an attacker who manages to\ncompromise a presence server. This proposal, however, quickly runs\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 28]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\ninto usability problems. Discovering the public keys of watchers is\nthe first difficulty, one that few Internet protocols have addressed\nsuccessfully. This solution would then require the presentity to\npublish one encrypted copy of its presence information per authorized\nwatcher to the presence service, regardless of whether or not a\nwatcher is actively seeking presence information -- for a presentity\nwith many watchers, this may place an unacceptable burden on the\npresence server, especially given the dynamism of presence\ninformation. Finally, it prevents the server from composing presence\ninformation reported by multiple devices under the same user's\ncontrol. On the whole, these difficulties render object encryption\nof presence information a doubtful prospect.", "char_start": 64007, "char_end": 66781, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 423}}, {"segment_id": "63780aa2-92cf-4ed2-a593-bb6aa0e160ab", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 28, "text": "Some protocols that support presence information, such as SIP, can\noperate intermediaries in a redirecting mode rather than a publishing\nor proxying mode. Instead of sending presence information through\nthe server, in other words, these protocols can merely redirect\nwatchers to the presentity, and then presence information could pass\ndirectly and securely from the presentity to the watcher. It is\nworth noting that this would disclose the IP address of the\npresentity to the watcher, which has its own set of risks. In that\ncase, the presentity can decide exactly what information it would\nlike to share with the watcher in question, it can authenticate the\nwatcher itself with whatever strength of credential it chooses, and\nwith end-to-end encryption it can reduce the likelihood of any\neavesdropping. In a redirection architecture, a presence server\ncould still provide the necessary \"offline\" indication without\nrequiring the presence server to observe and forward all information\nitself. This mechanism is more promising than encryption but also\nsuffers from significant difficulties. It too does not provide for\ncomposition of presence information from multiple devices -- it in\nfact forces the watcher to perform this composition itself. The\nlargest single impediment to this approach is, however, the\ndifficulty of creating end-to-end connections between the\npresentity's device(s) and a watcher, as some or all of these\nendpoints may be behind NATs or firewalls that prevent peer-to-peer\nconnections. While there are potential solutions for this problem,\nlike Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) and Traversal Using\nRelays around NAT (TURN), they add complexity to the overall system.\n\nConsequently, mediation is a difficult feature of the presence\narchitecture to remove. It is hard to minimize the data shared with\nintermediaries, especially due to the requirement for composition.\nControl over sharing with intermediaries must therefore come from\nsome other explicit component of the architecture. As such, the\npresence work in the IETF focused on improving user participation in\nthe activities of the presence server. This work began in the\nGEOPRIV working group, with controls on location privacy, as location\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 29]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nof users is perceived as having especially sensitive properties.\nWith the aim of meeting the privacy requirements defined in\n[\nRFC2779\n], a set of usage indications, such as whether retransmission\nis allowed or when the retention period expires, have been added to\nthe PIDF-LO such that they always travel with the location\ninformation itself. These privacy preferences apply not only to the\nintermediaries that store and forward presence information but also\nto the watchers who consume it.", "char_start": 66783, "char_end": 69589, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 429}}, {"segment_id": "aba1fb66-a939-44f3-9ecf-010ae2f96bb0", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 29, "text": "This approach very much follows the spirit of Creative Commons [\nCC\n],\nnamely the usage of a limited number of conditions (such as 'Share\nAlike' [\nCC-SA\n]). Unlike Creative Commons, the GEOPRIV working group\ndid not, however, initiate work to produce legal language or design\ngraphical icons, since this would fall outside the scope of the IETF.\nIn particular, the GEOPRIV rules state a preference on the retention\nand retransmission of location information; while GEOPRIV cannot\nforce any entity receiving a PIDF-LO object to abide by those\npreferences, if users lack the ability to express them at all, we can\nguarantee their preferences will not be honored. The GEOPRIV rules\ncan provide a means to establish accountability.\n\nThe retention and retransmission elements were envisioned as the most\nessential examples of preference expression in sharing presence. The\nPIDF object was designed for extensibility, and the rulesets created\nfor the PIDF-LO can also be extended to provide new expressions of\nuser preference. Not all user preference information should be bound\ninto a particular PIDF object, however; many forms of access control\npolicy assumed by the presence architecture need to be provisioned in\nthe presence server by some interface with the user. This\nrequirement eventually triggered the standardization of a general\naccess control policy language called the common policy framework\n(defined in [\nRFC4745\n]). This language allows one to express ways to\ncontrol the distribution of information as simple conditions,\nactions, and transformation rules expressed in an XML format. Common\nPolicy itself is an abstract format that needs to be instantiated:\ntwo examples can be found with the presence authorization rules\n[\nRFC5025\n] and the Geolocation Policy [\nRFC6772\n]. The former provides\nadditional expressiveness for presence-based systems, while the\nlatter defines syntax and semantics for location-based conditions and\ntransformations.", "char_start": 69591, "char_end": 71547, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 301}}, {"segment_id": "6be8a212-2a7f-4a15-ae02-7acc0e43c9d7", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 30, "text": "Ultimately, the privacy work on presence represents a compromise\nbetween privacy principles and the needs of the architecture and\nmarketplace. While it was not feasible to remove intermediaries from\nthe architecture entirely or prevent their access to presence\ninformation, the IETF did provide a way for users to express their\npreferences and provision their controls at the presence service. We\nhave not had great successes in the implementation space with privacy\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 30]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nmechanisms thus far, but by documenting and acknowledging the\nlimitations of these mechanisms, the designers were able to provide\nimplementers, and end users, with an informed perspective on the\nprivacy properties of the IETF's presence protocols.\n9\n. Security Considerations\nThis document describes privacy aspects that protocol designers\nshould consider in addition to regular security analysis.\n10\n. Acknowledgements\nWe would like to thank Christine Runnegar for her extensive helpful\nreview comments.\n\nWe would like to thank Scott Brim, Kasey Chappelle, Marc Linsner,\nBryan McLaughlin, Nick Mathewson, Eric Rescorla, Scott Bradner, Nat\nSakimura, Bjoern Hoehrmann, David Singer, Dean Willis, Lucy Lynch,\nTrent Adams, Mark Lizar, Martin Thomson, Josh Howlett, Mischa\nTuffield, S. Moonesamy, Zhou Sujing, Claudia Diaz, Leif Johansson,\nJeff Hodges, Stephen Farrell, Steven Johnston, Cullen Jennings, Ted\nHardie, Dave Thaler, Klaas Wierenga, Adrian Farrel, Stephane\nBortzmeyer, Dave Crocker, and Hector Santos for their useful feedback\non this document.\n\nFinally, we would like to thank the participants for the feedback\nthey provided during the December 2010 Internet Privacy workshop\nco-organized by MIT, ISOC, W3C, and the IAB.\n\nAlthough John Morris is currently employed by the U.S. Government, he\nparticipated in the development of this document in his personal\ncapacity, and the views expressed in the document may not reflect\nthose of his employer.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 31]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n11\n. IAB Members at the Time of Approval\nBernard Aboba\nJari Arkko\nMarc Blanchet\nRoss Callon\nAlissa Cooper\nSpencer Dawkins\nJoel Halpern\nRuss Housley\nEliot Lear\nXing Li\nAndrew Sullivan\nDave Thaler\nHannes Tschofenig\n12\n. Informative References\n[\nCC-SA\n] Creative Commons, \"Share Alike\", 2012,\n<\nhttp://wiki.creativecommons.org/Share_Alike\n>.", "char_start": 71549, "char_end": 73971, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 358}}, {"segment_id": "e365ac13-c530-4d18-ac70-c4b236bf180d", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 31, "text": "[\nCC\n] Creative Commons, \"Creative Commons\", 2012,\n<\nhttp://creativecommons.org/\n>.\n\n[\nCoE\n] Council of Europe, \"Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)13 of the\nCommittee of Ministers to member states on the protection\nof individuals with regard to automatic processing of\npersonal data in the context of profiling\", November 2010,\n<\nhttps://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec%282010%2913\n>.\n\n[\nEFF\n] Electronic Frontier Foundation, \"Panopticlick\", 2013,\n<\nhttp://panopticlick.eff.org\n>.\n\n[\nFIPs\n] Gellman, B., \"Fair Information Practices: A Basic\nHistory\", 2012,\n<\nhttp://bobgellman.com/rg-docs/rg-FIPShistory.pdf\n>.\n\n[\nOECD\n] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,\n\"OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and\nTransborder Flows of Personal Data\", (adopted 1980),\nSeptember 2010, <\nhttp://www.oecd.org/\n>.\n\n[\nPbD\n] Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner,\nOntario, Canada, \"Privacy by Design\", 2013,\n<\nhttp://privacybydesign.ca/\n>.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 32]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n[\nRFC2616\n] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,\nMasinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, \"Hypertext\nTransfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1\",\nRFC 2616\n, June 1999.\n\n[\nRFC2778\n] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, \"A Model for\nPresence and Instant Messaging\",\nRFC 2778\n, February 2000.\n\n[\nRFC2779\n] Day, M., Aggarwal, S., Mohr, G., and J. Vincent, \"Instant\nMessaging / Presence Protocol Requirements\",\nRFC 2779\n,\nFebruary 2000.\n\n[\nRFC3261\n] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,\nA., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.\nSchooler, \"SIP: Session Initiation Protocol\",\nRFC 3261\n,\nJune 2002.\n\n[\nRFC3325\n] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, \"Private\nExtensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for\nAsserted Identity within Trusted Networks\",\nRFC 3325\n,\nNovember 2002.", "char_start": 73973, "char_end": 75825, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 267}}, {"segment_id": "132bc94d-d4ba-404d-bba1-2c38f33c91e1", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 32, "text": "[\nRFC3552\n] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, \"Guidelines for Writing RFC\nText on Security Considerations\",\nBCP 72\n,\nRFC 3552\n,\nJuly 2003.\n\n[\nRFC3748\n] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.\nLevkowetz, \"Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)\",\nRFC 3748\n, June 2004.\n\n[\nRFC3856\n] Rosenberg, J., \"A Presence Event Package for the Session\nInitiation Protocol (SIP)\",\nRFC 3856\n, August 2004.\n\n[\nRFC3859\n] Peterson, J., \"Common Profile for Presence (CPP)\",\nRFC 3859\n, August 2004.\n\n[\nRFC3922\n] Saint-Andre, P., \"Mapping the Extensible Messaging and\nPresence Protocol (XMPP) to Common Presence and Instant\nMessaging (CPIM)\",\nRFC 3922\n, October 2004.\n\n[\nRFC4017\n] Stanley, D., Walker, J., and B. Aboba, \"Extensible\nAuthentication Protocol (EAP) Method Requirements for\nWireless LANs\",\nRFC 4017\n, March 2005.\n\n[\nRFC4079\n] Peterson, J., \"A Presence Architecture for the\nDistribution of GEOPRIV Location Objects\",\nRFC 4079\n,\nJuly 2005.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 33]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n[\nRFC4101\n] Rescorla, E. and IAB, \"Writing Protocol Models\",\nRFC 4101\n,\nJune 2005.\n\n[\nRFC4187\n] Arkko, J. and H. Haverinen, \"Extensible Authentication\nProtocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key\nAgreement (EAP-AKA)\",\nRFC 4187\n, January 2006.\n\n[\nRFC4282\n] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, \"The\nNetwork Access Identifier\",\nRFC 4282\n, December 2005.\n\n[\nRFC4745\n] Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Morris, J., Cuellar, J.,\nPolk, J., and J. Rosenberg, \"Common Policy: A Document\nFormat for Expressing Privacy Preferences\",\nRFC 4745\n,\nFebruary 2007.\n\n[\nRFC4918\n] Dusseault, L., \"HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed\nAuthoring and Versioning (WebDAV)\",\nRFC 4918\n, June 2007.\n\n[\nRFC4949\n] Shirey, R., \"Internet Security Glossary, Version 2\",\nRFC 4949\n, August 2007.", "char_start": 75827, "char_end": 77635, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 288}}, {"segment_id": "d4f860e0-8cf5-4dbf-ac00-f034f92384b6", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 33, "text": "[\nRFC5025\n] Rosenberg, J., \"Presence Authorization Rules\",\nRFC 5025\n,\nDecember 2007.\n\n[\nRFC5077\n] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,\n\"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without\nServer-Side State\",\nRFC 5077\n, January 2008.\n\n[\nRFC5106\n] Tschofenig, H., Kroeselberg, D., Pashalidis, A., Ohba, Y.,\nand F. Bersani, \"The Extensible Authentication Protocol-\nInternet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (EAP-IKEv2)\nMethod\",\nRFC 5106\n, February 2008.\n\n[\nRFC5246\n] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, \"The Transport Layer Security\n(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2\",\nRFC 5246\n, August 2008.\n\n[\nRFC6269\n] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.\nRoberts, \"Issues with IP Address Sharing\",\nRFC 6269\n,\nJune 2011.\n\n[\nRFC6280\n] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,\nTschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, \"An Architecture for\nLocation and Location Privacy in Internet Applications\",\nBCP 160\n,\nRFC 6280\n, July 2011.\n\n[\nRFC6302\n] Durand, A., Gashinsky, I., Lee, D., and S. Sheppard,\n\"Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers\",\nBCP 162\n,\nRFC 6302\n, June 2011.\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 34]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\n[\nRFC6350\n] Perreault, S., \"vCard Format Specification\",\nRFC 6350\n,\nAugust 2011.\n\n[\nRFC6562\n] Perkins, C. and JM. Valin, \"Guidelines for the Use of\nVariable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP\",\nRFC 6562\n,\nMarch 2012.\n\n[\nRFC6716\n] Valin, JM., Vos, K., and T. Terriberry, \"Definition of the\nOpus Audio Codec\",\nRFC 6716\n, September 2012.\n\n[\nRFC6772\n] Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Cuellar, J., Polk, J.,\nMorris, J., and M. Thomson, \"Geolocation Policy: A\nDocument Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for\nLocation Information\",\nRFC 6772\n, January 2013.\n\n[\nSolove\n] Solove, D., \"Understanding Privacy\", March 2010.\n\n[\nTor\n] The Tor Project, Inc., \"Tor\", 2013,\n<\nhttps://www.torproject.org/\n>.", "char_start": 77637, "char_end": 79502, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 299}}, {"segment_id": "935f3ed6-93d1-4ec3-b264-66e35d720d96", "document_id": "8ef15647-5a74-40e6-a420-d72d650a4f60", "ordinal": 34, "text": "[\nWestin\n] Kumaraguru, P. and L. Cranor, \"Privacy Indexes: A Survey\nof Westin's Studies\", December 2005,\n<\nhttp://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/isri2005/\nCMU-ISRI-05-138.pdf\n>.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nAlissa Cooper\nCDT\n1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100\nWashington, DC 20006\nUS\n\nPhone: +1-202-637-9800\nEMail: acooper@cdt.org\nURI:\nhttp://www.cdt.org/\nHannes Tschofenig\nNokia Siemens Networks\nLinnoitustie 6\nEspoo 02600\nFinland\n\nPhone: +358 (50) 4871445\nEMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net\nURI:\nhttp://www.tschofenig.priv.at\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 35]\nRFC 6973\nPrivacy Considerations July 2013\nBernard Aboba\nSkype\n\nEMail: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com\n\nJon Peterson\nNeuStar, Inc.\n1800 Sutter St. Suite 570\nConcord, CA 94520\nUS\n\nEMail: jon.peterson@neustar.biz\n\nJohn B. Morris, Jr.\n\nEMail: ietf@jmorris.org\n\nMarit Hansen\nULD\n\nEMail: marit.hansen@datenschutzzentrum.de\n\nRhys Smith\nJanet\n\nEMail: rhys.smith@ja.net\n\nCooper, et al. Informational [Page 36]\nRFC\n6973\n: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. Scope of Privacy Implications of Internet Protocols\n3. Terminology\n3.1. Entities\n3.2. Data and Analysis\n3.3. Identifiability\n4. Communications Model\n5. Privacy Threats\n5.1. Combined Security-Privacy Threats\n5.1.1. Surveillance\n5.1.2. Stored Data Compromise\n5.1.3. Intrusion\n5.1.4. Misattribution\n5.2. Privacy-Specific Threats\n5.2.1. Correlation\n5.2.2. Identification\n5.2.3. Secondary Use\n5.2.4. Disclosure\n5.2.5. Exclusion\n6. Threat Mitigations\n6.1. Data Minimization\n6.1.1. Anonymity\n6.1.2. Pseudonymity\n6.1.3. Identity Confidentiality\n6.1.4. Data Minimization within Identity Management\n6.2. User Participation\n6.3. Security\n7. Guidelines\n7.1. Data Minimization\n7.2. User Participation\n7.3. Security\n7.4. General\n8. Example\n9. Security Considerations\n10. Acknowledgements\n11. IAB Members at the Time of Approval\n12. Informative References\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 79504, "char_end": 81699, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 278}}], "published_at": "2013-07-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2013-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 6973 CDT\nCategory: Informational H. Tschofenig\nISSN: 2070-1721 Nokia Siemens Networks\nB. Aboba\nSkype\nJ. Peterson\nNeuStar, Inc.\nJ. Morris\n\nM. Hansen\nULD\nR. Smith\nJanet\nJuly 2013", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "90f8fe72-87de-48da-836c-a8c3e1e204fe", "source_id": "17f7768a3447bc458304fd3a", "source": "ISOC", "source_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/", "final_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/", "artifact_sha256": "5704e3ab51c0ebd9305860791f528a6cc133ba7aac3166b05d218ad8238cf546", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 219348, "title": "Resource Library: Papers, Briefs, Reports, and more - Internet Society", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 4755, "characters": 4755, "text": "Resource Library: Papers, Briefs, Reports, and more - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nResource Library\nEveryone should have access to an open and trusted Internet. Read our reports, papers, and other documents for insight and vision on how we can get there.\nTopic\nAbout Internet Society\n(43)\nCommunity\n(20)\nConnectivity\n(114)\nHow the Internet Works\n(161)\nInternet Governance\n(82)\nInternet Policy\n(79)\nRebuilding Trust\n(342)\nPrivacy\n(104)\nSecurity\n(162)\nRegion\nAfrica\n(26)\nAsia-Pacific\n(46)\nEurope\n(32)\nGlobal\n(525)\nLatin America & Caribbean\n(12)\nMiddle East\n(8)\nNorth America\n(25)\nResource Type\nAll OTA Resources\nDeploy360 Technical Resources\nInternet Impact Briefs\nPolicy Briefs\nResource\n6 August 2026\nConnectivity\nShutdown Trends from 2019 to 2025: Where Do We Go from Here\nGlobal report on Internet shutdowns (2019–2025) exposes their human rights impact, economic disruption, and rising normalization across 61 countries ...\n3 July 2026\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nNon-Paper on WSIS+20 Implementation\nWhen executed well, the WSIS framework has the potential to effectively extend connectivity, close digital divides, and enhance online safety ...\n18 June 2026\nRebuilding Trust\nPolicy Brief: Solving Crime Without Breaking Encryption\nProtecting strong encryption is not an obstacle to public safety, child protection, or crime prevention. It is a prerequisite for ...\n28 May 2026\nAbout Internet Society\nCommunity\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nConnectivity\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity in Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement, Uganda\nInternet Society and partners empower Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement in Uganda with community‐owned connectivity, digital skills, and sustainable inclusion ...\n15 May 2026\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nThe Peering Disconnect\nThis report examines the risks of centralized and virtual peering, showing how monopolies and outages threaten resilience, and why local ...\n9 April 2026\nAbout Internet Society\nCommunity\nCommunity in Action 2025\nIn 2025, the Internet Society community defended encryption, built networks to close the digital divide, advanced online safety, and secured ...\n3 April 2026\nCommunity\nMobilization Resources\nUse these resources to support our collective vision of an open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet for everyone ...\n31 March 2026\nAbout Internet Society\nCommunity\nConnectivity\nRebuilding Trust\n2025 Annual Report\nThe report outlines how our global community rose to the challenge of our ambitious five-year strategy to expand affordable, reliable ...\n19 December 2025\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Interconnection and Regulated Traffic Obligations\nThis policy brief examines the growing pressure to regulate the relationships between online services and telecommunications operators ...\n1\n2\n3\n...\n75\n›\nAnnual Reports and Financials\nOn annual basis, we publish annual reports (an Action Plan and Impact Report), as well as financial reports, annual financial statements, and Form 990s.\nPolicy Briefs\nOur perspective on critical Internet issues, including community networks, encryption, open Internet standards, Internet Exchange Points, and more.\nInternet Impact Briefs\nShorter reports that analyze how different policies or new technologies may affect what the Internet needs to exist and thrive.\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nURL\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f26a43bd-dc6a-4cf8-85a3-66de55537716", "document_id": "90f8fe72-87de-48da-836c-a8c3e1e204fe", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Resource Library: Papers, Briefs, Reports, and more - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nResource Library\nEveryone should have access to an open and trusted Internet. Read our reports, papers, and other documents for insight and vision on how we can get there.\nTopic\nAbout Internet Society\n(43)\nCommunity\n(20)\nConnectivity\n(114)\nHow the Internet Works\n(161)\nInternet Governance\n(82)\nInternet Policy\n(79)\nRebuilding Trust\n(342)\nPrivacy\n(104)\nSecurity\n(162)\nRegion\nAfrica\n(26)\nAsia-Pacific\n(46)\nEurope\n(32)\nGlobal\n(525)\nLatin America & Caribbean\n(12)\nMiddle East\n(8)\nNorth America\n(25)\nResource Type\nAll OTA Resources\nDeploy360 Technical Resources\nInternet Impact Briefs\nPolicy Briefs\nResource\n6 August 2026\nConnectivity\nShutdown Trends from 2019 to 2025: Where Do We Go from Here\nGlobal report on Internet shutdowns (2019–2025) exposes their human rights impact, economic disruption, and rising normalization across 61 countries ...\n3 July 2026\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nNon-Paper on WSIS+20 Implementation\nWhen executed well, the WSIS framework has the potential to effectively extend connectivity, close digital divides, and enhance online safety ...\n18 June 2026\nRebuilding Trust\nPolicy Brief: Solving Crime Without Breaking Encryption\nProtecting strong encryption is not an obstacle to public safety, child protection, or crime prevention. It is a prerequisite for ...\n28 May 2026\nAbout Internet Society\nCommunity\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nConnectivity\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity in Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement, Uganda\nInternet Society and partners empower Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement in Uganda with community‐owned connectivity, digital skills, and sustainable inclusion ...\n15 May 2026\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nThe Peering Disconnect\nThis report examines the risks of centralized and virtual peering, showing how monopolies and outages threaten resilience, and why local ...\n9 April 2026\nAbout Internet Society\nCommunity\nCommunity in Action 2025\nIn 2025, the Internet Society community defended encryption, built networks to close the digital divide, advanced online safety, and secured ...\n3 April 2026\nCommunity\nMobilization Resources\nUse these resources to support our collective vision of an open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet for everyone ...\n31 March 2026\nAbout Internet Society\nCommunity\nConnectivity\nRebuilding Trust\n2025 Annual Report\nThe report outlines how our global community rose to the challenge of our ambitious five-year strategy to expand affordable, reliable ...\n19 December 2025\nConnectivity\nInternet Policy\nPolicy Brief: Interconnection and Regulated Traffic Obligations\nThis policy brief examines the growing pressure to regulate the relationships between online services and telecommunications operators ...\n1\n2\n3\n...\n75\n›\nAnnual Reports and Financials\nOn annual basis, we publish annual reports (an Action Plan and Impact Report), as well as financial reports, annual financial statements, and Form 990s.\nPolicy Briefs\nOur perspective on critical Internet issues, including community networks, encryption, open Internet standards, Internet Exchange Points, and more.\nInternet Impact Briefs\nShorter reports that analyze how different policies or new technologies may affect what the Internet needs to exist and thrive.\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nURL\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4755, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 696}}], "published_at": "2026-08-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2026-08-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "\n6 August 2026\n", "notes": "Month Year date pattern in document text"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "917c0476-5b2c-4e98-8ea0-e365c0a6e8e5", "source_id": "5b51405c7b27c7ff1d079db9", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/regional-reports", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/regional-reports-2027-2026-07-29-en", "artifact_sha256": "5596e34681d28d85cbcda0635774f79f6cb042e13acab86088d2d7a76666754a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 70828, "title": "ICANN Regional Plans and Reports | 2027 - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 10558, "characters": 10558, "text": "ICANN Regional Plans and Reports | 2027 - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Regional Plans and Reports | 2027\n2027\n|\n2026\n|\n2025\n|\n2024\n|\n2023\n|\n2022\n|\n2021\n|\n2020\n|\n2019\n|\n2018\n|\n2017\n|\n2016\n|\n2015\nMiddle East Regional Reports\nME FY27 Implementation Plan\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "0ff1c879-952e-49c3-8f0b-da90e5638369", "document_id": "917c0476-5b2c-4e98-8ea0-e365c0a6e8e5", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Regional Plans and Reports | 2027 - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Regional Plans and Reports | 2027\n2027\n|\n2026\n|\n2025\n|\n2024\n|\n2023\n|\n2022\n|\n2021\n|\n2020\n|\n2019\n|\n2018\n|\n2017\n|\n2016\n|\n2015\nMiddle East Regional Reports\nME FY27 Implementation Plan\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 10558, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1417}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "92083864-9a70-4ffd-a94d-ab66b1c85a8c", "source_id": "00cac471e4033cbdcbce8fcd", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/compliance/complaint", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/compliance/complaint", "artifact_sha256": "dcedad6bf91b7a35d11fef778d50aa6589eae2a1ebe13a9540e173dfa9c90f01", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 78665, "title": "Submitting a Complaint to ICANN Contractual Compliance - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 15214, "characters": 15214, "text": "Submitting a Complaint to ICANN Contractual Compliance - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nSubmitting a Complaint to ICANN Contractual Compliance\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nTo submit a complaint, select the form next to the issue which best describes your concern in the chart below. Before submitting your complaint, please read the information on this page in its entirety.\nICANN has executed certain agreements with\nregistrars\nand\nregistry operators\n.\nICANN's Contractual Compliance authority is limited to the obligations set forth in these agreements\n. These agreements are the\nRegistrar Accreditation Agreement\n, the\nRegistry Agreements\nand the\nConsensus Policies\n. If your issue is outside of this contractual scope or if it involves a party over whom ICANN has no compliance enforcement powers, ICANN will provide you with alternative avenues you may want to pursue.\nAdditional information on how to submit complaints concerning requests for access to non-public registration data can be found\nhere\n.\nInformation regarding existing policies and requirements, and ongoing policy development work involving Domain Name Registration Data is available\nhere\n.\nThe Registration Data associated with a domain name may be available by performing a search\nhere\n.\nICANN has no contractual authority to address complaints involving\ncountry code top-level domains\n(ccTLDs), such as .us, .eu, .ac, or\ndomain names registered under a ccTLD\n(e.g. example.us, example.eu, example.ac). ICANN does not accredit registrars or set policy for ccTLDs and has no contractual authority to take compliance action against ccTLD operators. For inquiries and issues involving ccTLDs, you may wish to contact the relevant ccTLD manager using the contact details at\nhttps://www.iana.org/domains/root/db\n. This page will also help you determine which top-level domains (\nTLDs\n) are country codes (outside of ICANN's scope) and which ones are generic (within ICANN's scope).\nICANN does not have contractual authority or the technical ability to return a lost\ndomain name\nto you.\nAdditional information on lost domain names can be found at\nhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lost-domain-names\n.\nFor information about the process and approach used by ICANN Contractual Compliance to address complaints, please visit\nhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en\n.\nThe information provided to ICANN via the complaint forms is subject to Section 2 of ICANN's\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nIssue\nAdditional information & Submit Complaint\nA registrar's failure to:\nDisplay abuse contacts and procedures.\nInvestigate and respond to an abuse report involving a domain name registered with the registrar.\nTake mitigation action(s) to stop or disrupt the use of a domain name for DNS Abuse (malware, botnets, phishing, pharming, and spam when spam is used to deliver any of the other four types of DNS Abuse).\nA registry operator's failure to:\nDisplay abuse contact.\nTake mitigation action(s) to contribute to stopping or disrupting the use of a domain name for DNS Abuse (malware, botnets, phishing, pharming, and spam when spam is used to deliver any of the other four types of DNS Abuse).\nSUBMITTING DNS ABUSE COMPLAINTS TO ICANN: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE\nAbuse/DNS Abuse (Registrar)\nDNS Abuse (Registry that operates the TLD)\nThe transfer of a domain name to a different registrar and/or registrant\nTransfer\nThe renewal and/or redemption of a domain name\nRenewal/Redemption\nThe Registration Data associated with a domain name\nRegistration Data is inaccurate or missing\nRequest for disclosure of Registration Data by a third party with legitimate interest was denied or not responded to\nRegistrant requested and consented to the display of their own Registration Data, but it is not displayed\nThe suspension or deletion of a domain name for which I am or was the holder\nDomain name remains suspended or deleted even after responding to Registration Data verification inquiries\nThe service through which a registrar or registry operator is displaying Registration Data\nThe WHOIS/RDAP service is not operative\nDispute Resolution Policies & Procedures\nUniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP)\nUniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) (Registry)\nUniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) (Registrar)\nPublic Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP)\nRegistry-Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP)\nTrademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (Trademark PDDRP)\nA Privacy/Proxy registration or service\nPrivacy/Proxy\nAccess to the zone file of a TLD\nZone File Access\nA name that has been or must have been reserved by the registry operator\nReserved Names\nA registry operator not abiding by the code of conduct of its Registry Agreement\nCode of Conduct\nA contractual compliance issue not identified above\nGeneric Registrar Complaint\nGeneric Registry Complaint\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "57acb41d-5947-4aeb-bd02-0d584a008668", "document_id": "92083864-9a70-4ffd-a94d-ab66b1c85a8c", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Submitting a Complaint to ICANN Contractual Compliance - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nSubmitting a Complaint to ICANN Contractual Compliance\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nTo submit a complaint, select the form next to the issue which best describes your concern in the chart below. Before submitting your complaint, please read the information on this page in its entirety.\nICANN has executed certain agreements with\nregistrars\nand\nregistry operators\n.\nICANN's Contractual Compliance authority is limited to the obligations set forth in these agreements\n. These agreements are the\nRegistrar Accreditation Agreement\n, the\nRegistry Agreements\nand the\nConsensus Policies\n. If your issue is outside of this contractual scope or if it involves a party over whom ICANN has no compliance enforcement powers, ICANN will provide you with alternative avenues you may want to pursue.\nAdditional information on how to submit complaints concerning requests for access to non-public registration data can be found\nhere\n.\nInformation regarding existing policies and requirements, and ongoing policy development work involving Domain Name Registration Data is available\nhere\n.\nThe Registration Data associated with a domain name may be available by performing a search\nhere\n.\nICANN has no contractual authority to address complaints involving\ncountry code top-level domains\n(ccTLDs), such as .us, .eu, .ac, or\ndomain names registered under a ccTLD\n(e.g. example.us, example.eu, example.ac). ICANN does not accredit registrars or set policy for ccTLDs and has no contractual authority to take compliance action against ccTLD operators. For inquiries and issues involving ccTLDs, you may wish to contact the relevant ccTLD manager using the contact details at\nhttps://www.iana.org/domains/root/db\n. This page will also help you determine which top-level domains (\nTLDs\n) are country codes (outside of ICANN's scope) and which ones are generic (within ICANN's scope).\nICANN does not have contractual authority or the technical ability to return a lost\ndomain name\nto you.\nAdditional information on lost domain names can be found at\nhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lost-domain-names\n.\nFor information about the process and approach used by ICANN Contractual Compliance to address complaints, please visit\nhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en\n.\nThe information provided to ICANN via the complaint forms is subject to Section 2 of ICANN's\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nIssue\nAdditional information & Submit Complaint\nA registrar's failure to:\nDisplay abuse contacts and procedures.\nInvestigate and respond to an abuse report involving a domain name registered with the registrar.\nTake mitigation action(s) to stop or disrupt the use of a domain name for DNS Abuse (malware, botnets, phishing, pharming, and spam when spam is used to deliver any of the other four types of DNS Abuse).\nA registry operator's failure to:\nDisplay abuse contact.\nTake mitigation action(s) to contribute to stopping or disrupting the use of a domain name for DNS Abuse (malware, botnets, phishing, pharming, and spam when spam is used to deliver any of the other four types of DNS Abuse).\nSUBMITTING DNS ABUSE COMPLAINTS TO ICANN: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE\nAbuse/DNS Abuse (Registrar)\nDNS Abuse (Registry that operates the TLD)\nThe transfer of a domain name to a different registrar and/or registrant\nTransfer\nThe renewal and/or redemption of a domain name\nRenewal/Redemption\nThe Registration Data associated with a domain name\nRegistration Data is inaccurate or missing\nRequest for disclosure of Registration Data by a third party with legitimate interest was denied or not responded to\nRegistrant requested and consented to the display of their own Registration Data, but it is not displayed\nThe suspension or deletion of a domain name for which I am or was the holder\nDomain name remains suspended or deleted even after responding to Registration Data verification inquiries\nThe service through which a registrar or registry operator is displaying Registration Data\nThe WHOIS/RDAP service is not operative\nDispute Resolution Policies & Procedures\nUniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP)\nUniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) (Registry)\nUniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) (Registrar)\nPublic Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP)\nRegistry-Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP)\nTrademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (Trademark PDDRP)\nA Privacy/Proxy registration or service\nPrivacy/Proxy\nAccess to the zone file of a TLD\nZone File Access\nA name that has been or must have been reserved by the registry operator\nReserved Names\nA registry operator not abiding by the code of conduct of its Registry Agreement\nCode of Conduct\nA contractual compliance issue not identified above\nGeneric Registrar Complaint\nGeneric Registry Complaint\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 15214, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 11, "word_count": 2091}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "92d18e97-cf56-45c4-967e-d3b5e9b986f4", "source_id": "79c248c775e91c35c61ca368", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/pp-services-2017-08-31-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/accredited-registrars/privacy-and-proxy-service-providers", "artifact_sha256": "310b785b653e1c311718ad1085bb4b938799a789081f2ff97787d4297c578676", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 303354, "title": "Information for Privacy and Proxy Service Providers, Customers and Third-Party Requesters", "language": "en", "text_length": 4870, "characters": 4870, "text": "Information for Privacy and Proxy Service Providers, Customers and Third-Party Requesters\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nAccredited Registrars\nAn accredited registrar is an entity that offers domain name registration services to registrants of a generic top-level domain (gTLD) with direct access to the gTLD registries.\nSubscribe\nContracted Parties Home\nAccredited Registrars\nRegistrar Accreditation\nRegistrar Resources\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\n日本語\nPortuguês\nInformation for Privacy and Proxy Service Providers, Customers and Third-Party Requesters\nPrivacy and proxy service providers offer services that permit customers to register a domain name without publishing the customer's contact information in the Registration Data Directory Service (RDDS), also known as WHOIS.\nA\nPrivacy Service\nallows a customer to register a domain name as the registered domain name holder (meaning that the customer's name appears in the registrant name\" field in WHOIS). Alternative, reliable contact information (such as a mail-forwarding email address) is published by the service provider in place of the customer's personal contact information.\nA\nProxy Service\nallows a customer to use a domain name without displaying any of the customer's information in WHOIS. The proxy service provider is the registrant of record (the registered domain name holder) and provides alternative, reliable contact information. This service is legally distinct from a privacy service because the proxy service provider is the registered domain name holder (which attaches certain legal rights and responsibilities for a domain). The proxy service provider licenses use of the domain name to the customer via its agreement with the customer.\n2013 RAA\nThe\n2013 RAA\nrequires that privacy and proxy service providers that are affiliated with an ICANN-accredited registrar to:\nDisclose service terms (including pricing), on the provider's website and/or registrar's website and abide by such terms;\nPublish an abuse/infringement point of contact;\nDisclose the business contact information on the provider's website and/or registrar's website; and\nPublish and abide by terms of service and description of procedures on its website and/or registrar's website, such as handling of abuse or trademark infringement reports, communication handling, conditions of ending service, WHOIS data publication conditions, and access to support services.\nIf you have a complaint regarding any of these items, please submit a\nPrivacy/Proxy Registration Complaint Form\n.\nNew ICANN Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program\nICANN is implementing a new accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers pursuant to\npolicy recommendations\n[PDF, 1.24 MB] developed through the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy development process. Once this program is fully implemented, ICANN-accredited registrars may not knowingly accept registrations involving a privacy and/or proxy service from an entity that is not accredited by the ICANN organization.\nIf you would like to submit an inquiry about the Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program, please contact the ICANN\nGlobal Support Center\n.\nQuick Links\nList of ICANN-Accredited Privacy and Proxy Service Providers\nPrivacy and Proxy Service Provider Customer Educational Information\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "6a8d69bd-33c5-4a26-805d-07a9b69a060a", "document_id": "92d18e97-cf56-45c4-967e-d3b5e9b986f4", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Information for Privacy and Proxy Service Providers, Customers and Third-Party Requesters\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nAccredited Registrars\nAn accredited registrar is an entity that offers domain name registration services to registrants of a generic top-level domain (gTLD) with direct access to the gTLD registries.\nSubscribe\nContracted Parties Home\nAccredited Registrars\nRegistrar Accreditation\nRegistrar Resources\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\n日本語\nPortuguês\nInformation for Privacy and Proxy Service Providers, Customers and Third-Party Requesters\nPrivacy and proxy service providers offer services that permit customers to register a domain name without publishing the customer's contact information in the Registration Data Directory Service (RDDS), also known as WHOIS.\nA\nPrivacy Service\nallows a customer to register a domain name as the registered domain name holder (meaning that the customer's name appears in the registrant name\" field in WHOIS). Alternative, reliable contact information (such as a mail-forwarding email address) is published by the service provider in place of the customer's personal contact information.\nA\nProxy Service\nallows a customer to use a domain name without displaying any of the customer's information in WHOIS. The proxy service provider is the registrant of record (the registered domain name holder) and provides alternative, reliable contact information. This service is legally distinct from a privacy service because the proxy service provider is the registered domain name holder (which attaches certain legal rights and responsibilities for a domain). The proxy service provider licenses use of the domain name to the customer via its agreement with the customer.\n2013 RAA\nThe\n2013 RAA\nrequires that privacy and proxy service providers that are affiliated with an ICANN-accredited registrar to:\nDisclose service terms (including pricing), on the provider's website and/or registrar's website and abide by such terms;\nPublish an abuse/infringement point of contact;\nDisclose the business contact information on the provider's website and/or registrar's website; and\nPublish and abide by terms of service and description of procedures on its website and/or registrar's website, such as handling of abuse or trademark infringement reports, communication handling, conditions of ending service, WHOIS data publication conditions, and access to support services.\nIf you have a complaint regarding any of these items, please submit a\nPrivacy/Proxy Registration Complaint Form\n.\nNew ICANN Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program\nICANN is implementing a new accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers pursuant to\npolicy recommendations\n[PDF, 1.24 MB] developed through the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy development process. Once this program is fully implemented, ICANN-accredited registrars may not knowingly accept registrations involving a privacy and/or proxy service from an entity that is not accredited by the ICANN organization.\nIf you would like to submit an inquiry about the Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program, please contact the ICANN\nGlobal Support Center\n.\nQuick Links\nList of ICANN-Accredited Privacy and Proxy Service Providers\nPrivacy and Proxy Service Provider Customer Educational Information\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4870, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 688}}], "published_at": "2017-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2017-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2017-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "93a57e3a-a44a-49e4-b58b-772c374b8e8a", "source_id": "f5329d49cb0ce387bfc99c80", "source": "UN", "source_url": "https://www.un.org/en/desa/products/policy-briefs", "final_url": "https://www.un.org/en/desa/products/policy-briefs", "artifact_sha256": "bab794959402c5843f946d63efd46f53d742b3f2417ef5203dd4683f6f58dc2f", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 74911, "title": "Policy Briefs | United Nations", "language": "en", "text_length": 1828, "characters": 1828, "text": "Policy Briefs | United Nations\nSkip to main content\nToggle navigation\nWelcome to the United Nations\nالعربية\n中文\nNederlands\nEnglish\nFrançais\nDeutsch\nKreyòl\nहिन्दी\nBahasa Indonesia\nItaliano\nPolski\nPortuguês\nРусский\nEspañol\nKiswahili\nTürkçe\nУкраїнська\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nToggle navigation\nHome\nAbout Us\n»\nLeadership\nAdvisory Board\nPolicy Dialogues\nECESA\n2030 Agenda Task Force\nOrganigramme\nContact Us\nWhat We Do\n»\nIntergovernmental Support\nAnalysis\nCapacity Building\nKey Topics\n»\nClimate Action\nData\nFinancing\nGlobal Partnerships\nHLPF\nLeaving No One Behind\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nStrengthening Institutions\nThought Leadership\nLatest from DESA\nProducts\n»\nPublications\nDatabases\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nWebinars\nStatements\nVideos\nUN DESA Voice\nHighlights Report\n»\n2025\n2023-2024\n2022-2023\n2021-2022\n2020-2021\n2019-2020\n2018-2019\nCalendar\nPolicy Briefs\nAbout UN DESA\nWhat We Do\nLeadership\nAdvisory Board\nPolicy Dialogues\nECESA\nOrganigramme\nKey Topics\nClimate Action\nData\nFinancing\nGlobal Partnerships\nHLPF\nLeaving No One Behind\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nStrengthening Institutions\nThought Leadership\nUN DESA Products\nPublications\nDatabases\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nWebinars\nStatements\nUN DESA Voice\nVideos\nUN DESA Divisions\nOffice of Intergovernmental Support and Coordination for Sustainable Development\nDivision for Sustainable Development Goals\nPopulation Division\nDivision for Public Institutions and Digital Government\nFinancing for Sustainable Development Office\nDivision for Inclusive Social Development\nStatistics Division\nEconomic Analysis and Policy Division\nUnited Nations Forum on Forests\nCapacity Development Programme Management Office\nUnited Nations\nDonate\nfacebook\ntwitter\nyoutube\nlinkedin\nA-Z Site Index\nContact\nCopyright\nFAQ\nFraud Alert\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use", "segments": [{"segment_id": "5534388c-76c4-4382-b827-6b75e19cb6fd", "document_id": "93a57e3a-a44a-49e4-b58b-772c374b8e8a", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Policy Briefs | United Nations\nSkip to main content\nToggle navigation\nWelcome to the United Nations\nالعربية\n中文\nNederlands\nEnglish\nFrançais\nDeutsch\nKreyòl\nहिन्दी\nBahasa Indonesia\nItaliano\nPolski\nPortuguês\nРусский\nEspañol\nKiswahili\nTürkçe\nУкраїнська\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nToggle navigation\nHome\nAbout Us\n»\nLeadership\nAdvisory Board\nPolicy Dialogues\nECESA\n2030 Agenda Task Force\nOrganigramme\nContact Us\nWhat We Do\n»\nIntergovernmental Support\nAnalysis\nCapacity Building\nKey Topics\n»\nClimate Action\nData\nFinancing\nGlobal Partnerships\nHLPF\nLeaving No One Behind\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nStrengthening Institutions\nThought Leadership\nLatest from DESA\nProducts\n»\nPublications\nDatabases\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nWebinars\nStatements\nVideos\nUN DESA Voice\nHighlights Report\n»\n2025\n2023-2024\n2022-2023\n2021-2022\n2020-2021\n2019-2020\n2018-2019\nCalendar\nPolicy Briefs\nAbout UN DESA\nWhat We Do\nLeadership\nAdvisory Board\nPolicy Dialogues\nECESA\nOrganigramme\nKey Topics\nClimate Action\nData\nFinancing\nGlobal Partnerships\nHLPF\nLeaving No One Behind\nScience, Technology and Innovation\nStrengthening Institutions\nThought Leadership\nUN DESA Products\nPublications\nDatabases\nPolicy Briefs\nWorking Papers\nWebinars\nStatements\nUN DESA Voice\nVideos\nUN DESA Divisions\nOffice of Intergovernmental Support and Coordination for Sustainable Development\nDivision for Sustainable Development Goals\nPopulation Division\nDivision for Public Institutions and Digital Government\nFinancing for Sustainable Development Office\nDivision for Inclusive Social Development\nStatistics Division\nEconomic Analysis and Policy Division\nUnited Nations Forum on Forests\nCapacity Development Programme Management Office\nUnited Nations\nDonate\nfacebook\ntwitter\nyoutube\nlinkedin\nA-Z Site Index\nContact\nCopyright\nFAQ\nFraud Alert\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1828, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 242}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "9562324a-9da5-4a80-ae1c-0996905a4c91", "source_id": "696c959d88d92ece8342c65c", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://www.intgovforum.org/en", "final_url": "https://www.intgovforum.org/en", "artifact_sha256": "5c6338bf5c0df41a89917cb55c99a6aa7d6b6c86e3e5aa9fecb934af079c8048", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 196384, "title": "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "language": "en", "text_length": 10118, "characters": 10118, "text": "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nThe\nIGF\nis a\nglobal multistakeholder platform\nthat facilitates the\ndiscussion of public policy issues\npertaining to\nthe Internet\n.\nAbout the IGF\nThe Internet Governance Forum brings people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While there is no negotiated outcome, the\nIGF\ninforms and inspires those with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors — helping delegates exchange information and share good practices, and facilitating a common understanding of how to maximize opportunities and address risks.\nHow can I engage?\nIGF 2026\nThe\nIGF 2026 process\nis underway, with preparations for the 21st annual\nIGF\nmeeting and the 2026 intersessional work programme. This year's meeting will take place in Nairobi, Kenya, from 14 to 18 December 2026, under the overarching theme, “\nGoverning the Internet in the Age of Intelligence: Our Shared Responsibility\n”. It will be the first gathering of the global multistakeholder community following the United Nations General Assembly's decision to establish the\nIGF\nas a permanent UN forum (\nA/RES/80/173\n). Building on the outcomes of the\nprevious 20 IGF meetings\n, the 2026 process will continue to advance inclusive, multistakeholder dialogue on Internet governance and digital policy issues.\nLearn more\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 MAG\nLatest News\nMAG Chair Office Hours\n28 July 2026\nCome with your questions and join the next edition of\nMAG Chair Office Hours\n. All are welcome on\nWednesday 29 July at 5:00 UTC\n. Register\nhere\n.\nRead more\nIGF Workshop Proposals Webinar\n24 July 2026\nMissed the\nworkshops submission webinar\non 23 July? You can watch the recording and access the presentation\nhere\n.\nRead more\nFrom Words to Action\n03 July 2026\nRead\nIGF\nMAG\nChair Jennifer Chung's\nblog post\non a running start to\nIGF\n2026, recent decisions taken by the\nMAG\n, and on new\nMAG\nChair 'office hours'.\nRead more\nIGF 2026 Calls Launched!\n29 June 2026\nNow open!\nWe are calling for\nsession proposals\n,\napplications for IGF Village booths\n, and\nremote hubs\nahead of\nIGF\n2026 in Nairobi, Kenya (14-18 December)\n. All are invited to make submissions by the shared\ndeadline\nof\n31 July 2026, 23:59 UTC\n.\nRead more\nView all news\nKeep up to date by subscribing to our newsletter\nIGF Community Updates\nBIGF and AIUB Sign Agreement to Promote Inclusive AI Governance in Bangladesh.\n28-Jul-2026\nBIGF Joins National Economic Diplomacy Conference, Calls for Digital Governance to Be Central to Bangladesh’s Growth Roadmap\n18-Jun-2026\nDC\n-IS3C hosts webinar on the transition to Post‐Quantum Cryptography. Click\nHERE\nto view the recording and slide decks.\n27-Feb-2026\nBangladesh IGF Digital Governance Manifesto Recommendations\n05-Feb-2026\nThe Internet Society Foundation will begin accepting applications for funding through their\nIGF sponsorship program\non 6 January 2026!\n16-Dec-2025\nPreserving the Internet - Review the 2025 PNIF Draft Recommendations\n28-Oct-2025\nNew Documents and Reports From The Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability\n01-Oct-2025\nRegister now for LACIGF in Córdoba, Argentina, 5-6 November!\n24-Sep-2025\nIGF Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI) Meeting 29 September!\n24-Sep-2025\nIGF Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) Webinar 30 September!\n24-Sep-2025\nRegister for SEEDIG's 10th Anniversary in Athens, Greece | 10–11 October 2025\n23-Sep-2025\nRegistration for Asia Pacific IGF 2025 is now open!\n23-Sep-2025\nIGF on Social Media\nLoading...\nThe Internet We Want\nWatch Internet pioneer and\nIGF\nLeadership Chair Vint Cerf as he reflects on the Internet’s role as a public good—and the importance of theIGF in keeping it that way.\nUN's Global Advocate for Human-centric Digital Governance | Joseph Gordon-Levitt\nThe\nIGF\nis pleased to announce that actor and filmmaker Joseph Gordon-Levitt is officially the UN Global Advocate for Human-centric Digital Governance!\nDigital Trust and Inclusion\nWatch Nobel Peace Laureate and\nIGF\nLeadership Panel Co-Chair Maria Ressa share why digital trust and inclusion are vital for our future.\nQuick search\nFind latest news related to the\nIGF\nand digital policy with advanced filters\nSearch news\nFind and connect with people in the\nIGF\ncommunity\nSearch people\nFind past and future events\nSearch events\nFind National, (Sub)Regional, and Youth Initiatives\nSearch initiatives\nFind\nIGF\nsession transcripts with advanced filtering\nSearch transcripts\nFind\nIGF\nsession reports with advanced filters\nSearch reports\nDonors to Trust Fund\nThe Swiss Education & Research Network (SWITCH)\nInternational Chamber of Commerce (ICC) - Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS)\nEuropean Commission\nSummit Strategies International\nNumber Resource Organization (NRO)\nUNINETT Norid\nChina Energy Fund Committee\nDanish Internet Forum\nGovernment of Portugal - Fundacao Para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia\nGovernment of Japan\nGovernment of the Republic of Korea\nGovernment of the Netherlands\nGovernment of Switzerland\nNIKKEI DigitalCORE\nNic.at The Austrian Registry\nVerisign\nThe Walt Disney Company\nGoogle\nThe Internet Society (ISOC)\nAmazon\nGovernment of Germany\nMicrosoft Corporation\nGovernment of the United States\nauDA Australia's Domain Name Administrator\nNIC-MEXICO\nNominet UK\nTides Foundation\nCISCO\nPolitecnico di Torino\nAT&T\nBrazilian Internet Steering Committee\nCommunity DNS\nAfilias Global Registry Services\nMCADE, LLC.\nEuropean Registry for Internet domains (EURid)\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)\nVerizon\nGovernment of Sweden\nThe Internet Society Foundation\nEuropean Telecommunication Network Operators' Association\nMeta\nRibose Inc\nCoordination Center for TLD RU\nSiemens Aktiengesellschaft - Communications / Nokia Siemens Networks\nIGFSA\nGovernment of the United Kingdom\nGovernment of Norway\nGovernment of Finland\nQuick Links\nIGF ANNUAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS\nProceedings for each of the annual\nIGF\nmeetings held since 2006.\nBEST PRACTICE FORUMS\nBPFs provide a platform to exchange experiences in addressing Internet policy issues.\nDYNAMIC COALITIONS\nExplore Dynamic Coalitions. These are open, multistakeholder groups dedicated to an Internet governance issue.\nPOLICY NETWORKS\nThe\nmandate\n‎of the Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) calls for discussing digital public policy issues.\nCAPACITY DEVELOPMENT\nThe\nIGF\nSecretariat, supported by generous contributions from its donors, supports community-centered processes.\nIGF INITIATIVES\nIGF\norganizes National and Regional\nIGF\ninitiatives (\nNRIs\n) to address issues more specifically.\nPrevious IGF Events\n2025 IGF Lillestrøm\n2024 IGF Riyadh\n2023 IGF Kyoto\n2022 IGF Addis Ababa\n2021 IGF Katowice\n2020 IGF vIGF\n2019 IGF Berlin\n2018 IGF Paris\n2017 IGF Geneva\n2016 IGF Jalisco\n2015 IGF João Pessoa\n2014 IGF Istanbul\n2013 IGF Bali\n2012 IGF Baku\n2011 IGF Nairobi\n2010 IGF Vilnius\n2009 IGF Sharm El Sheikh\n2008 IGF Hyderabad\n2007 IGF Rio de Janeiro\n2006 IGF Athens\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f3d30056-7978-4b2a-82ef-9b912495c8fa", "document_id": "9562324a-9da5-4a80-ae1c-0996905a4c91", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nThe\nIGF\nis a\nglobal multistakeholder platform\nthat facilitates the\ndiscussion of public policy issues\npertaining to\nthe Internet\n.\nAbout the IGF\nThe Internet Governance Forum brings people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While there is no negotiated outcome, the\nIGF\ninforms and inspires those with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors — helping delegates exchange information and share good practices, and facilitating a common understanding of how to maximize opportunities and address risks.\nHow can I engage?\nIGF 2026\nThe\nIGF 2026 process\nis underway, with preparations for the 21st annual\nIGF\nmeeting and the 2026 intersessional work programme. This year's meeting will take place in Nairobi, Kenya, from 14 to 18 December 2026, under the overarching theme, “\nGoverning the Internet in the Age of Intelligence: Our Shared Responsibility\n”. It will be the first gathering of the global multistakeholder community following the United Nations General Assembly's decision to establish the\nIGF\nas a permanent UN forum (\nA/RES/80/173\n). Building on the outcomes of the\nprevious 20 IGF meetings\n, the 2026 process will continue to advance inclusive, multistakeholder dialogue on Internet governance and digital policy issues.\nLearn more\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 MAG\nLatest News\nMAG Chair Office Hours\n28 July 2026\nCome with your questions and join the next edition of\nMAG Chair Office Hours\n. All are welcome on\nWednesday 29 July at 5:00 UTC\n. Register\nhere\n.\nRead more\nIGF Workshop Proposals Webinar\n24 July 2026\nMissed the\nworkshops submission webinar\non 23 July? You can watch the recording and access the presentation\nhere\n.\nRead more\nFrom Words to Action\n03 July 2026\nRead\nIGF\nMAG\nChair Jennifer Chung's\nblog post\non a running start to\nIGF\n2026, recent decisions taken by the\nMAG\n, and on new\nMAG\nChair 'office hours'.\nRead more\nIGF 2026 Calls Launched!\n29 June 2026\nNow open!\nWe are calling for\nsession proposals\n,\napplications for IGF Village booths\n, and\nremote hubs\nahead of\nIGF\n2026 in Nairobi, Kenya (14-18 December)\n. All are invited to make submissions by the shared\ndeadline\nof\n31 July 2026, 23:59 UTC\n.\nRead more\nView all news\nKeep up to date by subscribing to our newsletter\nIGF Community Updates\nBIGF and AIUB Sign Agreement to Promote Inclusive AI Governance in Bangladesh.\n28-Jul-2026\nBIGF Joins National Economic Diplomacy Conference, Calls for Digital Governance to Be Central to Bangladesh’s Growth Roadmap\n18-Jun-2026\nDC\n-IS3C hosts webinar on the transition to Post‐Quantum Cryptography. Click\nHERE\nto view the recording and slide decks.\n27-Feb-2026\nBangladesh IGF Digital Governance Manifesto Recommendations\n05-Feb-2026\nThe Internet Society Foundation will begin accepting applications for funding through their\nIGF sponsorship program\non 6 January 2026!\n16-Dec-2025\nPreserving the Internet - Review the 2025 PNIF Draft Recommendations\n28-Oct-2025\nNew Documents and Reports From The Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability\n01-Oct-2025\nRegister now for LACIGF in Córdoba, Argentina, 5-6 November!\n24-Sep-2025\nIGF Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI) Meeting 29 September!\n24-Sep-2025\nIGF Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) Webinar 30 September!\n24-Sep-2025\nRegister for SEEDIG's 10th Anniversary in Athens, Greece | 10–11 October 2025\n23-Sep-2025\nRegistration for Asia Pacific IGF 2025 is now open!\n23-Sep-2025\nIGF on Social Media\nLoading...\nThe Internet We Want\nWatch Internet pioneer and\nIGF\nLeadership Chair Vint Cerf as he reflects on the Internet’s role as a public good—and the importance of theIGF in keeping it that way.\nUN's Global Advocate for Human-centric Digital Governance | Joseph Gordon-Levitt\nThe\nIGF\nis pleased to announce that actor and filmmaker Joseph Gordon-Levitt is officially the UN Global Advocate for Human-centric Digital Governance!\nDigital Trust and Inclusion\nWatch Nobel Peace Laureate and\nIGF\nLeadership Panel Co-Chair Maria Ressa share why digital trust and inclusion are vital for our future.\nQuick search\nFind latest news related to the\nIGF\nand digital policy with advanced filters\nSearch news\nFind and connect with people in the\nIGF\ncommunity\nSearch people\nFind past and future events\nSearch events\nFind National, (Sub)Regional, and Youth Initiatives\nSearch initiatives\nFind\nIGF\nsession transcripts with advanced filtering\nSearch transcripts\nFind\nIGF\nsession reports with advanced filters\nSearch reports\nDonors to Trust Fund\nThe Swiss Education & Research Network (SWITCH)\nInternational Chamber of Commerce (ICC) - Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS)\nEuropean Commission\nSummit Strategies International\nNumber Resource Organization (NRO)\nUNINETT Norid\nChina Energy Fund Committee\nDanish Internet Forum\nGovernment of Portugal - Fundacao Para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia\nGovernment of Japan\nGovernment of the Republic of Korea\nGovernment of the Netherlands\nGovernment of Switzerland\nNIKKEI DigitalCORE\nNic.at The Austrian Registry\nVerisign\nThe Walt Disney Company\nGoogle\nThe Internet Society (ISOC)\nAmazon\nGovernment of Germany\nMicrosoft Corporation\nGovernment of the United States\nauDA Australia's Domain Name Administrator\nNIC-MEXICO\nNominet UK\nTides Foundation\nCISCO\nPolitecnico di Torino\nAT&T\nBrazilian Internet Steering Committee\nCommunity DNS\nAfilias Global Registry Services\nMCADE, LLC.\nEuropean Registry for Internet domains (EURid)\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)\nVerizon\nGovernment of Sweden\nThe Internet Society Foundation\nEuropean Telecommunication Network Operators' Association\nMeta\nRibose Inc\nCoordination Center for TLD RU\nSiemens Aktiengesellschaft - Communications / Nokia Siemens Networks\nIGFSA\nGovernment of the United Kingdom\nGovernment of Norway\nGovernment of Finland\nQuick Links\nIGF ANNUAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS\nProceedings for each of the annual\nIGF\nmeetings held since 2006.\nBEST PRACTICE FORUMS\nBPFs provide a platform to exchange experiences in addressing Internet policy issues.\nDYNAMIC COALITIONS\nExplore Dynamic Coalitions. These are open, multistakeholder groups dedicated to an Internet governance issue.\nPOLICY NETWORKS\nThe\nmandate\n‎of the Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) calls for discussing digital public policy issues.\nCAPACITY DEVELOPMENT\nThe\nIGF\nSecretariat, supported by generous contributions from its donors, supports community-centered processes.\nIGF INITIATIVES\nIGF\norganizes National and Regional\nIGF\ninitiatives (\nNRIs\n) to address issues more specifically.\nPrevious IGF Events\n2025 IGF Lillestrøm\n2024 IGF Riyadh\n2023 IGF Kyoto\n2022 IGF Addis Ababa\n2021 IGF Katowice\n2020 IGF vIGF\n2019 IGF Berlin\n2018 IGF Paris\n2017 IGF Geneva\n2016 IGF Jalisco\n2015 IGF João Pessoa\n2014 IGF Istanbul\n2013 IGF Bali\n2012 IGF Baku\n2011 IGF Nairobi\n2010 IGF Vilnius\n2009 IGF Sharm El Sheikh\n2008 IGF Hyderabad\n2007 IGF Rio de Janeiro\n2006 IGF Athens\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 10118, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1536}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "957a582e-a6da-4f08-8147-b2832d8dcace", "source_id": "6aa2051c11cb13ae04cb0a05", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/community", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/community", "artifact_sha256": "29c761c956f95175a6ee2bdf2d7b1228298cf00e8784109b7a310741541be8fc", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 439885, "title": "About the ICANN Community", "language": "en", "text_length": 10803, "characters": 10803, "text": "About the ICANN Community\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nAbout the ICANN Community\nLearn more about ICANN’s community of individuals, industry representatives, government officials, and other stakeholders who work together to develop policies about the technical coordination of the Internet's unique identifiers.\nSubscribe\nCommunity Home\nCommunity Recognition\nEmpowered Community\nEvents\nGroups\nPublications and Resources\nAbout the ICANN Community\nThe ICANN community is diverse with members from all over the world and many different backgrounds and experiences. They come together to develop policies about the technical coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers. Through ICANN’s bottom-up, consensus-based multistakeholder process, participants discuss and debate policy needs in an open and sequential way at meetings, teleconferences, and Public Comment opportunities.\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Making in the ICANN Community\nA fundamental part of ICANN’s mission is to coordinate policy development related to the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. ICANN employs open and transparent policy development mechanisms that promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and in collaboration with entities most affected by policy development.\nWhile the ICANN Board of Directors has the ultimate authority to approve or reject policy recommendations, Supporting Organizations are responsible for developing and making policy recommendations to the Board. Advisory Committees advise the ICANN Board and, in certain cases, can raise issues for policy development. There are multiple kinds of policy within the ICANN world: formal policies related to the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers, operational policies, and general practices.\nWatch the video\nInfographic\n(pdf, 327.35 KB)\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\n(pdf, 336.19 KB)\nTürkçe\n(pdf, 308.44 KB)\nText Version\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\nTürkçe\nWatch the video\nInfographic\n(pdf, 327.35 KB)\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\n(pdf, 336.19 KB)\nTürkçe\n(pdf, 308.44 KB)\nText Version\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\nTürkçe\nMultistakeholder Advice Development\nMultistakeholderism is a form of governance that brings together people and organizations with a stake in an issue to address a specific policy challenge or goal. ICANN facilitates bottom-up, consensus-driven processes for policy recommendations and advice to the ICANN Board on generic top-level domain (gTLD), country code top-level domain (ccTLD), and Internet Protocol (IP) address policies.\nIn general, policy recommendations are formed and refined by the ICANN community through its Supporting Organizations and influenced by its Advisory Committees. All are composed of volunteers from around the world in a bottom-up, open, and transparent process.\nWatch the video\nInfographic\n(pdf, 1.05 MB)\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\n(pdf, 1.01 MB)\nTürkçe\n(pdf, 1003.69 KB)\nText Version\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\nTürkçe\nWatch the video\nInfographic\n(pdf, 1.05 MB)\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\n(pdf, 1.01 MB)\nTürkçe\n(pdf, 1003.69 KB)\nText Version\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\nTürkçe\nPolicy Implementation\nICANN achieves its mission through the implementation of policies approved by its Board of Directors. These policies start out as recommendations formed and refined by the ICANN community. Once a policy is finalized, it is forwarded to the ICANN Board for approval. Once approved, ICANN organization staff works with the Board and community to implement the policy in a way that is efficient, effective, and accountable. For example, ICANN’s Global Domains Division implements gTLD policies through guidelines established by its Consensus Policy Implementation Framework.\nImplementing Policy at ICANN\nCommunity Recognition\nCommunity-driven work is essential for developing policies that will benefit the Internet as a whole. Periodically, ICANN recognizes community leaders for their valuable contributions across the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, constituencies, and more. Learn more about ICANN’s Community Recognition programs.\nCommunity Recognition at ICANN\nCommunity Groups\nSupporting Organizations\nThree Supporting Organizations (SOs) are primarily responsible for making policy recommendations on domain names and IP addresses to the ICANN Board. The SOs are the Generic Names Supporting Organization, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization, and the Address Supporting Organization.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nSupporting Organizations\nAddress Supporting Organization\nThe Address Supporting Organization (ASO) is responsible for advising the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses. Membership in the ASO is available only to Regional Internet Registries, but you can learn\nmore about their work\non their website.\nLearn more about ASO\nRegional Internet Registries\nAFRINIC\nAPNIC\nARIN\nLACNIC\nRIPE NCC\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization\nThe Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending global policies relating to ccTLDs to the ICANN Board. Membership in the ccNSO is open to all\nccTLD managers\nresponsible for managing an ISO 3166 ccTLD.\nLearn more about ccNSO\nGeneric Name Supporting Organization\nThe Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to gTLDs.\nLearn more about\nhow to get involved\nwith the GNSO.\nLearn more about GNSO\nSubgroups\nCommercial Stakeholder Group\nBusiness and Commercial Users Constituency\nIntellectual Property Constituency\nInternet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency\nNon-Commercial Stakeholder Group\nNon-Commercial Users Constituency\nNot-for-Profit Organizations Constituency\nRegistrars Stakeholder Group\nRegistries Stakeholder Group\nAdvisory Committees\nICANN’s four Advisory Committees (ACs) are the At-Large Advisory Committee, the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Root Server System Advisory Committee, and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. These ACs are composed of representatives from the Internet community who have expertise in specific areas.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nAdvisory Committees\nAt-Large Advisory Committee\nThe At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.\nJoin ALAC! Learn about their\napplication process\n.\nLearn more about ALAC\nRegional Groups\nAFRALO\nAPRALO\nEURALO\nLACRALO\nNARALO\nGovernmental Advisory Committee\nThe Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provides advice on the public policy aspects of ICANN activities, especially in the areas of possible interactions between ICANN policies and national laws or international agreements. You need to be a formally acknowledged representative of a government or international organization to become a member. You can\nemail GAC’s secretariat\nfor more info.\nLearn more about GAC\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee\nThe Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) is responsible for advising the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System.\nThe roles and responsibilities for SSAC and RSSAC are captured in a document\nhere\n.\nLearn more about RSSAC\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee\nThe Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) is responsible for advising the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems.\nThe roles and responsibilities for SSAC and RSSAC are captured in a document\nhere\n.\nLearn more about SSAC\nOther Committees\nICANN’s other committees play a vital role in ensuring accountability and transparency. They help hold ICANN accountable to its stakeholders. Learn more about each committee’s distinct purpose below.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nCommittees\nCustomer Standing Committee\nThe Customer Standing Committee is responsible for monitoring Public Technical Identifier’s (PTI) performance of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority naming functions according to service-level expectations.\nLearn more about CSC\nNominating Committee\nThe Nominating Committee is an independent committee responsible for filling key ICANN leadership positions, including some members of the ICANN and PTI Boards and members of the ALAC, the ccNSO Council, and the GNSO Council.\nLearn more about Nominating Committee\nRoot Zone Evolution Review Committee\nThe Root Zone Evolution Review Committee is a standing committee tasked with providing recommendations to the ICANN Board regarding the advisability of changes to the Domain Name System root zone management environment.\nLearn more about RZERC\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "e8f2264f-a19e-480e-b4f7-0fc8c5a15ee2", "document_id": "957a582e-a6da-4f08-8147-b2832d8dcace", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About the ICANN Community\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nAbout the ICANN Community\nLearn more about ICANN’s community of individuals, industry representatives, government officials, and other stakeholders who work together to develop policies about the technical coordination of the Internet's unique identifiers.\nSubscribe\nCommunity Home\nCommunity Recognition\nEmpowered Community\nEvents\nGroups\nPublications and Resources\nAbout the ICANN Community\nThe ICANN community is diverse with members from all over the world and many different backgrounds and experiences. They come together to develop policies about the technical coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers. Through ICANN’s bottom-up, consensus-based multistakeholder process, participants discuss and debate policy needs in an open and sequential way at meetings, teleconferences, and Public Comment opportunities.\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Making in the ICANN Community\nA fundamental part of ICANN’s mission is to coordinate policy development related to the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. ICANN employs open and transparent policy development mechanisms that promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and in collaboration with entities most affected by policy development.\nWhile the ICANN Board of Directors has the ultimate authority to approve or reject policy recommendations, Supporting Organizations are responsible for developing and making policy recommendations to the Board. Advisory Committees advise the ICANN Board and, in certain cases, can raise issues for policy development. There are multiple kinds of policy within the ICANN world: formal policies related to the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers, operational policies, and general practices.\nWatch the video\nInfographic\n(pdf, 327.35 KB)\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\n(pdf, 336.19 KB)\nTürkçe\n(pdf, 308.44 KB)\nText Version\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\nTürkçe\nWatch the video\nInfographic\n(pdf, 327.35 KB)\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\n(pdf, 336.19 KB)\nTürkçe\n(pdf, 308.44 KB)\nText Version\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\nTürkçe\nMultistakeholder Advice Development\nMultistakeholderism is a form of governance that brings together people and organizations with a stake in an issue to address a specific policy challenge or goal. ICANN facilitates bottom-up, consensus-driven processes for policy recommendations and advice to the ICANN Board on generic top-level domain (gTLD), country code top-level domain (ccTLD), and Internet Protocol (IP) address policies.\nIn general, policy recommendations are formed and refined by the ICANN community through its Supporting Organizations and influenced by its Advisory Committees. All are composed of volunteers from around the world in a bottom-up, open, and transparent process.\nWatch the video\nInfographic\n(pdf, 1.05 MB)\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\n(pdf, 1.01 MB)\nTürkçe\n(pdf, 1003.69 KB)\nText Version\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\nTürkçe\nWatch the video\nInfographic\n(pdf, 1.05 MB)\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\n(pdf, 1.01 MB)\nTürkçe\n(pdf, 1003.69 KB)\nText Version\nIn addition to the\nICANN Languages\n, this content is also available in\nPortuguês\nTürkçe\nPolicy Implementation\nICANN achieves its mission through the implementation of policies approved by its Board of Directors. These policies start out as recommendations formed and refined by the ICANN community. Once a policy is finalized, it is forwarded to the ICANN Board for approval. Once approved, ICANN organization staff works with the Board and community to implement the policy in a way that is efficient, effective, and accountable. For example, ICANN’s Global Domains Division implements gTLD policies through guidelines established by its Consensus Policy Implementation Framework.\nImplementing Policy at ICANN\nCommunity Recognition\nCommunity-driven work is essential for developing policies that will benefit the Internet as a whole. Periodically, ICANN recognizes community leaders for their valuable contributions across the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, constituencies, and more. Learn more about ICANN’s Community Recognition programs.\nCommunity Recognition at ICANN\nCommunity Groups\nSupporting Organizations\nThree Supporting Organizations (SOs) are primarily responsible for making policy recommendations on domain names and IP addresses to the ICANN Board. The SOs are the Generic Names Supporting Organization, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization, and the Address Supporting Organization.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nSupporting Organizations\nAddress Supporting Organization\nThe Address Supporting Organization (ASO) is responsible for advising the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses. Membership in the ASO is available only to Regional Internet Registries, but you can learn\nmore about their work\non their website.\nLearn more about ASO\nRegional Internet Registries\nAFRINIC\nAPNIC\nARIN\nLACNIC\nRIPE NCC\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization\nThe Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending global policies relating to ccTLDs to the ICANN Board. Membership in the ccNSO is open to all\nccTLD managers\nresponsible for managing an ISO 3166 ccTLD.\nLearn more about ccNSO\nGeneric Name Supporting Organization\nThe Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to gTLDs.\nLearn more about\nhow to get involved\nwith the GNSO.\nLearn more about GNSO\nSubgroups\nCommercial Stakeholder Group\nBusiness and Commercial Users Constituency\nIntellectual Property Constituency\nInternet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency\nNon-Commercial Stakeholder Group\nNon-Commercial Users Constituency\nNot-for-Profit Organizations Constituency\nRegistrars Stakeholder Group\nRegistries Stakeholder Group\nAdvisory Committees\nICANN’s four Advisory Committees (ACs) are the At-Large Advisory Committee, the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Root Server System Advisory Committee, and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. These ACs are composed of representatives from the Internet community who have expertise in specific areas.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nAdvisory Committees\nAt-Large Advisory Committee\nThe At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.\nJoin ALAC! Learn about their\napplication process\n.\nLearn more about ALAC\nRegional Groups\nAFRALO\nAPRALO\nEURALO\nLACRALO\nNARALO\nGovernmental Advisory Committee\nThe Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provides advice on the public policy aspects of ICANN activities, especially in the areas of possible interactions between ICANN policies and national laws or international agreements. You need to be a formally acknowledged representative of a government or international organization to become a member. You can\nemail GAC’s secretariat\nfor more info.\nLearn more about GAC\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee\nThe Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) is responsible for advising the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System.\nThe roles and responsibilities for SSAC and RSSAC are captured in a document\nhere\n.\nLearn more about RSSAC\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee\nThe Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) is responsible for advising the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems.\nThe roles and responsibilities for SSAC and RSSAC are captured in a document\nhere\n.\nLearn more about SSAC\nOther Committees\nICANN’s other committees play a vital role in ensuring accountability and transparency. They help hold ICANN accountable to its stakeholders. Learn more about each committee’s distinct purpose below.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nCommittees\nCustomer Standing Committee\nThe Customer Standing Committee is responsible for monitoring Public Technical Identifier’s (PTI) performance of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority naming functions according to service-level expectations.\nLearn more about CSC\nNominating Committee\nThe Nominating Committee is an independent committee responsible for filling key ICANN leadership positions, including some members of the ICANN and PTI Boards and members of the ALAC, the ccNSO Council, and the GNSO Council.\nLearn more about Nominating Committee\nRoot Zone Evolution Review Committee\nThe Root Zone Evolution Review Committee is a standing committee tasked with providing recommendations to the ICANN Board regarding the advisability of changes to the Domain Name System root zone management environment.\nLearn more about RZERC\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 10803, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1527}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "970eca36-b855-474b-abbe-cc6ab81adbde", "source_id": "0c42601c6bb711473fc2db42", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/technology", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/technology", "artifact_sha256": "6169eafb87a95fa62c638c89c6017dea4156be786485ba5f123665cc28ebd40b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 25181, "title": "Technology - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 6925, "characters": 6925, "text": "Technology - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nInternet Identifier System Research and Security, Stability, and Resiliency\nOffice of the Chief Technology Officer supports improving the Security, Stability, and Resiliency of Internet’s system of unique identifiers; researches issues related to those identifiers; provides capacity building training for DNS, DNSSEC, and Security; participates in technical and security community groups (IETF, regional TLDs, AntiPhishing).\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions\nPart of ICANN Operational functions include the maintenance or key Global Registries (Protocol Parameters, Top level IP number Prefixes and Top level Domain name delegation) under the IANA functions, and the Time Zone Database which contains the code and data that represents local time around the globe.\nInformation Systems, Corporate Security, IT and DNS Engineering\nOffice of the Chief Information Officer monitors and maintains ICANN systems and technical operations, corporate security, and Information Technology. The DNS Engineering Team administers ICANN's DNS network services and the global L-root constellation.\nGlobal Domain Division Technical Services\nThe Global Domains Division supports gTLD Registries and Registrars under contract with ICANN. This includes contracting for Emergency Backend Registry Operator, Registry and Registrar Data Escrow, operating the CZDS, and Registry Services Evaluation Process. Also supports IDNs, ccTLD Fast Track Process, Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset.\nQuicklinks\nICANN Technical Groups\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTLG/TEG\nASO\nISPCP\nTechnical Operations\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nL-Root Operations\nMeasurements\nSLA Monitoring & Compliance [PDF]\nIdentifier Tech Health Indicators\nPopular Topics\nIDN\nIPv6 Initiative\nDNSSEC@icann\nICANN Tech Day\nSecurity Terminology\nTechnical Engagement Leadership\nAdiel Akplogan\nVP, Technical Engagement\nAdiel A. Akplogan is Vice President for Technical Engagement at ICANN. With more than 25 years' experience in the ICT industry (20 specifically in...\nMore >\nJohn Crain\nSVP & Chief Technology Officer\nJohn is responsible for leading ICANN organization (org)’s efforts to improve knowledge about the identifiers ICANN helps coordinate and...\nMore >\nAlain Durand\nDistinguished Technologist\nAlain joined ICANN as a staff member in March of 2015 and currently serves as Principal Technologist. Alain's responsibilities include applying...\nMore >\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "3a6d9b86-199f-4bb6-86b3-e67b4f96fc1e", "document_id": "970eca36-b855-474b-abbe-cc6ab81adbde", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Technology - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nInternet Identifier System Research and Security, Stability, and Resiliency\nOffice of the Chief Technology Officer supports improving the Security, Stability, and Resiliency of Internet’s system of unique identifiers; researches issues related to those identifiers; provides capacity building training for DNS, DNSSEC, and Security; participates in technical and security community groups (IETF, regional TLDs, AntiPhishing).\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions\nPart of ICANN Operational functions include the maintenance or key Global Registries (Protocol Parameters, Top level IP number Prefixes and Top level Domain name delegation) under the IANA functions, and the Time Zone Database which contains the code and data that represents local time around the globe.\nInformation Systems, Corporate Security, IT and DNS Engineering\nOffice of the Chief Information Officer monitors and maintains ICANN systems and technical operations, corporate security, and Information Technology. The DNS Engineering Team administers ICANN's DNS network services and the global L-root constellation.\nGlobal Domain Division Technical Services\nThe Global Domains Division supports gTLD Registries and Registrars under contract with ICANN. This includes contracting for Emergency Backend Registry Operator, Registry and Registrar Data Escrow, operating the CZDS, and Registry Services Evaluation Process. Also supports IDNs, ccTLD Fast Track Process, Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset.\nQuicklinks\nICANN Technical Groups\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTLG/TEG\nASO\nISPCP\nTechnical Operations\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nL-Root Operations\nMeasurements\nSLA Monitoring & Compliance [PDF]\nIdentifier Tech Health Indicators\nPopular Topics\nIDN\nIPv6 Initiative\nDNSSEC@icann\nICANN Tech Day\nSecurity Terminology\nTechnical Engagement Leadership\nAdiel Akplogan\nVP, Technical Engagement\nAdiel A. Akplogan is Vice President for Technical Engagement at ICANN. With more than 25 years' experience in the ICT industry (20 specifically in...\nMore >\nJohn Crain\nSVP & Chief Technology Officer\nJohn is responsible for leading ICANN organization (org)’s efforts to improve knowledge about the identifiers ICANN helps coordinate and...\nMore >\nAlain Durand\nDistinguished Technologist\nAlain joined ICANN as a staff member in March of 2015 and currently serves as Principal Technologist. Alain's responsibilities include applying...\nMore >\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6925, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 960}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "98c709af-d2cf-488a-9942-8460aec8efa3", "source_id": "05901c3f623c7ce319f2666c", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/dns-security-threat", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/dnsabuse", "artifact_sha256": "5742f3581c681f7f04be950cd4c56a8cdd2447c496d0e8c0c240579081b61035", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 89499, "title": "DNS Abuse Mitigation Program - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 21434, "characters": 21434, "text": "DNS Abuse Mitigation Program - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nDNS Abuse Mitigation Program\n(Last updated July 2026).\nExplore Our Infographic on DNS Abuse\n.\nAlso available in:\nالعربية\n|\nEspañol\n|\nFrançais\n|\nPortuguês\n|\nPусский\n|\n中文\nThe Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has established a Domain Name System (DNS) Abuse Mitigation Program. This program serves as a centralized platform for ICANN to address various aspects of DNS Abuse and aims to support the ICANN community in mitigating harmful activities associated with domain names.\nDNS Abuse, as defined by ICANN, refers to:\nBotnets\nMalware\nPharming\nPhishing\nSpam\n(when spam serves as a delivery mechanism for the forms of DNS Abuse listed above)\nThis set of harms was recognized by the ICANN Board as actionable elements of DNS Abuse for ICANN, and aligns with the 5 April 2024\namendments\nto the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the Base Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Registry Agreement regarding DNS Abuse mitigation obligations.\nAddressing the Issue\nICANN org strives to combat DNS Abuse in accordance with ICANN Bylaws, and policies. An ICANN cross-functional team supports a three-pronged approach to combating DNS Abuse. This includes:\nContributing data and expertise to fact-based discussions.\nProviding tools to the ICANN community.\nEnforcing contractual obligations with registries and registrars.\nICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the DNS root zone. It also develops and coordinates the implementation of policies for registering second-level domain names in generic top-level domains when coordinated or uniform resolution is needed to help keep the DNS open, interoperable, secure, stable, and resilient. In performing this function, ICANN is focused on DNS-level activities and actions.\nICANN's Bylaws\nexpressly prohibit ICANN from imposing rules and restrictions on services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, except in narrow circumstances set out in the ICANN Bylaws.\nContributing Data and Expertise to Fact-Based Discussions\nICANN Domain Metrica\naims to improve the way domain data is captured, measured, and analyzed. Built to evolve over time to incorporate new data sources, measurement methodologies, and metrics, the platform provides information on many aspects of domains, and groups of domains. Learn more in the ICANN Domain Metrica\nbrochure\n.\nICANN's\nIdentifier Technology Health Indicators\n(ITHI), or ITHI Metrics, also provide a way to analyze trends in DNS security threats for the community. For more information, visit the\nITHI\nwebpage.\nCapacity development and training\nincludes the DNS ecosystem security offerings on\nICANN Learn\n, as well as\nvirtual and in-person training\ndelivered by the ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) Technical Engagement and Global Stakeholder Engagement teams, and in collaboration with community partners.\nProviding Tools to the ICANN Community\nInferential Analysis of Maliciously Registered Domains (INFERMAL)\nis an ICANN-funded project aimed at exploring attackers' preferences regarding DNS Abuse. Cybercriminals often register domains to launch Internet-scale attacks, including phishing, malware distribution, and spam campaigns. Various factors may influence why these bad actors prefer certain registrars over others. INFERMAL is the first study to systematically analyze these preferences. After two years of rigorous research, the\nfinal report\nis now available, exploring key findings and recommendations that can inform registrars, registries, and the wider Internet community.\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) policy development\nwas anticipated as an additional mitigation against DNS Abuse, as the contractual amendments were being developed. The GNSO has requested an Issue Report on DNS Abuse, the necessary first step in initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP). The data, expertise, and additional tools established by ICANN will aid the PDP in its efforts to further mitigate DNS Abuse.\nThe Special Interest Forums on Technology (SIFT)\nis an online discussion platform that provides an ad hoc forum for the ICANN community and org. They use this forum to engage in technical discussions and review contributions by interested technical participants on emerging technologies and trends related to the Internet's identifier system. This includes domain names and the DNS, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, autonomous system numbers, and various protocol parameter assignments. More information about SIFT can be found\nhere\n.\nResources for Registries and Registrars\nAdvisory: Compliance With DNS Abuse Obligations in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreement\nFramework for Registry Operators to Respond to Security Threats\nAdvisory, New gTLD Registry Agreement Specification 11 (3)(b)\nSecurity Response Waiver (SRW) for Registrars\nSecurity Response Waiver (SRW) for Registry Operators\n(formerly Expedited Registry Security Request)\nICANN Monitoring System API (MoSAPI) User Guide\n– In addition to service level agreement (SLA) performance information, registries can access daily feeds from ICANN Domain Metrica system via the MoSAPI.\nResources for End Users\nContracted Party House Publication: Guide to Abuse Reporting Practices\nContracted Party House Publication: Minimum Required Information for WHOIS Data Requests\nAfter a reporter has submitted an abuse complaint to the registrar of record regarding the abuse of a domain name in a gTLD, and after a reasonable time, if the reporter believes the registrar did not fulfill its obligations according to the\nRegistrar Accreditation Agreement\n(see\nSection 3.18\n), then the reporter may file a complaint with ICANN Contractual Compliance here:\nabuse involving a domain name\n. For more information on abuse complaint handling, visit the\nICANN Contractual Compliance Handling Report\nwebpage.\nEnforcing Contractual Obligations with Registries and Registrars\nICANN Contractual Compliance (Compliance) enforces the contractual obligations set forth in ICANN's policies and agreements, including the\nBase Registry Agreement (Base RA)\nand the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The abuse-related provisions enforced by Compliance include Specification 6 Section 4 of the Base RA and Section 3.18 of the RAA which, since 5 April 2024, contain requirements for registry operators and registrars to take mitigation actions against well-evidenced DNS Abuse. Compliance enforces these requirements, and all other obligations across all ICANN's policies and agreements, through the processing of external complaints and by conducting certain proactive monitoring activities and regularly scheduled audits. Additional information about Compliance's Audit Program can be found on the\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nwebpage.\nAdditionally, Compliance publishes\nmonthly reports\nwith information about complaints received and related enforcement actions. These include\nreports dedicated to the enforcement of DNS Abuse requirements\nthat are updated every month.\nMore information about the interpretation and enforcement of the DNS Abuse requirements can be found by reviewing the\nAdvisory: Compliance With DNS Abuse Obligations in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreement\n.\nCompliance has also published \"\nSubmitting DNS Abuse Complaints To ICANN: A Step-by-Step Guide\n\", which provides clear instructions for submitting actionable DNS Abuse complaints to ICANN. We invite you to read it and learn more about how to engage with ICANN's enforcement processes.\nLatest Publications\n2026 Publications\nAnnouncement:\nICANN Publishes January 2026 gTLD Registry Audit Report\n(January 2026)\n2025 Publications\nAnnouncement:\nICANN Publishes New Step-by-Step Guide for Submitting DNS Abuse Complaints\n(November 2025)\nBlog:\nICANN's Progress and Next Steps in Enforcing DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements\n(October 2025)\nBlog:\nICANN Publishes Insights and Clarifications on INFERMAL Study\n(June 2025)\nBlog:\nICANN Domain Metrica Release Update: Access Now Open to All Users\n(February 2025)\nRecording:\nWebinar on INFERMAL - a Project Focused on Malicious Domain Registrations\n(February 2025).\n2024 Publications\nBlog:\nBuilding Better Tools: ICANN81 Updates on ICANN Domain Metrica and INFERMAL\n(December 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN's DNS Abuse Mitigation Program: Key Updates from 2024\n(December 2024)\nAnnouncement:\nNew Report: ICANN's Enforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements\n(November 2024)\nBlog:\nINFERMAL Project: Analyzing Features of Malicious Domain Registrations\n(October 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN Domain Metrica Project Update and Timeline\n(October 2024)\nBlog:\nUpdates on ICANN's Domain Abuse Activity Monthly Reports\n(October 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN Launches Reports on the Enforcement of DNS Abuse Requirements\n(June 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN's Enforcement of DNS Abuse Requirements: A Look at the First Two Months\n(June 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN's New IDN Guidelines Help Strengthen DNS Abuse Mitigation\n(May 2024)\nBlog:\nA New ICANN Project to Measure Metadata on Domain Names\n(February 2024)\n2023 Publications\nBlog:\nICANN Publishes Paper on Defense Mechanisms Against Harmful Internet Content\n(December 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN's Contracted Parties Approve New Obligations to Mitigate DNS Abuse\n(December 2023)\nBlog:\nUpdate on ICANN-Funded INFERMAL Project Designed To Combat DNS Abuse\n(October 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN Contracted Parties Set to Vote on Proposed DNS Abuse Amendments\n(October 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN's \"Day of DNS Abuse Discussions\" Draws More Than 125 Participants\n(September 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN to Hold Meeting in Vietnam on DNS Abuse\n(August 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN and Contract Negotiations Update: Improved DNS Abuse Requirements\n(May 2023)\nBlog:\nNew ICANN Project Explores the Drivers of Malicious Domain Name Registrations\n(April 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN and Contracted Parties Negotiate About Improved DNS Abuse Requirements\n(18 January 2023)\n2022 Publications\nGuest blog (APNIC):\nDNS Abuse Trends\n(14 June 2022)\nBlog:\nKeep Up to Date With ICANN's DNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\n(9 June 2022)\nBlog:\nICANN Publishes DNS Abuse Trends\n(22 March 2022)\n2021 Publications\nAnnouncement:\nThe Recording is Now Available for the ICANN Informational Session on DNS Abuse\n(8 November 2021)\nAnnouncement:\nInformational Session on DNS Abuse: Panel Discussion with the ICANN Board\n(18 October 2021)\nBlog:\nUpdate on ICANN's DNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\n(19 July 2021)\nAnnouncement:\nWebinar: ICANN DNS Security Threat Mitigation Program Update and Community Discussion\n(1 July 2021)\nAnnouncement:\nAdding Linguistic Diversity to the Domain Name Security Threat Information Collection and Reporting Project\n(14 June 2021)\n2020 Publications\nBlog:\nICANN Org's Multifaceted Response to DNS Abuse\n(20 April 2020)\nIf you have questions about ICANN's program, please direct them to\n[email protected]\n.\nArchive\nDNS Abuse Mitigation Program\n(November 2025)\nDNS Abuse Mitigation Program\n(October 2024)\nDNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\n(September 2024)\nDNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\n(April 2023)\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "d71ccaa6-9438-42a3-90ce-b858f46c43fd", "document_id": "98c709af-d2cf-488a-9942-8460aec8efa3", "ordinal": 0, "text": "DNS Abuse Mitigation Program - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nDNS Abuse Mitigation Program\n(Last updated July 2026).\nExplore Our Infographic on DNS Abuse\n.\nAlso available in:\nالعربية\n|\nEspañol\n|\nFrançais\n|\nPortuguês\n|\nPусский\n|\n中文\nThe Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has established a Domain Name System (DNS) Abuse Mitigation Program. This program serves as a centralized platform for ICANN to address various aspects of DNS Abuse and aims to support the ICANN community in mitigating harmful activities associated with domain names.\nDNS Abuse, as defined by ICANN, refers to:\nBotnets\nMalware\nPharming\nPhishing\nSpam\n(when spam serves as a delivery mechanism for the forms of DNS Abuse listed above)\nThis set of harms was recognized by the ICANN Board as actionable elements of DNS Abuse for ICANN, and aligns with the 5 April 2024\namendments\nto the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the Base Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Registry Agreement regarding DNS Abuse mitigation obligations.\nAddressing the Issue\nICANN org strives to combat DNS Abuse in accordance with ICANN Bylaws, and policies. An ICANN cross-functional team supports a three-pronged approach to combating DNS Abuse. This includes:\nContributing data and expertise to fact-based discussions.\nProviding tools to the ICANN community.\nEnforcing contractual obligations with registries and registrars.\nICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the DNS root zone. It also develops and coordinates the implementation of policies for registering second-level domain names in generic top-level domains when coordinated or uniform resolution is needed to help keep the DNS open, interoperable, secure, stable, and resilient. In performing this function, ICANN is focused on DNS-level activities and actions.\nICANN's Bylaws\nexpressly prohibit ICANN from imposing rules and restrictions on services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, except in narrow circumstances set out in the ICANN Bylaws.\nContributing Data and Expertise to Fact-Based Discussions\nICANN Domain Metrica\naims to improve the way domain data is captured, measured, and analyzed. Built to evolve over time to incorporate new data sources, measurement methodologies, and metrics, the platform provides information on many aspects of domains, and groups of domains. Learn more in the ICANN Domain Metrica\nbrochure\n.\nICANN's\nIdentifier Technology Health Indicators\n(ITHI), or ITHI Metrics, also provide a way to analyze trends in DNS security threats for the community. For more information, visit the\nITHI\nwebpage.\nCapacity development and training\nincludes the DNS ecosystem security offerings on\nICANN Learn\n, as well as\nvirtual and in-person training\ndelivered by the ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) Technical Engagement and Global Stakeholder Engagement teams, and in collaboration with community partners.\nProviding Tools to the ICANN Community\nInferential Analysis of Maliciously Registered Domains (INFERMAL)\nis an ICANN-funded project aimed at exploring attackers' preferences regarding DNS Abuse. Cybercriminals often register domains to launch Internet-scale attacks, including phishing, malware distribution, and spam campaigns. Various factors may influence why these bad actors prefer certain registrars over others. INFERMAL is the first study to systematically analyze these preferences. After two years of rigorous research, the\nfinal report\nis now available, exploring key findings and recommendations that can inform registrars, registries, and the wider Internet community.\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) policy development\nwas anticipated as an additional mitigation against DNS Abuse, as the contractual amendments were being developed. The GNSO has requested an Issue Report on DNS Abuse, the necessary first step in initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP). The data, expertise, and additional tools established by ICANN will aid the PDP in its efforts to further mitigate DNS Abuse.\nThe Special Interest Forums on Technology (SIFT)\nis an online discussion platform that provides an ad hoc forum for the ICANN community and org. They use this forum to engage in technical discussions and review contributions by interested technical participants on emerging technologies and trends related to the Internet's identifier system. This includes domain names and the DNS, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, autonomous system numbers, and various protocol parameter assignments. More information about SIFT can be found\nhere\n.\nResources for Registries and Registrars\nAdvisory: Compliance With DNS Abuse Obligations in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreement\nFramework for Registry Operators to Respond to Security Threats\nAdvisory, New gTLD Registry Agreement Specification 11 (3)(b)\nSecurity Response Waiver (SRW) for Registrars\nSecurity Response Waiver (SRW) for Registry Operators\n(formerly Expedited Registry Security Request)\nICANN Monitoring System API (MoSAPI) User Guide\n– In addition to service level agreement (SLA) performance information, registries can access daily feeds from ICANN Domain Metrica system via the MoSAPI.\nResources for End Users\nContracted Party House Publication: Guide to Abuse Reporting Practices\nContracted Party House Publication: Minimum Required Information for WHOIS Data Requests\nAfter a reporter has submitted an abuse complaint to the registrar of record regarding the abuse of a domain name in a gTLD, and after a reasonable time, if the reporter believes the registrar did not fulfill its obligations according to the\nRegistrar Accreditation Agreement\n(see\nSection 3.18\n), then the reporter may file a complaint with ICANN Contractual Compliance here:\nabuse involving a domain name\n. For more information on abuse complaint handling, visit the\nICANN Contractual Compliance Handling Report\nwebpage.\nEnforcing Contractual Obligations with Registries and Registrars\nICANN Contractual Compliance (Compliance) enforces the contractual obligations set forth in ICANN's policies and agreements, including the\nBase Registry Agreement (Base RA)\nand the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The abuse-related provisions enforced by Compliance include Specification 6 Section 4 of the Base RA and Section 3.18 of the RAA which, since 5 April 2024, contain requirements for registry operators and registrars to take mitigation actions against well-evidenced DNS Abuse. Compliance enforces these requirements, and all other obligations across all ICANN's policies and agreements, through the processing of external complaints and by conducting certain proactive monitoring activities and regularly scheduled audits. Additional information about Compliance's Audit Program can be found on the\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nwebpage.\nAdditionally, Compliance publishes\nmonthly reports\nwith information about complaints received and related enforcement actions. These include\nreports dedicated to the enforcement of DNS Abuse requirements\nthat are updated every month.\nMore information about the interpretation and enforcement of the DNS Abuse requirements can be found by reviewing the\nAdvisory: Compliance With DNS Abuse Obligations in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreement\n.\nCompliance has also published \"\nSubmitting DNS Abuse Complaints To ICANN: A Step-by-Step Guide\n\", which provides clear instructions for submitting actionable DNS Abuse complaints to ICANN. We invite you to read it and learn more about how to engage with ICANN's enforcement processes.\nLatest Publications\n2026 Publications\nAnnouncement:\nICANN Publishes January 2026 gTLD Registry Audit Report\n(January 2026)\n2025 Publications\nAnnouncement:\nICANN Publishes New Step-by-Step Guide for Submitting DNS Abuse Complaints\n(November 2025)\nBlog:\nICANN's Progress and Next Steps in Enforcing DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements\n(October 2025)\nBlog:\nICANN Publishes Insights and Clarifications on INFERMAL Study\n(June 2025)\nBlog:\nICANN Domain Metrica Release Update: Access Now Open to All Users\n(February 2025)\nRecording:\nWebinar on INFERMAL - a Project Focused on Malicious Domain Registrations\n(February 2025).\n2024 Publications\nBlog:\nBuilding Better Tools: ICANN81 Updates on ICANN Domain Metrica and INFERMAL\n(December 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN's DNS Abuse Mitigation Program: Key Updates from 2024\n(December 2024)\nAnnouncement:\nNew Report: ICANN's Enforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements\n(November 2024)\nBlog:\nINFERMAL Project: Analyzing Features of Malicious Domain Registrations\n(October 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN Domain Metrica Project Update and Timeline\n(October 2024)\nBlog:\nUpdates on ICANN's Domain Abuse Activity Monthly Reports\n(October 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN Launches Reports on the Enforcement of DNS Abuse Requirements\n(June 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN's Enforcement of DNS Abuse Requirements: A Look at the First Two Months\n(June 2024)\nBlog:\nICANN's New IDN Guidelines Help Strengthen DNS Abuse Mitigation\n(May 2024)\nBlog:\nA New ICANN Project to Measure Metadata on Domain Names\n(February 2024)\n2023 Publications\nBlog:\nICANN Publishes Paper on Defense Mechanisms Against Harmful Internet Content\n(December 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN's Contracted Parties Approve New Obligations to Mitigate DNS Abuse\n(December 2023)\nBlog:\nUpdate on ICANN-Funded INFERMAL Project Designed To Combat DNS Abuse\n(October 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN Contracted Parties Set to Vote on Proposed DNS Abuse Amendments\n(October 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN's \"Day of DNS Abuse Discussions\" Draws More Than 125 Participants\n(September 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN to Hold Meeting in Vietnam on DNS Abuse\n(August 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN and Contract Negotiations Update: Improved DNS Abuse Requirements\n(May 2023)\nBlog:\nNew ICANN Project Explores the Drivers of Malicious Domain Name Registrations\n(April 2023)\nBlog:\nICANN and Contracted Parties Negotiate About Improved DNS Abuse Requirements\n(18 January 2023)\n2022 Publications\nGuest blog (APNIC):\nDNS Abuse Trends\n(14 June 2022)\nBlog:\nKeep Up to Date With ICANN's DNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\n(9 June 2022)\nBlog:\nICANN Publishes DNS Abuse Trends\n(22 March 2022)\n2021 Publications\nAnnouncement:\nThe Recording is Now Available for the ICANN Informational Session on DNS Abuse\n(8 November 2021)\nAnnouncement:\nInformational Session on DNS Abuse: Panel Discussion with the ICANN Board\n(18 October 2021)\nBlog:\nUpdate on ICANN's DNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\n(19 July 2021)\nAnnouncement:\nWebinar: ICANN DNS Security Threat Mitigation Program Update and Community Discussion\n(1 July 2021)\nAnnouncement:\nAdding Linguistic Diversity to the Domain Name Security Threat Information Collection and Reporting Project\n(14 June 2021)\n2020 Publications\nBlog:\nICANN Org's Multifaceted Response to DNS Abuse\n(20 April 2020)\nIf you have questions about ICANN's program, please direct them to\n[email protected]\n.\nArchive\nDNS Abuse Mitigation Program\n(November 2025)\nDNS Abuse Mitigation Program\n(October 2024)\nDNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\n(September 2024)\nDNS Security Threat Mitigation Program\n(April 2023)\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 21434, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 15, "word_count": 2963}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "9ae50221-5cd2-4bd3-ab2f-659044a9977e", "source_id": "f20efcd81af6711a6314eefe", "source": "Academic", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12345", "final_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12345", "artifact_sha256": "3c869647ddc0c16bfcc580e02bb314a42462f5c3f78d2647fc549e0e4a4075a3", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 41573, "title": "[2501.12345] The doubly librating Plutinos", "language": "en", "text_length": 4391, "characters": 4391, "text": "[2501.12345] The doubly librating Plutinos\nSkip to main content\narXiv is now an independent nonprofit!\nLearn more\n×\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nAstrophysics > Earth and Planetary Astrophysics\narXiv:2501.12345\n(astro-ph)\n[Submitted on 21 Jan 2025]\nTitle:\nThe doubly librating Plutinos\nAuthors:\nRenu Malhotra\n,\nTakashi Ito\nView a PDF of the paper titled The doubly librating Plutinos, by Renu Malhotra and Takashi Ito\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nAbstract:\nNamed for orbital kinship with Pluto, the Plutinos are a prominent group of Kuiper Belt objects whose orbital periods are in libration about the 3/2 ratio with Neptune's. We investigate the long term orbital dynamics of known Plutinos, with attention to the additional libration (or lack thereof) of their argument of perihelion, $g$, a well-known characteristic of Pluto's orbit. We show that the $g$ librators amongst the Plutinos cluster around an arc in the eccentricity--inclination parameter plane. This previously unreported dynamical structure is owed to a family of periodic orbits of the third kind in the restricted problem of three bodies, identified by Poincaré at the end of the 19th century. Approximately sixteen percent of the currently known Plutinos exhibit $g$ librations, a far greater fraction than the ratios of the associated libration frequencies. These results may offer new constraints for theoretical models of the dynamical history of the Plutinos and of the orbital migration history of the giant planets.\nComments:\nAccepted for publication in ApJ. 9 pages\nSubjects:\nEarth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP)\nCite as:\narXiv:2501.12345\n[astro-ph.EP]\n(or\narXiv:2501.12345v1\n[astro-ph.EP]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12345\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nSubmission history\nFrom: Renu Malhotra [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nTue, 21 Jan 2025 18:23:42 UTC (266 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled The doubly librating Plutinos, by Renu Malhotra and Takashi Ito\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\nastro-ph.EP\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2025-01\nChange to browse by:\nastro-ph\nReferences & Citations\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nIArxiv recommender toggle\nIArxiv Recommender\n(\nWhat is IArxiv?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "segments": [{"segment_id": "974e1cf3-fcb5-4ba3-8af5-a83612ea8511", "document_id": "9ae50221-5cd2-4bd3-ab2f-659044a9977e", "ordinal": 0, "text": "[2501.12345] The doubly librating Plutinos\nSkip to main content\narXiv is now an independent nonprofit!\nLearn more\n×\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nAstrophysics > Earth and Planetary Astrophysics\narXiv:2501.12345\n(astro-ph)\n[Submitted on 21 Jan 2025]\nTitle:\nThe doubly librating Plutinos\nAuthors:\nRenu Malhotra\n,\nTakashi Ito\nView a PDF of the paper titled The doubly librating Plutinos, by Renu Malhotra and Takashi Ito\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nAbstract:\nNamed for orbital kinship with Pluto, the Plutinos are a prominent group of Kuiper Belt objects whose orbital periods are in libration about the 3/2 ratio with Neptune's. We investigate the long term orbital dynamics of known Plutinos, with attention to the additional libration (or lack thereof) of their argument of perihelion, $g$, a well-known characteristic of Pluto's orbit. We show that the $g$ librators amongst the Plutinos cluster around an arc in the eccentricity--inclination parameter plane. This previously unreported dynamical structure is owed to a family of periodic orbits of the third kind in the restricted problem of three bodies, identified by Poincaré at the end of the 19th century. Approximately sixteen percent of the currently known Plutinos exhibit $g$ librations, a far greater fraction than the ratios of the associated libration frequencies. These results may offer new constraints for theoretical models of the dynamical history of the Plutinos and of the orbital migration history of the giant planets.\nComments:\nAccepted for publication in ApJ. 9 pages\nSubjects:\nEarth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP)\nCite as:\narXiv:2501.12345\n[astro-ph.EP]\n(or\narXiv:2501.12345v1\n[astro-ph.EP]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12345\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nSubmission history\nFrom: Renu Malhotra [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nTue, 21 Jan 2025 18:23:42 UTC (266 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled The doubly librating Plutinos, by Renu Malhotra and Takashi Ito\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\nastro-ph.EP\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2025-01\nChange to browse by:\nastro-ph\nReferences & Citations\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nIArxiv recommender toggle\nIArxiv Recommender\n(\nWhat is IArxiv?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4391, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 678}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "9b115ed6-7834-4dc6-9445-f0437cefd229", "source_id": "13f698e2372f8c9a121f88f3", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/other-public-consultations", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/other-public-consultations", "artifact_sha256": "9899200e90a3526894f2de6b28b8129f414c69283159b6ce861212422dd5f653", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 263566, "title": "Other Public Consultations", "language": "en", "text_length": 2209, "characters": 2209, "text": "Other Public Consultations\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nOther Public Consultations\nAt the request of the ICANN community, this page is intended to provide a central location for other surveys or public consultations that fall outside the Public Comment process.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "e7e17fde-3fbd-4a71-9058-a3822cefba04", "document_id": "9b115ed6-7834-4dc6-9445-f0437cefd229", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Other Public Consultations\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nOther Public Consultations\nAt the request of the ICANN community, this page is intended to provide a central location for other surveys or public consultations that fall outside the Public Comment process.\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2209, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 308}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "9c4f8d4c-cbbf-4cd0-85a0-5b80f7e077f3", "source_id": "140b1b5ca3bc5c7058f208df", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/hosting-the-igf", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/hosting-the-igf", "artifact_sha256": "40099937c4e047a0bc144580aaae3e343406a8443e40148eec66993cd15d0659", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 118971, "title": "Host the IGF | Internet Governance Forum", "language": "en", "text_length": 6261, "characters": 6261, "text": "Host the IGF | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nHosting the IGF\nThe annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) is hosted by a Government of a UN Member State. All UN Member States can express interest to host the\nIGF\n. Between the initial expression of interest and receiving status of the\nIGF\nHost Country, there are several procedural steps for the assessment of the received offer. These steps are listed below.\nA government authority of the Member State expresses interest in hosting the\nIGF\nthrough a letter sent by email to the\nIGF\nSecretariat.\nMember State invites the\nIGF\nSecretariat and UN DESA to the first assessment mission in the proposed location of the meeting's venue to understand if the conditions on the ground correspond to the requirements outlined in the Host Country Agreement. Among others, these conditions relate to:\nLevel of political will;\nA sound strategy for the organization of the meeting including plans for stakeholder engagement;\nThe capacity of the venue to accommodate the hybrid nature of the meeting;\nThe infrastructure of the proposed meeting location which includes accommodation and transport capacity including airport connections and its proximity to the venue, quality of local transport etc.;\nAs the Host Country is expected to engage a local multistakeholder organizing committee into the planning process and is required to delegate a high-level Host Country Co-Chair, the assessment extends to this section as well.\nAfter the first assessment mission, a formal report is submitted to the Office of the Under-Secretary-General (OUSG).\nThe OUSG issues an offer of acceptance. After this stage, the Government receives a status of a\nProspective\nIGF\nHost Country\n.\nThe second assessment mission is conducted to confirm the technical and security conditions by the UN officers in charge.\nThe Government and the UN enter the process of signing the Host Country Agreement. Only after the Agreement is signed, the Government is confirmed as the\nHost Country of the\nIGF\nannual meeting\n.\nThe\nIGF\nannual meeting is traditionally hosted in the last quarter of the year. Most of the annual meeting costs related to organizational and conference aspects are covered by the Government of the Host Country. The costs vary from country to country, depending on the internal costs and available capacity.\nWith thanks to the generous support of\nIGF\nhost governments, below is an overview of\nIGF\nhost countries, meeting locations and dates by year.\nGreece, Athens\n30 October - 2 November 2006\nBrazil, Rio de Janeiro\n12 - 15 November 2007\nIndia, Hyderabad\n3 - 6 December 2008\nEgypt, Sharm El Sheikh\n15 - 18 November 2009\nLithuania, Vilnius\n14 - 17 September 2010\nKenya, Nairobi\n27 - 30 September 2011\nAzerbaijan, Baku\n6 - 9 November 2012\nIndonesia, Bali|\n22 - 25 October 2013\nTurkey, Istanbul\n2 - 5 September 2014\nBrazil, João Pessoa\n10 - 13 November 2015\nMexico, Jalisco\n6 - 9 December 2016\nGeneva, Switzerland\n18 - 21 December 2017\nParis, France\n12 - 14 November 2018\nBerlin, Germany\n25 - 29 November 2019\nHosted Online\n2 - 17 November 2020\nKatowice, Poland\n6 - 10 December 2021\nAddis Ababa, Ethiopia\n28 November - 2 December 2022\nKyoto, Japan\n8 - 12 October 2023\nRiyadh, Saudi Arabia\n15 - 19 December 2024\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "428866a3-3feb-465e-8fdf-81a894fd710e", "document_id": "9c4f8d4c-cbbf-4cd0-85a0-5b80f7e077f3", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Host the IGF | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nHosting the IGF\nThe annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) is hosted by a Government of a UN Member State. All UN Member States can express interest to host the\nIGF\n. Between the initial expression of interest and receiving status of the\nIGF\nHost Country, there are several procedural steps for the assessment of the received offer. These steps are listed below.\nA government authority of the Member State expresses interest in hosting the\nIGF\nthrough a letter sent by email to the\nIGF\nSecretariat.\nMember State invites the\nIGF\nSecretariat and UN DESA to the first assessment mission in the proposed location of the meeting's venue to understand if the conditions on the ground correspond to the requirements outlined in the Host Country Agreement. Among others, these conditions relate to:\nLevel of political will;\nA sound strategy for the organization of the meeting including plans for stakeholder engagement;\nThe capacity of the venue to accommodate the hybrid nature of the meeting;\nThe infrastructure of the proposed meeting location which includes accommodation and transport capacity including airport connections and its proximity to the venue, quality of local transport etc.;\nAs the Host Country is expected to engage a local multistakeholder organizing committee into the planning process and is required to delegate a high-level Host Country Co-Chair, the assessment extends to this section as well.\nAfter the first assessment mission, a formal report is submitted to the Office of the Under-Secretary-General (OUSG).\nThe OUSG issues an offer of acceptance. After this stage, the Government receives a status of a\nProspective\nIGF\nHost Country\n.\nThe second assessment mission is conducted to confirm the technical and security conditions by the UN officers in charge.\nThe Government and the UN enter the process of signing the Host Country Agreement. Only after the Agreement is signed, the Government is confirmed as the\nHost Country of the\nIGF\nannual meeting\n.\nThe\nIGF\nannual meeting is traditionally hosted in the last quarter of the year. Most of the annual meeting costs related to organizational and conference aspects are covered by the Government of the Host Country. The costs vary from country to country, depending on the internal costs and available capacity.\nWith thanks to the generous support of\nIGF\nhost governments, below is an overview of\nIGF\nhost countries, meeting locations and dates by year.\nGreece, Athens\n30 October - 2 November 2006\nBrazil, Rio de Janeiro\n12 - 15 November 2007\nIndia, Hyderabad\n3 - 6 December 2008\nEgypt, Sharm El Sheikh\n15 - 18 November 2009\nLithuania, Vilnius\n14 - 17 September 2010\nKenya, Nairobi\n27 - 30 September 2011\nAzerbaijan, Baku\n6 - 9 November 2012\nIndonesia, Bali|\n22 - 25 October 2013\nTurkey, Istanbul\n2 - 5 September 2014\nBrazil, João Pessoa\n10 - 13 November 2015\nMexico, Jalisco\n6 - 9 December 2016\nGeneva, Switzerland\n18 - 21 December 2017\nParis, France\n12 - 14 November 2018\nBerlin, Germany\n25 - 29 November 2019\nHosted Online\n2 - 17 November 2020\nKatowice, Poland\n6 - 10 December 2021\nAddis Ababa, Ethiopia\n28 November - 2 December 2022\nKyoto, Japan\n8 - 12 October 2023\nRiyadh, Saudi Arabia\n15 - 19 December 2024\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6261, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1003}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "9d1b27f5-9fc7-497a-83d0-62b623bbf96a", "source_id": "9117c2ccea52ebc9950cf2d9", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/grant-program-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/grant-program", "artifact_sha256": "5f7bff9f89fe8d8c1378e4013fef4c0ce61e4620c0831bb6b732d197eb62a72e", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 91276, "title": "ICANN Grant Program - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 22553, "characters": 22553, "text": "ICANN Grant Program - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Grant Program\nAbout\n|\nKey Documents\n|\nGrant Cycle Timeline\n|\nReporting Summaries\n|\nFAQs\nWe are happy to announce that the ICANN Board has\nofficially approved\nthe final slate of applications to proceed to contract negotiations in the first cycle of the ICANN Grant Program. Congratulations to our future grantees and thank you to everyone who participated by applying.\nThe funded projects are listed below.\nThis marks an exciting milestone, and we look forward to seeing the impact these grants will have!\nFirst Cycle of Funded Projects\nProject Title\nOrganization\nCountry\nRegion\nProject Duration (months)\nGrant Amount\nDeployment of IPv6 In African Countries\nAfrican Telecommunications Union\nKenya\nAF\n24\n$398,040.50\nPassive DNSSEC Data Collection Platform (GUPPY)\nAjman University\nUnited Arab Emirates\nAP\n16\n$410,300.00\nEnhancing Digital Inclusivity and Universal Acceptance through Educational Outreach\nAsociación A Favor De Lo Mejor, A.C.\nMexico\nLAC\n24\n$500,000.00\nAfrican Internet Observatory for Assessing Resilience of Critical Cyber Infrastructure\nCarnegie Mellon University\nUnited States\nNA\n24\n$450,389.00\nClosing the DNSSEC Maturity Gap Through Automation\ndeSEC e.V.\nGermany\nEUR\n24\n$399,912.00\nEmpowering Māori in Internet Governance and DNS Management: A Culturally Tailored Educational Programme for Enhancing Equitable & Indigenous Participation in Aotearoa New Zealand's Digital Landscape\nDigital Natives Academy Charitable Trust\nNew Zealand\nAP\n17\n$350,000.00\nAssessing GeoTLD's Performance for Enhanced Internet Accessibility: An Open Source Methodological Approach\nFundació privada puntCAT\nSpain\nEUR\n23\n$346,655.27\nShaping the WSIS+20 Review for a Unified Internet Through Multistakeholderism (SWUIM)\nGlobal Network Initiative, Inc.\nUnited States\nNA\n12\n$500,000.00\nConsumer-Focused Transformation of the Official Publication Site for the RFC Series\nIETF Administration, LLC\nUnited States\nNA\n13\n$455,487.00\nImproving DNS Security with a Focus on PKI\nInternet Security Research Group\nUnited States\nNA\n24\n$375,000.00\nStrengthening Open Source Tools for Managing IP Address Assignments via DHCP\nInternet Systems Consortium, Inc\nUnited States\nNA\n20\n$495,000.00\nStrengthening Kenya's Cybersecurity Posture: Inclusive Capacity Building across Five Regions\nKenya Education Network Registered Trustees\nKenya\nAF\n24\n$500,000.00\nCapacity Building And Community Engagement in ccTLDs and gTLDs Management Across Africa\nKenya Network Information Centre\nKenya\nAF\n17\n$500,000.00\nInvestigating the Impact of DNS Centralization and Regional Discrepancies on the Security, Stability, Performance, and Resilience of DNS-dependent Applications\nRuhr-Universität Bochum\nGermany\nEUR\n24\n$499,912.38\nSafeguarding Cyberspace Stability: Understanding and Mitigating the Impacts of Internet Fragmentation in the Black Sea Region\nScientific Cyber Security Association\nGeorgia\nAP\n24\n$138,860.00\nUniversal Acceptance to the IDNs - Bottom-up Approach - Push 2.0\nSeva Sahayog Foundation\nIndia\nAP\n24\n$387,487.50\nCarbon.txt: Use DNS to Discover Sustainability and Energy Data and Reduce the Internet’s Emissions\nStichting The Green Web Foundation\nNetherlands\nEUR\n16\n$495,000.00\nSecure Time for a Safe Internet\nStichting Trifecta Tech Foundation\nNetherlands\nEUR\n24\n$437,121.00\nAssistance for Domain Name Holders in ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Procedures\nUniversidad Católica del Norte\nChile\nLAC\n24\n$500,000.00\nAddressing DNS Abuse in Southern Africa\nUniversity of Cape Town (Cybersecurity Capacity Centre for Southern Africa - C3SA)\nSouth Africa\nAF\n24\n$499,237.68\nDeployability of ILNP at Global Scale\nUniversity of St Andrews\nUnited Kingdom\nEUR\n24\n$496,318.06\nThe DNS Atlas: Assessing Internet Dependency at Scale\nUniversiteit Twente\nNetherlands\nEUR\n24\n$500,000.00\nDigital Sovereigns and the Non-Sovereign Internet: A Cautionary Tale (DSNS-ACT)\nVrije Universiteit Brussel\nBelgium\nEUR\n24\n$333,653.00\nTOTAL\n$9,968,373.39\nBelow is a selection of publications produced by some of the grantees on their funded projects:\nDigital Natives Academy Charitable Trust\n:\nhttps://digitalnatives.academy/global-initiative-boosts-opportunities-for-tech-leadership/\nIETF Administration LLC\n:\nhttps://www.ietf.org/blog/rfc-editor-website-reimagined/\nAfrican Telecommunications Union (ATU)\n:\nhttps://developingtelecoms.com/telecom-business/telecom-regulation/18614-atu-gets-icann-grant-to-accelerate-africa-s-transition-to-ipv6.html\nGlobal Network Initiative, Inc.\n:\nhttps://globalnetworkinitiative.org/gni-and-gpd-launch-new-summary-infographic-on-wsis20-country-positions/\nUniversity of St Andrews\n:\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShjlUAN6FjI&t=1657s\nScientific Cyber Security Association\n:\nhttps://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/18/1/19\nAbout the ICANN Grant Program\nThe ICANN Grant Program is an exciting opportunity for eligible organizations across the globe to apply for funding for projects that are consistent with ICANN's mission and aligned with the objectives of the ICANN Grant Program.\nThis program will make a difference in the Internet ecosystem, while also positively impacting people all over the world by investing in creative and innovative solutions that further ICANN's vision of a single, open, and globally interoperable Internet.\nThe types of initiatives that the ICANN Grant Program will fund include those that support ICANN's mission by:\nBenefitting the development, distribution, and evolution of the services and systems that support the Internet's unique identifier systems.\nProviding capacity development.\nAdvancing developments, innovation, and open standards for the benefit of the Internet community.\nContributing to diversity, participation, and inclusion across stakeholder communities and geographic regions.\nKey Documents\nApplicant Guide\nThe ICANN Grant Program Applicant Guide provides instructions on how eligible organizations can apply to the program.\nAccess Version 3.0 of the Applicant Guide below:\nEnglish\n|\nالعربية\n|\nEspañol\n|\nFrançais\n|\nPусский\n|\n中文\n(15 March 2024)\nArchive\nVersion 2.0 of the Applicant Guide:\nEnglish\n(26 February 2024)\nVersion 1.0 of the Applicant Guide:\nEnglish\n|\nالعربية\n|\nEspañol\n|\nFrançais\n|\nPусский\n|\n中文\n(8 January 2024)\nAdditional Documents\nPrivacy Policy List of Third Party Providers\nGrant Program Data Retention Policy\nGrant Program Application Terms and Conditions\nGrant Cycle Tentative Timeline\nGrant platform opens for application submission\n25 March 2024 at 15:00 UTC\nGrant platform closes for application submission\n24 May 2024 at 20:00 UTC\nAdmissibility and eligibility checks\nJune-July 2024\nIndependent Application Assessment Panel review\nAugust-October 2024\nExpected ICANN Board decision on final slate of successful applications\nJanuary 2025\nGrant agreement negotiations\nFebruary 2025\nFor questions, please email\n[email protected]\n.\nReporting Summaries\nJune 2026 |\nICANN Grant Program First Interim Reporting Period Summary\nFAQs\nWhat is the ICANN Grant Program?\nIt is a global grant-making program funded by the proceeds received from last-resort auctions in the 2012 New gTLD Program. The ICANN community convened a working group that developed a\nFinal Report\nwith recommendations on how these proceeds should be allocated. On 12 June 2022 the ICANN Board\nadopted\nthe recommendations. As a result, ICANN org developed a Grant Program.\nHow much funding is available?\nThe total net auction proceeds fund amounts to $217 million as of 30 June 2023 and are segregated from ICANN's general Operations. This may not be the final amount of proceeds available for distribution, as a portion of the auction proceeds funds under management are still subject to disputes. Additionally, costs to run the program will be covered by the auction proceeds fund.\nThe Grant Program will operate in a series of cycles. During each cycle, a portion of the total fund will be available for distribution for successful applications.\nHow much funding is available for the first cycle?\nThe total amount available for grants in this first cycle is $10 million.\nWhat are the minimum and maximum grant amounts?\nApplications can be submitted for grant awards between $50,000 and $500,000. These award thresholds are for the first cycle only and will be reassessed for future cycles.\nWhat is the maximum project duration?\nThe maximum project duration is 24 months.\nWhat types of projects and activities will be eligible?\nApplications must be for projects consistent with ICANN's mission to help ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems and align with the objectives of the Grant Program.\nThe types of initiatives that the program will fund include those that support the ICANN mission by:\nBenefitting the development, distribution, and evolution of the services and systems that support the Internet's unique identifier systems.\nProviding capacity development.\nAdvancing developments, innovation, and open standards for the benefit of the Internet community.\nContributing to diversity, participation, and inclusion across stakeholder communities and geographic regions.\nAll proposed activities also must not duplicate existing activities currently or previously funded by ICANN.\nPlease reference\nSections 2(iii)-2(v) and Sections 4(v) in the Grant Program Applicant Guide\nfor more information on what type of projects and funding themes are eligible.\nWhat types of projects are not eligible?\nIneligible activities include:\nAny political or lobbying activity, including activities to influence legislation and/or the outcome of any specific public election, or to carry on, directly or indirectly, any voter registration drive.\nAny activity that may lead to private financial benefit of individuals beyond incidental items such as payment of reasonable employment salaries.\nAny unlawful activity according to the country where the applicant is based and/or where the project is developed.\nWho will evaluate the applications?\nICANN staff will initially review applications to confirm consistency with ICANN's mission and the Grant Program's funding themes. Applications that are deemed admissible and meet preliminary eligibility criteria will be referred to the Independent Application Assessment Panel (the Panel).\nA third-party vendor will manage the Panel including the recruitment and selection of Panel members as well as manage their assessments of applications. This third-party vendor will be used to maximize independence from the ICANN Board, organization, or community.\nThe Panel composition is expected to include a diverse collective of subject matter experts aligned to the themes and work areas of the Program. The Panel will use assessment criteria outlined in the\nGrant Program Applicant Guide Section 5(ii)\nto deliver a rank order list. ICANN staff will conduct final eligibility screening before a final slate is prepared.\nGrant Program Applicant Guide Section 5(iii)\nprovides more information on how final decisions will be made.\nHow will the funds be disbursed to the grantees?\nDisbursement of the grants will occur in installments. The first installment will be disbursed to the grantee in a timely manner after the signing of the grant agreement. Following installments will be disbursed after the submission and approval of regular reports that the grantee is expected to produce and submit.\nWhat will be required from the grantees?\nGrantees will be expected to complete interim reports throughout the duration of the grant to document the progress of the project and the use of the funds. A final report will also be due at the conclusion of the project and should detail achievement of goals and objectives and final expenditures for the project.\nProjects may be subject to additional monitoring activities, such as site visits to verify and document project activities as reported. On the occasion of any such activity, ICANN will contact the grantee directly to make arrangements for the visit at no cost to the grantee.\nGrantees may also be subject to periodic reviews and evaluations. This may include surveys, participation in virtual or in-person meetings and interviews with ICANN staff, or other activities that require data collection related to implementation of the project and use of grant funds.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a6550147-ad33-4136-a220-7372047eda2b", "document_id": "9d1b27f5-9fc7-497a-83d0-62b623bbf96a", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Grant Program - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Grant Program\nAbout\n|\nKey Documents\n|\nGrant Cycle Timeline\n|\nReporting Summaries\n|\nFAQs\nWe are happy to announce that the ICANN Board has\nofficially approved\nthe final slate of applications to proceed to contract negotiations in the first cycle of the ICANN Grant Program. Congratulations to our future grantees and thank you to everyone who participated by applying.\nThe funded projects are listed below.\nThis marks an exciting milestone, and we look forward to seeing the impact these grants will have!\nFirst Cycle of Funded Projects\nProject Title\nOrganization\nCountry\nRegion\nProject Duration (months)\nGrant Amount\nDeployment of IPv6 In African Countries\nAfrican Telecommunications Union\nKenya\nAF\n24\n$398,040.50\nPassive DNSSEC Data Collection Platform (GUPPY)\nAjman University\nUnited Arab Emirates\nAP\n16\n$410,300.00\nEnhancing Digital Inclusivity and Universal Acceptance through Educational Outreach\nAsociación A Favor De Lo Mejor, A.C.\nMexico\nLAC\n24\n$500,000.00\nAfrican Internet Observatory for Assessing Resilience of Critical Cyber Infrastructure\nCarnegie Mellon University\nUnited States\nNA\n24\n$450,389.00\nClosing the DNSSEC Maturity Gap Through Automation\ndeSEC e.V.\nGermany\nEUR\n24\n$399,912.00\nEmpowering Māori in Internet Governance and DNS Management: A Culturally Tailored Educational Programme for Enhancing Equitable & Indigenous Participation in Aotearoa New Zealand's Digital Landscape\nDigital Natives Academy Charitable Trust\nNew Zealand\nAP\n17\n$350,000.00\nAssessing GeoTLD's Performance for Enhanced Internet Accessibility: An Open Source Methodological Approach\nFundació privada puntCAT\nSpain\nEUR\n23\n$346,655.27\nShaping the WSIS+20 Review for a Unified Internet Through Multistakeholderism (SWUIM)\nGlobal Network Initiative, Inc.\nUnited States\nNA\n12\n$500,000.00\nConsumer-Focused Transformation of the Official Publication Site for the RFC Series\nIETF Administration, LLC\nUnited States\nNA\n13\n$455,487.00\nImproving DNS Security with a Focus on PKI\nInternet Security Research Group\nUnited States\nNA\n24\n$375,000.00\nStrengthening Open Source Tools for Managing IP Address Assignments via DHCP\nInternet Systems Consortium, Inc\nUnited States\nNA\n20\n$495,000.00\nStrengthening Kenya's Cybersecurity Posture: Inclusive Capacity Building across Five Regions\nKenya Education Network Registered Trustees\nKenya\nAF\n24\n$500,000.00\nCapacity Building And Community Engagement in ccTLDs and gTLDs Management Across Africa\nKenya Network Information Centre\nKenya\nAF\n17\n$500,000.00\nInvestigating the Impact of DNS Centralization and Regional Discrepancies on the Security, Stability, Performance, and Resilience of DNS-dependent Applications\nRuhr-Universität Bochum\nGermany\nEUR\n24\n$499,912.38\nSafeguarding Cyberspace Stability: Understanding and Mitigating the Impacts of Internet Fragmentation in the Black Sea Region\nScientific Cyber Security Association\nGeorgia\nAP\n24\n$138,860.00\nUniversal Acceptance to the IDNs - Bottom-up Approach - Push 2.0\nSeva Sahayog Foundation\nIndia\nAP\n24\n$387,487.50\nCarbon.txt: Use DNS to Discover Sustainability and Energy Data and Reduce the Internet’s Emissions\nStichting The Green Web Foundation\nNetherlands\nEUR\n16\n$495,000.00\nSecure Time for a Safe Internet\nStichting Trifecta Tech Foundation\nNetherlands\nEUR\n24\n$437,121.00\nAssistance for Domain Name Holders in ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Procedures\nUniversidad Católica del Norte\nChile\nLAC\n24\n$500,000.00\nAddressing DNS Abuse in Southern Africa\nUniversity of Cape Town (Cybersecurity Capacity Centre for Southern Africa - C3SA)\nSouth Africa\nAF\n24\n$499,237.68\nDeployability of ILNP at Global Scale\nUniversity of St Andrews\nUnited Kingdom\nEUR\n24\n$496,318.06\nThe DNS Atlas: Assessing Internet Dependency at Scale\nUniversiteit Twente\nNetherlands\nEUR\n24\n$500,000.00\nDigital Sovereigns and the Non-Sovereign Internet: A Cautionary Tale (DSNS-ACT)\nVrije Universiteit Brussel\nBelgium\nEUR\n24\n$333,653.00\nTOTAL\n$9,968,373.39\nBelow is a selection of publications produced by some of the grantees on their funded projects:\nDigital Natives Academy Charitable Trust\n:\nhttps://digitalnatives.academy/global-initiative-boosts-opportunities-for-tech-leadership/\nIETF Administration LLC\n:\nhttps://www.ietf.org/blog/rfc-editor-website-reimagined/\nAfrican Telecommunications Union (ATU)\n:\nhttps://developingtelecoms.com/telecom-business/telecom-regulation/18614-atu-gets-icann-grant-to-accelerate-africa-s-transition-to-ipv6.html\nGlobal Network Initiative, Inc.\n:\nhttps://globalnetworkinitiative.org/gni-and-gpd-launch-new-summary-infographic-on-wsis20-country-positions/\nUniversity of St Andrews\n:\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShjlUAN6FjI&t=1657s\nScientific Cyber Security Association\n:\nhttps://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/18/1/19\nAbout the ICANN Grant Program\nThe ICANN Grant Program is an exciting opportunity for eligible organizations across the globe to apply for funding for projects that are consistent with ICANN's mission and aligned with the objectives of the ICANN Grant Program.\nThis program will make a difference in the Internet ecosystem, while also positively impacting people all over the world by investing in creative and innovative solutions that further ICANN's vision of a single, open, and globally interoperable Internet.\nThe types of initiatives that the ICANN Grant Program will fund include those that support ICANN's mission by:\nBenefitting the development, distribution, and evolution of the services and systems that support the Internet's unique identifier systems.\nProviding capacity development.\nAdvancing developments, innovation, and open standards for the benefit of the Internet community.\nContributing to diversity, participation, and inclusion across stakeholder communities and geographic regions.\nKey Documents\nApplicant Guide\nThe ICANN Grant Program Applicant Guide provides instructions on how eligible organizations can apply to the program.\nAccess Version 3.0 of the Applicant Guide below:\nEnglish\n|\nالعربية\n|\nEspañol\n|\nFrançais\n|\nPусский\n|\n中文\n(15 March 2024)\nArchive\nVersion 2.0 of the Applicant Guide:\nEnglish\n(26 February 2024)\nVersion 1.0 of the Applicant Guide:\nEnglish\n|\nالعربية\n|\nEspañol\n|\nFrançais\n|\nPусский\n|\n中文\n(8 January 2024)\nAdditional Documents\nPrivacy Policy List of Third Party Providers\nGrant Program Data Retention Policy\nGrant Program Application Terms and Conditions\nGrant Cycle Tentative Timeline\nGrant platform opens for application submission\n25 March 2024 at 15:00 UTC\nGrant platform closes for application submission\n24 May 2024 at 20:00 UTC\nAdmissibility and eligibility checks\nJune-July 2024\nIndependent Application Assessment Panel review\nAugust-October 2024\nExpected ICANN Board decision on final slate of successful applications\nJanuary 2025\nGrant agreement negotiations\nFebruary 2025\nFor questions, please email\n[email protected]\n.\nReporting Summaries\nJune 2026 |\nICANN Grant Program First Interim Reporting Period Summary\nFAQs\nWhat is the ICANN Grant Program?\nIt is a global grant-making program funded by the proceeds received from last-resort auctions in the 2012 New gTLD Program. The ICANN community convened a working group that developed a\nFinal Report\nwith recommendations on how these proceeds should be allocated. On 12 June 2022 the ICANN Board\nadopted\nthe recommendations. As a result, ICANN org developed a Grant Program.\nHow much funding is available?\nThe total net auction proceeds fund amounts to $217 million as of 30 June 2023 and are segregated from ICANN's general Operations. This may not be the final amount of proceeds available for distribution, as a portion of the auction proceeds funds under management are still subject to disputes. Additionally, costs to run the program will be covered by the auction proceeds fund.\nThe Grant Program will operate in a series of cycles. During each cycle, a portion of the total fund will be available for distribution for successful applications.\nHow much funding is available for the first cycle?\nThe total amount available for grants in this first cycle is $10 million.\nWhat are the minimum and maximum grant amounts?\nApplications can be submitted for grant awards between $50,000 and $500,000. These award thresholds are for the first cycle only and will be reassessed for future cycles.\nWhat is the maximum project duration?\nThe maximum project duration is 24 months.\nWhat types of projects and activities will be eligible?\nApplications must be for projects consistent with ICANN's mission to help ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems and align with the objectives of the Grant Program.\nThe types of initiatives that the program will fund include those that support the ICANN mission by:\nBenefitting the development, distribution, and evolution of the services and systems that support the Internet's unique identifier systems.\nProviding capacity development.\nAdvancing developments, innovation, and open standards for the benefit of the Internet community.\nContributing to diversity, participation, and inclusion across stakeholder communities and geographic regions.\nAll proposed activities also must not duplicate existing activities currently or previously funded by ICANN.\nPlease reference\nSections 2(iii)-2(v) and Sections 4(v) in the Grant Program Applicant Guide\nfor more information on what type of projects and funding themes are eligible.\nWhat types of projects are not eligible?\nIneligible activities include:\nAny political or lobbying activity, including activities to influence legislation and/or the outcome of any specific public election, or to carry on, directly or indirectly, any voter registration drive.\nAny activity that may lead to private financial benefit of individuals beyond incidental items such as payment of reasonable employment salaries.\nAny unlawful activity according to the country where the applicant is based and/or where the project is developed.\nWho will evaluate the applications?\nICANN staff will initially review applications to confirm consistency with ICANN's mission and the Grant Program's funding themes. Applications that are deemed admissible and meet preliminary eligibility criteria will be referred to the Independent Application Assessment Panel (the Panel).\nA third-party vendor will manage the Panel including the recruitment and selection of Panel members as well as manage their assessments of applications. This third-party vendor will be used to maximize independence from the ICANN Board, organization, or community.\nThe Panel composition is expected to include a diverse collective of subject matter experts aligned to the themes and work areas of the Program. The Panel will use assessment criteria outlined in the\nGrant Program Applicant Guide Section 5(ii)\nto deliver a rank order list. ICANN staff will conduct final eligibility screening before a final slate is prepared.\nGrant Program Applicant Guide Section 5(iii)\nprovides more information on how final decisions will be made.\nHow will the funds be disbursed to the grantees?\nDisbursement of the grants will occur in installments. The first installment will be disbursed to the grantee in a timely manner after the signing of the grant agreement. Following installments will be disbursed after the submission and approval of regular reports that the grantee is expected to produce and submit.\nWhat will be required from the grantees?\nGrantees will be expected to complete interim reports throughout the duration of the grant to document the progress of the project and the use of the funds. A final report will also be due at the conclusion of the project and should detail achievement of goals and objectives and final expenditures for the project.\nProjects may be subject to additional monitoring activities, such as site visits to verify and document project activities as reported. On the occasion of any such activity, ICANN will contact the grantee directly to make arrangements for the visit at no cost to the grantee.\nGrantees may also be subject to periodic reviews and evaluations. This may include surveys, participation in virtual or in-person meetings and interviews with ICANN staff, or other activities that require data collection related to implementation of the project and use of grant funds.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 22553, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 16, "word_count": 3101}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "9ebaf8bb-cf61-40cc-9dac-03ddf6706904", "source_id": "c64ed527a027c9419e783807", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://gnso.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://gnso.icann.org/en", "artifact_sha256": "d6d620e3b82d32f81085a2cb06d7644a3b2712a634ad766176a0616f306533f8", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 54061, "title": "Home | Generic Names Supporting Organization", "language": "en", "text_length": 6805, "characters": 6805, "text": "Home | Generic Names Supporting Organization\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSearch\nAcronym helper\nIf you're reading an ICANN document and cannot understand an acronym, type it here. Acronym Helper knows more than 400 acronyms, and will instantly show what the initials stand for. You'll find this Helper on every page of GNSO.ICANN.org.\nIf you are a member of the community and want to suggest an acronym for the helper please email your suggestion to start@icann.org\nMain Menu\n☰ Menu\nHome\nAbout\nGNSO Council\nStakeholder Groups and Constituencies\nBoard Appointees\nNomCom Appointees\nPolicy Staff\nHow To Participate\nOther ICANN Structures\nGNSO Structure Archive\nCouncil Activities\nConsensus Policies\nCorrespondence\nDrafts and Working Documents\nElections\nPresentations\nProcedures\nProgram Management Tools Suite\nResolutions\nGroup Activities\nCalendar\nActive Projects\nMailing Lists\nProgram Management Tools Suite\nCompleted Projects\nQuick Info\nNews\nAnnouncements\nGNSO Policy Briefing: ICANN Meeting Editions\nPublic Comments\nVideos / Photos\nCommunity Digest\nBasics\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nGNSO 101\nGNSO Policy Development Introduction\nDNS Infrastructure Basics\nLearning on ICANN.ORG\nICANN Glossary\nQuick Info\nPDP Workspaces\nBriefings & Documents\nEducation\nGNSO Council\nGNSO Calendar\nLibrary\nQuick info for: GNSO Council members\nQuick info for: Working Group members\nQuick info for: Newcomers\nWorking Group Workspaces\nTranslate\nAnnouncements\nExpression of Interest - GNSO Latin Script Diacritics Policy Development Process Working Group and Working Group Chair\n03 January 2025\nExpression of Interest – GNSO Nominated Member of the Fellowship Selection Committee\n18 December 2024\nExpression of Interest – GNSO Nominated Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program\n18 December 2024\nUpdated: Expression of Interest - GNSO Nominated Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program\n03 January 2024\nSEE ALL\nICANN86, Seville Policy Outlook Report\nThe Policy Outlook Report is produced by ICANN's Policy staff including the staff supporting the GNSO. The GNSO section is drafted specifically in preparation for ICANN meetings to provide the Community with concise background information on all relevant GNSO policy efforts.\nFollow the DNS Abuse Mitigation Policy Development Process\nThe ICANN community is currently engaged in a GNSO Council initiated Policy Development Process (PDP) on DNS Abuse Mitigation. The first PDP in addressing the complex topic of DNS Abuse Mitigation is narrowly scoped and focuses on Associated Domain Checks. Please be sure to follow the progress of the PDP Working through the ICANN community wiki page.\nEnroll for Free in GNSO Online Course\nAs part of the ICANN Learn platform, you can Get to Know the GNSO by taking the online course.. The course is aimed mostly at newcomers but also serves veterans to refresh their knowledge. Topics covered include: 'The GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies', the GNSO's Policy Development Process, and 'How to keep up-to-date with the GNSO'.\n0\n1\n2\nGNSO Council Teleconference Minutes\nProposed\nagenda and documents\nRead more\nabout GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes\nALAC Conference Call Minutes - ALAC Conference Call Minutes\nParticipants: Izumi Aizu, Vittorio Bertola, Pierre Dandjinou, Roberto Gaetano, Xue Hong, Jacqueline Morris, Annette Muehlberg, Jean Armour Polly, Sebastián Ricciardi, Siavash Shahshahani, Wendy Seltzer, Bruce Beckwith\nAbsent: Clement Dzidonu, Bret Fausett, John Levine, Alice Wanjira-Munyua\nAbsent with reported conflict: Erick Iriarte Ahon\nLiaison reports follow.\nWhois Task Force Liaison (Wendy Seltzer)\nRead more\nabout ALAC Conference Call Minutes - ALAC Conference Call Minutes\nALAC Requests an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Recovery\nIntroductory Note\nBy the ICANN Staff\nThe At-Large Advisory Committee resolved in its meeting of 14 th October 2008:\nRead more\nabout ALAC Requests an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Recovery\nALAC Requests an Issues Report of the GNSO Staff Related to Domain Tasting\nOn 8 May 2007, the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO formally notified the Staff of ICANN that ALAC had resolved to request an Issues Report on the practice known as \"Domain Tasting\".\nThe ability to request an Issues Report is enshrined in the Bylaws of ICANN, in Annex B [insert hyperlink on phrase \"Annex B\" to\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexB\n]. This request marks the first occasion that an Issues Report has been requested by any Advisory Committee in ICANN.\nRead more\nabout ALAC Requests an Issues Report of the GNSO Staff Related to Domain Tasting\nALAC Requests Comments on Draft Advisory to Board on GNSO Restructuring\nWorking Group on GNSO Restructuring Concludes Work - ALAC Working on Related Advisory for ICANN Board ­ - Comments by Community Sought\nOn 26 June 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's (BGC) GNSO Review Working Group, with the exception of the BGC's recommendation regarding GNSO Council restructuring.\nRead more\nabout ALAC Requests Comments on Draft Advisory to Board on GNSO Restructuring\nALAC Response to the Proposed sTLD RFP and Suggested Principles for New TLD Processes\nThe\nAt Large Advisory Committee\nwelcomes the opportunity to provide comments on ICANN's proposed \"\nEstablishment of new sTLDs: Request for Proposals\n.\"\nRead more\nabout ALAC Response to the Proposed sTLD RFP and Suggested Principles for New TLD Processes\nSubscribe to\nGNSO Calendar\nFull Calendar View\nQuick links to:\nGNSO Policy Briefing Archives\nActive Projects / Groups / Teams\nCouncil Activities\nICANN Community WIKI\nFooter Menu\nHome\nAbout\nGNSO Council\nStakeholder Groups and Constituencies\nBoard Appointees\nNomCom Appointees\nPolicy Staff\nHow To Participate\nOther ICANN Structures\nGNSO Structure Archive\nCouncil Activities\nConsensus Policies\nCorrespondence\nDrafts and Working Documents\nElections\nPresentations\nProcedures\nProgram Management Tools Suite\nResolutions\nGroup Activities\nCalendar\nActive Projects\nMailing Lists\nProgram Management Tools Suite\nCompleted Projects\nQuick Info\nNews\nAnnouncements\nGNSO Policy Briefing: ICANN Meeting Editions\nPublic Comments\nVideos / Photos\nCommunity Digest\nBasics\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nGNSO 101\nGNSO Policy Development Introduction\nDNS Infrastructure Basics\nLearning on ICANN.ORG\nICANN Glossary\n© 2026 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nA note about our privacy policies and terms of service:\nWe have updated our privacy policies and certain website terms of service to provide greater transparency, promote simplification, and align with recent changes in privacy laws applicable to us.\nLearn more.\nThis site uses cookies to deliver an efficient user experience and to help us see how the site is used.\nLearn more.\nOK", "segments": [{"segment_id": "01408c00-c7d8-4cce-a3ad-3100abcf6450", "document_id": "9ebaf8bb-cf61-40cc-9dac-03ddf6706904", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Home | Generic Names Supporting Organization\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSearch\nAcronym helper\nIf you're reading an ICANN document and cannot understand an acronym, type it here. Acronym Helper knows more than 400 acronyms, and will instantly show what the initials stand for. You'll find this Helper on every page of GNSO.ICANN.org.\nIf you are a member of the community and want to suggest an acronym for the helper please email your suggestion to start@icann.org\nMain Menu\n☰ Menu\nHome\nAbout\nGNSO Council\nStakeholder Groups and Constituencies\nBoard Appointees\nNomCom Appointees\nPolicy Staff\nHow To Participate\nOther ICANN Structures\nGNSO Structure Archive\nCouncil Activities\nConsensus Policies\nCorrespondence\nDrafts and Working Documents\nElections\nPresentations\nProcedures\nProgram Management Tools Suite\nResolutions\nGroup Activities\nCalendar\nActive Projects\nMailing Lists\nProgram Management Tools Suite\nCompleted Projects\nQuick Info\nNews\nAnnouncements\nGNSO Policy Briefing: ICANN Meeting Editions\nPublic Comments\nVideos / Photos\nCommunity Digest\nBasics\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nGNSO 101\nGNSO Policy Development Introduction\nDNS Infrastructure Basics\nLearning on ICANN.ORG\nICANN Glossary\nQuick Info\nPDP Workspaces\nBriefings & Documents\nEducation\nGNSO Council\nGNSO Calendar\nLibrary\nQuick info for: GNSO Council members\nQuick info for: Working Group members\nQuick info for: Newcomers\nWorking Group Workspaces\nTranslate\nAnnouncements\nExpression of Interest - GNSO Latin Script Diacritics Policy Development Process Working Group and Working Group Chair\n03 January 2025\nExpression of Interest – GNSO Nominated Member of the Fellowship Selection Committee\n18 December 2024\nExpression of Interest – GNSO Nominated Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program\n18 December 2024\nUpdated: Expression of Interest - GNSO Nominated Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program\n03 January 2024\nSEE ALL\nICANN86, Seville Policy Outlook Report\nThe Policy Outlook Report is produced by ICANN's Policy staff including the staff supporting the GNSO. The GNSO section is drafted specifically in preparation for ICANN meetings to provide the Community with concise background information on all relevant GNSO policy efforts.\nFollow the DNS Abuse Mitigation Policy Development Process\nThe ICANN community is currently engaged in a GNSO Council initiated Policy Development Process (PDP) on DNS Abuse Mitigation. The first PDP in addressing the complex topic of DNS Abuse Mitigation is narrowly scoped and focuses on Associated Domain Checks. Please be sure to follow the progress of the PDP Working through the ICANN community wiki page.\nEnroll for Free in GNSO Online Course\nAs part of the ICANN Learn platform, you can Get to Know the GNSO by taking the online course.. The course is aimed mostly at newcomers but also serves veterans to refresh their knowledge. Topics covered include: 'The GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies', the GNSO's Policy Development Process, and 'How to keep up-to-date with the GNSO'.\n0\n1\n2\nGNSO Council Teleconference Minutes\nProposed\nagenda and documents\nRead more\nabout GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes\nALAC Conference Call Minutes - ALAC Conference Call Minutes\nParticipants: Izumi Aizu, Vittorio Bertola, Pierre Dandjinou, Roberto Gaetano, Xue Hong, Jacqueline Morris, Annette Muehlberg, Jean Armour Polly, Sebastián Ricciardi, Siavash Shahshahani, Wendy Seltzer, Bruce Beckwith\nAbsent: Clement Dzidonu, Bret Fausett, John Levine, Alice Wanjira-Munyua\nAbsent with reported conflict: Erick Iriarte Ahon\nLiaison reports follow.\nWhois Task Force Liaison (Wendy Seltzer)\nRead more\nabout ALAC Conference Call Minutes - ALAC Conference Call Minutes\nALAC Requests an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Recovery\nIntroductory Note\nBy the ICANN Staff\nThe At-Large Advisory Committee resolved in its meeting of 14 th October 2008:\nRead more\nabout ALAC Requests an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Recovery\nALAC Requests an Issues Report of the GNSO Staff Related to Domain Tasting\nOn 8 May 2007, the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO formally notified the Staff of ICANN that ALAC had resolved to request an Issues Report on the practice known as \"Domain Tasting\".\nThe ability to request an Issues Report is enshrined in the Bylaws of ICANN, in Annex B [insert hyperlink on phrase \"Annex B\" to\nhttp://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexB\n]. This request marks the first occasion that an Issues Report has been requested by any Advisory Committee in ICANN.\nRead more\nabout ALAC Requests an Issues Report of the GNSO Staff Related to Domain Tasting\nALAC Requests Comments on Draft Advisory to Board on GNSO Restructuring\nWorking Group on GNSO Restructuring Concludes Work - ALAC Working on Related Advisory for ICANN Board ­ - Comments by Community Sought\nOn 26 June 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's (BGC) GNSO Review Working Group, with the exception of the BGC's recommendation regarding GNSO Council restructuring.\nRead more\nabout ALAC Requests Comments on Draft Advisory to Board on GNSO Restructuring\nALAC Response to the Proposed sTLD RFP and Suggested Principles for New TLD Processes\nThe\nAt Large Advisory Committee\nwelcomes the opportunity to provide comments on ICANN's proposed \"\nEstablishment of new sTLDs: Request for Proposals\n.\"\nRead more\nabout ALAC Response to the Proposed sTLD RFP and Suggested Principles for New TLD Processes\nSubscribe to\nGNSO Calendar\nFull Calendar View\nQuick links to:\nGNSO Policy Briefing Archives\nActive Projects / Groups / Teams\nCouncil Activities\nICANN Community WIKI\nFooter Menu\nHome\nAbout\nGNSO Council\nStakeholder Groups and Constituencies\nBoard Appointees\nNomCom Appointees\nPolicy Staff\nHow To Participate\nOther ICANN Structures\nGNSO Structure Archive\nCouncil Activities\nConsensus Policies\nCorrespondence\nDrafts and Working Documents\nElections\nPresentations\nProcedures\nProgram Management Tools Suite\nResolutions\nGroup Activities\nCalendar\nActive Projects\nMailing Lists\nProgram Management Tools Suite\nCompleted Projects\nQuick Info\nNews\nAnnouncements\nGNSO Policy Briefing: ICANN Meeting Editions\nPublic Comments\nVideos / Photos\nCommunity Digest\nBasics\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nGNSO 101\nGNSO Policy Development Introduction\nDNS Infrastructure Basics\nLearning on ICANN.ORG\nICANN Glossary\n© 2026 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nA note about our privacy policies and terms of service:\nWe have updated our privacy policies and certain website terms of service to provide greater transparency, promote simplification, and align with recent changes in privacy laws applicable to us.\nLearn more.\nThis site uses cookies to deliver an efficient user experience and to help us see how the site is used.\nLearn more.\nOK", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6805, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1015}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "9ffbacd5-dc26-4c12-b774-9fabd8a68bcd", "source_id": "1ddaef594c1700609c9545f8", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1462", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1462/", "artifact_sha256": "1ddaef594c1700609c9545f88bbe75c60c45aaeb6872069e7cdee4e5fd1ad423", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 144190, "title": "RFC 1462: FYI on 'What is the Internet?'", "language": "en", "text_length": 27725, "characters": 27725, "text": "RFC 1462: FYI on \"What is the Internet?\" | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1462\n:\nFYI\n20\n:\nFYI on \"What is the Internet?\"\nE. Krol\n,\nE. Hoffman\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                          E. Krol\nRequest for Comments: 1462                      University of Illinois\nFYI: 20                                                     E. Hoffman\n                                                   Merit Network, Inc.\n                                                              May 1993\nFYI on \"What is the Internet?\"\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\n   This FYI RFC answers the question, \"What is the Internet?\" and is\n   produced by the User Services Working Group of the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force (IETF). Containing a modified chapter from Ed\n   Krol's 1992 book, \"The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog,\" the\n   paper covers the Internet's definition, history, administration,\n   protocols, financing, and current issues such as growth,\n   commercialization, and privatization.\n\nIntroduction\n\n   A commonly asked question is \"What is the Internet?\" The reason such\n   a question gets asked so often is because there's no agreed upon\n   answer that neatly sums up the Internet. The Internet can be thought\n   about in relation to its common protocols, as a physical collection\n   of routers and circuits, as a set of shared resources, or even as an\n   attitude about interconnecting and intercommunication. Some common\n   definitions given in the past include:\n\n      * a network of networks based on the TCP/IP protocols,\n      * a community of people who use and develop those networks,\n      * a collection of resources that can be reached from those\n        networks.\n\n   Today's Internet is a global resource connecting millions of users\n   that began as an experiment over 20 years ago by the U.S.  Department\n   of Defense. While the networks that make up the Internet are based on\n   a standard set of protocols (a mutually agreed upon method of\n   communication between parties), the Internet also has gateways to\n   networks and services that are based on other protocols.\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 1]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nTo help answer the question more completely, the rest of this paper\n   contains an updated second chapter from \"The Whole Internet User's\n   Guide and Catalog\" by Ed Krol (1992) that gives a more thorough\n   explanation. (The excerpt is published through the gracious\n   permission of the publisher, O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.)\n\nThe Internet (excerpt from \"The Whole Internet User's Guide and\nCatalog\")\n\n   The Internet was born about 20 years ago, trying to connect together\n   a U.S. Defense Department network called the ARPAnet and various\n   other radio and satellite networks. The ARPAnet was an experimental\n   network designed to support military research--in particular,\n   research about how to build networks that could withstand partial\n   outages (like bomb attacks) and still function.  (Think about this\n   when I describe how the network works; it may give you some insight\n   into the design of the Internet.) In the ARPAnet model, communication\n   always occurs between a source and a destination computer. The\n   network itself is assumed to be unreliable; any portion of the\n   network could disappear at any moment (pick your favorite\n   catastrophe--these days backhoes cutting cables are more of a threat\n   than bombs). It was designed to require the minimum of information\n   from the computer clients. To send a message on the network, a\n   computer only had to put its data in an envelope, called an Internet\n   Protocol (IP) packet, and \"address\" the packets correctly. The\n   communicating computers--not the network itself--were also given the\n   responsibility to ensure that the communication was accomplished. The\n   philosophy was that every computer on the network could talk, as a\n   peer, with any other computer.\n\n   These decisions may sound odd, like the assumption of an \"unreliable\"\n   network, but history has proven that most of them were reasonably\n   correct. Although the Organization for International Standardization\n   (ISO) was spending years designing the ultimate standard for computer\n   networking, people could not wait. Internet developers in the US, UK\n   and Scandinavia, responding to market pressures, began to put their\n   IP software on every conceivable type of computer. It became the only\n   practical method for computers from different manufacturers to\n   communicate. This was attractive to the government and universities,\n   which didn't have policies saying that all computers must be bought\n   from the same vendor. Everyone bought whichever computer they liked,\n   and expected the computers to work together over the network.\n\n   At about the same time as the Internet was coming into being,\n   Ethernet local area networks (\"LANs\") were developed. This technology\n   matured quietly, until desktop workstations became available around\n   1983. Most of these workstations came with Berkeley UNIX, which\n   included IP networking software. This created a new demand: rather\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 2]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nthan connecting to a single large timesharing computer per site,\n   organizations wanted to connect the ARPAnet to their entire local\n   network. This would allow all the computers on that LAN to access\n   ARPAnet facilities. About the same time, other organizations started\n   building their own networks using the same communications protocols\n   as the ARPAnet: namely, IP and its relatives. It became obvious that\n   if these networks could talk together, users on one network could\n   communicate with those on another; everyone would benefit.\n\n   One of the most important of these newer networks was the NSFNET,\n   commissioned by the National Science Foundation (NSF), an agency of\n   the U.S. government. In the late 80's the NSF created five\n   supercomputer centers. Up to this point, the world's fastest\n   computers had only been available to weapons developers and a few\n   researchers from very large corporations. By creating supercomputer\n   centers, the NSF was making these resources available for any\n   scholarly research. Only five centers were created because they were\n   so expensive--so they had to be shared. This created a communications\n   problem: they needed a way to connect their centers together and to\n   allow the clients of these centers to access them.  At first, the NSF\n   tried to use the ARPAnet for communications, but this strategy failed\n   because of bureaucracy and staffing problems.\n\n   In response, NSF decided to build its own network, based on the\n   ARPAnet's IP technology. It connected the centers with 56,000 bit per\n   second (56k bps) telephone lines.  (This is roughly the ability to\n   transfer two full typewritten pages per second.  That's slow by\n   modern standards, but was reasonably fast in the mid 80's.)  It was\n   obvious, however, that if they tried to connect every university\n   directly to a supercomputing center, they would go broke. You pay for\n   these telephone lines by the mile. One line per campus with a\n   supercomputing center at the hub, like spokes on a bike wheel, adds\n   up to lots of miles of phone lines. Therefore, they decided to create\n   regional networks. In each area of the country, schools would be\n   connected to their nearest neighbor. Each chain was connected to a\n   supercomputer center at one point and the centers were connected\n   together. With this configuration, any computer could eventually\n   communicate with any other by forwarding the conversation through its\n   neighbors.\n\n   This solution was successful--and, like any successful solution, a\n   time came when it no longer worked. Sharing supercomputers also\n   allowed the connected sites to share a lot of other things not\n   related to the centers. Suddenly these schools had a world of data\n   and collaborators at their fingertips. The network's traffic\n   increased until, eventually, the computers controlling the network\n   and the telephone lines connecting them were overloaded. In 1987, a\n   contract to manage and upgrade the network was awarded to Merit\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 3]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nNetwork Inc., which ran Michigan's educational network, in\n   partnership with IBM and MCI. The old network was replaced with\n   faster telephone lines (by a factor of 20), with faster computers to\n   control it.\n\n   The process of running out of horsepower and getting bigger engines\n   and better roads continues to this day. Unlike changes to the highway\n   system, however, most of these changes aren't noticed by the people\n   trying to use the Internet to do real work. You won't go to your\n   office, log in to your computer, and find a message saying that the\n   Internet will be inaccessible for the next six months because of\n   improvements. Perhaps even more important: the process of running out\n   of capacity and improving the network has created a technology that's\n   extremely mature and practical. The ideas have been tested; problems\n   have appeared, and problems have been solved.\n\n   For our purposes, the most important aspect of the NSF's networking\n   effort is that it allowed everyone to access the network. Up to that\n   point, Internet access had been available only to researchers in\n   computer science, government employees, and government contractors.\n   The NSF promoted universal educational access by funding campus\n   connections only if the campus had a plan to spread the access\n   around. So everyone attending a four year college could become an\n   Internet user.\n\n   The demand keeps growing. Now that most four-year colleges are\n   connected, people are trying to get secondary and primary schools\n   connected. People who have graduated from college know what the\n   Internet is good for, and talk their employers into connecting\n   corporations. All this activity points to continued growth,\n   networking problems to solve, evolving technologies, and job security\n   for networkers.\n\nWhat Makes Up the Internet?\n\n   What comprises the Internet is a difficult question; the answer\n   changes over time. Five years ago the answer would have been easy:\n   \"All the networks, using the IP protocol, which cooperate to form a\n   seamless network for their collective users.\" This would include\n   various federal networks, a set of regional networks, campus\n   networks, and some foreign networks.\n\n   More recently, some non-IP-based networks saw that the Internet was\n   good. They wanted to provide its services to their clientele. So they\n   developed methods of connecting these \"strange\" networks (e.g.,\n   Bitnet, DECnets, etc.) to the Internet. At first these connections,\n   called \"gateways\", merely served to transfer electronic mail between\n   the two networks. Some, however, have grown to translate other\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 4]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nservices between the networks as well. Are they part of the Internet?\n   Maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on whether, in their hearts, they\n   want to be. If this sounds strange, read on--it gets stranger.\n\nWho Governs the Internet?\n\n   In many ways the Internet is like a church: it has its council of\n   elders, every member has an opinion about how things should work, and\n   you can either take part or not. It's your choice. The Internet has\n   no president, chief operating officer, or Pope. The constituent\n   networks may have presidents and CEO's, but that's a different issue;\n   there's no single authority figure for the Internet as a whole.\n\n   The ultimate authority for where the Internet is going rests with the\n   Internet Society, or ISOC. ISOC is a voluntary membership\n   organization whose purpose is to promote global information exchange\n   through Internet technology.  (If you'd like more information, or if\n   you would like to join, contact information is provided in the \"For\n   More Information\" section, near the end of this document.)  It\n   appoints a council of elders, which has responsibility for the\n   technical management and direction of the Internet.\n\n   The council of elders is a group of invited volunteers called the\n   Internet Architecture Board, or the IAB. The IAB meets regularly to\n   \"bless\" standards and allocate resources, like addresses. The\n   Internet works because there are standard ways for computers and\n   software applications to talk to each other. This allows computers\n   from different vendors to communicate without problems. It's not an\n   IBM-only or Sun-only or Macintosh-only network. The IAB is\n   responsible for these standards; it decides when a standard is\n   necessary, and what the standard should be. When a standard is\n   required, it considers the problem, adopts a standard, and announces\n   it via the network. (You were expecting stone tablets?) The IAB also\n   keeps track of various numbers (and other things) that must remain\n   unique. For example, each computer on the Internet has a unique 32-\n   bit address; no other computer has the same address.  How does this\n   address get assigned? The IAB worries about these kinds of problems.\n   It doesn't actually assign the addresses, but it makes the rules\n   about how to assign addresses.\n\n   As in a church, everyone has opinions about how things ought to run.\n   Internet users express their opinions through meetings of the\n   Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF is another volunteer\n   organization; it meets regularly to discuss operational and near-term\n   technical problems of the Internet. When it considers a problem\n   important enough to merit concern, the IETF sets up a \"working group\"\n   for further investigation. (In practice, \"important enough\" usually\n   means that there are enough people to volunteer for the working\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 5]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\ngroup.) Anyone can attend IETF meetings and be on working groups; the\n   important thing is that they work. Working groups have many different\n   functions, ranging from producing documentation, to deciding how\n   networks should cooperate when problems occur, to changing the\n   meaning of the bits in some kind of packet. A working group usually\n   produces a report. Depending on the kind of recommendation, it could\n   just be documentation and made available to anyone wanting it, it\n   could be accepted voluntarily as a good idea which people follow, or\n   it could be sent to the IAB to be declared a standard.\n\n   If you go to a church and accept its teachings and philosophy, you\n   are accepted by it, and receive the benefits. If you don't like it,\n   you can leave. The church is still there, and you get none of the\n   benefits. Such is the Internet. If a network accepts the teachings of\n   the Internet, is connected to it, and considers itself part of it,\n   then it is part of the Internet. It will find things it doesn't like\n   and can address those concerns through the IETF. Some concerns may be\n   considered valid and the Internet may change accordingly.  Some of\n   the changes may run counter to the religion, and be rejected. If the\n   network does something that causes damage to the Internet, it could\n   be excommunicated until it mends its evil ways.\n\nWho Pays for It?\n\n   The old rule for when things are confusing is \"follow the money.\"\n   Well, this won't help you to understand the Internet. No one pays for\n   \"it\"; there is no Internet, Inc. that collects fees from all Internet\n   networks or users. Instead, everyone pays for their part.  The NSF\n   pays for NSFNET. NASA pays for the NASA Science Internet.  Networks\n   get together and decide how to connect themselves together and fund\n   these interconnections. A college or corporation pays for their\n   connection to some regional network, which in turn pays a national\n   provider for its access.\n\nWhat Does This Mean for Me?\n\n   The concept that the Internet is not a network, but a collection of\n   networks, means little to the end user. You want to do something\n   useful: run a program, or access some unique data. You shouldn't have\n   to worry about how it's all stuck together. Consider the telephone\n   system--it's an internet, too. Pacific Bell, AT&T, MCI, British\n   Telephony, Telefonos de Mexico, and so on, are all separate\n   corporations that run pieces of the telephone system. They worry\n   about how to make it all work together; all you have to do is dial.\n\n   If you ignore cost and commercials, you shouldn't care if you are\n   dealing with MCI, AT&T, or Sprint. Dial the number and it works.\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 6]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nYou only care who carries your calls when a problem occurs. If\n   something goes out of service, only one of those companies can fix\n   it. They talk to each other about problems, but each phone carrier is\n   responsible for fixing problems on its own part of the system.  The\n   same is true on the Internet. Each network has its own network\n   operations center (NOC). The operation centers talk to each other and\n   know how to resolve problems. Your site has a contract with one of\n   the Internet's constituent networks, and its job is to keep your site\n   happy. So if something goes wrong, they are the ones to gripe at. If\n   it's not their problem, they'll pass it along.\n\nWhat Does the Future Hold?\n\n   Finally, a question I can answer. It's not that I have a crystal ball\n   (if I did I'd spend my time on Wall Street instead of writing a\n   book). Rather, these are the things that the IAB and the IETF discuss\n   at their meetings. Most people don't care about the long discussions;\n   they only want to know how they'll be affected. So, here are\n   highlights of the networking future.\n\nNew Standard Protocols\n\n   When I was talking about how the Internet started, I mentioned the\n   International Standards Organization (ISO) and their set of protocol\n   standards. Well, they finally finished designing it. Now it is an\n   international standard, typically referred to as the ISO/OSI (Open\n   Systems Interconnect) protocol suite. Many of the Internet's\n   component networks allow use of OSI today. There isn't much demand,\n   yet. The U.S. government has taken a position that government\n   computers should be able to speak these protocols. Many have the\n   software, but few are using it now.\n\n   It's really unclear how much demand there will be for OSI,\n   notwithstanding the government backing. Many people feel that the\n   current approach isn't broke, so why fix it? They are just becoming\n   comfortable with what they have, why should they have to learn a new\n   set of commands and terminology just because it is the standard?\n\n   Currently there are no real advantages to moving to OSI. It is more\n   complex and less mature than IP, and hence doesn't work as\n   efficiently. OSI does offer hope of some additional features, but it\n   also suffers from some of the same problems which will plague IP as\n   the network gets much bigger and faster. It's clear that some sites\n   will convert to the OSI protocols over the next few years.  The\n   question is: how many?\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 7]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nInternational Connections\n\n   The Internet has been an international network for a long time, but\n   it only extended to the United States' allies and overseas military\n   bases. Now, with the less paranoid world environment, the Internet is\n   spreading everywhere. It's currently in over 50 countries, and the\n   number is rapidly increasing. Eastern European countries longing for\n   western scientific ties have wanted to participate for a long time,\n   but were excluded by government regulation. This ban has been\n   relaxed. Third world countries that formerly didn't have the means to\n   participate now view the Internet as a way to raise their education\n   and technology levels.\n\n   In Europe, the development of the Internet used to be hampered by\n   national policies mandating OSI protocols, regarding IP as a cultural\n   threat akin to EuroDisney.  These policies prevented development of\n   large scale Internet infrastructures except for the Scandinavian\n   countries which embraced the Internet protocols long ago and are\n   already well-connected.  In 1989, RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeens) began\n   coordinating the operation of the Internet in Europe and presently\n   about 25% of all hosts connected to the Internet are located in\n   Europe.\n\n   At present, the Internet's international expansion is hampered by the\n   lack of a good supporting infrastructure, namely a decent telephone\n   system. In both Eastern Europe and the third world, a state-of-the-\n   art phone system is nonexistent. Even in major cities, connections\n   are limited to the speeds available to the average home anywhere in\n   the U.S., 9600 bits/second. Typically, even if one of these countries\n   is \"on the Internet,\" only a few sites are accessible. Usually, this\n   is the major technical university for that country. However, as phone\n   systems improve, you can expect this to change too; more and more,\n   you'll see smaller sites (even individual home systems) connecting to\n   the Internet.\n\nCommercialization\n\n   Many big corporations have been on the Internet for years. For the\n   most part, their participation has been limited to their research and\n   engineering departments. The same corporations used some other\n   network (usually a private network) for their business\n   communications. After all, this IP stuff was only an academic toy.\n   The IBM mainframes that handled their commercial data processing did\n   the \"real\" networking using a protocol suite called System Network\n   Architecture (SNA).\n\n   Businesses are now discovering that running multiple networks is\n   expensive. Some are beginning to look to the Internet for \"one-stop\"\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 8]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nnetwork shopping. They were scared away in the past by policies which\n   excluded or restricted commercial use. Many of these policies are\n   under review and will change. As these restrictions drop, commercial\n   use of the Internet will become progressively more common.\n\n   This should be especially good for small businesses. Motorola or\n   Standard Oil can afford to run nationwide networks connecting their\n   sites, but Ace Custom Software couldn't. If Ace has a San Jose office\n   and a Washington office, all it needs is an Internet connection on\n   each end. For all practical purposes, they have a nationwide\n   corporate network, just like the big boys.\n\nPrivatization\n\n   Right behind commercialization comes privatization. For years, the\n   networking community has wanted the telephone companies and other\n   for-profit ventures to provide \"off the shelf\" IP connections.  That\n   is, just like you can place an order for a telephone jack in your\n   house for your telephone, you could do this for an Internet\n   connection. You order, the telephone installer leaves, and you plug\n   your computer into the Internet. Except for Bolt, Beranek and Newman,\n   the company that ran the ARPAnet, there weren't any takers.  The\n   telephone companies have historically said, \"We'll sell you phone\n   lines, and you can do whatever you like with them.\" By default, the\n   Federal government stayed in the networking business.\n\n   Now that large corporations have become interested in the Internet,\n   the phone companies have started to change their attitude. Now they\n   and other profit-oriented network purveyors complain that the\n   government ought to get out of the network business. After all, who\n   best can provide network services but the \"phone companies\"?  They've\n   got the ear of a lot of political people, to whom it appears to be a\n   reasonable thing. If you talk to phone company personnel, many of\n   them still don't really understand what the Internet is about. They\n   ain't got religion, but they are studying the Bible furiously.\n   (Apologies to those telephone company employees who saw the light\n   years ago and have been trying to drag their employers into church.)\n\n   Although most people in the networking community think that\n   privatization is a good idea, there are some obstacles in the way.\n   Most revolve around the funding for the connections that are already\n   in place. Many schools are connected because the government pays part\n   of the bill. If they had to pay their own way, some schools would\n   probably decide to spend their money elsewhere. Major research\n   institutions would certainly stay on the net; but some smaller\n   colleges might not, and the costs would probably be prohibitive for\n   most secondary schools (let alone grade schools).  What if the school\n   could afford either an Internet connection or a science lab? It's\nKrol & Hoffman                                                  [Page 9]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nunclear which one would get funded. The Internet has not yet become a\n   \"necessity\" in many people's minds. When it does, expect\n   privatization to come quickly.\n\n   Well, enough questions about the history of the information highway\n   system. It's time to walk to the edge of the road, try and hitch a\n   ride, and be on your way.\n\nAcknowledgments\n\n   We would like to thank O'Reilly & Associates for permission to\n   reprint the chapter from their book by Ed Krol (1992), \"The Whole\n   Internet User's Guide and Catalog.\"\n\nFor More Information\n\n   Hoffman, E. and L. Jackson. (1993) \"FYI on Introducing the Internet\n   --A Short Bibliography of Introductory Internetworking Readings for\n   the Network Novice,\" 4 p.  (FYI 19,\nRFC 1463\n).\n\n      To find out how to obtain this document and other on-line\n      introductory readings, send an e-mail message to:\n      nis-info@nis.merit.edu, with the following text:\n      send access.guide.\n\n   Krol, Ed. (1992) The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog,\n   O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA. ISBN 1-56592-025-2.\n\n   Quarterman, J. (1993) \"Recent Internet Books,\" 15 p. (\nRFC 1432\n).\n\n   The Internet Society\n   Phone: (703) 620-8990\n   Fax: (703) 620-0913\n   E-mail: isoc@cnri.reston.va.us\nKrol & Hoffman                                                 [Page 10]\nRFC 1462\nWhat is the Internet?                  May 1993\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\n   Ed Krol\n   Computing and Communications Service Office\n   Univ. of Illinois Urbana Champaign (UIUC)\n   1304 W Springfield\n   Urbana, IL 61801\n\n   Phone: (217)333-7886\n   EMail: e-krol@uiuc.edu\n\n\n   Ellen Hoffman\n   Merit Network, Inc.\n   2901 Hubbard, Pod-G\n   Ann Arbor, MI 48105\n\n   Phone: (313) 936-3000\n   EMail: ellen@merit.edu\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nKrol & Hoffman                                                 [Page 11]\nRFC\n1462\n: FYI on \"What is the Internet?\"\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1993-05-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1993-05-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1993-05-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:23.964835+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a0223d86-9c07-4c2b-bbfe-a910f6c41adb", "source_id": "a5d89dab767bb5fae304ba8f", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3677", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3677/", "artifact_sha256": "75b4dcf5505246ec19a0726ee1e8405bd9ea96eb13b35a2557fdcc8a7587308f", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 118940, "title": "RFC 3677: IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 12990, "characters": 12990, "text": "RFC 3677: IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3677\nInfo\nRFC\n3677\n:\nBCP\n77\n:\nIETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures\nL. Daigle\n,\nEd.\n,\nInternet Architecture Board\nBest Current Practice\nNetwork Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.\nRequest for Comments: 3677 Internet Architecture Board\nBCP: 77 IAB\nCategory: Standards Track December 2003\nIETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo outlines the process by which the IETF makes a selection of\nan Internet Society (ISOC) Board of Trustees appointment.\n1\n. Introduction\nThe Internet Society (ISOC) provides organizational and financial\nsupport for the IETF. As stipulated in ISOC's by-laws the IETF is\ncalled upon to name 3 Trustees to its Board (BoT), with staggered 3\nyear terms. This requires that the IETF name one Trustee each year.\n\nThis memo outlines the process by which the IETF makes that\nselection. This process will also be used in the event of mid-term\nvacancies that may arise with IETF nominated Board positions.\n1.1\n. Overview of Selection Process\nIn brief, this document describes the timeframe and procedures for\nthe IAB to solicit public input and make a selection for the open\nposition each year.\n1.2\n. Rationale\nAn alternative approach to making a selection for these positions\nwould be to use the IETF's NomCom (\nRFC 2727\n[\n1\n] and its revisions).\nHowever, that NomCom is chartered and defined specifically to the\ntask of making selections for IETF organization tasks, and the ISOC\nBoT appointment process does not fit that in 2 ways:\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\n1. the timeframe of the appointment does not mesh with the IETF\nappointment cycle\n\n2. the nature of the deliberations and the type of information\nsolicited would be significantly different for an external\nappointment, such as this appointment to the ISOC BoT\n\nThe first issue (timing) could be resolved fairly easily for this\nspecific appointment. The second issue is more general, and not\nreasonably reconciled with the IETF NomCom task as currently\nspecified.\n\nThe process described in\nRFC 2727\nis oriented toward soliciting\nfeedback from the IETF community with respect to individuals and\ntechnical positions with which they have personal experience. To\nmake a good decision on external appointments, in general, the NomCom\nwould have to understand the requirements for those positions, and\nattempt to evaluate candidates for a very different set of skills\nthan is required of IAB/IESG members. It might also require\nsoliciting feedback from outside the IETF community. There is no\nquestion that the individuals that constitute the IETF NomCom each\nyear have the competence to carry out such a search; the issue is\nthat it is a very different task, would require additional time and\nresources, and therefore is a side effort that could very well\nundermine the effectiveness of the NomCom in carrying out its primary\ntask for the IETF.\n\nBy contrast, the IAB is chartered to be responsible for IETF external\nliaisons, is a standing body that works with ISOC (and the ISOC\nBoard), and therefore has a working knowledge of the requirements of\nthe specific position discussed here.\n\nAt some future point, if there is a more general need to make\nexternal appointments, the IETF may consider broadening the scope of\nthe IETF NomCom role, or create a separate nominating committee for\nsuch external non-liaison appointments. This document proposes that\nis not necessary or desirable for the purposes of this one annual\nappointment.\n2\n. Desirable Qualifications and Selection Criteria for an\nIETF-Nominated ISOC Trustee\nCandidates for an ISOC Trustee should have a demonstrable involvement\nin the IETF with a particular focus on active participation in IETF\nWorking Groups.\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\nThe candidate is expected to possess clearly demonstrated technical\ncompetence in Internet technology, and be able to articulate\ntechnology issues such that the ISOC Board can be provided with sound\ntechnical perspectives. The candidate is also expected to be able to\nunderstand the respective roles and responsibilities of the IETF and\nISOC and be able to articulate these roles within both organizational\ncommunities.\n\nThe candidate will also be expected to exercise all the duties of an\nISOC Board member, including fiduciary responsibility, setting of\npolicies, oversight of the operation of the Society, representing\nthe interests of the members and stakeholders of the Society and\nparticipation in all Board meetings and Board activity programs.\n\nThe candidate is not a representative or a delegate of the IETF and\nis not chartered to represent the IETF or the IETF Standards Process\nwithin the ISOC Board or the broader ISOC community. However it is\nexpected that the candidate would be able to call on experts in the\nIETF community as required, to ensure that the ISOC Board receives\nthe highest quality technical advice available.\n3\n. IETF ISOC Board of Trustees Selection Process\n3.1\n. Nominations and eligibility\nEach year, the IAB will make a public call for nominations on the\nietf-announce@ietf.org mailing list. The public call will specify\nthe manner by which nominations will be accepted and the means by\nwhich the list of nominees will be published.\n\nSelf-nominations are permitted. Along with the name and contact\ninformation for each candidate, details about the candidate's\nbackground and qualifications for the position should be attached to\nthe nomination. All IETF participants, including working group\nchairs, IETF NomCom members, IAB and IESG members are eligible for\nnomination.\n\nIAB and IESG members who accept nomination will recuse themselves\nfrom selection and confirmation discussions respectively.\n3.2\n. Selection\nThe IAB will publish the list of nominated persons, review the\nnomination material, and make a selection.\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\nThe selection criteria will include additional consideration of any\nnominated candidates who are concurrently members of the IAB or IESG\nmembers such that at the time of selection no more than two of the\nthree IETF-appointed ISOC Trustees are IAB and IESG members.\n3.3\n. Confirmation\nThe IESG will act as the confirming body for the selection. In the\nevent that the IESG determines not to confirm the nominated\ncandidate, the IESG will provide the IAB with the basis for this\ndetermination and the IAB will nominate another candidate.\n3.4\n. Timeframe\nISOC expects to seat new Board members at its annual general meeting\nin June of each year. Basic timeframe requirements for the IETF\nprocess are as follows:\n\no 4-6 weeks for solicitation of nominations\n\no 4-6 weeks for review of nominees, deliberation and selection\n\no 4-6 weeks for confirmation (and re-selection as necessary) and\ndelivery to ISOC\n\nIn January of each year, the IAB will announce the specific dates for\nthe IETF ISOC Trustee selection process for that year (taking into\naccount the particular dates of the first IETF meeting of the year,\netc), following the guidelines above.\n3.5\n. Mid-term Vacancies\nThis document describes the process for the general, annual\nappointment of ISOC Trustees to fill the seats of Trustees whose\nterms are ending. However, if an IETF-appointed Trustee is unable to\nserve his or her full term, the IAB may, at its discretion,\nimmediately select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term\nusing the interim process defined in\nSection 3.5.1\n. If the IAB does\nnot invoke the interim process, the next annual selection process\nwill fill the vacancy (if the vacant term does not end at that point)\nas well as the regular appointment for that selection cycle.\n3.5.1\n. Interim Appointment Process\nIf the IAB elects to fill the mid-term vacancy before the next annual\nselection, a separate timeline will be announced and the rest of the\nprocess described in this document will be followed.\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\n4\n. Security Considerations\nThis document does not describe any technical protocols and has no\nimplications for network security.\n5\n. Intellectual Property Statement\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nintellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; neither does it represent that it\nhas made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the\nIETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and\nstandards-related documentation can be found in\nBCP-11\n. Copies of\nclaims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of\nlicenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to\nobtain a general license or permission for the use of such\nproprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can\nbe obtained from the IETF Secretariat.\n\nThe IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights which may cover technology that may be required to practice\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive\nDirector.\n6\n. References\n[\n1\n] Galvin, J., \"IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall\nProcess: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\",\nBCP\n10\n,\nRFC 2727\n, February 2000.\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\nAppendix A\n. IAB Members at the time of this writing\nBernard Aboba\n\nHarald Alvestrand\n\nRob Austein\n\nLeslie Daigle\n\nPatrik Faltstrom\n\nSally Floyd\n\nMark Handley\n\nGeoff Huston\n\nJun-ichiro (Itojun) Hagino\n\nCharlie Kaufman\n\nJames Kempf\n\nEric Rescorla\n\nMike St.Johns\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nLeslie Daigle\nEditor\n\nInternet Architecture Board\nIAB\n\nEMail: iab@iab.org\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.\n\nThe limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC\n3677\n: IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n2\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n1.1. Overview of Selection Process\n1.2. Rationale\n2. Desirable Qualifications and Selection Criteria for an\nIETF-Nominated ISOC Trustee\n3. IETF ISOC Board of Trustees Selection Process\n3.1. Nominations and eligibility\n3.2. Selection\n3.3. Confirmation\n3.4. Timeframe\n3.5. Mid-term Vacancies\n3.5.1. Interim Appointment Process\n4. Security Considerations\n5. Intellectual Property Statement\n6. References\nAppendix A. IAB Members at the time of this writing\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "680d87b8-c1de-4631-b49c-b8d179e8921d", "document_id": "a0223d86-9c07-4c2b-bbfe-a910f6c41adb", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 3677: IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3677\nInfo\nRFC\n3677\n:\nBCP\n77\n:\nIETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures\nL. Daigle\n,\nEd.\n,\nInternet Architecture Board\nBest Current Practice\nNetwork Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.\nRequest for Comments: 3677 Internet Architecture Board\nBCP: 77 IAB\nCategory: Standards Track December 2003\nIETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo outlines the process by which the IETF makes a selection of\nan Internet Society (ISOC) Board of Trustees appointment.\n1\n. Introduction\nThe Internet Society (ISOC) provides organizational and financial\nsupport for the IETF. As stipulated in ISOC's by-laws the IETF is\ncalled upon to name 3 Trustees to its Board (BoT), with staggered 3\nyear terms. This requires that the IETF name one Trustee each year.\n\nThis memo outlines the process by which the IETF makes that\nselection. This process will also be used in the event of mid-term\nvacancies that may arise with IETF nominated Board positions.\n1.1\n. Overview of Selection Process\nIn brief, this document describes the timeframe and procedures for\nthe IAB to solicit public input and make a selection for the open\nposition each year.\n1.2\n. Rationale\nAn alternative approach to making a selection for these positions\nwould be to use the IETF's NomCom (\nRFC 2727\n[\n1\n] and its revisions).\nHowever, that NomCom is chartered and defined specifically to the\ntask of making selections for IETF organization tasks, and the ISOC\nBoT appointment process does not fit that in 2 ways:\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\n1. the timeframe of the appointment does not mesh with the IETF\nappointment cycle", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2111, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 344}}, {"segment_id": "064a2ee9-1026-47f4-92ca-eee5eda09e79", "document_id": "a0223d86-9c07-4c2b-bbfe-a910f6c41adb", "ordinal": 1, "text": "2. the nature of the deliberations and the type of information\nsolicited would be significantly different for an external\nappointment, such as this appointment to the ISOC BoT\n\nThe first issue (timing) could be resolved fairly easily for this\nspecific appointment. The second issue is more general, and not\nreasonably reconciled with the IETF NomCom task as currently\nspecified.\n\nThe process described in\nRFC 2727\nis oriented toward soliciting\nfeedback from the IETF community with respect to individuals and\ntechnical positions with which they have personal experience. To\nmake a good decision on external appointments, in general, the NomCom\nwould have to understand the requirements for those positions, and\nattempt to evaluate candidates for a very different set of skills\nthan is required of IAB/IESG members. It might also require\nsoliciting feedback from outside the IETF community. There is no\nquestion that the individuals that constitute the IETF NomCom each\nyear have the competence to carry out such a search; the issue is\nthat it is a very different task, would require additional time and\nresources, and therefore is a side effort that could very well\nundermine the effectiveness of the NomCom in carrying out its primary\ntask for the IETF.\n\nBy contrast, the IAB is chartered to be responsible for IETF external\nliaisons, is a standing body that works with ISOC (and the ISOC\nBoard), and therefore has a working knowledge of the requirements of\nthe specific position discussed here.\n\nAt some future point, if there is a more general need to make\nexternal appointments, the IETF may consider broadening the scope of\nthe IETF NomCom role, or create a separate nominating committee for\nsuch external non-liaison appointments. This document proposes that\nis not necessary or desirable for the purposes of this one annual\nappointment.\n2\n. Desirable Qualifications and Selection Criteria for an\nIETF-Nominated ISOC Trustee\nCandidates for an ISOC Trustee should have a demonstrable involvement\nin the IETF with a particular focus on active participation in IETF\nWorking Groups.\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\nThe candidate is expected to possess clearly demonstrated technical\ncompetence in Internet technology, and be able to articulate\ntechnology issues such that the ISOC Board can be provided with sound\ntechnical perspectives. The candidate is also expected to be able to\nunderstand the respective roles and responsibilities of the IETF and\nISOC and be able to articulate these roles within both organizational\ncommunities.", "char_start": 2113, "char_end": 4720, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 411}}, {"segment_id": "7682058a-1261-4640-b8d3-cc354e415c88", "document_id": "a0223d86-9c07-4c2b-bbfe-a910f6c41adb", "ordinal": 2, "text": "The candidate will also be expected to exercise all the duties of an\nISOC Board member, including fiduciary responsibility, setting of\npolicies, oversight of the operation of the Society, representing\nthe interests of the members and stakeholders of the Society and\nparticipation in all Board meetings and Board activity programs.\n\nThe candidate is not a representative or a delegate of the IETF and\nis not chartered to represent the IETF or the IETF Standards Process\nwithin the ISOC Board or the broader ISOC community. However it is\nexpected that the candidate would be able to call on experts in the\nIETF community as required, to ensure that the ISOC Board receives\nthe highest quality technical advice available.\n3\n. IETF ISOC Board of Trustees Selection Process\n3.1\n. Nominations and eligibility\nEach year, the IAB will make a public call for nominations on the\nietf-announce@ietf.org mailing list. The public call will specify\nthe manner by which nominations will be accepted and the means by\nwhich the list of nominees will be published.\n\nSelf-nominations are permitted. Along with the name and contact\ninformation for each candidate, details about the candidate's\nbackground and qualifications for the position should be attached to\nthe nomination. All IETF participants, including working group\nchairs, IETF NomCom members, IAB and IESG members are eligible for\nnomination.\n\nIAB and IESG members who accept nomination will recuse themselves\nfrom selection and confirmation discussions respectively.\n3.2\n. Selection\nThe IAB will publish the list of nominated persons, review the\nnomination material, and make a selection.\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\nThe selection criteria will include additional consideration of any\nnominated candidates who are concurrently members of the IAB or IESG\nmembers such that at the time of selection no more than two of the\nthree IETF-appointed ISOC Trustees are IAB and IESG members.\n3.3\n. Confirmation\nThe IESG will act as the confirming body for the selection. In the\nevent that the IESG determines not to confirm the nominated\ncandidate, the IESG will provide the IAB with the basis for this\ndetermination and the IAB will nominate another candidate.\n3.4\n. Timeframe\nISOC expects to seat new Board members at its annual general meeting\nin June of each year. Basic timeframe requirements for the IETF\nprocess are as follows:", "char_start": 4722, "char_end": 7164, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 390}}, {"segment_id": "c36df40f-6cb0-47c3-874c-cc0695761d6c", "document_id": "a0223d86-9c07-4c2b-bbfe-a910f6c41adb", "ordinal": 3, "text": "o 4-6 weeks for solicitation of nominations\n\no 4-6 weeks for review of nominees, deliberation and selection\n\no 4-6 weeks for confirmation (and re-selection as necessary) and\ndelivery to ISOC\n\nIn January of each year, the IAB will announce the specific dates for\nthe IETF ISOC Trustee selection process for that year (taking into\naccount the particular dates of the first IETF meeting of the year,\netc), following the guidelines above.\n3.5\n. Mid-term Vacancies\nThis document describes the process for the general, annual\nappointment of ISOC Trustees to fill the seats of Trustees whose\nterms are ending. However, if an IETF-appointed Trustee is unable to\nserve his or her full term, the IAB may, at its discretion,\nimmediately select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term\nusing the interim process defined in\nSection 3.5.1\n. If the IAB does\nnot invoke the interim process, the next annual selection process\nwill fill the vacancy (if the vacant term does not end at that point)\nas well as the regular appointment for that selection cycle.\n3.5.1\n. Interim Appointment Process\nIf the IAB elects to fill the mid-term vacancy before the next annual\nselection, a separate timeline will be announced and the rest of the\nprocess described in this document will be followed.\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\n4\n. Security Considerations\nThis document does not describe any technical protocols and has no\nimplications for network security.\n5\n. Intellectual Property Statement\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nintellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; neither does it represent that it\nhas made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the\nIETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and\nstandards-related documentation can be found in\nBCP-11\n. Copies of\nclaims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of\nlicenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to\nobtain a general license or permission for the use of such\nproprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can\nbe obtained from the IETF Secretariat.", "char_start": 7166, "char_end": 9545, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 393}}, {"segment_id": "aa26dee2-c50b-4528-876b-3da3c1b4a0ad", "document_id": "a0223d86-9c07-4c2b-bbfe-a910f6c41adb", "ordinal": 4, "text": "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights which may cover technology that may be required to practice\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive\nDirector.\n6\n. References\n[\n1\n] Galvin, J., \"IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall\nProcess: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees\",\nBCP\n10\n,\nRFC 2727\n, February 2000.\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\nAppendix A\n. IAB Members at the time of this writing\nBernard Aboba\n\nHarald Alvestrand\n\nRob Austein\n\nLeslie Daigle\n\nPatrik Faltstrom\n\nSally Floyd\n\nMark Handley\n\nGeoff Huston\n\nJun-ichiro (Itojun) Hagino\n\nCharlie Kaufman\n\nJames Kempf\n\nEric Rescorla\n\nMike St.Johns\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\nLeslie Daigle\nEditor\n\nInternet Architecture Board\nIAB\n\nEMail: iab@iab.org\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3677\nISOC Trustee Appointment Procedures December 2003\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.", "char_start": 9547, "char_end": 11455, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 294}}, {"segment_id": "cd0b144d-3b75-4016-8c8e-609206b41725", "document_id": "a0223d86-9c07-4c2b-bbfe-a910f6c41adb", "ordinal": 5, "text": "The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nDaigle & IAB Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC\n3677\n: IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n2\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n1.1. Overview of Selection Process\n1.2. Rationale\n2. Desirable Qualifications and Selection Criteria for an\nIETF-Nominated ISOC Trustee\n3. IETF ISOC Board of Trustees Selection Process\n3.1. Nominations and eligibility\n3.2. Selection\n3.3. Confirmation\n3.4. Timeframe\n3.5. Mid-term Vacancies\n3.5.1. Interim Appointment Process\n4. Security Considerations\n5. Intellectual Property Statement\n6. References\nAppendix A. IAB Members at the time of this writing\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 11457, "char_end": 12990, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 229}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a115e0f7-7f2c-42bc-9d30-0eb52e88bc43", "source_id": "1e0132c7dfec4ee74e240bb1", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/rssac", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/rssac", "artifact_sha256": "b3e229d1367a5bf1fe7b114804cc08ca04c041f8d7b411d4eb1a8fab1fe5edb7", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 299930, "title": "Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)", "language": "en", "text_length": 5171, "characters": 5171, "text": "Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nThe RSSAC is a group of root server operators and specialists that provides insights and advice to the ICANN Board and community about the management of the Internet’s Root Server System.\nSubscribe\nRSSAC Home\nRSSAC Caucus\nRSSAC Publications\nTechnology @ ICANN\nCommunity Home\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nAbout the RSSAC\nThe RSSAC advises the ICANN community and the Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Root Server System. The RSSAC consists of representatives from the root server operator organizations and liaisons from the partner organizations involved in the technical and operational management of the root zone.\nThe\nRSSAC Caucus\nis composed of Domain Name System experts who have an interest in the RSS and who broaden the base of diverse technical expertise available for RSSAC work. The primary role of the RSSAC Caucus is to perform research and produce publications on topics relevant to the mission of the RSSAC.\nHow to Become Involved\nInterested parties can apply for membership in the RSSAC Caucus by submitting a\nstatement of interest\nto the RSSAC Caucus Membership Committee. In this statement of interest, RSSAC Caucus applicants should indicate their preferred work areas and relevant expertise. The Membership Committee considers the following points when reviewing applicants: knowledge of the Domain Name System (DNS), experience within the DNS community, and a commitment to participate.\nMembers of the RSSAC Caucus can serve as leaders who produce or contribute to documents. RSSAC Caucus members may also submit personal opinions about a document at any point in the process, and specifically once the document has been submitted to the RSSAC.\nCurrent Members\nLearn more about the RSSAC’s members and leaders who represent root server operator organizations and other partner organizations in related fields.\nREAD MORE\nFAQ\nGet answers to common questions about RSSAC, the Root Server System, and more at our Frequently Asked Questions page.\nREAD MORE\nMeetings\nFind out what is happening with the RSSAC by viewing minutes from its past meetings.\nREAD MORE\nPublications\nBrowse a list of RSSAC advisories, reports, and statements on a range of topics including the technical aspects of the Root Server System and root zone operations.\nREAD MORE\nRSSAC Caucus\nGet information about the RSSAC Caucus and the experts who research and write RSSAC advisories, comments, statements, procedures, and reports.\nREAD MORE\nWork Plan\nGet an overview of the activities undertaken by the RSSAC, the RSSAC Caucus, and the ICANN organization by month.\nREAD MORE\nCurrent Members\nLearn more about the RSSAC’s members and leaders who represent root server operator organizations and other partner organizations in related fields.\nREAD MORE\nFAQ\nGet answers to common questions about RSSAC, the Root Server System, and more at our Frequently Asked Questions page.\nREAD MORE\nMeetings\nFind out what is happening with the RSSAC by viewing minutes from its past meetings.\nREAD MORE\nPublications\nBrowse a list of RSSAC advisories, reports, and statements on a range of topics including the technical aspects of the Root Server System and root zone operations.\nREAD MORE\nRSSAC Caucus\nGet information about the RSSAC Caucus and the experts who research and write RSSAC advisories, comments, statements, procedures, and reports.\nREAD MORE\nWork Plan\nGet an overview of the activities undertaken by the RSSAC, the RSSAC Caucus, and the ICANN organization by month.\nREAD MORE\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "0fad93cb-af88-4aef-8c22-d89423ee63c9", "document_id": "a115e0f7-7f2c-42bc-9d30-0eb52e88bc43", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nThe RSSAC is a group of root server operators and specialists that provides insights and advice to the ICANN Board and community about the management of the Internet’s Root Server System.\nSubscribe\nRSSAC Home\nRSSAC Caucus\nRSSAC Publications\nTechnology @ ICANN\nCommunity Home\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nAbout the RSSAC\nThe RSSAC advises the ICANN community and the Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Root Server System. The RSSAC consists of representatives from the root server operator organizations and liaisons from the partner organizations involved in the technical and operational management of the root zone.\nThe\nRSSAC Caucus\nis composed of Domain Name System experts who have an interest in the RSS and who broaden the base of diverse technical expertise available for RSSAC work. The primary role of the RSSAC Caucus is to perform research and produce publications on topics relevant to the mission of the RSSAC.\nHow to Become Involved\nInterested parties can apply for membership in the RSSAC Caucus by submitting a\nstatement of interest\nto the RSSAC Caucus Membership Committee. In this statement of interest, RSSAC Caucus applicants should indicate their preferred work areas and relevant expertise. The Membership Committee considers the following points when reviewing applicants: knowledge of the Domain Name System (DNS), experience within the DNS community, and a commitment to participate.\nMembers of the RSSAC Caucus can serve as leaders who produce or contribute to documents. RSSAC Caucus members may also submit personal opinions about a document at any point in the process, and specifically once the document has been submitted to the RSSAC.\nCurrent Members\nLearn more about the RSSAC’s members and leaders who represent root server operator organizations and other partner organizations in related fields.\nREAD MORE\nFAQ\nGet answers to common questions about RSSAC, the Root Server System, and more at our Frequently Asked Questions page.\nREAD MORE\nMeetings\nFind out what is happening with the RSSAC by viewing minutes from its past meetings.\nREAD MORE\nPublications\nBrowse a list of RSSAC advisories, reports, and statements on a range of topics including the technical aspects of the Root Server System and root zone operations.\nREAD MORE\nRSSAC Caucus\nGet information about the RSSAC Caucus and the experts who research and write RSSAC advisories, comments, statements, procedures, and reports.\nREAD MORE\nWork Plan\nGet an overview of the activities undertaken by the RSSAC, the RSSAC Caucus, and the ICANN organization by month.\nREAD MORE\nCurrent Members\nLearn more about the RSSAC’s members and leaders who represent root server operator organizations and other partner organizations in related fields.\nREAD MORE\nFAQ\nGet answers to common questions about RSSAC, the Root Server System, and more at our Frequently Asked Questions page.\nREAD MORE\nMeetings\nFind out what is happening with the RSSAC by viewing minutes from its past meetings.\nREAD MORE\nPublications\nBrowse a list of RSSAC advisories, reports, and statements on a range of topics including the technical aspects of the Root Server System and root zone operations.\nREAD MORE\nRSSAC Caucus\nGet information about the RSSAC Caucus and the experts who research and write RSSAC advisories, comments, statements, procedures, and reports.\nREAD MORE\nWork Plan\nGet an overview of the activities undertaken by the RSSAC, the RSSAC Caucus, and the ICANN organization by month.\nREAD MORE\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 5171, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 778}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a18fff23-a7f3-4cab-bea2-d0216e7eac55", "source_id": "9605ea639efc37ae36d159ba", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/media-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/media-en", "artifact_sha256": "e6fb4635a6dbdb5e223598ae108ab4cb8274fe1a40b028125002544d80f788d7", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 74603, "title": "Media Resources - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 12882, "characters": 12882, "text": "Media Resources - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\n|\nAbout ICANN\n|\nSubscribe and Follow\n|\nContacts\nICANN News\nRead\nthe latest ICANN press releases.\nRead\nthe latest ICANN announcements.\nRead\nthe latest ICANN blogs.\nAbout ICANN\nICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a nonprofit public benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nICANN's vision is to be a champion of the single, open, and globally interoperable Internet, by being the independent, trusted, multistakeholder steward of the Internet's unique identifiers, and by providing an open and collaborative environment where diverse stakeholders come together in the global public interest.\nICANN is a California-based nonprofit, public-benefit organization accountable to a global community of stakeholders. Its enduring mission is to ensure a stable, secure, and unified Internet. ICANN follows a multistakeholder model in which individuals, businesses, civil society, governments, and technologists play important roles in its community-based, consensus-driven, policymaking approach. Additional information and media assets are available at the resources below.\nFact Sheet\nEnglish\n|\nالعربية\n|\nEspañol\n|\nFrançais\n|\nPусский\n|\n中文\nICANN ON – Supporting a More Multilingual Internet\nICANN ON – Internationalized Domain Names in Action Globally\nICANN Board Members\nICANN Executives\nDownload\nICANN logos, images, and infographics.\nSubscribe and Follow\nSign up for email alerts\nto receive the latest ICANN blogs, announcements, Public Comment proceedings, and other updates directly to your email inbox. When new content is added or updated on our website, ICANN will send you a daily or weekly email with links to that content.\nSubscribe to ICANN Regional Newsletters\nto stay up to date on the latest ICANN global and regional stories.\nFollow the latest ICANN activities on\nsocial media\nContacts\nGeneral Media Inquiries:\n[email protected]\nRegion-specific Inquiries:\nAsia Pacific\n: Liana Teo, Singapore,\n[email protected]\n, +65 9113 2001\nEurope, Middle East, and Africa\n: Luna Madi, Istanbul, Turkey,\n[email protected]\n, +90 533 0313505\nThe Americas\n: Alexandra Dans, Montevideo, Uruguay,\n[email protected]\n, +598 95 831 442\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a1b391e3-6c7d-4722-9df8-b045937948f3", "document_id": "a18fff23-a7f3-4cab-bea2-d0216e7eac55", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Media Resources - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\n|\nAbout ICANN\n|\nSubscribe and Follow\n|\nContacts\nICANN News\nRead\nthe latest ICANN press releases.\nRead\nthe latest ICANN announcements.\nRead\nthe latest ICANN blogs.\nAbout ICANN\nICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a nonprofit public benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nICANN's vision is to be a champion of the single, open, and globally interoperable Internet, by being the independent, trusted, multistakeholder steward of the Internet's unique identifiers, and by providing an open and collaborative environment where diverse stakeholders come together in the global public interest.\nICANN is a California-based nonprofit, public-benefit organization accountable to a global community of stakeholders. Its enduring mission is to ensure a stable, secure, and unified Internet. ICANN follows a multistakeholder model in which individuals, businesses, civil society, governments, and technologists play important roles in its community-based, consensus-driven, policymaking approach. Additional information and media assets are available at the resources below.\nFact Sheet\nEnglish\n|\nالعربية\n|\nEspañol\n|\nFrançais\n|\nPусский\n|\n中文\nICANN ON – Supporting a More Multilingual Internet\nICANN ON – Internationalized Domain Names in Action Globally\nICANN Board Members\nICANN Executives\nDownload\nICANN logos, images, and infographics.\nSubscribe and Follow\nSign up for email alerts\nto receive the latest ICANN blogs, announcements, Public Comment proceedings, and other updates directly to your email inbox. When new content is added or updated on our website, ICANN will send you a daily or weekly email with links to that content.\nSubscribe to ICANN Regional Newsletters\nto stay up to date on the latest ICANN global and regional stories.\nFollow the latest ICANN activities on\nsocial media\nContacts\nGeneral Media Inquiries:\n[email protected]\nRegion-specific Inquiries:\nAsia Pacific\n: Liana Teo, Singapore,\n[email protected]\n, +65 9113 2001\nEurope, Middle East, and Africa\n: Luna Madi, Istanbul, Turkey,\n[email protected]\n, +90 533 0313505\nThe Americas\n: Alexandra Dans, Montevideo, Uruguay,\n[email protected]\n, +598 95 831 442\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12882, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1761}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a207bb03-6053-409e-bfc6-2b7f0b22fbda", "source_id": "af9772b3e74c60ca675e17e8", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/icann-acronyms-and-terms", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/icann-acronyms-and-terms", "artifact_sha256": "5a246de5d4c0b499bd15ebb7ab80a2cdd74c4cc64c7b7c02ff9ae3be3475ddab", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 674906, "title": "Acronyms and Terms", "language": "en", "text_length": 11830, "characters": 11830, "text": "Acronyms and Terms\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN has hundreds of acronyms and terms, which can be confusing. We created this multilingual tool to help explain what these terms mean and facilitate your work within the ICANN community.\nTerm of the Day\nInternet identifier\nICANN.org Home\nAnnouncements\nBlogs\nMedia Resources\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nType in the acronym or term you are looking for in the Search bar below.\nIn addition to English, translated versions of acronyms and terms are also available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish. Links for each language are located in the top right of the page.\nFind an Acronym or Term\nSearch\nClick the first letter of the term you are looking for to search alphabetically.\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\nI\nJ\nK\nL\nM\nN\nO\nP\nQ\nR\nS\nT\nU\nV\nW\nX\nY\nZ\nFilter\nSelect\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\nI\nK\nL\nM\nN\nO\nP\nQ\nR\nS\nT\nU\nV\nW\nZ\nFilter\nDo you have feedback on the definitions or the terms? Send us an email to:\n[email protected]\n.\nA\n1-20 of 40 results\nA record\nA\nDomain Name System\n(\nDNS\n) record that holds an\nInternet Protocol version 4\n(\nIPv4\n) address for a\ndomain name\n.\nAlso Known As\nIPv4 address record\nRelated Terms\nDomain Name System\n(DNS)\nauthoritative name server\nInternet Protocol version 4\n(IPv4)\nA-label\nThe\nASCII-compatible encoding\nof a valid\nInternationalized Domain Names in Applications\n(\nIDNA\n)\nlabel\n.\nA-label\ns consist of the prefix “xn--” followed by a valid\nPunycode\nstring\n.\nRelated Term\nUnicode Standard\nAAAA record\nA\nDomain Name System\n(\nDNS\n) record that holds an\nInternet Protocol version 6\n(\nIPv6\n) address for a\ndomain name\n.\nAlso Known As\nIPv6 address record\nRelated Terms\nDomain Name System\n(DNS)\nauthoritative name server\nInternet Protocol version 6\n(IPv6)\nAccountability and Transparency Review\n(ATRT Review)\nA periodic review required by the\nICANN Bylaws\nto assess\nICANN\n’s execution of its commitment to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency. The\nATRT Review\nis designed to ensure that the outcomes of\nICANN\n’s decision-making reflect the public interest and are accountable to the Internet community.\nSection 4.6 in the\nICANN Bylaws\nprovides details about performing an\nATRT Review\n. Reports from past\nATRT Review\ns are available on the\nICANN\nwebsite, along with progress updates for any\nATRT Review\ns that are underway.\nRelated Terms\nRegistration Directory Service Review\n(RDS Review)\nCompetition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review\n(CCT Review)\nSpecific Reviews\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency of the Domain Name System (DNS) Review\n(SSR Review)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/specific-reviews/atrt‎\naccountability mechanisms\nMechanisms established in the\nICANN Bylaws\nthat enable review and reconsideration of\nICANN\n’s actions. These mechanisms are:\nEmpowered Community\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nOmbudsman\nRelated Terms\nroot zone\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\n(SSR)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#IV‎\nAddress Supporting Organization\n(ASO)\nOne of three\nSupporting Organization\ns in the\nICANN community\n. The\nASO\nreviews and develops recommendations and advises the\nICANN\nBoard on global Internet number resource policy.\nThe\nASO\nAddress Council manages the global policy development activities of the\nASO\n.\nRelated Terms\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization\n(GNSO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization\n(ccNSO)\nWebsite\nhttps://aso.icann.org/‎\nAddress Supporting Organization Address Council\n(ASO AC)\nA council within the\nAddress Supporting Organization\n(\nASO\n) that manages the\nASO\n’s global\npolicy development process\n. This council is composed of 15 members, including 3 representatives from each of the Regional Internet Registries. The members of this council also serve on the\nNumber Resource Organization\nNumber Council.\nWebsite\nhttps://aso.icann.org/‎\nAdvanced Research Projects Agency\n(ARPA)\nAn agency within the U.S. Department of Defense established in 1958 to research advanced defense technology. The agency, later renamed the Defense\nAdvanced Research Projects Agency\n(D\nARPA\n), funded and coordinated some of the initial technology for the modern Internet.\nAlso Known As\nDARPA\nRelated Terms\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority\n(IANA)\nDomain Name System\n(DNS)\nWebsite\nDarpa.mil‎\nAdvanced Research Projects Agency Network\n(ARPANET)\nA pioneering network for sharing digital resources among geographically separated computers. Its initial demonstration in 1969 led to the Internet, whose world-changing consequences unfold on a daily basis today. A seminal step in this sequence took place in 1968 when\nARPA\ncontracted BBN Technologies to build the first routers, which one year later enabled\nARPANET\nto become operational.\nWebsite\nhttps://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpanet‎\nAdvisory Committee\n(AC)\nA formally recognized body under the\nICANN Bylaws\nthat is charged with advising the\nICANN\nBoard on policies within\nICANN\n’s mission and scope. The Bylaws recognize four\nAC\ns:\nAt-Large Advisory Committee\n(\nALAC\n)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee\n(\nGAC\n)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee\n(\nRSSAC\n)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee\n(\nSSAC\n)\nThe\nAdvisory Committee\ns help shape the policy recommendations that the\nICANN community\ndevelops and refines through its\nSupporting Organization\ns.\nRelated Term\nSupporting Organization\n(SO)\nAfrica Top Level Domains Organization\n(AfTLD)\nA nonprofit association of\ncountry code top-level domain\n(\nccTLD\n) registries in the African region.\nAfTLD\nprovides a forum where its members can discuss policy matters affecting the\nccTLD\nregistries in their region. The association also serves as a channel of communication between its membership and Internet governance bodies such as\nICANN\n.\nRelated Terms\nLatin American and Caribbean Country Code Top-Level Domain Association\n(LACTLD)\nAsia Pacific Top Level Domain Association\n(APTLD)\nCouncil of European National Top-Level Domain Registries\n(CENTR)\nWebsite\nhttp://www.aftld.org/‎\nAfrican Network Information Centre\n(AFRINIC)\nThe\nRegional Internet Registry\n(\nRIR\n) that allocates\nInternet Protocol\n(\nIP\n) addresses to Africa.\nRelated Terms\nAsia Pacific Network Information Centre\n(APNIC)\nRéseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre\n(RIPE NCC)\nLatin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry\n(LACNIC)\nNumber Resource Organization\n(NRO)\nAmerican Registry for Internet Numbers\n(ARIN)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.afrinic.net/‎\nAfrican Regional At-Large Organization\n(AFRALO)\nThe\nRegional At-Large Organization\n(\nRALO\n) that serves as the main forum and coordination point for public input to\nICANN\nfrom the At-Large community in the African region.\nAFRALO\nkeeps the\nAt-Large Structure\ns (\nALS\nes) in its community informed about significant\nICANN\nnews. It also establishes mechanisms to facilitate two-way communication between the\nALS\nes and\nICANN\npolicymakers, so\nALS\nmembers can share their views on pending issues.\nRelated Terms\nNorth American Regional At-Large Organization\n(NARALO)\nAsian, Australasian, and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization\n(APRALO)\nLatin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization\n(LACRALO)\nEuropean Regional At-Large Organization\n(EURALO)\nWebsite\nhttps://atlarge.icann.org/ralos/afralo‎\nAmerican Registry for Internet Numbers\n(ARIN)\nThe\nRegional Internet Registry\n(\nRIR\n) that allocates\nInternet Protocol\n(\nIP\n) addresses to Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic islands, and the United States.\nRelated Terms\nAfrican Network Information Centre\n(AFRINIC)\nAsia Pacific Network Information Centre\n(APNIC)\nRéseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre\n(RIPE NCC)\nLatin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry\n(LACNIC)\nNumber Resource Organization\n(NRO)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.arin.net/‎\nAnnual General Meeting\n(AGM)\nThe third Public Meeting in\nICANN\n’s three-meeting annual cycle. This meeting features workshops, working meetings, and sessions on topics of interest. Additionally, it provides two\nPublic Forum\ns where the\nICANN community\ncan speak directly with the\nICANN\nBoard. New members of the\nICANN Board of Directors\nalso take their seats at the\nAnnual General Meeting\n.\nRelated Terms\nPolicy Forum\nCommunity Forum\nICANN Public Meeting\nAnti-Phishing Working Group\n(APWG)\nA global coalition of industry, law enforcement, and governments that work to unify the global response to\nphishing\nattacks and other cybercrimes. The\nAPWG\nis a clearinghouse for cybercrime event data, cybercrime response utilities, and programs that promote cybercrime awareness and research.\nICANN\nis a participant in the\nAPWG\n.\nRelated Term\nMessaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group\n(M3AAWG)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.antiphishing.org/‎\nanycast instance\nA server that responds to an anycast\nInternet Protocol\n(\nIP\n) address. With anycast routing, a server is replicated across multiple network locations. The servers are then assigned to the same anycast\nIP address\n. Each server assigned to that\nIP address\nis referred to as an\nanycast instance\n(or simply an\ninstance\n). When a computer sends a message to an anycast\nIP address\n, Internet routers automatically direct the message to the nearest (in terms of routing distance) available instance of that server. Anycast routing helps reduce latency and improve reliability.\nMany of the\nauthoritative name server\ns in the\nDomain Name System\nuse anycast routing.\nRelated Term\nroot server instance\napplicant\nAn entity applying to\nICANN\nfor a\nnew generic top-level domain\n(\ngTLD\n) within a designated\napplication submission period\n.\nRelated Term\ngeneric top-level domain\n(gTLD)\nApplicant Guidebook\nIn the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (\nNew gTLD Program\n), a document that describes the requirements of the\ngTLD\napplication and evaluation processes.\nRelated Term\napplication round\nWebsite\nhttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb‎\napplication round\nIn the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (\nNew gTLD Program\n), the completion of the application process for all\ngTLD\napplications received during one\napplication submission period\n. The\nApplicant Guidebook\nexplains the terms and conditions for a specific\napplication round\n. Subsequent\nround\ns are subject to updated guidebooks.\nAlso Known As\nnew gTLD application round\nround\nPrevious\n1\n2\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a1a4bda5-902c-4db6-a3c7-b6bd202f9bc3", "document_id": "a207bb03-6053-409e-bfc6-2b7f0b22fbda", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Acronyms and Terms\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN has hundreds of acronyms and terms, which can be confusing. We created this multilingual tool to help explain what these terms mean and facilitate your work within the ICANN community.\nTerm of the Day\nInternet identifier\nICANN.org Home\nAnnouncements\nBlogs\nMedia Resources\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nType in the acronym or term you are looking for in the Search bar below.\nIn addition to English, translated versions of acronyms and terms are also available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish. Links for each language are located in the top right of the page.\nFind an Acronym or Term\nSearch\nClick the first letter of the term you are looking for to search alphabetically.\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\nI\nJ\nK\nL\nM\nN\nO\nP\nQ\nR\nS\nT\nU\nV\nW\nX\nY\nZ\nFilter\nSelect\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\nI\nK\nL\nM\nN\nO\nP\nQ\nR\nS\nT\nU\nV\nW\nZ\nFilter\nDo you have feedback on the definitions or the terms? Send us an email to:\n[email protected]\n.\nA\n1-20 of 40 results\nA record\nA\nDomain Name System\n(\nDNS\n) record that holds an\nInternet Protocol version 4\n(\nIPv4\n) address for a\ndomain name\n.\nAlso Known As\nIPv4 address record\nRelated Terms\nDomain Name System\n(DNS)\nauthoritative name server\nInternet Protocol version 4\n(IPv4)\nA-label\nThe\nASCII-compatible encoding\nof a valid\nInternationalized Domain Names in Applications\n(\nIDNA\n)\nlabel\n.\nA-label\ns consist of the prefix “xn--” followed by a valid\nPunycode\nstring\n.\nRelated Term\nUnicode Standard\nAAAA record\nA\nDomain Name System\n(\nDNS\n) record that holds an\nInternet Protocol version 6\n(\nIPv6\n) address for a\ndomain name\n.\nAlso Known As\nIPv6 address record\nRelated Terms\nDomain Name System\n(DNS)\nauthoritative name server\nInternet Protocol version 6\n(IPv6)\nAccountability and Transparency Review\n(ATRT Review)\nA periodic review required by the\nICANN Bylaws\nto assess\nICANN\n’s execution of its commitment to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency. The\nATRT Review\nis designed to ensure that the outcomes of\nICANN\n’s decision-making reflect the public interest and are accountable to the Internet community.\nSection 4.6 in the\nICANN Bylaws\nprovides details about performing an\nATRT Review\n. Reports from past\nATRT Review\ns are available on the\nICANN\nwebsite, along with progress updates for any\nATRT Review\ns that are underway.\nRelated Terms\nRegistration Directory Service Review\n(RDS Review)\nCompetition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review\n(CCT Review)\nSpecific Reviews\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency of the Domain Name System (DNS) Review\n(SSR Review)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/specific-reviews/atrt‎\naccountability mechanisms\nMechanisms established in the\nICANN Bylaws\nthat enable review and reconsideration of\nICANN\n’s actions. These mechanisms are:\nEmpowered Community\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nOmbudsman\nRelated Terms\nroot zone\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\n(SSR)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#IV‎\nAddress Supporting Organization\n(ASO)\nOne of three\nSupporting Organization\ns in the\nICANN community\n. The\nASO\nreviews and develops recommendations and advises the\nICANN\nBoard on global Internet number resource policy.\nThe\nASO\nAddress Council manages the global policy development activities of the\nASO\n.\nRelated Terms\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization\n(GNSO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization\n(ccNSO)\nWebsite\nhttps://aso.icann.org/‎\nAddress Supporting Organization Address Council\n(ASO AC)\nA council within the\nAddress Supporting Organization\n(\nASO\n) that manages the\nASO\n’s global\npolicy development process\n. This council is composed of 15 members, including 3 representatives from each of the Regional Internet Registries. The members of this council also serve on the\nNumber Resource Organization\nNumber Council.\nWebsite\nhttps://aso.icann.org/‎\nAdvanced Research Projects Agency\n(ARPA)\nAn agency within the U.S. Department of Defense established in 1958 to research advanced defense technology. The agency, later renamed the Defense\nAdvanced Research Projects Agency\n(D\nARPA\n), funded and coordinated some of the initial technology for the modern Internet.\nAlso Known As\nDARPA\nRelated Terms\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority\n(IANA)\nDomain Name System\n(DNS)\nWebsite\nDarpa.mil‎\nAdvanced Research Projects Agency Network\n(ARPANET)\nA pioneering network for sharing digital resources among geographically separated computers. Its initial demonstration in 1969 led to the Internet, whose world-changing consequences unfold on a daily basis today. A seminal step in this sequence took place in 1968 when\nARPA\ncontracted BBN Technologies to build the first routers, which one year later enabled\nARPANET\nto become operational.\nWebsite\nhttps://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpanet‎\nAdvisory Committee\n(AC)\nA formally recognized body under the\nICANN Bylaws\nthat is charged with advising the\nICANN\nBoard on policies within\nICANN\n’s mission and scope. The Bylaws recognize four\nAC\ns:\nAt-Large Advisory Committee\n(\nALAC\n)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee\n(\nGAC\n)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee\n(\nRSSAC\n)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee\n(\nSSAC\n)\nThe\nAdvisory Committee\ns help shape the policy recommendations that the\nICANN community\ndevelops and refines through its\nSupporting Organization\ns.\nRelated Term\nSupporting Organization\n(SO)\nAfrica Top Level Domains Organization\n(AfTLD)\nA nonprofit association of\ncountry code top-level domain\n(\nccTLD\n) registries in the African region.\nAfTLD\nprovides a forum where its members can discuss policy matters affecting the\nccTLD\nregistries in their region. The association also serves as a channel of communication between its membership and Internet governance bodies such as\nICANN\n.\nRelated Terms\nLatin American and Caribbean Country Code Top-Level Domain Association\n(LACTLD)\nAsia Pacific Top Level Domain Association\n(APTLD)\nCouncil of European National Top-Level Domain Registries\n(CENTR)\nWebsite\nhttp://www.aftld.org/‎\nAfrican Network Information Centre\n(AFRINIC)\nThe\nRegional Internet Registry\n(\nRIR\n) that allocates\nInternet Protocol\n(\nIP\n) addresses to Africa.\nRelated Terms\nAsia Pacific Network Information Centre\n(APNIC)\nRéseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre\n(RIPE NCC)\nLatin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry\n(LACNIC)\nNumber Resource Organization\n(NRO)\nAmerican Registry for Internet Numbers\n(ARIN)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.afrinic.net/‎\nAfrican Regional At-Large Organization\n(AFRALO)\nThe\nRegional At-Large Organization\n(\nRALO\n) that serves as the main forum and coordination point for public input to\nICANN\nfrom the At-Large community in the African region.\nAFRALO\nkeeps the\nAt-Large Structure\ns (\nALS\nes) in its community informed about significant\nICANN\nnews. It also establishes mechanisms to facilitate two-way communication between the\nALS\nes and\nICANN\npolicymakers, so\nALS\nmembers can share their views on pending issues.\nRelated Terms\nNorth American Regional At-Large Organization\n(NARALO)\nAsian, Australasian, and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization\n(APRALO)\nLatin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization\n(LACRALO)\nEuropean Regional At-Large Organization\n(EURALO)\nWebsite\nhttps://atlarge.icann.org/ralos/afralo‎\nAmerican Registry for Internet Numbers\n(ARIN)\nThe\nRegional Internet Registry\n(\nRIR\n) that allocates\nInternet Protocol\n(\nIP\n) addresses to Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic islands, and the United States.\nRelated Terms\nAfrican Network Information Centre\n(AFRINIC)\nAsia Pacific Network Information Centre\n(APNIC)\nRéseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre\n(RIPE NCC)\nLatin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry\n(LACNIC)\nNumber Resource Organization\n(NRO)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.arin.net/‎\nAnnual General Meeting\n(AGM)\nThe third Public Meeting in\nICANN\n’s three-meeting annual cycle. This meeting features workshops, working meetings, and sessions on topics of interest. Additionally, it provides two\nPublic Forum\ns where the\nICANN community\ncan speak directly with the\nICANN\nBoard. New members of the\nICANN Board of Directors\nalso take their seats at the\nAnnual General Meeting\n.\nRelated Terms\nPolicy Forum\nCommunity Forum\nICANN Public Meeting\nAnti-Phishing Working Group\n(APWG)\nA global coalition of industry, law enforcement, and governments that work to unify the global response to\nphishing\nattacks and other cybercrimes. The\nAPWG\nis a clearinghouse for cybercrime event data, cybercrime response utilities, and programs that promote cybercrime awareness and research.\nICANN\nis a participant in the\nAPWG\n.\nRelated Term\nMessaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group\n(M3AAWG)\nWebsite\nhttps://www.antiphishing.org/‎\nanycast instance\nA server that responds to an anycast\nInternet Protocol\n(\nIP\n) address. With anycast routing, a server is replicated across multiple network locations. The servers are then assigned to the same anycast\nIP address\n. Each server assigned to that\nIP address\nis referred to as an\nanycast instance\n(or simply an\ninstance\n). When a computer sends a message to an anycast\nIP address\n, Internet routers automatically direct the message to the nearest (in terms of routing distance) available instance of that server. Anycast routing helps reduce latency and improve reliability.\nMany of the\nauthoritative name server\ns in the\nDomain Name System\nuse anycast routing.\nRelated Term\nroot server instance\napplicant\nAn entity applying to\nICANN\nfor a\nnew generic top-level domain\n(\ngTLD\n) within a designated\napplication submission period\n.\nRelated Term\ngeneric top-level domain\n(gTLD)\nApplicant Guidebook\nIn the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (\nNew gTLD Program\n), a document that describes the requirements of the\ngTLD\napplication and evaluation processes.\nRelated Term\napplication round\nWebsite\nhttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb‎\napplication round\nIn the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (\nNew gTLD Program\n), the completion of the application process for all\ngTLD\napplications received during one\napplication submission period\n. The\nApplicant Guidebook\nexplains the terms and conditions for a specific\napplication round\n. Subsequent\nround\ns are subject to updated guidebooks.\nAlso Known As\nnew gTLD application round\nround\nPrevious\n1\n2\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11830, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1749}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a55d1a10-02f0-46b8-8460-671b112908e1", "source_id": "acd02ffecd04f9515f8bb932", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/upcoming-proceedings?sort-param=upcoming-date&sort-direction=asc&page=1", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/upcoming-proceedings?sort-param=upcoming-date&sort-direction=asc&page=1", "artifact_sha256": "763c9fe671ac456f90dc64732241ea0451d38887c23504b16185d78a69280fa0", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 270547, "title": "Public Comment Upcoming Proceedings", "language": "en", "text_length": 2514, "characters": 2514, "text": "Public Comment Upcoming Proceedings\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nPublic Comment Upcoming Proceedings\nProceedings\nEstimated Timeframe\nInitial Report of the TSG on gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems\nShow description\nAug 2026\nDNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Initial Report\nShow description\nSep 2026\nHow Public Comment Works\nThe ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN org can open a proceeding, outlining specific issues for feedback. Stakeholders provide opinions and recommendations, and their submissions are public.\nLearn More\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "4a24f126-e853-4f61-8011-82ea19ec643b", "document_id": "a55d1a10-02f0-46b8-8460-671b112908e1", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Public Comment Upcoming Proceedings\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.\nSubscribe to Public Comment Alerts\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nOther Public Consultations\nPublic Comment Upcoming Proceedings\nProceedings\nEstimated Timeframe\nInitial Report of the TSG on gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems\nShow description\nAug 2026\nDNS Abuse Mitigation PDP 1 Initial Report\nShow description\nSep 2026\nHow Public Comment Works\nThe ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN org can open a proceeding, outlining specific issues for feedback. Stakeholders provide opinions and recommendations, and their submissions are public.\nLearn More\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2514, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 346}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a65ab6fb-cde2-489d-b3fe-b6703c3412e6", "source_id": "5fae9d028dcdecbd54533b3f", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1296", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1296/", "artifact_sha256": "5fae9d028dcdecbd54533b3f364c3c9e87d6d17b7b7d459735293dc99667642d", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 147102, "title": "RFC 1296: Internet Growth (1981-1991)", "language": "en", "text_length": 19807, "characters": 19807, "text": "RFC 1296: Internet Growth (1981-1991) | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1296\n:\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)\nM. Lottor\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                          M. Lottor\nRequest for Comments: 1296                             SRI International\n                                      Network Information Systems Center\n                                                            January 1992\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nAbstract\n\n   This document illustrates the growth of the Internet by examination\n   of entries in the Domain Name System (DNS) and pre-DNS host tables.\n   DNS entries are collected by a program called ZONE, which searches\n   the Internet and retrieves data from all known domains.  Pre-DNS host\n   table data were retrieved from system archive tapes.  Various\n   statistics are presented on the number of hosts and domains.\n\nTable of Contents\n\n   Introduction....................................................\n1\nHow ZONE Works..................................................\n2\nProblems with Data Collection...................................\n3\nScope of the Study..............................................\n3\nN\n. Results......................................................\n4\nN.1\nNumber of Internet Hosts....................................\n4\nN.2\nNumber of Domains...........................................\n6\nN.3\nDistribution of IP Addresses per Host.......................\n7\nN.4\nDistribution of Hosts by Top-level Domain...................\n7\nN.5\nDistribution of Hosts by Host Name..........................\n8\nFuture Issues...................................................\n8\nRFC References..................................................\n9\nSecurity Considerations.........................................\n9\nAuthor's Address................................................\n9\nIntroduction\n\n   This document provides statistics on the growth of the Internet by\n   examining the number of Internet hosts and domains over a 10-year\n   period.  Before the Domain Name System was established, practically\n   all hosts on the Internet were registered with the Network\n   Information Center (SRI-NIC) and entries were placed in the Official\n   Host Table for each one.  Data on the number of hosts for pre-DNS\nLottor                                                          [Page 1]\nRFC 1296\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)           January 1992\nyears comes from copies of the host table at selected times.  The DNS\n   system was introduced around 1984 but took almost 4 years before it\n   was fully implemented on the Internet.  However, by this time many\n   hosts were no longer registered in the Host Table.\n\n   In 1986, the ZONE (Zealot Of Name Edification) program was written.\n   ZONE was originally intended to be used during the host-table-to-DNS\n   transition period.  ZONE would \"walk\" the DNS tree and build a host\n   table of all the information it collected.  This host table could\n   then be used by sites that had not yet made the DNS transition.\n   However, ZONE was never used for this purpose.  Instead, it was found\n   to be useful for collecting statistics on the size of the domain\n   system and the Internet.\n\n   ZONE could not collect complete data on the DNS until around 1988,\n   because early versions of BIND (the popular Unix DNS implementation)\n   had major problems with the zone transfer function of the DNS\n   protocol.  ZONE has been used in varying ways ever since to collect\n   this information.  In the first few years, it was used to produce a\n   wall-size chart of the domain tree.  However, the number of domains\n   quickly outgrew the size of the wall and the charts were abandoned.\n   In later years, statistics on the number of hosts and domains were\n   extracted from the resulting host table, sometimes categorizing data\n   based on top-level domain names or on computer system type or\n   manufacturer.\n\n   The time to gather the data also grew from hours to a week, and the\n   size of the host table produced soon reached 50 megabytes.  In order\n   to reduce the amount of data collected, ZONE is now run in a mode\n   collecting only host names and IP addresses, ignoring protocol, host\n   information and MX record data.  The host table is then groveled over\n   by some utilities (such as sort, uniq and grep) to produce the\n   statistics required.  ZONE is currently run every 3 months at SRI.\n\nHow ZONE Works\n\n   ZONE maintains a list of domains and their servers and a flag\n   indicating whether information for a domain has been successfully\n   loaded from one of the servers. Because of another bug in BIND, ZONE\n   must be primed with a list of all the top-level domains and their\n   name servers.  It then cycles through the domain list, attempting to\n   contact one of the servers for each domain not yet transferred.  When\n   a server is contacted (via TCP), a Start of Authority (SOA) query is\n   first sent to make sure the server is authoritative for the domain\n   being requested.  If so, then a zone transfer query (AXFR) is sent to\n   request all the resource records for the domain to be retrieved.\n\n   When a name server record (NS) is received, the referenced domain and\nLottor                                                          [Page 2]\nRFC 1296\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)           January 1992\nserver are added to the list of domains to process.  When host\n   records (A, CNAME, HINFO, MX) are received, they are added to an in-\n   core table of host information.  The program ends when it has cycled\n   through the entire list of domains without receiving any new\n   information.  It then dumps the table of host information to a\n   HOSTS.TXT format file.\n\nProblems with Data Collection\n\n   For various reasons, some Internet sites do not allow zone transfers\n   of their domain servers.  ZONE also eventually gives up trying to\n   transfer a domain after too many failures.  The number of domains\n   that could not be zone transferred during the 1-Jan-92 ZONE run was\n   around 800 out of 17,000.  Additionally, it is assumed that not all\n   hosts on the Internet are registered in a domain server.  These\n   problems cause the statistics gathered by ZONE to be lower than the\n   actual amounts.\n\n   Manual review of some of the data collected by ZONE also shows a lot\n   of random entries in the DNS.  Misformatted entries may cause bogus\n   server or host records to appear.  Many times a server is found to\n   not be authoritative for the domain listed.  Sometimes entire domains\n   are renamed and their old entries left in place for a transition\n   period, thus causing each host within that domain to be counted\n   twice.  These problems cause the results of ZONE to be higher than\n   the actual amounts.\n\n   Manual scanning of the data indicates that the additional entries are\n   insignificant compared to the missing entries discussed earlier.\n   ZONE data can thus be viewed as the minimum number of Internet hosts,\n   and not the actual figures.\n\n   A final problem with data collection is that of expense.  Downloading\n   domain information from every domain on the Internet generates a\n   large amount of network traffic.  It also puts an extra CPU load on\n   each domain server it must contact.  An organized effort might be\n   considered to have only one such program doing this on the Internet\n   at regularly scheduled intervals to keep the problem of multiple data\n   collectors from occurring.\n\nScope of the Study\n\n   A problem with counting hosts and domains on the Internet is defining\n   what the Internet really is.  Finding host entries in the DNS does\n   not necessarily indicate that the host is reachable from the\n   Internet.  Many companies have mail gateways between the Internet and\n   their local nets, thus disallowing direct access.  However, some of\n   these companies advertise all their hosts, and some advertise only\nLottor                                                          [Page 3]\nRFC 1296\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)           January 1992\nthe gateway.  Are these hosts on the Internet or not?\n\n   Furthermore, many domains in the DNS are just mail-forwarding (MX)\n   entries for off-Internet (such as Usenet) sites.  Are these domains\n   really part of the Internet and should they be counted in an Internet\n   size study?\n\n   For the purposes of this study, a host has been defined as a\n   [name(s),IP-address(es)] grouping discovered from the DNS.  This\n   prevents us from counting a host with multiple names or addresses\n   more than once.  However, this does not consider whether the host is\n   directly accessible or not.  When ZONE counts the number of domains\n   it includes all domains referenced by an NS record in the DNS, thus\n   including MX-only domain sites in the final results.\nN\n. Results\nThis section presents data from archive tapes of SRI-NIC from 1981 to\n   1986, and statistics gathered by runs of ZONE from 1986 to 1992.\nN.1\nNumber of Internet Hosts\nThe chart below shows the number of IP hosts on the Internet.  These\n   are hosts with at least one IP address assigned.  Data was collected\n   by ZONE except where noted.  The following two sections are graphs of\n   the data in this chart.\n\n        Date             Hosts\n\n        08/81              213          Host table #152\n        05/82              235          Host table #166\n        08/83              562          Host table #300\n        10/84            1,024          Host table #392\n        10/85            1,961          Host table #485\n        02/86            2,308          Host table #515\n        11/86            5,089\n        12/87           28,174\n        07/88           33,000\n        10/88           56,000\n        01/89           80,000\n        07/89          130,000\n        10/89          159,000\n        10/90          313,000\n        01/91          376,000\n        07/91          535,000\n        10/91          617,000\n        01/92          727,000\nLottor                                                          [Page 4]\nRFC 1296\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)           January 1992\nNumber of Internet Hosts (linear)\n800|\n780|\n760|\n740|                                                                  *\n720|\n700|\n680|                                                                 .\n660|\n640|\n620|\n600| T                                                              *\n580| h\n560| o\n540| u\n520| s                                                             *\n500| a\n480| n                                                            .\n460| d\n440| s\n420|                                                             .\n400| o\n380| f\n360|                                                            *\n340| H                                                         .\n320| o\n300| s                                                        *\n280| t\n260| s                                                       .\n240|                                                        .\n220|                                                       .\n200|                                                      .\n180|                                                     .\n160|\n140|                                                    *\n120|                                                   *\n100|                                                 ..\n 80|                                                *\n 60|                                               .\n 40|                                              *\n 20|                                       ..*...*\n  0|...*....*......*......*.....*.*....*...\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------\n    8     8     8     8     8     8     8     8     8     9     9     9\n    1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9     0     1     2\n                                   Date\n    \"*\"  = data point,  \".\" = estimate\nThis graph is a linear plot of the number of Internet hosts.\nLottor                                                          [Page 5]\nRFC 1296\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)           January 1992\nNumber of Internet Hosts (logarithmic)\n\n\n    | 1000000\n    |                                                                *.*\n    |                                                        ..*.*..*\n    |                                                     ...\n    | 100000                                          ..**\n    |                                              *.*\n  H |                                          ...*\n  o |                                        .*\n  s | 10000                                ..\n  t |                                    ..\n  s |                               ....*\n    |                         ...*.*\n1000|                   ...*..\n    |                ...\n    |            ...*\n    | ..*....*...\n 100|.\n     -------------------------------------------------------------------\n     8     8     8     8     8     8     8     8     8     9     9     9\n     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9     0     1     2\n                                    Date\n\n     \"*\"  = data point,  \".\" = estimate\n\nThis graph is a logarithmic plot of the number of Internet hosts.\nN.2\nNumber of Domains\nThis chart shows the number of domains existing in the Internet\n   Domain Name System as collected by ZONE.\n\n        Date           Domains\n\n        07/88              900\n        10/88            1,280\n        01/89            2,600\n        07/89            3,900\n        10/89            4,800\n        10/90            9,300\n        01/91           11,200\n        07/91           16,000\n        10/91           18,000\n        01/92           17,000\nLottor                                                          [Page 6]\nRFC 1296\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)           January 1992\nN.3\nDistribution of IP Addresses per Host\nThis chart shows how many hosts have how many IP addresses.  This\n   data was collected on 1-Jan-92 and only the first 10 entries are\n   shown.\n\n     Addresses           Hosts\n\n         1              715143\n         2                9015\n         3                1027\n         4                 556\n         5                 314\n         6                 213\n         7                 100\n         8                  85\n         9                  58\n        10                  71\nN.4\nDistribution of Hosts by Top-level Domain\nThis chart shows the number of hosts per top-level domain (top 40\n   only) on 1-Jan-92.  The percentage listed is the increase since 1-\n   Oct-91.  Large variations are probably due to problems and variations\n   in the collection process; these figures are not meant to be\n   authoritative, but serve as reasonable estimates.\n\n   243020 edu 13%     13011 fr    4%     1791 dk   4%     357 be  -5%\n   181361 com 12%     12770 nl   21%     1662 es  15%     334 gr  14%\n    46463 gov 13%     12647 ch   10%     1506 kr   9%     308 br  26%\n    31622 au  19%     11994 fi   15%     1111 nz -16%     284 mx  -5%\n    31016 de  20%     10228 no    9%     1016 tw  n/a     207 is   0%\n    27492 mil 26%      8579 jp    6%      929 za  n/a     146 pl  97%\n    27052 ca  22%      4109 net -49%      784 pt  n/a     127 us  25%\n    19117 org 10%      3324 at   19%      484 sg 251%      25 tn   0%\n    18984 uk 139%      2719 it  197%      448 hk  78%      24 hu  71%\n    18473 se  34%      2020 il   14%      374 ie  -7%       6 arpa 0%\nLottor                                                          [Page 7]\nRFC 1296\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)           January 1992\nN.5\nDistribution of Hosts by Host Name\nThis chart shows the distribution of hosts by their host name on 1-\n   Jan-92.  The host name is defined to be the first part of a fully\n   qualified domain name.  Only the top 100 names are shown.\n384\nvenus\n204 mac4       172 mac9        155 pollux     138 chaos\n356\npluto\n201 hobbes     172 mac11       155 frodo      136 bart\n323\nmars\n201 hermes     170 mac8        153 helios     135 pc5\n288\njupiter\n198 thor       169 phoenix     152 mac17      135 larry\n286\nsaturn\n198 sirius     169 mac12       151 vega       135 cs\n285\npc1\n196 gw         169 hal         151 mac18      133 odin\n282\nzeus\n195 calvin     168 snoopy      150 falcon     131 tiger\n262\niris\n194 mac5       168 mac13       150 bach       131 sparky\n260\nmercury\n191 mac10      167 mac15       146 castor     131 ariel\n259\nmac1\n190 fred       167 mac14       145 sol        130 sneezy\n258\norion\n189 titan      167 grumpy      145 dopey      128 mac\n254\nmac2\n189 pc3        163 gandalf     144 mac20      127 sun1\n240\nnewton\n186 opus       162 pc4         144 mac19      127 rocky\n234\nneptune\n186 mac6       160 uranus      142 spock      126 pc6\n233\npc2\n185 charon     159 mac16       142 euler      125 hydra\n224\ngauss\n185 apollo     158 sleepy      141 mickey     125 homer\n222\neagle\n179 mac7       158 io          141 atlas      124 isis\n213\nmac3\n179 athena     157 earth       140 maxwell    123 moe\n209\nmerlin\n177 alpha      156 europa      140 happy      123 delta\n207\ncisco\n172 mozart     155 rigel       140 doc        122 pc10\n\nFuture Issues\n\n   ZONE currently runs on a DECsystem-20 and is written in assembler.\n   The amount of data is quickly reaching the limits of the DEC-20\n   section address space, and the hardware's ability to survive gets\n   slimmer each day.  ZONE assembles all its data in core before dumping\n   it to disk.  The implementation does this in order to be able to\n   match host nicknames with official names before dumping complete host\n   records.  Sometimes a nickname can be in a different domain than the\n   official name, complicating simpler methods.\n\n   A new version of ZONE needs to be written to run on a modern computer\n   system.  A completely new architecture should be designed to handle\n   the enormous amount of data collected and expected in the future.\n   Data should be kept on disk so that a system crash will not wipe out\n   days of collection.  Multiple zone transfers could be occurring in\n   parallel to reduce the time needed for data gathering.  A new ZONE\n   might run continuously, cycling through the domain system on a cycle\n   lasting weeks to a month, updating a local database with statistics\n   collected for each domain.  In this way, current statistics on the\n   size of the Internet would always be known.  The resulting database\nLottor                                                          [Page 8]\nRFC 1296\nInternet Growth (1981-1991)           January 1992\nmay also be useful for other network information services.\n\nRFC References\n\n   Libes, D., \"Choosing a Name for Your Computer\",\nRFC 1178\n, Integrated\n   Systems Group/NIST, August 1990.  (Also FYI 5.)\n\n   Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Implementation and Specification\",\nRFC 1035\n, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987.\n\n   Mockapetris, P., \"Domain names - Concepts and Facilities\",\nRFC 1034\n,\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987.\n\n   Lazear, W., \"MILNET Name Domain Transition\",\nRFC 1031\n, Mitre,\n   November 1987.\n\n   Harrenstien, K. Stahl, M., and J. Feinler, \"DoD Internet Host Table\n   Specification\", SRI, October 1985.\n\n   Postel, J., \"Domain Name System Implementation Schedule - Revised\",\nRFC 921\n, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1984.\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Mark K. Lottor\n   SRI International\n   Network Information Systems Center\n   333 Ravenswood Avenue, EJ282\n   Menlo Park, CA  94025\n\n   EMail: mkl@nisc.sri.com\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLottor                                                          [Page 9]\nRFC\n1296\n: Internet Growth (1981-1991)\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-01-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-01-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-01-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:03.692331+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a67c423d-b09b-4eaf-a474-76ae5a9bfead", "source_id": "d96b90bf30f156a1b5b67e67", "source": "RIPE", "source_url": "https://www.ripe.net/about-us/", "final_url": "https://www.ripe.net/about-us/", "artifact_sha256": "586c3f4c051440c8457646dc74146b1c514b94313827ce1d72b822869704bd30", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 120153, "title": "About Us — RIPE Network Coordination Centre", "language": "en", "text_length": 13088, "characters": 13088, "text": "About Us — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nTogether, let's shape the future of the Internet\nAs the Regional Internet Registry for Europe, Middle East and Central Asia, we serve over 20,000 members in 76 countries. We register IP addresses and ASNs, and act as the secretariat to the RIPE community.\nAbout RIPE\nWhat is an RIR?\nWhat We Do\nWe're a not-for-profit organisation that works to support the RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) community and the wider Internet community. The RIPE NCC membership consists mainly of Internet service providers, telecommunication organisations and other companies that manage their own network infrastructure.\nOur Mission and Vision\nGet to know the RIPE NCC\nYour browser doesn't support HTML video. Here is a\nlink to the video\ninstead.\nOur Services\nWe maintain a registry of all allocated Internet number resources in our service region, the details of which can be found in the RIPE Database. This helps to maintain a well-organised and efficient Internet, and also helps safeguard the number resources in use.\nPart of our function is to act as a coordination centre for the RIPE community. As part of this, we perform a variety of activities. These include:\nCoordination of meetings and events\nFacilitation of Internet policy development\nOperation of one of the Internet's 13 root name servers\nProvision of numerous training courses\nWe also work with the technical community and various organisations on what can be termed \"Internet governance\".\nView the full list of our services\nThe RIPE NCC Service Region\nThe RIPE NCC consists of over 20,000 organisations that act as Local Internet Registries (LIRs) to provide Internet services in their own countries.\nThe service region consists of 76 countries. Organisations that provide services in any of those countries can become members of the RIPE NCC in order to receive Internet resources. The RIPE NCC provides a list of the organisations that are members in each country in the RIPE NCC service region.\nBecome a member\nView the list of RIPE NCC members\nOur People\nWe are an international organisation serving the diverse Internet community, which is reflected by our staff. We bring together more than 175 people from more than 40 countries in our modern, vibrant office in the east wing of Amsterdam Central Station. Our official working language is English, but more than 30 languages are spoken by our colleagues.\nRIPE NCC Leadership\nThe RIPE NCC is led by Hans Petter Holen, the Managing Director and CEO.\nRIPE NCC Leadership\nRIPE NCC Executive Board\nThe RIPE NCC Executive Board oversees the work of the RIPE NCC and is elected by the RIPE NCC members.\nRIPE NCC Executive Board\nRIPE Chair Team\nThe RIPE Chair and Vice Chair ensure the smooth functioning of the RIPE community.\nRIPE Chair Team\nWork with the RIPE NCC\nCome work at a unique organisation at the technical heart of the Internet.\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nCorporate Governance\nFind out more about our corporate governance, financial and legal information.\nLegal Information\nFind all of our legal documents, including those on Internet number resources, corporate governance, arbitration, information for Law Enforcement Agencies and more.\nLegal Information\nCorporate Governance\nFind out what our transparency with regards to corporate governance means to us and to our stakeholders.\nCorporate Governance\nFinancial Information\nFind our bank details and VAT number, along with the current Charging Scheme and Billing Procedure.\nFinancial Information\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "segments": [{"segment_id": "486ad2a8-3047-49d3-8efc-07038913f46a", "document_id": "a67c423d-b09b-4eaf-a474-76ae5a9bfead", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About Us — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nTogether, let's shape the future of the Internet\nAs the Regional Internet Registry for Europe, Middle East and Central Asia, we serve over 20,000 members in 76 countries. We register IP addresses and ASNs, and act as the secretariat to the RIPE community.\nAbout RIPE\nWhat is an RIR?\nWhat We Do\nWe're a not-for-profit organisation that works to support the RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) community and the wider Internet community. The RIPE NCC membership consists mainly of Internet service providers, telecommunication organisations and other companies that manage their own network infrastructure.\nOur Mission and Vision\nGet to know the RIPE NCC\nYour browser doesn't support HTML video. Here is a\nlink to the video\ninstead.\nOur Services\nWe maintain a registry of all allocated Internet number resources in our service region, the details of which can be found in the RIPE Database. This helps to maintain a well-organised and efficient Internet, and also helps safeguard the number resources in use.\nPart of our function is to act as a coordination centre for the RIPE community. As part of this, we perform a variety of activities. These include:\nCoordination of meetings and events\nFacilitation of Internet policy development\nOperation of one of the Internet's 13 root name servers\nProvision of numerous training courses\nWe also work with the technical community and various organisations on what can be termed \"Internet governance\".\nView the full list of our services\nThe RIPE NCC Service Region\nThe RIPE NCC consists of over 20,000 organisations that act as Local Internet Registries (LIRs) to provide Internet services in their own countries.\nThe service region consists of 76 countries. Organisations that provide services in any of those countries can become members of the RIPE NCC in order to receive Internet resources. The RIPE NCC provides a list of the organisations that are members in each country in the RIPE NCC service region.\nBecome a member\nView the list of RIPE NCC members\nOur People\nWe are an international organisation serving the diverse Internet community, which is reflected by our staff. We bring together more than 175 people from more than 40 countries in our modern, vibrant office in the east wing of Amsterdam Central Station. Our official working language is English, but more than 30 languages are spoken by our colleagues.\nRIPE NCC Leadership\nThe RIPE NCC is led by Hans Petter Holen, the Managing Director and CEO.\nRIPE NCC Leadership\nRIPE NCC Executive Board\nThe RIPE NCC Executive Board oversees the work of the RIPE NCC and is elected by the RIPE NCC members.\nRIPE NCC Executive Board\nRIPE Chair Team\nThe RIPE Chair and Vice Chair ensure the smooth functioning of the RIPE community.\nRIPE Chair Team\nWork with the RIPE NCC\nCome work at a unique organisation at the technical heart of the Internet.\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nCorporate Governance\nFind out more about our corporate governance, financial and legal information.\nLegal Information\nFind all of our legal documents, including those on Internet number resources, corporate governance, arbitration, information for Law Enforcement Agencies and more.\nLegal Information\nCorporate Governance\nFind out what our transparency with regards to corporate governance means to us and to our stakeholders.\nCorporate Governance\nFinancial Information\nFind our bank details and VAT number, along with the current Charging Scheme and Billing Procedure.\nFinancial Information\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 13088, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1952}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a6ba74fc-ae1e-4433-88ed-aac540e07723", "source_id": "7ae9d3a05ed04a91f61ab604", "source": "ARIN", "source_url": "https://www.arin.net/reference/", "final_url": "https://www.arin.net/reference/", "artifact_sha256": "f903589a5c244370d8ea8c2ab027cd7a170dbe34c510c01dac09d790a481587b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 23696, "title": "Reference & Tools - American Registry for Internet Numbers", "language": "en-us", "text_length": 3559, "characters": 3559, "text": "Reference & Tools - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nHome\nReference & Tools\nHome\nReference & Tools\nARIN not only facilitates the policy development process, but also educates the Internet community. Download fact sheets, view tutorials, read up on RFCs and other technical information, and study the latest regional and global Internet number resource statistics.\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "segments": [{"segment_id": "7415e0a9-6c5a-474e-91d6-416eef651e96", "document_id": "a6ba74fc-ae1e-4433-88ed-aac540e07723", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Reference & Tools - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nHome\nReference & Tools\nHome\nReference & Tools\nARIN not only facilitates the policy development process, but also educates the Internet community. Download fact sheets, view tutorials, read up on RFCs and other technical information, and study the latest regional and global Internet number resource statistics.\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3559, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 489}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a6e578f8-d56e-4358-b6f2-babc198cff4f", "source_id": "eece47486d0db9f96dacd12e", "source": "IANA", "source_url": "https://www.iana.org/", "final_url": "https://www.iana.org/", "artifact_sha256": "3bafa1612b7778ce3ca2f983bacaf9db01a21bb8ae82bd2dc09920141b81fc04", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 6253, "title": "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", "language": null, "text_length": 1296, "characters": 1296, "text": "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority\nThe global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing,\nand other Internet protocol resources is performed as the\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.\nLearn more.\nDomain Names\nManagement of the DNS Root Zone (assignments of ccTLDs and gTLDs) along with other functions such as the .int and .arpa zones.\nRoot Zone Management\nDatabase of Top Level Domains\n.int Registry\n.arpa Registry\nIDN Practices Repository\nNumber Resources\nCoordination of the global IP and AS number spaces, such as allocations made to Regional Internet Registries.\nIP Addresses & AS Numbers\nNetwork abuse information\nProtocol Assignments\nThe central repository for protocol name and number registries used in many Internet protocols.\nProtocol Registries\nApply for an assignment\nTime Zone Database\nDomain Names\nRoot Zone Registry\n.INT Registry\n.ARPA Registry\nIDN Repository\nNumber Resources\nNumber Registries\nRIR Allocation Data\nAbuse Information\nProtocols\nProtocol Registries\nTime Zone Database\nAbout Us\nNews\nPerformance\nThe Organization\nArchive\nContact Us\nThe IANA functions coordinate the Internet’s globally unique identifiers, and\nare provided by\nPublic Technical Identifiers\n, an affiliate of\nICANN\n.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service", "segments": [{"segment_id": "06ffb368-259d-427f-ac24-4e5cbe70ddf4", "document_id": "a6e578f8-d56e-4358-b6f2-babc198cff4f", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority\nThe global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing,\nand other Internet protocol resources is performed as the\nInternet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.\nLearn more.\nDomain Names\nManagement of the DNS Root Zone (assignments of ccTLDs and gTLDs) along with other functions such as the .int and .arpa zones.\nRoot Zone Management\nDatabase of Top Level Domains\n.int Registry\n.arpa Registry\nIDN Practices Repository\nNumber Resources\nCoordination of the global IP and AS number spaces, such as allocations made to Regional Internet Registries.\nIP Addresses & AS Numbers\nNetwork abuse information\nProtocol Assignments\nThe central repository for protocol name and number registries used in many Internet protocols.\nProtocol Registries\nApply for an assignment\nTime Zone Database\nDomain Names\nRoot Zone Registry\n.INT Registry\n.ARPA Registry\nIDN Repository\nNumber Resources\nNumber Registries\nRIR Allocation Data\nAbuse Information\nProtocols\nProtocol Registries\nTime Zone Database\nAbout Us\nNews\nPerformance\nThe Organization\nArchive\nContact Us\nThe IANA functions coordinate the Internet’s globally unique identifiers, and\nare provided by\nPublic Technical Identifiers\n, an affiliate of\nICANN\n.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1296, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 1, "word_count": 187}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "a7549efd-cebb-40d8-82af-e9f711c9e4c1", "source_id": "ba5afd76101bec0c54fc09e8", "source": "RIPE", "source_url": "https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/", "final_url": "https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/", "artifact_sha256": "ba5afd76101bec0c54fc09e896a846fc75a690ef3224fc2603ff271fba0f47b2", "content_type": "text/html; charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 121976, "title": "RIPE Documents Repository", "language": "en", "text_length": 2297, "characters": 2297, "text": "RIPE Documents by Category — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nRIPE Documents by Category\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nAll Current RIPE Documents\nList of current RIPE Documents.\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Database Documents\nThis page regroups reference manuals and other useful documents for RIPE Database users are available from the Database Document Library. Below please find a list of all current RIPE Documents relating to the RIPE Database.\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nIPv6 Documents\nAll documents relating to IPv6.\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nIncludes all documents relating to the RIPE NCC and its organisation, including Annual Reports, Financial Reports and Charging Schemes.\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Governance\nThese documents describe how the RIPE community is governed. This includes the framework of processes, functions, structures and rules between the different stakeholders forming the RIPE community.\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nProcedural Documents\nThis page is a collection of all RIPE NCC procedural documents. These documents contain details of how the RIPE NCC carries out various internal procedures.\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nBest Common Practices\nThis page regroups all documents proposing mutually accepted norms on the best way to carry out specific operations. This process is often led by the community at the initiative of Task Forces.\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nGuidelines\nThis page regroups informational material for the community.\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nRequest Forms & Supporting Notes\nResource Request Forms and Supporting Notes\nPage\nDocs / RIPE Document Store / RIPE Documents by Category\nDraft and Discussion Documents\nThis section contains draft documents that are intended to serve as a basis for discussion. They can later become fully-fledged RIPE Documents.\nPage", "segments": [], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:35:12.141955+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "ac433b47-096a-4f6d-9b59-c24b882ed06c", "source_id": "db7d6120381092cc93e50310", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1400", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1400/", "artifact_sha256": "db7d6120381092cc93e50310b12d585dfcbb55f77f58fa3a25048efde9866a8e", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 100376, "title": "RFC 1400: Transition and Modernization of the Internet Registration Service", "language": "en", "text_length": 13128, "characters": 13128, "text": "RFC 1400: Transition and Modernization of the Internet Registration Service | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1400\n:\nTransition and Modernization of the Internet Registration Service\nS. Williamson\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                     S. Williamson\nRequest for Comments: 1400                      Network Solutions, Inc.\n                                                             March 1993\nTransition and Modernization\nof the Internet Registration Service\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nDiscussion\n\n   As a result of the NREN NIS award by National Science Foundation,\n   non-DDN registration services will soon be transferred from the DDN\n   NIC to the new Internet Registration Service, which is a part of an\n   entity referred to as the InterNIC.  References in this document to\n   the InterNIC apply to the Registration Services portion only.\n\n   Internet registration services are gradually transitioning to the\n   InterNIC.  We expect that the full transition will be accomplished by\n   April 1, 1993.  During this transitional period, EMail, Fax, and U.S.\n   mail received at either site will be processed.  DDN users will\n   continue to receive full registration support from the DDN NIC, and\n   the transition should be transparent to them.  DDN users should\n   continue to send registration requests to hostmast@nic.ddn.mil (IP,\n   .mil domain, inaddr for 26.x.x.x) or registrar@nic.ddn.mil (user\n   registrations or TAC card requests) using the DISA approved\n   registration forms.\n\n   From now through March 31, 1993, non-DDN Internet registration\n   requests will be handled as follows:\n\n      The current DDN NIC registration templates may be filled out and\n      submitted to either hostmaster@internic.net or\n      hostmaster@nic.ddn.mil through March 31.  The new InterNIC\n      templates will be accepted effective April 1, 1993, but not until\n      that time.\n\n     Telephone support: 1-800-365-DNIC or\n                        1-703-802-4535 (Washington DC metro area)\nWilliamson                                                      [Page 1]\nRFC 1400\nTransition of Registration Services         March 1993\nMail questions and registration templates to:\n\n               Government Systems Inc.\n               Attn: Network Information Center\n               14200 Park Meadow Dr.\n               Suite 200\n               Chantilly, VA 2200\n\n   Effective April 1, 1993, non-DDN Internet requests will be handled as\n   described below.\n\n      New registration requests should be sent to autoreg@internic.net\n      using the new template.  Old templates sent to\n      autoreg@internic.net will be returned with the parsing error\n      messages and the new form attached. Old templates mailed to\n      hostmaster@interic.net will be accepted through June 30, 1993.\n\n      After that date, templates in the old format will be returned to\n      the sender with the new template attached.\n\n     Telephone support: 1-800-444-4345 or 619-455-4600\n                        1-703-742-4777 (Registration service only)\n                                       (Washington DC metro area)\n\n     Mail questions and registration templates to:\n\n               Network Solutions, Inc.\n               Attn: InterNIC Registration Service\n               505 Huntmar Park Drive\n               Herndon, VA 22070\n\n   In an effort to keep those who are likely to submit a high volume of\n   registration requests informed during the transition period,\n   information regarding Internet registration issues will be\n   distributed via the mail list rs-info@internic.net.  Send\n   subscription requests to:\n\n                     rs-info-request@internic.net.\n\n   Information on the location of the new autoreg templates and how to\n   retrieve them will be sent to those who have subscribed to this list.\n   Comments are solicited.  The new registration templates have been\n   modified to facilitate automatic processing and to remove all DDN-\n   specific references.\n\n   WHOIS services will be available at both the DDN NIC and InterNIC\n   sites:\nWilliamson                                                      [Page 2]\nRFC 1400\nTransition of Registration Services         March 1993\nwhois.nic.ddn.mil (192.112.36.5)\n     whois.internic.net (198.41.0.5)\n\n   Effective April 1, 1993, only DDN information will be available from\n   whois.nic.ddn.mil.  The WHOIS service available from\n   whois.internic.net will contain all information on IP addresses,\n   domains, and ASNs.  The WHOIS service available from the\n   whois.internic.net will contain individual user records only for\n   those who serve as a Point of Contact for an active node.  Those who\n   are interested in establishing a whois service for information on\n   individual users (e.g., for Internet hosts or campus networks) are\n   encouraged to participate in one of the many distributed WHOIS-like\n   information projects.\n\n   Root zone files will be available at both sites through March 31,\n   1993.  After that time, the root zone file will be available only\n   from ftp.rs.internic.net.\n\n   After the transition, the host.txt file will be available only from\n   nic.ddn.mil and hosts.txt will include ONLY MILNET HOSTS.  On April\n   1, 1993, a new root DNS server will be placed in service.  It will be\n   available at ns.internic.net ( 198.41.0.4 ).\n\n   The T1 service currently available to the DDN NIC will be\n   disconnected by June 1, 1993.  This will leave only 56K access to the\n   DDN NIC site. Excessive traffic to this site after that date will\n   cause congestion. Therefore, it is important that all Internet\n   registration data be directed to the new InterNIC site.  The InterNIC\n   registration services facility will be connected to SuraNET via T1\n   around March 10, 1993.\n\n   Automated Internet registration services will be available from the\n   InterNIC registration service host.  This new automated system will\n   allow more accurate and timely processing of registration requests.\n   The basic functions/features of the new automated registration\n   process (autoreg) are outlined below:\n\n   * Requestor sends a completed new template to\n     autoreg@internic.net.\n\n   * The mailserver/parser on the InterNIC registration host parses\n     the template and makes a quick check of all verifiable\n     information (such as Domain name conflicts).  The server\n     then sends an E-mail verification or rejection with error message\n     back to the requestor.\n\n   * After receiving the verification form for review, the requestor\n     should ensure that the information was interpreted correctly by the\nWilliamson                                                      [Page 3]\nRFC 1400\nTransition of Registration Services         March 1993\nparser.  If the information is correct, the requestor returns the\n     verify form to verify@internic.net.  If the information is not\n     correct, the requestor should make the necessary corrections before\n     returning the form.  If a rejection was received the requesstor\n     must make the necessary adjustments and resend the registration\n     request to autoreg@internic.net for processing.\n\n   * On receipt of a corrected verification form from the original\n     requestor, the data will be rechecked and a new verification form\n     will be sent.  Once a good verification has been received by\n     Registration Services, the request will be released for final\n     processing by the InterNIC registration staff.\n\n     NOTE: If the requestor does not return the verification form to the\n     InterNIC within seven days after it is mailed, the original\n     registration request will expire, and it must be resubmitted.\n\n   Information on the status of all registration requests will be\n   available to users via two methods.  The first method employs the\n   \"finger\" utility.  The finger utility is executed specifying the\n   \"trouble ticket\" (tt) number returned with the registration request\n   verification/ confirmation message.\n\n   Example:     finger tt-930303.1034@rs.internic.net\n\n   Users will also be able to obtain status information by connecting to\n   rs.internic.net via telnet and executing the \"status <ticket number>\"\n   command.  Status information will appear as follows.\n\n   [BEGIN SCRIPT]__________________________________________________________\n\n   > finger tt-930303.1034@rs.internic.net\n   [rs.internic.net]\n   Retrieving information on Ticket 930303.1034.   Please wait...\n\n   Ticket Number: 930303.1034           Ticket Status:   pending\n   Ticket Type: reg/domain              Ticket Source:   email\n   Ticket Scope:                        Site/Line:\n\n   Ticket Owner: autoreg                Problem Fixer:  duanes\n\n   Ticket Opened: 03/03/93  14:47\n\n   Problem Description:\n                    register internic.net\nWilliamson                                                      [Page 4]\nRFC 1400\nTransition of Registration Services         March 1993\nProblem Solution:\n\n\n   For more information, please contact the InterNIC Registration\n   Center at hostmaster@internic.net or (703) 742-4777.  Thanks!\n\n   [END SCRIPT]____________________________________________________________\n\n   Other services will also be available via telnet to rs.internic.net.\n   The interface is similar to the telnet service currently offered by\n   the DDN-NIC. However, the commands used on the InterNIC system are\n   slightly different. The services that will be available via telnet\n   are:  WHOIS, Gopher, wais, finger, and status.\n\n   Below is a short scripted session on the new InterNIC Registration\n   host.\n\n   [BEGIN SCRIPT]__________________________________________________________\n\n\n   % telnet rs.internic.net\n   Trying 198.41.0.5 ...\n   Connected to rs.internic.net.\n   Escape character is '^]'.\n\n\n   SunOS UNIX (rs) (ttyp4)\n\n   ************************************************************************\n   * -- InterNIC Network Registration Center  --\n   *\n   * For gopher, type:                  GOPHER <return>\n   * For wais, type:                    WAIS <return>\n   * For the *original* whois type:     WHOIS <return>\n   * For the X.500 whois DUA, type:     X500WHOIS <return>\n   *\n   * For user assistance call (800) 444-4345 or (703) 742-4777\n   * Please report system problems to ACTION@rs.internic.net\n   ************************************************************************\n\n   Cmdinter Ver 1.3 Wed Mar 10 11:23:05 1993 EST\n   InterNIC > ?\n   Command, one of the following\n    DATE          FINGER        HELP          KERMIT        LOGIN\n    LOGOUT        STATUS        WHOIS         GOPHER        WAIS\n    X500WHOIS\n   InterNIC > date\n   Wed Mar 10 11:23:09 EST 1993\nWilliamson                                                      [Page 5]\nRFC 1400\nTransition of Registration Services         March 1993\nInterNIC > whois\n   Connecting to the rs Database . . . . . .\n   Connected to the rs Database\n   InterNIC WHOIS Version: 1.0 Wed, 10 Mar 93 11:23:19\n\n   Whois: !internic-dom\n   Network Solutions, Inc. (INTERNIC-DOM)\n      505 Huntmar Park Drive\n      Herndon, VA 22070\n\n      Domain Name: INTERNIC.NET\n\n      Administrative Contact:\n         Zalubski, John  (JZ7)  zalubskj@INTERNIC.NET\n         (703) 802-8462\n      Technical Contact, Zone Contact:\n         Kosters, Mark A.  (MAK21)  markk@INTERNIC.NET\n         (703) 802-8484\n\n\n\n\n\n      Record last updated on 10-Feb-93.\n\n      Domain servers in listed order:\n\n      REG.INTERNIC.NET             192.153.247.80\n      NOC.CERF.NET                 192.153.156.22\n\n   Whois: quit\n   InterNIC > quit\n\n   Wed Mar 10 11:24:54 1993 EST\n   Connection closed by foreign host.\n   %\n\n   [END SCRIPT]____________________________________________________________\nWilliamson                                                      [Page 6]\nRFC 1400\nTransition of Registration Services         March 1993\nSummary of InterNIC registration services information:\n\nrs.internic.net   198.41.0.5\nns.internic.net   198.41.0.4\n\nGeneral telephone support:  1-800-444-4365\nRegistration support:       703-742-4777\n\nMail address:\nNetwork Solutions Inc.\nATTN: InterNIC Registration Services\n505\nHuntmar Park Dr.\nHerndon, VA 22070\n\nrs-info@internic.net                  Registration information mail list\nrs-info-request@internic.net\n\nhostmaster@internic.net               Registration questions and Manual\n                                       registration\nautoreg@internic.net                  Automatic registration mailbox\n\n\nfinger tt-XXXXXX.XXXX@rs.internic.net To check status of registration\n                                       request\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Scott Williamson\n   Network Solutions, Inc.\n   505 Huntmar Park Drive\n   Herndon, VA 22070\n\n   Phone: (703) 742-4820\n   EMail: scottw@internic.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWilliamson                                                      [Page 7]\nRFC\n1400\n: Transition and Modernization of the Internet Registration Service\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1993-03-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1993-03-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1993-03-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:17.115645+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "ac64fcc4-f350-4fb1-b0f6-e6a503fac1a3", "source_id": "d9bf97efdc64d94448d2fbe7", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1360", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1360/", "artifact_sha256": "d9bf97efdc64d94448d2fbe7300beabba4e3cd01b3b8e842bcf123dd13d1f1d1", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 331205, "title": "RFC 1360: IAB Official Protocol Standards", "language": "en", "text_length": 70808, "characters": 70808, "text": "RFC 1360: IAB Official Protocol Standards | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1360\n:\nIAB Official Protocol Standards\nJ. Postel\nHistoric\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n1410\n.\nNetwork Working Group                        Internet Architecture Board\nRequest for Comments: 1360                             J. Postel, Editor\nObsoletes: RFCs\n1280\n,\n1250\n,                               September 1992\n1100\n,\n1083\n,\n1130\n,\n1140\n,\n1200\nSTD: 1\n\n\n\n                    IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS\n\n\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in\n   the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).\n   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n\n   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n1\n.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n2\n2\n.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n5\n3\n.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.1\n.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.2\n.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.3\n.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n3.4\n.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n6\n4\n.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n7\n4.1\n.  Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . .\n8\n4.1.1\n.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n8\n4.1.2\n.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.3\n.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.4\n.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.5\n.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.1.6\n.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n9\n4.2\n.  Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . .\n10\n4.2.1\n.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.2\n.  Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.3\n.  Elective Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.4\n.  Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n4.2.5\n.  Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5\n.  The Standards Track  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5.1\n.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .\n10\n5.2\n.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n12\n6\n.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1\n.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1.1\n.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n14\n6.1.2\n.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n19\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 1]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n6.2\n.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n21\n6.3\n.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .\n22\n6.4\n.  Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n23\n6.5\n.  Proposed Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n24\n6.6\n.  Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n25\n6.7\n.  Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n26\n6.8\n.  Informational Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n27\n6.9\n.  Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n28\n7\n.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n29\n7.1\n.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n29\n7.1.1\n.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . .\n29\n7.1.2\n.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .\n29\n7.1.3\n.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact  . . . . .\n30\n7.2\n.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .\n31\n7.3\n.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .\n32\n7.4\n.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .\n32\n7.5\n.  Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . . . . .\n33\n8\n.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n33\n9\n.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n33\nIntroduction\n\n   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series\n   is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.\n   Sections\n6.2\n-\n6.9\ncontain the lists of protocols in each stage of\n   standardization.  Finally come pointers to references and contacts\n   for further information.\n\n   This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be\n   sure the copy you are reading is current.  Current copies may be\n   obtained from the Network Information Center or from the Internet\n   Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of\n   this memo).  Do not use this edition after 15-Jan-93.\n\n   See\nSection 6.1\nfor a description of recent changes.  In the official\n   lists in sections\n6.2\n-\n6.9\n, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol\n   denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one\n   protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of\n   this document.\n1\n.  The Standardization Process\nThe Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that\n   define standards for the Internet protocol suite.  See\nRFC-1358\nfor\n   the charter of the IAB and\nRFC-1160\nfor an explanation of the role\n   and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force\n   (IRTF).  Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 2]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nand IRSG, respectively.  The IAB provides these standards with the\n   goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this\n   co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols\n   are increasingly in general commercial use.  The definitive\n   description of the Internet standards process is found in\nRFC-1310\n.\n\n   The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization\n   activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force.\n\n   Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a\n   series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft\n   standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and\n   testing.  When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD\n   number (see\nRFC-1311\n).  At each step, the Internet Engineering\n   Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for\n   advancement of the protocol and the IAB must ratify it.  If a\n   recommendation is not ratified, the protocol is remanded to the IETF\n   for further work.\n\n   To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to\n   standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 6\n   months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard\n   and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.\n\n   It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted\n   to draft standard without at least two independent implementations\n   (and the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard\n   to standard generally requires operational experience and\n   demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the\n   recommendation of the IESG).\n\n   In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision\n   concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee\n   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the\n   purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.\n\n   Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step\n   since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization\n   (it puts the protocol \"on the standards track\").  Advancement to\n   draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless\n   major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is\n   likely to be advanced to standard in six months.\n\n   Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise\n   unused.  Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with\n   the designation \"historic\".\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 3]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nBecause the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of\n   early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs\n   document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.  The\n   protocols are designated \"experimental\" in this memorandum.  They\n   appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as\n   evidence of their standardization.\n\n   Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards\n   organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be\n   recommended for use in the Internet.  The specifications of such\n   protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the\n   Internet community.  These protocols are labeled \"informational\" in\n   this memorandum.\n\n   In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development\n   and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the\n   research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of\n   other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.  The\n   IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC\n   series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for\n   standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance\n   the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved\n   this step.\n\n   A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the\n   approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols\n   have become very important to the Internet community even though they\n   have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.\n   However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process\n   be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize\n   interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements\n   from arising).  The IAB reserves the use of the terms \"standard\",\n   \"draft standard\", and \"proposed standard\" in any RFC or other\n   publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the\n   IAB has approved.\n\n   In addition to a state (like \"Proposed Standard\"), a protocol is also\n   assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.  The\n   possible requirement levels (\"Required\", \"Recommended\", \"Elective\",\n   \"Limited Use\", and \"Not Recommended\") are defined in\nSection 4.2\n.\n   When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed\n   standard, draft standard, or standard state (see\nSection 5\n), the\n   status shown in\nSection 6\nis the current status.  For a proposed or\n   draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the\n   eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.\n\n   Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is\n   because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 4]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\ngateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.  The\n   requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label,\n   which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation\n   requirements for a protocol in all situations.  For some protocols,\n   this document contains an additional status paragraph (an\n   applicability statement).  In addition, more detailed status\n   information is contained in separate requirements documents (see\nSection 3\n).\n2\n.  The Request for Comments Documents\nThe documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working\n   notes of the \"Network Working Group\", that is the Internet research\n   and development community.  A document in this series may be on\n   essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be\n   anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.\n\n   Notice:\n\n      All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify\n      standards.\n\n   Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions\n   must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact\n   information at the end of this memo, and see\nRFC 1111\n).\n\n   While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical\n   review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC\n   Editor, as appropriate.\n\n   The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from\n   informational documents of general interests to specifications of\n   standard Internet protocols.  In cases where submission is intended\n   to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard\n   protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the\n   approval of both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing\n   experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before\n   publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant\n   IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments\n   to the author.  See\nSection 5.1\nfor more detail.\n\n   Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is\n   never revised or re-issued with the same number.  There is never a\n   question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.\n   However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be\n   improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.  It\n   is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a\n   particular protocol.  This \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\" memo is\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 5]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nthe reference for determining the correct RFC for the current\n   specification of each protocol.\n\n   The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI\n   International, and a number of other sites.  For more information\n   about obtaining RFCs, see Sections\n7.4\nand\n7.5\n.\n3\n.  Other Reference Documents\nThere are three other reference documents of interest in checking the\n   current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These\n   are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host\n   Requirements.  Note that these documents are revised and updated at\n   different times; in case of differences between these documents, the\n   most recent must prevail.\n\n   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,\n   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in\nSection 3.4\n.\n3.1\n.  Assigned Numbers\nThis document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the\n   various protocols.  For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,\n   Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.\n   Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as\nRFC-1340\n.\n\n   Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network\n   numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was\n   most recently issued as\nRFC-1166\n.\n3.2\n.  Gateway Requirements\nThis document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and\n   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway\n   Requirements is\nRFC-1009\n.  A working group of the IETF is actively\n   preparing a revision.\n3.3\n.  Host Requirements\nThis pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that\n   apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any\n   ambiguities.  Host Requirements was issued as\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n.\n3.4\n.  The MIL-STD Documents\nThe Internet community specifications for IP (\nRFC-791\n) and TCP (\nRFC-\n793\n) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe\n   exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 6]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nspecified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to\n   the IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style\n   and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of\n   documents be used together, along with\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n.\n\n   The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and\n   Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,\n   854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the\n   current Internet specification for FTP is\nRFC-959\n(as modified by\nRFC-1123\n).\n\n   Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.  The Gateway\n   Requirements (\nRFC-1009\n) and Host Requirements (\nRFC-1122\n,\nRFC-1123\n)\n   take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.\n\n          Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777\n          Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778\n          File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780\n          Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781\n          Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782\n\n   These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms\n   Center.  Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;\n   however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if\n   possible.\n\n          Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015\n          5801 Tabor Ave\n          Philadelphia, PA 19120\n          Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)\n                 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)\n4\n.  Explanation of Terms\nThere are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is\n   the \"maturity level\" or STATE of standardization, one of \"standard\",\n   \"draft standard\", \"proposed standard\", \"experimental\",\n   \"informational\" or \"historic\".  The second is the \"requirement level\"\n   or STATUS of this protocol, one of \"required\", \"recommended\",\n   \"elective\", \"limited use\", or \"not recommended\".\n\n   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word\n   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an\n   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,\n   should be consulted.\n\n   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,\n   it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 7]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nnotes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it\n   reaches the standard state.\n\n   At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.\n   Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following\n   proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).  A new protocol\n   is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or\n   the (experimental, not recommended) cell.\n\n                             S T A T U S\n                     Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not\n                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |\n       S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |\n       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |     |     |\n       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |  X  |\n       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |\n       E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n           Hist    |     |     |     |  X  | XXX |\n                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\n\n   What is a \"system\"?\n\n      Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few\n      protocols are used in both.  The definitions of the terms below\n      will refer to a \"system\" which is either a host or a gateway (or\n      both).  It should be clear from the context of the particular\n      protocol which types of systems are intended.\n4.1\n.  Definitions of Protocol State\nEvery protocol listed in this document is assigned to a \"maturity\n   level\" or STATE of standardization: \"standard\", \"draft standard\",\n   \"proposed standard\", \"experimental\", or \"historic\".\n\n   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol\n\n      The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for\n      the Internet.  These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see\nRFC-\n1311\n).  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and\n      above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)\n      network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do\n      IP on particular types of networks.\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 8]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol\n\n      The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible\n      Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment\n      are desired.  Comments and test results should be submitted to the\n      IAB.  There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft\n      Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.\n\n   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol\n\n      These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for\n      standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by\n      several groups is desirable.  Revision of the protocol\n      specification is likely.\n\n   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol\n\n      A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it\n      is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of\n      the protocol with the developer of the protocol.\n\n      Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as\n      part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational\n      service offering.  While they may be proposed as a service\n      protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,\n      draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a\n      protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that\n      the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for\n      operational use.\n\n   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol\n\n      Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,\n      or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, may\n      be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community\n      as informational protocols.  Such protocols may in some cases also\n      be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.\n\n   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol\n\n      These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in\n      the Internet either because they have been superseded by later\n      developments or due to lack of interest.\nInternet Architecture Board                                     [Page 9]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n4.2\n.  Definitions of Protocol Status\nThis document lists a \"requirement level\" or STATUS for each\n      protocol.  The status is one of \"required\", \"recommended\",\n      \"elective\", \"limited use\", or \"not recommended\".\n\n   4.2.1.  Required Protocol\n\n      A system must implement the required protocols.\n\n   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol\n\n      A system should implement the recommended protocols.\n\n   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol\n\n      A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The\n      general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,\n      you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols\n      in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail\n      protocols, and several routing protocols.\n\n   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol\n\n      These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be\n      because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited\n      functionality, or historic state.\n\n   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol\n\n      These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be\n      because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or\n      experimental or historic state.\n5\n.  The Standards Track\nThis section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC\n   Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling and\n   publishing of protocols as standards.\n5.1\n.  The RFC Processing Decision Table\nHere is the current decision table for processing submissions by the\n   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the\n   status they want it to have.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 10]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n+==========================================================+\n      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |\n      +==========================================================+\n      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |\n      | Status       |          |          |          |          |\n      +==========================================================+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      | Standard     |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |\n      | or           |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |\n      | Draft        |          |          |          |          |\n      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |\n      | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |\n      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |\n      | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |\n      | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|\n      | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |\n      | Paper        |          |          |          |          |\n      |              |          |          |          |          |\n      +==========================================================+\n\n      (1) Publish.\n\n      (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying\n          Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.\n\n      (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do\n          Refer (4).\n\n      (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see\n          the document again only after approval by the IESG and the\n          IAB.\n\n      (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no concerns are raised in\n          two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve\n          the concerns or do Refer (4).\n\n      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 11]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nis needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or\n          not.\n\n   Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor\n   changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.\n\n   The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for\n   forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns\n   in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor.  Documents from\n   Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same\n   way as documents from \"other\".\n5.2\n.  The Standards Track Diagram\nThere is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called\n   the standards track.  Actually, only the changes of state are\n   significant to the progression along the standards track, though the\n   status assignments may be changed as well.\n\n   The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,\n   those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.  A\n   protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for\n   several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum\n   four months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term\n   state for many years.\n\n   A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation\n   of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to\n   another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by\n   action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to\n   either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.\n\n   Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is\n   made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability\n   (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although\n   a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then\n   is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.  So\n   the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1.  At any time the\n   STATUS decision may be revisited.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 12]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n|\n         +<----------------------------------------------+\n         |                                               ^\n         V    0                                          |    4\n   +-----------+                                   +===========+\n   |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |\n   +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+\n                                   |                     |\n                                   V    1                |\n                             +-----------+               V\n                             | proposed  |-------------->+\n                        +--->+-----+-----+               |\n                        |          |                     |\n                        |          V    2                |\n                        +<---+-----+-----+               V\n                             | draft std |-------------->+\n                        +--->+-----+-----+               |\n                        |          |                     |\n                        |          V    3                |\n                        +<---+=====+=====+               V\n                             | standard  |-------------->+\n                             +=====+=====+               |\n                                                         |\n                                                         V    5\n                                                   +=====+=====+\n                                                   | historic  |\n                                                   +===========+\n\n   The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can\n   only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and\n   only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least\n   six months.\n\n   The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by\n   action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after\n   the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months.\n\n   Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for\n   standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).\n   This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted\n   to enter the standards track after further work.  There are other\n   paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve\n   IAB action.\n\n   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes\n   historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is\n   in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and\n   becomes historic (state 5).\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 13]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n6\n.  The Protocols\nSub\nsection 6.1\nlists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections\n6.2\n- 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state.\n6.1\n.  Recent Changes\n6.1.1\n.  New RFCs:\n1361 - Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1360 - This memo.\n\n      1359 - Connecting to the Internet What Connecting Institutions\n             Should Anticipate\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1358 - Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1357 - A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic Records\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1356 - Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet\n             Mode\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1355 - Privacy and Accuracy Issues in Network Information Center\n             Databases\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1354 - IP Forwarding Table MIB\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 14]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n1353 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of SNMP\n             Parties\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1352 - SNMP Security Protocols\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1351 - SNMP Administrative Model\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1350 - The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)\n\n             A Standard protocol.\n\n      1349 - Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1348 - DNS NSAP RRs\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1347 - TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple Proposal\n             for Internet Addressing and Routing\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1346 - Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting for the Use of\n             Network Resources\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1345 - Character Mnemonics & Character Sets\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1344 - Implications of MIME for Internet Mail Gateways\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 15]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n1343 - A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia Mail\n             Format Information\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1342 - Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message\n             Headers\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1341 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions): Mechanisms\n             for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet\n             Message Bodies\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1340 - Assigned Numbers\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1339 - Remote Mail Checking Protocol\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n\n      1338 - Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation\n             Strategy\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1337 - TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1336 - Who's Who in the Internet - Biographies of IAB, IESG and\n             IRSG Members\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1335 - A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet: A Solution\n             to the Problem of Address Space Exhaustion\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 16]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n1334 - Not yet issued.\n\n      1333 - PPP Link Quality Monitoring\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1332 - The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1331 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission of\n             Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point Links\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1330 - Recommendations for the Phase I Deployment of OSI Directory\n             Services (X.500) and OSI Message Handling Services (X.400)\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1329 - Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI Networks\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1328 - X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1327 - Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and\nRFC 822\nA Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1326 - Mutual Encapsulation Considered Dangerous\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1325 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked\n             \"New Internet User\" Questions\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 17]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n1324 - A Discussion on Computer Network Conferencing\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1323 - TCP Extensions for High Performance\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1322 - A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain Routing\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1321 - The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1320 - The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1319 - The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1318 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like\n             Hardware Devices\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1317 - Definitions of Managed Objects RS-232-like Hardware Devices\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1316 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1315 - Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 18]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n1314 - A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet\n\n             A Proposed Standard protocol.\n\n      1313 - Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio\n\n             This is an information document and does not specify any\n             level of standard.\n\n      1312 - Message Send Protocol 2\n\n             An Experimental protocol.\n6.1.2\n.  Other Changes:\nThe following are changes to protocols listed in the previous\n   edition.\n\n      1172 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration\n             Options\n\n             Moved to Historic (obsoleted by\nRFC-1331\n).\n\n      1113 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I --\n             Message Encipherment and Authentication Procedures\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n\n      1114 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II\n             -- Certificate-Based Key Management\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n\n      1115 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III\n             -- Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n\n      1056 - PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System for Personal Computers\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n\n      1058 - Routing Information Protocol\n\n             Advanced to Standard protocol.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 19]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n1037 - NFILE -  A File Access Protocol\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n\n      1026 - Addendum to\nRFC 987\n(Mapping between X.400 and\nRFC-822\n)\n\n             Moved to Historic (obsoleted by\nRFC-1327\n).\n\n      987 - Mapping between X.400 and\nRFC-822\nMoved to Historic (obsoleted by\nRFC-1327\n).\n\n      953 - Hostname Server\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n\n      913 - Simple File Transfer Protocol\n\n             Moved to Historic.\n\n      734 - SUPDUP\n\n             Moved to Historic.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 20]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n6.2\n.  Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                      Status    RFC STD *\n========   =====================================     ======== ==== === =\n--------   IAB Official Protocol Standards           Req      1360   1 *\n--------   Assigned Numbers                          Req      1340   2 *\n--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Req      1122   3\n--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Req      1123   3\n--------   Gateway Requirements                      Req      1009   4\nIP         Internet Protocol                         Req       791   5\n            as amended by:--------\n--------     IP Subnet Extension                     Req       950   5\n--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Req       919   5\n--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Req       922   5\nICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Req       792   5\nIGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Rec      1112   5\nUDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Rec       768   6\nTCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Rec       793   7\nTELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Rec   854,855   8\nFTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Rec       959   9\nSMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Rec       821  10\nMAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Rec       822  11\nCONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Rec      1049  11\nNTP        Network Time Protocol                     Rec      1119  12\nDOMAIN     Domain Name System                        Rec 1034,1035  13\nDNS-MX     Mail Routing and the Domain System        Rec       974  14\nSNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Rec      1157  15\nSMI        Structure of Management Information       Rec      1155  16\nMIB-II     Management Information Base-II            Rec      1213  17\nEGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Rec       904  18\nNETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Ele 1001,1002  19\nECHO       Echo Protocol                             Rec       862  20\nDISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Ele       863  21\nCHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Ele       864  22\nQUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Ele       865  23\nUSERS      Active Users Protocol                     Ele       866  24\nDAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Ele       867  25\nTIME       Time Server Protocol                      Ele       868  26\nTFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol            Ele      1350  33*\nRIP        Routing Information Protocol              Ele      1058  34*\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards\n   general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 21]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nthan broadcasting for many applications.  The host interface has been\n   standardized in\nRFC-1112\n; however, multicast-routing gateways are in\n   the experimental stage and are not widely available.  An Internet\n   host should support all of\nRFC-1112\n, except for the IGMP protocol\n   itself which is optional; see\nRFC-1122\nfor more details.  Even\n   without IGMP, implementation of\nRFC-1112\nwill provide an important\n   advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.  It\n   is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and\n   gateways at some future date.\n\n   SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that\n   all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  At the current\n   time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (\nRFC-1213\n),\n   and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (\nRFC-1157\n).\n6.3\n.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     State   Status  RFC\n========   =====================================    ======= ====== =====\nIP-FR      Multiprotocol over Frame Relay           Prop    Ele    1294\nIP-SMDS    Transmission of IP Datagrams over SMDS   Prop    Ele    1209\nARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Std     Ele     826\nRARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Std     Ele     903\nIP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Std     Ele BBN1822\nIP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Std     Ele     907\nIP-X25     Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks       Std     Ele     877\nIP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Std     Ele     894\nIP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Std     Ele     895\nIP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Std     Ele    1042\nIP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Std     Ele     891\nIP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel        Std     Ele    1044\nIP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Std     Ele    1051\nIP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Std     Ele    1055\nIP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Std     Ele    1088\nIP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Std     Ele    1132\nIP-FDDI    Transmission of IP over FDDI             Draft   Ele    1188\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   It is expected that a system will support one or more physical\n   networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate\n   protocols from the above list must be supported.  That is, it is\n   elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for\n   the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be\n   supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.  See\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 22]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nalso the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific\n   information on network-specific (\"link layer\") protocols.\n6.4\n.  Draft Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nFINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective       1288\nBGP3       Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)        Elective  1267,1268\nOSPF2      Open Shortest Path First Routing V2      Elective       1247\nPOP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective       1225\nConcise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions                 Elective       1212\nIP-FDDI    Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks       Elective       1188\nTOPT-LINE  Telnet Linemode Option                   Elective       1184\nPPP        Point to Point Protocol                  Elective       1171\nBOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                      Recommended 951,1084\nTP-TCP     ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP  Elective       1006\nNICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective        954\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented\n   and used in the Internet.  However, both implementors and users\n   should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a\n   routing protocol.  The IETF is currently developing several\n   candidates for a new standard \"open\" routing protocol with better\n   properties than RIP.  The IAB urges the Internet community to track\n   these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is\n   standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.\n\n   TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,\n   there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the\n   TCP/IP protocols.  The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating\n   strategies for interoperation.\nRFC-1006\nprovides one interoperation\n   mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI\n   applications.  Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented\n   applications in this mode should use the procedure described in\nRFC-\n1006\n.  In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the\n   Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols\n   in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications\n   across the Internet using full OSI protocol \"stacks\".\n\n   PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial\n   lines, which are a type of physical network.  It is anticipated that\n   PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 23]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nin the future.\n6.5\n.  Proposed Standard Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\n           X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode         Elective       1356*\nTABLE-MIB  IP Forwarding Table MIB                  Elective       1354*\n-------    Administration of SNMP                   Elective       1353*\nSNMP-SEC   SNMP Security Protocols                  Elective       1352*\nSNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model                Elective       1351*\nTOS        Type of Service in the Internet...       Elective       1349*\n-------    Representation of Non-ASCII Text...      Elective       1342*\nMIME       Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions    Elective       1341*\nPPP-LINK   PPP Link Quality Monitoring              Elective       1333*\nPPP        Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)            Elective       1331*\n-------    X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading           Elective       1328*\n-------    Mapping between X.400(1988)...           Elective       1327*\nTCP-EXT    TCP Extensions for High Performance      Elective       1323*\n-------    Def. Man. Objs Parallel-printer-like...  Elective       1318*\n-------    Def. Man Objs RS-232-like...             Elective       1317*\n-------    Def. Man. Objs. Character Stream...      Elective       1316*\nFRAME-MIB  Management Information Base for Frame..  Elective       1315*\nNETFAX     File Format for the Exchange of Images.. Elective       1314*\nSIP-MIB    SIP Interface Type MIB                   Elective       1304\nIARP       Inverse Address Resolution Protocol      Elective       1293\nDECNET-MIB DECNET MIB                               Elective       1289\nBRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB                               Elective       1286\nFDDI-MIB   FDDI-MIB                                 Elective       1285\nETHER-MIB  Ethernet MIB                             Elective       1284\n-------    Encoding Network Addresses...            Elective       1277\n-------    Replication and Distributed Operations.. Elective       1276\n-------    COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema...      Elective       1274\nRMON-MIB   Remote Network Monitoring MIB            Elective       1271\nBGP-MIB    Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3)  Elective       1269\nICMP-ROUT  ICMP Router Discovery Messages           Elective       1256\nOSPF-MIB   OSPF Version 2 MIB                       Elective       1253\nIPSO       DoD Security Options for IP              Elective       1108\nAT-MIB     Appletalk MIB                            Elective       1243\nOSI-UDP    OSI TS on UDP                            Elective       1240\nSTD-MIBs   Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs     Elective       1239\nOSI-NSAP   Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation       Elective       1237\nIPX-IP     Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets    Elective       1234\nDS3-MIB    DS3 Interface Objects                    Elective       1233\nDS1-MIB    DS1 Interface Objects                    Elective       1232\n802.5-MIB  IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB                Elective       1231\n802.4-MIP  IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB                 Elective       1230\nGINT-MIB   Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB  Elective       1229\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 24]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nPPP-EXT    PPP Extensions for Bridging              Elective       1220\nOIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II          Elective       1214\nIP-SMDS    IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service       Elective       1209\nIP-ARCNET  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Elective       1201\nIS-IS      OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments   Elective       1195\nIP-MTU     Path MTU Discovery                       Elective       1191\nCMOT       Common Management Information Services.. Elective       1189\nIP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective       1144\nISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473                       Elective       1139\nSUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective       1094\nSUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective       1057\nNNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective        977\nRLP        Resource Location Protocol               Elective        887\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n\nApplicability Statements:\n\n   IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP over\n   particular network types.  It is anticipated that these will be\n   advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in the\n   future.\n6.6\n.  Telnet Options\nFor convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both\ntheir state and status.\n\nProtocol   Name                           Number  State Status  RFC STD\n========   =====================================  ===== ====== ==== ====\nTOPT-BIN   Binary Transmission                 0  Std   Rec     856  27\nTOPT-ECHO  Echo                                1  Std   Rec     857  28\nTOPT-RECN  Reconnection                        2  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-SUPP  Suppress Go Ahead                   3  Std   Rec     858  29\nTOPT-APRX  Approx Message Size Negotiation     4  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-STAT  Status                              5  Std   Rec     859  30\nTOPT-TIM   Timing Mark                         6  Std   Rec     860  31\nTOPT-REM   Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    7  Prop  Ele     726\nTOPT-OLW   Output Line Width                   8  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-OPS   Output Page Size                    9  Prop  Ele     ...\nTOPT-OCRD  Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10  Prop  Ele     652\nTOPT-OHT   Output Horizontal Tabstops         11  Prop  Ele     653\nTOPT-OHTD  Output Horizontal Tab Disposition  12  Prop  Ele     654\nTOPT-OFD   Output Formfeed Disposition        13  Prop  Ele     655\nTOPT-OVT   Output Vertical Tabstops           14  Prop  Ele     656\nTOPT-OVTD  Output Vertical Tab Disposition    15  Prop  Ele     657\nTOPT-OLD   Output Linefeed Disposition        16  Prop  Ele     658\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 25]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nTOPT-EXT   Extended ASCII                     17  Prop  Ele     698\nTOPT-LOGO  Logout                             18  Prop  Ele     727\nTOPT-BYTE  Byte Macro                         19  Prop  Ele     735\nTOPT-DATA  Data Entry Terminal                20  Prop  Ele    1043\nTOPT-SUP   SUPDUP                             21  Prop  Ele     734\nTOPT-SUPO  SUPDUP Output                      22  Prop  Ele     749\nTOPT-SNDL  Send Location                      23  Prop  Ele     779\nTOPT-TERM  Terminal Type                      24  Prop  Ele    1091\nTOPT-EOR   End of Record                      25  Prop  Ele     885\nTOPT-TACACS  TACACS User Identification       26  Prop  Ele     927\nTOPT-OM    Output Marking                     27  Prop  Ele     933\nTOPT-TLN   Terminal Location Number           28  Prop  Ele     946\nTOPT-3270  Telnet 3270 Regime                 29  Prop  Ele    1041\nTOPT-X.3   X.3 PAD                            30  Prop  Ele    1053\nTOPT-NAWS  Negotiate About Window Size        31  Prop  Ele    1073\nTOPT-TS    Terminal Speed                     32  Prop  Ele    1079\nTOPT-RFC   Remote Flow Control                33  Prop  Ele    1080\nTOPT-LINE  Linemode                           34  Draft Ele    1184\nTOPT-XDL   X Display Location                 35  Prop  Ele    1096\nTOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List             255  Std   Rec     861  32\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n6.7\n.  Experimental Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n========   =====================================    ============== =====\nDNS NSAP   DNS NSAP RRs                             Elective       1348*\nRMCP       Remote Mail Checking Protocol            Elective       1339*\nMSP2       Message Send Protocol 2                  Elective       1312*\nDSLCP      Dynamically Switched Link Control        Elective       1307\n--------   X.500 and Domains                        Elective       1279\nSNMP-OSI   SNMP over OSI                            Elective       1283\nIN-ENCAP   Internet Encapsulation Protocol          Limited Use    1241\nCLNS-MIB   CLNS-MIB                                 Limited Use    1238\nCFDP       Coherent File Distribution Protocol      Limited Use    1235\nSNMP-DPI   SNMP Distributed Program Interface       Limited Use    1228\nSNMP-MUX   SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB                Limited Use    1227\nIP-AX25    IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames         Limited Use    1226\nALERTS     Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts Limited Use    1224\nMPP        Message Posting Protocol                 Limited Use    1204\nST-II      Stream Protocol                          Limited Use    1190\nSNMP-BULK  Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP       Limited Use    1187\nDNS-RR     New DNS RR Definitions                   Limited Use    1183\nNTP-OSI    NTP over OSI Remote Operations           Limited Use    1165\nEHF-MAIL   Encoding Header Field for Mail           Elective       1154\nDMF-MAIL   Digest Message Format for Mail           Elective       1153\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 26]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nRDP        Reliable Data Protocol                  Limited Use 908,1151\n--------   Mapping between X.400(88) and\nRFC-822\nElective       1148\nTCP-ACO    TCP Alternate Checksum Option           Not Recommended 1146\n--------   Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822       Elective       1137\nIP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing    Not Recommended 1075\nTCP-LDP    TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths      Limited Use    1072\nIMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol       Limited Use 1176,1064\nIMAP3      Interactive Mail Access Protocol         Limited Use    1203\nVMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol   Elective       1045\nCOOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                   Not Recommended 1004\nNETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol              Not Recommended 998\nIRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol   Not Recommended 938\nAUTH       Authentication Service                   Not Recommended 931\nLDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                 Not Recommended 909\nNVP-II     Network Voice Protocol                  Limited Use ISI-memo\nPVP        Packet Video Protocol                   Limited Use ISI-memo\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\n6.8\n.  Informational Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                    Status           RFC\n=======    ====================================    =============== =====\n-------    Replication Requirements...              Elective       1275*\nPCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective       1056*\nMTP        Multicast Transport Protocol            Elective        1301\nSNMP-IPX   SNMP over IPX                           Elective        1298\nBSD Login  BSD Login                               Elective        1282\nDIXIE      DIXIE Protocol Specification            Limited Use     1249\nIP-X.121   IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN     Limited Use     1236\nOSI-HYPER  OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel            Limited Use     1223\nHAP2       Host Access Protocol                    Limited Use     1221\nSUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers     Limited Use     1219\nSNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP        Limited Use     1215\nDAS        Directory Assistance Service            Limited Use     1202\nMD4        MD4 Message Digest Algorithm            Limited Use     1186\nLPDP       Line Printer Daemon Protocol            Limited Use     1179\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 27]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n6.9\n.  Historic Protocols\nProtocol   Name                                     Status          RFC\n=======    =====================================    ============== =====\nPPP-INIT   PPP Initial Configuration Options       Not Recommended 1172*\nMSP        Message Send Protocol                   Not Recommended 1159*\n--------   Mail Privacy: Procedures                Not Recommended 1113*\n--------   Mail Privacy: Key Management            Not Recommended 1114*\n--------   Mail Privacy: Algorithms                Not Recommended 1115*\n--------   Mapping X.400(84) and\nRFC-822\nNot Recommended 987,1026*\nNFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective       1037*\nHOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                        Elective        953*\nSFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol            Elective        913*\nSUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                          Elective        734*\nBGP        Border Gateway Protocol            Not Recommended 1163,1164\nMIB-I      MIB-I                                   Not Recommended 1156\nSGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol      Not Recommended 1028\nHEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol   Not Recommended 1021\nSTATSRV    Statistics Server                        Not Recommended 996\nPOP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2          Not Recommended 937\nRATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  Not Recommended 916\nHFEP       Host - Front End Protocol                Not Recommended 929\nTHINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                        Not Recommended 914\nHMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                 Not Recommended 869\nGGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                 Not Recommended 823\nRTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                    Not Recommended 818\nCLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol               Not Recommended 778\nMPM        Internet Message Protocol                Not Recommended 759\nNETRJS     Remote Job Service                       Not Recommended 740\nNETED      Network Standard Text Editor             Not Recommended 569\nRJE        Remote Job Entry                         Not Recommended 407\nXNET       Cross Net Debugger                   Not Recommended IEN-158\nNAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol            Not Recommended IEN-116\nMUX        Multiplexing Protocol                 Not Recommended IEN-90\nGRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                  Not Recommended NIC-24308\n\n[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the\nprevious edition of this document.]\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 28]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n7\n.  Contacts\n7.1\n.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts\n7.1.1.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact\n\n   Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially\n   about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board\n   care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.\n\n      Contacts:\n\n         Bob Braden\n         Executive Director of the IAB\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         Braden@ISI.EDU\n\n         A. Lyman Chapin\n         Chair of the IAB\n         Bolt, Beranek & Newman\n         Mail Stop 20/5b\n         150 Cambridge Park Drive\n         Cambridge, MA 02140\n\n         1-617-873-3133\n\n         Lyman@BBN.COM\n\n   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact\n\n      Contacts:\n\n         Phill Gross\n         Chair of the IETF\n         Advanced Network and Services\n         100 Clearbrook Road\n         Elmsford, NY  10523\n\n         1-914-789-5300\n\n         PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 29]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\nGreg Vaudreuil\n         IESG Secretary\n         Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n         Reston, VA 22091\n\n         1-703-620-8990\n\n         gvaudre@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n         Steve Coya\n         Executive Director of the IETF\n         Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n         Reston, VA 22091\n\n         1-703-620-8990\n\n         scoya@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n\n   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact\n\n      Contact:\n\n         Jon Postel\n         Chair of the IRTF\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         Postel@ISI.EDU\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 30]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n7.2\n.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact\nContact:\n\n         Joyce K. Reynolds\n         Internet Assigned Numbers Authority\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         IANA@ISI.EDU\n\n   The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet\n   Assigned Numbers Authority.\n\n   Please refer to the document \"Assigned Numbers\" (\nRFC-1340\n) for\n   further information about the status of protocol documents.  There\n   are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and\n   gateways in the Internet, \"Host Requirements\" (\nRFC-1122\nand\nRFC-1123\n)\n   and \"Gateway Requirements\" (\nRFC-1009\n).\n\n      How to obtain the most recent edition of this \"IAB Official\n      Protocol Standards\" memo:\n\n         The file \"in-notes/iab-standards.txt\" may be copied via FTP\n         from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username\n         \"anonymous\" and FTP password \"guest\".\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 31]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n7.3\n.  Request for Comments Editor Contact\nContact:\n\n         Jon Postel\n         RFC Editor\n         USC/Information Sciences Institute\n         4676 Admiralty Way\n         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695\n\n         1-310-822-1511\n\n         RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU\n\n   Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for\n   consideration for publication as RFC.  If you are not familiar with\n   the format or style requirements please request the \"Instructions for\n   RFC Authors\".  In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as\n   a guide.\n7.4\n.  The Network Information Center and\nRequests for Comments Distribution Contact\nContact:\n\n         Network Solutions\n         Attn: Network Information Center\n         14200 Park Meadow Drive\n         Suite 200\n         Chantilly, VA  22021\n\n         Help Desk Hours of Operation: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time\n\n         1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)\n         1-703-802-4535\n         Fax Number: 1-703-802-8376\n\n         NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL\n\n   The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information\n   services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the\n   Requests for Comments (RFC) library.\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 32]\nRFC 1360\nIAB Standards                September 1992\n7.5\n.  Sources for Requests for Comments\nDetails on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending\n   an EMAIL message to \"rfc-info@ISI.EDU\" with the message body \"help:\n   ways_to_get_rfcs\".  For example:\n\n           To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU\n           Subject: getting rfcs\n\n           help: ways_to_get_rfcs\n8\n.  Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not addressed in this memo.\n9\n.  Author's Address\nJon Postel\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA 90292\n\n   Phone: 310-822-1511\n   Fax:   310-823-6714\n\n   Email: Postel@ISI.EDU\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nInternet Architecture Board                                    [Page 33]\nRFC\n1360\n: IAB Official Protocol Standards\nHistoric\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n1410\nIAB Official Protocol Standards", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-09-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-09-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-09-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:10.421609+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "ad825a35-1078-47ef-832f-467492b45284", "source_id": "e0d6dc70addb3391ad4456fb", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://account.icann.org/registeraccount?redirect_uri=https://www.icann.org/oauth&client_id=0oa9o9k9rp8VUcyJL2p7&nonce=6f5398ba-8a62-4370-99a8-e00d981b692d&state=https://www.icann.org/", "final_url": "https://account.icann.org/registeraccount?redirect_uri=https://www.icann.org/oauth&client_id=0oa9o9k9rp8VUcyJL2p7&nonce=6f5398ba-8a62-4370-99a8-e00d981b692d&state=https://www.icann.org/", "artifact_sha256": "8f9d364eec71fe5eab2f23f1d319c1f49afbcee38fee2c34f539f36fca85bb4a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 13771, "title": "Create an ICANN Account", "language": "en", "text_length": 681, "characters": 681, "text": "Create an ICANN Account\nHELP\n|\nLOG IN\nICANN Account Setup\n(Step 1 of 2)\nCreate Account and Verify Identity\nSet Password and Complete profile\nCreate Account and Verify Identity\nA message will be sent to your email address to verify your identity\nPrimary Email Address*\nFirst / Given Name(s)*\nLast / Family Name(s)*\nBy submitting my personal data to create and manage an ICANN Account, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN\nPrivacy Policy\nand ICANN\nCookies Policy\n, and agree to abide by the electronic\nTerms of Service\n.\nClear\nBack to Log In\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "5614bf60-33f6-4025-a226-db6a6a15bc29", "document_id": "ad825a35-1078-47ef-832f-467492b45284", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Create an ICANN Account\nHELP\n|\nLOG IN\nICANN Account Setup\n(Step 1 of 2)\nCreate Account and Verify Identity\nSet Password and Complete profile\nCreate Account and Verify Identity\nA message will be sent to your email address to verify your identity\nPrimary Email Address*\nFirst / Given Name(s)*\nLast / Family Name(s)*\nBy submitting my personal data to create and manage an ICANN Account, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN\nPrivacy Policy\nand ICANN\nCookies Policy\n, and agree to abide by the electronic\nTerms of Service\n.\nClear\nBack to Log In\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 681, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 1, "word_count": 118}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "af9bb7f5-f465-4741-a30a-6130b80210b4", "source_id": "73fdcfe8d94dbf377c880f9c", "source": "APNIC", "source_url": "https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/", "final_url": "https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/", "artifact_sha256": "5cc925d4da853c86d05ddb257a8615d8b3bc47bf059fed5a95103daa62151998", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 77461, "title": "About APNIC – APNIC", "language": "en-AU", "text_length": 3599, "characters": 3599, "text": "About APNIC – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAbout APNIC\nAPNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre) is an open, membership-based, not-for-profit organization providing Internet addressing services to the Asia Pacific.\nWhat we do\nAs the Regional Internet Registry for the Asia Pacific region, our primary role is to provide Internet number resources (IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs) to our Members in the Asia Pacific region.\nAsia Pacific region\n|\nExecutive Council\n|\nTransparency\nService Updates\nInformation on past or planned service interruptions.\nTransparency\nLinks to APNIC’s corporate information, including By-laws, financial reports, and information about the structure of the organization.\nCorporate Documents\nAPNIC’s corporate document store, including the APNIC Member agreement, fee schedule, Annual Reports and plans.\nEmployment\nInterested in working at APNIC? Check our job vacancies, or meet the team and explore APNIC’s culture and values.\nCurrent vacancies\nMeet the team\nThe APNIC Secretariat is staffed by a diverse group of committed professionals from throughout the region.\nBook a speaker\n|\nPresentations by staff\nAPNIC Supporters\nAPNIC collaborates with several supporting organizations, which contribute their efforts, products, and services to assist us to provide a range of advanced services to Members.\nSponsor Training\n|\nSponsor Events\n|\nRoot Server Deployment\nSocial Media\nStay connected to APNIC via our social media channels.\nPublications Archive\nAn archive of older documents, newsletters and announcements.\nAPNIC Email Policy\nWhat we do\nService updates\nTransparency\nCorporate Documents\nMeet the team\nAPNIC Careers\nAPNIC Supporters\nSocial Media\nPublications Archive\nAPNIC Email Policy\nWhois search\nA-Z Glossary\nMiscellaneous\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "segments": [{"segment_id": "b5454997-f8ab-4148-a776-43ac6923cf97", "document_id": "af9bb7f5-f465-4741-a30a-6130b80210b4", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About APNIC – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAbout APNIC\nAPNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre) is an open, membership-based, not-for-profit organization providing Internet addressing services to the Asia Pacific.\nWhat we do\nAs the Regional Internet Registry for the Asia Pacific region, our primary role is to provide Internet number resources (IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs) to our Members in the Asia Pacific region.\nAsia Pacific region\n|\nExecutive Council\n|\nTransparency\nService Updates\nInformation on past or planned service interruptions.\nTransparency\nLinks to APNIC’s corporate information, including By-laws, financial reports, and information about the structure of the organization.\nCorporate Documents\nAPNIC’s corporate document store, including the APNIC Member agreement, fee schedule, Annual Reports and plans.\nEmployment\nInterested in working at APNIC? Check our job vacancies, or meet the team and explore APNIC’s culture and values.\nCurrent vacancies\nMeet the team\nThe APNIC Secretariat is staffed by a diverse group of committed professionals from throughout the region.\nBook a speaker\n|\nPresentations by staff\nAPNIC Supporters\nAPNIC collaborates with several supporting organizations, which contribute their efforts, products, and services to assist us to provide a range of advanced services to Members.\nSponsor Training\n|\nSponsor Events\n|\nRoot Server Deployment\nSocial Media\nStay connected to APNIC via our social media channels.\nPublications Archive\nAn archive of older documents, newsletters and announcements.\nAPNIC Email Policy\nWhat we do\nService updates\nTransparency\nCorporate Documents\nMeet the team\nAPNIC Careers\nAPNIC Supporters\nSocial Media\nPublications Archive\nAPNIC Email Policy\nWhois search\nA-Z Glossary\nMiscellaneous\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3599, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 518}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "b0c95e26-967d-406f-8e71-948a2c26f9df", "source_id": "a43f893ae59e551ccbce8c4c", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/", "artifact_sha256": "52f1ed0f7491e4ce1689ff0aa2d04ef4c049ad8d1ed8bdba9901dfa97cd3db8a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 55915, "title": "World Summit on the Information Society", "language": null, "text_length": 3744, "characters": 3744, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nThe World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in two phases. The\nfirst phase\ntook place\nin Geneva hosted by the Government of Switzerland from\n10 to 12\nDecember 2003\n, and the\nsecond phase\ntook place in Tunis\nhosted by the Government of Tunisia, from\n16 to 18 November 2005\n.\n[\nmore on WSIS...\n]\nWSIS OUTCOME DOCUMENTS\nIndividual documents in various languages and formats:\nBooklet containing the four documents:\nGeneva\nDeclaration of Principles\nGeneva\nPlan of Action\nTunis\nCommitment\nTunis\nAgenda\nfor the Information Society\n3D virtual book\nPdf and html formats\nWSIS+10 HIGH-LEVEL EVENT OUTCOME DOCUMENTS\nOutcome documents in various languages and formats:\nWSIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015\nWSIS IMPLEMENTATION, FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW PROCESS\nWSIS Forum 2026\n,\n6–10 July 2026, Geneva.\nWSIS+20 Review Process\nWSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025\n,\n7–11 July 2025, Geneva.\nWSIS+20 Forum High-Level Event\n,\n27–31 May 2024, Geneva.\nWSIS Forum 2023\n,\n13–17 March 2023, Geneva.\nVirtual workshops will continue in April & May.\nWSIS Forum 2022\n—\nVirtual Workshops and Special Tracks:\nStarting from 15 March 2022;\nFinal Week:\n30 May – 3 June 2022;\nWSIS Forum 2021\n—\nVirtual Workshops and Special Tracks:\nStarting from January 2021;\nFinal Week:\n17–21 May 2021;\nWSIS Forum 2020\n—\nVirtual Workshops and Special Tracks:\nStarting from 22 June 2020;\nFinal Week:\n7–10 September 2020;\nWSIS Forum 2019\n,\n8–12 April 2019, Geneva\nWSIS Forum 2018\n,\n19–23 March 2018, Geneva\nOutcomes\nWSIS Forum 2017\n,\n12–16 June 2017, Geneva\nHigh-Level Track Outcomes\nForum Track Outcomes\nWSIS Forum 2016\n,\n2–6 May 2016, Geneva\nHigh-Level Track Outcomes\nForum Track Outcomes\nWSIS Action Lines Supporting Implementation of the SDGs\nWSIS–SDG Matrix\n,\nLinking WSIS Action Lines with Sustainable Development Goals\nWSIS Forum 2015\n,\n25-29 May 2015, Geneva\nHigh Level Policy Statements\nForum Track Outcome Document\nWSIS+10 Review Process\nWSIS+10 High-Level Event\n10-13 June 2014 (9 June pre-events), Geneva\nWSIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015\nHigh-Level\nPolicy Statements\nForum Track Outcome Document\nPrevious WSIS Forums\nForum 2013\n•\nWSIS+10\nVisioning Challenge Document\n•\nStatement on the WSIS+10\nVisioning\n•\nOutcome Document\n•\nIdentifying Emerging\nTrends and a Vision Beyond 2015 Booklet\n2012\n•\n2011\n•\n2010\n•\n2009\n•\n2008\n•\n2007\n•\n2006\nWSIS Implementation by Action Line\nWSIS Stocktaking\nWSIS Prizes 2023\nWSIS Prizes:\n2012\n,\n2013\n,\n2014\n,\n2015\n,\n2016\n,\n2017\n,\n2018\n,\n2019\n,\n2020\n,\n2021\n,\n2022\nWSIS Stocktaking Report\n&\nWSIS Stocktaking: Success Stories\nUnited Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS)\nUNGIS welcomes the WSIS Action Lines and SDGs Matrix\nJoint Statement at WSIS Forum 2013\nOpen Consultation on Overall Review (WSIS+10)\nResults of the Open Consultation Process: Draft Plan of Action available\nPartnership on Measuring ICT for Development\nFinal WSIS Targets Review\nInternet Governance Forum (IGF)\nWSIS Follow-Up\nSECOND PHASE OF WSIS: TUNIS\nTHE SUMMIT: TUNIS, 16-18 NOVEMBER 2005\nSpeakers and Statements\nin Tunis\nDocuments\nThe Golden Book\n: New\ncommitments and initiatives\nPreparatory Process\nNewsroom\nHost\ncountry\n[\nmore on the second phase...\n]\nFIRST PHASE OF WSIS: GENEVA\nTHE SUMMIT:\nGENEVA, 10-12 DECEMBER 2003\nSpeakers and Statements\nin Geneva\nD\nocuments\nPreparatory Process\nNewsroom\nHost country\n[\nmore on the first phase...\n]\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2024\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2015-01-22", "segments": [{"segment_id": "5fd0d0b7-1640-43bc-aca5-57c2d8ffc038", "document_id": "b0c95e26-967d-406f-8e71-948a2c26f9df", "ordinal": 0, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nThe World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in two phases. The\nfirst phase\ntook place\nin Geneva hosted by the Government of Switzerland from\n10 to 12\nDecember 2003\n, and the\nsecond phase\ntook place in Tunis\nhosted by the Government of Tunisia, from\n16 to 18 November 2005\n.\n[\nmore on WSIS...\n]\nWSIS OUTCOME DOCUMENTS\nIndividual documents in various languages and formats:\nBooklet containing the four documents:\nGeneva\nDeclaration of Principles\nGeneva\nPlan of Action\nTunis\nCommitment\nTunis\nAgenda\nfor the Information Society\n3D virtual book\nPdf and html formats\nWSIS+10 HIGH-LEVEL EVENT OUTCOME DOCUMENTS\nOutcome documents in various languages and formats:\nWSIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015\nWSIS IMPLEMENTATION, FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW PROCESS\nWSIS Forum 2026\n,\n6–10 July 2026, Geneva.\nWSIS+20 Review Process\nWSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025\n,\n7–11 July 2025, Geneva.\nWSIS+20 Forum High-Level Event\n,\n27–31 May 2024, Geneva.\nWSIS Forum 2023\n,\n13–17 March 2023, Geneva.\nVirtual workshops will continue in April & May.\nWSIS Forum 2022\n—\nVirtual Workshops and Special Tracks:\nStarting from 15 March 2022;\nFinal Week:\n30 May – 3 June 2022;\nWSIS Forum 2021\n—\nVirtual Workshops and Special Tracks:\nStarting from January 2021;\nFinal Week:\n17–21 May 2021;\nWSIS Forum 2020\n—\nVirtual Workshops and Special Tracks:\nStarting from 22 June 2020;\nFinal Week:\n7–10 September 2020;\nWSIS Forum 2019\n,\n8–12 April 2019, Geneva\nWSIS Forum 2018\n,\n19–23 March 2018, Geneva\nOutcomes\nWSIS Forum 2017\n,\n12–16 June 2017, Geneva\nHigh-Level Track Outcomes\nForum Track Outcomes\nWSIS Forum 2016\n,\n2–6 May 2016, Geneva\nHigh-Level Track Outcomes\nForum Track Outcomes\nWSIS Action Lines Supporting Implementation of the SDGs\nWSIS–SDG Matrix\n,\nLinking WSIS Action Lines with Sustainable Development Goals\nWSIS Forum 2015\n,\n25-29 May 2015, Geneva\nHigh Level Policy Statements\nForum Track Outcome Document\nWSIS+10 Review Process\nWSIS+10 High-Level Event\n10-13 June 2014 (9 June pre-events), Geneva\nWSIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015\nHigh-Level\nPolicy Statements\nForum Track Outcome Document\nPrevious WSIS Forums\nForum 2013\n•\nWSIS+10\nVisioning Challenge Document\n•\nStatement on the WSIS+10\nVisioning\n•\nOutcome Document\n•\nIdentifying Emerging\nTrends and a Vision Beyond 2015 Booklet\n2012\n•\n2011\n•\n2010\n•\n2009\n•\n2008\n•\n2007\n•\n2006\nWSIS Implementation by Action Line\nWSIS Stocktaking\nWSIS Prizes 2023\nWSIS Prizes:\n2012\n,\n2013\n,\n2014\n,\n2015\n,\n2016\n,\n2017\n,\n2018\n,\n2019\n,\n2020\n,\n2021\n,\n2022\nWSIS Stocktaking Report\n&\nWSIS Stocktaking: Success Stories\nUnited Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS)\nUNGIS welcomes the WSIS Action Lines and SDGs Matrix\nJoint Statement at WSIS Forum 2013\nOpen Consultation on Overall Review (WSIS+10)\nResults of the Open Consultation Process: Draft Plan of Action available\nPartnership on Measuring ICT for Development\nFinal WSIS Targets Review\nInternet Governance Forum (IGF)\nWSIS Follow-Up\nSECOND PHASE OF WSIS: TUNIS\nTHE SUMMIT: TUNIS, 16-18 NOVEMBER 2005\nSpeakers and Statements\nin Tunis\nDocuments\nThe Golden Book\n: New\ncommitments and initiatives\nPreparatory Process\nNewsroom\nHost\ncountry\n[\nmore on the second phase...\n]\nFIRST PHASE OF WSIS: GENEVA\nTHE SUMMIT:\nGENEVA, 10-12 DECEMBER 2003\nSpeakers and Statements\nin Geneva\nD\nocuments\nPreparatory Process\nNewsroom\nHost country\n[\nmore on the first phase...\n]\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2024\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2015-01-22", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3744, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 611}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "b10ca2ee-9f57-41ab-b428-0c3b6cfa90e9", "source_id": "b3a71e72954895108fa1dd37", "source": "Academic", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12345", "final_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12345", "artifact_sha256": "f96c4645aa35fdde6c8a80f76ffc9af5c2dbfb86648dd4f57e9b47792447dc3c", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 41718, "title": "[2306.12345] The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics", "language": "en", "text_length": 4418, "characters": 4418, "text": "[2306.12345] The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nComputer Science > Multiagent Systems\narXiv:2306.12345\n(cs)\n[Submitted on 21 Jun 2023 (\nv1\n), last revised 30 Dec 2023 (this version, v2)]\nTitle:\nThe Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics\nAuthors:\nStavros Anagnou\n,\nDaniel Polani\n,\nChristoph Salge\nView a PDF of the paper titled The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics, by Stavros Anagnou and 1 other authors\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nAbstract:\nWe examine the effect of noise on societies of agents using an agent-based model of evolutionary norm emergence. Generally, we see that noisy societies are more selfish, smaller and discontent, and are caught in rounds of perpetual punishment preventing them from flourishing. Surprisingly, despite the effect of noise on the population, it does not seem to evolve away. We carry out further analysis and provide reasons for why this may be the case. Furthermore, we claim that our framework that evolves the noise/ambiguity of norms may be a new way to model the tight/loose framework of norms, suggesting that despite ambiguous norms detrimental effect on society, evolution does not favour clarity.\nComments:\nAccepted for publication in the Proceedings of the Artificial Life Conference 2023 (ALIFE 2023), MIT Press\nSubjects:\nMultiagent Systems (cs.MA)\nCite as:\narXiv:2306.12345\n[cs.MA]\n(or\narXiv:2306.12345v2\n[cs.MA]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.12345\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nRelated DOI\n:\nhttps://doi.org/10.1162/isal_a_00588\nFocus to learn more\nDOI(s) linking to related resources\nSubmission history\nFrom: Stavros Anagnou [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nWed, 21 Jun 2023 15:41:49 UTC (2,034 KB)\n[v2]\nSat, 30 Dec 2023 11:43:38 UTC (12,651 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics, by Stavros Anagnou and 1 other authors\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\ncs.MA\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2023-06\nChange to browse by:\ncs\nReferences & Citations\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "segments": [{"segment_id": "c3bb1be6-98ab-49e9-888e-1e06120fc093", "document_id": "b10ca2ee-9f57-41ab-b428-0c3b6cfa90e9", "ordinal": 0, "text": "[2306.12345] The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nComputer Science > Multiagent Systems\narXiv:2306.12345\n(cs)\n[Submitted on 21 Jun 2023 (\nv1\n), last revised 30 Dec 2023 (this version, v2)]\nTitle:\nThe Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics\nAuthors:\nStavros Anagnou\n,\nDaniel Polani\n,\nChristoph Salge\nView a PDF of the paper titled The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics, by Stavros Anagnou and 1 other authors\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nAbstract:\nWe examine the effect of noise on societies of agents using an agent-based model of evolutionary norm emergence. Generally, we see that noisy societies are more selfish, smaller and discontent, and are caught in rounds of perpetual punishment preventing them from flourishing. Surprisingly, despite the effect of noise on the population, it does not seem to evolve away. We carry out further analysis and provide reasons for why this may be the case. Furthermore, we claim that our framework that evolves the noise/ambiguity of norms may be a new way to model the tight/loose framework of norms, suggesting that despite ambiguous norms detrimental effect on society, evolution does not favour clarity.\nComments:\nAccepted for publication in the Proceedings of the Artificial Life Conference 2023 (ALIFE 2023), MIT Press\nSubjects:\nMultiagent Systems (cs.MA)\nCite as:\narXiv:2306.12345\n[cs.MA]\n(or\narXiv:2306.12345v2\n[cs.MA]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.12345\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nRelated DOI\n:\nhttps://doi.org/10.1162/isal_a_00588\nFocus to learn more\nDOI(s) linking to related resources\nSubmission history\nFrom: Stavros Anagnou [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nWed, 21 Jun 2023 15:41:49 UTC (2,034 KB)\n[v2]\nSat, 30 Dec 2023 11:43:38 UTC (12,651 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics, by Stavros Anagnou and 1 other authors\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\ncs.MA\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2023-06\nChange to browse by:\ncs\nReferences & Citations\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4418, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 694}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "b2421581-f6fa-4dc5-a917-b34dbb531dd4", "source_id": "d70810d95674302550a95b4e", "source": "ISOC", "source_url": "https://www.isocfoundation.org/", "final_url": "https://www.isocfoundation.org/", "artifact_sha256": "23e9c51d5c3554e5a4c384d1b19ef332f9581ad319087c516601c2be004b07ab", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 138139, "title": "Internet Society Foundation | The Internet transforms lives", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 3992, "characters": 3992, "text": "Internet Society Foundation | The Internet transforms lives\nSkip to content\nMenu\nAbout\nBoard of Trustees\nOur Projects\nOur Team\n2025 Annual Report\n2026 Action Plan\nTransparency\nPress Center\nFunding Areas\nBeyond the Net\nChapter Admin Funding\nCommon Good Cyber Fund\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nGlobal Encryption Day Events\nInternet Governance Forum Events\nResearch\nSCILLS\nSustainable Peering Infrastructure\nNews and Stories\nNews\nImpact Stories\nFAQs\nInformation for Applicants\nInformation for Current Grantees\nCommunications Toolkit\nCareers\nThe Internet Society\nSubscribe\nFacebook\nTwitter\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nRss\nEmail\nThis content is available in the following languages\nThe Internet Society\nEnglish\nis the current language\nEspañol\nFrançais\nSubscribe\nMenu\nAbout\nBoard of Trustees\nOur Projects\nOur Team\n2025 Annual Report\n2026 Action Plan\nTransparency\nPress Center\nFunding Areas\nBeyond the Net\nChapter Admin Funding\nCommon Good Cyber Fund\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nGlobal Encryption Day Events\nInternet Governance Forum Events\nResearch\nSCILLS\nSustainable Peering Infrastructure\nNews and Stories\nNews\nImpact Stories\nFAQs\nInformation for Applicants\nInformation for Current Grantees\nCommunications Toolkit\nCareers\nThe Internet Society\nSubscribe\nWe fund initiatives to build an Internet for everyone.\nExplore Our Funding Areas\nPhoto by SOLE Colombia\nThe Internet Society Foundation exists to support the positive difference the Internet can make to people everywhere. It promotes the development of the Internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people's lives, and a force for good in society.\nLearn More\nOpen Opportunities\nSupporting inspirational work by people who believe in the power of the Internet.\nInternet Governance Forum Events\nSupports the organization of United Nations (UN) IGF Secretariat-recognized National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) and National and Regional Schools on Internet Governance.\nFind Out More and Apply\nBeyond the Net Grant Program\nSupports Internet Society chapters in implementing innovative projects that make a local impact by providing meaningful access to an open, trusted, and globally connected Internet, as well as strengthening the chapters’ presence in their surrounding communities.\nFind Out More and Apply\nResearch Grant Program\nSupports global research collaborations that advance understanding of the Internet and its value for all.\nFind Out More and Apply\nBrowse and search the projects we're funding around the world\nView Our Projects\nLatest News and Stories\n23 June 2026\nInternet Society Foundation Opens Global Call for Common Good Cyber Fund to Strengthen Cybersecurity\n9 June 2026\nIndigenous Women at the Heart of the Amazon’s Digital Future\n7 April 2026\nApplications Open for the Research Grant Program\n17 March 2026\nApplications Open for the New Community-Centered Connectivity Grant Program\n3 March 2026\nApplications Open for the Sustainable Peering Infrastructure Grant Program\n26 February 2026\nIntroducing the 2025 Sustainable Peering Infrastructure Grantees\nRead More About Our Impact\nSee More News\nThe Internet is for Everyone\nThe Internet Society Foundation supports the\nvision\nof the Internet Society and its work for an open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet for everyone.\n1551 Emancipation Highway #1506\nFredericksburg, VA 22401\n1-703-439-2120\n[email protected]\nLinkedIn\nISOC Foundation on Facebook\nISOC Foundation on Instagram\nISOC Foundation on YouTube\nISOC Foundation on Twitter\nISOC Foundation RSS feed\nSubscribe to our newsletter\nGet the latest news and announcements from our projects. Unsubscribe at any time. We won't use your details for anything else.\nNewsletter\nComments\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\n© 2026 Internet Society Foundation |\nPrivacy Policy\n|\nTerms of use\n|\nEngagement Code of Conduct\n|\nOur Governance\n|\nDMCA Policy\nScroll To Top", "segments": [{"segment_id": "45df69b1-d811-4ca7-84a1-88d0ee472306", "document_id": "b2421581-f6fa-4dc5-a917-b34dbb531dd4", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Internet Society Foundation | The Internet transforms lives\nSkip to content\nMenu\nAbout\nBoard of Trustees\nOur Projects\nOur Team\n2025 Annual Report\n2026 Action Plan\nTransparency\nPress Center\nFunding Areas\nBeyond the Net\nChapter Admin Funding\nCommon Good Cyber Fund\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nGlobal Encryption Day Events\nInternet Governance Forum Events\nResearch\nSCILLS\nSustainable Peering Infrastructure\nNews and Stories\nNews\nImpact Stories\nFAQs\nInformation for Applicants\nInformation for Current Grantees\nCommunications Toolkit\nCareers\nThe Internet Society\nSubscribe\nFacebook\nTwitter\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nRss\nEmail\nThis content is available in the following languages\nThe Internet Society\nEnglish\nis the current language\nEspañol\nFrançais\nSubscribe\nMenu\nAbout\nBoard of Trustees\nOur Projects\nOur Team\n2025 Annual Report\n2026 Action Plan\nTransparency\nPress Center\nFunding Areas\nBeyond the Net\nChapter Admin Funding\nCommon Good Cyber Fund\nCommunity-Centered Connectivity\nGlobal Encryption Day Events\nInternet Governance Forum Events\nResearch\nSCILLS\nSustainable Peering Infrastructure\nNews and Stories\nNews\nImpact Stories\nFAQs\nInformation for Applicants\nInformation for Current Grantees\nCommunications Toolkit\nCareers\nThe Internet Society\nSubscribe\nWe fund initiatives to build an Internet for everyone.\nExplore Our Funding Areas\nPhoto by SOLE Colombia\nThe Internet Society Foundation exists to support the positive difference the Internet can make to people everywhere. It promotes the development of the Internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people's lives, and a force for good in society.\nLearn More\nOpen Opportunities\nSupporting inspirational work by people who believe in the power of the Internet.\nInternet Governance Forum Events\nSupports the organization of United Nations (UN) IGF Secretariat-recognized National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) and National and Regional Schools on Internet Governance.\nFind Out More and Apply\nBeyond the Net Grant Program\nSupports Internet Society chapters in implementing innovative projects that make a local impact by providing meaningful access to an open, trusted, and globally connected Internet, as well as strengthening the chapters’ presence in their surrounding communities.\nFind Out More and Apply\nResearch Grant Program\nSupports global research collaborations that advance understanding of the Internet and its value for all.\nFind Out More and Apply\nBrowse and search the projects we're funding around the world\nView Our Projects\nLatest News and Stories\n23 June 2026\nInternet Society Foundation Opens Global Call for Common Good Cyber Fund to Strengthen Cybersecurity\n9 June 2026\nIndigenous Women at the Heart of the Amazon’s Digital Future\n7 April 2026\nApplications Open for the Research Grant Program\n17 March 2026\nApplications Open for the New Community-Centered Connectivity Grant Program\n3 March 2026\nApplications Open for the Sustainable Peering Infrastructure Grant Program\n26 February 2026\nIntroducing the 2025 Sustainable Peering Infrastructure Grantees\nRead More About Our Impact\nSee More News\nThe Internet is for Everyone\nThe Internet Society Foundation supports the\nvision\nof the Internet Society and its work for an open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet for everyone.\n1551 Emancipation Highway #1506\nFredericksburg, VA 22401\n1-703-439-2120\n[email protected]\nLinkedIn\nISOC Foundation on Facebook\nISOC Foundation on Instagram\nISOC Foundation on YouTube\nISOC Foundation on Twitter\nISOC Foundation RSS feed\nSubscribe to our newsletter\nGet the latest news and announcements from our projects. Unsubscribe at any time. We won't use your details for anything else.\nNewsletter\nComments\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\n© 2026 Internet Society Foundation |\nPrivacy Policy\n|\nTerms of use\n|\nEngagement Code of Conduct\n|\nOur Governance\n|\nDMCA Policy\nScroll To Top", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3992, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 583}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "b3ff503b-d2ab-4005-96c9-53f48bc9c769", "source_id": "45b61ffa1131b418d08af91c", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/tunis/", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/tunis/", "artifact_sha256": "b62d0ed6b68f219cb558c4cb72c695fecd4519a8539eef05f3e1e5d6c96770da", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 10840, "title": "World Summit on the Information Society", "language": null, "text_length": 1176, "characters": 1176, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nSECOND PHASE OF THE WSIS, 16-18\nNOVEMBER 2005, TUNIS\nThe World Summit on the Information Society is held in two phases. The\nsecond phase\nof WSIS took place in Tunis from\n16 to 18 November 2005\n(see the\ninvitation letters\n)\n.\nOutcome of the Tunis Phase:\nTunis Commitment\nand\nTunis Agenda for the Information Society\nDocuments\nStatements\n:\nSpeeches during the Summit\nList of Speakers\nWebcast archives\nEvents\n:\nWSIS\nRound Tables\nWSIS\nHigh Level Panel\nParallel\nevents\n:\nEvents taking place in the Summit premises from 14 to 19 November 2005\nSide\nevents\n:\nEvents related to WSIS taking place outside the Summit premises before\nor during the Summit\nNewsroom\nParticipation\nStatistical information\nFinal List of\nParticipants\nParticipants Finder\nList of announced States\nInformation for Participants\nClick here\nfor information\nconcerning the\nfirst phase\nof the Summit (Geneva phase)\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2015\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2009-03-31", "segments": [{"segment_id": "b1cf0ce6-0ace-4aa5-b2d1-4467eb3bd800", "document_id": "b3ff503b-d2ab-4005-96c9-53f48bc9c769", "ordinal": 0, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nSECOND PHASE OF THE WSIS, 16-18\nNOVEMBER 2005, TUNIS\nThe World Summit on the Information Society is held in two phases. The\nsecond phase\nof WSIS took place in Tunis from\n16 to 18 November 2005\n(see the\ninvitation letters\n)\n.\nOutcome of the Tunis Phase:\nTunis Commitment\nand\nTunis Agenda for the Information Society\nDocuments\nStatements\n:\nSpeeches during the Summit\nList of Speakers\nWebcast archives\nEvents\n:\nWSIS\nRound Tables\nWSIS\nHigh Level Panel\nParallel\nevents\n:\nEvents taking place in the Summit premises from 14 to 19 November 2005\nSide\nevents\n:\nEvents related to WSIS taking place outside the Summit premises before\nor during the Summit\nNewsroom\nParticipation\nStatistical information\nFinal List of\nParticipants\nParticipants Finder\nList of announced States\nInformation for Participants\nClick here\nfor information\nconcerning the\nfirst phase\nof the Summit (Geneva phase)\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2015\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2009-03-31", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1176, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 1, "word_count": 197}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "b4260823-e560-4e88-af33-8a8ad2545a87", "source_id": "19528a5a3f304703215ae9d2", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-intersessional-work", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-intersessional-work", "artifact_sha256": "a9a4fdc76aea40bfab1f2496fbbaeccee6cde2fcbf8f7c07647d8a42efb42612", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 114953, "title": "IGF Intersessional Work Publications | Internet Governance Forum", "language": "en", "text_length": 10840, "characters": 10840, "text": "IGF Intersessional Work Publications | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nPublications & Reports\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIGF Intersessional Work\nPublications and Reports Menu\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nThis section contains the output documents and publications from\nIGF\nintersessional work streams; Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks and Dynamic Coalitions.\nBest Practice Forum on Securing Access to the Internet and Protecting Core Internet Resources in Contexts of Conflict and Crises\n2025 BPF on Cybersecurity Report\nThe Best Practice Forum (\nBPF\n) is an\nIGF\nintersessional activity, providing a platform for community driven discussion on Internet policy issues and sharing of experiences. The\nIGF\n2025\nBPF\nexplores the roles and responsibilities of the multistakeholder Internet community in maintaining civilian access to the Internet and ensuring the protection of the public core of the Internet during times of conflict and crisis.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nLessons, Impact on Global AI Governance, and Multistakeholder Vision for 2026 and Beyond\n2025 PNAI Report\nThis report summarizes the activities of the Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI) in 2025, highlights key outcomes and presents recommendations. In 2025, the PNAI’s primary objective was to develop actionable recommendations on how the\nIGF\ncan maximize its impact as a central, inclusive and bottom-up multistakeholder platform for AI dialogue.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nFrom Knowledge to Implementation: The PNMA's Contribution to WSIS+20 and GDC\n2025 PNMA Report\nDuring the 2025 process, the expansion of advocacy and consolidation of the policy network continued. The PNMA offers itself as a benchmark for the implementation of the GDC’s meaningful access objectives. Moreover, its output report continues to be a public portfolio of knowledge and activities that the PNMA can engage in and contribute to the\nWSIS\n+20 process after the UN renewal and onwards to GDC implementation.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation\n2025 PNIF Report\nBased on the discussions in 2025, the PNIF compiled a set of draft recommendations and shared them for community review. The recommendations are intended to inform and support ongoing and future deliberations on the role of the multistakeholder model in preserving an open, free, and global Internet, within the context of the\nWSIS\n+20 review, the operationalisation of the GDC, and beyond.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nRegional Parliamentary Track alongside LACIGF 2025 | Shaping Digital Futures in the Southern Cone\nOutcome Document\nThe Third regional Parliamentary Summit in Latin America and the Caribbean on “Shaping Digital Futures in the Southern Cone” brought together legislators, technology specialists, international organizations, universities, and civil society to build a common agenda and address the challenges of digital transformation in the region. This outcome document summarizes the consensus achieved and proposes guidelines to strengthen public action and regional cooperation in matters of artificial intelligence, data governance, and digital policies.\nClick here to get the Report\n(\nEN\n|\nSP\n).\nDynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media\nIGF DC Journalism 2024-2025 Annual Report\nThe 2024-2025 Annual Report of the\nDC\n-Journalism outlines a number of articles on the themes of AI and Journalism.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nSelf-Sustaining Financing Solutions for Community Connectivity\nIGF DC Community Connectivity 2025 Report\nSince 2016 the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (DC3) of the Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) has fostered thriving multistakeholder debates dedicated to the analysis of community connectivity. This book is the Official 2025 Outcome of the UN\nIGF\nDC3 and should be seen as a further step towards a better understanding of community networking and is built upon the previous efforts of the DC3.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nThe AI Governance We Want, Call to Action: Liability, Interoperability, Sustainability & Labour\n2024 PNAI Report\nThe Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence report 2024 and its recommendations have been developed through an open and global multistakeholder process and presented at the 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nHow to Conciliate \"Access\" with \"Meaningful\": Practices from the Community\n2024 PNMA Report\nThis Policy Network on Meaningful Access report 2024 reflects the outputs of the\nIGF\n2024 PNMA and it is the product of the collaborative work of many. The report has been presented at the 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation\n2024 PNIF Report\nThis Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation report 2024 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in PNIF webinars and virtual meetings, PNIF drafting teams and the PNIF session during the\nIGF\n2024 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback on draft outputs. The report has been presented at the 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nMainstreaming Capacity Building for Cybersecurity, Trust, and Safety Online\n2024 BPF on Cybersecurity Report\nThe Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity report 2024 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in\nBPF\nvirtual meetings and online discussions, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback. The report has been presented at the 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nDynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media\nIGF DC Journalism 2023 Annual Report\nThe 2023 Annual Report of the\nDC\n-Journalism outlines a number of articles navigating the crossroads of data, tech, and media sustainability.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nStrengthening multi-stakeholder approach to global AI governance, protecting the environment and human rights in the era of generative AI\n2023 PNAI Report\nThe Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence report 2023 and its recommendations have been developed through an open and global multistakeholder process and presented at the 18th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nMeaningful Access to Include and Connect\n2023 PNMA Report\nThis Policy Network on Meaningful Access report 2023 reflects the outputs of the\nIGF\n2023 PNMA and it is the product of the collaborative work of many. The report has been presented at the 18th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation\n2023 PNIF Report\nThis Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation report 2023 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in PNIF webinars and virtual meetings, PNIF drafting teams and the PNIF session during the\nIGF\n2023 in Kyoto, Japan, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback on draft outputs. The report has been presented at the 18th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nLessons from cybersecurity events to inform cybersecurity policy and norms deliberations\n2023 BPF on Cybersecurity Report\nThe Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity report 2023 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in\nBPF\nvirtual meetings and online discussions, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback. The report has been presented at the 18th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "9b21fc4a-5e15-4f34-ac74-7ddcabbbe918", "document_id": "b4260823-e560-4e88-af33-8a8ad2545a87", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IGF Intersessional Work Publications | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nPublications & Reports\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIGF Intersessional Work\nPublications and Reports Menu\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nThis section contains the output documents and publications from\nIGF\nintersessional work streams; Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks and Dynamic Coalitions.\nBest Practice Forum on Securing Access to the Internet and Protecting Core Internet Resources in Contexts of Conflict and Crises\n2025 BPF on Cybersecurity Report\nThe Best Practice Forum (\nBPF\n) is an\nIGF\nintersessional activity, providing a platform for community driven discussion on Internet policy issues and sharing of experiences. The\nIGF\n2025\nBPF\nexplores the roles and responsibilities of the multistakeholder Internet community in maintaining civilian access to the Internet and ensuring the protection of the public core of the Internet during times of conflict and crisis.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nLessons, Impact on Global AI Governance, and Multistakeholder Vision for 2026 and Beyond\n2025 PNAI Report\nThis report summarizes the activities of the Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI) in 2025, highlights key outcomes and presents recommendations. In 2025, the PNAI’s primary objective was to develop actionable recommendations on how the\nIGF\ncan maximize its impact as a central, inclusive and bottom-up multistakeholder platform for AI dialogue.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nFrom Knowledge to Implementation: The PNMA's Contribution to WSIS+20 and GDC\n2025 PNMA Report\nDuring the 2025 process, the expansion of advocacy and consolidation of the policy network continued. The PNMA offers itself as a benchmark for the implementation of the GDC’s meaningful access objectives. Moreover, its output report continues to be a public portfolio of knowledge and activities that the PNMA can engage in and contribute to the\nWSIS\n+20 process after the UN renewal and onwards to GDC implementation.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation\n2025 PNIF Report\nBased on the discussions in 2025, the PNIF compiled a set of draft recommendations and shared them for community review. The recommendations are intended to inform and support ongoing and future deliberations on the role of the multistakeholder model in preserving an open, free, and global Internet, within the context of the\nWSIS\n+20 review, the operationalisation of the GDC, and beyond.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nRegional Parliamentary Track alongside LACIGF 2025 | Shaping Digital Futures in the Southern Cone\nOutcome Document\nThe Third regional Parliamentary Summit in Latin America and the Caribbean on “Shaping Digital Futures in the Southern Cone” brought together legislators, technology specialists, international organizations, universities, and civil society to build a common agenda and address the challenges of digital transformation in the region. This outcome document summarizes the consensus achieved and proposes guidelines to strengthen public action and regional cooperation in matters of artificial intelligence, data governance, and digital policies.\nClick here to get the Report\n(\nEN\n|\nSP\n).\nDynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media\nIGF DC Journalism 2024-2025 Annual Report\nThe 2024-2025 Annual Report of the\nDC\n-Journalism outlines a number of articles on the themes of AI and Journalism.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nSelf-Sustaining Financing Solutions for Community Connectivity\nIGF DC Community Connectivity 2025 Report\nSince 2016 the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (DC3) of the Internet Governance Forum (\nIGF\n) has fostered thriving multistakeholder debates dedicated to the analysis of community connectivity. This book is the Official 2025 Outcome of the UN\nIGF\nDC3 and should be seen as a further step towards a better understanding of community networking and is built upon the previous efforts of the DC3.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nThe AI Governance We Want, Call to Action: Liability, Interoperability, Sustainability & Labour\n2024 PNAI Report\nThe Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence report 2024 and its recommendations have been developed through an open and global multistakeholder process and presented at the 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nHow to Conciliate \"Access\" with \"Meaningful\": Practices from the Community\n2024 PNMA Report\nThis Policy Network on Meaningful Access report 2024 reflects the outputs of the\nIGF\n2024 PNMA and it is the product of the collaborative work of many. The report has been presented at the 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation\n2024 PNIF Report\nThis Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation report 2024 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in PNIF webinars and virtual meetings, PNIF drafting teams and the PNIF session during the\nIGF\n2024 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback on draft outputs. The report has been presented at the 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nMainstreaming Capacity Building for Cybersecurity, Trust, and Safety Online\n2024 BPF on Cybersecurity Report\nThe Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity report 2024 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in\nBPF\nvirtual meetings and online discussions, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback. The report has been presented at the 19th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nDynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media\nIGF DC Journalism 2023 Annual Report\nThe 2023 Annual Report of the\nDC\n-Journalism outlines a number of articles navigating the crossroads of data, tech, and media sustainability.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nStrengthening multi-stakeholder approach to global AI governance, protecting the environment and human rights in the era of generative AI\n2023 PNAI Report\nThe Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence report 2023 and its recommendations have been developed through an open and global multistakeholder process and presented at the 18th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nMeaningful Access to Include and Connect\n2023 PNMA Report\nThis Policy Network on Meaningful Access report 2023 reflects the outputs of the\nIGF\n2023 PNMA and it is the product of the collaborative work of many. The report has been presented at the 18th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation\n2023 PNIF Report\nThis Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation report 2023 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in PNIF webinars and virtual meetings, PNIF drafting teams and the PNIF session during the\nIGF\n2023 in Kyoto, Japan, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback on draft outputs. The report has been presented at the 18th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nLessons from cybersecurity events to inform cybersecurity policy and norms deliberations\n2023 BPF on Cybersecurity Report\nThe Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity report 2023 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in\nBPF\nvirtual meetings and online discussions, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback. The report has been presented at the 18th annual\nIGF\nmeeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.\nClick here to get the Report\n.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 10840, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1695}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "b7b46031-1459-4fc4-a12d-9e83d1b0fe4f", "source_id": "972788b47cc02021c60f093f", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1480", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1480/", "artifact_sha256": "972788b47cc02021c60f093f78a8d1bc3784cd7dc49ab3d10c20387176a3eefb", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 360526, "title": "RFC 1480: The US Domain", "language": "en", "text_length": 98728, "characters": 98728, "text": "RFC 1480: The US Domain | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1480\n:\nThe US Domain\nA. Cooper\n,\nJ. Postel\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                          A. Cooper\nRequest for Comments: 1480                                     J. Postel\nObsoletes:\n1386\nJune 1993\nThe US Domain\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n.  Introduction ................................................\n2\n1.1\nThe Internet Domain Name System.........................\n2\n1.2\nTop-Level Domains.......................................\n3\n1.3\nThe US Domain ..........................................\n4\n2\n.  Naming Structure ............................................\n4\n2.1\nState Codes ............................................\n8\n2.2\nLocality Names..........................................\n8\n2.3\nSchools ................................................\n10\n2.4\nState Agencies..........................................\n15\n2.5\nFederal Agencies .......................................\n15\n2.6\nDistributed National Institutes.........................\n15\n2.7\nGeneral Independent Entities............................\n16\n2.8\nExamples of Names.......................................\n17\n3\n.  Registration ................................................\n20\n3.1\nRequirements ...........................................\n20\n3.2\nDirect Entries .........................................\n21\n3.2.1\nIP-Hosts.............................................\n21\n3.2.2\nNon-IP Hosts ........................................\n21\n3.3\nDelegated Subdomains ...................................\n24\n3.3.1\nDelegation Requirement...............................\n26\n3.3.2\nDelegation Procedures ...............................\n28\n3.3.3\nSubdomain Contacts...................................\n29\n4\n.  Database Information.........................................\n30\n4.1\nName Servers ...........................................\n30\n4.2\nZone files .............................................\n30\n4.3\nResource Records .......................................\n31\n4.3.1\n\"A\" Records .........................................\n32\n4.3.2\nCNAME Records .......................................\n32\n4.3.3\nMX Records ..........................................\n33\n4.3.4\nHINFO Records .......................................\n33\n4.3.5\nPTR Records .........................................\n33\n4.4\nWildcards ..............................................\n34\n5\n.  References ..................................................\n35\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 1]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n6\n.  Security Considerations .....................................\n35\n7\n.  Authors' Addresses ..........................................\n36\nAppendix-I:  US Domain Names BNF.................................\n37\nAppendix-II: US Domain Questionnaire ............................\n42\n1\n. INTRODUCTION\n1.1 The Internet Domain Name System\n\n   The Domain Name System (DNS) provides for the translation between\n   hostnames and addresses.  Within the Internet, this means translating\n   from a name such as \"venera.isi.edu\", to an IP address such as\n   \"128.9.0.32\".  The DNS is a set of protocols and databases.  The\n   protocols define the syntax and semantics for a query language to ask\n   questions about information located by DNS-style names.  The\n   databases are distributed and replicated.  There is no dependence on\n   a single central server, and each part of the database is provided in\n   at least two servers.\n\n   The assignment of the 32-bit IP addresses is a separate activity.  IP\n   addresses are delegated by the central Internet Registry to regional\n   authorities (such as the RIPE NCC for Europe) and the network\n   providers.\n\n   To have a network number assigned please contact your network service\n   provider or regional registration authority.  To determine who this\n   is (or as a last resort), you can contact the central Internet\n   Registry at Hostmaster@INTERNIC.NET.\n\n   In addition to translating names to addresses for hosts that are on\n   the Internet, the DNS provides for registering DNS-style names for\n   other hosts reachable (via electronic mail) through gateways or mail\n   relays.  The records for such name registrations point to an Internet\n   host (one with an IP address) that acts as a mail forwarder for the\n   registered host.  For example, the host \"bah.rochester.ny.us\" is\n   registered in the DNS with a pointer to the mail relay\n   \"relay1.uu.net\".  This type of pointer is called an MX record.\n\n   This gives electronic mail users a uniform mail addressing syntax and\n   avoids making users aware of the underlying network boundaries.\n\n   The reason for the development of the domain system was growth in the\n   Internet.  The hostname to address mappings were maintained by the\n   InterNIC in a single file, called HOSTS.TXT, which was FTP'd by all\n   the hosts on the Internet.  The network population was changing in\n   character.  The time-share hosts that made up the original ARPANET\n   were being replaced with local networks of workstations.  Local\n   organizations were administering their own names and addresses, but\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 2]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nhad to wait for the NIC to make changes in HOSTS.TXT to make the\n   changes visible to the Internet at large.  Organizations also wanted\n   some local structure on the name space.  The applications on the\n   Internet were getting more sophisticated and creating a need for\n   general purpose name service.  The idea of a hierarchical name space,\n   with the hierarchy roughly corresponding to organizational structure,\n   and names using \".\" as the character to mark the boundary between\n   hierarchy levels was developed.  A design using a distributed\n   database and generalized resources was implemented.\n\n   The DNS provides standard formats for resource data, standard methods\n   for querying the database, and standard methods for name servers to\n   refresh local data from other name servers.\n\n   1.2  Top-Level Domains\n\n   The top-level domains in the DNS are EDU, COM, GOV, MIL, ORG, INT,\n   and NET, and all the 2-letter country codes from the list of\n   countries in ISO-3166.  The establishment of new top-level domains is\n   managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).  The IANA\n   may be contacted at IANA@ISI.EDU.\n\n   Even though the original intention was that any educational\n   institution anywhere in the world could be registered under the EDU\n   domain, in practice, it has turned out with few exceptions, only\n   those in the United States have registered under EDU, similarly with\n   COM (for commercial). In other countries, everything is registered\n   under the 2-letter country code, often with some subdivision.  For\n   example, in Korea (KR) the second level names are AC for academic\n   community, CO for commercial, GO for government, and RE for research.\n   However, each country may go its own way about organizing its domain,\n   and many have.\n\n   There are no current plans of putting all of the organizational\n   domains EDU, GOV, COM, etc., under US.  These name tokens are not\n   used in the US Domain to avoid confusion.\n\n   Currently, only four year colleges and universities are being\n   registered in the EDU domain.  All other schools are being registered\n   in the US Domain.\n\n   There are also concerns about the size of the other top-level domains\n   (especially COM) and ideas are being considered for restructuring.\n\n   Other names sometimes appear as top-level domain names.  Some people\n   have made up names in the DNS-style without coordinating or\n   registering  with the DNS management.  Some names that typically\n   appear are BITNET, UUCP, and two-letter codes for continents, such as\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 3]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n\"NA\" for North America (this conflicts with the official Internet\n   code for Namibia).\n\n   For example, the DNS-style name \"KA7EEJ.CO.USA.NA\" is used in the\n   amateur radio network.  These addresses are never supposed to show up\n   on the Internet but they do occasionally.  The amateur radio network\n   people created their own naming scheme, and it interferes sometimes\n   with Internet addresses.\n\n   1.3  The US Domain\n\n   The US Domain is an official top-level domain in the DNS of the\n   Internet community.  The domain administrators are Jon Postel and Ann\n   Westine Cooper at the Information Sciences Institute of the\n   University of Southern California (USC-ISI).\n\n   US is the ISO-3166 2-letter country code for the United States and\n   thus the US Domain is established as a top-level domain and\n   registered with the InterNIC the same way other country domains are.\n\n   Because organizations in the United States have registered primarily\n   in the EDU and COM domains, little use was initially made of the US\n   domain.  In the past, the computers registered in the US Domain were\n   primarily owned by small companies or individuals with computers at\n   home.  However, the US Domain has grown and currently registers hosts\n   in federal government agencies, state government agencies, K12\n   schools, community colleges, technical/vocational schools, private\n   schools, libraries, city and county government agencies, to name a\n   few.\n\n   Initially, the administration of the US Domain was managed solely by\n   the Domain Registrar.  However, due to the increase in registrations,\n   administration of subdomains is being delegated to others.\n\n   Any computer in the United States may be registered in the US Domain.\n2\n. NAMING STRUCTURE\nThe US Domain hierarchy is based on political geography.  The basic\n   name space under US is the state name space, then the \"locality\" name\n   space, (like a city, or county) then organization or computer name\n   and so on.\n\n   For example:\n\n          BERKELEY.CA.US\n          PORTLAND.WA.US\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 4]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nThere is of course no problem with running out of names.\n\n   The things that are named are individual computers.\n\n   If you register now in one city and then move, the database can be\n   updated with a new name in your new city, and a pointer can be set up\n   from your old name to your new name.  This type of pointer is called\n   a CNAME record.\n\n   The use of unregistered names is not effective and causes problems\n   for other users.  Inventing your own name and using it without\n   registering is not a good idea.\n\n   In addition to strictly geographically names, some special names are\n   used, such as FED, STATE, AGENCY, DISTRICT, K12, LIB, CC, CITY, and\n   COUNTY.  Several new name spaces have been created, DNI, GEN, and\n   TEC, and a minor change under the \"locality\" name space was made to\n   the existing CITY and COUNTY subdomains by abbreviating them to CI\n   and CO.  A detailed description follows.\n\n   Below US, Parallel to States:\n   -----------------------------\n\n   \"FED\" - This branch may be used for agencies of the federal\n   government.  For example: <org-name>.<city>.FED.US\n\n   \"DNI\" - DISTRIBUTED NATIONAL INSTITUTES - The \"DNI\" branch was\n   created directly under the top-level US.  This branch is to be used\n   for distributed national institutes; organizations that span state,\n   regional, and other organizational boundaries; that are national in\n   scope, and have distributed facilities.  For example:\n   <org-name>.DNI.US.\n\n   Name Space Within States:\n   ------------------------\n\n   \"locality\" - cities, counties, parishes, and townships.  Subdomains\n   under the \"locality\" would be like CI.<city>.<state>.US,\n   CO.<county>.<state>.US, or businesses. For example:\n   Petville.Marvista.CA.US.\n\n   \"CI\" - This branch is used for city government agencies and is a\n   subdomain under the \"locality\" name (like Los Angeles). For example:\n   Fire-Dept.CI.Los-Angeles.CA.US.\n\n   \"CO\" - This branch is used for county government agencies and is a\n   subdomain under the \"locality\" name (like Los Angeles).  For example:\n   Fire-Dept.CO.San-Diego.CA.US.\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 5]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n\"K12\" - This branch may be used for public school districts.  A\n   special name \"PVT\" can be used in the place of a school district name\n   for private schools.  For example: <school-name>.K12.<state>.US and\n   <school-name>.PVT.K12.<state>.US.\n\n   \"CC\" - COMMUNITY COLLEGES - This branch was established for all state\n   wide community colleges.  For example: <school-name>.CC.<state>.US.\n\n   \"TEC\" - TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS - The branch \"TEC\" was\n   established for technical and vocational schools and colleges. For\n   example: <school-name>.TEC.<state>.US.\n\n   \"LIB\" - LIBRARIES (STATE, REGIONAL, CITY, COUNTY) - This branch may\n   be used for libraries only.  For example:  <lib-name>.LIB.<state>.US.\n\n   \"STATE\" - This branch may be used for state government agencies.  For\n   example:  <org-name>.STATE.<state>.US.\n\n   \"GEN\" - GENERAL INDEPENDENT ENTITY - This branch is for the things\n   that don't fit easily into any other structure listed -- things that\n   might fit in to something like ORG at the top-level.  It is best not\n   to use the same keywords (ORG, EDU, COM, etc.) that are used at the\n   top-level to avoid confusion.  GEN would be used for such things as,\n   state-wide organizations, clubs, or domain parks.  For example:\n   <org-name>.GEN.<state-code>.US.\n\n   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n\n   VIEW OF SECOND LEVEL DOMAINS UNDER US\n\n                            +-------+\n                            |  US   |\n                            +-------+\n                                |\n              +----------------------------------+\n              |        |        |       |        |\n           +-----+  +-----+  +-----+  +-----+  +-----+\n           | FED |  | DNI |  | TX  |  | SD  |  | CA  |\n           +-----+  +-----+  +-----+  +-----+  +-----+\n\n   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 6]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n   SCHOOL AND LIBRARY VIEW\n                                +-----+\n                                |  CA |\n                                +-----+\n                                   |\n          +------------------------------------------------+\n          |            |        |            |             |\n        +-----+     +-----+  +-----+  +-------------+   +-----+\n        | K12 |     | CC  |  | TEC |  | LOS ANGELES |   | LIB |\n        +-----+     +-----+  +-----+  +-------------+   +-----+\n          /   \\       /|\\      /|\\          /|\\           /|\\\n   +--------+ +---+  +---+  +--------+  +----------+    +------+\n   |sch dist| |PVT|  |SJC|  |WM TRADE|  |pvt school|    |MALIBU|\n   +--------+ +---+  +---+  +--------+  +----------+    +------+\n      /|\\      /|\\\n   +--------+ +--------+\n   |sch name| |sch name|\n   +--------+ +--------+\n   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n\n   VIEW OF STATE, REGIONAL, and GENERAL AGENCIES\n\n                                +-----+\n                                |  CA |\n                                +-----+\n                                   |\n                      +-------------------------+\n                      |            |            |\n                   +-------+   +--------+    +-----+\n                   | STATE |   |DISTRICT|    | GEN |\n                   +-------+   +--------+    +-----+\n                     /|\\          /|\\          /|\\\n                   +--------+   +------+   +---------+\n                   |CALTRANS|   |SCAQMD|   |domain pk|\n                   ---------+   +------+   +---------+\n                      |\n                   +--------+\n                   |TCEW100E|\n                   +--------+\n   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 7]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n\n   VIEW OF LOCALITY\n                                +-----+\n                                |  CA |\n                                +-----+\n                                   |\n                   +-----------------------------------+\n                   |                                   |\n         +-------------------------+           +----------------+\n         |       LOS ANGELES       |           |  SANTA MONICA  |\n         +-------------------------+           +----------------+\n          /  |          |       /|\\                |       /|\\\n         /   |          |        |                 |        |\n     +---+ +--+        +--+  +-----------+       +--+     +---+\n     |bus| |CI|        |CO|  | pvt school|       |CI|     |bus|\n     +---+ +--+        +--+  +-----------+       +--+     +---+\n            /\\          |                          |\n           /  \\         |                  +------------+\n          /    \\        |                  |HARBOR GUARD|\n         /      \\       |                  +------------+\n    +-----+ +-----+   +-----+ +----+\n    |FIRE | |ADMIN|   |PARKS| |FIRE|\n    +-----+ +-----+   +-----+ +----+\n   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n\n   2.1  State Codes\n\n   The state codes are the two letter US Postal abbreviations. For\n   example: \"CA\" California.\n\n   2.2  Locality Names\n\n   Within the state name space there are \"locality\" names, some may be\n   cities, some may be counties, some may be local names, but not\n   incorporated entities.\n\n   Registered names under \"locality\" could be like:\n\n     <hostname>.CI.<locality>.<state>.US   ==>  city gov't agency\n     <hostname>.CO.<locality>.<state>.US,  ==>  county gov't agency\n     <hostname>.<locality>.<state>.US      ==>  businesses\n\n   In the cases where the locality name is a county, there is a branch\n   under the locality name, called \"county\" or \"CO\", that is used by the\n   county government.  Businesses are registered directly under the\n   locality name.\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 8]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nUnder the city locality name space there is a \"city\" or \"CI\" branch\n   for city government agencies.  As usual, businesses and private\n   schools may register directly under the city name.\n\n   In the case where there is both a county and a city with the same\n   locality name there is no problem, since the names will be unique\n   with the \"CO\" or \"CI\" keyword.  In our area the county has a fire\n   department and the city has its own fire department.  They could have\n   names like:\n\n      Fire-Dept.CI.Los-Angeles.CA.US\n      Fire-Dept.CO.Los-Angeles.CA.US\n\n   Cities may be named (designated) by their full name (spelled out with\n   hyphens replacing spaces (e.g., Los-Angeles or Fort-Collins), or by a\n   city code.  The first choice is the full city name.  In some cases it\n   may be appropriate to use the well-known city abbreviation known\n   throughout a locality.  However, it is very desirable that all users\n   in the same city use the same designator for the city.  That is, any\n   particular locality should have just one DNS name.\n\n   Some users would like names associated with a greater metropolitan\n   area or region like the \"Bay Area\" or \"Tri-Cities\".  One problem with\n   this is that these names are not necessarily unique within a state.\n   The best thing to do in this case is to use the larger metropolitan\n   city in your hostname.  Cities and counties are used.\n\n   Should all the names be obvious?  Trying to do this is desirable and\n   also impossible.  There will come a point when the obviously right\n   name for an organization is already taken.  As the system grows this\n   will happen with increasing frequency.  While ease of use to the end\n   user is desirable, a higher priority must be placed on having a\n   system that operates.  This means that the manageability of the\n   system must have high consideration.\n\n   The reason the DNS was created was to subdivide the problem of\n   maintaining a list of hosts in the Internet into manageable portions.\n\n   The happy result is that this subdivision makes name uniqueness\n   easier and promotes logical grouping.  What is a \"logical grouping\"\n   though, always depends on the viewer.\n\n   Many levels of delegation are needed to keep the zone files\n   manageable.  Many sections of the name space are needed to allow\n   unique names to be easily added.\nCooper & Postel                                                 [Page 9]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nWay back in the olden days, when the Internet was invented, some\n   thought that an 8-bit network number would be more than enough to\n   number all the networks that would ever exist.  Today, there are over\n   10,000 networks operating in the Internet, and arguments are made\n   about the doubling time being 2 years versus 4 years.\n\n   One concern is that things will continue to grow dramatically, and\n   this will require more subdivision of the domain name management.\n   Maybe the plan for the US Domain is overkill on growth planning, but\n   there has never been overplanning for growth yet.\n\n   When things are bigger, names have to be longer.  There is an\n   argument that with only 8-character names, and in each position allow\n   a-z, 0-9, and -, you get 37**8 = 3,512,479,453,921 or 3.5 trillion\n   possible names.  It is a great argument, but how many of us want\n   names like \"xs4gp-7q\".  It is like license plate numbers, sure some\n   people get the name they want on a vanity plate, but a lot more\n   people who want something specific on a vanity plate can't get it\n   because someone else got it first.  Structure and longer names also\n   let more people get their \"obviously right\" name.\n\n   2.3  Schools\n\n   K12 schools are connecting to the Internet and registering in the\n   Internet DNS.  A decision has been made by the IANA (after\n   consultation with the new InterNIC Internet Registry and the Federal\n   Networking Council (FNC)) to direct these school registrations to the\n   US domain using the naming structure described here.\n\n   There is a need for competent, experienced, volunteers to come\n   forward to act as third and perhaps fourth level registries and to\n   operate delegated portions of the DNS.\n\n   There are two reasons for registering schools in the US Domain.  (1)\n   uniqueness of names, and (2) management of the database.\n\n     1. Name Uniqueness:\n\n        There are many \"Washington\" high schools, only one can be\n        \"Washington.EDU\" (actually none can be, since that name is used\n        by a University.  There will be many name conflicts if all\n        schools attempt to register directly under EDU.\n\n        In addition, in some districts, the same school name is used at\n        different levels, for example, Washington Elementary School and\n        Washington High School.  We suggest that when necessary, the\n        keywords \"Elementary\", \"Middle\", and \"High\" be used to\n        distinguish these schools.  These keywords would only be used\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 10]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nwhen they are needed, if the school's name is unique without\n        such keywords, don't use them.\n\n     2. Database Management:\n\n        One goal of the DNS is to divide up the management of the name\n        database in to small pieces.  Each piece (or \"zone\" in DNS\n        terminology) could be managed by a distinct administrator.\n        Adding all the high schools to the EDU domain will make the\n        already large zone file for EDU even larger, possibly to the\n        point of being unmanageable.\n\n   For both these reasons it is necessary to introduce structure into\n   names.  Structure provides a basis for making common names unique in\n   context, and for dividing the management responsibility.\n\n      The US Domain has a framework established and has registered many\n      schools already in this structured scheme.  The general form is:\n\n         <school>.<district>.K12.<state>.US.\n\n            For example: Hamilton.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US\n\n   Public schools are usually organized by districts which can be larger\n   or smaller than a city or county.  For example, the Portland school\n   district in Oregon, is in three or four counties.  Each of those\n   counties also has non-Portland districts.\n\n   It makes sense to name schools within districts.  However districts\n   often have the same name as a city or county so there has to be a way\n   to distinguish a public school district name from some other type of\n   locality name.  The keyword \"K12\" is used for this.\n\n   For example, typical K12 school names currently used are:\n\n              IVY.PRS.K12.NJ.US\n              DMHS.JCPS.K12.KY.US\n              OHS.EUNION.K12.CA.US\n              BOHS.BREA.K12.CA.US\n\n   These names are generally longer than the old alternative of shorter\n   names in the EDU domain, but that would not have lasted long without\n   a significant number of schools finding that their \"obviously\n   correct\" name has already been used by some other school.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 11]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nWhen there are many things to name some of the names will be long.\n   In some cases there may be appropriate abbreviations that can be\n   used.  For example Hamilton High School in Los Angeles could be:\n\n              Hami.Hi.LA.K12.CA.US\n\n   If a school has a number of PCs, then each PC should have a name.\n   Suppose they are named \"alpha\", \"beta\", ... then if they belong to a\n   school named \"Lincoln.High.Lakewood.K12.CA.US\" their names would be:\n\n                alpha.Lincoln.High.Lakewood.K12.CA.US.\n                beta.Lincoln.High.Lakewood.K12.CA.US\n                ...\n\n   The K12 subdomain provides two points at which to delegate a branch\n   of the database to distinct administrators -- the K12 Administrator\n   for each state, and the district administrator for each district\n   within a state.\n\n   The US Domain Administrator will delegate a branch of the US domain\n   to an appropriate party.  In some cases, this may be a particular\n   school, a school district, or ever all of K12 for a state.\n\n   The responsibility for managing a K12 branch or sub-branch may be\n   delegated to an appropriate volunteer.  We envision that such\n   delegations of the schools' DNS service may eventually migrate to\n   someone else \"more appropriate\" from an administrative organizational\n   point of view.  The \"obvious\" state agency to manage the schools' DNS\n   branch may take some time to get up to speed on Internetting.  In the\n   meantime, we can have the more advanced schools up and running.\n\n   Special Schools and Service Units\n\n   In many states, there are special schools that are not in districts\n   that are run directly by the state or by consortiums.  There are also\n   service units that provide \"educational services\" ranging from books\n   and computers to janitorial supplies and building maintenance.  Often\n   these service units do not have a one-to-one relationship with\n   districts.\n\n   There is some concern about naming these schools and service units\n   within the naming structure for schools established in this memo.\n   There are several possibilities.  For a state with many service units\n   creating a \"pseudo district\" ESU (or whatever, the common terminology\n   is in that state) is a possibility.  For example, the Johnson service\n   unit could be JOHNSON.ESU.K12.CA.US.  For a state with a few such\n   service units (and avoiding conflicts with district names) the\n   service units could be directly under K12.  For example,\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 12]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nTIES.K12.MN.US.\n\n   The special public funded schools can be handled in a similar\n   fashion.  If there are many special schools in a state, a \"pseudo\n   district\" should be established and all the special schools listed\n   under it.  For example, suppose there is a \"pseudo district\" in\n   Massachusetts called SPCL, and there is a special school called the\n   Progressive Computer Institute, then that school could have the name\n   PCI.SPCL.K12.MA.US.  If there are only a few special schools, they\n   can be listed directly under K12 (avoiding name conflicts with\n   district names).  For example, the California Academy of Math and\n   Science is CAMS.K12.CA.US.  CAMS is sponsored by seven schools, the\n   California Department of Education, and a University.\n\n   \"PVT\" Private Schools\n\n   Private schools may be thought of as businesses.  Public schools are\n   in districts, and districts provide a natural organizational\n   structure for naming and delegation.  For private schools there are\n   no districts and they really do operate like businesses.  But, many\n   people are upset to think about their children in a private school\n   being in a business category and not in K12 with the rest of the\n   children.  To accommodate both public and private schools, in each\n   state's K12 branch, we've added an artificial district called private\n   or \"PVT\".  This gives a private school the option of registering like\n   a business under \"locality\" or in the PVT.K12.<state-code>.US branch.\n\n   For example:\n\n      Crossroads.PVT.K12.CA.US\n      Crossroads-Santa-Monica.CA.US\n\n   A public school \"Oak High\" in the \"Woodward\" school district in\n   California would have a name like \"Oak-High.Woodward.K12.CA.US\".\n\n   A private school \"Old Trail\" in Pasadena, California could have the\n   <locality> based name \"Old-Trail.Pasadena.CA.US\" or the private\n   school base name \"Old-Trail.PVT.K12.CA.US\".\n\n   Some suggest that for private schools instead of a special pseudo\n   district PVT to use a locality name.  One reason to use district\n   names is that, in time, it seems likely that school district\n   administrators will take over the operation of the DNS for their\n   district.  One needs to be able to delegate at that branch point.\n   One implication of delegation is that the delegatee is now in charge\n   of a chunk of the name space and will be registering new names. To\n   keep names unique one can't have two different people registering new\n   things below identically named branches.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 13]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nFor example, if there is a school district named Pasadena and a city\n   named Pasadena, the branch of the name space PASADENA.K12.CA.US might\n   be delegated to the administrator of that public school district.  If\n   a private school in Pasadena wanted to be registered in the DNS, it\n   would have to get the public school district administrator to do it\n   (perhaps unlikely) or not be in the K12 branch at all (unless there\n   is the PVT pseudo district).\n\n   So, if private schools are registered by\n   <school>.<locality>.K12.<state-code>.US and public schools are\n   registered by <school>.<district>.K12.<state-code>.US, there can't be\n   any locality names that are the same as district names or the\n   delegation of these will get very tricky later.\n\n   If it is all done by locality names rather than district names, and\n   public and private schools are mixed together, then finding an\n   appropriate party to delegate the locality to may be difficult.\n\n   Another suggestion was that private schools be registered directly\n   under K12, while public schools must be under a district under K12.\n   This would require the operator of the K12 branch to register all\n   districts and private schools himself (checking for name uniqueness),\n   he couldn't easily delegate the registration of the private schools\n   to anyone else.\n\n   Community Colleges and Technical Schools\n\n   To distinguish Community Colleges and Technical/Vocational schools,\n   the keywords \"CC\" and \"TEC\" have been created.\n\n   Some School Examples\n\n   Hamilton.High.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US        <== a public school\n   Sherman-Oaks.Elem.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US    <== a public school\n   John-Muir.Middle.Santa-Monica.K12.CA.US   <== a public school\n   Crossroads-School.Santa-Monica.CA.US      <== a private school\n   SMCC.CC.CA.US                             <== a community college\n   TECMCC.CC.CA.US                           <== a community college\n   Brick-and-Basket-Institute.TEC.CA.US      <== a technical college\n   Northridge.CSU.STATE.CA.US                <== a state university\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 14]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n2.4  State Agencies\n\n   Several states are setting up networks to interconnect the offices of\n   state government agencies.  The hosts in such networks should be\n   registered under the STATE.<state-code>.US branch.\n\n   A US Domain name space has been established for the state government\n   agencies.  For example, in the State of Minnesota, the subdomain is\n   STATE.MN.US.\n\n      State Agencies:\n      ---------------\n\n      Senate.STATE.MN.US      <== State Senate\n      MDH.STATE.MN.US         <== Dept. of Health\n      CALTRANS.STATE.CA.US    <== Dept. of Transportation\n      DMV.STATE.CA.US         <== Dept. of Motor Vehicles\n\n   2.5  Federal Agencies\n\n   A federal name space has been established for the federal government\n   agencies.  For example, the subdomain for the Federal Reserve Bank of\n   Minneapolis is MNPL.FRB.FED.US. Other examples are listed below.\n\n      Federal Government Agencies:\n      ---------------------------\n\n      Senate.FED.US   <====  US Senate\n      DOD.FED.US      <====  US Defense Dept.\n      USPS.FED.US     <====  US Postal Service\n      VA.FED.US       <====  US Veterans Administration\n      IRS.FED.US      <====  US Internal Revenue Service\n      Yosemite.NPS.Interior.FED.US    <====  A Federal agency\n\n   2.6  Distributed National Institutes\n\n   The \"DNI\" branch was created directly under the top-level US.  This\n   is to be used for organizations that span state, regional, and other\n   organizational boundaries; are national in scope, and have\n   distributed facilities.  An example would be:\n\n      Distributed National Institutes:\n      --------------------------------\n\n      MetaCenter.DNI.US   <====  The MetaCenter Supercomputer Centers\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 15]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nThe MetaCenter domain encompasses the four NSF sponsored\n   supercomputer centers. These are:\n\n       San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC)\n       National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA)\n       Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC)\n       Cornell Theory Center (CTC)\n\n   The MetaCenter Network will enable applications and services like\n   file systems and archival storage to be operated in a distributed\n   fashion; thus, allowing the resources at the four centers to appear\n   integrated and \"seamless\" to users of the centers.\n\n   2.7  General Independent Entities\n\n   This name space was created for organizations that don't really fit\n   anywhere else, such as state-wide associations, clubs, and \"domain\n   parks\".  Think of this as the miscellaneous category.\n\n   The examples are state-wide clubs.  For example, the Garden Club of\n   Arizona, might want to be \"GARDEN.GEN.AZ.US\".  Such a club has\n   membership from all over the state and is not associated with any one\n   city (or locality).  Another example is \"domain parks\" that have been\n   established up-to-now as entities in ORG.  For example, there is\n   \"LONESTAR.ORG\", which is a kind of computer club in Texas that has\n   lots of dial-in computers registered.  In the US Domain such an\n   entity might have a name like \"LONESTAR.GEN.TX.US\".\n\n   The organizations registered in GEN may typically be non-profit\n   entities.  These organizations don't fit in a <locality> and are not\n   a school, library, or state agency.  Ordinary businesses are not\n   registered in GEN.\n\n   Some suggest that these kinds of organizations are just like all the\n   other things and ought to be registered under some <locality>.  This\n   may be true, but sometimes one just can't find any way to convince\n   the applicant that it is the right thing to do.  One can argue that\n   any organization has to have a headquarters, or an office, or\n   something about it that is in a fixed place, and thus the\n   organization could be registered in that place.\n\n   Some suggest that no token is needed, these entities could be\n   directly under the <state-code>.  The problem with not having a\n   token, is that you can't delegate the responsibility for registering\n   these entities to someone separate from whoever is responsible for\n   the <state-code>.  You want to be able to delegate for both name-\n   uniqueness reasons, and operational management reasons.  Having a\n   token there makes both easy.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 16]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nGeneral Independent Entities:\n      -----------------------------\n\n      CAL-Comp-Club.GEN.CA.US   <====  The Computer Club of California\n\n      2.8  Examples of Names\n\n      For small entities like individuals or small businesses, there is\n      usually no problem with selecting locality based names.\n\n            For example:  Zuckys.Santa-Monica.CA.US\n\n      For large entities like large corporations with multiple\n      facilities in several cities or states this often seems like an\n      unreasonable constraint (especially when compared with the\n      alternative of registering directly in the COM domain).  However,\n      a company does have a headquarters office in a particular locality\n      and so could register with that name. Example: IBM.Armonk.NY.US\n\n      PRIVATE (business or individual)\n      ================================\n\n      Camp-Curry.Yosemite.CA.US       <====  a business\n      IBM.Armonk.NY.US                <====  a business\n      Dogwood.atl.GA.US               <====  a business\n      Geo-Petrellis.Culver-City.CA.US <====  a restaurant\n      Zuckys.Santa-Monica.CA.US       <====  a restaurant\n      Joe-Josts.Long-Beach.CA.US      <====  a bar\n      Holodek.Santa-Cruz.CA.US        <====  a personal computer\n\n      FEDERAL\n      =======\n\n      Senate.FED.US           <====  US Senate\n      DOD.FED.US              <====  US Defense Dept.\n      DOT.FED.US              <====  US Transportation Dept.\n      USPS.FED.US             <====  US Postal Service\n      VA.FED.US               <====  US Veterans Administration\n      IRS.FED.US              <====  US Internal Revenue Service\n      Yosemite.NPS.Interior.FED.US    <====  a federal agency\n      MNPL.FRB.FED.US.     <====  US Fed. Reserve Bank of Minneapolis\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 17]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nSTATE\n      =====\n\n      Senate.STATE.MN.US      <====  state Senate\n      House.STATE.MN.US       <====  state House of Reps\n      MDH.STATE.MN.US         <====  state Health Dept.\n      HUD.STATE.CA.US         <====  state House and Urban Dev. Dept.\n      DOT.STATE.MN.US         <====  state Transportation Dept.\n      CALTRANS.STATE.CA.US    <====  state Transportation Dept.\n      DMV.STATE.CA.US         <====  state Motor Vehicles Dept.\n      Culver-City.DMV.STATE.CA.US  <====  a local office of DMV\n\n      DNI  (distributed national Institutes)\n      ======================================\n\n      METACENTER.DNI.US       <==== a distributed nat'l Inst.\n\n\n      GEN (General Independent Entities)\n      ==================================\n\n      GARDEN.GEN.AZ.US        <==== a garden club of Arizona\n\n\n      CITY | CI | COUNTY | CO (locality)\n      ==================================\n\n      Parks.CI.Culver-City.CA.US          <====  a city department\n      Fire-Dept.CI.Los-Angeles.CA.US      <====  a city department\n      Fire-Dept.CO.Los-Angeles.CA.US      <====  a county department\n      Planning.CO.Fulton.GA.US.           <====  a county department\n      Main.Library.CI.Los-Angeles.CA.US   <====  a city department\n      MDR.Library.CO.Los-Angeles.CA.US    <====  a county department\n\n\n      TOWNSHIP | PARISH (locality)\n      ============================\n\n      Police.TOWNSHIP.Green.OH.US           <====  a township department\n      Administration.PARISH.Lafayette.LA.US <====  a parish department\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 18]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nDISTRICT | LIBRARY  (agency)\n      ============================\n\n      SCAQMD.DISTRICT.CA.US                 <====  a regional district\n      Bunker-Hill-Improvement.DISTRICT.LA.CA.US <====  a local district\n\n      Huntington.LIB.CA.US                  <====  a private library\n      Venice.LA-City.LIB.CA.US              <====  a city library\n      MDR.LA-County.LIB.CA.US               <====  a county library\n\n      K12 | PRIVATE SCHOOLS (PVT) | CC | TEC\n      ======================================\n\n      Hamilton.High.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US      <====  a public school\n      Sherman-Oaks.Elem.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US  <====  a public K12 school\n      John-Muir.Middle.Santa-Monica.K12.CA.US <====  a public K12 school\n      Culver-High.CCSD.K12.CA.US              <====  a public K12 school\n\n      St-Monica.High.Santa-Monica.CA.US       <====  a private school\n      Crossroads-School.Santa-Monica.CA.US    <====  a private school\n      Mary-Ellens.Montessori-School.LA.CA.US  <====  a private school\n      Progress-Learning-Center.PVT.K12.CA.US  <====  a private school\n\n      SMCC.Santa-Monica.CC.CA.US      <====  a public community college\n      Trade-Tech.Los-Angeles.CC.CA.US <====  a public community college\n      Valley.Los-Angeles.CC.CA.US     <====  a public community college\n\n      Brick-and-Basket-Institute.TEC.CA.US    <== a technical college\n\n\n      When appropriate, subdomains are delegated and partioned in\n      various categories, such as:\n\n       <locality>.<state>.US   =   city/locality based names\n              K12.<state>.US   =   kindergarten thru 12th grade\n           PVT.K12.<state.US   =   private kindergarten thru 12th grade\n               CC.<state>.US   =   community colleges\n              TEC.<state>.US   =   technical or vocational schools\n              LIB.<state>.US   =   libraries\n            STATE.<state>.US   =   state government agencies\n           <org-name>.FED.US   =   federal government agencies\n           <org-name>.DNI.US   =   distributed national institutes\n      <org-name>.GEN.<state>.US. = statewide assoc,clubs,domain parks\n\n      The Appendix-I contains the current US Domain Names BNF.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 19]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n3\n. REGISTRATION\nThere are two types of registrations (1) Delegation, where a branch\n   of the US Domain is delegated to an organization running name servers\n   to support that branch; or (2) Direct Registration, in which the\n   information is put directly into the main database.\n\n   In Direct Registration there are two cases: (a) an IP-host (with an\n   IP address), and (b) non-IP host (for example, a UUCP host).  Any\n   particular registration will involve any one of these three\n   situations.\n\n   3.1  Requirements\n\n   Anyone requesting to register a host in the US Domain is sent a copy\n   of the \"Instructions for the US Domain Template\", and must fill out a\n   US Domain template.\n\n   The US Domain template, is similar to the InterNIC Domain template,\n   but it is not the same.  To request a copy of the US Domain template,\n   send a message to the US Domain registrar (us-domain@isi.edu).\n\n   If you are registering a name in a delegated zone, please register\n   with the contact for that zone.  You can FTP the file \"in-notes/us-\n   domain-delegated.txt\" from venera.isi.edu, via anonymous FTP.  This\n   information is also available via email from RFC-INFO@ISI.EDU\n   (include as the only text in the message\n   \"Help: us_domain_delegated_domains\").\n\n   The key people must have electronic mailboxes (that work).  Please\n   provide all the information indicated in the \"Administrator\" and\n   \"Technical Contact\" slots.\n\n   The administrator will be the point of contact for any administrative\n   and policy questions about the domain. The administrator is usually\n   the person who manages the organization being registered.\n\n   The technical contact can also be administrator, or the systems\n   person, or someone who is familiar with the technical details of the\n   Internet.  The technical contact should have a valid working email\n   address.  This is necessary in case something goes wrong.\n\n   It is important that your \"Return-Path\" and \"From\" field indicate an\n   Internet-style address.  UUCP-style addresses such as \"host1!user\"\n   will not work.  This is fine within the UUCP world, but not the\n   Internet.  If you want people on the Internet to be able to send mail\n   to you, your return path needs to be an Internet-style address such\n   as: host1!user@Internet.gateway.host or user@Internet.gateway.host.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 20]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nIt is also possible to register through one of the Internet service\n   providers that have established working relationships with the US\n   Domain Administrator.\n\n   If everything checks out, the turn around time for registering a host\n   is usually a few days.  The name servers are updated anywhere from 12\n   to 24 hours later.\n\n   There are two ways to be registered in the US Domain, directly, or by\n   delegation.\n\n   3.2  Direct Entries\n\n   Direct entry in the database of the US Domain appeals most to\n   individuals and small companies.  You may fill out the application\n   and send it directly to the US Domain Administrator.  If you are in\n   an area where the zone is delegated to someone else your request will\n   be forwarded to the zone administrator for your registration.  Or,\n   you may send the form directly to the manager of a delegated zone\n   (see\nSection 3.1\n).\n\n   3.2.1 IP-Hosts\n\n   These are hosts with IP addresses which correspond to \"A\" records in\n   the DNS database.\n\n   3.2.2 Non-IP Hosts\n\n   Many applicants have hosts in the UUCP world.  Some are one hop away,\n   some two and three hops away from their \"Internet Forwarder\", this is\n   acceptable.  What is important is getting an Internet host to be your\n   forwarder.  If you do not already have an Internet forwarder, there\n   are several businesses that provide this service for a fee, such as\n   UUNET.UU.NET (postmaster@uunet.uu.net), PSI (postmaster@UU2.PSI.COM)\n   and CERFNET (help@cerf.net).  Sometimes local colleges in your area\n   are already on the Internet and may be willing to act as an Internet\n   Forwarder.  You would need to work this out with the systems\n   administrator as we cannot make these arrangements for you.\n\n   Although we work with UUCP service providers, the Internet US Domain\n   registration is not affiliated with the registration of UUCP Map\n   entries.  The UUCP map entry does not provide us with sufficient\n   information.  If you do not have a copy of the US Domain\n   questionnaire template, please send a message to: us-domain@isi.edu\n   and request one.  See Appendix-II.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 21]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nThe example below is not an appropriate registration for the US Domain.\n\n     #N starl\n     #S Amiga 2500; AmigaDOS 2.04; Dillon's AmigaUUCP 1.15D\n     #O Starlight BBS\n     #C Stephen Baker\n     #E starl!sbaker\n     #T +1 305 378 1161\n     #P 1107 SW 200th St #303B Miami, Fl. 33157\n     #L 25 47 N / 88 10 W [city]\n     #R\n     #U mthvax\n     #W starl!sbaker (Stephen Baker); Mon Feb 24 19:58:24 EST 1992\n      starl        mthvax(DAILY)\n\n   If you are registering your host as a central site for a USENET group\n   where other UUCP sites will feed from you, that's fine.  These UUCP\n   sites do not need to register.  If however, the other sites become a\n   subdomain of your hostname, then we will need to register them\n   individually or add a wildcard record. (See\nSection 4.4\n. Wildcards).\n\n           For example:          bah.rochester.ny.us\n                           host1.bah.rochester.ny.us\n                           host2.bah.rochester.ny.us\n\n   To use US Domain names for non-IP hosts, there must be a forwarder\n   host that is an IP host.  There must be an administrative agreement\n   and a technical procedure for relaying mail between the non-IP host\n   and the forwarder host.\n\n   Case 1:\n   -------\n\n   Your host is not an IP host but does talk directly with a host that\n   is an IP host.\n                                                  +-----------------+\n   +----------+            +---------+            |                 |\n   |your-host |---UUCP-----|forwarder|----IP/TCP--|    INTERNET     |\n   +----------+            +---------+            |                 |\n                                                  +-----------------+\n   \"Forwarder\" must be an IP host on the Internet.\n\n   You must ask \"forwarder\" if they are willing to be the Internet\n   forwarder for \"your-host\".\n\n   In the US Domain of the DNS data base there must be an entry like\n   this:\n          \"your-host\"  MX  10  \"forwarder\"\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 22]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nThis must be entered by the US Domain Administrator.\n\n   In the \"forwarder\" routing tables there must be information about\n   \"your-host\" with a rule like: If I see mail for \"your-host\" I will\n   send it via uucp by calling phone number \"123-4567\".\n\n   Case 2:\n   -------\n\n   In this case your hosts talks to another host that ... that talks to\n   an IP host.  In other words, there are multiple hops between your host\n   and the Internet.\n                                                  +-----------------+\n   +----------+            +---------+            |                 |\n   |path-host |---UUCP-----|forwarder|----IP/TCP--|    INTERNET     |\n   +----------+            +---------+            |                 |\n       |                                          +-----------------+\n      UUCP\n       |\n   +----------+\n   |your-host |\n   +----------+\n\n   \"Forwarder\" must be an IP host on the Internet.\n\n   You must ask \"forwarder\" if they are willing to be the Internet\n   Forwarder for \"Your-Host\".  You must ask \"path-host\" to relay your\n   mail.\n\n   In the US Domain of the DNS Database there must be an entry like this:\n\n          \"your-host\"  MX  10  \"forwarder\"\n\n   This must be entered by the US Domain Administrator.\n\n   In the \"forwarder\" routing tables there must be information about\n   \"your-host\" with a rule like: If I see mail for \"your-host\" I will\n   send it via UUCP to \"path-host\" by calling phone number \"123-4567\".\n   and \"path-host\" must also know how to relay the mail to \"your-host\".\n\n   Note: It is assumed that \"path-host\" is already MXed to \"forwarder\".\n   It is not appropriate to ask to MX \"your-host\" to \"path-host\" (this\n   is sometimes called double MXing).  The host on the right hand side\n   of an MX entry must be a host on the Internet with an IP address\n   (e.g., 128.9.2.32).\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 23]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n3.3  Delegated Subdomains\n\n   Many branches of the US Domain are delegated. There must be a\n   knowledgeable and competent technical contact, familiar with the\n   Internet DNS.  This requirement is easily satisified if the technical\n   contact already runs some other name servers.\n\n   Examples of delegations are K12.TX.US for the Kindergarten through\n   12th Grade public schools in Texas, the locality \"berkeley.ca.us\", or\n   the LIB.MN.US branch for the libraries in Minnesota.\n\n   The administrator of the US Domain is responsible for the assignment\n   of all the DNS names that end with \".US\".  Of course, one person or\n   even one group can't handle all this in the long run so portions of\n   the name space are delegated to others.\n\n   The major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is\n   that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have\n   the ability to do an equitable, just, honest, and competent job.\n\n   The key requirement is that for each domain there be a designated\n   manager for supervising that domain's name space.\n\n   These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated domain,\n   and have a duty to serve the community.\n\n   The designated manager is the trustee of the domain for the domain\n   itself and the global Internet community.\n\n   Concerns about \"rights\" and \"ownership\" of domains are inappropriate.\n   It is appropriate to be concerned about \"responsibilities\" and\n   \"service\" to the community.\n\n   The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain\n   that request domain names.\n\n   This means that the same rules are applied to all requests.  All\n   requests must be processed in a nondiscriminatory fashion, and\n   academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal\n   basis.  No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come from\n   customers of some other business related to the manager -- e.g., no\n   preferential service for customers of a particular data network\n   provider.  There can be no requirement that a particular mail system\n   (or other application), protocol, or product be used.\n\n   There are no requirements on subdomains beyond the requirements on\n   higher-level domains themselves.  That is, the requirements are\n   applied recursively.  In particular, all subdomains shall be allowed\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 24]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nto operate their own domain name servers, providing in them whatever\n   information the subdomain manager sees fit (as long as it is true and\n   correct).\n\n   Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the\n   designated manager is the appropriate party.\n\n   The US Domain Administrator tries to have any contending parties\n   reach agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to\n   change things unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases\n   where the designated manager has substantially neglected their\n   responsibilities would the US Domain Administrator step in.\n\n   The designated manager must do a satisfactory job of operating the\n   DNS service for the domain.\n\n   That is, the actual management of the assigning of domain names,\n   delegating subdomains and operating name servers must be done with\n   technical competence.  This includes keeping the US Domain\n   Administrator or other higher-level domain managers advised of the\n   status of the domain, responding to requests in a timely manner, and\n   operating the database with accuracy, robustness, and resilience.\n\n   There must be a primary and a secondary name server that have IP\n   connectivity to the Internet and can be easily checked for\n   operational status and database accuracy by the US Domain\n   Administrator.\n\n   One of the aspects of having two name servers for each domain (or\n   zone), is for robustness.  One concern under this heading is that the\n   name service not go out entirely if there is a local power failure\n   (earthquake, tornado, or other disaster).\n\n   Name Servers should be in distinctly separate physical locations.  It\n   is appropriate to have more than two name servers, but there must be\n   at least two.\n\n   For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one\n   organization to another, the higher-level domain manager must receive\n   communications from both the old organization and the new\n   organization that assures the US Domain Administrator that the\n   transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new organization\n   understands its responsibilities.\n\n   It is also very helpful for the US Domain Administrator to receive\n   communications from other parties that may be concerned or affected\n   by the transfer.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 25]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nDelegation of cities, companies within cities, schools (K12),\n   community colleges (CC), libraries (LIB), state government (STATE),\n   and federal government agencies (FED), etc., is acceptable and\n   practical.\n\n   For a delegated portion of the name space, for example a city, no\n   alterations can be made to that name, no abbreviations added, etc.\n   unless applied for.\n\n   Sometimes there may be two people running name servers in the same\n   city because different portions of the name space has been delegated\n   to them.  For example, someone may be delegated the <city>.<state>.US\n   name space, and someone else from a state government agency may have\n   the .STATE.<state>.US, portion.  For example, Fred may run the name\n   servers for Sacramento.CA.US and Joe may run the name servers for\n   STATE.CA.US in Sacramento.\n\n   If a company would like to have wildcard records added, or run their\n   own name servers in a city that we have delegated name space to, this\n   is acceptable.\n\n   Delegation of the whole State name space is not yet implemented.  The\n   delegated part of the name space is in the form of:\n\n               .<locality>.<state>.US.\n            .CI.<locality>.<state>.US.\n            .CO.<locality>.<state>.US.\n                    .STATE.<state>.US.\n                      .K12.<state>.US.\n                   PVT.K12.<state>.US.\n                       .CC.<state>.US.\n                      .TEC.<state>.US.\n                      .LIB.<state>.US.\n                      .GEN.<state>.US.\n                              .DNI.US.\n                              .FED.US.\n\n   3.3.1.  Delegation Requirements\n\n   When a subdomain is delegated, the following requirements must be\n   met:\n\n      1)  There must be a knowledgeable and competent technical contact,\n          familiar with the Internet DNS.  This requirement is easily\n          satisified if the technical contact already runs some other\n          name servers.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 26]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n2)  Organizations requesting delegations must provide at least two\n          independent (robust and reliable) DNS name servers in\n          physically separate locations on the Internet.\n\n      3)  The subdomain must accept all applicants on an equal basis.\n\n      4)  The subdomain must provide timely processing of requests.  To\n          do this, it is helpful to have several individuals\n          knowledgeable about the procedures so that the operations are\n          not delayed due to one persons unavailability (for example, by\n          being on vacation).\n\n      5)  The subdomain manager must tell the US Domain Administrator\n          when there are changes in the name servers that should be\n          reflected in the US Domain zone files, or changes in the\n          contact information.\n\n   K12 Administrators\n\n      In the long term, registering schools will be a big job.  So you\n      need to have in mind delegating parts of the work to various\n      school districts.  If you can delegate every school district in\n      the state then you are finished, except for checking that they are\n      all operating correctly.  However, initially you will have quite a\n      bit to do with educating people, helping them choose names and\n      getting name servers arranged.  You are responsible for seeing\n      that the naming of schools follow the guidelines suggested in this\n      memo.\n\n      All K12 Administrators will initially be responsible for managing\n      the \"pseudo district\" PVT for private schools.  Private schools\n      have the option of registering as <school-name>.PVT.K12.<state>.US\n      or as a business under the city based names.\n\n   Locality Administrators\n\n      If you have been delegated a locality subdomain, you will be\n      responsible for registering not only businesses directly under the\n      locality, but city and county agencies under the \"CI\" and \"CO\"\n      branches.  When appropriate these branches should be delegated.\n\n      If you want, you may spell out \"CITY\" instead of \"CI\" or \"COUNTY\"\n      instead of \"CO\", but you must be consistent and use only one or\n      the other in a given locality.  The whole city government should\n      be under one branch.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 27]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nWHOIS Database\n\n      Only the second and third level delegated name spaces will be\n      entered in the WHOIS database.  For example, K12.CA.US would have\n      an entry in WHOIS.  Anything under K12.CA.US will not be listed.\n      The US Domain Administrator will send the information that you\n      supplied on your US Domain template to the InterNIC.  It is the\n      hope that in the future, each delegated subdomain will provide\n      their own WHOIS directory database for their branch.\n\n   3.3.2  Delegation Procedures\n\n   The procedure that is followed when a subdomain is delegated includes\n   the following steps:\n\n      1)  Evaluate the technical contact's experience with DNS.  Make\n          sure there is a need for the proposed delegation.  Make sure\n          the technical contact has the information about the US Domain\n          and the suggested naming structure.  Two contacts with email\n          addresses are necessary in case something goes wrong.\n\n      2)  Add the new technical contact to the \"us-dom-adm\" mailing list\n          for distributing updates concerning the US Domain policies and\n          procedures.\n\n      3)  Delete any hosts from our zone file that belongs in the newly\n          delegated subdomain and make sure they now have the hosts in\n          their zone file.\n\n      4)  Send them a copy of the zone file so their initial zone file\n          is identical to ours. For example:\n\n          mil.wi.us.      69582   SOA     spool.mu.edu.\n                                          manager.spool.mu.edu. (\n                                  930119  ;serial\n                                  28800   ;refresh\n                                  14400   ;retry\n                                  3600000 ;expire\n                                  86400 ) ;minim\n\n          mil.wi.us.      69582   NS      spool.mu.edu.\n          spool.mu.edu.   85483   A       134.48.1.31\n          mil.wi.us.      69582   NS      sophie.mscs.mu.edu.\n          sophie.mscs.mu.edu.     85483   A       134.48.4.6\n          solaria.mil.wi.us.      69582   HINFO   Sun 3/60 SunOs\n          solaria.mil.wi.us.      69582   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n          nthomas.mil.wi.us.      69582   HINFO   386 Clone DOS\n          nthomas.mil.wi.us.      69582   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 28]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nrwmke.mil.wi.us.        69582   HINFO   UNIX PC UNIX\n          rwmke.mil.wi.us.        69582   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n          milestn.mil.wi.us.      69582   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n          nrunner.mil.wi.us.      69582   HINFO   MacIntosh System 7\n          nrunner.mil.wi.us.      69582   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n          dawley.mil.wi.us.       69582   HINFO   386 Clone DOS\n          dawley.mil.wi.us.       69582   MX      10 spool.mu.edu.\n            ...\n\n      5)  The US Domain zone file must have the following records,\n          showing the name, address, email, and phone number of the\n          technical contact for the delegated subdomain and the name of\n          the delegated name space and the names of the name servers.\n\n            ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\n            ;\n            ;Contact:  Joseph Klein (tjk@spool.mu.edu)\n            ;          Marquette University\n            ;          (414) 288-6734\n            ;\n            ;Delegate mil.wi.us zone\n\n            mil.wi.us.      604800  NS      SPOOL.MU.EDU.\n                            604800  NS      SOPHIE.MSCS.MU.EDU.\n\n            ; A glue record is not needed this time. Glue records are\n            ; needed when the name of the server is a subdomain of the\n            ; delegated domain.\n            ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\n\n      6)  Check to see that delegated subdomain name servers are up and\n          running, and make sure the delegated hosts are installed in\n          their zone file.  Now delete any hosts from the US Domain zone\n          file that belongs in the newly delegated subdomain.\n\n      7)  Inform the technical contact of the newly delegated subdomain\n          that wildcard records are allowed in the zone file under the\n          organizational subdomain but no wildcard records are allowed\n          under the \"city\" or \"state\" domain.\n\n      8)  Make sure each administrator has a copy of this RFC and\n          follows the guidelines set forth.\n\n   3.3.3   Subdomain Contacts\n\n   The number of hosts registered under each subdomain is unknown. See\nSection 3.1\nfor information on the delegated domains and the\n   contacts.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 29]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n4\n. DATABASE INFORMATION\n4.1. Name Servers\n\n   Name servers are the repositories of information that make up the\n   domain database.  The database is divided up into sections called\n   zones, which are distributed among the name servers.  While name\n   servers can have several optional functions and sources of data, the\n   essential task of a name server is to answer queries using data in\n   its zones.  The response to a query can always be generated using\n   only local data, and either contains the answer to the question or a\n   referral to other name servers \"closer\" to the desired information.\n\n   A given zone will be available from several name servers to insure\n   its availability in spite of host or communication link failure.\n   Every zone is required to be available on at least two servers, and\n   many zones have more redundancy than that.\n\n   The US Domain is currently supported by seven name servers:\n\n           venera.isi.edu\n           ns.isi.edu\n           rs.internic.net\n           ns.csl.sri.com\n           ns.uu.net\n           adm.brl.mil\n           excalibur.usc.edu\n\n   4.2 Zone Files\n\n   A \"zone\" is a registry of domains kept by a particular organization.\n   A zone registry is \"authoritative\", that is, the master copy of the\n   registry is kept by the zone organization, and this copy is, by\n   definition, always up-to-date.  Copies of this registry may be\n   distributed to other places and kept in caches, but these caches are\n   not authoritative, and may be out-of-date.\n\n   Every zone has at least one node, and hence domain name, for which it\n   is authoritative, and all of the nodes in a particular zone are\n   connected.  Given the tree structure, every zone has a highest node\n   which is closer to the root than any other node in the zone.  The\n   name of this node is often used to identify the zone.  The data that\n   describes a zone has four major parts:\n\n        1) Authoritative data for all nodes within the zone.\n\n        2) Data that defines the top node of the zone\n           (can be thought of as part of the authoritative data).\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 30]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n3) Data that describes delegated subzones, i.e., cuts\n           around the bottom of the zone,\n\n        4) Data that allows access to name servers for subzones\n           (sometimes called \"glue\" data).\n\n   The zone administrator has to maintain the zones at all the name\n   servers which are authoritative for the zone.  When the changes are\n   made, they must be distributed to all of the name servers.\n\n   Copies of the zone files are not available unless you are on the\n   Internet.  To look at the zone files use the \"dig\" program of the DNS\n   domain name system.\n\n        dig   @nshost  host-your-checking  axfr\n\n   4.3 Resource Records\n\n   Records in the zone data files are called resource records (RRs).\n   The standard Resource records (RR) are specified in STD 13,\nRFC 1034\nand STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n(3,4).  An RR has a standard format as shown.\n\n                  <name> [<ttl>] [<class>] <type> <data>\n\n   The first field is always the name of the domain record.  The second\n   field is an optional time to live field.  This specifies how long\n   this data will be stored in the data base.  The third field is the\n   address class; the class field specifies the protocol group most\n   often this is the Internet class \"IN\".  The fourth field states the\n   type of the resource record.  The fields after that are dependent on\n   the Type of RR.  The fifth field is the data field which is defined\n   differently for each type and class of data.  Here is a list of the\n   current commonly used types:\n\n           SOA     Start of Authority\n           NS      Name Server\n           A       Internet Address\n           CNAME   Canonical Name (nickname pointer)\n           HINFO   Host Information\n           WKS     Well Known Services\n           MX      Mail Exchanger\n           PTR     Pointer\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 31]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nWhat do the fields mean?\n\n           foo.LA.CA.US.    604800    MX   10     Venera.ISI.EDU.\n           (1)              (2)       (3)  (4)    (5)\n\n           1)  domain name\n           2)  time to live information\n           3)  mail exchanger record\n           4)  preference value to determine (if more than one\n               forwarder) which mailer to use first, lower number\n               higher preference\n           5)  the Internet forwarding host.\n\n   4.3.1  \"A\" Records\n\n   Internet (IP) Address.  The data for an \"A\" record is an Internet\n   address in a dotted decimal form.  A sample \"A\" record might look\n   like:\n\n           venera.isi.edu.          A      128.9.0.32\n              (name)               (A)     (address)\n\n   The name field is the machine name, and the address is the network\n   address.  There should be only one \"A\" record for each address of a\n   host.\n\n   4.3.2  CNAME Records\n\n   Canonical Name resource record, CNAME, specifies an alias for a\n   canonical name.  This is essentially a pointer to the official name\n   for the requested name.  All other RRs appear under this official\n   name.  A machine named FERNWOOD.MPK.CA.US may want to have the\n   nickname ANTERIOR.MPK.CA.US.  In that case, the following RR would be\n   used:\n\n           anterior.mpk.ca.us.     CNAME      fernwood.mpk.ca.us.\n            (alias nickname)                   (canonical name)\n\n   Nicknames (the name associated with the RR is the nickname) may be\n   added for awhile when a host changes its name, usually because it\n   moves to another state.  It helps to have this CNAME pointer so if\n   any mail comes to the old address it will get forwarded to the new\n   one.  There cannot be any other RRs associated with a nickname of the\n   same class.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 32]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n4.3.3  MX Records\n\n   Mail Exchanger records, MX, are used to specify a machine that knows\n   how to deliver mail to a machine that is not directly connected to\n   the Internet.  For example, venera.isi.edu is the mail gateway that\n   knows how to deliver mail to foo.la.ca.us, but other machines on the\n   network cannot deliver mail directly to foo.la.ca.us.  These two\n   machines may have a private connection or use a different transport\n   medium (such as uucp).  The preference value (10) is the order that a\n   mailer should follow when there is more than one way to deliver mail\n   to a single machine.  The lower the number the higher the preference.\n\n           foo.LA.CA.US.  604800  MX  10  Venera.ISI.EDU.\n           foo.LA.CA.US.  604800  MX  20  relay1.uu.net.\n\n   4.3.4   HINFO Records\n\n   Host information resource records, HINFO is for host specific data.\n   This lists the hardware and operating system that are running at the\n   listed host.  It should be noted that a space separates the hardware\n   information and the operating system information.  If you want to\n   include a space in the machine name you must quote the name.  Host\n   information is not specific to any class, so ANY may be used for the\n   address class.  There should be one HINFO record for each host.\n\n   acb.la.ca.us.       HINFO       VAX-11/780      UNIX\n                                   (Hardware)      (Operating System)\n\n   The official HINFO types can be found in the latest Assigned Numbers\n   RFC, the most recent edition being STD 2,\nRFC 1340\n[\n9\n].  The hardware\n   type is called the Machine Name, and the software type is called the\n   System Name.\n\n   The information users supply about this is often inconsistent or\n   incomplete.  Please follow the terms in the current \"Assigned\n   Numbers\".\n\n   4.3.5  PTR Records\n\n   A Domain Name Pointer record, PTR, allows special names to point to\n   some other location in the domain data base.  These are typically\n   used in setting up reverse pointers for the special IN-ADDR.ARPA\n   domain.  PTR names should be unique to the zone.\n\n         0.0.9.128.in-addr.arpa     PTR    isi-net.isi.edu.\n             (special name)                  (real name)\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 33]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nA PTR record is to be added to the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain for every \"A\"\n   record registered in the US Domain.  These PTR records need to be\n   added by the administrator of the network where the host is\n   connected.  The US Domain Administration does not administer the\n   network and cannot make these entries in the DNS database.\n\n   4.4  Wildcards\n\n   The wildcard records are of the form \"*.<anydomain>\", where\n   <anydomain> is any domain name.  The wildcards potentially apply to\n   descendents of <anydomain>, but not to <anydomain> itself.\n\n   For example, suppose a large company located in California with a\n   large, non-IP/TCP, network wanted to create a mail gateway.  If the\n   company was called DWP.LA.CA.US, and the IP/TCP capable gateway\n   machine (Internet forwarder) was called ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV, the\n   following RRs might be entered into the .US zone.\n\n           dwp.la.ca.us    MX      10       ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV\n         *.dwp.la.ca.us    MX      10       ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV\n\n   The wildcard record *.DWP.LA.CA.US would cause an MX query for any\n   domain name ending in DWP.LA.CA.US to return an MX RR pointing at\n   ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV. The entry without the \"*\" is needed so the host\n   dwp can be found.\n\n   In the US Domain, wildcard records are allowed in our zone files\n   under the organizational subdomain (and where noted otherwise) but no\n   wildcard records are allowed under the \"City\" or \"State\" domain.\n\n       The authors strongly believe that it is in everyone's\n       interest and good for the Internet to have each host\n       explicitly registered (that is, we believe that wildcards\n       should not be used), we also realize that not everyone\n       agrees with this belief.  Thus, we will allow wildcard\n       records in the US Domain under groups or organizations.\n       For example, *.DWP.LA.CA.US.\n\n       The reason we feel single entries are the best is by the mere\n       fact that if anyone wanted to find one of the hosts in the\n       domain name system it would be there, and problems can be\n       detected more easily.  When using wildcards records all the\n       hosts under a subdomain are hidden.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 34]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n5\n. REFERENCES\n[\n1\n]  Stahl, M., \"Domain Administrators Guide\",\nRFC 1032\n, SRI\n        International, November 1987.\n\n   [\n2\n]  Lottor, M., \"Domain Administrators Operations Guide\"\nRFC 1033\n,\n        SRI International, November 1987.\n\n   [\n3\n]  Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities\",\n        STD 13,\nRFC 1034\n, ISI, November 1987.\n\n   [\n4\n]  Mockapetris, P., \"Domain Names - Implementation and\n        Specification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, ISI, November 1987.\n\n   [\n5\n]  Dunlap, K., \"Name Server Operations Guide for Bind,\n        Release 4.3\", UC Berkeley, SMM:11-3.\n\n   [\n6\n]  Partridge, C., \"Mail Routing and the Domain Name System\",\n        STD 14,\nRFC 974\n, BBN, January 1986.\n\n   [\n7\n]  Albitz, P., C. Liu, \"DNS and Bind\" Help for UNIX System\n        Administrators, O'Reilly and Associates, Inc., October 1992.\n\n   [\n8\n]  ACM SIGUCCS Networking Taskforce, \"Connecting to the Internet -\n        What Connecting Institutions Should Anticipate\", FYI 16,\nRFC 1359\n, August 1992.\n\n   [\n9\n]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"Assigned Numbers\", STD 2,\nRFC 1340\n, ISI, July 1992.\n6\n. Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 35]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n7\n. Authors' Addresses\nAnn Cooper\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA  90292\n   Phone:  1-310-822-1511\n   Email:  cooper@isi.edu\n\n   Jon Postel\n   USC/Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA  90292\n   Phone:  1-310-822-1511\n   Email:  postel@isi.edu\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 36]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nAPPENDIX-I:  US DOMAIN NAMES BNF\n                     ================================\n\n   <us-domain-name>    ::= <us-name><dot><us>\n\n   <us-name>           ::= <state-name><dot><state-code> |\n                           <fed-name><dot><fed>\n                           <dni-name><dot><dni>\n\n   <state-code>        ::= <the two-letter code of a state from the\n                            zip code directory>\n\n   <state-name>        ::= <local-name><dot><locality> |\n                           <state-agency-name><dot><state> |\n                           <regional-agency-name><dot><agency>\n\n   <fed-name>          ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a US\n                            federal government agency>\n\n   <dni-name>          ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a\n                            distributed national institution>\n\n   <locality>          ::= <the full name of a city from the\n                             zip code directory> |\n                           <a short code name for a city> |\n                           <the full name of a county, township,\n                            or parish> |\n                           <other well known and commonly used\n                            locality name>\n\n   <local-name>        ::= <entity-name> |\n                           <city-name><dot><city> |\n                           <county-name><dot><county> |\n                           <local-agency-name><dot><local-agency>\n\n   <state-agency-name> ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a state\n                            government agency>\n\n   <regional-agency-name> ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a\n                             special agency or district not an\n                             element of the state government and\n                             typically larger than a single city or\n                             county, for example, the Southern\n                             California Air Quality Management District>\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 37]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n<entity-name>       ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of an\n                            entity within a city, for example: a\n                            company, business, private school, club,\n                            organization, or individual>\n\n   <city-name>         ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a city\n                            government agency>\n\n   <county-name>       ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a county,\n                             township, or parish government agency>\n\n   <local-agency-name> ::= <the dotted hierarchical name of a special\n                            agency or district not an element of a\n                            city or county government and typically\n                            equal or smaller than a single city or\n                            county, for example, the Bunker Hill\n                            Improvement District>\n\n   <city> ::= \"CI\" | \"CITY\"\n\n   <county> ::= \"CO\" | \"COUNTY\" | \"TOWNSHIP\" | \"PARISH\"\n\n   <dot> ::= \".\"\n\n   <fed> ::= \"FED\"\n\n   <dni> ::= \"DNI\"\n\n   <state> ::= \"STATE\" | \"COMMONWEALTH\"\n\n   <agency> ::= \"AGENCY\" | \"DISTRICT\" | \"K12\" | \"CC\" | \"LIB\" |\n                \"GEN\"    | \"TEC\"\n\n   <local-agency> ::= \"AGENCY\" | \"DISTRICT\"\n\n   <us> ::= \"US\"\n\n\n   Notes:\n\n   Within States:\n\n   \"K12\" may be used for public school districts.  A special name\n   \"PVT\" can be used in the place of a school district name for\n   private schools.\n\n   \"CC\" may be used only for public community colleges.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 38]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n\"LIB\" may be only used by libraries.\n\n   \"TEC\" is used only for technical and vocational schools and colleges.\n\n   \"GEN\" is for general independent entities, that is, organizations\n   that don't really fit anywhere else (such as statewide associations,\n   clubs, and \"domain parks\").\n\n   \"STATE\" may be used only for state government entities.\n\n   Below US, parallel to States:\n\n   \"FED\" is for agencies of the federal government.\n\n   \"DNI\" is for distributed national institutes; organizations that\n   span state, regional, and other organizational boundaries; that\n   are national in scope, and have distributed facilities.\n\n   Examples:\n   =========\n\n   Geo-Petrellis.Culver-City.CA.US         <== resturant\n\n   Joe-Josts.Long-Beach.CA.US              <== bar\n\n   IBM.Armonk.NY.US                        <== business\n\n   Camp-Curry.Yosemite.CA.US               <== business\n\n   Yosemite.NPS.Interior.FED.US            <== federal agency\n\n   Senate.FED.US                           <== US Senate\n\n   DOD.FED.US                              <== US Defense Dept.\n\n   DOT.FED.US                              <== US Transportation Dept.\n\n   MNPL.FRB.FED.US                         <== the Minneapolis branch of\n                                               the Federal Reserve Bank\n\n   MetaCenter.DNI.US                       <== distributed Nat'l Inst\n\n   Senate.STATE.MN.US                      <== state Senate\n\n   House.STATE.MN.US                       <== state House of Reps\n\n   Assembly.STATE.CA.US                    <== state Assembly\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 39]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nMDH.STATE.MN.US                         <== state Health Dept.\n\n   DOT.STATE.MN.US                         <== state Transportation Dept\n\n   CALTRANS.STATE.CA.US                    <== state Transportation Dept\n\n   DMV.STATE.CA.US                         <== state Motor Vehicles Dept\n\n   Culver-City.DMV.STATE.CA.US             <== local office of DMV\n\n   Police.CI.Culver-City.CA.US             <== city department\n\n   Fire-Dept.CI.Los-Angeles.CA.US          <== city department\n\n   Fire-Dept.CO.Los-Angeles.CA.US          <== county department\n\n   Main.Library.CI.Los-Angeles.CA.US       <== city department\n\n   MDR.Library.CO.Los-Angeles.CA.US        <== county department\n\n   Huntington.LIB.CA.US                    <== private library\n\n   SMCC.Santa-Monica.CC.CA.US              <== public community college\n\n   Trade-Tech.Los-Angeles.CC.CA.US         <== public community college\n\n   Valley.Los-Angeles.CC.CA.US             <== public community college\n\n   Hamilton.High.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US      <== public school\n\n   Sherman-Oaks.Elem.LA-Unified.K12.CA.US  <== public school\n\n   John-Muir.Middle.Santa-Monica.K12.CA.US <== public school\n\n   St-Monicas.High.Santa-Monica.CA.US      <== private school\n\n   Crossroads-School.Santa-Monica.CA.US    <== private school\n\n   Mary-Ellens-Montessori-School.LA.CA.US  <== private school\n\n   Progress-Learning-Center.PVT.K12.CA.US  <== private school\n\n   Brick-and-Basket-Institute.TEC.CA.US    <== technical college\n\n   Bunker-Hill.DISTRICT.Los-Angeles.CA.US  <== local district\n\n   SCAQMD.DISTRICT.CA.US                   <== regional district\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 40]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nBerkeley.UC.STATE.CA.US                 <== \"CAL\"\n\n   Los-Angeles.UC.STATE.CA.US              <== UCLA\n\n   Irvine.UC.STATE.CA.US                   <== UC Irvine\n\n   Northridge.CSU.STATE.CA.US              <== CSUN\n\n   Los-Angeles.CSU.STATE.CA.US             <== Cal State LA\n\n   Leland-Stanford-Jr-University.Stanford.CA.US    <== private school\n\n   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 41]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nAPPENDIX-II: US DOMAIN QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOST ENTRY\n\n\nTo register a host in the US domain, the US Domain Template must be\nsent to the US Domain Registrar (US-Domain@ISI.EDU).  The first few\npages explain each question on the attached template.  FILL OUT THE\nTWO PAGE TEMPLATE AT THE END.  Questions may be sent by electronic\nmail to the above address, or by phone to Ann Cooper, USC/Information\nSciences Institute, (310) 822-1511.\n\n(1)  Please specify whether this is a new application, modification to\n     an existing registration, or deletion.\n\n\n(2)  The name of the domain.  This is the name that will be used in\n     tables and lists associating the domain with the domain server\n     addresses. See\nRFC 1480\n- The US Domain for more details.\n\n <host>.<city/locality>.<state>.US. =  city/locality based names\n<school>.<district>.K12.<state>.US. =  kindergarten thru 12th grade\n       <school>.PVT.K12.<state>.US. =  private K thru 12th grade\n    <school>.<locality>.<state>.US. =  PVT sch opt: locality names\n            <school>.CC.<state>.US. =  community colleges\n           <school>.TEC.<state>.US. =  technical or vocational schools\n         <lib-name>.LIB.<state>.US. =  libraries\n       <org-name>.STATE.<state>.US. =  state government agencies\n                 <org-name>.FED.US. =  federal government agencies\n                 <org-name>.DNI.US. =  distributed national institutes\n            <org>.GEN.<state>.US. =  statewide assoc,clubs,domain parks\n\n     For example:  networthy.santa-clara.ca.us.\n\n\n(3)  The name of the entity represented, that is, the organization\n     being named.  For example: The Networthy Corporation. Not the\n     name of the organization submitting the request.\n\n\n(4)  Please describe the domain briefly.\n\n     For example: The Networthy Corporation is a consulting\n     organization of people working with UNIX and the C language\n     in an electronic networking environment.  It sponsors two\n     technical conferences annually and distributes a bimonthly\n     newsletter.\n\n\n(5)  The date you expect the domain to be fully operational.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 42]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nFor every registration, we need both the Administrative and the\nTechnical contacts of a domain (questions 6 & 7) and we MUST have a\nnetwork mailbox for each.  If you have a NIC handle (a unique NIC\ndatabase identifier) please enter it.  (If you don't know what a NIC\nhandle is leave it blank).  Also the title, mailing address, phone\nnumber, organization, and network mailbox.\n\n(6)  The name of the administrative head of the \"organization\".  The\n     administrator is the contact point for administrative and policy\n     questions about the domain.  The Domain administrator should work\n     closely with the personnel he has designated as the \"technical\n     contact\" for his domain. In this example the Domain Administrator\n     would be the Administrator of the Networthy Corporation, not the\n     Administrator of the organization running the name server\n     (unless it is the same person).\n\n(7)  The name of the technical and zone contact.  The technical and\n     zone contact handles the technical aspects of maintaining the\n     domain's name server and resolver software, and database files.\n     He keeps the name server running. More than likely, this person\n     would be the technical contact running the primary name server.\n\n***********************************************************************\n\nPLEASE READ:  There are several types of registrations.\n\n   (a)  Delegation (i.e., a portion of the US Domain name space is\n        given to an organization running name servers to support that\n        branch; For example, K12.TX.US, for all K12 schools in Texas).\n        For (a) answer questions 8 and 9.\n\n   (b)  Direct Registration of an IP Host.\n        For (b) answer question 10.\n\n   (c)  Direct Registration of a non-IP Host.\n        For (c) answer question 11 and 12.\n\n***********************************************************************\n\nQUESTIONS FOR DELEGATIONS\n\n(8)  PRIMARY SERVER Information.  It is required to supply both the\n     Contact information as well as hardware/software information of\n     the primary name server.\n\n(9)* SECONDARY SERVER Information. It is required to supply the\n     hardware and software information of all secondary name servers.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 43]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nDomains must provide at least two independent servers that provide the\ndomain service for translating names to addresses for hosts in this\ndomain. If you are applying for a domain and a network number\nassignment simultaneously and a host on your proposed network will be\nused as a server for the domain, you must wait until you receive your\nnetwork number assignment and have given the server(s) a net- address\nbefore sending in the domain application. Establishing the servers in\nphysically separate locations and on different PSNs and/or networks is\nstrongly recommended.\n\nNOTE: For those applicants not able to run name servers, or for non-IP\nhosts the Name Server information is not applicable. (See #10 and #11).\n=======================================================================\nQUESTION FOR DIRECT IP HOSTS (If you answered 8 & 9 do not answer\n10, 11, or 12).\n\n(10) What Domain Name System (DNS) Resource Records (RR) and values are\n     to be entered for your IP host (must have an \"A\" record).\n\n     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n     Example: RRs for an INTERNET hosts.\n\n     (a)  DOMAIN NAME (required)...:  Networthy.Santa-Clara.CA.US.\n     (b)  IP ADDRESS (required)....:  A  128.9.3.123  (required)\n     (c)  HARDWARE (opt)...........:  SUN-3/11O\n     (d)  OPERATING SYS (opt)......:  UNIX\n     (e)  WKS (opt)........:  128.9.3.123. UDP (echo tftp) TCP (ftp)\n     (f)  MX (opt).................:  10  RELAY.ISI.EDU.\n\nIt is your responsibility to see that an IN-ADDR pointer record is\nentered in the DNS database.  (For Internet hosts only).  Contact the\nadministrator of the IP network your host is on to have this done.\nThe US Domain administration does not administer the network and\ncannot make these entries in the DNS database.\n\n=======================================================================\nQUESTIONS FOR NON-IP HOSTS (such as UUCP).\n\n   Many applicants have hosts in the UUCP world.  Some are one hop away,\n   some two and three hops away from their \"Internet Forwarder\", this is\n   ok.  What is important is getting an Internet host to be your\n   forwarder.  If you do not already have an Internet forwarder, there\n   are several businesses that provide this service for a fee, (see\nRFC 1359\n- Connecting to the Internet What Connecting Institutions\n   Should Anticipate, ACM SIGUCCS, August 1992). Sometimes local colleges\n   in your area are already on the Internet and may be willing to act\n   as an Internet Forwarder.  You would need to work this out with the\n   systems administrator.  We cannot make these arrangements for you.\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 44]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\n(11) Internet Forwarding Host Information\n\n     (11a) What is the name of your Internet forwarding host?\n           For example: The host Yacht-Club.MDR.CA.US uses\n           UUCP to connect to RELAY.ISI.EDU which is an Internet\n           host. (i.e., RELAY.ISI.EDU is the forwarding host).\n\n     (11b) What is the name of your contact person at forwarding host?\n           The Administrator of RELAY.ISI.EDU must agree to be the\n           forwarding host for Yacht-Club.MDR.CA.US, and the\n           forwarding host must know a delivery method and route to\n           Networthy.  No double MXing.\n\n     (11c) What is the mailbox of your contact?\n           What is the mailbox of the administrator of the forwarding\n           host.\n\n              Example:  Contact Name......:  John Smith\n                        Contact Email.....:  js@RELAY.ISI.EDU\n\n(12) What Domain Name System (DNS) Resource Records (RR) and values\n     are to be entered for your NON-IP host.\n\n     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n     Example: RRs for a NON-IP host (uucp).\n\n     (a)  DOMAIN NAME (required).....:   Yacht-Club.MDR.CA.US.\n     (b)  HARDWARE (opt).............:   SUN-3/11O\n     (c)  OPERATING SYS (opt)........:   UNIX\n     (d)  MX (required)..............:   10  RELAY.ISI.EDU.\n     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n\n\n\nPLEASE ALLOW AT LEAST 8 WORKING DAYS FOR PROCESSING THIS APPLICATION\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 45]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nUS DOMAIN TEMPLATE                    [6/93]\n\nPLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING TWO PAGE TEMPLATE TO (Us-Domain@isi.edu).\nSections or fields of this form marked with an asterisk (*) may be\ncopied as many times as necessary. (For example: If you had two phone\nnumbers for the Administrative Contact, you would use the same number\n\"6h\" twice.  PLEASE DO NOT ALTER THIS APPLICATION IN ANY WAY.\n=====================================================================\n      1.   REGISTRATION TYPE\n           (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete..:\n\n      2.*  FULLY-QUALIFIED DOMAIN NAME:\n\n      3.   ORGANIZATION INFORMATION\n      3a.  Organization Name.....:\n      3b.  Address Line 1........:\n      3b.  Address Line 2........:\n      3c.  City..................:\n      3d.  State.................:\n      3e.  Zip/Code..............:\n\n      4.   DESCRIPTION OF ORG/DOMAIN:\n\n      5.   Date Operational......:\n\n      6.   ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT OF ORG/DOMAIN\n      6a.  NIChandle (if known)..:\n      6b.  Whole Name............:\n      6c.  Organization Name.....:\n      6d.  Address Line 1........:\n      6d.  Address Line 2........:\n      6e.  City..................:\n      6f.  State.................:\n      6g.  Zip/Code..............:\n      6h.* Voice Phone...........:\n      6i.* Electronic Mailbox....:\n\n      7.   TECHNICAL AND ZONE CONTACT\n      7a.  NIChandle (if known)..:\n      7b.  Whole Name............:\n      7c.  Organization Name.....:\n      7d.  Address Line 1........:\n      7d.  Address Line 2........:\n      7e.  City..................:\n      7f.  State.................:\n      7g.  Zip/Code..............:\n      7h.* Voice Phone...........:\n      7i.* Electronic Mailbox....:\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 46]\nRFC 1480\nThe US Domain                     June 1993\nFILL OUT QUESTIONS 8 AND 9 FOR DELEGATIONS ONLY (i.e., those\norganizations running name servers for a branch of the US Domain\nname space, for example:  k12.<state>.us).\n\n      8.   PRIMARY SERVER: CONTACT INFO, HOSTNAME, NETADDRESS\n      8a.  NIChandle (if known)..:\n      8b.  Whole Name............:\n      8c.  Organization Name.....:\n      8d.  Address Line 1........:\n      8d.  Address Line 2........:\n      8e.  City..................:\n      8f.  State.................:\n      8g.  Zip/Code..............:\n      8h.* Voice Phone...........:\n      8i.* Electronic Mailbox....:\n      8j.  Hostname..............:\n      8k.* IP Address............:\n      8l.* HARDWARE..............:\n      8m.* OPERATING SYS.........:\n\n      9. * SECONDARY SERVER: HOSTNAME, NETADDRESS\n      9a.* Hostname..............:\n      9b.* IP Address............:\n      9c.* HARDWARE..............:\n      9d.* OPERATING SYS.........:\n\nFILL OUT QUESTION 10 FOR DIRECT REGISTRATIONS IP HOSTS\n\n     10.   RESOURCE RECORDS (RRs) FOR IP INTERNET HOSTS\n     10a.  DOMAIN NAME...........:\n     10b.* IP ADDRESS (required).:\n     10c.  HARDWARE..............:\n     10d.  OPERATING SYS.........:\n     10e.  WKS ..................:\n     10f.* MX....................:\n\nFILL OUT QUESTIONS 11 AND 12 FOR NON-IP HOSTS (such as UUCP)\n\n     11.   FORWARDING HOST INFORMATION\n     11a.  Forwarding Host......:\n     11b.  Contact Name.........:\n     11c.  Contact Email........:\n\n     12.   RESOURCE RECORDS (RRs) FOR NON-IP HOSTS (UUCP)\n     12a.  DOMAIN NAME...........:\n     12b.  HARDWARE..............:\n     12c.  OPERATING SYS.........:\n     12d.* MX (required).........:\n\n\n\nCooper & Postel                                                [Page 47]\nRFC\n1480\n: The US Domain\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1993-06-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1993-06-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1993-06-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:25.526060+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "b80d0175-bfae-4667-b0e7-32910ee3ff6d", "source_id": "93e2bfddc43e57dd340a6916", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1160", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1160/", "artifact_sha256": "93e2bfddc43e57dd340a691665ca9090d3000bedcdf59cb94644365e0857b885", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 151381, "title": "RFC 1160: The Internet Activities Board", "language": "en", "text_length": 27341, "characters": 27341, "text": "RFC 1160: Internet Activities Board | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1160\n:\nInternet Activities Board\nV. Cerf\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                            V. Cerf\nRequest for Comments:  1160                                          NRI\nObsoletes: RFC\n1120\nMay 1990\nThe Internet Activities Board\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This RFC provides a history and description of the Internet\n   Activities Board (IAB) and its subsidiary organizations.  This memo\n   is for informational use and does not constitute a standard.  This is\n   a revision of\nRFC 1120\n.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n1\n. Introduction\nIn 1968, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)\n   initiated an effort to develop a technology which is now known as\n   packet switching.  This technology had its roots in message switching\n   methods, but was strongly influenced by the development of low-cost\n   minicomputers and digital telecommunications techniques during the\n   mid-1960's [BARAN 64, ROBERTS 70, HEART 70, ROBERTS 78].  A very\n   useful survey of this technology can be found in [IEEE 78].\n\n   During the early 1970's, DARPA initiated a number of programs to\n   explore the use of packet switching methods in alternative media\n   including mobile radio, satellite and cable [IEEE 78].  Concurrently,\n   Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) began an exploration of packet\n   switching on coaxial cable which ultimately led to the development of\n   Ethernet local area networks [METCALFE 76].\n\n   The successful implementation of packet radio and packet satellite\n   technology raised the question of interconnecting ARPANET with other\n   types of packet nets.  A possible solution to this problem was\n   proposed by Cerf and Kahn [CERF 74] in the form of an internetwork\n   protocol and a set of gateways to connect the different networks.\n   This solution was further developed as part of a research program in\n   internetting sponsored by DARPA and resulted in a collection of\n   computer communications protocols based on the original Transmission\n   Control Protocol (TCP) and its lower level counterpart, Internet\n   Protocol (IP).  Together, these protocols, along with many others\n   developed during the course of the research, are referred to as the\n   TCP/IP Protocol Suite [RFC 1140, LEINER 85, POSTEL 85, CERF 82, CLARK\n   86].\n\n   In the early stages of the Internet research program, only a few\n   researchers worked to develop and test versions of the internet\n   protocols.  Over time, the size of this activity increased until, in\nCerf                                                           [Page 1]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\n1979, it was necessary to form an informal committee to guide the\n   technical evolution of the protocol suite.  This group was called the\n   Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB) and was established by\n   Dr. Vinton Cerf who was then the DARPA program manager for the\n   effort. Dr. David C. Clark of the Laboratory for Computer Science at\n   Massachusetts Institute of Technology was named the chairman of this\n   committee.\n\n   In January, 1983, the Defense Communications Agency, then responsible\n   for the operation of the ARPANET, declared the TCP/IP protocol suite\n   to be standard for the ARPANET and all systems on the network\n   converted from the earlier Network Control Program (NCP) to TCP/IP.\n   Late that year, the ICCB was reorganized by Dr. Barry Leiner, Cerf's\n   successor at DARPA, around a series of task forces considering\n   different technical aspects of internetting.  The re-organized group\n   was named the Internet Activities Board.\n\n   As the Internet expanded, it drew support from U.S. Government\n   organizations including DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF),\n   the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space\n   Administration (NASA).  Key managers in these organizations,\n   responsible for computer networking research and development, formed\n   an informal Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC)\n   to coordinate U.S. Government support for and development and use of\n   the Internet system.  The FRICC sponsored most of the U.S. research\n   on internetting, including support for the Internet Activities Board\n   and its subsidiary organizations.\n\n   In 1990, the FRICC was reorganized as part of a larger initiative\n   sponsored by the networking subcommittee of the Federal Coordinating\n   Committee on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET).  The\n   reorganization created the Federal Networking Council (FNC) and its\n   Working Groups.  The membership of the FNC included all the former\n   FRICC members and many other U.S. Government representatives.  The\n   first chairman of the FNC is Dr. Charles Brownstein of the National\n   Science Foundation.  The FNC is the Federal Government's body for\n   coordinating the agencies that support the Internet.  It provides\n   liaison to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (headed by the\n   President's Science Advisor) which is responsible for setting science\n   and technology policy affecting the Internet.  It endorses and\n   employs the existing planning and operational activities of the\n   community-based bodies that have grown up to manage the Internet in\n   the United States.  The FNC plans to involve user and supplier\n   communities through creation of an external advisory board and will\n   coordinate Internet activities with other Federal initiatives ranging\n   from the Human Genome and Global Change programs to educational\n   applications.  The FNC has also participated in planning for the\n   creation of a National Research and Education Network in the United\nCerf                                                           [Page 2]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\nStates.\n\n   At the international level, a Coordinating Committee for\n   Intercontinental Research Networks (CCIRN) has been formed which\n   includes the U.S. FNC and its counterparts in North America and\n   Europe.  Co-chaired by the executive directors of the FNC and the\n   European Association of Research Networks (RARE), the CCIRN provides\n   a forum for cooperative planning among the principal North American\n   and European research networking bodies.\n2\n. Internet Activities Board\nThe Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the coordinating committee for\n   Internet design, engineering and management.  The Internet is a\n   collection of over two thousand of packet switched networks located\n   principally in the U.S., but also in many other parts of the world,\n   all interlinked and operating using the protocols of the TCP/IP\n   protocol suite.  The IAB is an independent committee of researchers\n   and professionals with a technical interest in the health and\n   evolution of the Internet system.  Membership changes with time to\n   adjust to the current realities of the research interests of the\n   participants, the needs of the Internet system and the concerns of\n   constituent members of the Internet.\n\n   IAB members are deeply committed to making the Internet function\n   effectively and evolve to meet a large scale, high speed future.  New\n   members are appointed by the chairman of the IAB, with the advice and\n   consent of the remaining members.  The chairman serves a term of two\n   years and is elected by the members of the IAB.  The IAB focuses on\n   the TCP/IP protocol suite, and extensions to the Internet system to\n   support multiple protocol suites.\n\n   The IAB has two principal subsidiary task forces:\n\n      1)  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\n\n      2)  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)\n\n   Each of these Task Forces is led by a chairman and guided by a\n   Steering Group which reports to the IAB through its chairman.  Each\n   task force is organized, by the chairman, as required, to carry out\n   its charter.  For the most part, a collection of Working Groups\n   carries out the work program of each Task Force.\n\n   All decisions of the IAB are made public.  The principal vehicle by\n   which IAB decisions are propagated to the parties interested in the\n   Internet and its TCP/IP protocol suite is the Request for Comment\n   (RFC) note series.  The archival RFC series was initiated in 1969 by\nCerf                                                           [Page 3]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\nDr. Stephen D. Crocker as a means of documenting the development of\n   the original ARPANET protocol suite [\nRFC 1000\n].  The editor-in-chief\n   of this series, Dr. Jonathan B. Postel, has maintained the quality of\n   and managed the archiving of this series since its inception.  A\n   small proportion of the RFCs document Internet standards.  Most of\n   them are intended to stimulate comment and discussion.  The small\n   number which document standards are especially marked in a \"status\"\n   section to indicate the special status of the document.  An RFC\n   summarizing the status of all standard RFCs is published regularly\n   [\nRFC 1140\n].\n\n   RFCs describing experimental protocols, along with other submissions\n   whose intent is merely to inform, are typically submitted directly to\n   the RFC editor.  A Standard Protocol starts out as a Proposed\n   Standard and may be promoted to Draft Standard and finally Standard\n   after suitable review, comment, implementation and testing.\n\n   Prior to publication of a Proposed Standard RFC, it is made available\n   for comment through an on-line Internet-Draft directory.  Typically,\n   these Internet-Drafts are working documents of the IAB or of the\n   working groups of the Internet Engineering and Research Task Forces.\n   Internet-Drafts are either submitted to the RFC editor for\n   publication or discarded within 3-6 months.  Prior to promotion to\n   Draft Standard or Standard, an Internet-Draft publication and review\n   cycle may be initiated if significant changes to the RFC are\n   contemplated.\n\n   The IAB performs the following functions:\n\n      1)   Sets Internet Standards,\n\n      2)   Manages the RFC publication process,\n\n      3)   Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF,\n\n      4)   Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying\n           long-range problems and opportunities,\n\n      5)   Acts as an international technical policy liaison and\n           representative for the Internet community, and\n\n      6)   Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated within\n           the IETF or IRTF frameworks.\n\n   To supplement its work via electronic mail, the IAB meets quarterly\n   to review the condition of the Internet, to review and approve\n   proposed changes or additions to the TCP/IP suite of protocols, to\n   set technical development priorities, to discuss policy matters which\nCerf                                                           [Page 4]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\nmay need the attention of the Internet sponsors, and to agree on the\n   addition or retirement of IAB members and on the addition or\n   retirement of task forces reporting to the IAB.  Typically, two of\n   the quarterly meetings are by means of video teleconferencing\n   (provided, when possible, through the experimental Internet packet\n   video-conferencing system).  The minutes of the IAB meetings are\n   published in the Internet Monthly on-line report.\n\n   The IAB membership is currently as follows:\n\n            Vinton Cerf/CNRI              Chairman\n            Robert Braden/USC-ISI         Executive Director\n            David Clark/MIT-LCS           IRTF Chairman\n            Phillip Gross/CNRI            IETF Chairman\n            Jonathan Postel/USC-ISI       RFC Editor\n            Hans-Werner Braun/Merit       Member\n            Lyman Chapin/DG               Member\n            Stephen Kent/BBN              Member\n            Anthony Lauck/Digital         Member\n            Barry Leiner/RIACS            Member\n            Daniel Lynch/Interop, Inc.    Member\n3\n.  The Internet Engineering Task Force\nThe Internet has grown to encompass a large number of widely\n   geographically dispersed networks in academic and research\n   communities.  It now provides an infrastructure for a broad community\n   with various interests.  Moreover, the family of Internet protocols\n   and system components has moved from experimental to commercial\n   development.  To help coordinate the operation, management and\n   evolution of the Internet, the IAB established the Internet\n   Engineering Task Force (IETF).  The IETF is chaired by Mr. Phillip\n   Gross and managed by its Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).\n   The IAB has delegated to the IESG the general responsibility for\n   making the Internet work and for the resolution of all short- and\n   mid-range protocol and architectural issues required to make the\n   Internet function effectively.\n\n   The charter of the IETF includes:\n\n      1) Responsibility for specifying the short and mid-term\n         Internet protocols and architecture and recommending\n         standards for IAB approval.\n\n      2) Provision of a forum for the exchange of information within\n         the Internet community.\n\n      3) Identification of pressing and relevant short- to mid-range\nCerf                                                           [Page 5]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\noperational and technical problem areas and convening of\n         Working Groups to explore solutions.\n\n   The Internet Engineering Task Force is a large open community of\n   network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with\n   the Internet and the Internet protocol suite.  It is organized around\n   a set of eight technical areas, each managed by a technical area\n   director.  In addition to the IETF Chairman, the area directors make\n   up the IESG membership.  Each area director has primary\n   responsibility for one area of Internet engineering activity, and\n   hence for a subset of the IETF Working Groups.  The area directors\n   have jobs of critical importance and difficulty and are selected not\n   only for their technical expertise but also for their managerial\n   skills and judgment.  At present, the eight technical areas and\n   chairs are:\n\n            1) Applications             -  Russ Hobby/UC-Davis\n            2) Host and User Services   -  Craig Partridge/BBN\n            3) Internet Services        -  Noel Chiappa/Consultant\n            4) Routing                  -  Robert Hinden/BBN\n            5) Network Management       -  David Crocker/DEC\n            6) OSI Integration          -  Ross Callon/DEC and\n                                           Robert Hagens/UWisc.\n            7) Operations               -  Phill Gross/CNRI (Acting)\n            8) Security                 -  Steve Crocker/TIS\n\n   The work of the IETF is performed by subcommittees known as Working\n   Groups.  There are currently more than 40 of these.  Working Groups\n   tend to have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by completion of a\n   specific task, although there are exceptions.  The IETF is a major\n   source of proposed protocol standards, for final approval by the IAB.\n   The IETF meets quarterly and extensive minutes of the plenary\n   proceedings as well as reports from each of the working groups are\n   issued by the IAB Secretariat at the Corporation for National\n   Research Initiatives.\n4\n.  The Internet Research Task Force\nTo promote research in networking and the development of new\n   technology, the IAB established the Internet Research Task Force\n   (IRTF).\n\n   In the area of network protocols, the distinction between research\n   and engineering is not always clear, so there will sometimes be\n   overlap between activities of the IETF and the IRTF.  There is, in\n   fact, considerable overlap in membership between the two groups.\n   This overlap is regarded as vital for cross-fertilization and\n   technology transfer.  In general, the distinction between research\nCerf                                                           [Page 6]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\nand engineering is one of viewpoint and sometimes (but not always)\n   time-frame.  The IRTF is generally more concerned with understanding\n   than with products or standard protocols, although specific\n   experimental protocols may have to be developed, implemented and\n   tested in order to gain understanding.\n\n   The IRTF is a community of network researchers, generally with an\n   Internet focus.  The work of the IRTF is governed by its Internet\n   Research Steering Group (IRSG).  The chairman of the IRTF and IRSG is\n   David Clark.  The IRTF is organized into a number of Research Groups\n   (RGs) whose chairs of these are appointed by the chairman of the\n   IRSG. The RG chairs and others selected by the IRSG chairman serve on\n   the IRSG.  These groups typically have 10 to 20 members, and each\n   covers a broad area of research, pursuing specific topics, determined\n   at least in part by the interests of the members and by\n   recommendations of the IAB.\n\n   The current members of the IRSG are as follows:\n\n            David Clark/MIT LCS     -   Chairman\n            Robert Braden/USC-ISI   -   End-to-End Services\n            Douglas Comer/PURDUE    -   Member-at-Large\n            Deborah Estrin/USC      -   Autonomous Networks\n            Stephen Kent/BBN        -   Privacy and Security\n            Keith Lantz/Consultant  -   Collaboration Technology\n            David Mills/UDEL        -   Member-at-Large\n5\n.  The Near-term Agenda of the IAB\nThere are seven principal foci of IAB attention for the period 1989 -\n   1990:\n\n      1) Operational Stability\n      2) User Services\n      3) OSI Coexistence\n      4) Testbed Facilities\n      5) Security\n      6) Getting Big\n      7) Getting Fast\n\n   Operational stability of the Internet is a critical concern for all\n   of its users.  Better tools are needed for gathering operational\n   data, to assist in fault isolation at all levels and to analyze the\n   performance of the system.  Opportunities abound for increased\n   cooperation among the operators of the various Internet components\n   [\nRFC 1109\n].  Specific, known problems should be dealt with, such as\n   implementation deficiencies in some versions of the BIND domain name\n   service resolver software.  To the extent that the existing Exterior\nCerf                                                           [Page 7]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\nGateway Protocol (EGP) is only able to support limited topologies,\n   constraints on topological linkages and allowed transit paths should\n   be enforced until a more general Inter-Autonomous System routing\n   protocol can be specified.  Flexiblity for Internet implementation\n   would be enhanced by the adoption of a common internal gateway\n   routing protocol by all vendors of internet routers.  A major effort\n   is recommended to achieve conformance to the Host Requirements RFCs\n   which were published in the fourth quarter of calendar 1989.\n\n   Among the most needed user services, the White Pages (electronic\n   mailbox directory service) seems the most pressing.  Efforts should\n   be focused on widespread deployment of these capabilities in the\n   Internet by mid-1990.  The IAB recommends that existing white pages\n   facilities and newer ones, such as X.500, be populated with up-to-\n   date user information and made accessible to Internet users and users\n   of other systems (e.g., commercial email carriers) linked to the\n   Internet. Connectivity with commercial electronic mail carriers\n   should be vigorously pursued, as well as links to other network\n   research communities in Europe and the rest of the world.\n\n   Development and deployment of privacy-enhanced electronic mail\n   software should be accelerated in 1990 after release of public domain\n   software implementing the private electronic mail standards [RFC\n   1113,\nRFC 1114\nand\nRFC 1115\n].  Finally, support for new or enhanced\n   applications such as computer-based conferencing, multi-media\n   messaging and collaboration support systems should be developed.\n\n   The National Network Testbed (NNT) resources planned by the FRICC\n   should be applied to support conferencing and collaboration protocol\n   development and application experiments and to support multi-vendor\n   router interoperability testing (e.g., interior and exterior routing,\n   network management, multi-protocol routing and forwarding).\n\n   With respect to growth in the Internet, architectural attention\n   should be focused on scaling the system to hundreds of millions of\n   users and hundreds of thousands of networks.  The naming, addressing,\n   routing and navigation problems occasioned by such growth should be\n   analyzed.  Similarly, research should be carried out on analyzing the\n   limits to the existing Internet architecture, including the ability\n   of the present protocol suite to cope with speeds in the gigabit\n   range and latencies varying from microseconds to seconds in duration.\n\n   The Internet should be positioned to support the use of OSI protocols\n   by the end of 1990 or sooner, if possible.  Provision for multi-\n   protocol routing and forwarding among diverse vendor routes is one\n   important goal.  Introduction of X.400 electronic mail services and\n   interoperation with\nRFC 822\n/SMTP [RFC 822,\nRFC 821\n,\nRFC 987\n,\nRFC\n1026\n, and\nRFC 1148\n] should be targeted for 1990 as well.  These\nCerf                                                           [Page 8]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\nefforts will need to work in conjunction with the White Pages\n   services mentioned above.  The IETF, in particular, should establish\n   liaison with various OSI working groups (e.g., at NIST, RARE, Network\n   Management Forum) to coordinate planning for OSI introduction into\n   the Internet and to facilitate registration of information pertinent\n   to the Internet with the various authorities responsible for OSI\n   standards in the United States.\n\n   Finally, with respect to security, a concerted effort should be made\n   to develop guidance and documentation for Internet host managers\n   concerning configuration management, known security problems (and\n   their solutions) and software and technologies available to provide\n   enhanced security and privacy to the users of the Internet.\n\nREFERENCES\n\n       [BARAN 64]  Baran, P., et al, \"On Distributed Communications\",\n       Volumes I-XI, RAND Corporation Research Documents, August 1964.\n\n       [CERF 74]  Cerf V., and R. Kahn, \"A Protocol for Packet Network\n       Interconnection\", IEEE Trans. on Communications, Vol. COM-22,\n       No. 5, pp. 637-648, May 1974.\n\n       [CERF 82]  Cerf V., and E. Cain, \"The DoD Internet Protocol\n       Architecture\", Proceedings of the SHAPE Technology Center\n       Symposium on Interoperability of Automated Data Systems,\n       November 1982.  Also in Computer Networks and ISDN,\n       Vol. 17, No. 5, October 1983.\n\n       [CLARK 86]  Clark, D., \"The Design Philosophy of the DARPA\n       Internet protocols\", Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '88 Symposium,\n       Computer Communications Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 106-114,\n       August 1988.\n\n       [HEART 70]  Heart, F., Kahn, R., Ornstein, S., Crowther, W.,\n       and D. Walden, \"The Interface Message Processor for the ARPA\n       Computer Network\", AFIPS Conf. Proc. 36, pp. 551-567,\n       June 1970.\n\n       [IEEE 78]  Kahn, R. (Guest Editor), Uncapher, K. and\n       H. Van Trees (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the\n       IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Communication Networks,\n       Volume 66, No. 11, pp. 1303-1576, November 1978.\n\n       [IEEE 87]  Leiner, B. (Guest Editor), Nielson, D., and\n       F. Tobagi (Associate Guest Editors), Proceedings of the\n       IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Radio Networks, Volume 75,\n       No. 1, pp. 1-272, January 1987.\nCerf                                                           [Page 9]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\n[LEINER 85]  Leiner, B., Cole, R., Postel, J., and D. Mills,\n       \"The DARPA Protocol Suite\", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C.,\n       March 1985.  Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, March 1985.\n\n       [METCALFE 76]  Metcalfe, R., and D. Boggs, \"Ethernet:\n       Distributed Packet for Local Computer Networks\", Communications\n       of the ACM, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 395-404, July 1976.\n\n       [POSTEL 85]  Postel, J., \"Internetwork Applications Using the\n       DARPA Protocol Suite\", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C.,\n       March 1985.\n\n       [\nRFC 821\n]  Postel, J., \"Simple Mail Transfer Protocol\",\nRFC 821\n,\n       USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.\n\n       [\nRFC 822\n]  Crocker, D., \"Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet\n       Text Messages\",\nRFC 822\n, University of Delaware, August 1982.\n\n       [\nRFC 987\n]  Kille, S., \"Mapping between X.400 and\nRFC 822\n\",\n       University College London, June 1986.\n\n       [\nRFC 1000\n]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, \"The Request for\n       Comments Reference Guide\",\nRFC 1000\n, USC/Information Sciences\n       Institute, August 1987.\n\n       [\nRFC 1026\n]  Kille, S., \"Addendum to\nRFC 987\n: (Mapping between\n       X.400 and\nRFC 822\n)\",\nRFC 1026\n, University College London,\n       September 1987.\n\n       [\nRFC 1109\n]  Cerf, V., \"Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network\n       Management Review Group\",\nRFC 1109\n, NRI, August 1989.\n\n       [\nRFC 1113\n]  Linn, J., \"Privacy Enhancement for Internet\n       Electronic Mail: Part I -- Message Encipherment and\n       Authentication Procedures\",\nRFC 1113\n, IAB Privacy Task\n       Force, August 1989.\n\n       [\nRFC 1114\n]  Kent, S.,  and J. Linn, \"Privacy Enhancement for\n       Internet Electronic Mail: Part II -- Certificate-based Key\n       Management\",\nRFC 1114\n, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.\n\n       [\nRFC 1115\n]  Linn, J., \"Privacy Enhancement for Internet\n       Electronic Mail: Part III -- Algorithms, Modes and Identifiers\",\nRFC 1115\n, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.\n\n       [\nRFC 1140\n]  Postel, J., Editor, \"IAB Official Protocol\n       Standards\",\nRFC 1140\n, Internet Activities Board, May 1990.\nCerf                                                          [Page 10]\nRFC 1160\nThe IAB                        May 1990\n[\nRFC 1148\n]  Kille, S., \"Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021\n       and\nRFC 822\n\",\nRFC 1048\n, UCL, March 1990.\n\n       [ROBERTS 70]  Roberts, L., and B. Wessler, \"Computer Network\n       Development to Achieve Resource Sharing\", pp. 543-549,\n       Proc. SJCC 1970.\n\n       [ROBERTS 78]  Roberts, L., \"Evolution of Packet Switching\",\n       Proc.  IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 1307-1313, November 1978.\n\n   Note:  RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI\n   International, 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025, (1-800-\n   235-3155), or on-line via anonymous file transfer from NIC.DDN.MIL.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Vinton G. Cerf\n   Corporation for National Research Initiatives\n   1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100\n   Reston, VA 22091\n\n   Phone: (703) 620-8990\n\n   EMail: VCERF@NRI.RESTON.VA.US\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCerf                                                          [Page 11]\nRFC\n1160\n: Internet Activities Board\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1990-05-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1990-05-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1990-05-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:43.482374+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "b91b1c3f-461f-49e9-9293-7662e8be30fe", "source_id": "fcd03977e1f0fc9a6f01551f", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9499", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9499/", "artifact_sha256": "415f080103c968cb1dd2aa12e9880a505c02cad219231cd2184b1c8a9262b2c1", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 1655411, "title": "RFC 9499: DNS Terminology | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 105745, "characters": 105745, "text": "RFC 9499: DNS Terminology | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 9499\nInfo\nRFC\n9499\n:\nBCP\n219\n:\nDNS Terminology\nP. Hoffman\n,\nK. Fujiwara\nBest Current Practice\nAbstract\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of\ndifferent RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and developers of\nDNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has changed\nin the decades since the DNS was first defined. This document gives\ncurrent definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single\ndocument.\n¶\nThis document updates RFC 2308 by clarifying the definitions of \"forwarder\" and \"QNAME\".\nIt obsoletes RFC 8499 by adding multiple terms and clarifications.\nComprehensive lists of changed and new definitions can be found in Appendices A and B.\n¶\nStatus of This Memo\nThis memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.\n¶\nThis document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force\n(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has\nreceived public review and has been approved for publication by\nthe Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information\non BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.\n¶\nInformation about the current status of this document, any\nerrata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9499\n.\n¶\nCopyright Notice\nCopyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n¶\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttps://\ntrustee\n.ietf\n.org\n/license\n-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with\nrespect to this document. Code Components extracted from this\ndocument must include Revised BSD License text as described in\nSection 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without\nwarranty as described in the Revised BSD License.\n¶\n1.\nIntroduction\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) is a simple query-response protocol\nwhose messages in both directions have the same format. (\nSection 2\ngives a definition of \"global DNS\", which is often\nwhat people mean when they say \"the DNS\".) The protocol and message\nformat are defined in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n. These RFCs defined some terms, and later documents\ndefined others. Some of the terms from\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nhave somewhat different meanings now than\nthey did in 1987.\n¶\nThis document contains a collection of a wide variety of DNS-related terms,\norganized loosely by topic. Some of them have been precisely defined in earlier\nRFCs, some have been loosely defined in earlier RFCs, and some are not defined\nin an earlier RFC at all.\n¶\nOther organizations sometimes define DNS-related terms in their own way.\nFor example, the WHATWG defines \"domain\" at\n<\nhttps://\nurl\n.spec\n.whatwg\n.org\n/\n>\n.\nThe Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) has a good\nlexicon\n[\nRSSAC026\n]\n.\n¶\nMost of the definitions listed here represent the consensus definition of the DNS\ncommunity -- both protocol developers and operators. Some of the definitions\ndiffer from earlier RFCs, and those differences are noted.\nIn this document, where the consensus definition is the same as the one in\nan RFC, that RFC is quoted. Where the consensus definition has changed somewhat,\nthe RFC is mentioned but the new stand-alone definition is given.\nSee\nAppendix A\nfor a list of the definitions\nthat this document updates.\n¶\nIt is important to note that,\nduring the development of this document, it became clear that some DNS-related terms\nare interpreted quite differently by different DNS experts. Further, some terms\nthat are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions that are generally agreed to, but\nthat are different from the original definitions.\nThis document is a small revision to\n[\nRFC8499\n]\n; that document was\na substantial revision to\n[\nRFC7719\n]\n.\n¶\nNote that there is no single consistent definition of \"the DNS\". It can be considered to be some\ncombination of the following: a commonly used naming scheme for objects on the Internet; a distributed database representing\nthe names and certain properties of these objects; an architecture providing distributed\nmaintenance, resilience, and loose coherency for this database; and a simple query-response protocol\n(as mentioned below) implementing this architecture.\nSection 2\ndefines\n\"global DNS\" and \"private DNS\" as a way to deal with these differing definitions.\n¶\nCapitalization in DNS terms is often inconsistent among RFCs and\nvarious DNS practitioners. The capitalization used in this document is a best\nguess at current practices, and is not meant to indicate that other\ncapitalization styles are wrong or archaic.\nIn some cases, multiple styles of capitalization are used for the same term due to quoting\nfrom different RFCs.\n¶\nIn this document, the words \"byte\" and \"octet\" are used interchangeably\n.\nThey appear here because they both appear in the earlier RFCs that defined terms in the DNS.\n¶\nReaders should note that the terms in this document are grouped by topic.\nSomeone who is not already familiar with the DNS probably cannot\nlearn about the DNS from scratch by reading this document from front to back.\nInstead, skipping around may be the only way to get enough context to\nunderstand some of the definitions. This document has an index that might be useful for\nreaders who are attempting to learn the DNS by reading this document.\n¶\n2.\nNames\nNaming system:\nA naming system associates names with data. Naming systems have many significant facets\nthat help differentiate them from each other. Some commonly identified facets include:\n¶\nComposition of names\n¶\nFormat of names\n¶\nAdministration of names\n¶\nTypes of data that can be associated with names\n¶\nTypes of metadata for names\n¶\nProtocol for getting data from a name\n¶\nContext for resolving a name\n¶\nNote that this list is a small subset of facets that people have identified over time\nfor naming systems, and the IETF has yet to agree on a good set of facets that can be used\nto compare naming systems. For example, other facets might include \"protocol to update\ndata in a name\", \"privacy of names\", and \"privacy of data associated with names\", but\nthose are not as well defined as the ones listed above. The list here is chosen because it\nhelps describe the DNS and naming systems similar to the DNS.\n¶\nDomain name:\nAn ordered list of one or more labels.\n¶\nNote that this is a definition independent of the DNS RFCs (\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n), and the definition here\nalso applies to systems other than the DNS.\n[\nRFC1034\n]\ndefines the \"domain\nname space\" using mathematical trees and their nodes in graph theory, and that definition\nhas the same practical result as the definition here. Any path of a directed acyclic graph\ncan be represented by a domain name consisting of the labels of its nodes, ordered by\ndecreasing distance from the root(s) (which is the normal convention within the DNS,\nincluding this document). A domain name whose last label identifies a root of the graph is\nfully qualified; other domain names whose labels form a strict prefix of a fully qualified\ndomain name are relative to its first omitted node.\n¶\nAlso note that different IETF and non-IETF documents have used the term \"domain name\"\nin many different ways. It is common for earlier documents to use \"domain name\" to mean\n\"names that match the syntax in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n\", but possibly with additional\nrules such as \"and are, or will be, resolvable in the global DNS\" or \"but only using the\npresentation format\".\n¶\nLabel:\nAn ordered list of zero or more octets that makes up a portion of a domain name.\nUsing graph theory, a label identifies one node in a portion of the graph of all possible\ndomain names.\n¶\nGlobal DNS:\nUsing the short set of facets listed in \"Naming system\", the global DNS can be defined as\nfollows. Most of the rules here come from\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n, although the term \"global DNS\" has not been defined before now.\n¶\nComposition of names:\nA name in the global DNS has one or more\nlabels. The length of each label is between 0 and 63 octets\ninclusive. In a fully qualified domain name, the last label\nin the ordered list is 0 octets long; it is the only label whose\nlength may be 0 octets, and it is called the \"root\" or \"root label\".\nA domain name in the global DNS has a maximum total length of 255\noctets in the wire format; the root represents one octet for this\ncalculation.\n(Multicast DNS\n[\nRFC6762\n]\nallows names up to 255 bytes plus a terminating zero byte\nbased on a different interpretation of RFC 1035 and what is included in the 255 octets.)\n¶\nFormat of names:\nNames in the global DNS are domain names. There are three formats:\nwire format, presentation format, and common display.\n¶\nWire format:\nThe basic wire format for names in the\nglobal DNS is a list of labels ordered by decreasing distance from\nthe root, with the root label last. Each label is preceded by a\nlength octet.\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nalso\ndefines a compression scheme that modifies this format.\n¶\nPresentation format:\nThe presentation format for names\nin the global DNS is a list of labels ordered by decreasing\ndistance from the root, encoded as ASCII, with a \".\" character\nbetween each label. In presentation format, a fully qualified\ndomain name includes the root label and the associated separator\ndot. For example, in presentation format, a fully qualified domain\nname with two non-root labels is always shown as \"example.tld.\"\ninstead of \"example.tld\".\n[\nRFC1035\n]\ndefines a method for showing octets that do not\ndisplay in ASCII.\n¶\nCommon display format:\nThe common display format is\nused in applications and free text. It is the same as the\npresentation format, but showing the root label and the \".\" before\nit is optional and is rarely done. For example, in common display\nformat, a fully qualified domain name with two non-root labels is\nusually shown as \"example.tld\" instead of \"example.tld.\". Names in\nthe common display format are normally written such that the\ndirectionality of the writing system presents labels by decreasing\ndistance from the root (so, in both English and the C programming\nlanguage, the root or Top-Level Domain (TLD) label in the ordered\nlist is rightmost; but in Arabic, it may be leftmost, depending on\nlocal conventions).\n¶\nAdministration of names:\nAdministration is specified by delegation (see the\ndefinition of \"delegation\" in\nSection 7\n). Policies for administration of\nthe root zone in the global DNS are determined by the names operational community, which\nconvenes itself in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The\nnames operational community selects the IANA Functions Operator for the global DNS root\nzone.\nThe name servers that serve the root zone are provided by independent\nroot operators. Other zones in the global DNS have their own policies for\nadministration.\n¶\nTypes of data that can be associated with names:\nA name can have zero or more\nresource records associated with it. There are numerous types of resource records with\nunique data structures defined in many different RFCs and in the IANA registry at\n[\nIANA_\nResource_\nRegistry\n]\n.\n¶\nTypes of metadata for names:\nAny name that is published in the DNS appears as a set\nof resource records (see the definition of \"RRset\" in\nSection 5\n). Some names\ndo not, themselves, have data associated with them in the DNS, but they \"appear\" in the DNS\nanyway because they form part of a longer name that does have data associated with it (see\nthe definition of \"empty non-terminals\" in\nSection 7\n).\n¶\nProtocol for getting data from a name:\nThe protocol described in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nContext for resolving a name:\nThe global DNS root zone distributed by Public Technical Identifiers (PTI).\n¶\nPrivate DNS:\nNames that use the protocol described in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nbut do not rely on\nthe global DNS root zone or names that are otherwise not generally available on the\nInternet but are using the protocol described in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n. A system can\nuse both the global DNS and one or more private DNS systems; for example, see \"Split DNS\"\nin\nSection 6\n.\n¶\nNote that domain names that do not appear in the DNS and that are intended never to be\nlooked up using the DNS protocol are not part of the global DNS or a private DNS, even\nthough they are domain names.\n¶\nMulticast DNS (mDNS):\n\"Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to perform DNS-like operations on the local link in the\nabsence of any conventional Unicast DNS server. In addition, Multicast DNS designates a portion of\nthe DNS namespace to be free for local use, without the need to pay any annual fee, and without the\nneed to set up delegations or otherwise configure a conventional DNS server to answer for those\nnames.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6762\n]\n, Abstract)\nAlthough it uses a compatible wire format, mDNS is, strictly speaking, a different protocol than DNS.\nAlso, where the above quote says \"a portion of the DNS namespace\", it would be clearer to say \"a\nportion of the domain name space\". The names in mDNS are not intended to be looked up in the\nDNS.\n¶\nLocally served DNS zone:\nA locally served DNS zone is a special case of private DNS.\nNames are resolved using the DNS protocol in a local context.\n[\nRFC6303\n]\ndefines subdomains of IN-ADDR.ARPA\nthat are locally served zones.\nResolution of names through locally served zones may result in ambiguous results.\nFor example, the same name may resolve to different results in different locally served DNS\nzone contexts. The context for a locally served DNS zone may be explicit, such as those that are listed in\n[\nRFC6303\n]\nand\n[\nRFC7793\n]\n, or implicit, such as those defined by local DNS administration and not known to the\nresolution client.\n¶\nFully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN):\nThis is often just a clear way\nof saying the same thing as \"domain name of a node\", as outlined\nabove. However, the term is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, a fully qualified\ndomain name would include every label, including the zero-length label\nof the root; such a name would be written \"www\n.example\n.net\n.\"\n(note the terminating dot). But, because every name eventually shares\nthe common root, names are often written relative to the root\n(such as \"www\n.example\n.net\"\n) and are still called \"fully qualified\".\nThis term first appeared in\n[\nRFC819\n]\n. In this document, names\nare often written relative to the root.\n¶\nThe need for the term \"fully qualified domain name\" comes from the existence\nof partially qualified domain names, which are names where one or more\nof the last labels in the ordered list are omitted (for example,\na domain name of \"www\" relative to \"example.net\" identifies \"www\n.example\n.net\"\n).\nSuch relative names are understood only by context.\n¶\nHost name:\nThis term and its equivalent, \"hostname\", have been\nwidely used but are not defined in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\n,\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n,\n[\nRFC1123\n]\n, or\n[\nRFC2181\n]\n. The\nDNS was originally deployed into the Host Tables environment as\noutlined in\n[\nRFC952\n]\n, and it is likely that the term followed\ninformally from the definition there.\n\nOver time, the definition seems\nto have shifted. \"Host name\" is often meant to be a domain name that follows\nthe rules in\nSection 3.5\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n, which is also called the \"preferred name\nsyntax\". (In that syntax, every character in each label is a letter,\na digit, or a hyphen). Note that any label in a domain name can contain any octet\nvalue; hostnames are generally considered to be domain names where\nevery label follows the rules in the \"preferred name syntax\", with the\namendment that labels can start with ASCII digits (this amendment\ncomes from\nSection 2.1\nof [\nRFC1123\n]\n).\n¶\nPeople also sometimes use the term \"hostname\" to refer to just the first\nlabel of an FQDN, such as \"printer\" in \"printer\n.admin\n.example\n.com\"\n.\n(Sometimes this is formalized in configuration in operating systems.)\nIn addition, people sometimes use this term to\ndescribe any name that refers to a machine, and those might include\nlabels that do not conform to the \"preferred name syntax\".\n¶\nTop-Level Domain (TLD):\nA Top-Level Domain is a zone that is one layer below the\nroot, such as \"com\" or \"jp\". There is nothing special, from the point\nof view of the DNS, about TLDs. Most of them are also\ndelegation\n-centric zones (defined in\nSection 7\n), and there are significant policy issues\naround their operation.\nTLDs are often divided into sub-groups such as Country Code Top-Level Domains\n(ccTLDs), Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), and others; the\ndivision is a matter of policy and beyond the scope of this document.\n¶\nInternationalize\nd Domain Name (IDN):\nThe Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) protocol is\nthe standard mechanism for handling domain names with non-ASCII\ncharacters in applications in the DNS. The current standard at the\ntime of this writing, normally called \"IDNA2008\", is defined in\n[\nRFC5890\n]\n,\n[\nRFC5891\n]\n,\n[\nRFC5892\n]\n,\n[\nRFC5893\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC5894\n]\n. These documents define many IDN-specific terms\nsuch as \"LDH label\", \"A-label\", and \"U-label\".\n[\nRFC6365\n]\ndefines more terms that relate to\ninternationaliz\nation (some of which relate to IDNs);\n[\nRFC6055\n]\nhas a much more extensive discussion of IDNs,\nincluding some new terminology.\n¶\nSubdomain:\n\"A domain is a subdomain of another domain if it is contained within that domain. This relationship can be tested by\nseeing if the subdomain's name ends with the containing domain's name.\" (Quoted\nfrom\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.1\n)\n\nFor\nexample, in the host name \"nnn\n.mmm\n.example\n.com\", both \"mmm\n.example\n.com\" and \"nnn\n.mmm\n.example\n.com\" are subdomains of \"example.com\".\nNote that the comparisons here are done on whole labels; that is,\n\"ooo\n.example\n.com\" is not a subdomain of \"oo\n.example\n.com\"\n.\n¶\nAlias:\nThe owner of a CNAME resource record, or a subdomain of the owner of a\nDNAME resource record (DNAME records are defined in\n[\nRFC6672\n]\n). See also \"canonical name\".\n¶\nCanonical name:\nA CNAME resource record\n\"identifies its owner name as an\nalias, and specifies the corresponding canonical name in the RDATA\nsection of the RR.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6.2\n)\nThis usage of the word \"canonical\" is related to the mathematical\nconcept of \"canonical form\".\n¶\nCNAME:\n\"It has been traditional to refer to the [owner] of a CNAME record as 'a\nCNAME'. This is unfortunate, as 'CNAME' is an abbreviation of\n'canonical name', and the [owner] of a CNAME record is most certainly\nnot a canonical name.\"\n\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 10.1.1\n. The quoted\ntext has been changed from \"label\" to \"owner\".)\n¶\n3.\nDNS Response Codes\nSome of the response codes (RCODEs) that are defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nhave acquired their own\nshorthand names. All of the RCODEs are listed at\n[\nIANA_\nResource_\nRegistry\n]\n, although\nthat list uses mixed-case capitalization, while most documents use all caps.\nSome of the common names for values defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nare described in this section.\nThis section also includes an additional RCODE and a general definition.\nThe official list of all RCODEs is in the IANA registry.\n¶\nNOERROR:\nThis RCODE appears as \"No error condition\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nFORMERR:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Format error - The name server was unable to interpret the query\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nSERVFAIL:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Server failure - The name server was unable to process this query due to a problem with the name\nserver\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nNXDOMAIN:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Name Error [...] this code signifies that the domain name\nreferenced in the query does not exist.\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nestablished NXDOMAIN as a synonym for Name Error.\n¶\nNOTIMP:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Not Implemented - The name server does not support the requested kind of query\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nREFUSED:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Refused - The name server refuses to perform the specified operation for policy reasons. For\nexample, a name server may not wish to provide the information to the particular requester, or a\nname server may not wish to perform a particular operation (e.g., zone transfer) for particular\ndata.\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nNODATA:\n\"A pseudo RCODE which indicates that the name is valid, for\nthe given class, but [there] are no records of the given type. A NODATA\nresponse has to be inferred from the answer.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2308\n],\nSection 1\n)\n\"NODATA is indicated by an answer with the RCODE set to NOERROR and no\nrelevant answers in the Answer section. The Authority section will\ncontain an SOA record, or there will be no NS records there.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2308\n],\nSection 2.2\n)\nNote that referrals have a similar format to NODATA replies;\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nexplains how to distinguish them.\n¶\nThe term \"NXRRSET\" is sometimes used as a synonym for NODATA. However, this is a mistake, given\nthat NXRRSET is a specific error code defined in\n[\nRFC2136\n]\n.\n¶\nNegative response:\nA response that indicates that a particular RRset does not exist\nor whose RCODE indicates that the nameserver cannot answer.\nSections\n2\nand\n7\nof\n[\nRFC2308\n]\ndescribe the types of negative responses in detail.\n¶\n4.\nDNS Transactions\nThe header of a DNS message is its first 12 octets. Many of the fields and flags in\nthe diagrams in Sections\n4.1.1\nthrough\n4.1.3\nof\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nare referred to by their names\nin each diagram.\n\nFor example, the response codes are called \"RCODEs\",\nthe data for a record is called the \"RDATA\", and the\nauthoritative answer bit is often called \"the AA flag\" or \"the AA bit\".\n¶\nClass:\nA class \"identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol\". (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6\n)\n\n\"The DNS tags all data with a class as well as the type, so that we can allow parallel use\nof different formats for data of type address.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 2.2\n)\nIn practice, the class for nearly every query is \"IN\" (the Internet).\n\nThere are some queries for \"CH\" (the Chaos class), but they are usually for the purposes of\ninformation about the server itself rather than for a different type of address.\n¶\nQNAME:\nThe most commonly used rough definition is that the QNAME is a field in the Question section of a\nquery.\n\"A standard query specifies a target domain name (QNAME), query type (QTYPE), and query\nclass (QCLASS) and asks for RRs which match.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.7.1\n)\nStrictly speaking, the definition comes from\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 4.1.2\n, where the QNAME is defined in respect of the Question\nsection.\nThis definition appears to be applied consistently, as the discussion\nof inverse queries in\nSection 6.4.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\nrefers to the \"owner name of\nthe query RR and its TTL\" because inverse queries populate the Answer section\nand leave the Question section empty. (Inverse queries\nare deprecated in\n[\nRFC3425\n]\n; thus, relevant\ndefinitions do not appear in this document.)\n¶\nHowever,\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nhas an alternate definition that\nputs the QNAME in the answer (or series of answers) instead of the\nquery. It defines QNAME as\n\n\"...the name in the query section of an\nanswer, or where this resolves to a CNAME, or CNAME chain, the data\nfield of the last CNAME. The last CNAME in this sense is that which\ncontains a value which does not resolve to another CNAME.\"\nThis definition has a certain internal logic, because of the way CNAME\nsubstitution works and the definition of CNAME. If a name server does\nnot find an RRset that matches a query, but does find the same name in\nthe same class with a CNAME record, then the name server \"includes the\nCNAME record in the response and restarts the query at the domain name\nspecified in the data field of the CNAME record.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6.2\n) This is made explicit in the\nresolution algorithm outlined in\nSection 4.3.2\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n, which says to \"change QNAME to the canonical name\nin the CNAME RR, and go back to step 1\" in the case of a CNAME RR.\nSince a CNAME record explicitly declares that the owner name is\ncanonically named what is in the RDATA, then there is a way to view\nthe new name (i.e., the name that was in the RDATA of the CNAME RR) as\nalso being the QNAME.\n¶\nHowever, this creates confusion because the response to a\nquery that results in CNAME processing contains in the echoed Question\nsection one QNAME (the name in the original query) and a second QNAME\nthat is in the data field of the last CNAME. The confusion comes from\nthe iterative\n/recursive mode of resolution, which finally returns an\nanswer that need not actually have the same owner name as the QNAME\ncontained in the original query.\n¶\nTo address this potential confusion, it is helpful to distinguish\nbetween three meanings:\n¶\nQNAME (original):\nThe name actually sent in the Question section in the original query, which is\nalways echoed in the (final) reply in the Question section when the QR bit is set to 1.\n¶\nQNAME (effective):\nA name actually resolved, which is either the name originally queried\nor a name received in a CNAME chain response.\n¶\nQNAME (final):\nThe name actually resolved, which is either the name actually queried or else\nthe last name in a CNAME chain response.\n¶\nNote that, because the definition in\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nis\nactually for a different concept than what was in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\n, it would have been better if\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nhad used a different name for that concept. In\ngeneral use today, QNAME almost always means what is defined above as\n\"QNAME (original)\".\n¶\nReferrals:\nA type of response in which a server, signaling that it is not\n(completely) authoritative for an answer, provides the querying\nresolver with an alternative place to send its query. Referrals can\nbe partial.\n¶\nA referral arises when a server is not performing recursive service\nwhile answering a query. It appears in step 3(b) of the algorithm in\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 4.3.2\n.\n¶\nThere are two types of referral response. The first is a downward\nreferral (sometimes described as \"delegation response\"), where the\nserver is authoritative for some portion of the QNAME. The Authority\nsection RRset's RDATA contains the name servers specified at the\nreferred-to zone cut. In normal DNS operation, this kind of response\nis required in order to find names beneath a delegation. The bare\nuse of \"referral\" means this kind of referral, and many people believe\nthat this is the only legitimate kind of referral in the DNS.\n¶\nThe second is an upward referral (sometimes described as \"root\nreferral\"), where the server is not authoritative for any portion of\nthe QNAME. When this happens, the referred-to zone in the Authority\nsection is usually the root zone (\".\"). In normal DNS operation, this\nkind of response is not required for resolution or for correctly\nanswering any query. There is no requirement that any server send\nupward referrals. Some people regard upward referrals as a sign of a\nmisconfiguratio\nn or error. Upward referrals always need some sort of\nqualifier (such as \"upward\" or \"root\") and are never identified simply by\nthe word \"referral\".\n¶\nA response that has only a referral contains an empty Answer\nsection. It contains the NS RRset for the referred-to zone in the\nAuthority section. It may contain RRs that provide addresses in the\nAdditional section. The AA bit is clear.\n¶\nIn the case where the query matches an alias, and the server is not\nauthoritative for the target of the alias but is authoritative for\nsome name above the target of the alias, the resolution algorithm will\nproduce a response that contains both the authoritative answer for the\nalias and a referral. Such a partial answer and referral\nresponse has data in the Answer section. It has the NS RRset for the\nreferred-to zone in the Authority section. It may contain RRs that\nprovide addresses in the Additional section. The AA bit is set\nbecause the first name in the Answer section matches the QNAME and the\nserver is authoritative for that answer (see\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 4.1.1\n).\n¶\n5.\nResource Records\nRR:\nAn acronym for resource record. (See\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6\n.)\n¶\nRRset:\nA set of resource records \"with the same label, class and type, but with different\ndata\" (according to\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 5\n). Also written as \"RRSet\" in some documents. As a clarification,\n\"same label\" in this definition means \"same owner name\".\nIn addition,\n[\nRFC2181\n]\nstates that \"the TTLs of all RRs in an RRSet must be the same\".\n¶\nNote that RRSIG resource records do not match this definition.\n[\nRFC4035\n]\nsays:\n¶\nAn RRset\nMAY\nhave multiple RRSIG RRs associated\nwith it. Note that as RRSIG RRs are closely tied to the RRsets\nwhose signatures they contain, RRSIG RRs, unlike all other DNS RR\ntypes, do not form RRsets. In particular, the TTL values among\nRRSIG RRs with a common owner name do not follow the RRset rules\ndescribed in\n[\nRFC2181\n]\n.\n¶\nMaster file:\n\"Master files are text files that contain RRs in text form. Since the contents of a zone\ncan be expressed in the form of a list of RRs a master file is most often used to define a\nzone, though it can be used to list a cache's contents.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 5\n)\nMaster files are sometimes called \"zone files\".\n¶\nPresentation format:\nThe text format used in master files. This format is shown but not formally defined in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nor\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n. The term \"presentation format\"\nfirst appears in\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n.\n¶\nEDNS:\nThe extension mechanisms for DNS, defined in\n[\nRFC6891\n]\n. Sometimes called \"EDNS0\" or \"EDNS(0)\"\nto indicate the version number.\nEDNS allows DNS clients and servers to specify message\nsizes larger than the original 512-octet limit, to expand the response code space, and\nto carry additional options that affect the handling of a DNS query.\n¶\nOPT:\nA pseudo-RR (sometimes called a \"meta-RR\") that is used only to contain\ncontrol information pertaining to the question\n-and\n-answer sequence of a specific\ntransaction. (Definition paraphrased from\n[\nRFC6891\n],\nSection 6.1.1\n.) It is used by EDNS.\n¶\nOwner:\n\"The domain name where the RR is found.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6\n) Often appears in the term \"owner name\".\n¶\nSOA field names:\nDNS documents, including the definitions here, often refer to the fields in the\nRDATA of an SOA resource record by field name.\n\"SOA\" stands for \"start of a zone of authority\".\nThose fields are defined in\nSection 3.3.13\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\nThe names (in the order they appear in the SOA RDATA) are MNAME, RNAME, SERIAL, REFRESH, RETRY,\nEXPIRE, and MINIMUM.\nNote that the meaning of the MINIMUM field is updated in\nSection 4\nof [\nRFC2308\n]\n; the new definition\nis that the MINIMUM field is only \"the TTL to be used for negative responses\".\nThis document tends to use field names instead of terms that describe the fields.\n¶\nTTL:\nThe maximum \"time to live\" of a resource record.\n\n\"A TTL value is an unsigned\nnumber, with a minimum value of 0, and a maximum value of 2147483647. That is, a\nmaximum of 2^31 - 1. When transmitted, this value shall be encoded in the less\nsignificant 31 bits of the 32 bit TTL field, with the most significant, or sign,\nbit set to zero.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 8\n)\nNote that\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nerroneously stated that this is a signed integer; that was fixed by\n[\nRFC2181\n]\n.\n¶\nThe TTL \"specifies the time interval that the resource record may be cached\nbefore the source of the information should again be consulted.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 3.2.1\n)\nSection 4.1.3\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\nstates \"the time interval (in seconds) that the resource\nrecord may be cached before it should be discarded\". Despite being defined for a resource record, the TTL of every\nresource record in an RRset is required to be the same (\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 5.2\n).\n¶\nThe reason that the TTL is the maximum time to live is that a cache operator\nmight decide to shorten the time to live for operational purposes, for example, if\nthere is a policy to disallow TTL values over a certain number.\nSome servers are known to ignore the TTL on some RRsets (such as when the authoritative data\nhas a very short TTL) even though this is against the advice in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n.\nAn RRset can be flushed from the cache before the end of the TTL interval,\nat which point, the value of the TTL becomes unknown because the RRset\nwith which it was associated no longer exists.\n¶\nThere is also the concept of a \"default TTL\" for a zone, which can be a configuration\nparameter in the server software. This is often expressed by a default for the\nentire server, and a default for a zone using the $TTL directive\nin a zone file. The $TTL directive was added to the master file\nformat by\n[\nRFC2308\n]\n.\n¶\nClass independent:\nA resource record type whose syntax and semantics are the same for every DNS\nclass.\nA resource record type that is not class independent has different meanings, depending on the\nDNS class of the record or if the meaning is undefined for some classes.\nMost resource record types are defined for class 1 (IN, the Internet),\nbut many are undefined for other classes.\n¶\nAddress records:\nRecords whose type is either A or AAAA.\n[\nRFC2181\n]\ninformally defines these as \"(A, AAAA, etc)\".\nNote that new types of address records could be defined in the future.\n¶\n6.\nDNS Servers and Clients\nThis section defines the terms used for the systems that act as DNS\nclients, DNS servers, or both. In past RFCs, DNS servers are\nsometimes called \"name servers\", \"nameservers\", or just\n\"servers\". There is no formal definition of \"DNS server\", but RFCs\ngenerally assume that it is an Internet server that listens for\nqueries and sends responses using the DNS protocol defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nand its successors.\n¶\nIt is important to note that the terms \"DNS server\" and \"name\nserver\" require context in order to understand the services being\nprovided. Both authoritative servers and recursive resolvers are often\ncalled \"DNS servers\" and \"name servers\" even though they serve\ndifferent roles (but may be part of the same software package).\n¶\nFor terminology specific to the global DNS root server system, see\n[\nRSSAC026\n]\n. That document defines terms such as \"root\nserver\", \"root server operator\", and terms that are specific to the\nway that the root zone of the global DNS is served.\n¶\nResolver:\nA program \"that extract[s] information from name\nservers in response to client requests.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 2.4\n) A resolver performs\nqueries for a name, type, and class, and receives responses. The\nlogical function is called \"resolution\". In practice, the term is\nusually referring to some specific type of resolver\n(some of which are defined below), and understanding\nthe use of the term depends on understanding the context.\n¶\nA related term is \"resolve\", which is not formally defined in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nor\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n. An imputed definition might be \"asking a question that\nconsists of a domain name, class, and type, and receiving some sort of response\".\nSimilarly, an imputed definition of \"resolution\" might be \"the response received\nfrom resolving\".\n¶\nStub resolver:\nA resolver that cannot perform all resolution\nitself. Stub resolvers generally depend on a recursive resolver to undertake the\nactual resolution function. Stub resolvers are discussed but never\nfully defined in\nSection 5.3.1\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.\nThey are fully defined in\nSection 6.1.3.1\nof [\nRFC1123\n]\n.\n¶\nIterative mode:\nA resolution mode of a server that receives DNS\nqueries and responds with a referral to another server.\nSection 2.3\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\ndescribes this as \"The server refers the client to\nanother server and lets the client pursue the query.\"\nA resolver that works in iterative mode is sometimes called an \"iterative\nresolver\".\nSee also \"iterative resolution\" later in this section.\n¶\nRecursive mode:\nA resolution mode of a server that receives DNS\nqueries and either responds to those queries from a local cache or\nsends queries to other servers in order to get the final answers to\nthe original queries.\nSection 2.3\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\ndescribes this as \"the\nfirst server pursues the query for the client at another server\".\nSection 4.3.1\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\nsays: \"in [recursive]\nmode the name server acts in the role of a resolver and\nreturns either an error or the answer, but never referrals.\"\nThat same section also says:\n¶\nThe recursive mode occurs when a query with RD set arrives at a server which\nis willing to provide recursive service; the client can verify that\nrecursive mode was used by checking that both RA and RD are set in the\nreply.\n¶\nA server operating in recursive mode may be thought of as having a name\nserver side (which is what answers the query) and a resolver side\n(which performs the resolution function). Systems operating\nin this mode are commonly called \"recursive servers\". Sometimes they\nare called \"recursive resolvers\". In practice, it is not possible to know\nin advance whether the server that one is querying will also perform\nrecursion; both terms can be observed in use interchangeably\n.\n¶\nRecursive resolver:\nA resolver that acts in recursive mode.\nIn general, a recursive resolver is expected to cache the answers it receives\n(which would make it a full-service resolver), but some recursive resolvers might not cache.\n¶\n[\nRFC4697\n]\ntried to differentiate between a\nrecursive resolver and an iterative resolver.\n¶\nRecursive query:\nA query with the Recursion Desired (RD) bit set to 1 in the header. (See\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.) If recursive service is available and is requested by the RD bit in the query,\nthe server uses its resolver to answer the query. (See\nSection 4.3.2\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.)\n¶\nNon-recursive query:\nA query with the Recursion Desired (RD) bit set to 0 in the header. A server can answer\nnon-recursive queries using only local information: the response contains either an error, the\nanswer, or a referral to some other server \"closer\" to the answer.\n(See\nSection 4.3.1\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.)\n¶\nIterative resolution:\nA name server may be presented with a query that can only be answered by some other server. The two\ngeneral approaches to dealing with this problem are \"recursive\", in which the first server pursues\nthe query on behalf of the client at another server, and \"iterative\", in which the server refers the client\nto another server and lets the client pursue the query there. (See\nSection 2.3\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.)\n¶\nIn iterative resolution, the client repeatedly makes non-recursive queries and follows referrals\nand/or aliases. The iterative resolution algorithm is described in\nSection 5.3.3\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.\n¶\nFull resolver:\nThis term is used in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n, but it is not defined there. RFC\n1123 defines a \"full-service resolver\" that may or may not be what was intended\nby \"full resolver\" in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n.\nThis term is not properly defined in any RFC, and there is no consensus on what the term means.\nThe use of this term without proper context is discouraged.\n¶\nFull-service resolver:\nSection 6.1.3.1\nof [\nRFC1123\n]\ndefines this term\nas a resolver that acts in recursive mode with a cache (and meets\nother requirements).\n¶\nPriming:\n\"The act of finding the list of root servers from a\nconfiguration that lists some or all of the purported IP addresses of\nsome or all of those root servers.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC8109\n],\nSection 2\n)\nIn order to operate in recursive mode, a resolver needs to know the address of at least one root server.\nPriming is most often done from a configuration setting that contains a\nlist of authoritative servers for the root zone.\n¶\nRoot hints:\n\"Operators who manage a DNS recursive resolver typically need to configure\na 'root hints file'.\nThis file contains the names and IP addresses of the authoritative name servers\nfor the root zone, so the software can bootstrap the DNS resolution process.\nFor many pieces of software, this list comes built into the software.\" (Quoted from\n[\nIANA_\nRoot\nFiles\n]\n)\nThis file is often used in priming.\n¶\nNegative caching:\n\"The storage of knowledge that something does not exist, cannot\nor does not give an answer.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2308\n],\nSection 1\n)\n¶\nAuthoritative server:\n\"A server that knows the content of a DNS zone from local knowledge, and thus can answer\nqueries about that zone without needing to query other servers.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2182\n],\nSection 2\n)\nAn authoritative server is named in the NS (\"name server\") record in a zone.\nIt is a system that responds to DNS queries with information about\nzones for which it has been configured to answer with the AA flag in\nthe response header set to 1. It is a server that has authority over\none or more DNS zones. Note that it is possible for an authoritative\nserver to respond to a query without the parent zone delegating\nauthority to that server. Authoritative servers also provide\n\"referrals\", usually to child zones delegated from them; these\nreferrals have the AA bit set to 0 and come with referral data in the\nAuthority and (if needed) the Additional sections.\n¶\nAuthoritative\n-only server:\nA name server that only serves authoritative data and ignores requests for recursion.\nIt will \"not normally generate any queries of its own. Instead it answers non-recursive\nqueries from iterative resolvers looking for information in zones it serves.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4697\n],\nSection 2.4\n)\nIn this case, \"ignores requests for recursion\" means \"responds to requests for\nrecursion with responses indicating that recursion was not performed\".\n¶\nZone transfer:\nThe act of a client requesting a copy of a zone and an authoritative server\nsending the needed information.\n(See\nSection 7\nfor a description of zones.)\nThere are two common standard ways to do zone transfers:\nthe AXFR (\"Authoritative Transfer\") mechanism to copy the full zone (described in\n[\nRFC5936\n]\n, and\nthe IXFR (\"Incremental Transfer\") mechanism to copy only parts of the zone that have changed (described in\n[\nRFC1995\n]\n).\nMany systems use non-standard methods for zone transfers outside the DNS protocol.\n¶\nSlave server:\nSee \"Secondary server\".\n¶\nSecondary server:\n\"An authoritative server which uses zone transfer to retrieve the\nzone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1996\n],\nSection 2.1\n)\nSecondary servers are also discussed in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\n.\n[\nRFC2182\n]\ndescribes secondary servers in\nmore detail. Although early DNS RFCs such as\n[\nRFC1996\n]\nreferred to this as a \"slave\", the\ncurrent common usage has shifted to calling it a \"secondary\".\n¶\nMaster server:\nSee \"Primary server\".\n¶\nPrimary server:\n\"Any authoritative server configured to be the source of zone transfer\nfor one or more [secondary] servers.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1996\n],\nSection 2.1\n) Or, more\nspecifically,\n[\nRFC2136\n]\ncalls it \"an authoritative server configured to be the source of AXFR or IXFR data\nfor one or more [secondary] servers\".\nPrimary servers are also discussed in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\n.\nAlthough early DNS RFCs such as\n[\nRFC1996\n]\nreferred to this as a \"master\", the current\ncommon usage has shifted to \"primary\".\n¶\nPrimary master:\n\"The primary master is named in the zone's SOA MNAME field and\noptionally by an NS RR.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1996\n],\nSection 2.1\n)\n[\nRFC2136\n]\ndefines \"primary master\" as\n\"Master server at the root of the AXFR/IXFR dependency graph.\nThe primary master is named in the zone's SOA MNAME field and optionally by an NS RR. There is by\ndefinition only one primary master server per zone.\"\n¶\nThe idea of a primary master is only used in\n[\nRFC1996\n]\nand\n[\nRFC2136\n]\n.\nA modern interpretation of the term \"primary master\" is a server that is both authoritative for a zone\nand that gets its updates to the zone from configuration (such as a master file) or from UPDATE transactions.\n¶\nStealth server:\nThis is \"like a slave server except not listed in an NS RR for\nthe zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1996\n],\nSection 2.1\n)\n¶\nHidden master:\nA stealth server that is a primary server for zone transfers. \"In this arrangement, the\nmaster name server that processes the updates is unavailable to general hosts on the\nInternet; it is not listed in the NS RRset.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.4.3\n)\n[\nRFC4641\n]\nsaid\nthat the hidden master's name \"appears in the SOA RRs MNAME field\"; however, the name does not appear at all in the global DNS in some setups. A hidden master can also be a\nsecondary server for the zone itself.\n¶\nForwarding:\nThe process of one server sending a DNS query with the\nRD bit set to 1 to another server to resolve that query. Forwarding is\na function of a DNS resolver; it is different than simply blindly\nrelaying queries.\n¶\n[\nRFC5625\n]\ndoes not give a specific definition for forwarding, but\ndescribes in detail what features a system that forwards needs to\nsupport. Systems that forward are sometimes called \"DNS proxies\", but\nthat term has not yet been defined (even in\n[\nRFC5625\n]\n).\n¶\nForwarder:\nSection 1\nof [\nRFC2308\n]\ndescribes a forwarder as \"a\nnameserver used to resolve queries instead of directly using the\nauthoritative nameserver chain\".\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nfurther says \"The\nforwarder typically either has better access to the internet, or\nmaintains a bigger cache which may be shared amongst many resolvers.\"\nThat definition appears to suggest that forwarders\nnormally only query authoritative servers. In current use, however,\nforwarders often stand between stub resolvers and recursive servers.\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nis silent on whether a forwarder is iterative-only or\ncan be a full-service resolver.\n¶\nPolicy\n-implementing resolver:\nA resolver acting in recursive mode that changes some of the answers\nthat it returns based on policy criteria, such as to prevent access to\nmalware sites or objectionable content. In general, a stub resolver has no idea\nwhether upstream resolvers implement such policy or, if they do, the exact\npolicy about what changes will be made.\nIn some cases, the user of the stub resolver has selected the policy\n-implementing resolver\nwith the explicit intention of using it to implement the policies. In other cases,\npolicies are imposed without the user of the stub resolver being informed.\n¶\nOpen resolver:\nA full-service resolver that accepts and processes queries from any (or nearly any) client.\nThis is sometimes also called a \"public resolver\", although the term \"public resolver\"\nis used more with open resolvers that are meant to be open, as compared to the vast majority of open\nresolvers that are probably misconfigured to be open.\nOpen resolvers are discussed in\n[\nRFC5358\n]\n.\n¶\nSplit DNS:\nThe terms \"split DNS\" and \"split-horizon DNS\" have long been used in the DNS community without\nformal definition. In general, they refer to situations in which\nDNS servers that are authoritative for a particular set of domains\nprovide partly or completely different answers in those domains depending\non the source of the query.\nNevertheless, the effect of this is that a domain name that\nis notionally globally unique has different meanings for\ndifferent network users. This can sometimes be the result of a \"view\"\nconfiguration, as described below.\n¶\nSection 3.8\nof [\nRFC2775\n]\ngives a related definition that is too specific to be generally useful.\n¶\nView:\nA configuration for a DNS server that allows it to provide\ndifferent responses depending on attributes of the query, such as for \"split DNS\". Typically, views differ\nby the source IP address of a query, but can also be based on the destination IP address,\nthe type of query (such as AXFR), whether it is recursive, and so on.\nViews are often used to\nprovide more names or different addresses to queries from \"inside\" a protected network\nthan to those \"outside\" that network. Views are not a standardized\npart of the DNS, but they are widely implemented in server software.\n¶\nPassive DNS:\nA mechanism to collect DNS data by storing DNS responses from name servers. Some of these systems\nalso collect the DNS queries associated with the responses, although doing so raises some privacy\nconcerns. Passive DNS databases can be used to answer historical questions about DNS zones, such as\nwhich values were present at a given time in the past, or when a name was spotted first.\nPassive DNS databases allow searching of the stored records on keys other than\njust the name and type, such as \"find all names which have A records of a\nparticular value\".\n¶\nAnycast:\n\"The practice of making a particular service address available in multiple, discrete, autonomous\nlocations, such that datagrams sent are routed to one of several available locations.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4786\n],\nSection 2\n)\nSee\n[\nRFC4786\n]\nfor more detail on Anycast and other terms that are\nspecific to its use.\n¶\nInstance:\n\"When anycast routing is used to allow more than one server to have the same IP\naddress, each one of those servers is commonly referred to as an 'instance'.\"\nIt goes on to say: \"An instance of a server, such as a root server, is often referred to as an 'Anycast\ninstance'.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRSSAC026\n]\n)\n¶\nPrivacy-enabling DNS server:\n\"A DNS server that implements\nDNS over TLS\n[\nRFC7858\n]\nand may optionally implement DNS over DTLS\n[\nRFC8094\n]\n.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC8310\n],\nSection 2\n)\nOther types of DNS servers might also be considered privacy\n-enabling, such as those\nrunning DNS-over-HTTPS\n[\nRFC8484\n]\nor DNS-over-QUIC\n[\nRFC9250\n]\n.\n¶\nDNS-over-TLS (DoT):\nDNS over TLS as defined in\n[\nRFC7858\n]\nand its successors.\n¶\nDNS-over-HTTPS (DoH):\nDNS over HTTPS as defined in\n[\nRFC8484\n]\nand its successors.\n¶\nDNS-over-QUIC (DoQ):\nDNS over QUIC as defined in\n[\nRFC9250\n]\nand its successors.\n[\nRFC9250\n]\nspecifically defines DoQ as general-purpose transport\nfor DNS that can be used in stub to recursive, recursive to authoritative, and\nzone transfer scenarios.\n¶\nClassic DNS:\nDNS over UDP or DNS over TCP as defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nand its successors.\nClassic DNS applies to DNS communication between stub resolvers and recursive\nresolvers, and between recursive resolvers and authoritative servers.\nThis has sometimes been called \"Do53\".\nClassic DNS is not encrypted.\n¶\nRecursive DoT (RDoT):\nRDoT specifically means DNS-over-TLS for transport between a stub resolver and a\nrecursive resolver, or between a recursive resolver and another recursive resolver.\nThis term is necessary because it is expected that DNS-over-TLS will later be\ndefined as a transport between recursive resolvers and authoritative servers.\n¶\nAuthoritative DoT (ADoT):\nIf DNS-over-TLS is later defined as a transport between recursive resolvers and\nauthoritative servers, ADoT specifically means DNS-over-TLS for transport\nbetween recursive resolvers and authoritative servers.\n¶\nXFR-over-TLS (XoT):\nDNS zone transfer over TLS, as specified in\n[\nRFC9103\n]\n.\nThis term applies to both AXFR over TLS (AXoT) and IXFR over TLS (IXoT).\n¶\n7.\nZones\nThis section defines terms that are used when discussing zones that are being served or retrieved.\n¶\nZone:\n\"Authoritative information is\norganized into units called ZONEs, and these zones can be\nautomatically distributed to the name servers which provide\nredundant service for the data in a zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 2.4\n)\n¶\nChild:\n\"The entity on record that has the delegation of the domain from the\nParent.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC7344\n],\nSection 1.1\n)\n¶\nParent:\n\"The domain in which the Child is registered.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC7344\n],\nSection 1.1\n) Earlier,\n\"parent name server\" was defined in\n[\nRFC0882\n]\nas \"the name server that has authority over the place\nin the domain name space that will hold the new domain\". (Note\nthat\n[\nRFC0882\n]\nwas obsoleted by\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n.)\n[\nRFC819\n]\nalso has some description of\nthe relationship between parents and children.\n¶\nOrigin:\n¶\nThere are two different uses for this term:\n¶\n(a)\n\"The domain name that\nappears at the top of a zone (just below the cut that separates the\nzone from its parent)... The name of the zone is the same as the name\nof the domain at the zone's origin.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 6\n) These days, this sense of\n\"origin\" and \"apex\" (defined below) are often used\ninterchangeably\n.\n¶\n(b)\nThe domain name within which a given relative domain name\nappears in zone files. Generally seen in the context of \"$ORIGIN\", which is a\ncontrol entry defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 5.1\n, as part of the master\nfile format. For example, if the $ORIGIN is set to \"example.org.\",\nthen a master file line for \"www\" is in fact an entry for\n\"www\n.example\n.org\n.\"\n.\n¶\nApex:\nThe point in the tree at an owner of an SOA and corresponding authoritative NS RRset.\nThis is also called the \"zone apex\".\n[\nRFC4033\n]\ndefines it as \"the name at the child's side of a zone cut\".\nThe \"apex\" can usefully be thought of as a data-theoretic description of a tree structure,\nand \"origin\" is the name of the same concept when it is implemented in\nzone files. The distinction is not always maintained in use, however,\nand one can find uses that conflict subtly with this definition.\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nuses the term \"top node of the zone\" as a synonym of \"apex\", but that term is not widely used.\nThese days, the first sense of \"origin\" (above) and \"apex\" are often used interchangeably\n.\n¶\nZone cut:\nThe delimitation point between two zones where the origin\nof one of the zones is the child of the other zone.\n¶\n\"Zones are delimited by 'zone cuts'. Each zone cut separates a\n'child' zone (below the cut) from a 'parent' zone (above the cut).\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 6\n; note that this is barely an ostensive\ndefinition.)\nSection 4.2\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\nuses \"cuts\" instead of \"zone cut\".\n¶\nDelegation:\nThe process by which a separate zone is created in the\nname space beneath the apex of a given domain. Delegation happens when an NS\nRRset is added in the parent zone for the child origin. Delegation\ninherently happens at a zone cut.\nThe term is also commonly a noun: the new zone that is created by the act of delegating.\n¶\nAuthoritative data:\n\"All of the RRs attached to all of the nodes from the top node of the zone\ndown to leaf nodes or nodes above cuts around the bottom edge of the zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 4.2.1\n)\nNote that this definition might inadvertently also cause any NS records\nthat appear in the zone to be included, even those that might not truly be authoritative, because there are\nidentical NS RRs below the zone cut. This reveals the ambiguity in\nthe notion of authoritative data, because the parent-side NS records\nauthoritatively indicate the delegation, even though they are not\nthemselves authoritative data.\n¶\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n, defines \"Authoritative RRset\", which is related\nto authoritative data but has a more precise definition.\n¶\nLame delegation:\n\"A lame delegations exists [sic] when a nameserver is delegated responsibility for providing nameservice\nfor a zone (via NS records) but is not performing nameservice for that zone (usually because it is\nnot set up as a primary or secondary for the zone).\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1912\n],\nSection 2.8\n)\nAnother definition is that a lame delegation\n\"...happens when a name server is listed in the NS records for some domain and in fact it is not a\nserver for that domain. Queries are thus sent to the wrong servers, who don't know nothing [sic] (at least\nnot as expected) about the queried domain. Furthermore, sometimes these hosts (if they exist!) don't\neven run name servers.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1713\n],\nSection 2.3\n)\n¶\nThese early definitions do not match the current use of the term \"lame delegation\",\nbut there is no consensus on what a lame delegation is.\nThe term is used not only for the specific case described above,\nbut for a variety of other flaws in delegations that lead to non\n-authoritative\nanswers or no answers at all, such as:\n¶\na nameserver with an NS record for a zone that does not answer DNS queries;\n¶\na nameserver with an IP address that is not reachable by the resolver; and\n¶\na nameserver that responds to a query for a specific name with an error or\nwithout the authoritative bit set.\n¶\nBecause the term in current usage has drifted from the original definition, and now\nis not specific or clear as to the intended meaning, it should be considered historic\nand avoided in favor of terms that are specific and clear.\n¶\nGlue records:\n\"...[Resource records] which are not part of the authoritative data [of the zone],\nand are address RRs for the [name] servers [in subzones]. These RRs are only\nnecessary if the name server's name is 'below' the cut, and are only used as part of a\nreferral response.\" Without glue \"we could be faced with the situation where the NS RRs\ntell us that in order to learn a name server's address, we should contact the server using\nthe address we wish to learn.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 4.2.1\n)\n¶\nA later definition is that glue\n\"includes any record in a zone file that is not properly\npart of that zone, including nameserver records of delegated sub-zones (NS records),\naddress records that accompany those NS records (A, AAAA, etc), and any other stray data\nthat might appear.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 5.4.1\n)\nAlthough glue is sometimes used today\nwith this wider definition in mind, the context surrounding the definition in\n[\nRFC2181\n]\nsuggests it is intended to apply to the use of glue within the document itself and not\nnecessarily beyond.\n¶\nIn an NS record, there are three types of relationships between the owner name of the record, the name in the NS RDATA, and the zone origin: unrelated, in-domain, and sibling domain.\nThe application of these three types of relationships to glue records is defined in\n[\nRFC9471\n]\n.\n¶\nAn unrelated relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server\nthat is not subordinate to the zone origin and therefore is not part of the same zone.\n¶\nAn in-domain relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server\nwhose name is either\nsubordinate to or (rarely) the same as the owner name of the NS resource records.\nFor example, a delegation for \"child\n.example\n.com\" might have an in-domain name\nserver called \"ns\n.child\n.example\n.com\"\n.\n¶\nA sibling domain relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server\nwhose name is either subordinate to or\n(rarely) the same as the zone origin of the parent and not subordinate to or the same as the\nowner name of the NS resource records.\nFor example, a delegation for \"child\n.example\n.com\" in \"example.com\" zone might have\na sibling domain name server called \"ns\n.another\n.example\n.com\"\n.\n¶\nThe following table shows examples of delegation types:\n¶\nTable 1\nDelegation\nParent\nName Server Name\nType\ncom\n.\na\n.gtld\n-servers\n.net\nsibling domain\nnet\n.\na\n.gtld\n-servers\n.net\nin-domain\nexample.org\norg\nns.example.org\nin-domain\nexample.org\norg\nns.ietf.org\nsibling domain\nexample.org\norg\nns.example.com\nunrelated\nexample.jp\njp\nns.example.jp\nin-domain\nexample.jp\njp\nns.example.ne.jp\nsibling domain\nexample.jp\njp\nns.example.com\nunrelated\n¶\nBailiwick:\n\"In-bailiwick\" and \"Out\n-of\n-bailiwick\" are modifiers used to describe the relationship between\na zone and the name servers for that zone.\nThe dictionary definition of bailiwick has been observed to cause more confusion than meaning for this use.\nThese terms should be considered historic in nature.\n¶\nRoot zone:\nThe zone of a DNS-based tree whose apex is the zero-length label.\nAlso sometimes called \"the DNS root\".\n¶\nEmpty non-terminals (ENTs):\n\"Domain names that own no resource records but have subdomains that do.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 2.2.2\n)\nA typical example is in SRV records: in the name\n\"_\nsip\n._\ntcp\n.example\n.com\", it is likely that \"_\ntcp\n.example\n.com\" has no RRsets, but\nthat \"_\nsip\n._\ntcp\n.example\n.com\" has (at least) an SRV RRset.\n¶\nDelegation\n-centric zone:\nA zone that consists mostly of delegations to child zones. This term is\nused in contrast to a zone that might have some delegations to child zones but also has many data\nresource records for the zone itself and/or for child zones.\nThe term is used in\n[\nRFC4956\n]\nand\n[\nRFC5155\n]\n, but it is not defined in either document.\n¶\nOccluded name:\n\"The addition of a delegation point via dynamic update will render all subordinate\ndomain names to be in a limbo, still part of the zone but not available to the lookup process. The\naddition of a DNAME resource record has the same impact. The subordinate names are said to be\n'occluded'.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC5936\n],\nSection 3.5\n)\n¶\nFast flux DNS:\nThis \"occurs when a domain is [found] in DNS using A records to multiple IP addresses,\neach of which has a very short Time-to-Live (TTL) value associated with it. This means\nthat the domain resolves to varying IP addresses over a short period of time.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC6561\n],\nSection 1.1.5\n, with a typo corrected)\nIn addition to having legitimate uses, fast flux DNS can be used to deliver malware.\nBecause the addresses change so rapidly, it is difficult to\nascertain all the hosts. It should be noted that the technique also works\nwith AAAA records, but such use is not frequently observed on the\nInternet as of this writing.\n¶\nReverse DNS, reverse lookup:\n\"The process of mapping an address to a name is\ngenerally known as a 'reverse lookup', and the IN-ADDR.ARPA and\nIP6.ARPA zones are said to support the 'reverse DNS'.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5855\n],\nSection 1\n)\n¶\nForward lookup:\n\"Hostname\n-to\n-address translation\". (Quoted from\n[\nRFC3493\n],\nSection 6\n)\n¶\narpa (Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain):\n\"The 'arpa' domain was originally established as part of the initial\ndeployment of the DNS to provide a transition mechanism from the\nHost Tables that were common in the ARPANET, as well as a home for\nthe IPv4 reverse mapping domain. During 2000, the abbreviation was\nredesignated to 'Address and Routing Parameter Area' in the hope of\nreducing confusion with the earlier network name.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC3172\n],\nSection 2\n)\n.arpa is an \"infrastructure domain\",\na domain whose \"role is to\nsupport the operating infrastructure of the Internet\".\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC3172\n],\nSection 2\n)\nSee\n[\nRFC3172\n]\nfor more history of this name.\n¶\nService name:\n\"Service names are the unique key in the Service Name and Transport\nProtocol Port Number registry. This unique symbolic name for a\nservice may also be used for other purposes, such as in DNS SRV\nrecords.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6335\n],\nSection 5\n)\n¶\n8.\nWildcards\nWildcard:\n[\nRFC1034\n]\ndefined \"wildcard\", but in a way that turned out to be\nconfusing to implementers.\nFor an extended discussion of wildcards, including clearer definitions, see\n[\nRFC4592\n]\n.\nSpecial treatment is given to RRs with owner names starting with the label \"*\". \"Such RRs\nare called 'wildcards'. Wildcard RRs can be thought of as instructions for synthesizing RRs.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 4.3.3\n)\n¶\nAsterisk label:\n\"The first octet is the normal label type and length for a 1-octet-long\nlabel, and the second octet is the ASCII representation\n[\nRFC20\n]\nfor the '*' character.\nA descriptive name of a label equaling that value is an 'asterisk\nlabel'.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 2.1.1\n)\n¶\nWildcard domain name:\n\"A 'wildcard domain name' is defined by having its initial (i.e.,\nleftmost or least significant) label, in binary format: 0000 0001 0010 1010 (binary) = 0x01 0x2a (hexadecimal)\".\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 2.1.1\n) The second octet in this label is the ASCII representation for the \"*\" character.\n¶\nClosest encloser:\n\"The longest existing ancestor of a name.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 1.3\n)\nAn earlier definition is \"The node in the zone's tree of existing\ndomain names that has the most labels matching the query name\n(consecutively, counting from the root label downward). Each match\nis a 'label match' and the order of the labels is the same.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 3.3.1\n)\n¶\nClosest provable encloser:\n\"The longest ancestor of a name that can\nbe proven to exist. Note that this is only different from the\nclosest encloser in an Opt-Out zone.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 1.3\n)\nSee\nSection 10\nfor more on \"opt-out\".\n¶\nNext closer name:\n\"The name one label longer than the closest\nprovable encloser of a name.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 1.3\n)\n¶\nSource of Synthesis:\n\"The source of synthesis is defined in the context of a query process\nas that wildcard domain name immediately descending from the closest\nencloser, provided that this wildcard domain name exists.\n'Immediately descending' means that the source of synthesis has a\nname of the form:\n¶\n<asterisk label>.<closest encloser>.\"\n¶\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 3.3.1\n)\n¶\n9.\nRegistration Model\nRegistry:\nThe administrative operation of a zone that allows registration of names within that\nzone. People often use this term to refer only to those organizations\nthat perform registration in large delegation\n-centric zones (such as\nTLDs); but formally, whoever decides what data goes into a zone is the\nregistry for that zone.\nThis definition of \"registry\" is from a DNS point of view; for some zones, the policies\nthat determine what can go in the zone are decided by zones that are superordinate and not the registry operator.\n¶\nRegistrant:\nAn individual or organization on whose behalf a name in\na zone is registered by the registry. In many zones, the registry and\nthe registrant may be the same entity, but in TLDs they often are\nnot.\n¶\nRegistrar:\nA service provider that acts as a go-between for\nregistrants and registries. Not all registrations require a\nregistrar, though it is common to have registrars involved in\nregistrations in TLDs.\n¶\nEPP:\nThe Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), which is commonly used for communication\nof registration information between registries and registrars. EPP is defined in\n[\nRFC5730\n]\n.\n¶\nWHOIS:\nA protocol specified in\n[\nRFC3912\n]\n, often used for querying registry databases.\nWHOIS data is frequently used to associate registration data (such as zone management\ncontacts) with domain names.\nThe term \"WHOIS data\" is often used as a synonym for the registry database, even though\nthat database may be served by different protocols, particularly RDAP.\nThe WHOIS protocol is also used with IP address registry data.\n¶\nRDAP:\nThe Registration Data Access Protocol, defined in\n[\nRFC7480\n]\n,\n[\nRFC7481\n]\n,\n[\nRFC7485\n]\n,\n[\nRFC9082\n]\n,\n[\nRFC9083\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC9224\n]\n.\nThe RDAP protocol and data format are meant as a replacement for WHOIS.\n¶\nDNS operator:\nAn entity responsible for running DNS servers. For a zone's authoritative servers, the registrant\nmay act as their own DNS operator, their registrar may do it on their behalf, or they may use a\nthird-party operator.\nFor some zones, the registry function is performed by the DNS operator plus other entities\nwho decide about the allowed contents of the zone.\n¶\nPublic suffix:\n\"A domain that is controlled by a public registry.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6265\n],\nSection 5.3\n) A common definition for this term is a domain under which subdomains can be registered by third parties and on which HTTP cookies\n(which are described in detail in\n[\nRFC6265\n]\n) should not be set.\nThere is no indication in a domain name whether it is a public suffix; that can only be\ndetermined by outside means.\nIn fact, both a domain and a subdomain of that domain can be public suffixes.\n¶\nThere is nothing inherent in a domain name to indicate whether it is\na public suffix. One\nresource for identifying public suffixes is the Public Suffix List (PSL)\nmaintained by Mozilla\n<\nhttps://\npublicsuffix\n.org\n/\n>\n.\n¶\nFor example, at the time this document is published,\nthe \"com.au\" domain is listed as a public suffix in the PSL.\n(Note that this example might change in the future.)\n¶\nNote that the term \"public suffix\" is controversial in the DNS\ncommunity for many reasons, and it may be significantly changed in the future. One example of the\ndifficulty of calling a domain a public suffix is that designation can change over time as the\nregistration policy for the zone changes, such as was the case with the \"uk\" TLD in 2014.\n¶\nSubordinate and Superordinate:\nThese terms are introduced in\n[\nRFC5731\n]\nfor use in the registration model, but not defined there.\nInstead, they are given in examples.\n\"For example, domain name 'example.com' has a superordinate relationship to host name\nns1\n.example\n.com'\n... For example, host ns1\n.example1\n.com is a subordinate host of domain example1.com,\nbut it is a not a subordinate host of domain example2.com.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5731\n],\nSection 1.1\n)\nThese terms are strictly ways of referring to the relationship standing of two domains\nwhere one is a subdomain of the other.\n¶\n10.\nGeneral DNSSEC\nMost DNSSEC terms are defined in\n[\nRFC4033\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC5155\n]\n. The\nterms that have caused confusion in the DNS community are highlighted here.\n¶\nDNSSEC-aware and DNSSEC-unaware:\nThese two terms, which are used in some RFCs, have not been formally defined.\nHowever,\nSection 2\nof [\nRFC4033\n]\ndefines many types of resolvers and\nvalidators, including \"non-validating security-aware stub resolver\", \"non-validating\nstub resolver\", \"security-aware name server\", \"security-aware recursive name server\",\n\"security-aware resolver\", \"security-aware stub resolver\", and \"security\n-oblivious 'anything'\".\n(Note that the term \"validating resolver\", which is used in some\nplaces in DNSSEC-related documents, is also not defined in those RFCs, but is defined below.)\n¶\nSigned zone:\n\"A zone whose RRsets are signed and that contains\nproperly constructed DNSKEY, Resource Record Signature (RRSIG),\nNext Secure (NSEC), and (optionally) DS records.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n)\nIt has been noted in other contexts that the zone itself is not\nreally signed, but all the relevant RRsets in the zone are signed.\nNevertheless, if a zone that should be signed contains any RRsets that\nare not signed (or opted out), those RRsets will be treated as bogus,\nso the whole zone needs to be handled in some way.\n¶\nIt should also be noted that, since the publication of\n[\nRFC6840\n]\n, NSEC records are no\nlonger required for signed zones: a signed zone might include NSEC3 records instead.\n[\nRFC7129\n]\nprovides additional background commentary and some context for the NSEC and\nNSEC3 mechanisms used by DNSSEC to provide authenticated denial\n-of\n-existence responses.\nNSEC and NSEC3 are described below.\n¶\nOnline signing:\n[\nRFC4470\n]\ndefines \"on-line signing\" (note the hyphen) as\n\"generating and signing these records on demand\", where \"these\" was defined\nas NSEC records. The current definition expands that to\ngenerating and signing RRSIG, NSEC, and NSEC3 records on demand.\n¶\nUnsigned zone:\nSection 2\nof [\nRFC4033\n]\ndefines this as \"a zone that is not signed\".\nSection 2\nof [\nRFC4035\n]\ndefines this as a \"zone that does not include these records [properly constructed DNSKEY,\nResource Record Signature (RRSIG), Next Secure (NSEC), and (optionally) DS records] according to the\nrules in this section...\" There is an important note at the end of\nSection 5.2\nof [\nRFC4035\n]\nthat defines an\nadditional situation in which a zone is considered unsigned:\n\"If the resolver does not support any of\nthe algorithms listed in an authenticated DS RRset, then the resolver will not be able to verify the\nauthentication path to the child zone. In this case, the resolver\nSHOULD\ntreat the child zone as if\nit were unsigned.\"\n¶\nNSEC:\n\"The NSEC record allows a security-aware resolver to authenticate a negative reply for\neither name or type non-existence with the same mechanisms used to authenticate other DNS replies.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 3.2\n) In short, an NSEC record provides authenticated denial of\nexistence.\n¶\n\"The NSEC resource record lists two separate things: the next owner name (in the canonical\nordering of the zone) that contains authoritative data or a delegation point NS RRset, and the set\nof RR types present at the NSEC RR's owner name.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4034\n],\nSection 4\n)\n¶\nNSEC3:\nLike the NSEC record, the NSEC3 record also provides authenticated denial of existence; however,\nNSEC3 records mitigate zone enumeration and support Opt-Out.\nNSEC3 resource records require associated NSEC3PARAM resource records.\nNSEC3 and NSEC3PARAM resource records are defined in\n[\nRFC5155\n]\n.\n¶\nNote that\n[\nRFC6840\n]\nsays that\n[\nRFC5155\n]\n\"is now considered part of the DNS Security Document Family\nas described by\nSection 10\nof [\nRFC4033\n]\n\". This means that some of the definitions from earlier RFCs that\nonly talk about NSEC records should probably be considered to be talking about both NSEC and NSEC3.\n¶\nOpt-out:\n\"The Opt-Out Flag indicates whether this NSEC3 RR may cover unsigned delegations.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 3.1.2.1\n)\nOpt-out tackles the high costs of securing a delegation to an insecure zone. When using\nOpt-Out, names that are an insecure delegation (and empty non-terminals that are only\nderived from insecure delegations) don't require an NSEC3 record or its corresponding\nRRSIG records. Opt-Out NSEC3 records are not able to prove or deny the existence of the\ninsecure delegations. (Adapted from\n[\nRFC7129\n],\nSection 5.1\n)\n¶\nInsecure delegation:\n\"A signed name containing a delegation (NS RRset), but lacking a DS RRset,\nsignifying a delegation to an unsigned subzone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4956\n],\nSection 2\n)\n¶\nZone enumeration:\n\"The practice of discovering the full content of a zone via successive queries.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 1.3\n) This is also sometimes called \"zone walking\".\nZone enumeration is different from zone content guessing where the guesser uses a large dictionary\nof possible labels and sends successive queries for them, or matches the contents of NSEC3 records\nagainst such a dictionary.\n¶\nValidation:\nValidation, in the context of DNSSEC, refers to one of the following:\n¶\nChecking the validity of DNSSEC signatures,\n¶\nChecking the validity of DNS responses, such as those including authenticated denial of\nexistence, or\n¶\nBuilding an authentication chain from a trust anchor to a DNS response or individual\nDNS RRsets in a response.\n¶\nThe first two definitions above consider only the validity of individual DNSSEC\ncomponents, such as the RRSIG validity or NSEC proof validity. The third definition\nconsiders the components of the entire DNSSEC authentication chain; thus, it requires\n\"configured knowledge of at least one authenticated DNSKEY or DS RR\" (as described in\n[\nRFC4035\n],\nSection 5\n).\n¶\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n, says that a \"Validating Security-Aware Stub\nResolver... performs signature validation\" and uses a trust anchor \"as a starting point\nfor building the authentication chain to a signed DNS response\"; thus, it uses the first\nand third definitions above. The process of validating an RRSIG resource record is described in\n[\nRFC4035\n],\nSection 5.3\n.\n¶\n[\nRFC5155\n]\nrefers to validating responses throughout the document in the\ncontext of hashed authenticated denial of existence; this uses the second definition\nabove.\n¶\nThe term \"authentication\n\" is used interchangeably with \"validation\", in the sense of the\nthird definition above.\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n, describes the chain linking trust anchor to DNS data as the \"authentication chain\". A\nresponse is considered to be authentic if \"all RRsets in the Answer and\nAuthority sections\nof the response [are considered] to be authentic\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n) DNS data or\nresponses deemed to be authentic or validated have a security status of \"secure\" (\n[\nRFC4035\n],\nSection 4.3\n;\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 5\n). \"Authenticating\nboth DNS keys and data is a matter of local policy, which may extend or even override the\n[DNSSEC] protocol extensions...\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 3.1\n)\n¶\nThe term \"verification\", when used, is usually a synonym for \"validation\".\n¶\nValidating resolver:\nA security-aware recursive name server, security-aware resolver, or\nsecurity-aware stub resolver that is applying at least one of the\ndefinitions of validation (above) as appropriate to the resolution\ncontext. For the same reason that the generic term \"resolver\" is\nsometimes ambiguous and needs to be evaluated in context (see\nSection 6\n), \"validating resolver\" is a\ncontext\n-sensitive term.\n¶\nKey signing key (KSK):\nDNSSEC keys that \"only sign the apex DNSKEY RRset in a zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.1\n)\n¶\nZone signing key (ZSK):\n\"DNSSEC keys that can be used to sign all the RRsets in a zone that\nrequire signatures, other than the apex DNSKEY RRset.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.1\n)\nAlso note that a ZSK is sometimes used to sign the apex DNSKEY RRset.\n¶\nCombined signing key (CSK):\n\"In cases where the differentiation between the KSK and ZSK is not made,\ni.e., where keys have the role of both KSK and ZSK, we talk about a Single-Type Signing\nScheme.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.1\n) This is sometimes called a \"combined\nsigning key\" or \"CSK\". It is operational practice, not protocol, that determines whether a\nparticular key is a ZSK, a KSK, or a CSK.\n¶\nSecure Entry Point (SEP):\nA flag in the DNSKEY RDATA that \"can be used to distinguish between\nkeys that are intended to be used as the secure entry point into the zone when building\nchains of trust, i.e., they are (to be) pointed to by parental DS RRs or configured as a\ntrust anchor....\nTherefore, it is suggested that the SEP flag be set on keys that are used as KSKs and not on keys\nthat are used as ZSKs, while in those cases where a distinction between a KSK and ZSK is not made\n(i.e., for a Single-Type Signing Scheme), it is suggested that the SEP flag be set on all keys.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.2.3\n) Note that the\nSEP flag is only a hint, and its presence or absence may not be used to disqualify a given\nDNSKEY RR from use as a KSK or ZSK during validation.\n¶\nThe original definition of SEPs was in\n[\nRFC3757\n]\n. That definition\nclearly indicated that the SEP was a key, not just a bit in the key. The\nabstract of\n[\nRFC3757\n]\nsays:\n\"With the Delegation Signer (DS) resource record (RR), the concept of\na public key acting as a secure entry point (SEP) has been\nintroduced. During exchanges of public keys with the parent there is\na need to differentiate SEP keys from other public keys in the Domain\nName System KEY (DNSKEY) resource record set. A flag bit in the\nDNSKEY RR is defined to indicate that DNSKEY is to be used as a SEP.\"\nThat definition of the SEP as a key was made obsolete by\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n,\nand the definition from\n[\nRFC6781\n]\nis consistent with\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n.\n¶\nTrust anchor:\n\"A configured DNSKEY RR or DS RR hash of a DNSKEY RR. A\nvalidating security-aware resolver uses this public key or hash as\na starting point for building the authentication chain to a signed\nDNS response. In general, a validating resolver will have to\nobtain the initial values of its trust anchors via some secure or\ntrusted means outside the DNS protocol.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n)\n¶\nDNSSEC Policy (DP):\nA statement that \"sets forth the security requirements and\nstandards to be implemented for a DNSSEC-signed zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6841\n],\nSection 2\n)\n¶\nDNSSEC Practice Statement (DPS):\n\"A practices disclosure document that may\nsupport and be a supplemental document to the DNSSEC Policy (if such exists),\nand it states how the management of a given zone implements procedures and\ncontrols at a high level.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6841\n],\nSection 2\n)\n¶\nHardware security module (HSM):\nA specialized piece of hardware that is used to create keys for signatures and to\nsign messages without ever disclosing the private key. In DNSSEC, HSMs are often used to hold the private keys for\nKSKs and ZSKs and to create the signatures used in RRSIG records at periodic intervals.\n¶\nSigning software:\nAuthoritative DNS servers that support DNSSEC often contain software that\nfacilitates the creation and maintenance of DNSSEC signatures in zones.\nThere is also stand-alone software that can be used to sign a zone regardless\nof whether the authoritative server itself supports signing. Sometimes\nsigning software can support particular HSMs as part of the signing process.\n¶\n11.\nDNSSEC States\nA validating resolver can determine that a response is in one of four states:\nsecure, insecure, bogus, or indeterminate. These states are defined in\n[\nRFC4033\n]\nand\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n, although the definitions in the two documents differ a bit. This document makes no effort to reconcile the definitions in the two documents and takes no\nposition as to whether they need to be reconciled.\n¶\nSection 5\nof [\nRFC4033\n]\nsays:\n¶\nA validating resolver can determine the following 4 states:\n¶\nSecure:\nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor, has a chain\nof trust, and is able to verify all the signatures in the\nresponse.\n¶\nInsecure:\nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor, a chain\nof trust, and, at some delegation point, signed proof of the\nnon-existence of a DS record. This indicates that subsequent\nbranches in the tree are provably insecure. A validating\nresolver may have a local policy to mark parts of the domain\nspace as insecure.\n¶\nBogus:\nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor and a secure\ndelegation indicating that subsidiary data is signed, but\nthe response fails to validate for some reason: missing\nsignatures, expired signatures, signatures with unsupported\nalgorithms, data missing that the relevant NSEC RR says\nshould be present, and so forth.\n¶\nIndeterminate:\nThere is no trust anchor that would indicate that a\nspecific portion of the tree is secure. This is the default\noperation mode.\n¶\nSection 4.3\nof [\nRFC4035\n]\nsays:\n¶\nA security-aware resolver must be able to distinguish between four\ncases:\n¶\nSecure:\nAn RRset for which the resolver is able to build a chain\nof signed DNSKEY and DS RRs from a trusted security anchor to\nthe RRset. In this case, the RRset should be signed and is\nsubject to signature validation, as described above.\n¶\nInsecure:\nAn RRset for which the resolver knows that it has no\nchain of signed DNSKEY and DS RRs from any trusted starting\npoint to the RRset. This can occur when the target RRset lies\nin an unsigned zone or in a descendent [sic] of an unsigned\nzone. In this case, the RRset may or may not be signed, but\nthe resolver will not be able to verify the signature.\n¶\nBogus:\nAn RRset for which the resolver believes that it ought to\nbe able to establish a chain of trust but for which it is\nunable to do so, either due to signatures that for some reason\nfail to validate or due to missing data that the relevant\nDNSSEC RRs indicate should be present. This case may indicate\nan attack but may also indicate a configuration error or some\nform of data corruption.\n¶\nIndeterminate:\nAn RRset for which the resolver is not able to\ndetermine whether the RRset should be signed, as the resolver\nis not able to obtain the necessary DNSSEC RRs. This can occur\nwhen the security-aware resolver is not able to contact\nsecurity-aware name servers for the relevant zones.\n¶\n12.\nSecurity Considerations\nThese definitions do not change any security considerations for either the global DNS or private DNS.\n¶\n13.\nIANA Considerations\nReferences to RFC 8499 in the IANA registries have been replaced with references to this document.\n¶\n14.\nReferences\n14.1.\nNormative References\n[IANA_\nRoot\nFiles]\nIANA\n,\n\"Root Files\"\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.iana\n.org\n/domains\n/root\n/files\n>\n.\n[RFC0882]\nMockapetris, P.\n,\n\"Domain names: Concepts and facilities\"\n,\nRFC 882\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0882\n,\nNovember 1983\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc882\n>\n.\n[RFC1034]\nMockapetris, P.\n,\n\"Domain names - concepts and facilities\"\n,\nSTD 13\n,\nRFC 1034\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1034\n,\nNovember 1987\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1034\n>\n.\n[RFC1035]\nMockapetris, P.\n,\n\"Domain names - implementation and specification\"\n,\nSTD 13\n,\nRFC 1035\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1035\n,\nNovember 1987\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1035\n>\n.\n[RFC1123]\nBraden, R., Ed.\n,\n\"Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support\"\n,\nSTD 3\n,\nRFC 1123\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1123\n,\nOctober 1989\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1123\n>\n.\n[RFC1912]\nBarr, D.\n,\n\"Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors\"\n,\nRFC 1912\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1912\n,\nFebruary 1996\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1912\n>\n.\n[RFC1996]\nVixie, P.\n,\n\"A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)\"\n,\nRFC 1996\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1996\n,\nAugust 1996\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1996\n>\n.\n[RFC2136]\nVixie, P., Ed.\n,\nThomson, S.\n,\nRekhter, Y.\n, and\nJ. Bound\n,\n\"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)\"\n,\nRFC 2136\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2136\n,\nApril 1997\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2136\n>\n.\n[RFC2181]\nElz, R.\nand\nR. Bush\n,\n\"Clarifications to the DNS Specification\"\n,\nRFC 2181\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2181\n,\nJuly 1997\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2181\n>\n.\n[RFC2182]\nElz, R.\n,\nBush, R.\n,\nBradner, S.\n, and\nM. Patton\n,\n\"Selection and Operation of Secondary DNS Servers\"\n,\nBCP 16\n,\nRFC 2182\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2182\n,\nJuly 1997\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2182\n>\n.\n[RFC2308]\nAndrews, M.\n,\n\"Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)\"\n,\nRFC 2308\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2308\n,\nMarch 1998\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2308\n>\n.\n[RFC4033]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements\"\n,\nRFC 4033\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4033\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4033\n>\n.\n[RFC4034]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 4034\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4034\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4034\n>\n.\n[RFC4035]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 4035\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4035\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4035\n>\n.\n[RFC4592]\nLewis, E.\n,\n\"The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name System\"\n,\nRFC 4592\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4592\n,\nJuly 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4592\n>\n.\n[RFC5155]\nLaurie, B.\n,\nSisson, G.\n,\nArends, R.\n, and\nD. Blacka\n,\n\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence\"\n,\nRFC 5155\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5155\n,\nMarch 2008\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5155\n>\n.\n[RFC5358]\nDamas, J.\nand\nF. Neves\n,\n\"Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector Attacks\"\n,\nBCP 140\n,\nRFC 5358\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5358\n,\nOctober 2008\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5358\n>\n.\n[RFC5730]\nHollenbeck, S.\n,\n\"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)\"\n,\nSTD 69\n,\nRFC 5730\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5730\n,\nAugust 2009\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5730\n>\n.\n[RFC5731]\nHollenbeck, S.\n,\n\"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping\"\n,\nSTD 69\n,\nRFC 5731\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5731\n,\nAugust 2009\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5731\n>\n.\n[RFC5855]\nAbley, J.\nand\nT. Manderson\n,\n\"Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones\"\n,\nBCP 155\n,\nRFC 5855\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5855\n,\nMay 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5855\n>\n.\n[RFC5936]\nLewis, E.\nand\nA. Hoenes, Ed.\n,\n\"DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR)\"\n,\nRFC 5936\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5936\n,\nJune 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5936\n>\n.\n[RFC6561]\nLivingood, J.\n,\nMody, N.\n, and\nM. O'Reirdan\n,\n\"Recommendations for the Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks\"\n,\nRFC 6561\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6561\n,\nMarch 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6561\n>\n.\n[RFC6781]\nKolkman, O.\n,\nMekking, W.\n, and\nR. Gieben\n,\n\"DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2\"\n,\nRFC 6781\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6781\n,\nDecember 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6781\n>\n.\n[RFC6840]\nWeiler, S., Ed.\nand\nD. Blacka, Ed.\n,\n\"Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)\"\n,\nRFC 6840\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6840\n,\nFebruary 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6840\n>\n.\n[RFC6841]\nLjunggren, F.\n,\nEklund Lowinder, AM.\n, and\nT. Okubo\n,\n\"A Framework for DNSSEC Policies and DNSSEC Practice Statements\"\n,\nRFC 6841\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6841\n,\nJanuary 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6841\n>\n.\n[RFC6891]\nDamas, J.\n,\nGraff, M.\n, and\nP. Vixie\n,\n\"Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))\"\n,\nSTD 75\n,\nRFC 6891\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6891\n,\nApril 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6891\n>\n.\n[RFC7344]\nKumari, W.\n,\nGudmundsson, O.\n, and\nG. Barwood\n,\n\"Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance\"\n,\nRFC 7344\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7344\n,\nSeptember 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7344\n>\n.\n[RFC7719]\nHoffman, P.\n,\nSullivan, A.\n, and\nK. Fujiwara\n,\n\"DNS Terminology\"\n,\nRFC 7719\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7719\n,\nDecember 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7719\n>\n.\n[RFC8310]\nDickinson, S.\n,\nGillmor, D.\n, and\nT. Reddy\n,\n\"Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLS\"\n,\nRFC 8310\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8310\n,\nMarch 2018\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8310\n>\n.\n[RFC8499]\nHoffman, P.\n,\nSullivan, A.\n, and\nK. Fujiwara\n,\n\"DNS Terminology\"\n,\nBCP 219\n,\nRFC 8499\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8499\n,\nJanuary 2019\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8499\n>\n.\n[RFC9250]\nHuitema, C.\n,\nDickinson, S.\n, and\nA. Mankin\n,\n\"DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections\"\n,\nRFC 9250\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9250\n,\nMay 2022\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9250\n>\n.\n[RFC9471]\nAndrews, M.\n,\nHuque, S.\n,\nWouters, P.\n, and\nD. Wessels\n,\n\"DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses\"\n,\nRFC 9471\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9471\n,\nSeptember 2023\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9471\n>\n.\n14.2.\nInformative References\n[IANA_\nResource_\nRegistry]\nIANA\n,\n\"Resource Record (RR) TYPEs\"\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.iana\n.org\n/assignments\n/dns\n-parameters\n/\n>\n.\n[RFC20]\nCerf, V.\n,\n\"ASCII format for network interchange\"\n,\nSTD 80\n,\nRFC 20\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0020\n,\nOctober 1969\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc20\n>\n.\n[RFC819]\nSu, Z.\nand\nJ. Postel\n,\n\"The Domain Naming Convention for Internet User Applications\"\n,\nRFC 819\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0819\n,\nAugust 1982\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc819\n>\n.\n[RFC952]\nHarrenstien, K.\n,\nStahl, M.\n, and\nE. Feinler\n,\n\"DoD Internet host table specification\"\n,\nRFC 952\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0952\n,\nOctober 1985\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc952\n>\n.\n[RFC1713]\nRomao, A.\n,\n\"Tools for DNS debugging\"\n,\nFYI 27\n,\nRFC 1713\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1713\n,\nNovember 1994\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1713\n>\n.\n[RFC1995]\nOhta, M.\n,\n\"Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS\"\n,\nRFC 1995\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1995\n,\nAugust 1996\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1995\n>\n.\n[RFC2775]\nCarpenter, B.\n,\n\"Internet Transparency\"\n,\nRFC 2775\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2775\n,\nFebruary 2000\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2775\n>\n.\n[RFC3172]\nHuston, G., Ed.\n,\n\"Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\"\n,\nBCP 52\n,\nRFC 3172\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3172\n,\nSeptember 2001\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3172\n>\n.\n[RFC3425]\nLawrence, D.\n,\n\"Obsoleting IQUERY\"\n,\nRFC 3425\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3425\n,\nNovember 2002\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3425\n>\n.\n[RFC3493]\nGilligan, R.\n,\nThomson, S.\n,\nBound, J.\n,\nMcCann, J.\n, and\nW. Stevens\n,\n\"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6\"\n,\nRFC 3493\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3493\n,\nFebruary 2003\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3493\n>\n.\n[RFC3757]\nKolkman, O.\n,\nSchlyter, J.\n, and\nE. Lewis\n,\n\"Domain Name System KEY (DNSKEY) Resource Record (RR) Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag\"\n,\nRFC 3757\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3757\n,\nApril 2004\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3757\n>\n.\n[RFC3912]\nDaigle, L.\n,\n\"WHOIS Protocol Specification\"\n,\nRFC 3912\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3912\n,\nSeptember 2004\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3912\n>\n.\n[RFC4470]\nWeiler, S.\nand\nJ. Ihren\n,\n\"Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing\"\n,\nRFC 4470\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4470\n,\nApril 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4470\n>\n.\n[RFC4641]\nKolkman, O.\nand\nR. Gieben\n,\n\"DNSSEC Operational Practices\"\n,\nRFC 4641\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4641\n,\nSeptember 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4641\n>\n.\n[RFC4697]\nLarson, M.\nand\nP. Barber\n,\n\"Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior\"\n,\nBCP 123\n,\nRFC 4697\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4697\n,\nOctober 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4697\n>\n.\n[RFC4786]\nAbley, J.\nand\nK. Lindqvist\n,\n\"Operation of Anycast Services\"\n,\nBCP 126\n,\nRFC 4786\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4786\n,\nDecember 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4786\n>\n.\n[RFC4956]\nArends, R.\n,\nKosters, M.\n, and\nD. Blacka\n,\n\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In\"\n,\nRFC 4956\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4956\n,\nJuly 2007\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4956\n>\n.\n[RFC5625]\nBellis, R.\n,\n\"DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines\"\n,\nBCP 152\n,\nRFC 5625\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5625\n,\nAugust 2009\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5625\n>\n.\n[RFC5890]\nKlensin, J.\n,\n\"Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework\"\n,\nRFC 5890\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5890\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5890\n>\n.\n[RFC5891]\nKlensin, J.\n,\n\"Internationaliz\ned Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol\"\n,\nRFC 5891\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5891\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5891\n>\n.\n[RFC5892]\nFaltstrom, P., Ed.\n,\n\"The Unicode Code Points and Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)\"\n,\nRFC 5892\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5892\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5892\n>\n.\n[RFC5893]\nAlvestrand, H., Ed.\nand\nC. Karp\n,\n\"Right-to-Left Scripts for Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)\"\n,\nRFC 5893\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5893\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5893\n>\n.\n[RFC5894]\nKlensin, J.\n,\n\"Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and Rationale\"\n,\nRFC 5894\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5894\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5894\n>\n.\n[RFC6055]\nThaler, D.\n,\nKlensin, J.\n, and\nS. Cheshire\n,\n\"IAB Thoughts on Encodings for Internationaliz\ned Domain Names\"\n,\nRFC 6055\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6055\n,\nFebruary 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6055\n>\n.\n[RFC6265]\nBarth, A.\n,\n\"HTTP State Management Mechanism\"\n,\nRFC 6265\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6265\n,\nApril 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6265\n>\n.\n[RFC6303]\nAndrews, M.\n,\n\"Locally Served DNS Zones\"\n,\nBCP 163\n,\nRFC 6303\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6303\n,\nJuly 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6303\n>\n.\n[RFC6335]\nCotton, M.\n,\nEggert, L.\n,\nTouch, J.\n,\nWesterlund, M.\n, and\nS. Cheshire\n,\n\"Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry\"\n,\nBCP 165\n,\nRFC 6335\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6335\n,\nAugust 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6335\n>\n.\n[RFC6365]\nHoffman, P.\nand\nJ. Klensin\n,\n\"Terminology Used in Internationaliz\nation in the IETF\"\n,\nBCP 166\n,\nRFC 6365\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6365\n,\nSeptember 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6365\n>\n.\n[RFC6672]\nRose, S.\nand\nW. Wijngaards\n,\n\"DNAME Redirection in the DNS\"\n,\nRFC 6672\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6672\n,\nJune 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6672\n>\n.\n[RFC6762]\nCheshire, S.\nand\nM. Krochmal\n,\n\"Multicast DNS\"\n,\nRFC 6762\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6762\n,\nFebruary 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6762\n>\n.\n[RFC7129]\nGieben, R.\nand\nW. Mekking\n,\n\"Authenticated Denial of Existence in the DNS\"\n,\nRFC 7129\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7129\n,\nFebruary 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7129\n>\n.\n[RFC7480]\nNewton, A.\n,\nEllacott, B.\n, and\nN. Kong\n,\n\"HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 7480\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7480\n,\nMarch 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7480\n>\n.\n[RFC7481]\nHollenbeck, S.\nand\nN. Kong\n,\n\"Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 7481\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7481\n,\nMarch 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7481\n>\n.\n[RFC9082]\nHollenbeck, S.\nand\nA. Newton\n,\n\"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 9082\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9082\n,\nJune 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9082\n>\n.\n[RFC9083]\nHollenbeck, S.\nand\nA. Newton\n,\n\"JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 9083\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9083\n,\nJune 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9083\n>\n.\n[RFC9224]\nBlanchet, M.\n,\n\"Finding the Authoritative Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Service\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 9224\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9224\n,\nMarch 2022\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9224\n>\n.\n[RFC7485]\nZhou, L.\n,\nKong, N.\n,\nShen, S.\n,\nSheng, S.\n, and\nA. Servin\n,\n\"Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects\"\n,\nRFC 7485\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7485\n,\nMarch 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7485\n>\n.\n[RFC7793]\nAndrews, M.\n,\n\"Adding 100.64.0.0/10 Prefixes to the IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry\"\n,\nBCP 163\n,\nRFC 7793\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7793\n,\nMay 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7793\n>\n.\n[RFC7858]\nHu, Z.\n,\nZhu, L.\n,\nHeidemann, J.\n,\nMankin, A.\n,\nWessels, D.\n, and\nP. Hoffman\n,\n\"Specification for DNS over Transport Layer Security (TLS)\"\n,\nRFC 7858\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7858\n,\nMay 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7858\n>\n.\n[RFC8094]\nReddy, T.\n,\nWing, D.\n, and\nP. Patil\n,\n\"DNS over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)\"\n,\nRFC 8094\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8094\n,\nFebruary 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8094\n>\n.\n[RFC8109]\nKoch, P.\n,\nLarson, M.\n, and\nP. Hoffman\n,\n\"Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries\"\n,\nBCP 209\n,\nRFC 8109\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8109\n,\nMarch 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8109\n>\n.\n[RFC8484]\nHoffman, P.\nand\nP. McManus\n,\n\"DNS Queries over HTTPS (DoH)\"\n,\nRFC 8484\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8484\n,\nOctober 2018\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8484\n>\n.\n[RFC9103]\nToorop, W.\n,\nDickinson, S.\n,\nSahib, S.\n,\nAras, P.\n, and\nA. Mankin\n,\n\"DNS Zone Transfer over TLS\"\n,\nRFC 9103\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9103\n,\nAugust 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9103\n>\n.\n[RSSAC026]\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\n,\n\"RSSAC0226 RSSAC Lexicon\"\n,\n2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.icann\n.org\n/en\n/system\n/files\n/files\n/rssac\n-026\n-14mar17\n-en\n.pdf\n>\n.\nAppendix A.\nDefinitions Updated by This Document\nThe following definitions from RFCs are updated by this document:\n¶\nForwarder in\n[\nRFC2308\n]\n¶\nQNAME in\n[\nRFC2308\n]\n¶\nSecure Entry Point (SEP) in\n[\nRFC3757\n]\n;\nnote, however, that this RFC is already obsolete\n(see\n[\nRFC4033\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n).\n¶\nAppendix B.\nDefinitions First Defined in This Document\nThe following definitions are first defined in this document:\n¶\n\"Alias\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Apex\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"arpa\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Authoritative DoT (ADot)\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Bailiwick\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Class independent\" in\nSection 5\n¶\n\"Classic DNS\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Delegation\n-centric zone\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Delegation\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"DNS operator\" in\nSection 9\n¶\n\"DNSSEC-aware\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"DNSSEC-unaware\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Forwarding\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Full resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Fully Qualified Domain Name\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Global DNS\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Hardware Security Module (HSM)\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Host name\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"IDN\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"In-domain\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Iterative resolution\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Label\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Locally served DNS zone\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Naming system\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Negative response\" in\nSection 3\n¶\n\"Non-recursive query\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Open resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Passive DNS\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Policy\n-implementing resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Presentation format\" in\nSection 5\n¶\n\"Priming\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Private DNS\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Recursive DoT (RDot)\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Recursive resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Referrals\" in\nSection 4\n¶\n\"Registrant\" in\nSection 9\n¶\n\"Registrar\" in\nSection 9\n¶\n\"Registry\" in\nSection 9\n¶\n\"Root zone\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Secure Entry Point (SEP)\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Sibling domain\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Signing software\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Split DNS\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Stub resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Subordinate\" in\nSection 8\n¶\n\"Superordinate\" in\nSection 8\n¶\n\"TLD\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Validating resolver\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Validation\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"View\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Zone transfer\" in\nSection 6\n¶\nAcknowledgements\n[\nRFC8499\n]\nand its predecessor,\n[\nRFC7719\n]\n, were co-authored by\nAndrew Sullivan\n.\nThe current document, which is a small update to\n[\nRFC8499\n]\n, has just two authors.\nAndrew's work on the earlier documents is greatly appreciated.\n¶\nNumerous people made significant contributions to\n[\nRFC8499\n]\nand\n[\nRFC7719\n]\n.\nPlease see the acknowledgement\ns sections in those two documents for the\nextensive list of contributors.\n¶\nEven though the current document is a small revision, many people in the\nDNSOP Working Group have contributed to it, and their work is greatly appreciated.\n¶\nIndex\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\nI\nK\nL\nM\nN\nO\nP\nQ\nR\nS\nT\nU\nV\nW\nX\nZ\n¶\nA\n¶\nAddress and Routing Parameter Area Domain (arpa)\nSection 7\n¶\nAddress records\nSection 5\n¶\nADoT\nSection 6\n¶\nAlias\nSection 2\n¶\nAnycast\nSection 6\n¶\nApex\nSection 7\n¶\nAsterisk label\nSection 8\n¶\nAuthoritative data\nSection 7\n¶\nAuthoritative server\nSection 6\n¶\nAuthoritative\n-only server\nSection 6\n¶\nAXoT\nSection 6\n¶\nB\n¶\nBailiwick\nSection 7\n¶\nC\n¶\nCanonical name\nSection 2\n¶\nChild\nSection 7\n¶\nClass\nSection 4\n¶\nClass independent\nSection 5\n¶\nClassic DNS\nSection 6\n¶\nClosest encloser\nSection 8\n¶\nClosest provable encloser\nSection 8\n¶\nCNAME\nSection 2\n¶\nCombined signing key (CSK)\nSection 10\n¶\nD\n¶\nDelegation\nSection 7\n¶\nDelegation\n-centric zone\nSection 7\n¶\nDNS operator\nSection 9\n¶\nDNS-over-HTTPS\nSection 6\n¶\nDNS-over-QUIC\nSection 6\n¶\nDNS-over-TLS\nSection 6\n¶\nDNSSEC Policy (DP)\nSection 10\n¶\nDNSSEC Practice Statement (DPS)\nSection 10\n¶\nDNSSEC-aware and DNSSEC-unaware\nSection 10\n¶\nDoH\nSection 6\n¶\nDomain name\nSection 2\n¶\nDoQ\nSection 6\n¶\nDoT\nSection 6\n¶\nE\n¶\nEDNS\nSection 5\n¶\nEmpty non-terminals (ENTs)\nSection 7\n¶\nEPP\nSection 9\n¶\nF\n¶\nFast flux DNS\nSection 7\n¶\nFORMERR\nSection 3\n¶\nForward lookup\nSection 7\n¶\nForwarder\nSection 6\n¶\nForwarding\nSection 6\n¶\nFull resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nFull-service resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nFully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)\nSection 2\n¶\nG\n¶\nGlobal DNS\nSection 2\n¶\nGlue records\nSection 7\n¶\nH\n¶\nHardware security module (HSM)\nSection 10\n¶\nHidden master\nSection 6\n¶\nHost name\nSection 2\n¶\nI\n¶\nIDN\nSection 2\n¶\nIn-bailiwick\nSection 7\n¶\nIn-domain\nSection 7\n¶\nInsecure delegation\nSection 10\n¶\nInstance\nSection 6\n¶\nInternationalize\nd Domain Name\nSection 2\n¶\nIterative mode\nSection 6\n¶\nIterative resolution\nSection 6\n¶\nIXoT\nSection 6\n¶\nK\n¶\nKey signing key (KSK)\nSection 10\n¶\nL\n¶\nLabel\nSection 2\n¶\nLame delegation\nSection 7\n¶\nLocally served DNS zone\nSection 2\n¶\nM\n¶\nMaster file\nSection 5\n¶\nMaster server\nSection 6\n¶\nmDNS\nSection 2\n¶\nMulticast DNS\nSection 2\n¶\nN\n¶\nNaming system\nSection 2, Paragraph 1.2.1\n¶\nNegative caching\nSection 6\n¶\nNegative response\nSection 3\n¶\nNext closer name\nSection 8\n¶\nNODATA\nSection 3\n¶\nNOERROR\nSection 3\n¶\nNon-recursive query\nSection 6\n¶\nNOTIMP\nSection 3\n¶\nNS\nSection 6\n¶\nNSEC\nSection 10\n¶\nNSEC3\nSection 10\n¶\nNXDOMAIN\nSection 3\n¶\nO\n¶\nOccluded name\nSection 7\n¶\non-line signing\nSection 10\n¶\nonline signing\nSection 10\n¶\nOpen resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nOPT\nSection 5\n¶\nOpt-out\nSection 10\n¶\nOrigin\nSection 7\n¶\nOut-of-bailiwick\nSection 7\n¶\nOwner\nSection 5\n¶\nP\n¶\nParent\nSection 7\n¶\nPassive DNS\nSection 6\n¶\nPolicy\n-implementing resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nPresentation format\nSection 5\n¶\nPrimary master\nSection 6\n¶\nPrimary server\nSection 6\n¶\nPriming\nSection 6\n¶\nPrivacy-enabling DNS server\nSection 6\n¶\nPrivate DNS\nSection 2\n¶\nPublic suffix\nSection 9\n¶\nQ\n¶\nQNAME\nSection 4\n¶\nR\n¶\nRDAP\nSection 9\n¶\nRDoT\nSection 6\n¶\nRecursive DoT\nSection 6\n¶\nRecursive mode\nSection 6, Paragraph 4.10.1\n¶\nRecursive query\nSection 6\n¶\nRecursive resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nReferrals\nSection 4\n¶\nREFUSED\nSection 3\n¶\nRegistrant\nSection 9\n¶\nRegistrar\nSection 9\n¶\nRegistry\nSection 9\n¶\nResolver\nSection 6\n¶\nReverse DNS, reverse lookup\nSection 7\n¶\nRoot hints\nSection 6\n¶\nRoot zone\nSection 7\n¶\nRR\nSection 5\n¶\nRRset\nSection 5\n¶\nS\n¶\nSecondary server\nSection 6\n¶\nSecure Entry Point (SEP)\nSection 10\n¶\nSERVFAIL\nSection 3\n¶\nService name\nSection 7\n¶\nSibling domain\nSection 7\n¶\nSigned zone\nSection 10\n¶\nSigning software\nSection 10\n¶\nSlave server\nSection 6\n¶\nSOA\nSection 5\n¶\nSOA field names\nSection 5\n¶\nSource of Synthesis\nSection 8, Paragraph 1.14.1\n¶\nSplit DNS\nSection 6\n¶\nSplit-horizon DNS\nSection 6\n¶\nStealth server\nSection 6\n¶\nStub resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nSubdomain\nSection 2\n¶\nSubordinate\nSection 9\n¶\nSuperordinate\nSection 9\n¶\nT\n¶\nTLD\nSection 2\n¶\nTrust anchor\nSection 10\n¶\nTTL\nSection 5\n¶\nU\n¶\nUnsigned zone\nSection 10\n¶\nV\n¶\nValidating resolver\nSection 10\n¶\nValidation\nSection 10, Paragraph 2.26.1\n¶\nView\nSection 6\n¶\nW\n¶\nWHOIS\nSection 9\n¶\nWildcard\nSection 8\n¶\nWildcard domain name\nSection 8\n¶\nX\n¶\nXoT\nSection 6\n¶\nZ\n¶\nZone\nSection 7\n¶\nZone cut\nSection 7\n¶\nZone enumeration\nSection 10\n¶\nZone signing key (ZSK)\nSection 10\n¶\nZone transfer\nSection 6\n¶\nAuthors' Addresses\nPaul Hoffman\nICANN\nEmail:\npaul\n.hoffman\n@icann\n.org\nKazunori Fujiwara\nJapan Registry Services Co., Ltd.\nEmail:\nfujiwara\n@jprs\n.co\n.jp\nRFC\n9499\n: DNS Terminology\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n1\nIn this section\n1 Introduction\n2 Names\n3 DNS Response Codes\n4 DNS Transactions\n5 Resource Records\n6 DNS Servers and Clients\n7 Zones\n8 Wildcards\n9 Registration Model\n10 General DNSSEC\n11 DNSSEC States\n12 Security Considerations\n13 IANA Considerations\n14 References\n14.1 Normative References\n14.2 Informative References\nAppendix A Definitions Updated by This Document\nAppendix B Definitions First Defined in This Document\nAcknowledgements\nIndex\nAuthors' Addresses\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "944a9ed0-71e5-4bd6-b973-ae4295e6e677", "document_id": "b91b1c3f-461f-49e9-9293-7662e8be30fe", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 9499: DNS Terminology | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 9499\nInfo\nRFC\n9499\n:\nBCP\n219\n:\nDNS Terminology\nP. Hoffman\n,\nK. Fujiwara\nBest Current Practice\nAbstract\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of\ndifferent RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and developers of\nDNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has changed\nin the decades since the DNS was first defined. This document gives\ncurrent definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single\ndocument.\n¶\nThis document updates RFC 2308 by clarifying the definitions of \"forwarder\" and \"QNAME\".\nIt obsoletes RFC 8499 by adding multiple terms and clarifications.\nComprehensive lists of changed and new definitions can be found in Appendices A and B.\n¶\nStatus of This Memo\nThis memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.\n¶\nThis document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force\n(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has\nreceived public review and has been approved for publication by\nthe Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information\non BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.\n¶\nInformation about the current status of this document, any\nerrata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9499\n.\n¶\nCopyright Notice\nCopyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n¶\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttps://\ntrustee\n.ietf\n.org\n/license\n-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with\nrespect to this document. Code Components extracted from this\ndocument must include Revised BSD License text as described in\nSection 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without\nwarranty as described in the Revised BSD License.\n¶\n1.\nIntroduction\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) is a simple query-response protocol\nwhose messages in both directions have the same format. (\nSection 2\ngives a definition of \"global DNS\", which is often\nwhat people mean when they say \"the DNS\".) The protocol and message\nformat are defined in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n. These RFCs defined some terms, and later documents\ndefined others. Some of the terms from\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nhave somewhat different meanings now than\nthey did in 1987.\n¶\nThis document contains a collection of a wide variety of DNS-related terms,\norganized loosely by topic. Some of them have been precisely defined in earlier\nRFCs, some have been loosely defined in earlier RFCs, and some are not defined\nin an earlier RFC at all.\n¶\nOther organizations sometimes define DNS-related terms in their own way.\nFor example, the WHATWG defines \"domain\" at\n<\nhttps://\nurl\n.spec\n.whatwg\n.org\n/\n>\n.\nThe Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) has a good\nlexicon\n[\nRSSAC026\n]\n.\n¶\nMost of the definitions listed here represent the consensus definition of the DNS\ncommunity -- both protocol developers and operators. Some of the definitions\ndiffer from earlier RFCs, and those differences are noted.\nIn this document, where the consensus definition is the same as the one in\nan RFC, that RFC is quoted. Where the consensus definition has changed somewhat,\nthe RFC is mentioned but the new stand-alone definition is given.\nSee\nAppendix A\nfor a list of the definitions\nthat this document updates.\n¶\nIt is important to note that,\nduring the development of this document, it became clear that some DNS-related terms\nare interpreted quite differently by different DNS experts. Further, some terms\nthat are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions that are generally agreed to, but\nthat are different from the original definitions.\nThis document is a small revision to\n[\nRFC8499\n]\n; that document was\na substantial revision to\n[\nRFC7719\n]\n.\n¶\nNote that there is no single consistent definition of \"the DNS\". It can be considered to be some\ncombination of the following: a commonly used naming scheme for objects on the Internet; a distributed database representing\nthe names and certain properties of these objects; an architecture providing distributed\nmaintenance, resilience, and loose coherency for this database; and a simple query-response protocol\n(as mentioned below) implementing this architecture.\nSection 2\ndefines\n\"global DNS\" and \"private DNS\" as a way to deal with these differing definitions.\n¶\nCapitalization in DNS terms is often inconsistent among RFCs and\nvarious DNS practitioners. The capitalization used in this document is a best\nguess at current practices, and is not meant to indicate that other\ncapitalization styles are wrong or archaic.\nIn some cases, multiple styles of capitalization are used for the same term due to quoting\nfrom different RFCs.\n¶\nIn this document, the words \"byte\" and \"octet\" are used interchangeably\n.\nThey appear here because they both appear in the earlier RFCs that defined terms in the DNS.\n¶\nReaders should note that the terms in this document are grouped by topic.\nSomeone who is not already familiar with the DNS probably cannot\nlearn about the DNS from scratch by reading this document from front to back.\nInstead, skipping around may be the only way to get enough context to\nunderstand some of the definitions. This document has an index that might be useful for\nreaders who are attempting to learn the DNS by reading this document.\n¶\n2.\nNames\nNaming system:\nA naming system associates names with data. Naming systems have many significant facets\nthat help differentiate them from each other. Some commonly identified facets include:\n¶\nComposition of names\n¶\nFormat of names\n¶\nAdministration of names\n¶\nTypes of data that can be associated with names\n¶\nTypes of metadata for names\n¶\nProtocol for getting data from a name\n¶\nContext for resolving a name\n¶\nNote that this list is a small subset of facets that people have identified over time\nfor naming systems, and the IETF has yet to agree on a good set of facets that can be used\nto compare naming systems. For example, other facets might include \"protocol to update\ndata in a name\", \"privacy of names\", and \"privacy of data associated with names\", but\nthose are not as well defined as the ones listed above. The list here is chosen because it\nhelps describe the DNS and naming systems similar to the DNS.\n¶\nDomain name:\nAn ordered list of one or more labels.\n¶\nNote that this is a definition independent of the DNS RFCs (\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n), and the definition here\nalso applies to systems other than the DNS.\n[\nRFC1034\n]\ndefines the \"domain\nname space\" using mathematical trees and their nodes in graph theory, and that definition\nhas the same practical result as the definition here. Any path of a directed acyclic graph\ncan be represented by a domain name consisting of the labels of its nodes, ordered by\ndecreasing distance from the root(s) (which is the normal convention within the DNS,\nincluding this document). A domain name whose last label identifies a root of the graph is\nfully qualified; other domain names whose labels form a strict prefix of a fully qualified\ndomain name are relative to its first omitted node.\n¶\nAlso note that different IETF and non-IETF documents have used the term \"domain name\"\nin many different ways. It is common for earlier documents to use \"domain name\" to mean\n\"names that match the syntax in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n\", but possibly with additional\nrules such as \"and are, or will be, resolvable in the global DNS\" or \"but only using the\npresentation format\".\n¶\nLabel:\nAn ordered list of zero or more octets that makes up a portion of a domain name.\nUsing graph theory, a label identifies one node in a portion of the graph of all possible\ndomain names.\n¶\nGlobal DNS:\nUsing the short set of facets listed in \"Naming system\", the global DNS can be defined as\nfollows. Most of the rules here come from\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n, although the term \"global DNS\" has not been defined before now.\n¶\nComposition of names:\nA name in the global DNS has one or more\nlabels. The length of each label is between 0 and 63 octets\ninclusive. In a fully qualified domain name, the last label\nin the ordered list is 0 octets long; it is the only label whose\nlength may be 0 octets, and it is called the \"root\" or \"root label\".\nA domain name in the global DNS has a maximum total length of 255\noctets in the wire format; the root represents one octet for this\ncalculation.\n(Multicast DNS\n[\nRFC6762\n]\nallows names up to 255 bytes plus a terminating zero byte\nbased on a different interpretation of RFC 1035 and what is included in the 255 octets.)\n¶\nFormat of names:\nNames in the global DNS are domain names. There are three formats:\nwire format, presentation format, and common display.\n¶\nWire format:\nThe basic wire format for names in the\nglobal DNS is a list of labels ordered by decreasing distance from\nthe root, with the root label last. Each label is preceded by a\nlength octet.\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nalso\ndefines a compression scheme that modifies this format.\n¶\nPresentation format:\nThe presentation format for names\nin the global DNS is a list of labels ordered by decreasing\ndistance from the root, encoded as ASCII, with a \".\" character\nbetween each label. In presentation format, a fully qualified\ndomain name includes the root label and the associated separator\ndot. For example, in presentation format, a fully qualified domain\nname with two non-root labels is always shown as \"example.tld.\"\ninstead of \"example.tld\".\n[\nRFC1035\n]\ndefines a method for showing octets that do not\ndisplay in ASCII.\n¶\nCommon display format:\nThe common display format is\nused in applications and free text. It is the same as the\npresentation format, but showing the root label and the \".\" before\nit is optional and is rarely done. For example, in common display\nformat, a fully qualified domain name with two non-root labels is\nusually shown as \"example.tld\" instead of \"example.tld.\". Names in\nthe common display format are normally written such that the\ndirectionality of the writing system presents labels by decreasing\ndistance from the root (so, in both English and the C programming\nlanguage, the root or Top-Level Domain (TLD) label in the ordered\nlist is rightmost; but in Arabic, it may be leftmost, depending on\nlocal conventions).\n¶\nAdministration of names:\nAdministration is specified by delegation (see the\ndefinition of \"delegation\" in\nSection 7\n). Policies for administration of\nthe root zone in the global DNS are determined by the names operational community, which\nconvenes itself in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The\nnames operational community selects the IANA Functions Operator for the global DNS root\nzone.\nThe name servers that serve the root zone are provided by independent\nroot operators. Other zones in the global DNS have their own policies for\nadministration.\n¶\nTypes of data that can be associated with names:\nA name can have zero or more\nresource records associated with it. There are numerous types of resource records with\nunique data structures defined in many different RFCs and in the IANA registry at\n[\nIANA_\nResource_\nRegistry\n]\n.\n¶\nTypes of metadata for names:\nAny name that is published in the DNS appears as a set\nof resource records (see the definition of \"RRset\" in\nSection 5\n). Some names\ndo not, themselves, have data associated with them in the DNS, but they \"appear\" in the DNS\nanyway because they form part of a longer name that does have data associated with it (see\nthe definition of \"empty non-terminals\" in\nSection 7\n).\n¶\nProtocol for getting data from a name:\nThe protocol described in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nContext for resolving a name:\nThe global DNS root zone distributed by Public Technical Identifiers (PTI).\n¶\nPrivate DNS:\nNames that use the protocol described in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nbut do not rely on\nthe global DNS root zone or names that are otherwise not generally available on the\nInternet but are using the protocol described in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n. A system can\nuse both the global DNS and one or more private DNS systems; for example, see \"Split DNS\"\nin\nSection 6\n.\n¶\nNote that domain names that do not appear in the DNS and that are intended never to be\nlooked up using the DNS protocol are not part of the global DNS or a private DNS, even\nthough they are domain names.\n¶\nMulticast DNS (mDNS):\n\"Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to perform DNS-like operations on the local link in the\nabsence of any conventional Unicast DNS server. In addition, Multicast DNS designates a portion of\nthe DNS namespace to be free for local use, without the need to pay any annual fee, and without the\nneed to set up delegations or otherwise configure a conventional DNS server to answer for those\nnames.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6762\n]\n, Abstract)\nAlthough it uses a compatible wire format, mDNS is, strictly speaking, a different protocol than DNS.\nAlso, where the above quote says \"a portion of the DNS namespace\", it would be clearer to say \"a\nportion of the domain name space\". The names in mDNS are not intended to be looked up in the\nDNS.\n¶\nLocally served DNS zone:\nA locally served DNS zone is a special case of private DNS.\nNames are resolved using the DNS protocol in a local context.\n[\nRFC6303\n]\ndefines subdomains of IN-ADDR.ARPA\nthat are locally served zones.\nResolution of names through locally served zones may result in ambiguous results.\nFor example, the same name may resolve to different results in different locally served DNS\nzone contexts. The context for a locally served DNS zone may be explicit, such as those that are listed in\n[\nRFC6303\n]\nand\n[\nRFC7793\n]\n, or implicit, such as those defined by local DNS administration and not known to the\nresolution client.\n¶\nFully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN):\nThis is often just a clear way\nof saying the same thing as \"domain name of a node\", as outlined\nabove. However, the term is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, a fully qualified\ndomain name would include every label, including the zero-length label\nof the root; such a name would be written \"www\n.example\n.net\n.\"\n(note the terminating dot). But, because every name eventually shares\nthe common root, names are often written relative to the root\n(such as \"www\n.example\n.net\"\n) and are still called \"fully qualified\".\nThis term first appeared in\n[\nRFC819\n]\n. In this document, names\nare often written relative to the root.\n¶\nThe need for the term \"fully qualified domain name\" comes from the existence\nof partially qualified domain names, which are names where one or more\nof the last labels in the ordered list are omitted (for example,\na domain name of \"www\" relative to \"example.net\" identifies \"www\n.example\n.net\"\n).\nSuch relative names are understood only by context.\n¶\nHost name:\nThis term and its equivalent, \"hostname\", have been\nwidely used but are not defined in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\n,\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n,\n[\nRFC1123\n]\n, or\n[\nRFC2181\n]\n. The\nDNS was originally deployed into the Host Tables environment as\noutlined in\n[\nRFC952\n]\n, and it is likely that the term followed\ninformally from the definition there.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 15166, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 14, "word_count": 2641}}, {"segment_id": "05e9a032-a231-40b1-b111-1b63a910026a", "document_id": "b91b1c3f-461f-49e9-9293-7662e8be30fe", "ordinal": 1, "text": "Over time, the definition seems\nto have shifted. \"Host name\" is often meant to be a domain name that follows\nthe rules in\nSection 3.5\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n, which is also called the \"preferred name\nsyntax\". (In that syntax, every character in each label is a letter,\na digit, or a hyphen). Note that any label in a domain name can contain any octet\nvalue; hostnames are generally considered to be domain names where\nevery label follows the rules in the \"preferred name syntax\", with the\namendment that labels can start with ASCII digits (this amendment\ncomes from\nSection 2.1\nof [\nRFC1123\n]\n).\n¶\nPeople also sometimes use the term \"hostname\" to refer to just the first\nlabel of an FQDN, such as \"printer\" in \"printer\n.admin\n.example\n.com\"\n.\n(Sometimes this is formalized in configuration in operating systems.)\nIn addition, people sometimes use this term to\ndescribe any name that refers to a machine, and those might include\nlabels that do not conform to the \"preferred name syntax\".\n¶\nTop-Level Domain (TLD):\nA Top-Level Domain is a zone that is one layer below the\nroot, such as \"com\" or \"jp\". There is nothing special, from the point\nof view of the DNS, about TLDs. Most of them are also\ndelegation\n-centric zones (defined in\nSection 7\n), and there are significant policy issues\naround their operation.\nTLDs are often divided into sub-groups such as Country Code Top-Level Domains\n(ccTLDs), Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), and others; the\ndivision is a matter of policy and beyond the scope of this document.\n¶\nInternationalize\nd Domain Name (IDN):\nThe Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) protocol is\nthe standard mechanism for handling domain names with non-ASCII\ncharacters in applications in the DNS. The current standard at the\ntime of this writing, normally called \"IDNA2008\", is defined in\n[\nRFC5890\n]\n,\n[\nRFC5891\n]\n,\n[\nRFC5892\n]\n,\n[\nRFC5893\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC5894\n]\n. These documents define many IDN-specific terms\nsuch as \"LDH label\", \"A-label\", and \"U-label\".\n[\nRFC6365\n]\ndefines more terms that relate to\ninternationaliz\nation (some of which relate to IDNs);\n[\nRFC6055\n]\nhas a much more extensive discussion of IDNs,\nincluding some new terminology.\n¶\nSubdomain:\n\"A domain is a subdomain of another domain if it is contained within that domain. This relationship can be tested by\nseeing if the subdomain's name ends with the containing domain's name.\" (Quoted\nfrom\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.1\n)", "char_start": 15168, "char_end": 17584, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 418}}, {"segment_id": "424d950d-46f7-4709-aad6-fc6c521478ed", "document_id": "b91b1c3f-461f-49e9-9293-7662e8be30fe", "ordinal": 2, "text": "For\nexample, in the host name \"nnn\n.mmm\n.example\n.com\", both \"mmm\n.example\n.com\" and \"nnn\n.mmm\n.example\n.com\" are subdomains of \"example.com\".\nNote that the comparisons here are done on whole labels; that is,\n\"ooo\n.example\n.com\" is not a subdomain of \"oo\n.example\n.com\"\n.\n¶\nAlias:\nThe owner of a CNAME resource record, or a subdomain of the owner of a\nDNAME resource record (DNAME records are defined in\n[\nRFC6672\n]\n). See also \"canonical name\".\n¶\nCanonical name:\nA CNAME resource record\n\"identifies its owner name as an\nalias, and specifies the corresponding canonical name in the RDATA\nsection of the RR.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6.2\n)\nThis usage of the word \"canonical\" is related to the mathematical\nconcept of \"canonical form\".\n¶\nCNAME:\n\"It has been traditional to refer to the [owner] of a CNAME record as 'a\nCNAME'. This is unfortunate, as 'CNAME' is an abbreviation of\n'canonical name', and the [owner] of a CNAME record is most certainly\nnot a canonical name.\"\n\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 10.1.1\n. The quoted\ntext has been changed from \"label\" to \"owner\".)\n¶\n3.\nDNS Response Codes\nSome of the response codes (RCODEs) that are defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nhave acquired their own\nshorthand names. All of the RCODEs are listed at\n[\nIANA_\nResource_\nRegistry\n]\n, although\nthat list uses mixed-case capitalization, while most documents use all caps.\nSome of the common names for values defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nare described in this section.\nThis section also includes an additional RCODE and a general definition.\nThe official list of all RCODEs is in the IANA registry.\n¶\nNOERROR:\nThis RCODE appears as \"No error condition\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nFORMERR:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Format error - The name server was unable to interpret the query\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nSERVFAIL:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Server failure - The name server was unable to process this query due to a problem with the name\nserver\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nNXDOMAIN:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Name Error [...] this code signifies that the domain name\nreferenced in the query does not exist.\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nestablished NXDOMAIN as a synonym for Name Error.\n¶\nNOTIMP:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Not Implemented - The name server does not support the requested kind of query\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nREFUSED:\nThis RCODE appears as \"Refused - The name server refuses to perform the specified operation for policy reasons. For\nexample, a name server may not wish to provide the information to the particular requester, or a\nname server may not wish to perform a particular operation (e.g., zone transfer) for particular\ndata.\" in\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\n¶\nNODATA:\n\"A pseudo RCODE which indicates that the name is valid, for\nthe given class, but [there] are no records of the given type. A NODATA\nresponse has to be inferred from the answer.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2308\n],\nSection 1\n)\n\"NODATA is indicated by an answer with the RCODE set to NOERROR and no\nrelevant answers in the Answer section. The Authority section will\ncontain an SOA record, or there will be no NS records there.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2308\n],\nSection 2.2\n)\nNote that referrals have a similar format to NODATA replies;\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nexplains how to distinguish them.\n¶\nThe term \"NXRRSET\" is sometimes used as a synonym for NODATA. However, this is a mistake, given\nthat NXRRSET is a specific error code defined in\n[\nRFC2136\n]\n.\n¶\nNegative response:\nA response that indicates that a particular RRset does not exist\nor whose RCODE indicates that the nameserver cannot answer.\nSections\n2\nand\n7\nof\n[\nRFC2308\n]\ndescribe the types of negative responses in detail.\n¶\n4.\nDNS Transactions\nThe header of a DNS message is its first 12 octets. Many of the fields and flags in\nthe diagrams in Sections\n4.1.1\nthrough\n4.1.3\nof\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nare referred to by their names\nin each diagram.", "char_start": 17586, "char_end": 21484, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 705}}, {"segment_id": "7110d543-b652-4222-b607-455e80419880", "document_id": "b91b1c3f-461f-49e9-9293-7662e8be30fe", "ordinal": 3, "text": "For example, the response codes are called \"RCODEs\",\nthe data for a record is called the \"RDATA\", and the\nauthoritative answer bit is often called \"the AA flag\" or \"the AA bit\".\n¶\nClass:\nA class \"identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol\". (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6\n)\n\n\"The DNS tags all data with a class as well as the type, so that we can allow parallel use\nof different formats for data of type address.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 2.2\n)\nIn practice, the class for nearly every query is \"IN\" (the Internet).\n\nThere are some queries for \"CH\" (the Chaos class), but they are usually for the purposes of\ninformation about the server itself rather than for a different type of address.\n¶\nQNAME:\nThe most commonly used rough definition is that the QNAME is a field in the Question section of a\nquery.\n\"A standard query specifies a target domain name (QNAME), query type (QTYPE), and query\nclass (QCLASS) and asks for RRs which match.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.7.1\n)\nStrictly speaking, the definition comes from\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 4.1.2\n, where the QNAME is defined in respect of the Question\nsection.\nThis definition appears to be applied consistently, as the discussion\nof inverse queries in\nSection 6.4.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\nrefers to the \"owner name of\nthe query RR and its TTL\" because inverse queries populate the Answer section\nand leave the Question section empty. (Inverse queries\nare deprecated in\n[\nRFC3425\n]\n; thus, relevant\ndefinitions do not appear in this document.)\n¶\nHowever,\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nhas an alternate definition that\nputs the QNAME in the answer (or series of answers) instead of the\nquery. It defines QNAME as\n\n\"...the name in the query section of an\nanswer, or where this resolves to a CNAME, or CNAME chain, the data\nfield of the last CNAME. The last CNAME in this sense is that which\ncontains a value which does not resolve to another CNAME.\"\nThis definition has a certain internal logic, because of the way CNAME\nsubstitution works and the definition of CNAME. If a name server does\nnot find an RRset that matches a query, but does find the same name in\nthe same class with a CNAME record, then the name server \"includes the\nCNAME record in the response and restarts the query at the domain name\nspecified in the data field of the CNAME record.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6.2\n) This is made explicit in the\nresolution algorithm outlined in\nSection 4.3.2\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n, which says to \"change QNAME to the canonical name\nin the CNAME RR, and go back to step 1\" in the case of a CNAME RR.\nSince a CNAME record explicitly declares that the owner name is\ncanonically named what is in the RDATA, then there is a way to view\nthe new name (i.e., the name that was in the RDATA of the CNAME RR) as\nalso being the QNAME.\n¶\nHowever, this creates confusion because the response to a\nquery that results in CNAME processing contains in the echoed Question\nsection one QNAME (the name in the original query) and a second QNAME\nthat is in the data field of the last CNAME. The confusion comes from\nthe iterative\n/recursive mode of resolution, which finally returns an\nanswer that need not actually have the same owner name as the QNAME\ncontained in the original query.\n¶\nTo address this potential confusion, it is helpful to distinguish\nbetween three meanings:\n¶\nQNAME (original):\nThe name actually sent in the Question section in the original query, which is\nalways echoed in the (final) reply in the Question section when the QR bit is set to 1.\n¶\nQNAME (effective):\nA name actually resolved, which is either the name originally queried\nor a name received in a CNAME chain response.\n¶\nQNAME (final):\nThe name actually resolved, which is either the name actually queried or else\nthe last name in a CNAME chain response.\n¶\nNote that, because the definition in\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nis\nactually for a different concept than what was in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\n, it would have been better if\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nhad used a different name for that concept. In\ngeneral use today, QNAME almost always means what is defined above as\n\"QNAME (original)\".\n¶\nReferrals:\nA type of response in which a server, signaling that it is not\n(completely) authoritative for an answer, provides the querying\nresolver with an alternative place to send its query. Referrals can\nbe partial.\n¶\nA referral arises when a server is not performing recursive service\nwhile answering a query. It appears in step 3(b) of the algorithm in\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 4.3.2\n.\n¶\nThere are two types of referral response. The first is a downward\nreferral (sometimes described as \"delegation response\"), where the\nserver is authoritative for some portion of the QNAME. The Authority\nsection RRset's RDATA contains the name servers specified at the\nreferred-to zone cut. In normal DNS operation, this kind of response\nis required in order to find names beneath a delegation. The bare\nuse of \"referral\" means this kind of referral, and many people believe\nthat this is the only legitimate kind of referral in the DNS.\n¶\nThe second is an upward referral (sometimes described as \"root\nreferral\"), where the server is not authoritative for any portion of\nthe QNAME. When this happens, the referred-to zone in the Authority\nsection is usually the root zone (\".\"). In normal DNS operation, this\nkind of response is not required for resolution or for correctly\nanswering any query. There is no requirement that any server send\nupward referrals. Some people regard upward referrals as a sign of a\nmisconfiguratio\nn or error. Upward referrals always need some sort of\nqualifier (such as \"upward\" or \"root\") and are never identified simply by\nthe word \"referral\".\n¶\nA response that has only a referral contains an empty Answer\nsection. It contains the NS RRset for the referred-to zone in the\nAuthority section. It may contain RRs that provide addresses in the\nAdditional section. The AA bit is clear.\n¶\nIn the case where the query matches an alias, and the server is not\nauthoritative for the target of the alias but is authoritative for\nsome name above the target of the alias, the resolution algorithm will\nproduce a response that contains both the authoritative answer for the\nalias and a referral. Such a partial answer and referral\nresponse has data in the Answer section. It has the NS RRset for the\nreferred-to zone in the Authority section. It may contain RRs that\nprovide addresses in the Additional section. The AA bit is set\nbecause the first name in the Answer section matches the QNAME and the\nserver is authoritative for that answer (see\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 4.1.1\n).\n¶\n5.\nResource Records\nRR:\nAn acronym for resource record. (See\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6\n.)\n¶\nRRset:\nA set of resource records \"with the same label, class and type, but with different\ndata\" (according to\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 5\n). Also written as \"RRSet\" in some documents. As a clarification,\n\"same label\" in this definition means \"same owner name\".\nIn addition,\n[\nRFC2181\n]\nstates that \"the TTLs of all RRs in an RRSet must be the same\".\n¶\nNote that RRSIG resource records do not match this definition.\n[\nRFC4035\n]\nsays:\n¶\nAn RRset\nMAY\nhave multiple RRSIG RRs associated\nwith it. Note that as RRSIG RRs are closely tied to the RRsets\nwhose signatures they contain, RRSIG RRs, unlike all other DNS RR\ntypes, do not form RRsets. In particular, the TTL values among\nRRSIG RRs with a common owner name do not follow the RRset rules\ndescribed in\n[\nRFC2181\n]\n.\n¶\nMaster file:\n\"Master files are text files that contain RRs in text form. Since the contents of a zone\ncan be expressed in the form of a list of RRs a master file is most often used to define a\nzone, though it can be used to list a cache's contents.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 5\n)\nMaster files are sometimes called \"zone files\".\n¶\nPresentation format:\nThe text format used in master files. This format is shown but not formally defined in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nor\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n. The term \"presentation format\"\nfirst appears in\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n.\n¶\nEDNS:\nThe extension mechanisms for DNS, defined in\n[\nRFC6891\n]\n. Sometimes called \"EDNS0\" or \"EDNS(0)\"\nto indicate the version number.\nEDNS allows DNS clients and servers to specify message\nsizes larger than the original 512-octet limit, to expand the response code space, and\nto carry additional options that affect the handling of a DNS query.\n¶\nOPT:\nA pseudo-RR (sometimes called a \"meta-RR\") that is used only to contain\ncontrol information pertaining to the question\n-and\n-answer sequence of a specific\ntransaction. (Definition paraphrased from\n[\nRFC6891\n],\nSection 6.1.1\n.) It is used by EDNS.\n¶\nOwner:\n\"The domain name where the RR is found.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 3.6\n) Often appears in the term \"owner name\".\n¶\nSOA field names:\nDNS documents, including the definitions here, often refer to the fields in the\nRDATA of an SOA resource record by field name.\n\"SOA\" stands for \"start of a zone of authority\".\nThose fields are defined in\nSection 3.3.13\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.\nThe names (in the order they appear in the SOA RDATA) are MNAME, RNAME, SERIAL, REFRESH, RETRY,\nEXPIRE, and MINIMUM.\nNote that the meaning of the MINIMUM field is updated in\nSection 4\nof [\nRFC2308\n]\n; the new definition\nis that the MINIMUM field is only \"the TTL to be used for negative responses\".\nThis document tends to use field names instead of terms that describe the fields.\n¶\nTTL:\nThe maximum \"time to live\" of a resource record.", "char_start": 21486, "char_end": 30860, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1680}}, {"segment_id": "03293084-1649-4b63-af2d-17047f057c56", "document_id": "b91b1c3f-461f-49e9-9293-7662e8be30fe", "ordinal": 4, "text": "\"A TTL value is an unsigned\nnumber, with a minimum value of 0, and a maximum value of 2147483647. That is, a\nmaximum of 2^31 - 1. When transmitted, this value shall be encoded in the less\nsignificant 31 bits of the 32 bit TTL field, with the most significant, or sign,\nbit set to zero.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 8\n)\nNote that\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nerroneously stated that this is a signed integer; that was fixed by\n[\nRFC2181\n]\n.\n¶\nThe TTL \"specifies the time interval that the resource record may be cached\nbefore the source of the information should again be consulted.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 3.2.1\n)\nSection 4.1.3\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\nstates \"the time interval (in seconds) that the resource\nrecord may be cached before it should be discarded\". Despite being defined for a resource record, the TTL of every\nresource record in an RRset is required to be the same (\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 5.2\n).\n¶\nThe reason that the TTL is the maximum time to live is that a cache operator\nmight decide to shorten the time to live for operational purposes, for example, if\nthere is a policy to disallow TTL values over a certain number.\nSome servers are known to ignore the TTL on some RRsets (such as when the authoritative data\nhas a very short TTL) even though this is against the advice in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n.\nAn RRset can be flushed from the cache before the end of the TTL interval,\nat which point, the value of the TTL becomes unknown because the RRset\nwith which it was associated no longer exists.\n¶\nThere is also the concept of a \"default TTL\" for a zone, which can be a configuration\nparameter in the server software. This is often expressed by a default for the\nentire server, and a default for a zone using the $TTL directive\nin a zone file. The $TTL directive was added to the master file\nformat by\n[\nRFC2308\n]\n.\n¶\nClass independent:\nA resource record type whose syntax and semantics are the same for every DNS\nclass.\nA resource record type that is not class independent has different meanings, depending on the\nDNS class of the record or if the meaning is undefined for some classes.\nMost resource record types are defined for class 1 (IN, the Internet),\nbut many are undefined for other classes.\n¶\nAddress records:\nRecords whose type is either A or AAAA.\n[\nRFC2181\n]\ninformally defines these as \"(A, AAAA, etc)\".\nNote that new types of address records could be defined in the future.\n¶\n6.\nDNS Servers and Clients\nThis section defines the terms used for the systems that act as DNS\nclients, DNS servers, or both. In past RFCs, DNS servers are\nsometimes called \"name servers\", \"nameservers\", or just\n\"servers\". There is no formal definition of \"DNS server\", but RFCs\ngenerally assume that it is an Internet server that listens for\nqueries and sends responses using the DNS protocol defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nand its successors.\n¶\nIt is important to note that the terms \"DNS server\" and \"name\nserver\" require context in order to understand the services being\nprovided. Both authoritative servers and recursive resolvers are often\ncalled \"DNS servers\" and \"name servers\" even though they serve\ndifferent roles (but may be part of the same software package).\n¶\nFor terminology specific to the global DNS root server system, see\n[\nRSSAC026\n]\n. That document defines terms such as \"root\nserver\", \"root server operator\", and terms that are specific to the\nway that the root zone of the global DNS is served.\n¶\nResolver:\nA program \"that extract[s] information from name\nservers in response to client requests.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 2.4\n) A resolver performs\nqueries for a name, type, and class, and receives responses. The\nlogical function is called \"resolution\". In practice, the term is\nusually referring to some specific type of resolver\n(some of which are defined below), and understanding\nthe use of the term depends on understanding the context.\n¶\nA related term is \"resolve\", which is not formally defined in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nor\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n. An imputed definition might be \"asking a question that\nconsists of a domain name, class, and type, and receiving some sort of response\".\nSimilarly, an imputed definition of \"resolution\" might be \"the response received\nfrom resolving\".\n¶\nStub resolver:\nA resolver that cannot perform all resolution\nitself. Stub resolvers generally depend on a recursive resolver to undertake the\nactual resolution function. Stub resolvers are discussed but never\nfully defined in\nSection 5.3.1\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.\nThey are fully defined in\nSection 6.1.3.1\nof [\nRFC1123\n]\n.\n¶\nIterative mode:\nA resolution mode of a server that receives DNS\nqueries and responds with a referral to another server.\nSection 2.3\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\ndescribes this as \"The server refers the client to\nanother server and lets the client pursue the query.\"\nA resolver that works in iterative mode is sometimes called an \"iterative\nresolver\".\nSee also \"iterative resolution\" later in this section.\n¶\nRecursive mode:\nA resolution mode of a server that receives DNS\nqueries and either responds to those queries from a local cache or\nsends queries to other servers in order to get the final answers to\nthe original queries.\nSection 2.3\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\ndescribes this as \"the\nfirst server pursues the query for the client at another server\".\nSection 4.3.1\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\nsays: \"in [recursive]\nmode the name server acts in the role of a resolver and\nreturns either an error or the answer, but never referrals.\"\nThat same section also says:\n¶\nThe recursive mode occurs when a query with RD set arrives at a server which\nis willing to provide recursive service; the client can verify that\nrecursive mode was used by checking that both RA and RD are set in the\nreply.\n¶\nA server operating in recursive mode may be thought of as having a name\nserver side (which is what answers the query) and a resolver side\n(which performs the resolution function). Systems operating\nin this mode are commonly called \"recursive servers\". Sometimes they\nare called \"recursive resolvers\". In practice, it is not possible to know\nin advance whether the server that one is querying will also perform\nrecursion; both terms can be observed in use interchangeably\n.\n¶\nRecursive resolver:\nA resolver that acts in recursive mode.\nIn general, a recursive resolver is expected to cache the answers it receives\n(which would make it a full-service resolver), but some recursive resolvers might not cache.\n¶\n[\nRFC4697\n]\ntried to differentiate between a\nrecursive resolver and an iterative resolver.\n¶\nRecursive query:\nA query with the Recursion Desired (RD) bit set to 1 in the header. (See\nSection 4.1.1\nof [\nRFC1035\n]\n.) If recursive service is available and is requested by the RD bit in the query,\nthe server uses its resolver to answer the query. (See\nSection 4.3.2\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.)\n¶\nNon-recursive query:\nA query with the Recursion Desired (RD) bit set to 0 in the header. A server can answer\nnon-recursive queries using only local information: the response contains either an error, the\nanswer, or a referral to some other server \"closer\" to the answer.\n(See\nSection 4.3.1\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.)\n¶\nIterative resolution:\nA name server may be presented with a query that can only be answered by some other server. The two\ngeneral approaches to dealing with this problem are \"recursive\", in which the first server pursues\nthe query on behalf of the client at another server, and \"iterative\", in which the server refers the client\nto another server and lets the client pursue the query there. (See\nSection 2.3\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.)\n¶\nIn iterative resolution, the client repeatedly makes non-recursive queries and follows referrals\nand/or aliases. The iterative resolution algorithm is described in\nSection 5.3.3\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\n.\n¶\nFull resolver:\nThis term is used in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n, but it is not defined there. RFC\n1123 defines a \"full-service resolver\" that may or may not be what was intended\nby \"full resolver\" in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n.\nThis term is not properly defined in any RFC, and there is no consensus on what the term means.\nThe use of this term without proper context is discouraged.\n¶\nFull-service resolver:\nSection 6.1.3.1\nof [\nRFC1123\n]\ndefines this term\nas a resolver that acts in recursive mode with a cache (and meets\nother requirements).\n¶\nPriming:\n\"The act of finding the list of root servers from a\nconfiguration that lists some or all of the purported IP addresses of\nsome or all of those root servers.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC8109\n],\nSection 2\n)\nIn order to operate in recursive mode, a resolver needs to know the address of at least one root server.\nPriming is most often done from a configuration setting that contains a\nlist of authoritative servers for the root zone.\n¶\nRoot hints:\n\"Operators who manage a DNS recursive resolver typically need to configure\na 'root hints file'.\nThis file contains the names and IP addresses of the authoritative name servers\nfor the root zone, so the software can bootstrap the DNS resolution process.\nFor many pieces of software, this list comes built into the software.\" (Quoted from\n[\nIANA_\nRoot\nFiles\n]\n)\nThis file is often used in priming.\n¶\nNegative caching:\n\"The storage of knowledge that something does not exist, cannot\nor does not give an answer.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2308\n],\nSection 1\n)\n¶\nAuthoritative server:\n\"A server that knows the content of a DNS zone from local knowledge, and thus can answer\nqueries about that zone without needing to query other servers.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2182\n],\nSection 2\n)\nAn authoritative server is named in the NS (\"name server\") record in a zone.\nIt is a system that responds to DNS queries with information about\nzones for which it has been configured to answer with the AA flag in\nthe response header set to 1. It is a server that has authority over\none or more DNS zones. Note that it is possible for an authoritative\nserver to respond to a query without the parent zone delegating\nauthority to that server. Authoritative servers also provide\n\"referrals\", usually to child zones delegated from them; these\nreferrals have the AA bit set to 0 and come with referral data in the\nAuthority and (if needed) the Additional sections.\n¶\nAuthoritative\n-only server:\nA name server that only serves authoritative data and ignores requests for recursion.\nIt will \"not normally generate any queries of its own. Instead it answers non-recursive\nqueries from iterative resolvers looking for information in zones it serves.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4697\n],\nSection 2.4\n)\nIn this case, \"ignores requests for recursion\" means \"responds to requests for\nrecursion with responses indicating that recursion was not performed\".\n¶\nZone transfer:\nThe act of a client requesting a copy of a zone and an authoritative server\nsending the needed information.\n(See\nSection 7\nfor a description of zones.)\nThere are two common standard ways to do zone transfers:\nthe AXFR (\"Authoritative Transfer\") mechanism to copy the full zone (described in\n[\nRFC5936\n]\n, and\nthe IXFR (\"Incremental Transfer\") mechanism to copy only parts of the zone that have changed (described in\n[\nRFC1995\n]\n).\nMany systems use non-standard methods for zone transfers outside the DNS protocol.\n¶\nSlave server:\nSee \"Secondary server\".\n¶\nSecondary server:\n\"An authoritative server which uses zone transfer to retrieve the\nzone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1996\n],\nSection 2.1\n)\nSecondary servers are also discussed in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\n.\n[\nRFC2182\n]\ndescribes secondary servers in\nmore detail. Although early DNS RFCs such as\n[\nRFC1996\n]\nreferred to this as a \"slave\", the\ncurrent common usage has shifted to calling it a \"secondary\".\n¶\nMaster server:\nSee \"Primary server\".\n¶\nPrimary server:\n\"Any authoritative server configured to be the source of zone transfer\nfor one or more [secondary] servers.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1996\n],\nSection 2.1\n) Or, more\nspecifically,\n[\nRFC2136\n]\ncalls it \"an authoritative server configured to be the source of AXFR or IXFR data\nfor one or more [secondary] servers\".\nPrimary servers are also discussed in\n[\nRFC1034\n]\n.\nAlthough early DNS RFCs such as\n[\nRFC1996\n]\nreferred to this as a \"master\", the current\ncommon usage has shifted to \"primary\".\n¶\nPrimary master:\n\"The primary master is named in the zone's SOA MNAME field and\noptionally by an NS RR.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1996\n],\nSection 2.1\n)\n[\nRFC2136\n]\ndefines \"primary master\" as\n\"Master server at the root of the AXFR/IXFR dependency graph.\nThe primary master is named in the zone's SOA MNAME field and optionally by an NS RR. There is by\ndefinition only one primary master server per zone.\"\n¶\nThe idea of a primary master is only used in\n[\nRFC1996\n]\nand\n[\nRFC2136\n]\n.\nA modern interpretation of the term \"primary master\" is a server that is both authoritative for a zone\nand that gets its updates to the zone from configuration (such as a master file) or from UPDATE transactions.\n¶\nStealth server:\nThis is \"like a slave server except not listed in an NS RR for\nthe zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1996\n],\nSection 2.1\n)\n¶\nHidden master:\nA stealth server that is a primary server for zone transfers. \"In this arrangement, the\nmaster name server that processes the updates is unavailable to general hosts on the\nInternet; it is not listed in the NS RRset.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.4.3\n)\n[\nRFC4641\n]\nsaid\nthat the hidden master's name \"appears in the SOA RRs MNAME field\"; however, the name does not appear at all in the global DNS in some setups. A hidden master can also be a\nsecondary server for the zone itself.\n¶\nForwarding:\nThe process of one server sending a DNS query with the\nRD bit set to 1 to another server to resolve that query. Forwarding is\na function of a DNS resolver; it is different than simply blindly\nrelaying queries.\n¶\n[\nRFC5625\n]\ndoes not give a specific definition for forwarding, but\ndescribes in detail what features a system that forwards needs to\nsupport. Systems that forward are sometimes called \"DNS proxies\", but\nthat term has not yet been defined (even in\n[\nRFC5625\n]\n).\n¶\nForwarder:\nSection 1\nof [\nRFC2308\n]\ndescribes a forwarder as \"a\nnameserver used to resolve queries instead of directly using the\nauthoritative nameserver chain\".\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nfurther says \"The\nforwarder typically either has better access to the internet, or\nmaintains a bigger cache which may be shared amongst many resolvers.\"\nThat definition appears to suggest that forwarders\nnormally only query authoritative servers. In current use, however,\nforwarders often stand between stub resolvers and recursive servers.\n[\nRFC2308\n]\nis silent on whether a forwarder is iterative-only or\ncan be a full-service resolver.\n¶\nPolicy\n-implementing resolver:\nA resolver acting in recursive mode that changes some of the answers\nthat it returns based on policy criteria, such as to prevent access to\nmalware sites or objectionable content. In general, a stub resolver has no idea\nwhether upstream resolvers implement such policy or, if they do, the exact\npolicy about what changes will be made.\nIn some cases, the user of the stub resolver has selected the policy\n-implementing resolver\nwith the explicit intention of using it to implement the policies. In other cases,\npolicies are imposed without the user of the stub resolver being informed.\n¶\nOpen resolver:\nA full-service resolver that accepts and processes queries from any (or nearly any) client.\nThis is sometimes also called a \"public resolver\", although the term \"public resolver\"\nis used more with open resolvers that are meant to be open, as compared to the vast majority of open\nresolvers that are probably misconfigured to be open.\nOpen resolvers are discussed in\n[\nRFC5358\n]\n.\n¶\nSplit DNS:\nThe terms \"split DNS\" and \"split-horizon DNS\" have long been used in the DNS community without\nformal definition. In general, they refer to situations in which\nDNS servers that are authoritative for a particular set of domains\nprovide partly or completely different answers in those domains depending\non the source of the query.\nNevertheless, the effect of this is that a domain name that\nis notionally globally unique has different meanings for\ndifferent network users. This can sometimes be the result of a \"view\"\nconfiguration, as described below.\n¶\nSection 3.8\nof [\nRFC2775\n]\ngives a related definition that is too specific to be generally useful.\n¶\nView:\nA configuration for a DNS server that allows it to provide\ndifferent responses depending on attributes of the query, such as for \"split DNS\". Typically, views differ\nby the source IP address of a query, but can also be based on the destination IP address,\nthe type of query (such as AXFR), whether it is recursive, and so on.\nViews are often used to\nprovide more names or different addresses to queries from \"inside\" a protected network\nthan to those \"outside\" that network. Views are not a standardized\npart of the DNS, but they are widely implemented in server software.\n¶\nPassive DNS:\nA mechanism to collect DNS data by storing DNS responses from name servers. Some of these systems\nalso collect the DNS queries associated with the responses, although doing so raises some privacy\nconcerns. Passive DNS databases can be used to answer historical questions about DNS zones, such as\nwhich values were present at a given time in the past, or when a name was spotted first.\nPassive DNS databases allow searching of the stored records on keys other than\njust the name and type, such as \"find all names which have A records of a\nparticular value\".\n¶\nAnycast:\n\"The practice of making a particular service address available in multiple, discrete, autonomous\nlocations, such that datagrams sent are routed to one of several available locations.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4786\n],\nSection 2\n)\nSee\n[\nRFC4786\n]\nfor more detail on Anycast and other terms that are\nspecific to its use.\n¶\nInstance:\n\"When anycast routing is used to allow more than one server to have the same IP\naddress, each one of those servers is commonly referred to as an 'instance'.\"\nIt goes on to say: \"An instance of a server, such as a root server, is often referred to as an 'Anycast\ninstance'.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRSSAC026\n]\n)\n¶\nPrivacy-enabling DNS server:\n\"A DNS server that implements\nDNS over TLS\n[\nRFC7858\n]\nand may optionally implement DNS over DTLS\n[\nRFC8094\n]\n.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC8310\n],\nSection 2\n)\nOther types of DNS servers might also be considered privacy\n-enabling, such as those\nrunning DNS-over-HTTPS\n[\nRFC8484\n]\nor DNS-over-QUIC\n[\nRFC9250\n]\n.\n¶\nDNS-over-TLS (DoT):\nDNS over TLS as defined in\n[\nRFC7858\n]\nand its successors.\n¶\nDNS-over-HTTPS (DoH):\nDNS over HTTPS as defined in\n[\nRFC8484\n]\nand its successors.\n¶\nDNS-over-QUIC (DoQ):\nDNS over QUIC as defined in\n[\nRFC9250\n]\nand its successors.\n[\nRFC9250\n]\nspecifically defines DoQ as general-purpose transport\nfor DNS that can be used in stub to recursive, recursive to authoritative, and\nzone transfer scenarios.\n¶\nClassic DNS:\nDNS over UDP or DNS over TCP as defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n]\nand its successors.\nClassic DNS applies to DNS communication between stub resolvers and recursive\nresolvers, and between recursive resolvers and authoritative servers.\nThis has sometimes been called \"Do53\".\nClassic DNS is not encrypted.\n¶\nRecursive DoT (RDoT):\nRDoT specifically means DNS-over-TLS for transport between a stub resolver and a\nrecursive resolver, or between a recursive resolver and another recursive resolver.\nThis term is necessary because it is expected that DNS-over-TLS will later be\ndefined as a transport between recursive resolvers and authoritative servers.\n¶\nAuthoritative DoT (ADoT):\nIf DNS-over-TLS is later defined as a transport between recursive resolvers and\nauthoritative servers, ADoT specifically means DNS-over-TLS for transport\nbetween recursive resolvers and authoritative servers.\n¶\nXFR-over-TLS (XoT):\nDNS zone transfer over TLS, as specified in\n[\nRFC9103\n]\n.\nThis term applies to both AXFR over TLS (AXoT) and IXFR over TLS (IXoT).\n¶\n7.\nZones\nThis section defines terms that are used when discussing zones that are being served or retrieved.\n¶\nZone:\n\"Authoritative information is\norganized into units called ZONEs, and these zones can be\nautomatically distributed to the name servers which provide\nredundant service for the data in a zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 2.4\n)\n¶\nChild:\n\"The entity on record that has the delegation of the domain from the\nParent.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC7344\n],\nSection 1.1\n)\n¶\nParent:\n\"The domain in which the Child is registered.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC7344\n],\nSection 1.1\n) Earlier,\n\"parent name server\" was defined in\n[\nRFC0882\n]\nas \"the name server that has authority over the place\nin the domain name space that will hold the new domain\". (Note\nthat\n[\nRFC0882\n]\nwas obsoleted by\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nand\n[\nRFC1035\n]\n.)\n[\nRFC819\n]\nalso has some description of\nthe relationship between parents and children.\n¶\nOrigin:\n¶\nThere are two different uses for this term:\n¶\n(a)\n\"The domain name that\nappears at the top of a zone (just below the cut that separates the\nzone from its parent)... The name of the zone is the same as the name\nof the domain at the zone's origin.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 6\n) These days, this sense of\n\"origin\" and \"apex\" (defined below) are often used\ninterchangeably\n.\n¶\n(b)\nThe domain name within which a given relative domain name\nappears in zone files. Generally seen in the context of \"$ORIGIN\", which is a\ncontrol entry defined in\n[\nRFC1035\n],\nSection 5.1\n, as part of the master\nfile format. For example, if the $ORIGIN is set to \"example.org.\",\nthen a master file line for \"www\" is in fact an entry for\n\"www\n.example\n.org\n.\"\n.\n¶\nApex:\nThe point in the tree at an owner of an SOA and corresponding authoritative NS RRset.\nThis is also called the \"zone apex\".\n[\nRFC4033\n]\ndefines it as \"the name at the child's side of a zone cut\".\nThe \"apex\" can usefully be thought of as a data-theoretic description of a tree structure,\nand \"origin\" is the name of the same concept when it is implemented in\nzone files. The distinction is not always maintained in use, however,\nand one can find uses that conflict subtly with this definition.\n[\nRFC1034\n]\nuses the term \"top node of the zone\" as a synonym of \"apex\", but that term is not widely used.\nThese days, the first sense of \"origin\" (above) and \"apex\" are often used interchangeably\n.\n¶\nZone cut:\nThe delimitation point between two zones where the origin\nof one of the zones is the child of the other zone.\n¶\n\"Zones are delimited by 'zone cuts'. Each zone cut separates a\n'child' zone (below the cut) from a 'parent' zone (above the cut).\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 6\n; note that this is barely an ostensive\ndefinition.)\nSection 4.2\nof [\nRFC1034\n]\nuses \"cuts\" instead of \"zone cut\".\n¶\nDelegation:\nThe process by which a separate zone is created in the\nname space beneath the apex of a given domain. Delegation happens when an NS\nRRset is added in the parent zone for the child origin. Delegation\ninherently happens at a zone cut.\nThe term is also commonly a noun: the new zone that is created by the act of delegating.\n¶\nAuthoritative data:\n\"All of the RRs attached to all of the nodes from the top node of the zone\ndown to leaf nodes or nodes above cuts around the bottom edge of the zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 4.2.1\n)\nNote that this definition might inadvertently also cause any NS records\nthat appear in the zone to be included, even those that might not truly be authoritative, because there are\nidentical NS RRs below the zone cut. This reveals the ambiguity in\nthe notion of authoritative data, because the parent-side NS records\nauthoritatively indicate the delegation, even though they are not\nthemselves authoritative data.\n¶\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n, defines \"Authoritative RRset\", which is related\nto authoritative data but has a more precise definition.\n¶\nLame delegation:\n\"A lame delegations exists [sic] when a nameserver is delegated responsibility for providing nameservice\nfor a zone (via NS records) but is not performing nameservice for that zone (usually because it is\nnot set up as a primary or secondary for the zone).\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1912\n],\nSection 2.8\n)\nAnother definition is that a lame delegation\n\"...happens when a name server is listed in the NS records for some domain and in fact it is not a\nserver for that domain. Queries are thus sent to the wrong servers, who don't know nothing [sic] (at least\nnot as expected) about the queried domain. Furthermore, sometimes these hosts (if they exist!) don't\neven run name servers.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1713\n],\nSection 2.3\n)\n¶\nThese early definitions do not match the current use of the term \"lame delegation\",\nbut there is no consensus on what a lame delegation is.\nThe term is used not only for the specific case described above,\nbut for a variety of other flaws in delegations that lead to non\n-authoritative\nanswers or no answers at all, such as:\n¶\na nameserver with an NS record for a zone that does not answer DNS queries;\n¶\na nameserver with an IP address that is not reachable by the resolver; and\n¶\na nameserver that responds to a query for a specific name with an error or\nwithout the authoritative bit set.\n¶\nBecause the term in current usage has drifted from the original definition, and now\nis not specific or clear as to the intended meaning, it should be considered historic\nand avoided in favor of terms that are specific and clear.\n¶\nGlue records:\n\"...[Resource records] which are not part of the authoritative data [of the zone],\nand are address RRs for the [name] servers [in subzones]. These RRs are only\nnecessary if the name server's name is 'below' the cut, and are only used as part of a\nreferral response.\" Without glue \"we could be faced with the situation where the NS RRs\ntell us that in order to learn a name server's address, we should contact the server using\nthe address we wish to learn.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 4.2.1\n)\n¶\nA later definition is that glue\n\"includes any record in a zone file that is not properly\npart of that zone, including nameserver records of delegated sub-zones (NS records),\naddress records that accompany those NS records (A, AAAA, etc), and any other stray data\nthat might appear.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC2181\n],\nSection 5.4.1\n)\nAlthough glue is sometimes used today\nwith this wider definition in mind, the context surrounding the definition in\n[\nRFC2181\n]\nsuggests it is intended to apply to the use of glue within the document itself and not\nnecessarily beyond.\n¶\nIn an NS record, there are three types of relationships between the owner name of the record, the name in the NS RDATA, and the zone origin: unrelated, in-domain, and sibling domain.\nThe application of these three types of relationships to glue records is defined in\n[\nRFC9471\n]\n.\n¶\nAn unrelated relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server\nthat is not subordinate to the zone origin and therefore is not part of the same zone.\n¶\nAn in-domain relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server\nwhose name is either\nsubordinate to or (rarely) the same as the owner name of the NS resource records.\nFor example, a delegation for \"child\n.example\n.com\" might have an in-domain name\nserver called \"ns\n.child\n.example\n.com\"\n.\n¶\nA sibling domain relationship is one where the NS RDATA contains a name server\nwhose name is either subordinate to or\n(rarely) the same as the zone origin of the parent and not subordinate to or the same as the\nowner name of the NS resource records.\nFor example, a delegation for \"child\n.example\n.com\" in \"example.com\" zone might have\na sibling domain name server called \"ns\n.another\n.example\n.com\"\n.\n¶\nThe following table shows examples of delegation types:\n¶\nTable 1\nDelegation\nParent\nName Server Name\nType\ncom\n.\na\n.gtld\n-servers\n.net\nsibling domain\nnet\n.\na\n.gtld\n-servers\n.net\nin-domain\nexample.org\norg\nns.example.org\nin-domain\nexample.org\norg\nns.ietf.org\nsibling domain\nexample.org\norg\nns.example.com\nunrelated\nexample.jp\njp\nns.example.jp\nin-domain\nexample.jp\njp\nns.example.ne.jp\nsibling domain\nexample.jp\njp\nns.example.com\nunrelated\n¶\nBailiwick:\n\"In-bailiwick\" and \"Out\n-of\n-bailiwick\" are modifiers used to describe the relationship between\na zone and the name servers for that zone.\nThe dictionary definition of bailiwick has been observed to cause more confusion than meaning for this use.\nThese terms should be considered historic in nature.\n¶\nRoot zone:\nThe zone of a DNS-based tree whose apex is the zero-length label.\nAlso sometimes called \"the DNS root\".\n¶\nEmpty non-terminals (ENTs):\n\"Domain names that own no resource records but have subdomains that do.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 2.2.2\n)\nA typical example is in SRV records: in the name\n\"_\nsip\n._\ntcp\n.example\n.com\", it is likely that \"_\ntcp\n.example\n.com\" has no RRsets, but\nthat \"_\nsip\n._\ntcp\n.example\n.com\" has (at least) an SRV RRset.\n¶\nDelegation\n-centric zone:\nA zone that consists mostly of delegations to child zones. This term is\nused in contrast to a zone that might have some delegations to child zones but also has many data\nresource records for the zone itself and/or for child zones.\nThe term is used in\n[\nRFC4956\n]\nand\n[\nRFC5155\n]\n, but it is not defined in either document.\n¶\nOccluded name:\n\"The addition of a delegation point via dynamic update will render all subordinate\ndomain names to be in a limbo, still part of the zone but not available to the lookup process. The\naddition of a DNAME resource record has the same impact. The subordinate names are said to be\n'occluded'.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC5936\n],\nSection 3.5\n)\n¶\nFast flux DNS:\nThis \"occurs when a domain is [found] in DNS using A records to multiple IP addresses,\neach of which has a very short Time-to-Live (TTL) value associated with it. This means\nthat the domain resolves to varying IP addresses over a short period of time.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC6561\n],\nSection 1.1.5\n, with a typo corrected)\nIn addition to having legitimate uses, fast flux DNS can be used to deliver malware.\nBecause the addresses change so rapidly, it is difficult to\nascertain all the hosts. It should be noted that the technique also works\nwith AAAA records, but such use is not frequently observed on the\nInternet as of this writing.\n¶\nReverse DNS, reverse lookup:\n\"The process of mapping an address to a name is\ngenerally known as a 'reverse lookup', and the IN-ADDR.ARPA and\nIP6.ARPA zones are said to support the 'reverse DNS'.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5855\n],\nSection 1\n)\n¶\nForward lookup:\n\"Hostname\n-to\n-address translation\". (Quoted from\n[\nRFC3493\n],\nSection 6\n)\n¶\narpa (Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain):\n\"The 'arpa' domain was originally established as part of the initial\ndeployment of the DNS to provide a transition mechanism from the\nHost Tables that were common in the ARPANET, as well as a home for\nthe IPv4 reverse mapping domain. During 2000, the abbreviation was\nredesignated to 'Address and Routing Parameter Area' in the hope of\nreducing confusion with the earlier network name.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC3172\n],\nSection 2\n)\n.arpa is an \"infrastructure domain\",\na domain whose \"role is to\nsupport the operating infrastructure of the Internet\".\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC3172\n],\nSection 2\n)\nSee\n[\nRFC3172\n]\nfor more history of this name.\n¶\nService name:\n\"Service names are the unique key in the Service Name and Transport\nProtocol Port Number registry. This unique symbolic name for a\nservice may also be used for other purposes, such as in DNS SRV\nrecords.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6335\n],\nSection 5\n)\n¶\n8.\nWildcards\nWildcard:\n[\nRFC1034\n]\ndefined \"wildcard\", but in a way that turned out to be\nconfusing to implementers.\nFor an extended discussion of wildcards, including clearer definitions, see\n[\nRFC4592\n]\n.\nSpecial treatment is given to RRs with owner names starting with the label \"*\". \"Such RRs\nare called 'wildcards'. Wildcard RRs can be thought of as instructions for synthesizing RRs.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC1034\n],\nSection 4.3.3\n)\n¶\nAsterisk label:\n\"The first octet is the normal label type and length for a 1-octet-long\nlabel, and the second octet is the ASCII representation\n[\nRFC20\n]\nfor the '*' character.\nA descriptive name of a label equaling that value is an 'asterisk\nlabel'.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 2.1.1\n)\n¶\nWildcard domain name:\n\"A 'wildcard domain name' is defined by having its initial (i.e.,\nleftmost or least significant) label, in binary format: 0000 0001 0010 1010 (binary) = 0x01 0x2a (hexadecimal)\".\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 2.1.1\n) The second octet in this label is the ASCII representation for the \"*\" character.\n¶\nClosest encloser:\n\"The longest existing ancestor of a name.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 1.3\n)\nAn earlier definition is \"The node in the zone's tree of existing\ndomain names that has the most labels matching the query name\n(consecutively, counting from the root label downward). Each match\nis a 'label match' and the order of the labels is the same.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 3.3.1\n)\n¶\nClosest provable encloser:\n\"The longest ancestor of a name that can\nbe proven to exist. Note that this is only different from the\nclosest encloser in an Opt-Out zone.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 1.3\n)\nSee\nSection 10\nfor more on \"opt-out\".\n¶\nNext closer name:\n\"The name one label longer than the closest\nprovable encloser of a name.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 1.3\n)\n¶\nSource of Synthesis:\n\"The source of synthesis is defined in the context of a query process\nas that wildcard domain name immediately descending from the closest\nencloser, provided that this wildcard domain name exists.\n'Immediately descending' means that the source of synthesis has a\nname of the form:\n¶\n<asterisk label>.<closest encloser>.\"\n¶\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4592\n],\nSection 3.3.1\n)\n¶\n9.\nRegistration Model\nRegistry:\nThe administrative operation of a zone that allows registration of names within that\nzone. People often use this term to refer only to those organizations\nthat perform registration in large delegation\n-centric zones (such as\nTLDs); but formally, whoever decides what data goes into a zone is the\nregistry for that zone.\nThis definition of \"registry\" is from a DNS point of view; for some zones, the policies\nthat determine what can go in the zone are decided by zones that are superordinate and not the registry operator.\n¶\nRegistrant:\nAn individual or organization on whose behalf a name in\na zone is registered by the registry. In many zones, the registry and\nthe registrant may be the same entity, but in TLDs they often are\nnot.\n¶\nRegistrar:\nA service provider that acts as a go-between for\nregistrants and registries. Not all registrations require a\nregistrar, though it is common to have registrars involved in\nregistrations in TLDs.\n¶\nEPP:\nThe Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), which is commonly used for communication\nof registration information between registries and registrars. EPP is defined in\n[\nRFC5730\n]\n.\n¶\nWHOIS:\nA protocol specified in\n[\nRFC3912\n]\n, often used for querying registry databases.\nWHOIS data is frequently used to associate registration data (such as zone management\ncontacts) with domain names.\nThe term \"WHOIS data\" is often used as a synonym for the registry database, even though\nthat database may be served by different protocols, particularly RDAP.\nThe WHOIS protocol is also used with IP address registry data.\n¶\nRDAP:\nThe Registration Data Access Protocol, defined in\n[\nRFC7480\n]\n,\n[\nRFC7481\n]\n,\n[\nRFC7485\n]\n,\n[\nRFC9082\n]\n,\n[\nRFC9083\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC9224\n]\n.\nThe RDAP protocol and data format are meant as a replacement for WHOIS.\n¶\nDNS operator:\nAn entity responsible for running DNS servers. For a zone's authoritative servers, the registrant\nmay act as their own DNS operator, their registrar may do it on their behalf, or they may use a\nthird-party operator.\nFor some zones, the registry function is performed by the DNS operator plus other entities\nwho decide about the allowed contents of the zone.\n¶\nPublic suffix:\n\"A domain that is controlled by a public registry.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6265\n],\nSection 5.3\n) A common definition for this term is a domain under which subdomains can be registered by third parties and on which HTTP cookies\n(which are described in detail in\n[\nRFC6265\n]\n) should not be set.\nThere is no indication in a domain name whether it is a public suffix; that can only be\ndetermined by outside means.\nIn fact, both a domain and a subdomain of that domain can be public suffixes.\n¶\nThere is nothing inherent in a domain name to indicate whether it is\na public suffix. One\nresource for identifying public suffixes is the Public Suffix List (PSL)\nmaintained by Mozilla\n<\nhttps://\npublicsuffix\n.org\n/\n>\n.\n¶\nFor example, at the time this document is published,\nthe \"com.au\" domain is listed as a public suffix in the PSL.\n(Note that this example might change in the future.)\n¶\nNote that the term \"public suffix\" is controversial in the DNS\ncommunity for many reasons, and it may be significantly changed in the future. One example of the\ndifficulty of calling a domain a public suffix is that designation can change over time as the\nregistration policy for the zone changes, such as was the case with the \"uk\" TLD in 2014.\n¶\nSubordinate and Superordinate:\nThese terms are introduced in\n[\nRFC5731\n]\nfor use in the registration model, but not defined there.\nInstead, they are given in examples.\n\"For example, domain name 'example.com' has a superordinate relationship to host name\nns1\n.example\n.com'\n... For example, host ns1\n.example1\n.com is a subordinate host of domain example1.com,\nbut it is a not a subordinate host of domain example2.com.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5731\n],\nSection 1.1\n)\nThese terms are strictly ways of referring to the relationship standing of two domains\nwhere one is a subdomain of the other.\n¶\n10.\nGeneral DNSSEC\nMost DNSSEC terms are defined in\n[\nRFC4033\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC5155\n]\n. The\nterms that have caused confusion in the DNS community are highlighted here.\n¶\nDNSSEC-aware and DNSSEC-unaware:\nThese two terms, which are used in some RFCs, have not been formally defined.\nHowever,\nSection 2\nof [\nRFC4033\n]\ndefines many types of resolvers and\nvalidators, including \"non-validating security-aware stub resolver\", \"non-validating\nstub resolver\", \"security-aware name server\", \"security-aware recursive name server\",\n\"security-aware resolver\", \"security-aware stub resolver\", and \"security\n-oblivious 'anything'\".\n(Note that the term \"validating resolver\", which is used in some\nplaces in DNSSEC-related documents, is also not defined in those RFCs, but is defined below.)\n¶\nSigned zone:\n\"A zone whose RRsets are signed and that contains\nproperly constructed DNSKEY, Resource Record Signature (RRSIG),\nNext Secure (NSEC), and (optionally) DS records.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n)\nIt has been noted in other contexts that the zone itself is not\nreally signed, but all the relevant RRsets in the zone are signed.\nNevertheless, if a zone that should be signed contains any RRsets that\nare not signed (or opted out), those RRsets will be treated as bogus,\nso the whole zone needs to be handled in some way.\n¶\nIt should also be noted that, since the publication of\n[\nRFC6840\n]\n, NSEC records are no\nlonger required for signed zones: a signed zone might include NSEC3 records instead.\n[\nRFC7129\n]\nprovides additional background commentary and some context for the NSEC and\nNSEC3 mechanisms used by DNSSEC to provide authenticated denial\n-of\n-existence responses.\nNSEC and NSEC3 are described below.\n¶\nOnline signing:\n[\nRFC4470\n]\ndefines \"on-line signing\" (note the hyphen) as\n\"generating and signing these records on demand\", where \"these\" was defined\nas NSEC records. The current definition expands that to\ngenerating and signing RRSIG, NSEC, and NSEC3 records on demand.\n¶\nUnsigned zone:\nSection 2\nof [\nRFC4033\n]\ndefines this as \"a zone that is not signed\".\nSection 2\nof [\nRFC4035\n]\ndefines this as a \"zone that does not include these records [properly constructed DNSKEY,\nResource Record Signature (RRSIG), Next Secure (NSEC), and (optionally) DS records] according to the\nrules in this section...\" There is an important note at the end of\nSection 5.2\nof [\nRFC4035\n]\nthat defines an\nadditional situation in which a zone is considered unsigned:\n\"If the resolver does not support any of\nthe algorithms listed in an authenticated DS RRset, then the resolver will not be able to verify the\nauthentication path to the child zone. In this case, the resolver\nSHOULD\ntreat the child zone as if\nit were unsigned.\"\n¶\nNSEC:\n\"The NSEC record allows a security-aware resolver to authenticate a negative reply for\neither name or type non-existence with the same mechanisms used to authenticate other DNS replies.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 3.2\n) In short, an NSEC record provides authenticated denial of\nexistence.\n¶\n\"The NSEC resource record lists two separate things: the next owner name (in the canonical\nordering of the zone) that contains authoritative data or a delegation point NS RRset, and the set\nof RR types present at the NSEC RR's owner name.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4034\n],\nSection 4\n)\n¶\nNSEC3:\nLike the NSEC record, the NSEC3 record also provides authenticated denial of existence; however,\nNSEC3 records mitigate zone enumeration and support Opt-Out.\nNSEC3 resource records require associated NSEC3PARAM resource records.\nNSEC3 and NSEC3PARAM resource records are defined in\n[\nRFC5155\n]\n.\n¶\nNote that\n[\nRFC6840\n]\nsays that\n[\nRFC5155\n]\n\"is now considered part of the DNS Security Document Family\nas described by\nSection 10\nof [\nRFC4033\n]\n\". This means that some of the definitions from earlier RFCs that\nonly talk about NSEC records should probably be considered to be talking about both NSEC and NSEC3.\n¶\nOpt-out:\n\"The Opt-Out Flag indicates whether this NSEC3 RR may cover unsigned delegations.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 3.1.2.1\n)\nOpt-out tackles the high costs of securing a delegation to an insecure zone. When using\nOpt-Out, names that are an insecure delegation (and empty non-terminals that are only\nderived from insecure delegations) don't require an NSEC3 record or its corresponding\nRRSIG records. Opt-Out NSEC3 records are not able to prove or deny the existence of the\ninsecure delegations. (Adapted from\n[\nRFC7129\n],\nSection 5.1\n)\n¶\nInsecure delegation:\n\"A signed name containing a delegation (NS RRset), but lacking a DS RRset,\nsignifying a delegation to an unsigned subzone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4956\n],\nSection 2\n)\n¶\nZone enumeration:\n\"The practice of discovering the full content of a zone via successive queries.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC5155\n],\nSection 1.3\n) This is also sometimes called \"zone walking\".\nZone enumeration is different from zone content guessing where the guesser uses a large dictionary\nof possible labels and sends successive queries for them, or matches the contents of NSEC3 records\nagainst such a dictionary.\n¶\nValidation:\nValidation, in the context of DNSSEC, refers to one of the following:\n¶\nChecking the validity of DNSSEC signatures,\n¶\nChecking the validity of DNS responses, such as those including authenticated denial of\nexistence, or\n¶\nBuilding an authentication chain from a trust anchor to a DNS response or individual\nDNS RRsets in a response.\n¶\nThe first two definitions above consider only the validity of individual DNSSEC\ncomponents, such as the RRSIG validity or NSEC proof validity. The third definition\nconsiders the components of the entire DNSSEC authentication chain; thus, it requires\n\"configured knowledge of at least one authenticated DNSKEY or DS RR\" (as described in\n[\nRFC4035\n],\nSection 5\n).\n¶\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n, says that a \"Validating Security-Aware Stub\nResolver... performs signature validation\" and uses a trust anchor \"as a starting point\nfor building the authentication chain to a signed DNS response\"; thus, it uses the first\nand third definitions above. The process of validating an RRSIG resource record is described in\n[\nRFC4035\n],\nSection 5.3\n.\n¶\n[\nRFC5155\n]\nrefers to validating responses throughout the document in the\ncontext of hashed authenticated denial of existence; this uses the second definition\nabove.\n¶\nThe term \"authentication\n\" is used interchangeably with \"validation\", in the sense of the\nthird definition above.\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n, describes the chain linking trust anchor to DNS data as the \"authentication chain\". A\nresponse is considered to be authentic if \"all RRsets in the Answer and\nAuthority sections\nof the response [are considered] to be authentic\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n) DNS data or\nresponses deemed to be authentic or validated have a security status of \"secure\" (\n[\nRFC4035\n],\nSection 4.3\n;\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 5\n). \"Authenticating\nboth DNS keys and data is a matter of local policy, which may extend or even override the\n[DNSSEC] protocol extensions...\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 3.1\n)\n¶\nThe term \"verification\", when used, is usually a synonym for \"validation\".\n¶\nValidating resolver:\nA security-aware recursive name server, security-aware resolver, or\nsecurity-aware stub resolver that is applying at least one of the\ndefinitions of validation (above) as appropriate to the resolution\ncontext. For the same reason that the generic term \"resolver\" is\nsometimes ambiguous and needs to be evaluated in context (see\nSection 6\n), \"validating resolver\" is a\ncontext\n-sensitive term.\n¶\nKey signing key (KSK):\nDNSSEC keys that \"only sign the apex DNSKEY RRset in a zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.1\n)\n¶\nZone signing key (ZSK):\n\"DNSSEC keys that can be used to sign all the RRsets in a zone that\nrequire signatures, other than the apex DNSKEY RRset.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.1\n)\nAlso note that a ZSK is sometimes used to sign the apex DNSKEY RRset.\n¶\nCombined signing key (CSK):\n\"In cases where the differentiation between the KSK and ZSK is not made,\ni.e., where keys have the role of both KSK and ZSK, we talk about a Single-Type Signing\nScheme.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.1\n) This is sometimes called a \"combined\nsigning key\" or \"CSK\". It is operational practice, not protocol, that determines whether a\nparticular key is a ZSK, a KSK, or a CSK.\n¶\nSecure Entry Point (SEP):\nA flag in the DNSKEY RDATA that \"can be used to distinguish between\nkeys that are intended to be used as the secure entry point into the zone when building\nchains of trust, i.e., they are (to be) pointed to by parental DS RRs or configured as a\ntrust anchor....\nTherefore, it is suggested that the SEP flag be set on keys that are used as KSKs and not on keys\nthat are used as ZSKs, while in those cases where a distinction between a KSK and ZSK is not made\n(i.e., for a Single-Type Signing Scheme), it is suggested that the SEP flag be set on all keys.\"\n(Quoted from\n[\nRFC6781\n],\nSection 3.2.3\n) Note that the\nSEP flag is only a hint, and its presence or absence may not be used to disqualify a given\nDNSKEY RR from use as a KSK or ZSK during validation.\n¶\nThe original definition of SEPs was in\n[\nRFC3757\n]\n. That definition\nclearly indicated that the SEP was a key, not just a bit in the key. The\nabstract of\n[\nRFC3757\n]\nsays:\n\"With the Delegation Signer (DS) resource record (RR), the concept of\na public key acting as a secure entry point (SEP) has been\nintroduced. During exchanges of public keys with the parent there is\na need to differentiate SEP keys from other public keys in the Domain\nName System KEY (DNSKEY) resource record set. A flag bit in the\nDNSKEY RR is defined to indicate that DNSKEY is to be used as a SEP.\"\nThat definition of the SEP as a key was made obsolete by\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n,\nand the definition from\n[\nRFC6781\n]\nis consistent with\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n.\n¶\nTrust anchor:\n\"A configured DNSKEY RR or DS RR hash of a DNSKEY RR. A\nvalidating security-aware resolver uses this public key or hash as\na starting point for building the authentication chain to a signed\nDNS response. In general, a validating resolver will have to\nobtain the initial values of its trust anchors via some secure or\ntrusted means outside the DNS protocol.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC4033\n],\nSection 2\n)\n¶\nDNSSEC Policy (DP):\nA statement that \"sets forth the security requirements and\nstandards to be implemented for a DNSSEC-signed zone.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6841\n],\nSection 2\n)\n¶\nDNSSEC Practice Statement (DPS):\n\"A practices disclosure document that may\nsupport and be a supplemental document to the DNSSEC Policy (if such exists),\nand it states how the management of a given zone implements procedures and\ncontrols at a high level.\" (Quoted from\n[\nRFC6841\n],\nSection 2\n)\n¶\nHardware security module (HSM):\nA specialized piece of hardware that is used to create keys for signatures and to\nsign messages without ever disclosing the private key. In DNSSEC, HSMs are often used to hold the private keys for\nKSKs and ZSKs and to create the signatures used in RRSIG records at periodic intervals.\n¶\nSigning software:\nAuthoritative DNS servers that support DNSSEC often contain software that\nfacilitates the creation and maintenance of DNSSEC signatures in zones.\nThere is also stand-alone software that can be used to sign a zone regardless\nof whether the authoritative server itself supports signing. Sometimes\nsigning software can support particular HSMs as part of the signing process.\n¶\n11.\nDNSSEC States\nA validating resolver can determine that a response is in one of four states:\nsecure, insecure, bogus, or indeterminate. These states are defined in\n[\nRFC4033\n]\nand\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n, although the definitions in the two documents differ a bit. This document makes no effort to reconcile the definitions in the two documents and takes no\nposition as to whether they need to be reconciled.\n¶\nSection 5\nof [\nRFC4033\n]\nsays:\n¶\nA validating resolver can determine the following 4 states:\n¶\nSecure:\nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor, has a chain\nof trust, and is able to verify all the signatures in the\nresponse.\n¶\nInsecure:\nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor, a chain\nof trust, and, at some delegation point, signed proof of the\nnon-existence of a DS record. This indicates that subsequent\nbranches in the tree are provably insecure. A validating\nresolver may have a local policy to mark parts of the domain\nspace as insecure.\n¶\nBogus:\nThe validating resolver has a trust anchor and a secure\ndelegation indicating that subsidiary data is signed, but\nthe response fails to validate for some reason: missing\nsignatures, expired signatures, signatures with unsupported\nalgorithms, data missing that the relevant NSEC RR says\nshould be present, and so forth.\n¶\nIndeterminate:\nThere is no trust anchor that would indicate that a\nspecific portion of the tree is secure. This is the default\noperation mode.\n¶\nSection 4.3\nof [\nRFC4035\n]\nsays:\n¶\nA security-aware resolver must be able to distinguish between four\ncases:\n¶\nSecure:\nAn RRset for which the resolver is able to build a chain\nof signed DNSKEY and DS RRs from a trusted security anchor to\nthe RRset. In this case, the RRset should be signed and is\nsubject to signature validation, as described above.\n¶\nInsecure:\nAn RRset for which the resolver knows that it has no\nchain of signed DNSKEY and DS RRs from any trusted starting\npoint to the RRset. This can occur when the target RRset lies\nin an unsigned zone or in a descendent [sic] of an unsigned\nzone. In this case, the RRset may or may not be signed, but\nthe resolver will not be able to verify the signature.\n¶\nBogus:\nAn RRset for which the resolver believes that it ought to\nbe able to establish a chain of trust but for which it is\nunable to do so, either due to signatures that for some reason\nfail to validate or due to missing data that the relevant\nDNSSEC RRs indicate should be present. This case may indicate\nan attack but may also indicate a configuration error or some\nform of data corruption.\n¶\nIndeterminate:\nAn RRset for which the resolver is not able to\ndetermine whether the RRset should be signed, as the resolver\nis not able to obtain the necessary DNSSEC RRs. This can occur\nwhen the security-aware resolver is not able to contact\nsecurity-aware name servers for the relevant zones.\n¶\n12.\nSecurity Considerations\nThese definitions do not change any security considerations for either the global DNS or private DNS.\n¶\n13.\nIANA Considerations\nReferences to RFC 8499 in the IANA registries have been replaced with references to this document.\n¶\n14.\nReferences\n14.1.\nNormative References\n[IANA_\nRoot\nFiles]\nIANA\n,\n\"Root Files\"\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.iana\n.org\n/domains\n/root\n/files\n>\n.\n[RFC0882]\nMockapetris, P.\n,\n\"Domain names: Concepts and facilities\"\n,\nRFC 882\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0882\n,\nNovember 1983\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc882\n>\n.\n[RFC1034]\nMockapetris, P.\n,\n\"Domain names - concepts and facilities\"\n,\nSTD 13\n,\nRFC 1034\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1034\n,\nNovember 1987\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1034\n>\n.\n[RFC1035]\nMockapetris, P.\n,\n\"Domain names - implementation and specification\"\n,\nSTD 13\n,\nRFC 1035\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1035\n,\nNovember 1987\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1035\n>\n.\n[RFC1123]\nBraden, R., Ed.\n,\n\"Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support\"\n,\nSTD 3\n,\nRFC 1123\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1123\n,\nOctober 1989\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1123\n>\n.\n[RFC1912]\nBarr, D.\n,\n\"Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors\"\n,\nRFC 1912\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1912\n,\nFebruary 1996\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1912\n>\n.\n[RFC1996]\nVixie, P.\n,\n\"A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)\"\n,\nRFC 1996\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1996\n,\nAugust 1996\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1996\n>\n.\n[RFC2136]\nVixie, P., Ed.\n,\nThomson, S.\n,\nRekhter, Y.\n, and\nJ. Bound\n,\n\"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)\"\n,\nRFC 2136\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2136\n,\nApril 1997\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2136\n>\n.\n[RFC2181]\nElz, R.\nand\nR. Bush\n,\n\"Clarifications to the DNS Specification\"\n,\nRFC 2181\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2181\n,\nJuly 1997\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2181\n>\n.\n[RFC2182]\nElz, R.\n,\nBush, R.\n,\nBradner, S.\n, and\nM. Patton\n,\n\"Selection and Operation of Secondary DNS Servers\"\n,\nBCP 16\n,\nRFC 2182\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2182\n,\nJuly 1997\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2182\n>\n.\n[RFC2308]\nAndrews, M.\n,\n\"Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)\"\n,\nRFC 2308\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2308\n,\nMarch 1998\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2308\n>\n.\n[RFC4033]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements\"\n,\nRFC 4033\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4033\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4033\n>\n.\n[RFC4034]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 4034\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4034\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4034\n>\n.\n[RFC4035]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 4035\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4035\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4035\n>\n.\n[RFC4592]\nLewis, E.\n,\n\"The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name System\"\n,\nRFC 4592\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4592\n,\nJuly 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4592\n>\n.\n[RFC5155]\nLaurie, B.\n,\nSisson, G.\n,\nArends, R.\n, and\nD. Blacka\n,\n\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence\"\n,\nRFC 5155\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5155\n,\nMarch 2008\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5155\n>\n.\n[RFC5358]\nDamas, J.\nand\nF. Neves\n,\n\"Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector Attacks\"\n,\nBCP 140\n,\nRFC 5358\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5358\n,\nOctober 2008\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5358\n>\n.\n[RFC5730]\nHollenbeck, S.\n,\n\"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)\"\n,\nSTD 69\n,\nRFC 5730\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5730\n,\nAugust 2009\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5730\n>\n.\n[RFC5731]\nHollenbeck, S.\n,\n\"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping\"\n,\nSTD 69\n,\nRFC 5731\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5731\n,\nAugust 2009\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5731\n>\n.\n[RFC5855]\nAbley, J.\nand\nT. Manderson\n,\n\"Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones\"\n,\nBCP 155\n,\nRFC 5855\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5855\n,\nMay 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5855\n>\n.\n[RFC5936]\nLewis, E.\nand\nA. Hoenes, Ed.\n,\n\"DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR)\"\n,\nRFC 5936\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5936\n,\nJune 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5936\n>\n.\n[RFC6561]\nLivingood, J.\n,\nMody, N.\n, and\nM. O'Reirdan\n,\n\"Recommendations for the Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks\"\n,\nRFC 6561\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6561\n,\nMarch 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6561\n>\n.\n[RFC6781]\nKolkman, O.\n,\nMekking, W.\n, and\nR. Gieben\n,\n\"DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2\"\n,\nRFC 6781\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6781\n,\nDecember 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6781\n>\n.\n[RFC6840]\nWeiler, S., Ed.\nand\nD. Blacka, Ed.\n,\n\"Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)\"\n,\nRFC 6840\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6840\n,\nFebruary 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6840\n>\n.\n[RFC6841]\nLjunggren, F.\n,\nEklund Lowinder, AM.\n, and\nT. Okubo\n,\n\"A Framework for DNSSEC Policies and DNSSEC Practice Statements\"\n,\nRFC 6841\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6841\n,\nJanuary 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6841\n>\n.\n[RFC6891]\nDamas, J.\n,\nGraff, M.\n, and\nP. Vixie\n,\n\"Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))\"\n,\nSTD 75\n,\nRFC 6891\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6891\n,\nApril 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6891\n>\n.\n[RFC7344]\nKumari, W.\n,\nGudmundsson, O.\n, and\nG. Barwood\n,\n\"Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance\"\n,\nRFC 7344\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7344\n,\nSeptember 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7344\n>\n.\n[RFC7719]\nHoffman, P.\n,\nSullivan, A.\n, and\nK. Fujiwara\n,\n\"DNS Terminology\"\n,\nRFC 7719\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7719\n,\nDecember 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7719\n>\n.\n[RFC8310]\nDickinson, S.\n,\nGillmor, D.\n, and\nT. Reddy\n,\n\"Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLS\"\n,\nRFC 8310\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8310\n,\nMarch 2018\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8310\n>\n.\n[RFC8499]\nHoffman, P.\n,\nSullivan, A.\n, and\nK. Fujiwara\n,\n\"DNS Terminology\"\n,\nBCP 219\n,\nRFC 8499\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8499\n,\nJanuary 2019\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8499\n>\n.\n[RFC9250]\nHuitema, C.\n,\nDickinson, S.\n, and\nA. Mankin\n,\n\"DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections\"\n,\nRFC 9250\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9250\n,\nMay 2022\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9250\n>\n.\n[RFC9471]\nAndrews, M.\n,\nHuque, S.\n,\nWouters, P.\n, and\nD. Wessels\n,\n\"DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses\"\n,\nRFC 9471\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9471\n,\nSeptember 2023\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9471\n>\n.\n14.2.\nInformative References\n[IANA_\nResource_\nRegistry]\nIANA\n,\n\"Resource Record (RR) TYPEs\"\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.iana\n.org\n/assignments\n/dns\n-parameters\n/\n>\n.\n[RFC20]\nCerf, V.\n,\n\"ASCII format for network interchange\"\n,\nSTD 80\n,\nRFC 20\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0020\n,\nOctober 1969\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc20\n>\n.\n[RFC819]\nSu, Z.\nand\nJ. Postel\n,\n\"The Domain Naming Convention for Internet User Applications\"\n,\nRFC 819\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0819\n,\nAugust 1982\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc819\n>\n.\n[RFC952]\nHarrenstien, K.\n,\nStahl, M.\n, and\nE. Feinler\n,\n\"DoD Internet host table specification\"\n,\nRFC 952\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0952\n,\nOctober 1985\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc952\n>\n.\n[RFC1713]\nRomao, A.\n,\n\"Tools for DNS debugging\"\n,\nFYI 27\n,\nRFC 1713\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1713\n,\nNovember 1994\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1713\n>\n.\n[RFC1995]\nOhta, M.\n,\n\"Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS\"\n,\nRFC 1995\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC1995\n,\nAugust 1996\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1995\n>\n.\n[RFC2775]\nCarpenter, B.\n,\n\"Internet Transparency\"\n,\nRFC 2775\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2775\n,\nFebruary 2000\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2775\n>\n.\n[RFC3172]\nHuston, G., Ed.\n,\n\"Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\"\n,\nBCP 52\n,\nRFC 3172\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3172\n,\nSeptember 2001\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3172\n>\n.\n[RFC3425]\nLawrence, D.\n,\n\"Obsoleting IQUERY\"\n,\nRFC 3425\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3425\n,\nNovember 2002\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3425\n>\n.\n[RFC3493]\nGilligan, R.\n,\nThomson, S.\n,\nBound, J.\n,\nMcCann, J.\n, and\nW. Stevens\n,\n\"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6\"\n,\nRFC 3493\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3493\n,\nFebruary 2003\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3493\n>\n.\n[RFC3757]\nKolkman, O.\n,\nSchlyter, J.\n, and\nE. Lewis\n,\n\"Domain Name System KEY (DNSKEY) Resource Record (RR) Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag\"\n,\nRFC 3757\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3757\n,\nApril 2004\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3757\n>\n.\n[RFC3912]\nDaigle, L.\n,\n\"WHOIS Protocol Specification\"\n,\nRFC 3912\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3912\n,\nSeptember 2004\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3912\n>\n.\n[RFC4470]\nWeiler, S.\nand\nJ. Ihren\n,\n\"Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing\"\n,\nRFC 4470\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4470\n,\nApril 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4470\n>\n.\n[RFC4641]\nKolkman, O.\nand\nR. Gieben\n,\n\"DNSSEC Operational Practices\"\n,\nRFC 4641\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4641\n,\nSeptember 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4641\n>\n.\n[RFC4697]\nLarson, M.\nand\nP. Barber\n,\n\"Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior\"\n,\nBCP 123\n,\nRFC 4697\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4697\n,\nOctober 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4697\n>\n.\n[RFC4786]\nAbley, J.\nand\nK. Lindqvist\n,\n\"Operation of Anycast Services\"\n,\nBCP 126\n,\nRFC 4786\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4786\n,\nDecember 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4786\n>\n.\n[RFC4956]\nArends, R.\n,\nKosters, M.\n, and\nD. Blacka\n,\n\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In\"\n,\nRFC 4956\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4956\n,\nJuly 2007\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4956\n>\n.\n[RFC5625]\nBellis, R.\n,\n\"DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines\"\n,\nBCP 152\n,\nRFC 5625\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5625\n,\nAugust 2009\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5625\n>\n.\n[RFC5890]\nKlensin, J.\n,\n\"Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework\"\n,\nRFC 5890\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5890\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5890\n>\n.\n[RFC5891]\nKlensin, J.\n,\n\"Internationaliz\ned Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol\"\n,\nRFC 5891\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5891\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5891\n>\n.\n[RFC5892]\nFaltstrom, P., Ed.\n,\n\"The Unicode Code Points and Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)\"\n,\nRFC 5892\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5892\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5892\n>\n.\n[RFC5893]\nAlvestrand, H., Ed.\nand\nC. Karp\n,\n\"Right-to-Left Scripts for Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)\"\n,\nRFC 5893\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5893\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5893\n>\n.\n[RFC5894]\nKlensin, J.\n,\n\"Internationaliz\ned Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and Rationale\"\n,\nRFC 5894\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5894\n,\nAugust 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5894\n>\n.\n[RFC6055]\nThaler, D.\n,\nKlensin, J.\n, and\nS. Cheshire\n,\n\"IAB Thoughts on Encodings for Internationaliz\ned Domain Names\"\n,\nRFC 6055\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6055\n,\nFebruary 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6055\n>\n.\n[RFC6265]\nBarth, A.\n,\n\"HTTP State Management Mechanism\"\n,\nRFC 6265\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6265\n,\nApril 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6265\n>\n.\n[RFC6303]\nAndrews, M.\n,\n\"Locally Served DNS Zones\"\n,\nBCP 163\n,\nRFC 6303\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6303\n,\nJuly 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6303\n>\n.\n[RFC6335]\nCotton, M.\n,\nEggert, L.\n,\nTouch, J.\n,\nWesterlund, M.\n, and\nS. Cheshire\n,\n\"Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry\"\n,\nBCP 165\n,\nRFC 6335\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6335\n,\nAugust 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6335\n>\n.\n[RFC6365]\nHoffman, P.\nand\nJ. Klensin\n,\n\"Terminology Used in Internationaliz\nation in the IETF\"\n,\nBCP 166\n,\nRFC 6365\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6365\n,\nSeptember 2011\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6365\n>\n.\n[RFC6672]\nRose, S.\nand\nW. Wijngaards\n,\n\"DNAME Redirection in the DNS\"\n,\nRFC 6672\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6672\n,\nJune 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6672\n>\n.\n[RFC6762]\nCheshire, S.\nand\nM. Krochmal\n,\n\"Multicast DNS\"\n,\nRFC 6762\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6762\n,\nFebruary 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6762\n>\n.\n[RFC7129]\nGieben, R.\nand\nW. Mekking\n,\n\"Authenticated Denial of Existence in the DNS\"\n,\nRFC 7129\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7129\n,\nFebruary 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7129\n>\n.\n[RFC7480]\nNewton, A.\n,\nEllacott, B.\n, and\nN. Kong\n,\n\"HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 7480\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7480\n,\nMarch 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7480\n>\n.\n[RFC7481]\nHollenbeck, S.\nand\nN. Kong\n,\n\"Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 7481\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7481\n,\nMarch 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7481\n>\n.\n[RFC9082]\nHollenbeck, S.\nand\nA. Newton\n,\n\"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 9082\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9082\n,\nJune 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9082\n>\n.\n[RFC9083]\nHollenbeck, S.\nand\nA. Newton\n,\n\"JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 9083\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9083\n,\nJune 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9083\n>\n.\n[RFC9224]\nBlanchet, M.\n,\n\"Finding the Authoritative Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Service\"\n,\nSTD 95\n,\nRFC 9224\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9224\n,\nMarch 2022\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9224\n>\n.\n[RFC7485]\nZhou, L.\n,\nKong, N.\n,\nShen, S.\n,\nSheng, S.\n, and\nA. Servin\n,\n\"Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects\"\n,\nRFC 7485\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7485\n,\nMarch 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7485\n>\n.\n[RFC7793]\nAndrews, M.\n,\n\"Adding 100.64.0.0/10 Prefixes to the IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry\"\n,\nBCP 163\n,\nRFC 7793\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7793\n,\nMay 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7793\n>\n.\n[RFC7858]\nHu, Z.\n,\nZhu, L.\n,\nHeidemann, J.\n,\nMankin, A.\n,\nWessels, D.\n, and\nP. Hoffman\n,\n\"Specification for DNS over Transport Layer Security (TLS)\"\n,\nRFC 7858\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7858\n,\nMay 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7858\n>\n.\n[RFC8094]\nReddy, T.\n,\nWing, D.\n, and\nP. Patil\n,\n\"DNS over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)\"\n,\nRFC 8094\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8094\n,\nFebruary 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8094\n>\n.\n[RFC8109]\nKoch, P.\n,\nLarson, M.\n, and\nP. Hoffman\n,\n\"Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries\"\n,\nBCP 209\n,\nRFC 8109\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8109\n,\nMarch 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8109\n>\n.\n[RFC8484]\nHoffman, P.\nand\nP. McManus\n,\n\"DNS Queries over HTTPS (DoH)\"\n,\nRFC 8484\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8484\n,\nOctober 2018\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8484\n>\n.\n[RFC9103]\nToorop, W.\n,\nDickinson, S.\n,\nSahib, S.\n,\nAras, P.\n, and\nA. Mankin\n,\n\"DNS Zone Transfer over TLS\"\n,\nRFC 9103\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9103\n,\nAugust 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9103\n>\n.\n[RSSAC026]\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\n,\n\"RSSAC0226 RSSAC Lexicon\"\n,\n2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.icann\n.org\n/en\n/system\n/files\n/files\n/rssac\n-026\n-14mar17\n-en\n.pdf\n>\n.\nAppendix A.\nDefinitions Updated by This Document\nThe following definitions from RFCs are updated by this document:\n¶\nForwarder in\n[\nRFC2308\n]\n¶\nQNAME in\n[\nRFC2308\n]\n¶\nSecure Entry Point (SEP) in\n[\nRFC3757\n]\n;\nnote, however, that this RFC is already obsolete\n(see\n[\nRFC4033\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n).\n¶\nAppendix B.\nDefinitions First Defined in This Document\nThe following definitions are first defined in this document:\n¶\n\"Alias\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Apex\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"arpa\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Authoritative DoT (ADot)\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Bailiwick\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Class independent\" in\nSection 5\n¶\n\"Classic DNS\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Delegation\n-centric zone\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Delegation\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"DNS operator\" in\nSection 9\n¶\n\"DNSSEC-aware\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"DNSSEC-unaware\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Forwarding\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Full resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Fully Qualified Domain Name\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Global DNS\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Hardware Security Module (HSM)\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Host name\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"IDN\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"In-domain\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Iterative resolution\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Label\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Locally served DNS zone\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Naming system\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Negative response\" in\nSection 3\n¶\n\"Non-recursive query\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Open resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Passive DNS\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Policy\n-implementing resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Presentation format\" in\nSection 5\n¶\n\"Priming\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Private DNS\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Recursive DoT (RDot)\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Recursive resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Referrals\" in\nSection 4\n¶\n\"Registrant\" in\nSection 9\n¶\n\"Registrar\" in\nSection 9\n¶\n\"Registry\" in\nSection 9\n¶\n\"Root zone\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Secure Entry Point (SEP)\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Sibling domain\" in\nSection 7\n¶\n\"Signing software\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Split DNS\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Stub resolver\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Subordinate\" in\nSection 8\n¶\n\"Superordinate\" in\nSection 8\n¶\n\"TLD\" in\nSection 2\n¶\n\"Validating resolver\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"Validation\" in\nSection 10\n¶\n\"View\" in\nSection 6\n¶\n\"Zone transfer\" in\nSection 6\n¶\nAcknowledgements\n[\nRFC8499\n]\nand its predecessor,\n[\nRFC7719\n]\n, were co-authored by\nAndrew Sullivan\n.\nThe current document, which is a small update to\n[\nRFC8499\n]\n, has just two authors.\nAndrew's work on the earlier documents is greatly appreciated.\n¶\nNumerous people made significant contributions to\n[\nRFC8499\n]\nand\n[\nRFC7719\n]\n.\nPlease see the acknowledgement\ns sections in those two documents for the\nextensive list of contributors.\n¶\nEven though the current document is a small revision, many people in the\nDNSOP Working Group have contributed to it, and their work is greatly appreciated.\n¶\nIndex\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\nI\nK\nL\nM\nN\nO\nP\nQ\nR\nS\nT\nU\nV\nW\nX\nZ\n¶\nA\n¶\nAddress and Routing Parameter Area Domain (arpa)\nSection 7\n¶\nAddress records\nSection 5\n¶\nADoT\nSection 6\n¶\nAlias\nSection 2\n¶\nAnycast\nSection 6\n¶\nApex\nSection 7\n¶\nAsterisk label\nSection 8\n¶\nAuthoritative data\nSection 7\n¶\nAuthoritative server\nSection 6\n¶\nAuthoritative\n-only server\nSection 6\n¶\nAXoT\nSection 6\n¶\nB\n¶\nBailiwick\nSection 7\n¶\nC\n¶\nCanonical name\nSection 2\n¶\nChild\nSection 7\n¶\nClass\nSection 4\n¶\nClass independent\nSection 5\n¶\nClassic DNS\nSection 6\n¶\nClosest encloser\nSection 8\n¶\nClosest provable encloser\nSection 8\n¶\nCNAME\nSection 2\n¶\nCombined signing key (CSK)\nSection 10\n¶\nD\n¶\nDelegation\nSection 7\n¶\nDelegation\n-centric zone\nSection 7\n¶\nDNS operator\nSection 9\n¶\nDNS-over-HTTPS\nSection 6\n¶\nDNS-over-QUIC\nSection 6\n¶\nDNS-over-TLS\nSection 6\n¶\nDNSSEC Policy (DP)\nSection 10\n¶\nDNSSEC Practice Statement (DPS)\nSection 10\n¶\nDNSSEC-aware and DNSSEC-unaware\nSection 10\n¶\nDoH\nSection 6\n¶\nDomain name\nSection 2\n¶\nDoQ\nSection 6\n¶\nDoT\nSection 6\n¶\nE\n¶\nEDNS\nSection 5\n¶\nEmpty non-terminals (ENTs)\nSection 7\n¶\nEPP\nSection 9\n¶\nF\n¶\nFast flux DNS\nSection 7\n¶\nFORMERR\nSection 3\n¶\nForward lookup\nSection 7\n¶\nForwarder\nSection 6\n¶\nForwarding\nSection 6\n¶\nFull resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nFull-service resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nFully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)\nSection 2\n¶\nG\n¶\nGlobal DNS\nSection 2\n¶\nGlue records\nSection 7\n¶\nH\n¶\nHardware security module (HSM)\nSection 10\n¶\nHidden master\nSection 6\n¶\nHost name\nSection 2\n¶\nI\n¶\nIDN\nSection 2\n¶\nIn-bailiwick\nSection 7\n¶\nIn-domain\nSection 7\n¶\nInsecure delegation\nSection 10\n¶\nInstance\nSection 6\n¶\nInternationalize\nd Domain Name\nSection 2\n¶\nIterative mode\nSection 6\n¶\nIterative resolution\nSection 6\n¶\nIXoT\nSection 6\n¶\nK\n¶\nKey signing key (KSK)\nSection 10\n¶\nL\n¶\nLabel\nSection 2\n¶\nLame delegation\nSection 7\n¶\nLocally served DNS zone\nSection 2\n¶\nM\n¶\nMaster file\nSection 5\n¶\nMaster server\nSection 6\n¶\nmDNS\nSection 2\n¶\nMulticast DNS\nSection 2\n¶\nN\n¶\nNaming system\nSection 2, Paragraph 1.2.1\n¶\nNegative caching\nSection 6\n¶\nNegative response\nSection 3\n¶\nNext closer name\nSection 8\n¶\nNODATA\nSection 3\n¶\nNOERROR\nSection 3\n¶\nNon-recursive query\nSection 6\n¶\nNOTIMP\nSection 3\n¶\nNS\nSection 6\n¶\nNSEC\nSection 10\n¶\nNSEC3\nSection 10\n¶\nNXDOMAIN\nSection 3\n¶\nO\n¶\nOccluded name\nSection 7\n¶\non-line signing\nSection 10\n¶\nonline signing\nSection 10\n¶\nOpen resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nOPT\nSection 5\n¶\nOpt-out\nSection 10\n¶\nOrigin\nSection 7\n¶\nOut-of-bailiwick\nSection 7\n¶\nOwner\nSection 5\n¶\nP\n¶\nParent\nSection 7\n¶\nPassive DNS\nSection 6\n¶\nPolicy\n-implementing resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nPresentation format\nSection 5\n¶\nPrimary master\nSection 6\n¶\nPrimary server\nSection 6\n¶\nPriming\nSection 6\n¶\nPrivacy-enabling DNS server\nSection 6\n¶\nPrivate DNS\nSection 2\n¶\nPublic suffix\nSection 9\n¶\nQ\n¶\nQNAME\nSection 4\n¶\nR\n¶\nRDAP\nSection 9\n¶\nRDoT\nSection 6\n¶\nRecursive DoT\nSection 6\n¶\nRecursive mode\nSection 6, Paragraph 4.10.1\n¶\nRecursive query\nSection 6\n¶\nRecursive resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nReferrals\nSection 4\n¶\nREFUSED\nSection 3\n¶\nRegistrant\nSection 9\n¶\nRegistrar\nSection 9\n¶\nRegistry\nSection 9\n¶\nResolver\nSection 6\n¶\nReverse DNS, reverse lookup\nSection 7\n¶\nRoot hints\nSection 6\n¶\nRoot zone\nSection 7\n¶\nRR\nSection 5\n¶\nRRset\nSection 5\n¶\nS\n¶\nSecondary server\nSection 6\n¶\nSecure Entry Point (SEP)\nSection 10\n¶\nSERVFAIL\nSection 3\n¶\nService name\nSection 7\n¶\nSibling domain\nSection 7\n¶\nSigned zone\nSection 10\n¶\nSigning software\nSection 10\n¶\nSlave server\nSection 6\n¶\nSOA\nSection 5\n¶\nSOA field names\nSection 5\n¶\nSource of Synthesis\nSection 8, Paragraph 1.14.1\n¶\nSplit DNS\nSection 6\n¶\nSplit-horizon DNS\nSection 6\n¶\nStealth server\nSection 6\n¶\nStub resolver\nSection 6\n¶\nSubdomain\nSection 2\n¶\nSubordinate\nSection 9\n¶\nSuperordinate\nSection 9\n¶\nT\n¶\nTLD\nSection 2\n¶\nTrust anchor\nSection 10\n¶\nTTL\nSection 5\n¶\nU\n¶\nUnsigned zone\nSection 10\n¶\nV\n¶\nValidating resolver\nSection 10\n¶\nValidation\nSection 10, Paragraph 2.26.1\n¶\nView\nSection 6\n¶\nW\n¶\nWHOIS\nSection 9\n¶\nWildcard\nSection 8\n¶\nWildcard domain name\nSection 8\n¶\nX\n¶\nXoT\nSection 6\n¶\nZ\n¶\nZone\nSection 7\n¶\nZone cut\nSection 7\n¶\nZone enumeration\nSection 10\n¶\nZone signing key (ZSK)\nSection 10\n¶\nZone transfer\nSection 6\n¶\nAuthors' Addresses\nPaul Hoffman\nICANN\nEmail:\npaul\n.hoffman\n@icann\n.org\nKazunori Fujiwara\nJapan Registry Services Co., Ltd.\nEmail:\nfujiwara\n@jprs\n.co\n.jp\nRFC\n9499\n: DNS Terminology\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n1\nIn this section\n1 Introduction\n2 Names\n3 DNS Response Codes\n4 DNS Transactions\n5 Resource Records\n6 DNS Servers and Clients\n7 Zones\n8 Wildcards\n9 Registration Model\n10 General DNSSEC\n11 DNSSEC States\n12 Security Considerations\n13 IANA Considerations\n14 References\n14.1 Normative References\n14.2 Informative References\nAppendix A Definitions Updated by This Document\nAppendix B Definitions First Defined in This Document\nAcknowledgements\nIndex\nAuthors' Addresses\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 30862, "char_end": 105745, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 67, "word_count": 13348}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "bb6d624f-fde0-4b5a-9956-b0778da7f6d6", "source_id": "32bc28ebc3cea8592b4766ff", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1261", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1261/", "artifact_sha256": "32bc28ebc3cea8592b4766ff266c56118311122f928b6c02918e8d5e48729f4a", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 81777, "title": "RFC 1261: Transition of NIC Services", "language": "en", "text_length": 4427, "characters": 4427, "text": "RFC 1261: Transition of Nic Services | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1261\n:\nTransition of Nic Services\nS. Williamson\n,\nL. Nobile\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                      S. Williamson\nRequest for Comments: 1261                                     L. Nobile\n                                                       Network Solutions\n                                                          September 1991\nTRANSITION OF NIC SERVICES\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\n\nDiscussion\n\n   The transition of the Network Information Center from SRI\n   International in Menlo Park, CA, to Government Systems Inc. in\n   Chantilly, VA, is officially scheduled for 1 October 1991.  This\n   includes the transition of services currently offered to DDN and\n   Internet users by SRI.  These services include network/user\n   registration (i.e., network number and top level domain name\n   assignment), on-line information services, and Help Desk operations.\n   GSI will also continue RFC and Internet-Draft archive and\n   distribution services.\n\n   SRI will continue to provide all NIC services and respond to all user\n   calls and requests until 30 September 1991.\n\n   Defense Information System Agency (DISA) and GSI will make every\n   effort to ensure a smooth and timely transition of NIC services from\n   SRI.  Network users should be minimally impacted.  With a few minor\n   exceptions, all on-line services currently offered by SRI will appear\n   the same to the user when a connection is established to the new\n   (GSI) NIC host.  These exceptions are due to the change from the\n   TOPS20 operating system to the SunOS operating system.  The new NIC\n   host is a Sun 470 SPARCserver running SunOS 4.1.  All users on the\n   DDN and the Internet should carefully note the following changes:\n\n   U.S. Postal Address:      Government Systems, Inc.\n                             Attn: Network Information Center\n                             14200 Park Meadow Drive\n                             Suite 200\n                             Chantilly, VA  22021\nWilliamson & Nobile                                             [Page 1]\nRFC 1261\nTransition of NIC Services          September 1991\nHelp Desk Telephone Numbers:\n\n                             1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)\n                             1-703-802-4535\n\n\n   Help Desk Hours of Operation:\n\n                             7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time\n\n\n   Fax Number:               1-703-802-8376\n\n   Network Address:          192.112.36.5 (NIC.DDN.MIL)\n\n   Root Domain Server:       192.112.36.4 (NS.NIC.DDN.MIL)\n\n   During the period of 26 to 30 September 1991 the ID (WHOIS) database\n   will not be changed.  All registration actions for this five day\n   period will be suspended.  This action is necessary in order to\n   transfer the master database to GSI.  Starting 26 September 1991, all\n   U.S. mail and fax requests should be directed to the GSI address and\n   fax number shown above.  All electronic mail requests should continue\n   to be directed to the \"HOSTMASTER\" and \"REGISTRAR\" mailboxes at\n   NIC.DDN.MIL.  As appropriate, SRI will redirect electronic mail to\n   GSI.  On 1 October 1991 all registration activities will resume.\n\n   We hope that the transition and its accompanying changes will not\n   greatly inconvenience network users, and we thank you in advance for\n   your patience and understanding.  For general questions regarding the\n   transition, users may call the new NIC Help Desk after September 1,\n   1991 at 1-800-365-3642/703-802-4535 or send an e-mail message to\n   nic@diis.ddn.mil.\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\nWilliamson & Nobile                                             [Page 2]\nRFC 1261\nTransition of NIC Services          September 1991\nAuthors' Addresses\n\n   Scott Williamson\n   Network Solutions, Inc.\n   505 Huntmar Park Drive\n   Herndon, VA 22070\n\n   Phone: (703) 802-8405\n\n   EMail: scottw@DIIS.DDN.MIL\n\n\n   Leslie Nobile\n   Network Solutions, Inc.\n   505 Huntmar Park Drive\n   Herndon, VA 22070\n\n   Phone: (703) 802-8456\n\n   leslie@DIIS.DDN.MIL\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWilliamson & Nobile                                             [Page 3]\nRFC\n1261\n: Transition of Nic Services\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1991-09-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1991-09-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1991-09-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:57.386392+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "bb8dc9b7-fffe-4881-8548-fbf28632bf7f", "source_id": "a08c16aacee52480529f2c73", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/engagement-calendar", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/engagement-calendar", "artifact_sha256": "ff9f6bc79d118cb910453cfa45218a3638a4d6ef562074449c67a7553640f4ed", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 347399, "title": "Engagement Calendar", "language": "en", "text_length": 10844, "characters": 10844, "text": "Engagement Calendar\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nEngagement Calendar\nView the Engagement Calendar to find upcoming ICANN org, community, Board, and internet ecosystem-related events.\nSubscribe\nEngagement Calendar Home\nAnnouncements\nBlogs\nFollow Us on Social\nMedia Resources\nEngagement Calendar\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within the Engagement Calendar.\nTo view past events published before November 2023,\nclick here\n.\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nActivity or Event Type\nICANN Engagement\nInternet Ecosystem Event\nTraining\nLocation\nAfrica\nAsia/Australia/Pacific\nEurope\nLatin America/Caribbean\nNorth America\nEvent Format\nIn Person\nVirtual Only\nApply\nClear\nMore Search Options\n1-20 of 50 results\nCANTO41 Annual Conference and Trade Exhibition\nThe CANTO Annual Conference is the Caribbean’s premier telecommunications and digital technology gathering - a powerhouse platform where leaders, innovators, and change-makers unite to shape the region’s digital future. This flagship event brings together policy makers, global tech champions, operators, solution providers, and strategic partners ...\nDate:\nSunday 9 August 2026\n- Wednesday 12 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nPunta Cana, Dominican Republic, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nPriorities for Youth in the Digital World: Young Digital Talent for Emerging Technologies\nOrganized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in collaboration with the National Directorate of Telecommunications and Audiovisual Communication Services (DINATEL) of the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining of Uruguay, this regional seminar will be held in Montevideo from 12-13 August 2026 to promote the development of young ...\nDate:\nWednesday 12 August 2026\n- Thursday 13 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nMontevideo, Uruguay, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n.za Domain Name Authority (ZADNA) National Stakeholder Engagement Meeting\nThe engagement presents an opportunity to strengthen collaboration between national and international stakeholders responsible for the security, stability and resilience of the global Domain Name System.\nDate:\nMonday 24 August 2026\nLocation:\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n22nd Caribbean Internet Governance Forum\nThe Caribbean Internet Governance Forum (CIGF) is a regional, non-hierarchical, multi-stakeholder forum initiated by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat in 2005 to coordinate a regional approach to Internet Governance (IG), initially focussed on the ...\nDate:\nMonday 24 August 2026\n- Wednesday 26 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n5th Caribbean Youth Internet Governance Forum\nThe Caribbean Youth Internet Governance Forum (CYIGF) is a regional, multi-stakeholder forum, initiated by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, to coordinate regional views, interests and challenges of youth within the Caribbean.\nThe first CYIGF took place in 2022, and was planned and facilitated by Caribbean youth that attended the ...\nDate:\nMonday 24 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nICANN Near You - Dominican Republic\nICANN Near You is a regional engagement initiative designed to bring ICANN closer to local stakeholders through in-country activities that combine technical capacity building, policy awareness, and stakeholder outreach.\nThe Dominican Republic edition will bring together key actors from across the Internet ecosystem, including Internet ...\nDate:\nTuesday 25 August 2026\n- Thursday 27 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nSanto Domingo and Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nEMEA Webinar Series - KSK Rollover 2026\nThe ICANN DNS root zone Key Signing Key (KSK) rollover is scheduled for October 11, 2026. On this date, the new cryptographic trust anchor (KSK-2024) will be used to sign the root zone for the first time. This event is vital to the security of DNSSEC-validating resolvers worldwide.\nDate:\nWednesday 26 August 2026\nLocation:\nAsia/Australia/Pacific,\nVirtual Only\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nNetworking event - ICANN Near you Dominican Republic\nThe ICANN Near You Networking Event is designed to bring together participants from different sectors in the Dominican Republic in an informal setting. The event provides an opportunity to strengthen relationships among participants and foster new connections across stakeholder groups, creating opportunities for continued collaboration beyond ...\nDate:\nWednesday 26 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nSanto Domingo, Dominican Republic, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n7th National Conference on Information Technology\nThe National Conference on IT (NCIT) 2026 is a technology conference in Fiji organized by the Fiji National University. This platform will build on dialogue and collaboration amongst innovators, industry leaders, policymakers, educators, entrepreneurs, and emerging technology professionals from across Fiji and the Pacific.\nDate:\nWednesday 26 August 2026\n- Friday 28 August 2026\nLocation:\nAsia/Australia/Pacific,\nSigatoka, Fiji, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nDNS Abuse workshop - ICANN Near you Dominican Republic\nThe primary objective of the workshop is to strengthen participants' understanding of DNS Abuse, its impact on the security and stability of the Internet, and the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved in its mitigation. Organized in collaboration with the Dominican Institute of Telecommunications (INDOTEL) and the ...\nDate:\nThursday 27 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nSanto Domingo, Dominican Republic, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nDNS Operations and DNSSEC Workshop Tunisia 2026\nThis workshop on DNS Operations and DNSSEC is for the mobile network operators and ISPs operating in Tunisia.\nDate:\nMonday 31 August 2026\n- Friday 4 September 2026\nLocation:\nAfrica,\nTunis City, Tunisia, In Person\nAccess:\nClosed Event\nHawai'i School of Interenet Governance\nThe Hawaiʻi School on Internet Governance is a regional School of Internet Governance and part of the Dynamic Coalition on Schools of Internet Governance. Our purpose is to raise awareness and build capacity about digital technologies within the Hawaiʻi and Pacific ...\nDate:\nFriday 4 September 2026\nLocation:\nNorth America,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nCTU 2026 4th International ICT forecast and Preparatory Meeting\nThe meeting will apprise stakeholders of the upcoming series of regional and international meetings taking place in the next quarter of 2026. The Secretariat has invited partner organisations to present a brief on each meeting to demonstrate the importance of Caribbean representation at all major decision-making ...\nDate:\nFriday 4 September 2026\nLocation:\nVirtual Only\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n49 MEETING OF PERMANENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE I: TELECOMMUNICATIONS/ICTS (PCC.I) & FINAL PREPARATORY MEETING OF CITEL FOR PP-26.\nWithin the framework of PCC.I, the\nFinal Preparatory Meeting of CITEL for the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-26)\nwill be held from\nSeptember 7 to 11, 2026\n. As this will be the\nFINAL MEETING\nof the Working Group on the Plenipotentiary Conference (WGPP), and in accordance with the established ...\nDate:\nMonday 7 September 2026\n- Friday 11 September 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nMiddle East and Adjoining Countries School on Internet Governance 2026\n-\nRevised Dates\nThe annual regional school on Internet Governance takes place in Beirut, Lebanon. The purpose is to attract a cohort of participants who can move in to become active in IG related processes.\nDate:\nTuesday 8 September 2026\n- Friday 11 September 2026\nLocation:\nAfrica,\nHamammat, Tunisia, In Person\nAccess:\nClosed Event\nSiNOG\nSlovenian Network Operators Group meeting\nDate:\nTuesday 8 September 2026\nLocation:\nEurope,\nLjubiljana, Slovenia, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nIGFUSA 2026\nThe Internet Governance Forum 2026 will happen for the first time in Philadelphia bringing stakeholders together to discuss the future of the internet.\nDate:\nWednesday 9 September 2026\nLocation:\nNorth America,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nUganda DNS Forum\nThe Uganda DNS Forum is a multi-stakeholder platform dedicated to strengthening Uganda’s Domain Name System (DNS) ecosystem through policy dialogue, technical capacity building, research, and community engagement.\nDate:\nThursday 10 September 2026\nLocation:\nAfrica,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nNOG.HR\nCroatian Network Operators Group\nDate:\nThursday 10 September 2026\nLocation:\nEurope,\nZagreb, Croatia, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n2026 Puerto Rico Capacity Development Sessions\nThe capacity-development event in Puerto Rico is part of ICANN’s strategic objective to provide hands-on training to foster knowledge sharing, skills development, and technical engagement. This marks the third consecutive year that ICANN has delivered these sessions to students, ...\nDate:\nThursday 10 September 2026\n- Monday 14 September 2026\nLocation:\nNorth America,\nSan Juan, Puerto Rico, In Person\nAccess:\nClosed Event\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "9a5b369d-471b-4d85-9e77-f15e10ed5955", "document_id": "bb8dc9b7-fffe-4881-8548-fbf28632bf7f", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Engagement Calendar\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nEngagement Calendar\nView the Engagement Calendar to find upcoming ICANN org, community, Board, and internet ecosystem-related events.\nSubscribe\nEngagement Calendar Home\nAnnouncements\nBlogs\nFollow Us on Social\nMedia Resources\nEngagement Calendar\nAdvanced Search\nSelect filters and click Apply to narrow your search results or click More Search Options to search for keywords within the Engagement Calendar.\nTo view past events published before November 2023,\nclick here\n.\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nActivity or Event Type\nICANN Engagement\nInternet Ecosystem Event\nTraining\nLocation\nAfrica\nAsia/Australia/Pacific\nEurope\nLatin America/Caribbean\nNorth America\nEvent Format\nIn Person\nVirtual Only\nApply\nClear\nMore Search Options\n1-20 of 50 results\nCANTO41 Annual Conference and Trade Exhibition\nThe CANTO Annual Conference is the Caribbean’s premier telecommunications and digital technology gathering - a powerhouse platform where leaders, innovators, and change-makers unite to shape the region’s digital future. This flagship event brings together policy makers, global tech champions, operators, solution providers, and strategic partners ...\nDate:\nSunday 9 August 2026\n- Wednesday 12 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nPunta Cana, Dominican Republic, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nPriorities for Youth in the Digital World: Young Digital Talent for Emerging Technologies\nOrganized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in collaboration with the National Directorate of Telecommunications and Audiovisual Communication Services (DINATEL) of the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining of Uruguay, this regional seminar will be held in Montevideo from 12-13 August 2026 to promote the development of young ...\nDate:\nWednesday 12 August 2026\n- Thursday 13 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nMontevideo, Uruguay, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n.za Domain Name Authority (ZADNA) National Stakeholder Engagement Meeting\nThe engagement presents an opportunity to strengthen collaboration between national and international stakeholders responsible for the security, stability and resilience of the global Domain Name System.\nDate:\nMonday 24 August 2026\nLocation:\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n22nd Caribbean Internet Governance Forum\nThe Caribbean Internet Governance Forum (CIGF) is a regional, non-hierarchical, multi-stakeholder forum initiated by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat in 2005 to coordinate a regional approach to Internet Governance (IG), initially focussed on the ...\nDate:\nMonday 24 August 2026\n- Wednesday 26 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n5th Caribbean Youth Internet Governance Forum\nThe Caribbean Youth Internet Governance Forum (CYIGF) is a regional, multi-stakeholder forum, initiated by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, to coordinate regional views, interests and challenges of youth within the Caribbean.\nThe first CYIGF took place in 2022, and was planned and facilitated by Caribbean youth that attended the ...\nDate:\nMonday 24 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nICANN Near You - Dominican Republic\nICANN Near You is a regional engagement initiative designed to bring ICANN closer to local stakeholders through in-country activities that combine technical capacity building, policy awareness, and stakeholder outreach.\nThe Dominican Republic edition will bring together key actors from across the Internet ecosystem, including Internet ...\nDate:\nTuesday 25 August 2026\n- Thursday 27 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nSanto Domingo and Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nEMEA Webinar Series - KSK Rollover 2026\nThe ICANN DNS root zone Key Signing Key (KSK) rollover is scheduled for October 11, 2026. On this date, the new cryptographic trust anchor (KSK-2024) will be used to sign the root zone for the first time. This event is vital to the security of DNSSEC-validating resolvers worldwide.\nDate:\nWednesday 26 August 2026\nLocation:\nAsia/Australia/Pacific,\nVirtual Only\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nNetworking event - ICANN Near you Dominican Republic\nThe ICANN Near You Networking Event is designed to bring together participants from different sectors in the Dominican Republic in an informal setting. The event provides an opportunity to strengthen relationships among participants and foster new connections across stakeholder groups, creating opportunities for continued collaboration beyond ...\nDate:\nWednesday 26 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nSanto Domingo, Dominican Republic, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n7th National Conference on Information Technology\nThe National Conference on IT (NCIT) 2026 is a technology conference in Fiji organized by the Fiji National University. This platform will build on dialogue and collaboration amongst innovators, industry leaders, policymakers, educators, entrepreneurs, and emerging technology professionals from across Fiji and the Pacific.\nDate:\nWednesday 26 August 2026\n- Friday 28 August 2026\nLocation:\nAsia/Australia/Pacific,\nSigatoka, Fiji, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nDNS Abuse workshop - ICANN Near you Dominican Republic\nThe primary objective of the workshop is to strengthen participants' understanding of DNS Abuse, its impact on the security and stability of the Internet, and the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved in its mitigation. Organized in collaboration with the Dominican Institute of Telecommunications (INDOTEL) and the ...\nDate:\nThursday 27 August 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nSanto Domingo, Dominican Republic, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nDNS Operations and DNSSEC Workshop Tunisia 2026\nThis workshop on DNS Operations and DNSSEC is for the mobile network operators and ISPs operating in Tunisia.\nDate:\nMonday 31 August 2026\n- Friday 4 September 2026\nLocation:\nAfrica,\nTunis City, Tunisia, In Person\nAccess:\nClosed Event\nHawai'i School of Interenet Governance\nThe Hawaiʻi School on Internet Governance is a regional School of Internet Governance and part of the Dynamic Coalition on Schools of Internet Governance. Our purpose is to raise awareness and build capacity about digital technologies within the Hawaiʻi and Pacific ...\nDate:\nFriday 4 September 2026\nLocation:\nNorth America,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nCTU 2026 4th International ICT forecast and Preparatory Meeting\nThe meeting will apprise stakeholders of the upcoming series of regional and international meetings taking place in the next quarter of 2026. The Secretariat has invited partner organisations to present a brief on each meeting to demonstrate the importance of Caribbean representation at all major decision-making ...\nDate:\nFriday 4 September 2026\nLocation:\nVirtual Only\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n49 MEETING OF PERMANENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE I: TELECOMMUNICATIONS/ICTS (PCC.I) & FINAL PREPARATORY MEETING OF CITEL FOR PP-26.\nWithin the framework of PCC.I, the\nFinal Preparatory Meeting of CITEL for the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-26)\nwill be held from\nSeptember 7 to 11, 2026\n. As this will be the\nFINAL MEETING\nof the Working Group on the Plenipotentiary Conference (WGPP), and in accordance with the established ...\nDate:\nMonday 7 September 2026\n- Friday 11 September 2026\nLocation:\nLatin America/Caribbean,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nMiddle East and Adjoining Countries School on Internet Governance 2026\n-\nRevised Dates\nThe annual regional school on Internet Governance takes place in Beirut, Lebanon. The purpose is to attract a cohort of participants who can move in to become active in IG related processes.\nDate:\nTuesday 8 September 2026\n- Friday 11 September 2026\nLocation:\nAfrica,\nHamammat, Tunisia, In Person\nAccess:\nClosed Event\nSiNOG\nSlovenian Network Operators Group meeting\nDate:\nTuesday 8 September 2026\nLocation:\nEurope,\nLjubiljana, Slovenia, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nIGFUSA 2026\nThe Internet Governance Forum 2026 will happen for the first time in Philadelphia bringing stakeholders together to discuss the future of the internet.\nDate:\nWednesday 9 September 2026\nLocation:\nNorth America,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nUganda DNS Forum\nThe Uganda DNS Forum is a multi-stakeholder platform dedicated to strengthening Uganda’s Domain Name System (DNS) ecosystem through policy dialogue, technical capacity building, research, and community engagement.\nDate:\nThursday 10 September 2026\nLocation:\nAfrica,\nBoth Virtual and In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\nNOG.HR\nCroatian Network Operators Group\nDate:\nThursday 10 September 2026\nLocation:\nEurope,\nZagreb, Croatia, In Person\nAccess:\nOpen Event\n2026 Puerto Rico Capacity Development Sessions\nThe capacity-development event in Puerto Rico is part of ICANN’s strategic objective to provide hands-on training to foster knowledge sharing, skills development, and technical engagement. This marks the third consecutive year that ICANN has delivered these sessions to students, ...\nDate:\nThursday 10 September 2026\n- Monday 14 September 2026\nLocation:\nNorth America,\nSan Juan, Puerto Rico, In Person\nAccess:\nClosed Event\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\nNext\nPrevious\n1\n2\n3\nNext\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 10844, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1554}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "bdece214-750e-4d84-ad1d-3d4c5bb60677", "source_id": "d6056283cef4f307960c4ec1", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.ietf.org/about/introduction/", "final_url": "https://www.ietf.org/about/introduction/", "artifact_sha256": "5a3392a4be8b620ffb3b98e26161d0255768b78d20003448de2230380c3d4c1f", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 85959, "title": "IETF  | Introduction", "language": "en", "text_length": 12231, "characters": 12231, "text": "IETF | Introduction\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nA brief introduction to the Mission, Participants, Principles, Work and Meetings of the IETF\nAbout the IETF\nMission\nParticipants\nPrinciples\nRFCs\nThe Work\nIETF Meetings\nAbout the IETF\nThe Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), founded in 1986, is the premier standards development organization (SDO) for the Internet. The IETF makes voluntary standards that are often adopted by Internet users, network operators, and equipment vendors, and it thus helps shape the trajectory of the development of the Internet. But in no way does the IETF control, or even patrol, the Internet.\nMission\nQuoting from\nRFC 3935: A Mission Statement for the IETF\n:\n\"the overall goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.\"\n\"Its mission is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.\"\nThe Mission Statement further states that the Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. The IETF wants the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness. The IETF embraces technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that the IETF chooses to create.\nParticipants\nThere is no membership in the IETF. Anyone can participate by signing up to a working group mailing list (more on that below), or registering for an IETF meeting. All IETF participants are considered volunteers and expected to participate as individuals, including those paid to participate.\nThe IETF welcomes all interested individuals and participants come from all over the world and from many different parts of the Internet industry. In any one year, over 7000 people actively participate in the IETF either by authoring a document, engaging in a mailing list discussion, or attending a meeting.\nThe only fee the IETF charges is for registering for an IETF meeting, with options in place to prevent that fee from becoming a barrier to participation.\nIETF participants are regularly shown the\nNote Well\n, a reminder of the policies and processes they are expected to comply with. To ensure an environment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect, these policies include a\ncode of conduct\n, an\nanti-harassment policy\n, and the IETF has an\nOmbudsteam\nwho are the point of escalation for any problems with conduct.\nThe IETF conducts its work solely in English.\nPrinciples\nThe IETF pursues its mission in adherence to the following cardinal principles:\nOpen process\nAny interested person can participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the issue. Part of this principle is our commitment to making our documents, our Working Group mailing lists, our attendance lists, and our meeting minutes publicly available on the Internet.\nTechnical competence\nThe issues on which the IETF produces its documents are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to speak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to technically competent input from any source. Technical competence also means that we expect IETF output to be designed to sound network engineering principles - this is also often referred to as \"engineering quality\".\nVolunteer Core\nOur participants and our leadership are people who come to the IETF because they want to do work that furthers the IETF's mission of \"making the Internet work better.\"\nRough consensus and running code\nWe make standards based on the combined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-world experience in implementing and deploying our specifications.\nProtocol ownership\nWhen the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or function, it accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the protocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on the Internet. Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a protocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control over it, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet.\nRFCs\nThe IETF publishes its technical documentation as RFCs, an acronym for their historical title\nRequests for Comments\n. They describe the Internet's technical foundations, such as addressing, routing, and transport technologies. RFCs also specify protocols like TLS 1.3, QUIC, and WebRTC that are used to deliver services used by billions of people every day, such as real-time collaboration, email, and the domain name system.\nSoftware developers, hardware manufacturers, and network operators around the world voluntarily implement and adopt the technical specifications and best practices described by RFCs.\nThe\nRFC Editor\nwebsite is the authoritative site for RFCs. The\nIETF Datatracker\nprovides transparency on the process that resulted in the publication of each RFC.\nFor more information see\nAbout RFCs\n.\nThe Work\nThe work of the IETF is to produce technical documents (RFCs) that define how Internet technology works in detail, and can be operated and managed at scale.\nNew work in the IETF begins with one or more participants producing a discussion document called an Internet-Draft (I-D) and then working to get that I-D adopted for further work. Anyone can write an Internet-Draft on any topic they believe is relevant to the IETF. There are different routes that an I-D can follow to be adopted, worked on and eventually become an RFC.\nThe IETF has\npolicies\nabout Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that are designed to ensure that IETF participants have as much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as early as possible in the development process.\nThe majority of the IETF's work is done in\nWorking Groups\n. A Working Group (WG) has its own mailing list with most of its interaction, and all of it official work, conducted on this list. The day to day work of WGs revolves around Internet-Drafts and over time the WG shapes them into RFCs. Decisions within WGs, as with the broader IETF, are taken by 'rough consensus' and not by voting. When a WG has finished with an I-D it goes through a process to ensure that it has approval from the appointed technical leadership and the consensus support of the IETF as a whole.\nWhen an I-D has cleared all the hurdles to become an RFC it goes through a professional editorial process and is then assigned a number and published in a range of formats.\nIETF Meetings\nThe IETF holds three week-long meetings a year. Onsite participation averages between 1000 and 1500 participants. Every effort is made to integrate the 600+ remote participants into the overall meeting experience.\nIETF meetings are very different from standard industry conferences as they are working meetings with the primary goal of helping Working Groups (WGs) get their tasks done, and the secondary goal of promoting mixing among the WGs. For that reason, most of the agenda is comprised of multiple simultaneous sessions for Working Groups. There is no exposition hall and only a small section of the agenda is set aside for tutorials, industry presentations, panel sessions, and opportunities for the whole community to come together.\nFor more information see\nGuide to IETF Meetings\n.\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "segments": [{"segment_id": "50bfd7ae-957d-474b-9a1b-2f369841257d", "document_id": "bdece214-750e-4d84-ad1d-3d4c5bb60677", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IETF | Introduction\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nA brief introduction to the Mission, Participants, Principles, Work and Meetings of the IETF\nAbout the IETF\nMission\nParticipants\nPrinciples\nRFCs\nThe Work\nIETF Meetings\nAbout the IETF\nThe Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), founded in 1986, is the premier standards development organization (SDO) for the Internet. The IETF makes voluntary standards that are often adopted by Internet users, network operators, and equipment vendors, and it thus helps shape the trajectory of the development of the Internet. But in no way does the IETF control, or even patrol, the Internet.\nMission\nQuoting from\nRFC 3935: A Mission Statement for the IETF\n:\n\"the overall goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.\"\n\"Its mission is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.\"\nThe Mission Statement further states that the Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. The IETF wants the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness. The IETF embraces technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that the IETF chooses to create.\nParticipants\nThere is no membership in the IETF. Anyone can participate by signing up to a working group mailing list (more on that below), or registering for an IETF meeting. All IETF participants are considered volunteers and expected to participate as individuals, including those paid to participate.\nThe IETF welcomes all interested individuals and participants come from all over the world and from many different parts of the Internet industry. In any one year, over 7000 people actively participate in the IETF either by authoring a document, engaging in a mailing list discussion, or attending a meeting.\nThe only fee the IETF charges is for registering for an IETF meeting, with options in place to prevent that fee from becoming a barrier to participation.\nIETF participants are regularly shown the\nNote Well\n, a reminder of the policies and processes they are expected to comply with. To ensure an environment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect, these policies include a\ncode of conduct\n, an\nanti-harassment policy\n, and the IETF has an\nOmbudsteam\nwho are the point of escalation for any problems with conduct.\nThe IETF conducts its work solely in English.\nPrinciples\nThe IETF pursues its mission in adherence to the following cardinal principles:\nOpen process\nAny interested person can participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the issue. Part of this principle is our commitment to making our documents, our Working Group mailing lists, our attendance lists, and our meeting minutes publicly available on the Internet.\nTechnical competence\nThe issues on which the IETF produces its documents are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to speak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to technically competent input from any source. Technical competence also means that we expect IETF output to be designed to sound network engineering principles - this is also often referred to as \"engineering quality\".\nVolunteer Core\nOur participants and our leadership are people who come to the IETF because they want to do work that furthers the IETF's mission of \"making the Internet work better.\"\nRough consensus and running code\nWe make standards based on the combined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-world experience in implementing and deploying our specifications.\nProtocol ownership\nWhen the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or function, it accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the protocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on the Internet. Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a protocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control over it, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet.\nRFCs\nThe IETF publishes its technical documentation as RFCs, an acronym for their historical title\nRequests for Comments\n. They describe the Internet's technical foundations, such as addressing, routing, and transport technologies. RFCs also specify protocols like TLS 1.3, QUIC, and WebRTC that are used to deliver services used by billions of people every day, such as real-time collaboration, email, and the domain name system.\nSoftware developers, hardware manufacturers, and network operators around the world voluntarily implement and adopt the technical specifications and best practices described by RFCs.\nThe\nRFC Editor\nwebsite is the authoritative site for RFCs. The\nIETF Datatracker\nprovides transparency on the process that resulted in the publication of each RFC.\nFor more information see\nAbout RFCs\n.\nThe Work\nThe work of the IETF is to produce technical documents (RFCs) that define how Internet technology works in detail, and can be operated and managed at scale.\nNew work in the IETF begins with one or more participants producing a discussion document called an Internet-Draft (I-D) and then working to get that I-D adopted for further work. Anyone can write an Internet-Draft on any topic they believe is relevant to the IETF. There are different routes that an I-D can follow to be adopted, worked on and eventually become an RFC.\nThe IETF has\npolicies\nabout Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that are designed to ensure that IETF participants have as much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as early as possible in the development process.\nThe majority of the IETF's work is done in\nWorking Groups\n. A Working Group (WG) has its own mailing list with most of its interaction, and all of it official work, conducted on this list. The day to day work of WGs revolves around Internet-Drafts and over time the WG shapes them into RFCs. Decisions within WGs, as with the broader IETF, are taken by 'rough consensus' and not by voting. When a WG has finished with an I-D it goes through a process to ensure that it has approval from the appointed technical leadership and the consensus support of the IETF as a whole.\nWhen an I-D has cleared all the hurdles to become an RFC it goes through a professional editorial process and is then assigned a number and published in a range of formats.\nIETF Meetings\nThe IETF holds three week-long meetings a year. Onsite participation averages between 1000 and 1500 participants. Every effort is made to integrate the 600+ remote participants into the overall meeting experience.\nIETF meetings are very different from standard industry conferences as they are working meetings with the primary goal of helping Working Groups (WGs) get their tasks done, and the secondary goal of promoting mixing among the WGs. For that reason, most of the agenda is comprised of multiple simultaneous sessions for Working Groups. There is no exposition hall and only a small section of the agenda is set aside for tutorials, industry presentations, panel sessions, and opportunities for the whole community to come together.\nFor more information see\nGuide to IETF Meetings\n.\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12231, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1896}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "be0f1ee5-3229-4054-8f28-d8f0c5f99757", "source_id": "4b55d45a94fc0212758388bc", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/host-country-contributions-to-supporting-global-south", "final_url": "https://intgovforum.org/en/content/host-country-contributions-to-supporting-global-south", "artifact_sha256": "5313a22a3e0ba8c2010b52820c0e0e95b803f26492effb3bd86ed0bdbdfae968", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 81458, "title": "Host Country Contributions to Supporting Global South | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "language": "en", "text_length": 3464, "characters": 3464, "text": "Host Country Contributions to Supporting Global South | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nHost Country Contributions to Supporting Global South\nAs of 2019, host countries have made contributions to support Global South participation.\nDonor\nTotal Contributions\nGovernment of Germany\n$1,650,000\nGovernment of Japan\n$550,000\nGovernment of Saudi Arabia\n$476,000\nGovernment of Norway\n$250,000\nGovernment of Ethiopia\n$80,000\nGovernment of Poland\n$20,000\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "b518aeaa-16fe-49fc-8171-124a4a534d0f", "document_id": "be0f1ee5-3229-4054-8f28-d8f0c5f99757", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Host Country Contributions to Supporting Global South | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nEnglish\nEnglish\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nHost Country Contributions to Supporting Global South\nAs of 2019, host countries have made contributions to support Global South participation.\nDonor\nTotal Contributions\nGovernment of Germany\n$1,650,000\nGovernment of Japan\n$550,000\nGovernment of Saudi Arabia\n$476,000\nGovernment of Norway\n$250,000\nGovernment of Ethiopia\n$80,000\nGovernment of Poland\n$20,000\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3464, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 519}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "be281922-92ac-4007-b699-5d567c499dd9", "source_id": "f57487e3c94e6580c74d29e9", "source": "other", "source_url": "https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/telecom_e.htm", "final_url": "https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/telecom_e.htm", "artifact_sha256": "f57487e3c94e6580c74d29e99e280baa3e93663f8904c51f6a2ce23885fb512d", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 19555, "title": "WTO Telecommunications Services", "language": "en", "text_length": 6290, "characters": 6290, "text": "WTO | Services: Telecommunications services\nhome\ntrade\r\n          topics\nservices\nsector-by-sector\ntelecommunications services\nSERVICES:\nSECTOR BY SECTOR\nTelecommunication services\nTelecommunication services are the core of the digital economy, enabling e-commerce in goods and services. Extensive trading is undertaken via commercial presence by a foreign company (mode 3 under the General Agreement on Trade in Services) and cross-border supply (mode 1 under the GATS). The sector accounts for over US$ 1.6 trillion in revenue, of which 65 per cent is from mobile services.  Proving resilient during the 2020-21 pandemic, telecommunications have also supported the uptake of many other services and their capacity to meet the dramatic increases in demand for online activity as a result of COVID-19.\nTelecommunication services include all forms of voice telephony and data transmission as well as leasing of circuit capacity (considered “basic” telecommunications) and a host of messaging and online information and data retrieval and processing services (considered value-added telecommunications). Such services are covered by the sector regardless of the technology used to supply them. Having accommodated computer and related technologies in recent decades, the sector covers some services (especially value-added services) that today are nearly indistinguishable from certain activities included in the GATS classification for the computer and related services sector.\nHelp with understanding how GATS defines telecommunications, basic telecommunications, and other telecommunications services\nSectoral trade rules\nThe trade rules that apply to  telecommunications services include the framework articles of the\nGATS\n, which contain the principles for trade in all services. In addition, the GATS contains an Annex on telecommunications whose rules apply to all WTO members. The Annex provides guarantees for reasonable access to and  use of public telecommunications in a given market by suppliers of all services  benefiting from commitments scheduled by the member concerned.\nText of the Annex on Telecommunications\nAnnex explanation\nAnother key element of telecom disciplines — the\nReference Paper\n— is a set of regulatory  principles that is legally binding only for those  WTO governments which have committed to it by appending the document, in whole  or in part, to their schedules of commitments. The Reference Paper provided a blueprint for telecommunications reform, at  a time when competition was being introduced, that largely reflected “best  practice” in sector regulation at the time, and in large part continues to do  so today.\nTelecommunications  Reference Paper\nCurrent market access commitments and most-favoured-nation (MFN) exemptions\nCommitments in  telecommunications services were first made during the Uruguay Round (1986-94), mostly in  value-added services. In post-Uruguay Round negotiations (1994-97), WTO members  negotiated basic telecommunications services. Since then, commitments have been  made by new members upon accession to the WTO or unilaterally by  governments who have chosen to do so.\nCurrently, 126 WTO members have made market access and national  treatment commitments on trade in telecommunications services. This includes commitments  to allow the establishment of new telecoms companies, foreign direct investment  in existing companies and cross-border transmission of telecoms  services. In addition, 107 members have committed to the regulatory principles  spelled out in the Reference Paper.\nList of all current telecommunications commitments and exemptions\nFor consolidated information on countries’ commitments and exemptions on\r\n          telecommunications services go to the\nservices  database\n.\nIf you are seeking the commitments of a specific WTO member,  go to “Jump to a specific sector for a given Member”, select  telecommunications services from the sector dropdown list, select the member of interest and  click “go”. To see a table showing which members have made commitments in  telecommunications services, choose “See which Members have made commitments in a  specific sector”, select Telecommunications services and  click “go”.\nTelecommunications in WTO negotiations\nFollowing the extensive  negotiations in the 1990s, telecommunications, like other services, were  included in the Doha Round of\nservices  negotiations\n.\nPost-Uruguay Round negotiations on basic telecommunications (1994-1997)\nIn the Doha Round, which began  in January 2000, improved market opening and new  commitments to \"bind\" more recent reforms in telecommunications were under  negotiation. At least 39 members had offered  to improve their existing commitments or to commit for  the first time in the sector.\nImproving telecommunications  commitments remains a priority and is likely to be pursued in any future  negotiations.\nHelp with understanding terms used in telecommunications: Informal glossary\nKey events\nSymposium on International Mobile Roaming — 22 March 2012\nBasic Telecom Negotiations: 10th Anniversary Symposium —  20-21 February 2008\nback to top\nAdditional information\nSearch Documents Online\nThese links open a new window: allow a moment for the results to appear.\nSecretariat background\r\n                notes\non telecom services\n(Document code\r\n                S/C/W/* and keyword “Telecommunication\r\n                Services and Background Note”)\n>\nsearch\n>\nhelp\nYou can perform more sophisticated searches from the\nDocuments\r\n              Online search facility\nby defining multiple search criteria such as document symbol (i.e. code number), full text search or document date.\nUseful links and other resources\nInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU)\nITU Development Bureau:\nPolicy and Regulation\nITU\nGlobal        Symposium for Regulators\nand its\nBest Practice        Guidelines\nWorld  Bank:\nDigital Development\nUNCTAD:\nScience, Technology &  Innovation and ICTs\nUNCTAD:\nDigital Economy Report Series\n,  formerly\nInformation Economy Report\nOECD:\nDigital Economy Committee\nIMF:  Sustainable Infrastructure -\nTelecoms Media &  Technology\nWorld Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)\nWSIS Reports https://www.itu.int/pub/S-POL-WSIS\nInternet Governance Forum  (IGF)\nInternet Society (ISOC)\nISOC Publications", "segments": [], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:35.406650+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "source_id": "45255d7d3a03279506328dcc", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3935/", "final_url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3935/", "artifact_sha256": "9a7a2d17d07ab537f01a176679bad71f26e85e12e29f2f37d6684e1d1ea53b56", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 48562, "title": "RFC 3935 - A Mission Statement for the IETF", "language": "en", "text_length": 16755, "characters": 16755, "text": "RFC 3935 - A Mission Statement for the IETF\nSkip to main content\nDatatracker\nGroups\nBy area/parent\nApps & Realtime\nGeneral\nInternet\nOps & Management\nRouting\nSecurity\nWeb and Internet Transport\nIESG\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nOther\nActive AGs\nActive Areas\nActive Directorates\nActive IAB Workshops\nActive Programs\nActive RAGs\nActive Teams\nNew work\nChartering groups\nBOFs\nBOF Requests\nOther groups\nConcluded groups\nNon-WG lists\nDocuments\nSearch\nRecent I-Ds\nSubmit an Internet-Draft\nRFC streams\nIAB\nIRTF\nISE\nEditorial\nSubseries\nSTD\nBCP\nFYI\nMeetings\nAgenda\nMaterials\nFloor plan\nRegistration\nImportant dates\nRequest a session\nSession requests\nUpcoming meetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nPast meetings\nMeeting proceedings\nOther\nIPR disclosures\nLiaison statements\nIESG agenda\nNomComs\nDownref registry\nStatistics\nI-Ds/RFCs\nMeetings\nAPI Help\nRelease notes\nSystem status\nReport a bug\nUser\nSign in\nPassword reset\nPreferences\nNew account\nList subscriptions\nIETF Lists\nIRTF Lists\nIAB Lists\nRFC-Editor Lists\nReport a bug\nSign in\nA Mission Statement for the IETF\nRFC 3935\nalso known as\nBCP 95\nStatus\nEmail expansions\nHistory\nDocument\nType\nRFC\n\n- Best Current Practice\n(October 2004)\nErrata\nWas\ndraft-alvestrand-ietf-mission\n(individual in gen area)\nAuthor\nH. Alvestrand\nLast updated\n2026-05-20\nRFC stream\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nFormats\ntxt\nhtml\nhtmlized\nbibtex\nIESG\nResponsible AD\nDavid Kessens\nSend notices to\n(None)\nEmail authors\nIPR\nReferences\nReferenced by\nSearch Lists\nRFC 3935\nNetwork Working Group H. Alvestrand\nRequest for Comments: 3935 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 95 October 2004\nCategory: Best Current Practice\n\nA Mission Statement for the IETF\nStatus of this Memo\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\nCopyright Notice\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\nAbstract\nThis memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the\nterms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission\nstatement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a\nmission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led\nto this point.\n\n1. Mission Statement\n\nThe goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.\n\nThe mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant\ntechnical and engineering documents that influence the way people\ndesign, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the\nInternet work better. These documents include protocol standards,\nbest current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.\n\nThe IETF will pursue this mission in adherence to the following\ncardinal principles:\n\nOpen process - any interested person can participate in the work,\nknow what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the\nissue. Part of this principle is our commitment to making our\ndocuments, our WG mailing lists, our attendance lists, and our\nmeeting minutes publicly available on the Internet.\n\nTechnical competence - the issues on which the IETF produces its\ndocuments are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to\nspeak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\ntechnically competent input from any source. Technical competence\nalso means that we expect IETF output to be designed to sound\nnetwork engineering principles - this is also often referred to as\n\"engineering quality\".\n\nVolunteer Core - our participants and our leadership are people who\ncome to the IETF because they want to do work that furthers the\nIETF's mission of \"making the Internet work better\".\n\nRough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the\ncombined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-\nworld experience in implementing and deploying our specifications.\n\nProtocol ownership - when the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or\nfunction, it accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the\nprotocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on\nthe Internet. Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a\nprotocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control over\nit, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet.\n\n2. Definition of Terms\n\nMission: What an organization sets out to do. This is in contrast to\nits goal (which is what it hopes to achieve by fulfilling its\nmission), and to its activities (which is what specific actions it\ntakes to achieve its mission).\n\nThe Internet: A large, heterogeneous collection of interconnected\nsystems that can be used for communication of many different types\nbetween any interested parties connected to it. The term includes\nboth the \"core Internet\" (ISP networks) and \"edge Internet\"\n(corporate and private networks, often connected via firewalls,\nNAT boxes, application layer gateways and similar devices). The\nInternet is a truly global network, reaching into just about every\ncountry in the world.\nThe IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we\nbelieve that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on\neconomics, communication, and education, will help us to build a\nbetter human society.\n\nStandard: As used here, the term describes a specification of a\nprotocol, system behaviour or procedure that has a unique\nidentifier, and where the IETF has agreed that \"if you want to do\nthis thing, this is the description of how to do it\". It does not\nimply any attempt by the IETF to mandate its use, or any attempt\nto police its usage - only that \"if you say that you are doing\nthis according to this standard, do it this way\". The benefit of\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\na standard to the Internet is in interoperability - that multiple\nproducts implementing a standard are able to work together in\norder to deliver valuable functions to the Internet's users.\n\nParticipants: Individuals who participate in the process are the\nfundamental unit of the IETF organization and the IETF's work.\nThe IETF has found that the process works best when focused around\npeople, rather than around organizations, companies, governments\nor interest groups. That is not to say that these other entities\nare uninteresting - but they are not what constitutes the IETF.\n\nQuality: In this context, the ability to express ideas with enough\nclarity that they can be understood in the same way by all people\nbuilding systems to conform to them, and the ability (and\nwillingness) to describe the properties of the system well enough\nto understand important consequences of its design, and to ensure\nthat those consequences are beneficial to the Internet as a whole.\nIt also means that the specifications are designed with adherence\nto sound network engineering principles, so that use for its\nintended purpose is likely to be effective and not harmful to the\nInternet as a whole.\n\nRelevant: In this context, useful to some group of people who have to\nmake decisions that affect the Internet, including, but not\nlimited to, hardware and software implementors, network builders,\nnetwork operators, and users of the Internet. Note that it does\nnot mean \"correct\" or \"positive\" - a report of an experiment that\nfailed, or a specification that clearly says why you should not\nuse it in a given situation, can be highly relevant - for deciding\nwhat NOT to do. A part of being relevant is being timely - very\noften, documents delivered a year after core decisions have been\ntaken are far less useful than documents that are available to the\ndecision-makers at decision time.\n\n3. The Need for a Mission Statement\n\nThe IETF has to make decisions. And in some cases, people acting on\nbehalf of the IETF have to make decisions without consulting the\nentire IETF first.\n\nThere are many reasons for this, including the near-impossibility of\ngetting an informed consensus opinion on a complex subject out of a\ncommunity of several thousand people in a short time.\n\nHaving a defined mission is one of the steps we can take in order to\nevaluate alternatives: Does this help or hinder the mission, or is it\northogonal to it? If there are limited resources, are there things\nthat they could be invested in that help the mission better?\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\n(Another step is to choose leaders that we trust to exercise their\ngood judgement and do the right thing. But we're already trying to\ndo that.)\n\n4. Issues with Scoping the IETF's Mission\n\n4.1. The Scope of the Internet\n\nA very difficult issue in discussing the IETF's mission has been the\nscope of the term \"for the Internet\". The Internet is used for many\nthings, many of which the IETF community has neither interest nor\ncompetence in making standards for.\n\nThe Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want\nthe Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment\nto openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as\ndecentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of\nresources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of\nthe IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the\ntechnology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that\nwe choose to create.\n\nAt the same time, it is clear that many of the IETF-defined\ntechnologies are useful not only for the Internet, but also for\nnetworks that have no direct relation to the Internet itself.\n\nIn attempting to resolve the question of the IETF's scope, perhaps\nthe fairest balance is struck by this formulation: \"protocols and\npractices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected\nto have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to\nform part of the infrastructure of the Internet.\"\n\nIn addition to this constraint, we are also constrained by the\nprinciple of competence: Where we do not have, and cannot gather, the\ncompetence needed to make technically sound standards, we should not\nattempt to take the leadership.\n\n4.2. The Balance Between Research, Invention and Adoption\n\nThe IETF has traditionally been a community for experimentation with\nthings that are not fully understood, standardization of protocols\nfor which some understanding has been reached, and publication of\n(and refinement of) protocols originally specified outside the IETF\nprocess.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\nAll of these activities have in common that they produce documents -\nbut the documents should be judged by very different criteria when\nthe time to publish comes around, and it's not uncommon to see people\nconfused about what documents are in which category.\n\nIn deciding whether or not these activities should be done within the\nIETF, one should not chiefly look at the type of activity, but the\npotential benefit to the Internet - an experiment that yields\ninformation about the fact that an approach is not viable might be of\ngreater benefit to the Internet than publishing a standard that is\ntechnically competent, but only useful in a few special cases.\n\nFor research of an essentially unbounded nature, with unknown\nprobability of success, it may be more relevant to charter a research\ngroup than a standards group. For activities with a bounded scope -\nsuch as specifying several alternative protocols to the point where\nexperiments can identify the better one for standardization - the\nIETF's working group mechanism may be an appropriate tool.\n\n4.3. The Balance Between Mission and Procedures\n\nThe mission is intended to state what the IETF is trying to achieve.\nThere are many methods that can be chosen to achieve these outcomes -\nfor instance, the appeals procedure is defined so that we can detect\ncases where our fundamental principles of technical competence and\nopen process has been violated; it is not itself a fundamental value.\n\nSimilarly, the question of what body in the IETF declares that a\ndocument is ready for publication is entirely outside the mission\nstatement; we can imagine changing that without in any way impacting\nwhat the IETF mission is - even though it may significantly impact\nthe ability to achieve that mission.\n\n4.4. The Reach of the Internet\n\nThe Internet is a global phenomenon. The people interested in its\nevolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of\nlife. The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough\nconsensus and individual participation, and needs to be open to\ncompetent input from any source. The IETF uses the English language\nfor its work is because of its utility for working in a global\ncontext.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\n4.5. Protocol Ownership\n\nA problem akin to the problem of deciding on the area of the IETF's\ncompetence arises when a protocol that is clearly in the IETF's scope\nis used both on and off the Internet - the premier example is of\ncourse the Internet Protocol itself.\n\nSometimes the IETF defines standards that ultimately see the most use\noutside the global Internet. The IETF, having defined the standard,\nwill continue to provide the necessary administration of that\nprotocol.\n\nSometimes the IETF leverages standards that are defined and\nmaintained by other organizations; we continue to work with those\norganizations on their standards and do not attempt to take them\nover.\n\n5. Security Considerations\n\nConsidering security is one of the core principles of sound network\nengineering for the Internet. Apart from that, it's not relevant to\nthis memo.\n\n6. Acknowledgements\n\nThis document is a result of many hours of debate, countless reviews,\nand limitless emails. As such, any acknowledgements section is bound\nto be incomplete.\n\nAmong the many who provided input were the current members of the\nIESG (Alex Zinin, Allison Mankin, Bert Wijnen, Bill Fenner, David\nKessens, Jon Peterson, Margaret Wasserman, Russ Housley, Scott\nHollenbeck, Steve Bellovin, Ted Hardie, Thomas Narten) and recent\nIESG members (Ned Freed, Randy Bush, Erik Nordmark), as well as\nmultiple IAB members, and many members from the community, including\nJames Polk, John Klensin, Pekka Savola, Paul Hoffman, Eliot Lear,\nJonne Soininen, Fred Baker, Dean Anderson, John Leslie, Susan Harris,\nand many others. Special thanks go to Leslie Daigle, the IAB chair.\nAuthor's Address\nHarald Tveit Alvestrand\nCisco Systems\nWeidemanns vei 27\nTrondheim 7043\nNO\n\nEMail: harald@alvestrand.no\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\nFull Copyright Statement\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\n\nThis document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions\ncontained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors\nretain all their rights.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein are provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS\nOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,\nINCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE\nINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\nIntellectual Property\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has\nmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information\non the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can\nbe found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.\n\nCopies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any\nassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an\nattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of\nsuch proprietary rights by implementers or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at\nhttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.\n\nThe IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights that may cover technology that may be required to implement\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-\nipr@ietf.org.\nAcknowledgement\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nIETF\nIESG\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF LLC\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nPrivacy Statement\nAbout IETF Datatracker\nVersion 12.70.0\n(release - 6fcc7d8)\nSystem Status\nReport a bug:\nGitHub\nEmail", "segments": [{"segment_id": "eaeecd22-2248-4ba5-be31-ab1b5ddc65ca", "document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 3935 - A Mission Statement for the IETF\nSkip to main content\nDatatracker\nGroups\nBy area/parent\nApps & Realtime\nGeneral\nInternet\nOps & Management\nRouting\nSecurity\nWeb and Internet Transport\nIESG\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nOther\nActive AGs\nActive Areas\nActive Directorates\nActive IAB Workshops\nActive Programs\nActive RAGs\nActive Teams\nNew work\nChartering groups\nBOFs\nBOF Requests\nOther groups\nConcluded groups\nNon-WG lists\nDocuments\nSearch\nRecent I-Ds\nSubmit an Internet-Draft\nRFC streams\nIAB\nIRTF\nISE\nEditorial\nSubseries\nSTD\nBCP\nFYI\nMeetings\nAgenda\nMaterials\nFloor plan\nRegistration\nImportant dates\nRequest a session\nSession requests\nUpcoming meetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nPast meetings\nMeeting proceedings\nOther\nIPR disclosures\nLiaison statements\nIESG agenda\nNomComs\nDownref registry\nStatistics\nI-Ds/RFCs\nMeetings\nAPI Help\nRelease notes\nSystem status\nReport a bug\nUser\nSign in\nPassword reset\nPreferences\nNew account\nList subscriptions\nIETF Lists\nIRTF Lists\nIAB Lists\nRFC-Editor Lists\nReport a bug\nSign in\nA Mission Statement for the IETF\nRFC 3935\nalso known as\nBCP 95\nStatus\nEmail expansions\nHistory\nDocument\nType\nRFC\n\n- Best Current Practice\n(October 2004)\nErrata\nWas\ndraft-alvestrand-ietf-mission\n(individual in gen area)\nAuthor\nH. Alvestrand\nLast updated\n2026-05-20\nRFC stream\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nFormats\ntxt\nhtml\nhtmlized\nbibtex\nIESG\nResponsible AD\nDavid Kessens\nSend notices to\n(None)\nEmail authors\nIPR\nReferences\nReferenced by\nSearch Lists\nRFC 3935\nNetwork Working Group H. Alvestrand\nRequest for Comments: 3935 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 95 October 2004\nCategory: Best Current Practice\n\nA Mission Statement for the IETF\nStatus of this Memo\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\nCopyright Notice\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).\nAbstract\nThis memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the\nterms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission\nstatement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a\nmission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led\nto this point.", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2207, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 333}}, {"segment_id": "9dacabaf-9df3-4964-a3dc-a32df0b8489a", "document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "ordinal": 1, "text": "1. Mission Statement\n\nThe goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.\n\nThe mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant\ntechnical and engineering documents that influence the way people\ndesign, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the\nInternet work better. These documents include protocol standards,\nbest current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.\n\nThe IETF will pursue this mission in adherence to the following\ncardinal principles:\n\nOpen process - any interested person can participate in the work,\nknow what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the\nissue. Part of this principle is our commitment to making our\ndocuments, our WG mailing lists, our attendance lists, and our\nmeeting minutes publicly available on the Internet.\n\nTechnical competence - the issues on which the IETF produces its\ndocuments are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to\nspeak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\ntechnically competent input from any source. Technical competence\nalso means that we expect IETF output to be designed to sound\nnetwork engineering principles - this is also often referred to as\n\"engineering quality\".\n\nVolunteer Core - our participants and our leadership are people who\ncome to the IETF because they want to do work that furthers the\nIETF's mission of \"making the Internet work better\".\n\nRough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the\ncombined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-\nworld experience in implementing and deploying our specifications.\n\nProtocol ownership - when the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or\nfunction, it accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the\nprotocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on\nthe Internet. Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a\nprotocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control over\nit, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet.", "char_start": 2209, "char_end": 4282, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 341}}, {"segment_id": "be22325a-1d31-4a84-bf92-a38543970d61", "document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "ordinal": 2, "text": "2. Definition of Terms\n\nMission: What an organization sets out to do. This is in contrast to\nits goal (which is what it hopes to achieve by fulfilling its\nmission), and to its activities (which is what specific actions it\ntakes to achieve its mission).\n\nThe Internet: A large, heterogeneous collection of interconnected\nsystems that can be used for communication of many different types\nbetween any interested parties connected to it. The term includes\nboth the \"core Internet\" (ISP networks) and \"edge Internet\"\n(corporate and private networks, often connected via firewalls,\nNAT boxes, application layer gateways and similar devices). The\nInternet is a truly global network, reaching into just about every\ncountry in the world.\nThe IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we\nbelieve that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on\neconomics, communication, and education, will help us to build a\nbetter human society.\n\nStandard: As used here, the term describes a specification of a\nprotocol, system behaviour or procedure that has a unique\nidentifier, and where the IETF has agreed that \"if you want to do\nthis thing, this is the description of how to do it\". It does not\nimply any attempt by the IETF to mandate its use, or any attempt\nto police its usage - only that \"if you say that you are doing\nthis according to this standard, do it this way\". The benefit of\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\na standard to the Internet is in interoperability - that multiple\nproducts implementing a standard are able to work together in\norder to deliver valuable functions to the Internet's users.\n\nParticipants: Individuals who participate in the process are the\nfundamental unit of the IETF organization and the IETF's work.\nThe IETF has found that the process works best when focused around\npeople, rather than around organizations, companies, governments\nor interest groups. That is not to say that these other entities\nare uninteresting - but they are not what constitutes the IETF.", "char_start": 4284, "char_end": 6339, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 339}}, {"segment_id": "2d2354d8-5d41-4dd3-8d80-41a2210f1730", "document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "ordinal": 3, "text": "Quality: In this context, the ability to express ideas with enough\nclarity that they can be understood in the same way by all people\nbuilding systems to conform to them, and the ability (and\nwillingness) to describe the properties of the system well enough\nto understand important consequences of its design, and to ensure\nthat those consequences are beneficial to the Internet as a whole.\nIt also means that the specifications are designed with adherence\nto sound network engineering principles, so that use for its\nintended purpose is likely to be effective and not harmful to the\nInternet as a whole.\n\nRelevant: In this context, useful to some group of people who have to\nmake decisions that affect the Internet, including, but not\nlimited to, hardware and software implementors, network builders,\nnetwork operators, and users of the Internet. Note that it does\nnot mean \"correct\" or \"positive\" - a report of an experiment that\nfailed, or a specification that clearly says why you should not\nuse it in a given situation, can be highly relevant - for deciding\nwhat NOT to do. A part of being relevant is being timely - very\noften, documents delivered a year after core decisions have been\ntaken are far less useful than documents that are available to the\ndecision-makers at decision time.\n\n3. The Need for a Mission Statement\n\nThe IETF has to make decisions. And in some cases, people acting on\nbehalf of the IETF have to make decisions without consulting the\nentire IETF first.\n\nThere are many reasons for this, including the near-impossibility of\ngetting an informed consensus opinion on a complex subject out of a\ncommunity of several thousand people in a short time.\n\nHaving a defined mission is one of the steps we can take in order to\nevaluate alternatives: Does this help or hinder the mission, or is it\northogonal to it? If there are limited resources, are there things\nthat they could be invested in that help the mission better?\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\n(Another step is to choose leaders that we trust to exercise their\ngood judgement and do the right thing. But we're already trying to\ndo that.)", "char_start": 6341, "char_end": 8513, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 371}}, {"segment_id": "92e0e0dd-d5be-4087-b0f8-926099abec5a", "document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "ordinal": 4, "text": "4. Issues with Scoping the IETF's Mission\n\n4.1. The Scope of the Internet\n\nA very difficult issue in discussing the IETF's mission has been the\nscope of the term \"for the Internet\". The Internet is used for many\nthings, many of which the IETF community has neither interest nor\ncompetence in making standards for.\n\nThe Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want\nthe Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment\nto openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as\ndecentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of\nresources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of\nthe IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the\ntechnology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that\nwe choose to create.\n\nAt the same time, it is clear that many of the IETF-defined\ntechnologies are useful not only for the Internet, but also for\nnetworks that have no direct relation to the Internet itself.\n\nIn attempting to resolve the question of the IETF's scope, perhaps\nthe fairest balance is struck by this formulation: \"protocols and\npractices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected\nto have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to\nform part of the infrastructure of the Internet.\"\n\nIn addition to this constraint, we are also constrained by the\nprinciple of competence: Where we do not have, and cannot gather, the\ncompetence needed to make technically sound standards, we should not\nattempt to take the leadership.\n\n4.2. The Balance Between Research, Invention and Adoption\n\nThe IETF has traditionally been a community for experimentation with\nthings that are not fully understood, standardization of protocols\nfor which some understanding has been reached, and publication of\n(and refinement of) protocols originally specified outside the IETF\nprocess.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\nAll of these activities have in common that they produce documents -\nbut the documents should be judged by very different criteria when\nthe time to publish comes around, and it's not uncommon to see people\nconfused about what documents are in which category.", "char_start": 8515, "char_end": 10732, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 353}}, {"segment_id": "e9124bc5-9871-4c52-96a3-19d18c3484d4", "document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "ordinal": 5, "text": "In deciding whether or not these activities should be done within the\nIETF, one should not chiefly look at the type of activity, but the\npotential benefit to the Internet - an experiment that yields\ninformation about the fact that an approach is not viable might be of\ngreater benefit to the Internet than publishing a standard that is\ntechnically competent, but only useful in a few special cases.\n\nFor research of an essentially unbounded nature, with unknown\nprobability of success, it may be more relevant to charter a research\ngroup than a standards group. For activities with a bounded scope -\nsuch as specifying several alternative protocols to the point where\nexperiments can identify the better one for standardization - the\nIETF's working group mechanism may be an appropriate tool.\n\n4.3. The Balance Between Mission and Procedures\n\nThe mission is intended to state what the IETF is trying to achieve.\nThere are many methods that can be chosen to achieve these outcomes -\nfor instance, the appeals procedure is defined so that we can detect\ncases where our fundamental principles of technical competence and\nopen process has been violated; it is not itself a fundamental value.\n\nSimilarly, the question of what body in the IETF declares that a\ndocument is ready for publication is entirely outside the mission\nstatement; we can imagine changing that without in any way impacting\nwhat the IETF mission is - even though it may significantly impact\nthe ability to achieve that mission.\n\n4.4. The Reach of the Internet\n\nThe Internet is a global phenomenon. The people interested in its\nevolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of\nlife. The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough\nconsensus and individual participation, and needs to be open to\ncompetent input from any source. The IETF uses the English language\nfor its work is because of its utility for working in a global\ncontext.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\n4.5. Protocol Ownership", "char_start": 10734, "char_end": 12773, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 339}}, {"segment_id": "69efa63f-f7d4-41d8-9968-bb0d612bb76a", "document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "ordinal": 6, "text": "A problem akin to the problem of deciding on the area of the IETF's\ncompetence arises when a protocol that is clearly in the IETF's scope\nis used both on and off the Internet - the premier example is of\ncourse the Internet Protocol itself.\n\nSometimes the IETF defines standards that ultimately see the most use\noutside the global Internet. The IETF, having defined the standard,\nwill continue to provide the necessary administration of that\nprotocol.\n\nSometimes the IETF leverages standards that are defined and\nmaintained by other organizations; we continue to work with those\norganizations on their standards and do not attempt to take them\nover.\n\n5. Security Considerations\n\nConsidering security is one of the core principles of sound network\nengineering for the Internet. Apart from that, it's not relevant to\nthis memo.\n\n6. Acknowledgements\n\nThis document is a result of many hours of debate, countless reviews,\nand limitless emails. As such, any acknowledgements section is bound\nto be incomplete.\n\nAmong the many who provided input were the current members of the\nIESG (Alex Zinin, Allison Mankin, Bert Wijnen, Bill Fenner, David\nKessens, Jon Peterson, Margaret Wasserman, Russ Housley, Scott\nHollenbeck, Steve Bellovin, Ted Hardie, Thomas Narten) and recent\nIESG members (Ned Freed, Randy Bush, Erik Nordmark), as well as\nmultiple IAB members, and many members from the community, including\nJames Polk, John Klensin, Pekka Savola, Paul Hoffman, Eliot Lear,\nJonne Soininen, Fred Baker, Dean Anderson, John Leslie, Susan Harris,\nand many others. Special thanks go to Leslie Daigle, the IAB chair.\nAuthor's Address\nHarald Tveit Alvestrand\nCisco Systems\nWeidemanns vei 27\nTrondheim 7043\nNO\n\nEMail: harald@alvestrand.no\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement October 2004\nFull Copyright Statement\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).", "char_start": 12775, "char_end": 14652, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 290}}, {"segment_id": "9ab36e0b-8c73-455c-9c16-2549d94f70a7", "document_id": "c11d366a-cb70-4979-badd-9c15163d243c", "ordinal": 7, "text": "This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions\ncontained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors\nretain all their rights.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein are provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS\nOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET\nENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,\nINCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE\nINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED\nWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\nIntellectual Property\nThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any\nIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to\npertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in\nthis document or the extent to which any license under such rights\nmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has\nmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information\non the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can\nbe found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.\n\nCopies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any\nassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an\nattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of\nsuch proprietary rights by implementers or users of this\nspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at\nhttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.\n\nThe IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any\ncopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary\nrights that may cover technology that may be required to implement\nthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-\nipr@ietf.org.\nAcknowledgement\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\nAlvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nIETF\nIESG\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF LLC\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nPrivacy Statement\nAbout IETF Datatracker\nVersion 12.70.0\n(release - 6fcc7d8)\nSystem Status\nReport a bug:\nGitHub\nEmail", "char_start": 14654, "char_end": 16755, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 338}}], "published_at": "2004-10-01", "date_source": "page_content", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2004-10-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "page_content", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "Request for Comments: 3935 Cisco Systems\nBCP: 95 October 2004", "notes": "RFC publication date from document header"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "c1a7a764-2fd0-4d17-ab8e-fc75c8b374a7", "source_id": "403fc9d7a37befaa632b332a", "source": "Academic", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12345", "final_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12345", "artifact_sha256": "4c28da52a9898f496a5ada1e0fb6abcec84124ec9381f054cee77c58f2478f4b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 43540, "title": "[2408.12345] Linearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array", "language": "en", "text_length": 4602, "characters": 4602, "text": "[2408.12345] Linearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nQuantum Physics\narXiv:2408.12345\n(quant-ph)\n[Submitted on 22 Aug 2024 (\nv1\n), last revised 23 Oct 2024 (this version, v2)]\nTitle:\nLinearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array\nAuthors:\nLeonardo Limongi\n,\nFrancesco Martini\n,\nThu Ha Dao\n,\nAlessandro Gaggero\n,\nHamza Hasnaoui\n,\nIgor Lopez-Gonzalez\n,\nFabio Chiarello\n,\nFabio de Matteis\n,\nAlberto Quaranta\n,\nAndrea Salamon\n,\nFrancesco Mattioli\n,\nMartino Bernard\n,\nMirko Lobino\nView a PDF of the paper titled Linearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array, by Leonardo Limongi and 12 other authors\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nAbstract:\nPhoton Number Resolving Detectors (PNRDs) are devices capable of measuring the number of photons present in an incident optical beam, enabling light sources to be measured and characterized at the quantum level. In this paper, we explore the performance and design considerations of a linearly multiplexed photon number-resolving single-photon detector array, integrated on a single mode waveguide. Our investigation focus on defining and analyzing the fidelity of such an array under various conditions and proposing practical designs for its implementation. Through theoretical analysis and numerical simulations, we show how propagation losses and dark counts may have a strong impact on the performance of the system and highlight the importance of mitigating these effects in practical implementations.\nSubjects:\nQuantum Physics (quant-ph)\nCite as:\narXiv:2408.12345\n[quant-ph]\n(or\narXiv:2408.12345v2\n[quant-ph]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.12345\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nJournal reference:\nOptics Communications, Volume 575, 2025, 131244\nRelated DOI\n:\nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2024.131244\nFocus to learn more\nDOI(s) linking to related resources\nSubmission history\nFrom: Leonardo Limongi [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nThu, 22 Aug 2024 12:41:12 UTC (238 KB)\n[v2]\nWed, 23 Oct 2024 15:01:32 UTC (259 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled Linearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array, by Leonardo Limongi and 12 other authors\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\nquant-ph\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2024-08\nReferences & Citations\nINSPIRE HEP\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "segments": [{"segment_id": "b886c9aa-3813-4d23-9109-fb50c4018e5f", "document_id": "c1a7a764-2fd0-4d17-ab8e-fc75c8b374a7", "ordinal": 0, "text": "[2408.12345] Linearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nSubmit\nDonate\nLog in\nSearch arXiv\nPress Enter to search ·\nAdvanced search\nQuantum Physics\narXiv:2408.12345\n(quant-ph)\n[Submitted on 22 Aug 2024 (\nv1\n), last revised 23 Oct 2024 (this version, v2)]\nTitle:\nLinearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array\nAuthors:\nLeonardo Limongi\n,\nFrancesco Martini\n,\nThu Ha Dao\n,\nAlessandro Gaggero\n,\nHamza Hasnaoui\n,\nIgor Lopez-Gonzalez\n,\nFabio Chiarello\n,\nFabio de Matteis\n,\nAlberto Quaranta\n,\nAndrea Salamon\n,\nFrancesco Mattioli\n,\nMartino Bernard\n,\nMirko Lobino\nView a PDF of the paper titled Linearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array, by Leonardo Limongi and 12 other authors\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nAbstract:\nPhoton Number Resolving Detectors (PNRDs) are devices capable of measuring the number of photons present in an incident optical beam, enabling light sources to be measured and characterized at the quantum level. In this paper, we explore the performance and design considerations of a linearly multiplexed photon number-resolving single-photon detector array, integrated on a single mode waveguide. Our investigation focus on defining and analyzing the fidelity of such an array under various conditions and proposing practical designs for its implementation. Through theoretical analysis and numerical simulations, we show how propagation losses and dark counts may have a strong impact on the performance of the system and highlight the importance of mitigating these effects in practical implementations.\nSubjects:\nQuantum Physics (quant-ph)\nCite as:\narXiv:2408.12345\n[quant-ph]\n(or\narXiv:2408.12345v2\n[quant-ph]\nfor this version)\nhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.12345\nFocus to learn more\narXiv-issued DOI via DataCite\nJournal reference:\nOptics Communications, Volume 575, 2025, 131244\nRelated DOI\n:\nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2024.131244\nFocus to learn more\nDOI(s) linking to related resources\nSubmission history\nFrom: Leonardo Limongi [\nview email\n]\n[v1]\nThu, 22 Aug 2024 12:41:12 UTC (238 KB)\n[v2]\nWed, 23 Oct 2024 15:01:32 UTC (259 KB)\nFull-text links:\nAccess Paper:\nView a PDF of the paper titled Linearly Multiplexed Photon Number Resolving Single-photon Detectors Array, by Leonardo Limongi and 12 other authors\nView PDF\nHTML (experimental)\nTeX Source\nview license\nCurrent browse context:\nquant-ph\n< prev\n|\nnext >\nnew\n|\nrecent\n|\n2024-08\nReferences & Citations\nINSPIRE HEP\nNASA ADS\nGoogle Scholar\nSemantic Scholar\nexport BibTeX citation\nLoading...\nBibTeX formatted citation\n×\nloading...\nData provided by:\nBookmark\nBibliographic Tools\nBibliographic and Citation Tools\nBibliographic Explorer Toggle\nBibliographic Explorer\n(\nWhat is the Explorer?\n)\nConnected Papers Toggle\nConnected Papers\n(\nWhat is Connected Papers?\n)\nLitmaps Toggle\nLitmaps\n(\nWhat is Litmaps?\n)\nscite.ai Toggle\nscite Smart Citations\n(\nWhat are Smart Citations?\n)\nCode, Data, Media\nCode, Data and Media Associated with this Article\nalphaXiv Toggle\nalphaXiv\n(\nWhat is alphaXiv?\n)\nLinks to Code Toggle\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers\n(\nWhat is CatalyzeX?\n)\nDagsHub Toggle\nDagsHub\n(\nWhat is DagsHub?\n)\nGotitPub Toggle\nGotit.pub\n(\nWhat is GotitPub?\n)\nHuggingface Toggle\nHugging Face\n(\nWhat is Huggingface?\n)\nScienceCast Toggle\nScienceCast\n(\nWhat is ScienceCast?\n)\nDemos\nDemos\nReplicate Toggle\nReplicate\n(\nWhat is Replicate?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nHugging Face Spaces\n(\nWhat is Spaces?\n)\nSpaces Toggle\nTXYZ.AI\n(\nWhat is TXYZ.AI?\n)\nRelated Papers\nRecommenders and Search Tools\nLink to Influence Flower\nInfluence Flower\n(\nWhat are Influence Flowers?\n)\nCore recommender toggle\nCORE Recommender\n(\nWhat is CORE?\n)\nAuthor\nVenue\nInstitution\nTopic\nAbout arXivLabs\narXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?\nLearn more about arXivLabs\n.\nWhich authors of this paper are endorsers?\n|\nDisable MathJax\n(\nWhat is MathJax?\n)\nWe gratefully acknowledge support from\nour\nmajor funders\n,\nmember institutions\n,\n,\nand all contributors.\nAbout\n·\nHelp\n·\nContact\n·\nSubscribe\n·\nCopyright\n·\nPrivacy\n·\nAccessibility\n·\nOperational Status\n(opens in new tab)\nMajor funding support from", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4602, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 692}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "c1d4ac2f-faf7-4a2a-8e1f-c23ee73aa9cd", "source_id": "de36dcc6fb8e0bb9fcf89316", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/committee-2012-02-25-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowship-selection-committee", "artifact_sha256": "dd575c9cda8a802766329689ee145384aaae3a9072aec7e737cf66a51709dd34", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 83171, "title": "ICANN Fellowship Selection Committee - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 17897, "characters": 17897, "text": "ICANN Fellowship Selection Committee - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Fellowship Selection Committee\nICANN Fellowship Program\nMembership Makeup\n|\nResponsibilities\n|\nTerms of Service\n|\nApplication Assessment\n|\nCommittee Members\nLast Updated: 25 June 2025\nFellowship Selection Committee Membership Makeup\nEach Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee (SO/AC) shall nominate one representative to serve on the ICANN Fellowship Selection Committee, for a total of up to seven individuals.\nSOs/ACs are strongly encouraged to consider diversity criteria when selecting a Selection Committee member including, but not limited to, geographic and gender diversity.\nEach Selection Committee member will serve a two-year term, as detailed in Terms of Service (below).\nSelection Committee member expectations:\nRepresent the global Internet community, with a strong history of experience with specific sector(s) of the Internet ecosystem including, but not limited to, technical Internet issues; government, academia, commercial or non-commercial issues; I* entities; underserved and/or under-represented communities and/or Internet related development, or other fellowship programs\nBe an active member of the appointing SO/AC for at least two years (Definitions of active membership may vary, but generally include penholders for ICANN policy/procedural comments contributing significant time to the SO/AC)\nHave a good understanding of ICANN and work conducted by other SOs/ACs\nHave attended ICANN meetings as an active contributor/panelist/chair to a policy session\nAdditional notes:\nIt is desirable for Selection Committee representatives to have contributed meaningfully to cross-community working groups and/or be an active member of I* organisations\nNominated Selection Committee members may be Fellowship Program alumni\nFellowship Selection Committee Responsibilities\nThe ICANN Fellowship Selection Committee is responsible for assessing all applications for the\nICANN Fellowship\nreceived through the online application system. Selection Committee members will then determine which applicants have best met the posted\nApplicant Selection Criteria\n. A time commitment of approximately 30-40 hours over four to five weeks is required (for each application round).\nAdditional responsibilities:\nSupport outreach efforts of the Fellowship Program\nWork closely with Fellowship Program staff to follow the implementation and evaluation process\nUpdate criteria for Fellowship selection regularly (every two years)\n*Relevant ICANN staff, such as Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE), review applications from their respective regions and sectors and provide comments on candidates' engagement, future potential, and regional strategic priority.\nTerms of Service\nMembers of the Selection Committee shall serve for a total of two years (6 application rounds)\nSelection Committee members are expected to devote a significant amount of time to the Fellowship Program; if a member chooses to resign, the relevant SO/AC will nominate a replacement for the remainder of the tenure\nWhen the Selection Committee changes (every two years), former Selection Committee members are encouraged to share their experiences and insights with the new Section Committee members\nSelection Committee members will be supported by ICANN staff as needed, via conference calls and email\nSelection Committee members may not serve as Fellowship Program mentors\nApplication Assessment and Decision-Making Process\nUp to 45 Fellowships will be available per round, including Fellowship mentors\nEach Selection Committee member assesses the application based on the following applicant criteria: (1) diversity, (2) experience, (3) ICANN knowledge and engagement, and (4) potential for future engagement. Selection Committee members will review and revise the criteria every two years, as appropriate.\nFellowship Program slots will be filled based on the scores and qualitative assessments drawn from the Selection Committee's reviews, while considering the need for regionally diverse candidates from a range of sectors, including those from underserved and/or under-represented communities, along with sectors that lack diverse representation within ICANN.\nFellowship Selection Committee Members\nCurrent Members\nAs part of\nThe New Fellowship Program Approach\n, the Selection Committee is composed of members nominated by their respective Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee. The following members begun their selection process starting with ICANN84 – ICANN89 inclusively:\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nSeun Ojedeji\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nPablo Rodriguez\nGAC\nZeina Bou Harb\nGNSO\nMaud Arjeley Ashong Elliot\nRSSAC\nGaurav Kansal\nSSAC\nNot participating\nPast Members\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee for ICANN80 – ICANN83 inclusively\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nLaura Margolis\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nPablo Rodriguez\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nTaiwo Peter Akinremi\nRSSAC\nGaurav Kansal\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee for ICANN78 – ICANN79 inclusively\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nLaura Margolis\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nStephen Deerhake\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nTaiwo Peter Akinremi\nRSSAC\nGaurav Kansal\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee for ICANN75 – ICANN77 inclusively\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nAbdulkarim Oloyede\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nMargarita Valdés\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nSebastien Ducos\nRSSAC\nAmir Qayyum\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee at ICANN74\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nAbdulkarim Oloyede\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nMargarita Valdés\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nTomslin\nSamme-Nlar\nRSSAC\nAmir Qayyum\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee at ICANN72 and ICANN73\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nAbdulkarim Oloyede\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nMargarita Valdés\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nHeather Forrest\nRSSAC\nAmir Qayyum\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee from ICANN65 till ICANN71 inclusively:\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nAlfredo Calderon\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nPablo Rodriguez\nGAC\nKarel Douglas\nGNSO\nHeather Forrest\nRSSAC\nAmir Qayyum\nSSAC\nNot participating\nNashwa Abel Baki – Asia-Pacific: 3 years / 9 rounds\nCarolina Aguerre – Latin America and the Caribbean: 2 years / 5 rounds\nNadira Al-Araj – Asia-Pacific: 2 years / 4 rounds\nChristine Arida – Asia-Pacific: 3 years / 7 rounds\nFahd Batayneh – Asia-Pacific: 3 rounds * now ICANN staff\nTatiana Chirev – Europe: 3 years / 10 rounds\nMouhamet Diop – Africa: 3 years / 10 rounds\nAyman El-Sherbiny – Asia-Pacific: 1 year / 3 rounds\nDemi Getschko – Latin American and the Caribbean: 3 years / 10 rounds\nSteven Huter – North America: 3 years / 9 rounds\nErick Iriarte Ahon – Latin America and the Caribbean: 3 years / 8 rounds\nGaongalelwe (\"Gao\") Mosweu – Africa: 3 years / 7 rounds\nPierre Ouédraogo – Africa: 1.5 years / 5 rounds\nAlejandro Pisanty – Latin America and the Caribbean: 3 years /10 rounds\nDustin Phillips – North America: 2 years / 4 rounds\nVanda Scartezini – Latin America and the Caribbean: 3 years / 9 rounds\nAftab Siddiqui – Asia-Pacific: 4 years / 8 rounds\nNelly Stoyanova – Europe: 3 years / 10 rounds\nSorina Telenau – Europe: 3 years / 6 rounds\nGaurab Raj Upadhaya – Asia Pacific: 3 years / 10 rounds\nHong Xie – Asia Pacific: 3 years / 9 rounds\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "8886e874-7ab4-4d8d-bf6d-eb2a929f3895", "document_id": "c1d4ac2f-faf7-4a2a-8e1f-c23ee73aa9cd", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Fellowship Selection Committee - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Fellowship Selection Committee\nICANN Fellowship Program\nMembership Makeup\n|\nResponsibilities\n|\nTerms of Service\n|\nApplication Assessment\n|\nCommittee Members\nLast Updated: 25 June 2025\nFellowship Selection Committee Membership Makeup\nEach Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee (SO/AC) shall nominate one representative to serve on the ICANN Fellowship Selection Committee, for a total of up to seven individuals.\nSOs/ACs are strongly encouraged to consider diversity criteria when selecting a Selection Committee member including, but not limited to, geographic and gender diversity.\nEach Selection Committee member will serve a two-year term, as detailed in Terms of Service (below).\nSelection Committee member expectations:\nRepresent the global Internet community, with a strong history of experience with specific sector(s) of the Internet ecosystem including, but not limited to, technical Internet issues; government, academia, commercial or non-commercial issues; I* entities; underserved and/or under-represented communities and/or Internet related development, or other fellowship programs\nBe an active member of the appointing SO/AC for at least two years (Definitions of active membership may vary, but generally include penholders for ICANN policy/procedural comments contributing significant time to the SO/AC)\nHave a good understanding of ICANN and work conducted by other SOs/ACs\nHave attended ICANN meetings as an active contributor/panelist/chair to a policy session\nAdditional notes:\nIt is desirable for Selection Committee representatives to have contributed meaningfully to cross-community working groups and/or be an active member of I* organisations\nNominated Selection Committee members may be Fellowship Program alumni\nFellowship Selection Committee Responsibilities\nThe ICANN Fellowship Selection Committee is responsible for assessing all applications for the\nICANN Fellowship\nreceived through the online application system. Selection Committee members will then determine which applicants have best met the posted\nApplicant Selection Criteria\n. A time commitment of approximately 30-40 hours over four to five weeks is required (for each application round).\nAdditional responsibilities:\nSupport outreach efforts of the Fellowship Program\nWork closely with Fellowship Program staff to follow the implementation and evaluation process\nUpdate criteria for Fellowship selection regularly (every two years)\n*Relevant ICANN staff, such as Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE), review applications from their respective regions and sectors and provide comments on candidates' engagement, future potential, and regional strategic priority.\nTerms of Service\nMembers of the Selection Committee shall serve for a total of two years (6 application rounds)\nSelection Committee members are expected to devote a significant amount of time to the Fellowship Program; if a member chooses to resign, the relevant SO/AC will nominate a replacement for the remainder of the tenure\nWhen the Selection Committee changes (every two years), former Selection Committee members are encouraged to share their experiences and insights with the new Section Committee members\nSelection Committee members will be supported by ICANN staff as needed, via conference calls and email\nSelection Committee members may not serve as Fellowship Program mentors\nApplication Assessment and Decision-Making Process\nUp to 45 Fellowships will be available per round, including Fellowship mentors\nEach Selection Committee member assesses the application based on the following applicant criteria: (1) diversity, (2) experience, (3) ICANN knowledge and engagement, and (4) potential for future engagement. Selection Committee members will review and revise the criteria every two years, as appropriate.\nFellowship Program slots will be filled based on the scores and qualitative assessments drawn from the Selection Committee's reviews, while considering the need for regionally diverse candidates from a range of sectors, including those from underserved and/or under-represented communities, along with sectors that lack diverse representation within ICANN.\nFellowship Selection Committee Members\nCurrent Members\nAs part of\nThe New Fellowship Program Approach\n, the Selection Committee is composed of members nominated by their respective Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee. The following members begun their selection process starting with ICANN84 – ICANN89 inclusively:\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nSeun Ojedeji\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nPablo Rodriguez\nGAC\nZeina Bou Harb\nGNSO\nMaud Arjeley Ashong Elliot\nRSSAC\nGaurav Kansal\nSSAC\nNot participating\nPast Members\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee for ICANN80 – ICANN83 inclusively\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nLaura Margolis\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nPablo Rodriguez\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nTaiwo Peter Akinremi\nRSSAC\nGaurav Kansal\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee for ICANN78 – ICANN79 inclusively\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nLaura Margolis\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nStephen Deerhake\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nTaiwo Peter Akinremi\nRSSAC\nGaurav Kansal\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee for ICANN75 – ICANN77 inclusively\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nAbdulkarim Oloyede\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nMargarita Valdés\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nSebastien Ducos\nRSSAC\nAmir Qayyum\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee at ICANN74\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nAbdulkarim Oloyede\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nMargarita Valdés\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nTomslin\nSamme-Nlar\nRSSAC\nAmir Qayyum\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee at ICANN72 and ICANN73\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nAbdulkarim Oloyede\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nMargarita Valdés\nGAC\nMistura Aruna\nGNSO\nHeather Forrest\nRSSAC\nAmir Qayyum\nSSAC\nNot participating\nThe following members were part of the Selection Committee from ICANN65 till ICANN71 inclusively:\nCommunity Group\nSelection Committee Nominee\nALAC\nAlfredo Calderon\nASO\nNot participating\nccNSO\nPablo Rodriguez\nGAC\nKarel Douglas\nGNSO\nHeather Forrest\nRSSAC\nAmir Qayyum\nSSAC\nNot participating\nNashwa Abel Baki – Asia-Pacific: 3 years / 9 rounds\nCarolina Aguerre – Latin America and the Caribbean: 2 years / 5 rounds\nNadira Al-Araj – Asia-Pacific: 2 years / 4 rounds\nChristine Arida – Asia-Pacific: 3 years / 7 rounds\nFahd Batayneh – Asia-Pacific: 3 rounds * now ICANN staff\nTatiana Chirev – Europe: 3 years / 10 rounds\nMouhamet Diop – Africa: 3 years / 10 rounds\nAyman El-Sherbiny – Asia-Pacific: 1 year / 3 rounds\nDemi Getschko – Latin American and the Caribbean: 3 years / 10 rounds\nSteven Huter – North America: 3 years / 9 rounds\nErick Iriarte Ahon – Latin America and the Caribbean: 3 years / 8 rounds\nGaongalelwe (\"Gao\") Mosweu – Africa: 3 years / 7 rounds\nPierre Ouédraogo – Africa: 1.5 years / 5 rounds\nAlejandro Pisanty – Latin America and the Caribbean: 3 years /10 rounds\nDustin Phillips – North America: 2 years / 4 rounds\nVanda Scartezini – Latin America and the Caribbean: 3 years / 9 rounds\nAftab Siddiqui – Asia-Pacific: 4 years / 8 rounds\nNelly Stoyanova – Europe: 3 years / 10 rounds\nSorina Telenau – Europe: 3 years / 6 rounds\nGaurab Raj Upadhaya – Asia Pacific: 3 years / 10 rounds\nHong Xie – Asia Pacific: 3 years / 9 rounds\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 17897, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 13, "word_count": 2471}}], "published_at": "2012-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2012-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2012-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "c354bd34-5ed5-4e26-8639-be4b0063cdb2", "source_id": "9ef70ff79d1e8a80f6189109", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/participate-2014-03-17-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/participate-2014-03-17-en", "artifact_sha256": "7fd6a4c119a4167c4b3f6c95fd7aa27ed364c211a2bcf727f8d7155eaa3e8838", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 74416, "title": "Learn How to Participate in Policy Development - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 14189, "characters": 14189, "text": "Learn How to Participate in Policy Development - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nLearn How to Participate in Policy Development\nICANN achieves its mission through implementation of policies approved by its Board of Directors. These policies start out as recommendations formed and refined by the global ICANN community through its Supporting Organizations and influenced by Advisory Committees.\nTo foster a culture of trust, transparency, and mutual respect, all participants are expected to follow the policies and procedures that make up the ICANN Ethics Policy, including the\nCommunity Participant Code of Conduct\n,\nExpected Standards of Behavior\n, and\nCommunity Anti-Harassment Policy\n.\nClick\nhere\nto learn more about how to participate and what is expected of participants.\nSupporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SOs and ACs)\nThe SOs and ACs are comprised of volunteers from over 130 countries and territories. In a bottom-up, open and transparent process, members of any SO and AC as well as the ICANN Board may raise an issue they believe requires policy development. The relevant Supporting Organization considers decisions or recommendations by Working Groups (see below) before forwarding them to the ICANN Board of Directors. The Board has ultimate authority to approve or reject policy recommendations.\nMore information about individual SO or AC communities can be found at these links:\nASO\nALAC\nccNSO\nGAC\nGNSO\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nA Working Group Model of Policy Development\nVolunteer policy development Working Groups form around an issue and consider it from all angles, making decisions by consensus wherever possible. Many of these Working Groups are open to everyone in ICANN’s volunteer community. There are regular ‘newcomer sessions’ in the form of online webinars that provide an ideal starting point for first-time volunteers that would like to participate in policy development. Typically, Working Group discussions are recorded and transcribed so that the public has full access to discussions and debates. Once finalized, major documents and executive summaries are typically translated into the six United Nations languages.\nPublic Comments\nWritten public comments are sought at several stages in the policy development process. The opportunity to comment is intended to provide interested community members with a means to share their views on policy proposals, and to ensure that policy recommendations reflect the concerns and perspectives of the broader Internet community. Learn more about community public comment opportunities that are currently open for input at the ICANN\nPublic Comment Page\n.\nICANN Public Meetings\nPublic Meetings\ntake place three times a year. These gatherings of the ICANN community provide an excellent opportunity to participate in policy development.\nPrior to every ICANN meeting, ICANN staff host preview\nwebinars\nabout upcoming high interest topics and issues that the community will face at the next public meeting.\nThroughout the public meeting there are sessions, workshops and forums where community members can voice opinions, ask questions and otherwise engage in discussions on topics that interest them. In addition to valuable in-person opportunities, ICANN offers extensive remote participation capabilities for community members who are not able to travel to the public meeting in-person.\nEvery ICANN Public Meeting features a nearly half-day open forum for community members to express their views on topics that concern them in front of the whole community.\nMore To Come\nThe ICANN Board and staff are constantly looking to identify new and improved forms of community interaction to make the organization’s core policy development functions operate fairly and efficiently - while ensuring that the ICANN organization and all its policy development efforts remain transparent and accountable to the entire community.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "e9b08a86-2946-459c-9101-1940151636df", "document_id": "c354bd34-5ed5-4e26-8639-be4b0063cdb2", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Learn How to Participate in Policy Development - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nLearn How to Participate in Policy Development\nICANN achieves its mission through implementation of policies approved by its Board of Directors. These policies start out as recommendations formed and refined by the global ICANN community through its Supporting Organizations and influenced by Advisory Committees.\nTo foster a culture of trust, transparency, and mutual respect, all participants are expected to follow the policies and procedures that make up the ICANN Ethics Policy, including the\nCommunity Participant Code of Conduct\n,\nExpected Standards of Behavior\n, and\nCommunity Anti-Harassment Policy\n.\nClick\nhere\nto learn more about how to participate and what is expected of participants.\nSupporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SOs and ACs)\nThe SOs and ACs are comprised of volunteers from over 130 countries and territories. In a bottom-up, open and transparent process, members of any SO and AC as well as the ICANN Board may raise an issue they believe requires policy development. The relevant Supporting Organization considers decisions or recommendations by Working Groups (see below) before forwarding them to the ICANN Board of Directors. The Board has ultimate authority to approve or reject policy recommendations.\nMore information about individual SO or AC communities can be found at these links:\nASO\nALAC\nccNSO\nGAC\nGNSO\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nA Working Group Model of Policy Development\nVolunteer policy development Working Groups form around an issue and consider it from all angles, making decisions by consensus wherever possible. Many of these Working Groups are open to everyone in ICANN’s volunteer community. There are regular ‘newcomer sessions’ in the form of online webinars that provide an ideal starting point for first-time volunteers that would like to participate in policy development. Typically, Working Group discussions are recorded and transcribed so that the public has full access to discussions and debates. Once finalized, major documents and executive summaries are typically translated into the six United Nations languages.\nPublic Comments\nWritten public comments are sought at several stages in the policy development process. The opportunity to comment is intended to provide interested community members with a means to share their views on policy proposals, and to ensure that policy recommendations reflect the concerns and perspectives of the broader Internet community. Learn more about community public comment opportunities that are currently open for input at the ICANN\nPublic Comment Page\n.\nICANN Public Meetings\nPublic Meetings\ntake place three times a year. These gatherings of the ICANN community provide an excellent opportunity to participate in policy development.\nPrior to every ICANN meeting, ICANN staff host preview\nwebinars\nabout upcoming high interest topics and issues that the community will face at the next public meeting.\nThroughout the public meeting there are sessions, workshops and forums where community members can voice opinions, ask questions and otherwise engage in discussions on topics that interest them. In addition to valuable in-person opportunities, ICANN offers extensive remote participation capabilities for community members who are not able to travel to the public meeting in-person.\nEvery ICANN Public Meeting features a nearly half-day open forum for community members to express their views on topics that concern them in front of the whole community.\nMore To Come\nThe ICANN Board and staff are constantly looking to identify new and improved forms of community interaction to make the organization’s core policy development functions operate fairly and efficiently - while ensuring that the ICANN organization and all its policy development efforts remain transparent and accountable to the entire community.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 14189, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1949}}], "published_at": "2014-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2014-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2014-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "c3f1c90f-84e5-468c-8da3-3216daeafd6d", "source_id": "1f1b0aabb5f659b0961836d4", "source": "APNIC", "source_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/", "final_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/", "artifact_sha256": "b36d47597032a5eeb4454be894d567f3e1f8349ea555e27f8399fd84b56bfd09", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 78211, "title": "Participate – APNIC", "language": "en-AU", "text_length": 4896, "characters": 4896, "text": "Participate – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nParticipate\nYou are part of a community of thousands of Internet professionals across the region, and there are many ways you can network, contribute and share your experiences with your peers.\nOrbit\nA place for the APNIC community to connect, discuss and share information related to Internet addressing and networking. Orbit is an evolution of mailing lists, facilitated by APNIC on behalf of the community.\nVisit Orbit\nTake part in the Policy Development Process (PDP)\nYou can directly impact the way APNIC manages Internet number resources by\nproposing\nchanges to existing policies or suggesting new policies.\nThe APNIC\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nis open to anyone who wants to participate and is a great way to build your profile and contribute to the Internet! You can get involved by:\nSubscribe to the\nPolicy SIG mailing list\nSubmit\na policy proposal\nDiscuss the policies face-to-face at\nAPNIC conferences\nor participate remotely\nContribute to the User Feedback Group\nJoin the User Feedback Group to provide your input into improving APNIC’s products and services for the whole community.\nThe group has opportunities to provide feedback and contribute your ideas with all experience levels welcome.\nLearn more and join up\nBuild your professional networks at APNIC conferences\nJoin the APNIC community at the twice-yearly\nconferences\nheld in the region to learn from experts, share new Internet technology insights, and build your industry contacts.\nClaim your FREE conference registration\nIf you’re an APNIC Member, you’re entitled to one free conference registration to the APNIC standalone conference (held in Sep).\nBuild capacity by participating in Network Operator Groups\nShare experiences, make new industry contacts, and learn from other network operators in your local economy by participating in NOG events. There are more than\n15 NOGs\nin the APNIC region and new groups are being formed regularly!\nLearn with the APNIC Academy\nVisit the\nAPNIC Academy\nto better understand networking best practices and manage Internet number resources and use appropriate Internet technologies more effectively.\n24/7\nAvailable & Free\n17+\nOnline courses\n10+\nVirtual labs (all from your browser!)\nVirtual labs Online courses Available & Free\nMonthly webinars on current network and security topics\nMultilingual\nFind out more\nabout face-to-face training in your economy\nStay informed by subscribing to the APNIC Blog\nVisit and subscribe to the\nAPNIC Blog\nfor the latest news and views from the community.\nStay connected\nConnect, share and get involved in discussion with the APNIC community via\nAPNIC’s social media\nand\nmailing lists .\nPlease be mindful of the\ncode of conduct\nthat applies to mailing lists.\nCommunity demographics\nCommunity Consultations\nSend us feedback\nResource Policies\nFellowship\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nParticipate\nSpecial Interest Groups\nOrbit\nElections\nAPNIC Survey\nCommunity Technical Support\nSecurity at APNIC\nIPv6@APNIC\nAPNIC Foundation\nAPNIC IPv4 post-exhaustion\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "segments": [{"segment_id": "017c1dc1-9be6-4db8-b1a3-319595e821ce", "document_id": "c3f1c90f-84e5-468c-8da3-3216daeafd6d", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Participate – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nParticipate\nYou are part of a community of thousands of Internet professionals across the region, and there are many ways you can network, contribute and share your experiences with your peers.\nOrbit\nA place for the APNIC community to connect, discuss and share information related to Internet addressing and networking. Orbit is an evolution of mailing lists, facilitated by APNIC on behalf of the community.\nVisit Orbit\nTake part in the Policy Development Process (PDP)\nYou can directly impact the way APNIC manages Internet number resources by\nproposing\nchanges to existing policies or suggesting new policies.\nThe APNIC\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nis open to anyone who wants to participate and is a great way to build your profile and contribute to the Internet! You can get involved by:\nSubscribe to the\nPolicy SIG mailing list\nSubmit\na policy proposal\nDiscuss the policies face-to-face at\nAPNIC conferences\nor participate remotely\nContribute to the User Feedback Group\nJoin the User Feedback Group to provide your input into improving APNIC’s products and services for the whole community.\nThe group has opportunities to provide feedback and contribute your ideas with all experience levels welcome.\nLearn more and join up\nBuild your professional networks at APNIC conferences\nJoin the APNIC community at the twice-yearly\nconferences\nheld in the region to learn from experts, share new Internet technology insights, and build your industry contacts.\nClaim your FREE conference registration\nIf you’re an APNIC Member, you’re entitled to one free conference registration to the APNIC standalone conference (held in Sep).\nBuild capacity by participating in Network Operator Groups\nShare experiences, make new industry contacts, and learn from other network operators in your local economy by participating in NOG events. There are more than\n15 NOGs\nin the APNIC region and new groups are being formed regularly!\nLearn with the APNIC Academy\nVisit the\nAPNIC Academy\nto better understand networking best practices and manage Internet number resources and use appropriate Internet technologies more effectively.\n24/7\nAvailable & Free\n17+\nOnline courses\n10+\nVirtual labs (all from your browser!)\nVirtual labs Online courses Available & Free\nMonthly webinars on current network and security topics\nMultilingual\nFind out more\nabout face-to-face training in your economy\nStay informed by subscribing to the APNIC Blog\nVisit and subscribe to the\nAPNIC Blog\nfor the latest news and views from the community.\nStay connected\nConnect, share and get involved in discussion with the APNIC community via\nAPNIC’s social media\nand\nmailing lists .\nPlease be mindful of the\ncode of conduct\nthat applies to mailing lists.\nCommunity demographics\nCommunity Consultations\nSend us feedback\nResource Policies\nFellowship\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nParticipate\nSpecial Interest Groups\nOrbit\nElections\nAPNIC Survey\nCommunity Technical Support\nSecurity at APNIC\nIPv6@APNIC\nAPNIC Foundation\nAPNIC IPv4 post-exhaustion\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4896, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 733}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "c65a28b3-1005-4549-a25a-1dec6f3f1ec0", "source_id": "b67fa834c9f93021a615735e", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1166", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1166/", "artifact_sha256": "b67fa834c9f93021a615735e03df8e64c68c496ad7e03830ee04f5e8069c5e3f", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 1458086, "title": "RFC 1166: Internet Numbers", "language": "en", "text_length": 551168, "characters": 551168, "text": "RFC 1166: Internet numbers | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1166\n:\nInternet numbers\nS. Kirkpatrick\n,\nM.K. Stahl\n,\nM. Recker\nInformational\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n5737\n.\nNetwork Working Group                                     S. Kirkpatrick\nRequest for Comments: 1166                                      M. Stahl\nObsoletes RFCs:\n1117\n,\n1020\n,\n997\n,\n990\n,\n960\n,\n943\n,                M. Recker\n943\n,\n923\n,\n900\n,\n870\n,\n820\n,\n790\n,\n776\n,\n770\n,\n762\n,                   July 1990\n758, 755, 750, 739, 604, 503, 433, 349\nObsoletes IENs:  127, 117, 93\nINTERNET NUMBERS\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo is a status report on the network numbers and autonomous\n   system numbers used in the Internet community.  Distribution of this\n   memo is unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n\n   Introduction....................................................\n1\nNetwork Numbers.................................................\n4\nClass A Networks................................................\n7\nClass B Networks................................................\n8\nClass C Networks................................................\n47\nOther Reserved Internet Addresses...............................\n100\nNetwork Totals..................................................\n101\nAutonomous System Numbers.......................................\n102\nDocuments.......................................................\n111\nContacts........................................................\n115\nSecurity Considerations.........................................\n182\nAuthors' Addresses..............................................\n182\nIntroduction\n\n   This Network Working Group Request for Comments documents the\n   currently assigned network numbers and gateway autonomous systems.\n   This RFC will be updated periodically, and in any case current\n   information can be obtained from Hostmaster at the DDN Network\n   Information Center (NIC).\n\n         Hostmaster\n         DDN Network Information Center\n         SRI International\n         333 Ravenswood Avenue\n         Menlo Park, California  94025\n\n         Phone: 1-800-235-3155\n\n         Network mail: HOSTMASTER@NIC.DDN.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 1]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nMost of the protocols used in the Internet are documented in the RFC\n   series of notes.  Some of the items listed are undocumented.  Further\n   information on protocols can be found in the memo published by the\n   Internet Activites Board (IAB), \"IAB Official Protocol Standards\"\n   [\n52\n], which describes the state of standardization of protocols used\n   in the Internet.  This document is issued quarterly.  Current copies\n   may be obtained from the DDN Network Information Center.\n\n   The lists below contain the name and network mailbox of the\n   individuals responsible for each registered network or autonomous\n   system.  The bracketed entry, e.g. [nn,iii], at the right hand margin\n   of the page indicates a reference for the listed network or\n   autonomous system, where the number (\"nn\") cites the document and the\n   letters (\"iii\") cite the NIC Handle of the responsible person.  The\n   NIC Handle is a unique identifier that is used in the NIC\n   WHOIS/NICNAME service.  People occasionally change electronic\n   mailboxes.  To find out the current network mailbox or phone number\n   for an individual, or to get information about a registered network,\n   use the NIC WHOIS/NICNAME service or contact HOSTMASTER@NIC.DDN.MIL.\n\n   The convention used for the documentation of Internet Protocols is to\n   express numbers in decimal and to picture data in \"big-endian\" order\n   [\n39\n].  That is, fields are described left to right, with the most\n   significant octet on the left and the least significant octet on the\n   right.\n\n   The order of transmission of the header and data described in this\n   document is resolved to the octet level.  Whenever a diagram shows a\n   group of octets, the order of transmission of those octets is the\n   normal order in which they are read in English.  For example, in the\n   following diagram the octets are transmitted in the order they are\n   numbered.\n\n       0                   1                   2                   3\n       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n      |       1       |       2       |       3       |       4       |\n      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n      |       5       |       6       |       7       |       8       |\n      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n      |       9       |      10       |      11       |      12       |\n      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                           Transmission Order of Bytes\n\n\n   Whenever an octet represents a numeric quantity the left most bit in\n   the diagram is the high order or most significant bit.  That is, the\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 2]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nbit labeled 0 is the most significant bit.  For example, the\n   following diagram represents the value 170 (decimal).\n\n                               0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7\n                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n                              |1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0|\n                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                              Significance of Bits\n\n   Similarly, whenever a multi-octet field represents a numeric quantity\n   the left most bit of the whole field is the most significant bit.\n   When a multi-octet quantity is transmitted the most significant octet\n   is transmitted first.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 3]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nNETWORK NUMBERS\n\n   The network numbers listed here are used as internet addresses by the\n   Internet Protocol (IP) [\n14\n,\n26\n].  The IP uses a 32-bit address field\n   and divides that address into a network part and a \"rest\" or local\n   address part.  The division takes 4 forms or classes.\n\n      The first type of address, or class A, has a 7-bit network number\n      and a 24-bit local address.  The highest-order bit is set to 0.\n      This allows 128 class A networks.\n\n\n                            1                   2                   3\n        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n       |0|   NETWORK   |                Local Address                  |\n       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                                 Class A Address\n\n\n      The second type of address, class B, has a 14-bit network number\n      and a 16-bit local address.  The two highest-order bits are set to\n      1-0.  This allows 16,384 class B networks.\n\n\n                            1                   2                   3\n        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n       |1 0|           NETWORK         |          Local Address        |\n       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                                 Class B Address\n\n\n      The third type of address, class C, has a 21-bit network number\n      and a 8-bit local address.  The three highest-order bits are set\n      to 1-1-0.  This allows 2,097,152 class C networks.\n\n\n                            1                   2                   3\n        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n       |1 1 0|                    NETWORK              | Local Address |\n       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                                 Class C Address\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 4]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nThe fourth type of address, class D, is used as a multicast\n      address [\n13\n].  The four highest-order bits are set to 1-1-1-0.\n\n\n                            1                   2                   3\n        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1\n       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n       |1 1 1 0|                  multicast address                    |\n       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\n\n                                 Class D Address\n\n\n      Note:  No addresses are allowed with the four highest-order bits\n      set to 1-1-1-1.  These addresses, called \"class E\", are reserved.\n\n   One commonly used notation for internet host addresses divides the\n   32-bit address into four 8-bit fields and specifies the value of each\n   field as a decimal number with the fields separated by periods.  This\n   is called the \"dotted decimal\" notation.  For example, the internet\n   address of VENERA.ISI.EDU in dotted decimal is 128.009.000.032, or\n   128.9.0.32.\n\n   The dotted decimal notation will be used in the listing of assigned\n   network numbers.  The class A networks will have nnn.rrr.rrr.rrr, the\n   class B networks will have nnn.nnn.rrr.rrr, and the class C networks\n   will have nnn.nnn.nnn.rrr, where nnn represents part or all of a\n   network number and rrr represents part or all of a local address.\n\n   There are four catagories of users of Internet Addresses: Research,\n   Defense, Government (Non-Defense), and Commercial.  To reflect the\n   allocation of network identifiers among the categories, a one-\n   character code is placed to the left of the network number: R for\n   Research, D for Defense, G for Government, and C for Commercial (see\nAppendix A\nfor further details on this division of the network\n   identification).\n\n   Network numbers are assigned for networks that are connected to the\n   research Internet and operational Internet, and for independent\n   networks that use the IP family protocols (these are usually\n   commercial).  These independent networks are marked with an asterisk\n   preceding the number.\n\n   The administrators of independent networks must apply separately for\n   permission to interconnect their network with the Internet.\n   Independent networks should not be listed in the working tables of\n   the Internet hosts or gateways.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 5]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nFor various reasons, the assigned numbers of networks are sometimes\n   changed.  To ease the transition the old number will be listed for a\n   transition period as well.  These \"old number\" entries will be marked\n   with a \"T\" following the number and preceding the name, and the\n   network name will be suffixed \"-TEMP\".\n\n   Special Addresses:\n\n      In certain contexts, it is useful to have fixed addresses with\n      functional significance rather than as identifiers of specific\n      hosts.\n\n         The address zero is to be interpreted as meaning \"this\", as in\n         \"this network\".\n\n            For example, the address 0.0.0.37 could be interpreted as\n            meaning host 37 on this network.\n\n         The address of all ones are to be interpreted as meaning \"all\",\n         as in \"all hosts\".\n\n            For example, the address 128.9.255.255 could be interpreted\n            as meaning all hosts on the network 128.9.\n\n         The class A network number 127 is assigned the \"loopback\"\n         function, that is, a datagram sent by a higher level protocol\n         to a network 127 address should loop back inside the host.  No\n         datagram \"sent\" to a network 127 address should ever appear on\n         any network anywhere.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 6]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nClass A Networks\n\n      * Internet Address                   Network           Reference\n      - ----------------                   -------           ----------\n       *0.rrr.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [JBP]\n        1.rrr.rrr.rrr-2.rrr.rrr.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*3.rrr.rrr.rrr                      GE-INTERNET       [JEB50]\n      R 4.rrr.rrr.rrr                      SATNET            [SHB]\n        5.rrr.rrr.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 6.rrr.rrr.rrr                      YPG-NET           [BWA]\n      D 7.rrr.rrr.rrr                      EDN-TEMP          [EC5]\n      R 8.rrr.rrr.rrr                      BBNCCNET          [SGC]\n      R 9.rrr.rrr.rrr                      IBM               [JP247]\n      R 10.rrr.rrr.rrr                     ARPANET           [JS283]\n      D 11.rrr.rrr.rrr                     DODIIS            [GEG4]\n      C 12.rrr.rrr.rrr                     ATT               [MH82]\n      C 13.rrr.rrr.rrr                     XEROX-NET         [SJ33]\n      C 14.rrr.rrr.rrr                     PDN               [JKR1]\n      R 15.rrr.rrr.rrr                     HP-INTERNET       [WU1]\n      C 16.rrr.rrr.rrr                     DEC-INTERNET      [BKR]\n        17.rrr.rrr.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 18.rrr.rrr.rrr                     MIT-TEMP          [JIS]\n      C*19.rrr.rrr.rrr                     FINET             [RJB3]\n      D*20.rrr.rrr.rrr                     ANALYTICS         [BD107]\n      D 21.rrr.rrr.rrr                     DDN-RVN           [MLC]\n      D*22.rrr.rrr.rrr                     DSNET1            [GEG4]\n      D 23.rrr.rrr.rrr                     DDN-TC-NET        [DH17]\n        24.rrr.rrr.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 25.rrr.rrr.rrr                     RSRE-EXP          [DBH11]\n      D 26.rrr.rrr.rrr                     MILNET            [TMH6]\n      R 27.rrr.rrr.rrr                     NOSC-LCCN-TEMP    [RH6]\n      R 28.rrr.rrr.rrr                     WIDEBAND          [CJW2]\n      D 29.rrr.rrr.rrr                     MILX25-TEMP       [TMH6]\n      D 30.rrr.rrr.rrr                     ARPAX25-TEMP      [TMH6]\n      G 31.rrr.rrr.rrr                     UCDLA-NET         [CL64]\n        32.rrr.rrr.rrr-34.rrr.rrr.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 35.rrr.rrr.rrr                     MERIT             [HWB]\n      R 36.rrr.rrr.rrr                     SU-NET-TEMP       [VAF]\n        37.rrr.rrr.rrr-40.rrr.rrr.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 41.rrr.rrr.rrr                     BBN-TEST-A        [RH6]\n      R 42.rrr.rrr.rrr                     CAN-INET          [MV38]\n      R*43.rrr.rrr.rrr                     JAPAN-A           [JM292]\n      R 44.rrr.rrr.rrr                     AMPRNET           [PK28]\n        45.rrr.rrr.rrr                     Reserved          [NIC]\n      C 46.rrr.rrr.rrr                     BBNET             [JSG1]\n      R 47.rrr.rrr.rrr                     BNR               [BM178]\n        48.rrr.rrr.rrr-126.rrr.rrr.rrr     Unassigned        [NIC]\n       *127.rrr.rrr.rrr                    Loopback          [JBP]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 7]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nClass B Networks\n\n      * Internet Address                   Network           Reference\n      - ----------------                   -------           ----------\n        128.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [JBP]\n      R 128.1.rrr.rrr                      BBN-TEST-B        [RH6]\n      R 128.2.rrr.rrr                      CMU-NET           [HDW2]\n      R 128.3.rrr.rrr                      LBL-IP-NET1       [CAL3]\n      R 128.4.rrr.rrr                      DCNET             [DLM1]\n      R 128.5.rrr.rrr                      FORDNET           [FJB3]\n      R 128.6.rrr.rrr                      RUTGERS           [CLH3]\n      R 128.7.rrr.rrr                      KRAUTNET          [GB7]\n      R 128.8.rrr.rrr                      UMDNET            [LAM1]\n      R 128.9.rrr.rrr                      ISI-NET           [VLG]\n      R 128.10.rrr.rrr                     PURDUE-CS-EN      [DT50]\n      R 128.11.rrr.rrr                     BBN-CRONUS        [PK19]\n      R 128.12.rrr.rrr                     SU-NET            [VAF]\n      D 128.13.rrr.rrr                     MATNET            [SHB]\n      R 128.14.rrr.rrr                     BBN-SAT-TEST      [SHB]\n      R 128.15.rrr.rrr                     S1NET             [RAK12]\n      R 128.16.rrr.rrr                     UCL-CS-ETHER      [PK]\n      D 128.17.rrr.rrr                     MATNET-ALT        [SHB]\n      R 128.18.rrr.rrr                     SRINET            [TONY]\n      D 128.19.rrr.rrr                     EDN               [EC5]\n      D 128.20.rrr.rrr                     BRLNET            [TS9]\n      R 128.21.rrr.rrr                     SRI-PR-1          [PEM4]\n      R 128.22.rrr.rrr                     SRI-PR-2          [PEM4]\n      R*128.23.rrr.rrr                     MUSC              [SB228]\n      R 128.24.rrr.rrr                     ROCKWELL-PR       [JCJ1]\n      D 128.25.rrr.rrr                     BRAGG-PR          [LDB3]\n      D 128.26.rrr.rrr                     SAPE-AIRNET       [CAD13]\n      D 128.27.rrr.rrr                     DEMO-PR-1         [DM261]\n      D 128.28.rrr.rrr                     C3-PR-TEMP        [GMR]\n      R 128.29.rrr.rrr                     MITRE             [TML]\n      R 128.30.rrr.rrr                     MIT-NET           [\nDDC1\n]\n      R 128.31.rrr.rrr                     MIT-RES           [\nDDC1\n]\n      R 128.32.rrr.rrr                     UCB-ETHER         [RWH5]\n      R 128.33.rrr.rrr                     BBN-NET           [SGC]\n      R 128.34.rrr.rrr                     NOSC-LCCN         [RH6]\n      R 128.35.rrr.rrr                     BULLUSANET        [JLM23]\n      R 128.36.rrr.rrr                     YALE-NET          [HML1]\n      D 128.37.rrr.rrr                     YUMA              [RBB2]\n      D 128.38.rrr.rrr                     NSWC-NET          [VHB]\n      R 128.39.rrr.rrr                     NTANET            [PS27]\n      R 128.40.rrr.rrr                     UCL-ETHERNET      [JA168]\n      R 128.41.rrr.rrr                     UCL-CS-SERVICE    [JA168]\n      R 128.42.rrr.rrr                     RICE-NET          [FG50]\n      R 128.43.rrr.rrr                     DRENET            [JS597]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 8]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 128.44.rrr.rrr                     WSMR-NET1         [CAS1]\n      C 128.45.rrr.rrr                     DEC-WRL-NET       [BKR]\n      R 128.46.rrr.rrr                     PURDUE-NET        [JRS8]\n      D 128.47.rrr.rrr                     TACTNET           [MB31]\n      G 128.48.rrr.rrr                     UCDLA-NET-B       [CL64]\n      R 128.49.rrr.rrr                     NOSC-ETHER        [RLB3]\n      G 128.50.rrr.rrr                     COINS             [RLS6]\n      G 128.51.rrr.rrr                     COINSTNET         [RLS6]\n      R 128.52.rrr.rrr                     MIT-AI-NET        [CL11]\n      R 128.53.rrr.rrr                     SAC-PR-2          [GMR]\n      R 128.54.rrr.rrr                     UCSD              [GH29]\n      R 128.55.rrr.rrr                     NMFECC            [RJA21]\n      D 128.56.rrr.rrr                     USNA-NET          [RAD15]\n      D 128.57.rrr.rrr                     DEMO-PR-2         [DM261]\n      C 128.58.rrr.rrr                     SLCS              [CG64]\n      R 128.59.rrr.rrr                     CU-NET            [BC14]\n      D 128.60.rrr.rrr                     NRL-ETHER         [WF3]\n      R 128.61.rrr.rrr                     GATECH            [DD11]\n      R 128.62.rrr.rrr                     MCC-NET           [CBD]\n      R 128.63.rrr.rrr                     BRL-SUBNET        [TS9]\n        128.64.rrr.rrr-128.79.rrr.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 128.80.rrr.rrr                     CECOMNET          [PFS2]\n      R 128.81.rrr.rrr                     SYMBOLICS         [SE31]\n      R 128.82.rrr.rrr                     ODU               [CE55]\n      R 128.83.rrr.rrr                     UTAUSTIN          [TLL8]\n      R 128.84.rrr.rrr                     CORNELL-NET       [DK2]\n      C*128.85.rrr.rrr                     DRILL-NET         [DBJ4]\n      R 128.86.rrr.rrr                     JANET             [RHC3]\n      R 128.87.rrr.rrr                     HIRST             [RHC3]\n      R*128.88.rrr.rrr                     HP-NET            [AG67]\n      R 128.89.rrr.rrr                     BBN-ENET          [SGC]\n      C*128.90.rrr.rrr                     SCRIBE            [ERC1]\n      R 128.91.rrr.rrr                     UPENN             [JDH29]\n      R 128.92.rrr.rrr                     INTELLINET        [RJL3]\n      R 128.93.rrr.rrr                     INRIA-NET         [AR41]\n      C*128.94.rrr.rrr                     SYSNET            [EY5]\n      R 128.95.rrr.rrr                     WASHINGTON        [SH162]\n      C 128.96.rrr.rrr                     BELLCORE-NET      [PK28]\n      R 128.97.rrr.rrr                     UCLANET           [ETS4]\n      R 128.98.rrr.rrr                     RSRE-EN2          [JW156]\n      C 128.99.rrr.rrr                     NORTHROP-NET      [RSM1]\n      R 128.100.rrr.rrr                    TORONTO           [BD55]\n      R 128.101.rrr.rrr                    UMN-NET           [PS191]\n      G 128.102.rrr.rrr                    AMES-NET          [MSM1]\n      R 128.103.rrr.rrr                    HARV-FIBER        [SB28]\n      R 128.104.rrr.rrr                    WISC-HERD         [EJN1]\n      R 128.105.rrr.rrr                    WISC              [BAC9]\n      D 128.106.rrr.rrr                    SRI-PSON-1        [ERK3]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                     [Page 9]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 128.107.rrr.rrr                    CISCO-PRNET1      [ERK3]\n      D 128.108.rrr.rrr                    CISCO-PRNET2      [ERK3]\n      R 128.109.rrr.rrr                    NET-CONCERT       [JRR14]\n      R 128.110.rrr.rrr                    UTAH-NET          [JL15]\n      R 128.111.rrr.rrr                    UCSB              [AKS31]\n      R 128.112.rrr.rrr                    PRINCETON         [LRR1]\n      R 128.113.rrr.rrr                    RPINET            [JF78]\n      R 128.114.rrr.rrr                    UCSC              [JHH8]\n      R 128.115.rrr.rrr                    LLNL-LABNET       [LL64]\n      R 128.116.rrr.rrr                    USAN              [JHC12]\n      R 128.117.rrr.rrr                    UCAR              [JHC12]\n      R 128.118.rrr.rrr                    PENN-STATE        [SJS11]\n      R 128.119.rrr.rrr                    UMASS-NET         [GW40]\n      R 128.120.rrr.rrr                    UCDAVIS           [RH5]\n      R 128.121.rrr.rrr                    JVNC-NET          [SH37]\n      R 128.122.rrr.rrr                    NYU-NET           [BJR2]\n      R 128.123.rrr.rrr                    NMSU              [MSP1]\n      R 128.124.rrr.rrr                    NTA-TEMP          [TM10]\n      R 128.125.rrr.rrr                    USCNET            [MAB4]\n      R 128.126.rrr.rrr                    UNISYS-PRC        [JWM3]\n      C 128.127.rrr.rrr                    FTP-SOFTWARE      [JBV2]\n      R 128.128.rrr.rrr                    WHOINET           [ARM5]\n      C*128.129.rrr.rrr                    CGI               [RA62]\n      R*128.130.rrr.rrr                    TUNET-T           [\nJD238\n]\n      R*128.131.rrr.rrr                    TUNET-F           [\nJD238\n]\n      G 128.132.rrr.rrr                    LNX-ETHER3        [JAM38]\n      G 128.133.rrr.rrr                    AFSC-LONS         [SWR3]\n      R 128.134.rrr.rrr                    SDN               [JEA18]\n      R 128.135.rrr.rrr                    U-CHICAGO         [MC17]\n      R 128.136.rrr.rrr                    TEK-ALLNET        [TE16]\n      R*128.137.rrr.rrr                    GENNET1           [SM96]\n      R 128.138.rrr.rrr                    COLORADO          [RAJ8]\n      R 128.139.rrr.rrr                    ILAN              [DB35]\n      R 128.140.rrr.rrr                    EMORY-INET        [AR60]\n      R 128.141.rrr.rrr                    CERN-LAN          [TB166]\n      R*128.142.rrr.rrr                    CERN-TOKEN        [TB166]\n      R 128.143.rrr.rrr                    VIRGINIA          [JAJ17]\n      R 128.144.rrr.rrr                    ARNET             [TS194]\n      R 128.145.rrr.rrr                    NYSERNET          [MS9]\n      R 128.146.rrr.rrr                    OHIO-STATE        [RSD2]\n      R 128.147.rrr.rrr                    U-PGH-NET         [SM6]\n      R 128.148.rrr.rrr                    BROWN-UNIV        [MR29]\n      G 128.149.rrr.rrr                    JPL-NET           [MSM1]\n      G 128.150.rrr.rrr                    NSF-LAN           [FW17]\n      R 128.151.rrr.rrr                    UR-NET            [TM57]\n      C 128.152.rrr.rrr                    HAC-ENET          [PH45]\n      R 128.153.rrr.rrr                    CLARKSON          [ABS6]\n      G 128.154.rrr.rrr                    WFF-NET           [MSM1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 10]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nG 128.155.rrr.rrr                    LARC-NET          [MSM1]\n      G 128.156.rrr.rrr                    LERC-NET          [MSM1]\n      G 128.157.rrr.rrr                    JSC-NET           [MSM1]\n      G 128.158.rrr.rrr                    MSFC-NET          [MSM1]\n      G 128.159.rrr.rrr                    KSC-NET           [MSM1]\n      G 128.160.rrr.rrr                    SSCNET            [MG120]\n      G 128.161.rrr.rrr                    NSN-NET           [MSM1]\n      C 128.162.rrr.rrr                    CRAY-NET          [DJD30]\n      R 128.163.rrr.rrr                    UKY               [GB43]\n      R 128.164.rrr.rrr                    GWU-GATE          [TT35]\n      G 128.165.rrr.rrr                    LANL-INET         [PCW]\n      D*128.166.rrr.rrr                    BAC-NET           [JJ48]\n      R 128.167.rrr.rrr                    SURA              [JH92]\n      C 128.168.rrr.rrr                    GOLDHILL          [KR77]\n      R 128.169.rrr.rrr                    UTK               [JDC20]\n      R 128.170.rrr.rrr                    UNISYS-CAM        [DSR]\n      R 128.171.rrr.rrr                    HAWAII            [TN11]\n      R 128.172.rrr.rrr                    VCU-LAN           [JN40]\n      R 128.173.rrr.rrr                    VA-TECH           [PB40]\n      R 128.174.rrr.rrr                    UIUC-CAMPUS-B     [PP14]\n      R 128.175.rrr.rrr                    UDELNET           [DJG2]\n      R*128.176.rrr.rrr                    DMSWWU-ETHER      [GR26]\n      C*128.177.rrr.rrr                    BLI-NET           [EPA]\n      R 128.178.rrr.rrr                    EPFL-EPNET        [YD2]\n      R*128.179.rrr.rrr                    EPF-ETHER2        [YD2]\n      R 128.180.rrr.rrr                    LEHIGH            [MM149]\n      C 128.181.rrr.rrr                    TEKTRONIX         [JB218]\n      R 128.182.rrr.rrr                    PSCNET            [EFH4]\n      R 128.183.rrr.rrr                    GSFC              [JB113]\n      R 128.184.rrr.rrr                    DEAKINET          [JM303]\n      C 128.185.rrr.rrr                    PROTEON-NET       [JS28]\n      R 128.186.rrr.rrr                    FSU               [KMH8]\n      R 128.187.rrr.rrr                    BYU-NET           [KCM2]\n      R 128.188.rrr.rrr                    M2CNET            [SM67]\n      R 128.189.rrr.rrr                    BCNET             [DO26]\n      G 128.190.rrr.rrr                    BELVOIR-NET       [MDS30]\n      C*128.191.rrr.rrr                    NECIS-NET         [DP71]\n      R 128.192.rrr.rrr                    UGA               [EHH4]\n      R 128.193.rrr.rrr                    ORST              [BA26]\n      R 128.194.rrr.rrr                    TAMU-NET          [WM68]\n      R 128.195.rrr.rrr                    UCIICS-NET        [RAJ3]\n      R 128.196.rrr.rrr                    UNIV-ARIZ         [TF30]\n      R 128.197.rrr.rrr                    BU-NET            [KE1]\n      R 128.198.rrr.rrr                    CU-COLOSPGS       [RDG12]\n      R*128.199.rrr.rrr                    STC               [AM54]\n      R 128.200.rrr.rrr                    UCI-NET           [DW96]\n      R*128.201.rrr.rrr                    REUNIR            [RN25]\n      D 128.202.rrr.rrr                    CSOCNET           [JJD12]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 11]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*128.203.rrr.rrr                    UB-INC            [GC148]\n      R 128.204.rrr.rrr                    ALBNYNET          [BEC1]\n      R 128.205.rrr.rrr                    UBUFFALONET       [CFD4]\n      R 128.206.rrr.rrr                    MONET             [BEC5]\n      C*128.207.rrr.rrr                    BOEING-PSN        [JSY2]\n      R 128.208.rrr.rrr                    WASH-NSF          [SH162]\n      C 128.209.rrr.rrr                    NYNEXSTNET        [MC65]\n      R 128.210.rrr.rrr                    PURDUE-CCNET      [JS81]\n      R 128.211.rrr.rrr                    PURDUE-CS-CYP     [DT50]\n      C 128.212.rrr.rrr                    ISCNET            [DM27]\n      R 128.213.rrr.rrr                    RPICSNET          [CW42]\n      R 128.214.rrr.rrr                    FUNET             [\nJH141\n]\n      C 128.215.rrr.rrr                    INTEL             [JR40]\n      D 128.216.rrr.rrr                    CC-PRNET          [GIH]\n      G 128.217.rrr.rrr                    NASA-KSC-OIS      [MSM1]\n      R 128.218.rrr.rrr                    UCSF-NET          [TF6]\n      R 128.219.rrr.rrr                    ORNL-NETB1        [THD]\n      R 128.220.rrr.rrr                    JHU               [RLR46]\n      R 128.221.rrr.rrr                    DGPN1             [\nPSS1\n]\n      C 128.222.rrr.rrr                    DGPN2             [\nPSS1\n]\n      R 128.223.rrr.rrr                    UONET             [DS85]\n      C*128.224.rrr.rrr                    EPILOGUE          [KA4]\n      C*128.225.rrr.rrr                    BOEING-EN         [JSY2]\n      R 128.226.rrr.rrr                    BINGHAMTON        [RM120]\n      R 128.227.rrr.rrr                    UFNET             [DP173]\n      R 128.228.rrr.rrr                    CUNY              [SMP2]\n      R 128.229.rrr.rrr                    ADSNET            [BJL5]\n      R 128.230.rrr.rrr                    SYR-UNIV-NET      [JW47]\n      G 128.231.rrr.rrr                    NIH-NET           [RF57]\n      R*128.232.rrr.rrr                    CL-CAM-AC-UK      [MAJ1]\n      R*128.233.rrr.rrr                    USASK             [LRC7]\n      R*128.234.rrr.rrr                    COS-NET           [AP25]\n      R 128.235.rrr.rrr                    NJIT              [BM79]\n      D 128.236.rrr.rrr                    USAFA-NET         [GEOFF]\n      R 128.237.rrr.rrr                    CMU-SEI-NET       [TGP3]\n      R 128.238.rrr.rrr                    POLY-U-NET        [AMM14]\n      R 128.239.rrr.rrr                    WM-NET            [SF34]\n      R*128.240.rrr.rrr                    NCL               [CR140]\n      R 128.241.rrr.rrr                    SESQUINET         [GTA]\n      R 128.242.rrr.rrr                    MIDNET            [DF90]\n      R*128.243.rrr.rrr                    NOTT-AC-UK        [WA16]\n      D 128.244.rrr.rrr                    APL-NET           [SFP]\n      R 128.245.rrr.rrr                    SRA-CT-NET        [JSS4]\n      C*128.246.rrr.rrr                    CGCH-WIRZ         [HN3]\n      C 128.247.rrr.rrr                    TI                [DF71]\n      R 128.248.rrr.rrr                    UIC-NET           [\nEZ3\n]\n      R 128.249.rrr.rrr                    TMC-NET           [SB98]\n      R 128.250.rrr.rrr                    UNIMELB           [CC89]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 12]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 128.251.rrr.rrr                    ROCKW-TELEDA      [JCW12]\n      R 128.252.rrr.rrr                    WASHINGTON-U      [MD142]\n      R 128.253.rrr.rrr                    CCS-NET           [DC126]\n      R*128.254.rrr.rrr                    FMC-NOD           [WCW7]\n      R 128.255.rrr.rrr                    UIOWA             [MN54]\n        129.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [NIC]\n      R 129.1.rrr.rrr                      BGSU              [SH71]\n      R 129.2.rrr.rrr                      UMD-BOGON-NET     [LAM1]\n      R 129.3.rrr.rrr                      SUNY-OSWEGO-NET   [PRT2]\n      C 129.4.rrr.rrr                      TRW               [DM348]\n      R 129.5.rrr.rrr                      HGCNET            [GT76]\n      G 129.6.rrr.rrr                      NIST              [CWH3]\n      R 129.7.rrr.rrr                      UH-NET            [APT]\n      R 129.8.rrr.rrr                      CSUFRESNO         [RP88]\n      C*129.9.rrr.rrr                      CHRYSLER-NET      [RER20]\n      R 129.10.rrr.rrr                     NORTHEASTERN-NET  [CJ38]\n      R*129.11.rrr.rrr                     LEEDS             [AJC11]\n      R*129.12.rrr.rrr                     UKC               [SL55]\n      R 129.13.rrr.rrr                     LINK              [BL118]\n      C*129.14.rrr.rrr                     SBINY             [BC72]\n      R 129.15.rrr.rrr                     UOKNOR            [JW136]\n      R 129.16.rrr.rrr                     CTH-NET           [GL41]\n      R*129.17.rrr.rrr                     SSED-NET          [DM147]\n      C 129.18.rrr.rrr                     NEXT-NET          [PFK]\n      R 129.19.rrr.rrr                     WESTNET           [DCMW]\n      R 129.20.rrr.rrr                     VERDUR            [RN25]\n      R 129.21.rrr.rrr                     RIT               [CF35]\n      R 129.22.rrr.rrr                     CWRUNET           [JAG3]\n      R 129.23.rrr.rrr                     SDIO-INTERNET     [KDZ]\n      R 129.24.rrr.rrr                     UNM-CDCN          [SM137]\n      R 129.25.rrr.rrr                     DREXEL            [RR97]\n      R 129.26.rrr.rrr                     GMD-DE            [PM72]\n      R*129.27.rrr.rrr                     TUGNET            [PA43]\n      R*129.28.rrr.rrr                     SPCNET            [AL109]\n      D 129.29.rrr.rrr                     USMANET           [DAS13]\n      C 129.30.rrr.rrr                     HONEYWELL         [\nDB97\n]\n      R*129.31.rrr.rrr                     ICNET             [LM88]\n      R 129.32.rrr.rrr                     TEMPLE            [TES16]\n      R 129.33.rrr.rrr                     IBM-ALMADEN       [RC278]\n      R 129.34.rrr.rrr                     IBM-WATSON        [BR92]\n      R 129.35.rrr.rrr                     IBM Research Net  [JP247]\n      R 129.36.rrr.rrr                     IBM-ROCH          [BO3]\n      R 129.37.rrr.rrr-129.39.rrr.rrr      IBM Research Net  [JP247]\n      R 129.40.rrr.rrr                     IBM-KINGSTON      [SD139]\n      R 129.41.rrr.rrr-129.42.rrr.rrr      IBM Research Net  [JP247]\n      R 129.43.rrr.rrr                     NCI-FCRF          [WLB5]\n      C*129.44.rrr.rrr                     NYTEL1095NET      [HT12]\n      C*129.45.rrr.rrr                     NYTELNOCNET1      [JO54]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 13]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 129.46.rrr.rrr                     QUALNET           [TM37]\n      C 129.47.rrr.rrr                     SYTEK-INC         [RW237]\n      D 129.48.rrr.rrr                     WPAFB-CDS-NET     [SF76]\n      R 129.49.rrr.rrr                     SUNY-SB           [JM414]\n      G*129.50.rrr.rrr                     PSCN              [BRB8]\n      D 129.51.rrr.rrr                     ESMC-LONS         [SWR3]\n      D 129.52.rrr.rrr                     WPAFB-LONS        [SWR3]\n      D 129.53.rrr.rrr                     HANSCOM           [DD63]\n      D 129.54.rrr.rrr                     WSMC-LONS         [SWR3]\n      R 129.55.rrr.rrr                     LINCOLN-MI        [KLS24]\n      D*129.56.rrr.rrr                     AUXNET-PR         [KFS]\n      R 129.57.rrr.rrr                     CEBAF             [RC247]\n      R*129.58.rrr.rrr                     SRPNET            [MJ33]\n      R 129.59.rrr.rrr                     VANDERBILT        [EZ8]\n      R 129.60.rrr.rrr                     NTT-INET          [YS10]\n      D 129.61.rrr.rrr                     ECONET            [CG1]\n      R 129.62.rrr.rrr                     BAYLOR            [BL31]\n      R 129.63.rrr.rrr                     ULOWELL           [RS414]\n      R 129.64.rrr.rrr                     BRANDEIS          [JSM11]\n      R 129.65.rrr.rrr                     CALPOLY           [ML95]\n      R 129.66.rrr.rrr                     ASN-NET           [JRS48]\n      R*129.67.rrr.rrr                     OXFORDNET         [MH118]\n      R*129.68.rrr.rrr                     SJU-NET           [JP147]\n      R 129.69.rrr.rrr                     RUS-NET           [KDM6]\n      R*129.70.rrr.rrr                     UNIBI             [WH64]\n      R 129.71.rrr.rrr                     WVNET             [RL104]\n      R 129.72.rrr.rrr                     UWYO              [RM177]\n      C 129.73.rrr.rrr                     SIEMENS           [MB143]\n      R 129.74.rrr.rrr                     NOTRE-DAME        [MDE3]\n      C 129.75.rrr.rrr                     CCUR-DOM          [PG97]\n      C*129.76.rrr.rrr                     ROSEMOUNT         [JW266]\n      C 129.77.rrr.rrr                     OXFORD-TP         [KRM5]\n      R 129.78.rrr.rrr                     SYDNET            [DP149]\n      R 129.79.rrr.rrr                     INDIANA-NET       [BS69]\n      C*129.80.rrr.rrr                     STORTEK           [DB162]\n      R 129.81.rrr.rrr                     TULANE-NET        [JV41]\n      R 129.82.rrr.rrr                     CSUNET            [SM83]\n      D 129.83.rrr.rrr                     MITRE-B-NETB      [BSW]\n      C 129.84.rrr.rrr                     TWG-NET           [TN29]\n      R 129.85.rrr.rrr                     ROCK              [MK38]\n      C*129.86.rrr.rrr                     SANDERS           [RT60]\n      C 129.87.rrr.rrr                     SLBSDRNET         [RK75]\n      R 129.88.rrr.rrr                     IMAG              [PL37]\n      R 129.89.rrr.rrr                     MILW-IPNET        [JSL9]\n      C*129.90.rrr.rrr                     INTEVEP           [RA66]\n      R 129.91.rrr.rrr                     ENCORE            [PYC]\n      D 129.92.rrr.rrr                     AFIT              [DWD20]\n      R 129.93.rrr.rrr                     HUSKERNET         [MM147]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 14]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 129.94.rrr.rrr                     UNSW              [PG40]\n      R 129.95.rrr.rrr                     OREGRADNET        [JC235]\n      R 129.96.rrr.rrr                     FLINDERS-UNI      [TGN]\n      R 129.97.rrr.rrr                     UWNET             [WCWI]\n      R*129.98.rrr.rrr                     ALNET             [RNB5]\n      G 129.99.rrr.rrr                     NAS-NET           [JL52]\n      R 129.100.rrr.rrr                    UWO-NET           [PM81]\n      R 129.101.rrr.rrr                    UIDAHO            [WDS11]\n      R*129.102.rrr.rrr                    IRCAM             [MF14]\n      C*129.103.rrr.rrr                    NERV              [RG225]\n      R 129.104.rrr.rrr                    POLY              [GG68]\n      R 129.105.rrr.rrr                    NWUNET            [JPD18]\n      R 129.106.rrr.rrr                    UTHOUSTON         [LN47]\n      R 129.107.rrr.rrr                    UTARLINGTON       [RDC36]\n      R 129.108.rrr.rrr                    OTS-129-108       [DLN12]\n      R 129.109.rrr.rrr                    UTGALVESTON       [MH225]\n      R 129.110.rrr.rrr                    UTDALLAS          [DLL32]\n      R 129.111.rrr.rrr                    UTHSCSA           [CA80]\n      R 129.112.rrr.rrr                    UTSWMED           [VS50]\n      R 129.113.rrr.rrr                    OTS-129-113       [DLN12]\n      R 129.114.rrr.rrr                    UTCCSPRD          [MM352]\n      R 129.115.rrr.rrr                    OTS-129-115       [DLN12]\n      R 129.116.rrr.rrr                    CHPCNET           [WLJ7]\n      R 129.117.rrr.rrr                    THENETMN          [DLN12]\n      R 129.118.rrr.rrr                    TTUNET            [JS450]\n      R 129.119.rrr.rrr                    SOUTHMETHUNIV     [DH23]\n      R 129.120.rrr.rrr                    UNTEXAS           [BB194]\n      R 129.121.rrr.rrr                    NMTECHNET         [IMK1]\n      C 129.122.rrr.rrr                    PRIME             [RLU3]\n      R 129.123.rrr.rrr                    USU               [\nRLR36\n]\n      C 129.124.rrr.rrr                    GMRLNET           [LR44]\n      R 129.125.rrr.rrr                    RUGNET            [HH37]\n      C 129.126.rrr.rrr                    KODAK             [DM269]\n      R 129.127.rrr.rrr                    ADELAIDE-UNI      [MP151]\n      R 129.128.rrr.rrr                    U-ALBERTA         [SS131]\n      R 129.129.rrr.rrr                    PSI-ETHER         [HK41]\n      R 129.130.rrr.rrr                    KSUNET            [BAV]\n      D 129.131.rrr.rrr                    NWCNET            [EG17]\n      R 129.132.rrr.rrr                    ETH-ETHER         [FG16]\n      R 129.133.rrr.rrr                    WESNET            [JGD1]\n      C*129.134.rrr.rrr                    HCSD-NET          [\nDR49\n]\n      C*129.135.rrr.rrr                    INGR              [GS91]\n      R*129.136.rrr.rrr                    NRCJ              [MS195]\n      R 129.137.rrr.rrr                    UN-OF-CINCI       [JL1]\n      R 129.138.rrr.rrr                    NMTECH            [MJA14]\n      D 129.139.rrr.rrr                    PICANET           [RFD1]\n      R 129.140.rrr.rrr                    NSFNET-BB         [HWB]\n      D 129.141.rrr.rrr                    GAFSNET           [BPW1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 15]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 129.142.rrr.rrr                    DENET             [JPS21]\n      R*129.143.rrr.rrr                    BELWUE            [CL80]\n      C 129.144.rrr.rrr-129.159.rrr.rrr    Sun Microsystems  [WM3]\n      R*129.160.rrr.rrr                    SOLARIUM          [JL152]\n      R 129.161.rrr.rrr                    HGCGNET           [GT76]\n      R 129.162.rrr.rrr                    SWRI-NET          [FF20]\n      G*129.163.rrr.rrr                    NASA-JSCSSE       [DGL4]\n      G*129.164.rrr.rrr                    NASA-SSPOSSE      [DGL4]\n      G*129.165.rrr.rrr                    NASA-GSFCSSE      [DGL4]\n      G*129.166.rrr.rrr                    NASA-JFKSSE       [DGL4]\n      G*129.167.rrr.rrr                    NASA-MSFCSSE      [DGL4]\n      G*129.168.rrr.rrr                    NASA-LRCSSE       [DGL4]\n      R*129.169.rrr.rrr                    ENG-CAM-UK        [JMRM]\n      R 129.170.rrr.rrr                    DART-ETHER        [SC59]\n      R 129.171.rrr.rrr                    MIAMI             [HWP2]\n      R 129.172.rrr.rrr                    ROK               [TGS6]\n      R 129.173.rrr.rrr                    DALNET            [JS338]\n      R 129.174.rrr.rrr                    MASONET           [TH15]\n      R 129.175.rrr.rrr                    PARIS-SUD         [RD104]\n      R 129.176.rrr.rrr                    MAYO              [GB125]\n      R 129.177.rrr.rrr                    BERGEN-NET        [PS27]\n      R 129.178.rrr.rrr                    NORWAY-TWO        [PS27]\n      C 129.179.rrr.rrr                    CDC-NET           [JAW34]\n      R 129.180.rrr.rrr                    UNE-CAMPUS        [GS119]\n      C*129.181.rrr.rrr                    LV-BULL           [OD8]\n      C*129.182.rrr.rrr                    CL-BULL           [JPW11]\n      C*129.183.rrr.rrr                    EC-BULL           [JPC17]\n      C*129.184.rrr.rrr                    PR-BULL           [FH35]\n      C*129.185.rrr.rrr                    MY-BULL           [MQ7]\n      R 129.186.rrr.rrr                    CYCLONENET        [RD108]\n      R*129.187.rrr.rrr                    BAVARIAN-NET      [WS94]\n      R 129.188.rrr.rrr                    MOTOROLA          [CC99]\n      R 129.189.rrr.rrr                    ICONET-ORC        [DAVE]\n      D 129.190.rrr.rrr                    ASECC             [RT114]\n      C 129.191.rrr.rrr                    NSCO              [GS123]\n      C 129.192.rrr.rrr                    ACC-NET           [AB20]\n      C 129.193.rrr.rrr                    TRW-TIE-NET       [JB550]\n      R 129.194.rrr.rrr                    UNIGE-CENTER      [AS116]\n      R 129.195.rrr.rrr                    UNIGE-HOP         [AS116]\n      C*129.196.rrr.rrr                    JOHN-FLUKE        [JS210]\n      C*129.197.rrr.rrr                    LMSC-CNU          [DD112]\n      D 129.198.rrr.rrr                    ELAN              [DDK1]\n      R 129.199.rrr.rrr                    ENS-NET           [JV53]\n      D 129.200.rrr.rrr                    DAC-BACK-NET      [RAY4]\n      C*129.201.rrr.rrr-129.204.rrr.rrr    GE-Internet       [JEB50]\n      R*129.205.rrr.rrr                    CDCNET            [JAW34]\n      R 129.206.rrr.rrr                    HD-NET            [LB110]\n      R 129.207.rrr.rrr                    PVAMU-NET         [FE6]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 16]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*129.208.rrr.rrr                    BIRMINGHAM        [RJH37]\n      D 129.209.rrr.rrr                    BRLNETS           [DET]\n      R*129.210.rrr.rrr                    SCU-NET           [WD27]\n      C*129.211.rrr.rrr                    ISCS-NET          [DS59]\n      R*129.212.rrr.rrr                    AMDAHL-UTS        [KC1]\n      C 129.213.rrr.rrr                    COM-COM-COM       [TB6]\n      C*129.214.rrr.rrr                    PYRAMID-TECH      [CSG]\n      R*129.215.rrr.rrr                    EU-NET            [WSC5]\n      R 129.216.rrr.rrr                    NRC-NET           [IHM]\n      R 129.217.rrr.rrr                    UNIDO-LAN         [RV32]\n      R*129.218.rrr.rrr                    UNISYS-SP         [SJP10]\n      R 129.219.rrr.rrr                    ASU-NET           [AC85]\n      C*129.220.rrr.rrr-129.227.rrr.rrr    UNISYS Nets       [CC129]\n      C*129.228.rrr.rrr                    WESTINGHOUSE      [CWR4]\n      G 129.229.rrr.rrr                    USA-CECER         [DB186]\n      C*129.230.rrr.rrr                    AMOCO             [SG83]\n      C*129.231.rrr.rrr                    DIGICOMM-NET      [WF42]\n      R*129.232.rrr.rrr                    BITNET            [LCV]\n      R 129.233.rrr.rrr                    FHG-STUTTGART     [JW377]\n      R*129.234.rrr.rrr                    DURHAM            [JC288]\n      R 129.235.rrr.rrr                    SRCNET            [CRT4]\n      R 129.236.rrr.rrr                    LDGO-NET          [RGB14]\n      R 129.237.rrr.rrr                    JAYHAWKNET        [DN32]\n      R 129.238.rrr.rrr                    AFWL-NET          [CF57]\n      G 129.239.rrr.rrr                    HI-CFSG           [LP71]\n      R 129.240.rrr.rrr                    UIONET            [JT122]\n      R 129.241.rrr.rrr                    UNITNET           [HE15]\n      R 129.242.rrr.rrr                    UIBNET            [JT122]\n      G 129.243.rrr.rrr                    MMCNET            [DR137]\n      R 129.244.rrr.rrr                    KEHNET            [PLH8]\n      C 129.245.rrr.rrr                    PAC-BELL          [DSP11]\n      D 129.246.rrr.rrr                    IDA               [BS157]\n      R 129.247.rrr.rrr                    DFVRL-NET         [CR24]\n      C 129.248.rrr.rrr                    APOLLO            [NM31]\n      R*129.249.rrr.rrr                    FX-DEV-NET2       [HH45]\n      R 129.250.rrr.rrr                    PRPNET            [BE6]\n      D 129.251.rrr.rrr                    SLAN-BSN          [\nLA55\n]\n      R 129.252.rrr.rrr                    SCAROLINA         [AY11]\n      C*129.253.rrr.rrr                    WESDIGCO          [SD78]\n      R 129.254.rrr.rrr                    ETRI              [KH74]\n        129.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [NIC]\n        130.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [NIC]\n      C*130.1.rrr.rrr-130.10.rrr.rrr       Boeing Nets       [DJB34]\n      G 130.11.rrr.rrr                     GEORES            [JRF]\n      R*130.12.rrr.rrr                     ORNET             [DG110]\n      C 130.13.rrr.rrr                     USWEST            [DCM20]\n      G 130.14.rrr.rrr                     NLM-ETHER         [JA1]\n      R 130.15.rrr.rrr                     QUEENSU           [AH81]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 17]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 130.16.rrr.rrr                     BCN               [JRC27]\n      R 130.17.rrr.rrr                     CSUSTAN           [TC84]\n      R 130.18.rrr.rrr                     MSSTATE           [MR137]\n      C*130.19.rrr.rrr                     PGE               [AC96]\n      G 130.20.rrr.rrr                     PNLNET            [SCT2]\n      C*130.21.rrr.rrr                     PRIME-CV          [RLU3]\n      D 130.22.rrr.rrr                     DCA-RESTON        [SJ50]\n      C*130.23.rrr.rrr-130.32.rrr.rrr      Hewlett-Packard   [DCL10]\n      R 130.33.rrr.rrr                     SARNOFF           [RJP23]\n      R 130.34.rrr.rrr                     TAINS             [YK3]\n      C 130.35.rrr.rrr                     ORACLE-CORP       [DAA14]\n      C*130.36.rrr.rrr                     ABBOTT            [JES55]\n      R 130.37.rrr.rrr                     VU-NET            [HVS1]\n      C 130.38.rrr.rrr                     MDC-NET           [KRH4]\n      R 130.39.rrr.rrr                     TIGERLAN          [CFB1]\n      G*130.40.rrr.rrr                     JSC-RTDS          [SW114]\n      R 130.41.rrr.rrr                     ATD-NET           [TS14]\n      R 130.42.rrr.rrr                     BOERESNET         [GK44]\n      C 130.43.rrr.rrr                     APPLE-NET         [HK24]\n      R 130.44.rrr.rrr                     AMS               [NK19]\n      C*130.45.rrr.rrr                     RACAL-MILGO       [JC314]\n      D 130.46.rrr.rrr                     DTRC-B1-NET       [RWT2]\n      G*130.47.rrr.rrr                     WISDOT            [JRJ12]\n      C*130.48.rrr.rrr                     ATT-DDO           [CWM17]\n      R 130.49.rrr.rrr                     U-PITT            [DS247]\n      C 130.50.rrr.rrr                     RISC-NET          [WAG5]\n      C*130.51.rrr.rrr                     VIEW-ENG          [CM144]\n      C*130.52.rrr.rrr                     WEARGUARD         [PP62]\n      D 130.53.rrr.rrr                     AFOTECPCNET       [EEL2]\n      R 130.54.rrr.rrr                     KUINS             [JM292]\n      G*130.55.rrr.rrr                     LANL-SINET        [PCW]\n      R 130.56.rrr.rrr                     ANUNET            [GH105]\n      C 130.57.rrr.rrr                     EXCELAN           [TS107]\n      R 130.58.rrr.rrr                     SWARTHMORE        [JB360]\n      R 130.59.rrr.rrr                     SWITCH-LAN        [TL99]\n      R 130.60.rrr.rrr                     UNIZH             [PB145]\n      R*130.61.rrr.rrr                     BBN-SYSENGRB      [DW159]\n      C 130.62.rrr.rrr                     MIPSNET           [DK101]\n      R 130.63.rrr.rrr                     YORKU             [ER61]\n      R*130.64.rrr.rrr                     TUFTSU            [KR69]\n      R*130.65.rrr.rrr                     SJSU-NET          [HB76]\n      R*130.66.rrr.rrr                     RIVE              [CE42]\n      C*130.67.rrr.rrr                     NORSK-DATA        [AH89]\n      R 130.68.rrr.rrr                     MSCNET            [MLT10]\n      R 130.69.rrr.rrr                     UTOKYO-NET        [JM292]\n      R 130.70.rrr.rrr                     USL               [SJM9]\n      R 130.71.rrr.rrr                     STOLAF            [CR127]\n      R*130.72.rrr.rrr                     LSTC-NET          [DC211]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 18]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*130.73.rrr.rrr                     ZIB               [HB79]\n      R 130.74.rrr.rrr                     OLEMISS           [EFH6]\n      R*130.75.rrr.rrr                     RRZN              [RO44]\n      C*130.76.rrr.rrr                     BE-NET            [KRF5]\n      C*130.77.rrr.rrr                     CH2M              [RR156]\n      C*130.78.rrr.rrr                     BAZIS             [CVG1]\n      R*130.79.rrr.rrr                     OSIRIS            [JP207]\n      C*130.80.rrr.rrr                     CHRON             [JC333]\n      C 130.81.rrr.rrr                     NYTEL-BB-1        [SS110]\n      R 130.82.rrr.rrr                     UNISG             [PG62]\n      R*130.83.rrr.rrr                     THD-NET           [HH50]\n      R 130.84.rrr.rrr                     CIRCE             [CM156]\n      R 130.85.rrr.rrr                     UMBCNET           [KP45]\n      R 130.86.rrr.rrr                     CSUSAC            [MC264]\n      R 130.87.rrr.rrr                     JP-HEPNET         [YB4]\n      R*130.88.rrr.rrr                     MANLAN            [PM115]\n      R 130.89.rrr.rrr                     UTNET             [GAM32]\n      R 130.90.rrr.rrr                     MATHERAFBNET      [SF46]\n      R 130.91.rrr.rrr                     UPENN-SUBNET      [JDH29]\n      R 130.92.rrr.rrr                     UNIBE             [FB61]\n      R 130.93.rrr.rrr                     FERNWOODNET2      [GEOF]\n      R 130.94.rrr.rrr                     JVNCNET           [SH37]\n      R 130.95.rrr.rrr                     UWA-NET           [GH108]\n      C*130.96.rrr.rrr                     SDCAPOL           [RB520]\n      G*130.97.rrr.rrr                     DOERLNET          [DES41]\n      R*130.98.rrr.rrr                     FNET-EDF          [MD127]\n      R 130.99.rrr.rrr                     NET-3M            [BR79]\n      C*130.100.rrr.rrr                    ERICSSON          [BS156]\n      R 130.101.rrr.rrr                    UAKRON            [DK112]\n      R 130.102.rrr.rrr                    UQNET             [LB201]\n      C*130.103.rrr.rrr                    LOTUS             [RMF2]\n      R*130.104.rrr.rrr                    UCLOUVAIN         [ML129]\n      R 130.105.rrr.rrr                    OSF               [MLR1]\n      R*130.106.rrr.rrr                    LLNL-CLOSED       [DW164]\n      R 130.107.rrr.rrr                    SRI-CSL-NET-2     [EH112]\n      R 130.108.rrr.rrr                    WRIGHT-STATE      [SH1]\n      R 130.109.rrr.rrr                    NCSC-NET          [JD130]\n      C*130.110.rrr.rrr                    CENET             [JC347]\n      R 130.111.rrr.rrr                    UMAINE-SYS        [IKA]\n      R*130.112.rrr.rrr                    ECN               [MB203]\n      R 130.113.rrr.rrr                    MCMASTER          [CB162]\n      D 130.114.rrr.rrr                    APGNET            [VC5]\n      R*130.115.rrr.rrr                    EURNET            [IJD1]\n      R 130.116.rrr.rrr                    CSIRO-DMT         [MJ65]\n      R 130.117.rrr.rrr                    NYSER2            [MS9]\n      G 130.118.rrr.rrr                    GEOMEN            [PWM]\n      C*130.119.rrr.rrr                    RTECH             [DA73]\n      R*130.120.rrr.rrr                    UNITOUL           [DI11]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 19]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD*130.121.rrr.rrr                    BOEING747NET      [GK44]\n      D*130.122.rrr.rrr                    BOEINGAERO        [GK44]\n      R 130.123.rrr.rrr                    MASSEY            [KKS]\n      D 130.124.rrr.rrr                    HI-DSG            [MW135]\n      R 130.125.rrr.rrr                    UNINE             [\nCW115\n]\n      R 130.126.rrr.rrr                    UIUC-NCSA         [PP14]\n      R 130.127.rrr.rrr                    CLEMSONU          [MSM3]\n        130.128.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [NIC]\n        130.129.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [NIC]\n      R 130.130.rrr.rrr                    UOWNET            [SC143]\n      C*130.131.rrr.rrr                    GTE-CS            [AN32]\n      R 130.132.rrr.rrr                    YALE-SPINE        [ASW3]\n      R*130.133.rrr.rrr                    FUB               [RR163]\n      G 130.134.rrr.rrr                    DFRF-NET          [MSM1]\n      G*130.135.rrr.rrr                    WSTF-NET          [MSM1]\n      R 130.136.rrr.rrr                    BOLOGNA-MATH-CS   [OB]\n      C 130.137.rrr.rrr                    DATAPOINT         [BR87]\n      C*130.138.rrr.rrr-130.143.rrr.rrr    PHILIPS           [OK6]\n      C 130.144.rrr.rrr                    PHILIPS           [OK6]\n      C*130.145.rrr.rrr-130.147.rrr.rrr    PHILIPS           [OK6]\n      C*130.148.rrr.rrr                    GEC-SENSORS       [TD68]\n      R*130.149.rrr.rrr                    TUB               [DK116]\n      R 130.150.rrr.rrr                    CSUNET-IP         [DR161]\n      R 130.151.rrr.rrr                    ROK2              [TGS6]\n      R 130.152.rrr.rrr                    LOS-NETTOS        [WP8]\n      R 130.153.rrr.rrr                    JAPAN-B8          [JM292]\n      R 130.154.rrr.rrr                    RAND-NETB         [JDG]\n      R 130.155.rrr.rrr                    DMS-SYD           [MA88]\n      R*130.156.rrr.rrr                    NJECN             [BM164]\n      R 130.157.rrr.rrr                    SONOMA-STATE      [BB193]\n      R*130.158.rrr.rrr                    UTINS             [NY3]\n      R*130.159.rrr.rrr                    STRATH            [DM259]\n      R 130.160.rrr.rrr                    UANET             [JW337]\n      R 130.161.rrr.rrr                    DUT-LAN           [FD18]\n      C*130.162.rrr.rrr                    TEN-OPS           [DG146]\n      D 130.163.rrr.rrr                    CENTERNET         [JA91]\n      C*130.164.rrr.rrr                    NATINST-NET       [BP42]\n      D 130.165.rrr.rrr                    CESPKED-NET       [JP220]\n      R 130.166.rrr.rrr                    CSUN              [DC316]\n      G 130.167.rrr.rrr                    STSCI-NET         [MSM1]\n      C 130.168.rrr.rrr                    CONVEX            [JT147]\n      C*130.169.rrr.rrr-130.178.rrr.rrr    GM IP Net         [JC365]\n      R*130.179.rrr.rrr                    UMANITOBA         [BR88]\n      C 130.180.rrr.rrr                    DEC-ZK-NET        [SEL10]\n      D 130.181.rrr.rrr                    HONWEL-CLWTR      [MN43]\n      R 130.182.rrr.rrr                    CSULANET          [DTG11]\n      R*130.183.rrr.rrr                    IPPNET            [TH101]\n      R 130.184.rrr.rrr                    UARKNET           [DLM34]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 20]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 130.185.rrr.rrr                    ONET              [PM81]\n      R 130.186.rrr.rrr                    CINECA-NET        [\nAA62\n]\n      C 130.187.rrr.rrr                    ES-NET            [SP81]\n      R 130.188.rrr.rrr                    VTTNET            [JK187]\n      R 130.189.rrr.rrr                    DART-HITCH        [RCD13]\n      R*130.190.rrr.rrr                    GRENET            [JA146]\n      R 130.191.rrr.rrr                    SDSU-NET          [MW180]\n      R 130.192.rrr.rrr                    TORINO-IT-LAN     [SG88]\n      R*130.193.rrr.rrr                    ACONET            [WK56]\n      R 130.194.rrr.rrr                    MONASH-NET        [JM493]\n      R 130.195.rrr.rrr                    VUW               [MN44]\n      G*130.196.rrr.rrr                    STSOC             [RMD26]\n      C*130.197.rrr.rrr                    CECO-NET          [WLR6]\n      C 130.198.rrr.rrr                    PRISMA-ETHER      [JP232]\n      R 130.199.rrr.rrr                    YAPNET            [GR9]\n      C*130.200.rrr.rrr                    LOCUS             [EP53]\n      C 130.201.rrr.rrr                    AOGC              [JH307]\n      G 130.202.rrr.rrr                    ARGONNE           [LW26]\n      R 130.203.rrr.rrr                    PSU-COMPSC        [DRE4]\n      C 130.204.rrr.rrr                    INTERLAN          [\nDW180\n]\n      C*130.205.rrr.rrr                    LANIER            [MHW9]\n      R*130.206.rrr.rrr                    IRIS              [IM24]\n      R 130.207.rrr.rrr                    GIT               [DD11]\n      R 130.208.rrr.rrr                    ISNET             [MO33]\n      R*130.209.rrr.rrr                    GLANET            [RAG36]\n      D 130.210.rrr.rrr                    LINKNET           [PR79]\n      C*130.211.rrr.rrr                    EXECU             [DH241]\n      R 130.212.rrr.rrr                    FOGNET            [MCD11]\n      C*130.213.rrr.rrr                    RATNET            [TDG9]\n      C*130.214.rrr.rrr                    SYBASE            [NHC]\n      R 130.215.rrr.rrr                    WPI               [AEJ5]\n      R 130.216.rrr.rrr                    AUKUNI-NET        [AJB20]\n      R 130.217.rrr.rrr                    WAIKATO-LAN-1     [JCH41]\n      R*130.218.rrr.rrr                    NET-KSC           [MC128]\n      R 130.219.rrr.rrr                    UMDNJ             [LPM]\n      R 130.220.rrr.rrr                    SAITEN            [RR181]\n      R 130.221.rrr.rrr                    AERO-NET          [LCN]\n      C 130.222.rrr.rrr                    PRCNE-NET         [SS172]\n      R 130.223.rrr.rrr                    LUNET-ETHER1      [JL247]\n      C 130.224.rrr.rrr                    NET-QUOTRON       [LF58]\n      R 130.225.rrr.rrr                    DENET-1           [JPS21]\n      R*130.226.rrr.rrr-130.229.rrr.rrr    NORDU Nets        [AH94]\n      R 130.230.rrr.rrr                    TAMNET            [\nJH141\n]\n      R*130.231.rrr.rrr                    NORDU Nets        [AH94]\n      R 130.232.rrr.rrr                    TURBO             [EA49]\n      R 130.233.rrr.rrr                    HUTNET            [KL66]\n      R*130.234.rrr.rrr                    NORDU Net         [AH94]\n      R 130.235.rrr.rrr                    LUNET             [JE87]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 21]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 130.236.rrr.rrr                    LIUNET            [LE24]\n      R 130.237.rrr.rrr                    KTH-LAN           [AH94]\n      R 130.238.rrr.rrr                    UU-NET            [BV17]\n      R 130.239.rrr.rrr                    UMUNET            [RH271]\n      R 130.240.rrr.rrr                    LUTHNET           [SW142]\n      R 130.241.rrr.rrr                    GU-NET            [JT167]\n      R*130.242.rrr.rrr-130.244.rrr.rrr    NORDU Nets        [AH94]\n      R 130.245.rrr.rrr                    SUNYSB-CS         [\nWKT\n]\n      R*130.246.rrr.rrr                    RAL-IP            [AM129]\n      D*130.247.rrr.rrr                    BOE-TRANS         [GK44]\n      C*130.248.rrr.rrr                    ADOBE             [AIS]\n      R*130.249.rrr.rrr                    FOENET            [FJB3]\n      R*130.250.rrr.rrr                    QU                [BA56]\n      R 130.251.rrr.rrr                    UG-NET            [GAM35]\n      R 130.252.rrr.rrr                    TANDEM-NET        [KR59]\n      R 130.253.rrr.rrr                    DENVERU-NET       [WE12]\n      R*130.254.rrr.rrr                    ASC               [DB296]\n        130.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [NIC]\n        131.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [NIC]\n      C 131.1.rrr.rrr                      ICONET            [JA13]\n      D 131.2.rrr.rrr                      GAFB-NET          [BPW1]\n      D 131.3.rrr.rrr                      MATHERAFB         [SF46]\n      D 131.4.rrr.rrr                      WPAFB-NET         [KEP9]\n      D 131.5.rrr.rrr                      GRIFFISS-NET      [BPW1]\n      D 131.6.rrr.rrr                      LANGLEY-NET       [JJB1]\n      D 131.7.rrr.rrr                      OFFUTT-NET        [PN13]\n      D 131.8.rrr.rrr                      HQUSAF-NET        [BPW1]\n      D 131.9.rrr.rrr                      SCOTTAFB-NET      [\nFW18\n]\n      D 131.10.rrr.rrr                     BARKSDALE         [KW75]\n      D 131.11.rrr.rrr                     BOLLING-NET       [SE7]\n      D 131.12.rrr.rrr                     BROOKS-NET        [BDB8]\n      D 131.13.rrr.rrr                     KELLY-NET         [JG268]\n      D 131.14.rrr.rrr                     LOWRYAFB-NET      [BRA2]\n      D 131.15.rrr.rrr                     PETERSON-NET      [MDL1]\n      D 131.16.rrr.rrr                     RAMSTEINNET       [KM103]\n      D 131.17.rrr.rrr                     SHEPPARD          [SR127]\n      D 131.18.rrr.rrr                     TINKERCCSO        [RMD1]\n      D 131.19.rrr.rrr                     BITBURGNET        [\nMML8\n]\n      D 131.20.rrr.rrr                     EGLIN-NET         [TM199]\n      D 131.21.rrr.rrr                     HAHNNET           [RM300]\n      D 131.22.rrr.rrr                     KEESLER-NET       [BWS2]\n      D 131.23.rrr.rrr                     KIRTLAND-NET      [OP]\n      D 131.24.rrr.rrr                     MACDILL-NET       [ER90]\n      D 131.25.rrr.rrr                     PATRICK-NET       [MH15]\n      D 131.26.rrr.rrr                     USAFACAD-NET      [JME15]\n      D 131.27.rrr.rrr                     HILLAFB-NET       [JD86]\n      D 131.28.rrr.rrr                     WPAFB-NET2        [BPW1]\n      D 131.29.rrr.rrr                     LAAFB-NET         [JEB45]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 22]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 131.30.rrr.rrr                     MCCHORDNET        [BF49]\n      D 131.31.rrr.rrr                     MCCLELLANNET      [JRR6]\n      D 131.32.rrr.rrr                     LACKLANDNET       [DMH20]\n      D 131.33.rrr.rrr                     EDWARDS-NET       [LGB1]\n      D 131.34.rrr.rrr                     MARCH-NET         [CLP18]\n      D 131.35.rrr.rrr                     FAIRCHILD         [GI4]\n      D 131.36.rrr.rrr                     YOKOTA-NET        [JAS8]\n      D 131.37.rrr.rrr                     ELMENDORF         [MD97]\n      D 131.38.rrr.rrr                     HICKAM-NET        [RWJ3]\n      D 131.39.rrr.rrr                     EIELSON           [BPW1]\n      D 131.40.rrr.rrr                     BERGSTROM         [\nSA42\n]\n      D 131.41.rrr.rrr                     ANDREWS-NET       [JKB13]\n      D 131.42.rrr.rrr                     HANSCOM-NET       [WJK6]\n      D 131.43.rrr.rrr                     HOMESTEAD         [GLS20]\n      D 131.44.rrr.rrr                     RANDOLPH-NET      [TS149]\n      D 131.45.rrr.rrr                     ROBINS-NET        [NRG4]\n      D 131.46.rrr.rrr                     SHAW              [BPW1]\n      D 131.47.rrr.rrr                     ANDERSEN-NET      [TKH4]\n      D 131.48.rrr.rrr                     AVIANO-NET        [RDB30]\n      D 131.49.rrr.rrr                     CLARK-NET         [GKW3]\n      D 131.50.rrr.rrr                     DAVIS-MONTHAN     [SS130]\n      D 131.51.rrr.rrr                     LAKENHEATH        [RT135]\n      D 131.52.rrr.rrr                     LUKE-NET          [TD91]\n      D 131.53.rrr.rrr                     MALMSTROM         [YC4]\n      D 131.54.rrr.rrr-131.55.rrr.rrr      AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      D 131.56.rrr.rrr                     UPPER-HEYFORD     [BPW1]\n      D 131.57.rrr.rrr                     TAEGU             [RWH36]\n      D 131.58.rrr.rrr                     ALCONBURY         [JD274]\n      D 131.59.rrr.rrr                     DYESS             [BPW1]\n      D 131.60.rrr.rrr                     ENGLAND           [BPW1]\n      D 131.61.rrr.rrr                     MCCONNELL         [RCL1]\n      D 131.62.rrr.rrr                     NORTON            [BPW1]\n      D 131.63.rrr.rrr                     GAFB-NET1         [BPW1]\n      D 131.64.rrr.rrr                     HQ-DLA            [CG85]\n      D 131.65.rrr.rrr                     DCRA              [CG85]\n      D 131.66.rrr.rrr                     DCRB              [CG85]\n      D 131.67.rrr.rrr                     DCRI              [CG85]\n      D 131.68.rrr.rrr                     DCRL              [CG85]\n      D 131.69.rrr.rrr                     DCRN              [CG85]\n      D 131.70.rrr.rrr                     DCRO              [CG85]\n      D 131.71.rrr.rrr                     DCRP              [CG85]\n      D 131.72.rrr.rrr                     DCRS              [CG85]\n      D 131.73.rrr.rrr                     DCRT              [CG85]\n      D 131.74.rrr.rrr                     DCSC              [SST]\n      D 131.75.rrr.rrr                     DDMP              [CG85]\n      D 131.76.rrr.rrr                     DDMT              [CG85]\n      D 131.77.rrr.rrr                     DDOU              [CG85]\n      D 131.78.rrr.rrr                     DSAC              [JR276]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 23]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 131.79.rrr.rrr                     DDTC              [CG85]\n      D 131.80.rrr.rrr                     DESC              [CG85]\n      D 131.81.rrr.rrr                     DGSC              [CG85]\n      D 131.82.rrr.rrr                     DISC              [CG85]\n      D 131.83.rrr.rrr                     EUROPE-DRMS       [CG85]\n      D 131.84.rrr.rrr                     DTIC-NET          [CG85]\n      D 131.85.rrr.rrr                     DFSC              [CG85]\n      D 131.86.rrr.rrr                     DPSC              [CG85]\n      D 131.87.rrr.rrr                     DRMS              [CG85]\n      D 131.88.rrr.rrr                     PACIFIC-DRMS      [CG85]\n      C*131.89.rrr.rrr-131.90.rrr.rrr      PG&E Net          [AC96]\n      R 131.91.rrr.rrr                     FAU               [RL180]\n      D 131.92.rrr.rrr                     APGEA-SUBNET      [REA3]\n      R 131.93.rrr.rrr                     SJC-NET           [BC130]\n      R 131.94.rrr.rrr                     FIU               [BB208]\n      R 131.95.rrr.rrr                     USM               [DEP17]\n      R*131.96.rrr.rrr                     GSU-NET           [SBH4]\n      C*131.97.rrr.rrr                     AB-VOLVO-NET      [TS141]\n      C*131.98.rrr.rrr                     ESI-PRIM          [WRH20]\n      C*131.99.rrr.rrr                     KONTRONNET        [BS217]\n      C*131.100.rrr.rrr                    BANYAN-HDQTR      [BH144]\n      C*131.101.rrr.rrr                    TERADYNE          [GA45]\n      G*131.102.rrr.rrr                    KOM-BV            [RM306]\n      R 131.103.rrr.rrr                    CICNET            [CA29]\n      R 131.104.rrr.rrr                    UOGUELPH          [KP50]\n      D 131.105.rrr.rrr                    SM-ALC            [RR184]\n      C 131.106.rrr.rrr                    MTXINU-NET        [EG51]\n      C*131.107.rrr.rrr                    MICROSOFT         [WC89]\n      C 131.108.rrr.rrr                    CISCO-SYSTEM      [KSL]\n      R 131.109.rrr.rrr                    BROWN-CFM-CS      [SF59]\n      G*131.110.rrr.rrr                    MAF-NET           [RTD]\n      R*131.111.rrr.rrr                    CAM-AC-UK         [TS146]\n      R 131.112.rrr.rrr                    TITECH-NET        [MO57]\n      R 131.113.rrr.rrr                    KEIO-NET          [TS147]\n      R 131.114.rrr.rrr                    PISA-NET          [GR56]\n      C*131.115.rrr.rrr                    TVTWAN1           [AH96]\n      C*131.116.rrr.rrr                    TVTWAN2           [AH96]\n      C*131.117.rrr.rrr                    NCANET            [\nWB102\n]\n      R 131.118.rrr.rrr                    MINCNET           [FAF6]\n      R 131.119.rrr.rrr                    BARRNET           [DLW31]\n      R 131.120.rrr.rrr                    NPSNET            [SW37]\n      G 131.121.rrr.rrr                    NADN              [AF60]\n      G 131.122.rrr.rrr                    NADN2             [AF60]\n      R 131.123.rrr.rrr                    KENT-STATE        [LCH9]\n      C*131.124.rrr.rrr                    TANDEM-MPD        [\nBC133\n]\n      R 131.125.rrr.rrr                    KEAN              [AKC5]\n      C*131.126.rrr.rrr                    MTCN              [JCP26]\n      C*131.127.rrr.rrr                    ASGARRETT         [LM176]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 24]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 131.128.rrr.rrr                    URI               [\nJB410\n]\n      C*131.129.rrr.rrr                    DOCUNET           [MR166]\n      R*131.130.rrr.rrr                    UNIVIE            [HS118]\n      C 131.131.rrr.rrr                    CONTEL-WTP        [MJO4]\n      R 131.132.rrr.rrr                    DREVNET           [JS597]\n      R 131.133.rrr.rrr                    DREANET           [JS597]\n      R*131.134.rrr.rrr-131.141.rrr.rrr    Def Rsch Estab    [JS597]\n      R 131.142.rrr.rrr                    CFA-NET           [CM57]\n      C 131.143.rrr.rrr                    CMC               [CNK1]\n      R*131.144.rrr.rrr                    PEACHNET          [JS469]\n      C 131.145.rrr.rrr                    MERIT-TECH        [JRJ18]\n      C 131.146.rrr.rrr                    MDC-SJ-NET        [SMF5]\n      C*131.147.rrr.rrr                    GENESISDND        [SM188]\n      C*131.148.rrr.rrr                    GENESISTOR        [SM188]\n      C*131.149.rrr.rrr                    FAST-TEAM         [SM188]\n      C*131.150.rrr.rrr                    GENESISCSDBS      [SM188]\n      R 131.151.rrr.rrr                    MORNETR           [RWA15]\n      R 131.152.rrr.rrr                    UNIBAS            [RD232]\n      R 131.153.rrr.rrr                    SEMATECH          [RG188]\n      R*131.154.rrr.rrr                    INFNET            [AG113]\n      R 131.155.rrr.rrr                    TUENET1           [JFAS]\n      R 131.156.rrr.rrr                    NIU-NET           [JWN10]\n      C*131.157.rrr.rrr                    LIBRAINC          [WJF1]\n      R 131.158.rrr.rrr                    USUHSNET          [MK124]\n      R*131.159.rrr.rrr                    TUM-INFO-LAN      [HN20]\n      C*131.160.rrr.rrr                    LMFNET            [RS393]\n      C 131.161.rrr.rrr                    WEB-NET           [ML192]\n      R*131.162.rrr.rrr                    AUNET             [BW134]\n      C*131.163.rrr.rrr                    I-CAN             [RW206]\n      R*131.164.rrr.rrr-131.166.rrr.rrr    Danish Net        [SJ28]\n      R 131.167.rrr.rrr                    BMINET            [JA92]\n      C*131.168.rrr.rrr                    PAQNET            [WH110]\n      R*131.169.rrr.rrr                    DESY              [ME57]\n      R 131.170.rrr.rrr                    RMIT              [\nMS300\n]\n      R 131.171.rrr.rrr                    UMUC              [RS486]\n      R 131.172.rrr.rrr                    LATROBE           [PC116]\n      R*131.173.rrr.rrr                    UOS               [RN58]\n      R 131.174.rrr.rrr                    NUNET             [JA155]\n      R 131.175.rrr.rrr                    CILEA             [AM134]\n      R*131.176.rrr.rrr                    ESA               [DW195]\n      R 131.177.rrr.rrr                    PTT-TELE          [JT166]\n      R 131.178.rrr.rrr                    ITESM             [HEG6]\n      R 131.179.rrr.rrr                    UCLA-CS           [RBW]\n      R*131.180.rrr.rrr                    DUT-LAN2          [FD18]\n      R 131.181.rrr.rrr                    QUT               [AA70]\n      G 131.182.rrr.rrr                    NASA-HQ-NET       [MSM1]\n      R 131.183.rrr.rrr                    UTOLEDO-NET       [BN38]\n      C*131.184.rrr.rrr                    MCDERMOTT         [TP58]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 25]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 131.185.rrr.rrr                    DSTO              [JWB35]\n      R 131.186.rrr.rrr                    WB-TEST           [KS14]\n      R 131.187.rrr.rrr                    OARNET            [\nMF74\n]\n      R 131.188.rrr.rrr                    REVUE             [JK198]\n      D*131.189.rrr.rrr                    TRACORNET         [PM140]\n      C*131.190.rrr.rrr                    PGXPRES           [ACL2]\n      G*131.191.rrr.rrr                    TACOMA            [BD89]\n      R 131.192.rrr.rrr                    NEARNET           [DBL1]\n      R 131.193.rrr.rrr                    UIC-ISN-NET       [\nEZ3\n]\n      R*131.194.rrr.rrr                    TRINITY           [LHG3]\n      R 131.195.rrr.rrr                    HYDRO-QUEBEC      [CV25]\n      R 131.196.rrr.rrr                    CNUSC             [JLD31]\n      C*131.197.rrr.rrr                    MOTO-SPS          [SO35]\n      C 131.198.rrr.rrr                    ROK3              [TGS6]\n      C 131.199.rrr.rrr                    ROK4              [TGS6]\n      C 131.200.rrr.rrr                    ROK5              [TGS6]\n      C*131.201.rrr.rrr                    HI-RESG-NET       [JG8]\n      R*131.202.rrr.rrr                    UNB-IPNET         [BK76]\n      R 131.203.rrr.rrr                    DSIR              [SW143]\n      R 131.204.rrr.rrr                    AU-NET            [LO28]\n      C*131.205.rrr.rrr                    SLLWAN            [\nAL16\n]\n      R*131.206.rrr.rrr                    KIT-NET           [HN21]\n      G*131.207.rrr.rrr                    TIETOTIE          [PI7]\n      C*131.208.rrr.rrr                    MERRILL-LYNCH     [JC394]\n      C*131.209.rrr.rrr                    PW-NET            [EMB]\n      R 131.210.rrr.rrr                    UW-PARKSIDE       [TVF1]\n      R 131.211.rrr.rrr                    RUU               [WPBS]\n      R 131.212.rrr.rrr                    UMNDULNET         [WJM26]\n      C*131.213.rrr.rrr                    NTCRK-MANU        [GJ35]\n      D 131.214.rrr.rrr                    ROMENET           [PV23]\n      R 131.215.rrr.rrr                    CALTECH-NET       [AD22]\n      R 131.216.rrr.rrr                    NEVADA            [RLY1]\n      R 131.217.rrr.rrr                    TASUNI-NET        [RB577]\n      D 131.218.rrr.rrr                    ALADDIN           [CLR16]\n      C*131.219.rrr.rrr                    PPL-NET           [AK70]\n      R*131.220.rrr.rrr                    UNI-BONN          [HG51]\n      R*131.221.rrr.rrr                    FXIS              [SA72]\n      C*131.222.rrr.rrr                    NCR-COMTEN        [RC234]\n      C*131.223.rrr.rrr                    LATA              [JGB17]\n      R*131.224.rrr.rrr                    RIVMNET           [RB578]\n      R 131.225.rrr.rrr                    FERMILAB          [CD75]\n      C 131.226.rrr.rrr                    MEMORY-ALPHA      [JM551]\n      R*131.227.rrr.rrr                    SURREY-NET        [GC122]\n      R 131.228.rrr.rrr                    NOKIA             [AV20]\n      R*131.229.rrr.rrr                    SMITH             [LG91]\n      R 131.230.rrr.rrr                    SIU-NET           [CRC15]\n      R*131.231.rrr.rrr                    LUT-AC-UK         [RT140]\n      R*131.232.rrr.rrr                    ATHABASCA-U       [LN42]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 26]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*131.233.rrr.rrr                    CIM-NET           [JH342]\n      R*131.234.rrr.rrr                    UNIPADERBORN      [RF130]\n      G 131.235.rrr.rrr                    ALCIDE            [JG266]\n      R 131.236.rrr.rrr                    ADFA-NET          [GC155]\n      G*131.237.rrr.rrr                    RWSNL             [PO16]\n      R*131.238.rrr.rrr                    UNIV-DAYTON       [RT142]\n      C 131.239.rrr.rrr                    THINK-NET         [BJN1]\n      G 131.240.rrr.rrr                    CC                [KMC3]\n      R 131.241.rrr.rrr                    NECAM             [ARS3]\n      G 131.242.rrr.rrr                    CITEC             [TT32]\n      R 131.243.rrr.rrr                    LBL-IP-NET2       [CAL3]\n      R 131.244.rrr.rrr                    BOND-UN1          [EB112]\n      R 131.245.rrr.rrr                    BOND-RP           [EB112]\n      R 131.246.rrr.rrr                    RHRK-LAN          [BGW3]\n      R 131.247.rrr.rrr                    USF               [JG269]\n      C*131.248.rrr.rrr                    CTC-NET           [TS154]\n      R 131.249.rrr.rrr                    FCCC              [RKS1]\n      D 131.250.rrr.rrr                    OCNR-ETHER        [TW3]\n      R*131.251.rrr.rrr                    CARDIFFCOMMA      [RE73]\n      R 131.252.rrr.rrr                    PDX-NET           [FD41]\n      R*131.253.rrr.rrr                    NTCSIS-NET        [JC403]\n      R 131.254.rrr.rrr                    IRISA-NET         [RT144]\n        131.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [NIC]\n        132.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [NIC]\n      D 132.1.rrr.rrr                      VANDENBERG        [BPW1]\n      D 132.2.rrr.rrr                      WESTOVER          [BPW1]\n      D 132.3.rrr.rrr                      NET-WILLIAMS      [BPW1]\n      D 132.4.rrr.rrr                      WURTSMITH         [BPW1]\n      D 132.5.rrr.rrr                      HOLLOMAN          [AJ180]\n      D 132.6.rrr.rrr                      ANKARA            [DWJ6]\n      D 132.7.rrr.rrr                      SANVITO           [BPW1]\n      D 132.8.rrr.rrr                      DOBBINS-NET       [LN4]\n      D 132.9.rrr.rrr                      ELLSWORTH         [SL129]\n      D 132.10.rrr.rrr                     GRAND-FORKS       [TLO]\n      D 132.11.rrr.rrr                     HELLENIKON        [BPW1]\n      D 132.12.rrr.rrr                     MYRTLE-BEACH      [TK86]\n      D 132.13.rrr.rrr                     BENTWATERS        [LS64]\n      D 132.14.rrr.rrr                     AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      D 132.15.rrr.rrr                     KADENA            [JEF8]\n      D 132.16.rrr.rrr                     KUNSAN            [RW15]\n      D 132.17.rrr.rrr                     LINDSEY           [SB152]\n      D 132.18.rrr.rrr                     MCGUIRE           [BPW1]\n      D 132.19.rrr.rrr                     MILDENHALL        [DS341]\n      D 132.20.rrr.rrr                     MISAWA            [BPW1]\n      D 132.21.rrr.rrr                     PLATTSBURGH       [BPW1]\n      D 132.22.rrr.rrr                     POPE              [BPW1]\n      D 132.23.rrr.rrr                     SEYMOUR-JOHN      [KS24]\n      D 132.24.rrr.rrr                     AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 27]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 132.25.rrr.rrr                     FAIRFORD          [BPW1]\n      D 132.26.rrr.rrr                     AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      D 132.27.rrr.rrr                     INCIRLIK-NET      [KV14]\n      D 132.28.rrr.rrr                     AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      D 132.29.rrr.rrr                     IZMIR             [BPW1]\n      D 132.30.rrr.rrr                     LAJES             [BPW1]\n      D 132.31.rrr.rrr                     LORING-NET        [\nTTO\n]\n      D 132.32.rrr.rrr                     MINOT             [BPW1]\n      D 132.33.rrr.rrr                     TRAVIS            [RB536]\n      D 132.34.rrr.rrr                     CANNON            [BPW1]\n      D 132.35.rrr.rrr                     ALTUS             [BPW1]\n      D 132.36.rrr.rrr                     EAKER             [BPW1]\n      D 132.37.rrr.rrr                     CARSWELL          [BPW1]\n      D 132.38.rrr.rrr                     AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      D 132.39.rrr.rrr                     KISAWYER          [BPW1]\n      D 132.40.rrr.rrr                     MOODY-NET         [BG56]\n      D 132.41.rrr.rrr                     AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      D 132.42.rrr.rrr                     SPANGDAHLEM       [BPW1]\n      D 132.43.rrr.rrr                     ZWEIBRUCHEN       [BPW1]\n      D 132.44.rrr.rrr                     GRISSOM           [BPW1]\n      D 132.45.rrr.rrr                     CHANUTE           [BPW1]\n      D 132.46.rrr.rrr                     COLUMBUS          [BPW1]\n      D 132.47.rrr.rrr                     FEWARREN          [BPW1]\n      D 132.48.rrr.rrr                     LAUGHLIN-NET      [JG293]\n      D 132.49.rrr.rrr                     MTNHOME           [BPW1]\n      D 132.50.rrr.rrr                     REESE             [BPW1]\n      D 132.51.rrr.rrr                     AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      D 132.52.rrr.rrr                     VANCE             [BPW1]\n      D 132.53.rrr.rrr                     AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      D 132.54.rrr.rrr                     ZARAGOZA          [BPW1]\n      D 132.55.rrr.rrr                     TORREJON          [BPW1]\n      D 132.56.rrr.rrr                     BEALE             [BPW1]\n      D 132.57.rrr.rrr                     CASTLE            [BPW1]\n      D 132.58.rrr.rrr                     NELLIS            [BPW1]\n      D 132.59.rrr.rrr                     HOWARD            [BPW1]\n      D 132.60.rrr.rrr                     MAXWELL-NET       [BPW1]\n      D 132.61.rrr.rrr                     OSAN-NET          [TLC28]\n      D 132.62.rrr.rrr                     KIRTLAND2         [BPW1]\n      D 132.63.rrr.rrr                     RANDOLPHMPC       [BPW1]\n      R 132.64.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-HUJI-1       [JM647]\n      R 132.65.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-HUJI-2       [JM647]\n      R 132.66.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-TAU-1        [OC4]\n      R 132.67.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-TAU-2        [OC4]\n      R 132.68.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-TECHNION-1   [GM199]\n      R 132.69.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-TECHNION-2   [GM199]\n      R 132.70.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-BIU-1        [HN7]\n      R 132.71.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-BIU-2        [HN7]\n      R 132.72.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-BGU-1        [SG147]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 28]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 132.73.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-BGU-2        [SG147]\n      R 132.74.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-HAIFA-1      [MS355]\n      R 132.75.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-HAIFA-2      [MS355]\n      R 132.76.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-WIS-1        [BM211]\n      R 132.77.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-WIS-2        [BM211]\n      R 132.78.rrr.rrr                     ILAN-RESRV        [DB35]\n      D 132.79.rrr.rrr                     VAARNG-NET        [CAP5]\n      D 132.80.rrr.rrr-132.143.rrr.rrr     NG Concentrator   [CAP5]\n      D 132.144.rrr.rrr                    RIA-2             [MMJ1]\n      C*132.145.rrr.rrr                    NET-RESOURCES     [JM561]\n      C*132.146.rrr.rrr                    BTRL-PLANET       [RO58]\n      C*132.147.rrr.rrr                    SCO               [KR35]\n      C*132.148.rrr.rrr                    IAS1              [ND22]\n      R*132.149.rrr.rrr                    CNES              [MP138]\n      G*132.150.rrr.rrr                    STAMNETT          [GG110]\n      R 132.151.rrr.rrr                    NRI-NET           [DKE2]\n      C*132.152.rrr.rrr                    GF                [CN33]\n      G*132.153.rrr.rrr                    AWE-SWAN          [RS409]\n      R 132.154.rrr.rrr                    ROCKWELL-AI       [BMW7]\n      C*132.155.rrr.rrr                    NESTE-NET         [HP44]\n      G*132.156.rrr.rrr                    EMRNET            [DB317]\n      C*132.157.rrr.rrr                    PORTAL-NET        [MR159]\n      C 132.158.rrr.rrr                    HARRIS-SEMI       [JB544]\n      D 132.159.rrr.rrr                    FTLEENET          [TWH19]\n      G 132.160.rrr.rrr                    PACCOM            [TN11]\n      R*132.161.rrr.rrr                    GRIN              [TM169]\n      R 132.162.rrr.rrr                    OBERLIN           [BH161]\n      G 132.163.rrr.rrr                    BLDRDOC           [FMM11]\n      D*132.164.rrr.rrr                    B2TSN             [\nSM197\n]\n      R*132.165.rrr.rrr                    CEA-SIEGE         [JP254]\n      R*132.166.rrr.rrr                    CEA-SACLAY        [JD16]\n      R*132.167.rrr.rrr                    CEA-FONTENAY      [JD16]\n      R*132.168.rrr.rrr                    CEA-GRENOBLE      [GB167]\n      R*132.169.rrr.rrr                    CEA-CADARACH      [DC257]\n      R 132.170.rrr.rrr                    UCF               [WTE4]\n      G*132.171.rrr.rrr                    IVOWAN            [TT69]\n      C*132.172.rrr.rrr                    HANDS             [JRA26]\n      D*132.173.rrr.rrr                    CWATCHNET         [GK44]\n      R 132.174.rrr.rrr                    OCLC              [TT70]\n      R 132.175.rrr.rrr                    SNLA-NET          [AB161]\n      R 132.176.rrr.rrr                    FERNUNI-NET       [CR24]\n      R 132.177.rrr.rrr                    UNH               [BR104]\n      R 132.178.rrr.rrr                    IDBSU             [MU7]\n      C*132.179.rrr.rrr                    TPMA-NET          [TS160]\n      R*132.180.rrr.rrr                    UNIBT-LAN         [HT40]\n      R 132.181.rrr.rrr                    CANTERBURY        [BNL1]\n      R*132.182.rrr.rrr                    MEINET            [JY33]\n      R 132.183.rrr.rrr                    MGH-ETHER         [DM75]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 29]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*132.184.rrr.rrr                    UNX-DEC-NET       [AK75]\n      C*132.185.rrr.rrr                    BBC               [BB231]\n      C 132.186.rrr.rrr                    PYRAMIDOZ         [BK78]\n      R*132.187.rrr.rrr                    UNIWUE-LAN        [MR160]\n      C*132.188.rrr.rrr                    AUTODESK          [DOR]\n      C*132.189.rrr.rrr                    LILLYNET          [FDC2]\n      C*132.190.rrr.rrr                    VARIAN-NET        [DM313]\n      G*132.191.rrr.rrr                    DOERLNET2         [DES41]\n      R 132.192.rrr.rrr                    UTMEM-NET         [EB108]\n      D 132.193.rrr.rrr                    ARO-NET           [BF81]\n      R 132.194.rrr.rrr                    CUDENVER          [RH286]\n      R*132.195.rrr.rrr                    WUPPERNET         [CK96]\n      C*132.196.rrr.rrr                    EUANET            [BO26]\n      R 132.197.rrr.rrr                    GTEL              [MM334]\n      R 132.198.rrr.rrr                    UVM-NET           [GAB36]\n      R*132.199.rrr.rrr                    UNIR-LAN          [KW8]\n      G*132.200.rrr.rrr                    FRB               [RPD5]\n      C 132.201.rrr.rrr                    SBC               [KS133]\n      R 132.202.rrr.rrr                    RISQ              [MV38]\n      R 132.203.rrr.rrr                    ULAVAL            [JG299]\n      R 132.204.rrr.rrr                    UMONTREAL         [RD187]\n      R 132.205.rrr.rrr                    CONCORDIA         [FM83]\n      R 132.206.rrr.rrr                    MCGILL-CA         [CRC9]\n      R 132.207.rrr.rrr                    POLYTECHCA        [JPD]\n      R 132.208.rrr.rrr                    UQAM              [PC138]\n      R 132.209.rrr.rrr-132.221.rrr.rrr    Quebec Research   [MV38]\n      C*132.222.rrr.rrr                    NTT-CAE           [TN40]\n      C*132.223.rrr.rrr                    GENRAD-NET        [RT148]\n      D*132.224.rrr.rrr                    BOE-AS-NET        [GK44]\n      R*132.225.rrr.rrr                    AECL-RCNET        [JP262]\n      R 132.226.rrr.rrr                    ALCOA-NET         [JOG]\n      R 132.227.rrr.rrr                    IBP-NET           [JC414]\n      C 132.228.rrr.rrr                    GRUMMAN           [MT105]\n      R*132.229.rrr.rrr                    RUL-NL            [SL60]\n      R 132.230.rrr.rrr                    FDN               [MW171]\n      R*132.231.rrr.rrr                    PASSAU-LAN        [AK76]\n      C*132.232.rrr.rrr                    BISMACNET         [MAJ14]\n      C*132.233.rrr.rrr                    FM-CIS            [BW142]\n      R 132.234.rrr.rrr                    GUNET             [GW117]\n      R 132.235.rrr.rrr                    OHIOU-NET         [JT149]\n      R 132.236.rrr.rrr                    NYSAES            [BBJ2]\n      C*132.237.rrr.rrr                    WYSE              [BR106]\n      R 132.238.rrr.rrr                    FDUNET            [NMS5]\n      R 132.239.rrr.rrr                    UCSD-SUBNETS      [BK29]\n      C*132.240.rrr.rrr                    VITALINK          [FB77]\n      R 132.241.rrr.rrr                    CSUCHICO          [PT55]\n      C*132.242.rrr.rrr                    NCR-EM-SD         [JS511]\n      C 132.243.rrr.rrr                    NCRWIN            [LL115]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 30]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*132.244.rrr.rrr                    ROLLS-ROYCE       [CH181]\n      C 132.245.rrr.rrr                    XYLOGICS          [JRL3]\n      R 132.246.rrr.rrr                    NRC               [LB164]\n      R 132.247.rrr.rrr                    RAM               [MA105]\n      R 132.248.rrr.rrr                    REDUNAM           [MA105]\n      R 132.249.rrr.rrr                    SDSCLAN           [GKN1]\n      D 132.250.rrr.rrr                    NRL-NETS          [WF3]\n      R 132.251.rrr.rrr                    ISTS              [EC43]\n      R*132.252.rrr.rrr                    UEGNET            [DN71]\n      C*132.253.rrr.rrr                    RASNA             [TJT1]\n      R 132.254.rrr.rrr                    ITESM-MEXICO      [SZ21]\n        132.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [NIC]\n        133.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [NIC]\n      R 133.1.rrr.rrr                      OSAKAU-NET        [JM292]\n      R 133.2.rrr.rrr                      AGUNET            [JM292]\n      R*133.3.rrr.rrr                      JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.4.rrr.rrr                      WIDE-BB           [JM292]\n      R 133.5.rrr.rrr                      KITE              [JM292]\n      R 133.6.rrr.rrr                      NICE              [JM292]\n      R*133.7.rrr.rrr-133.10.rrr.rrr       JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.11.rrr.rrr                     UTSNET            [JM292]\n      R*133.12.rrr.rrr-133.17.rrr.rrr      JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.18.rrr.rrr                     JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R*133.19.rrr.rrr-133.26.rrr.rrr      JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.27.rrr.rrr                     JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R*133.28.rrr.rrr-133.38.rrr.rrr      JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.39.rrr.rrr                     JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.40.rrr.rrr                     JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R*133.41.rrr.rrr-133.46.rrr.rrr      JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.47.rrr.rrr                     JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R*133.48.rrr.rrr-133.54.rrr.rrr      JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.55.rrr.rrr                     JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.56.rrr.rrr                     JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R*133.57.rrr.rrr-133.136.rrr.rrr     JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.137.rrr.rrr                    JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.138.rrr.rrr                    JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.139.rrr.rrr                    JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R*133.140.rrr.rrr-133.152.rrr.rrr    JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 133.153.rrr.rrr                    JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R*133.154.rrr.rrr-133.254.rrr.rrr    JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n        133.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [JBP]\n        134.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [JBP]\n      R*134.1.rrr.rrr                      AWINET            [JMS17]\n      R 134.2.rrr.rrr                      TUENET            [HH68]\n      R 134.3.rrr.rrr                      SSCLAB            [GC118]\n      R 134.4.rrr.rrr                      IPAC-NET          [RE77]\n      C*134.5.rrr.rrr                      LASC              [WM112]\n      C*134.6.rrr.rrr                      MAXTOR            [DP154]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 31]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*134.7.rrr.rrr                      CUT-NET           [YL14]\n      C*134.8.rrr.rrr                      CADINC            [WN19]\n      R 134.9.rrr.rrr                      OCF-NET           [RAF4]\n      R*134.10.rrr.rrr                     REED              [NG48]\n      D 134.11.rrr.rrr                     PENTNET           [RF50]\n      G 134.12.rrr.rrr                     RIACS-B-NET       [MSM1]\n      C*134.13.rrr.rrr                     CRF               [DJD30]\n      C*134.14.rrr.rrr                     CRG               [DJD30]\n      C*134.15.rrr.rrr                     CRJ               [DJD30]\n      C*134.16.rrr.rrr                     CRUK              [DJD30]\n      R 134.17.rrr.rrr                     BAY-PR-NET        [MSM1]\n      R 134.18.rrr.rrr                     BHP-IP-NET        [IH15]\n      C*134.19.rrr.rrr                     ILAN              [SS253]\n      G 134.20.rrr.rrr                     INEL              [AKP]\n      R 134.21.rrr.rrr                     UNIFR-ETHER1      [MB262]\n      R 134.22.rrr.rrr                     GANDALF-NET       [ML163]\n      C*134.23.rrr.rrr                     MIZARB            [MCL9]\n      R 134.24.rrr.rrr                     CERFNET           [SMA9]\n      C*134.25.rrr.rrr                     RIKSRADION        [KB32]\n      C*134.26.rrr.rrr                     MERCK             [DC272]\n      C*134.27.rrr.rrr                     VLSI              [CG107]\n      R*134.28.rrr.rrr                     TUHH              [PW83]\n      R 134.29.rrr.rrr                     MSUS-NET          [DK142]\n      R*134.30.rrr.rrr                     HMI               [DW212]\n      C*134.31.rrr.rrr                     BOE-CANADA        [GK44]\n      C*134.32.rrr.rrr                     SCR               [SB205]\n      C*134.33.rrr.rrr                     CODEX-CORP        [LB190]\n      R 134.34.rrr.rrr                     KISS              [JB462]\n      C*134.35.rrr.rrr                     NAMSI             [JT181]\n      R*134.36.rrr.rrr                     DUNDEE-UNIV       [MW176]\n      C*134.37.rrr.rrr-134.46.rrr.rrr      Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      G*134.47.rrr.rrr                     NORTELE           [\nAT79\n]\n      R 134.48.rrr.rrr                     MARQUENET         [SG68]\n      C*134.49.rrr.rrr                     AHA               [ES144]\n      R 134.50.rrr.rrr                     ISU-NET           [\nBH167\n]\n      D*134.51.rrr.rrr                     BOE-MIL           [GK44]\n      G*134.52.rrr.rrr                     BOE-GIS           [GK44]\n      R 134.53.rrr.rrr                     MUOHIO            [JW335]\n      C*134.54.rrr.rrr                     CAMEX             [PM155]\n      G 134.55.rrr.rrr                     ESNET             [AT80]\n      C*134.56.rrr.rrr                     NET               [RP210]\n      C 134.57.rrr.rrr                     ROCKWELL-RKD      [CH191]\n      R*134.58.rrr.rrr                     KULNET            [SB206]\n      R*134.59.rrr.rrr                     ARCHIPEL          [MB32]\n      R 134.60.rrr.rrr                     UDN               [WH2]\n      R*134.61.rrr.rrr                     RWTHPHYS          [CK2]\n      R 134.62.rrr.rrr                     TEKTRONIX1        [MJE]\n      R 134.63.rrr.rrr                     TEKTRONIX2        [MJE]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 32]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 134.64.rrr.rrr                     TEKTRONIX3        [MJE]\n        134.65.rrr.rrr-134.67.rrr.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 134.68.rrr.rrr                     IUPUI-NET         [DJ24]\n      R 134.69.rrr.rrr                     OXY-NET           [PH73]\n      C*134.70.rrr.rrr                     DESKTALK          [DJK13]\n      R 134.71.rrr.rrr                     CSUPOM            [GCF7]\n      D*134.72.rrr.rrr                     BOE-KSC-NET       [GK44]\n      C*134.73.rrr.rrr                     EHS-NET           [LN1]\n      R 134.74.rrr.rrr                     CITYCOLLEGE       [CPK3]\n      R 134.75.rrr.rrr                     KREONET           [OHB]\n      R*134.76.rrr.rrr                     GWDG              [WJM1]\n      C*134.77.rrr.rrr                     NORTHROP-B2       [DZ]\n      D 134.78.rrr.rrr                     AVTROS-NET        [CAD10]\n      R 134.79.rrr.rrr                     SU-SLAC           [JH40]\n      D 134.80.rrr.rrr                     MONMOUTH-1        [GS12]\n      R*134.81.rrr.rrr                     HOENET            [RL202]\n      R*134.82.rrr.rrr                     BUCKNELL          [GJS13]\n      R*134.83.rrr.rrr                     BRUNEL-NET        [NB39]\n      R*134.84.rrr.rrr                     UMN-GWNET         [CAF13]\n      C 134.85.rrr.rrr                     AMERITECH         [JFG21]\n      C*134.86.rrr.rrr                     SCS               [KM131]\n      R 134.87.rrr.rrr                     BCNET-2           [DO26]\n      R*134.88.rrr.rrr                     SEMASSU-NET       [NJ]\n      R 134.89.rrr.rrr                     MBARI             [HW56]\n      C*134.90.rrr.rrr                     OLY-NET           [JLP6]\n      R*134.91.rrr.rrr                     UNIDUI-LAN        [GS101]\n        134.92.rrr.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*134.93.rrr.rrr                     UNI-MAINZ         [FN]\n        134.94.rrr.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 134.95.rrr.rrr                     UNI-KOELN         [CK113]\n      R*134.96.rrr.rrr                     UNISB-LAN         [PK32]\n      R*134.97.rrr.rrr                     TST-HH-LAN        [HK29]\n      C*134.98.rrr.rrr                     PCS-NET           [RW24]\n        134.99.rrr.rrr-134.110.rrr.rrr     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C 134.111.rrr.rrr                    STRATUS-NET       [WPC]\n      C 134.112.rrr.rrr                    STRATUS-TSTB      [WPC]\n      G*134.113.rrr.rrr                    IMF               [SM10]\n      R 134.114.rrr.rrr                    NAU-NET           [PB1]\n      R 134.115.rrr.rrr                    MURDOCH-UNIV      [RM256]\n      R 134.116.rrr.rrr                    MMLAB             [BK88]\n      R 134.117.rrr.rrr                    CARLETON1         [\nJS535\n]\n      G 134.118.rrr.rrr                    JSCFMNET          [EH97]\n      R*134.119.rrr.rrr                    FUNN              [ST22]\n      C*134.120.rrr.rrr                    GENDYNSD          [FAC2]\n      R 134.121.rrr.rrr                    WSUNET            [RW211]\n      C*134.122.rrr.rrr                    PHOENIX           [RS95]\n      G*134.123.rrr.rrr                    OIANET            [SH33]\n      R 134.124.rrr.rrr                    MORNETS           [DVL1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 33]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 134.125.rrr.rrr                    TWDB              [TH28]\n      R 134.126.rrr.rrr                    JMU               [\nCM50\n]\n      C*134.127.rrr.rrr                    SSDS              [RS49]\n      C*134.128.rrr.rrr                    CYBER-INC         [ST23]\n      R 134.129.rrr.rrr                    NODAK             [TW8]\n      R*134.130.rrr.rrr                    ACHSE             [GS199]\n      D 134.131.rrr.rrr                    WPAFB-AVLAB       [DRY2]\n      R 134.132.rrr.rrr                    LGC-NET           [JA175]\n      C*134.133.rrr.rrr                    COMSAT            [AK78]\n      C*134.134.rrr.rrr                    BIIN-NET          [HH64]\n      D 134.135.rrr.rrr                    GDSS-NET          [RWH29]\n      D 134.136.rrr.rrr                    WPAFB-ASD-NET     [SF76]\n      D*134.137.rrr.rrr                    AEDC-CFD          [JM627]\n      C*134.138.rrr.rrr                    EUANET-2          [BO26]\n      R 134.139.rrr.rrr                    CSULB-IP          [NVT]\n      R 134.140.rrr.rrr                    SIMMONS           [EP70]\n      C 134.141.rrr.rrr                    CABLETRON         [PWB12]\n      C*134.142.rrr.rrr-134.146.rrr.rrr    SHELL-NETS        [FJS2]\n      R*134.147.rrr.rrr                    RUB-INET          [JK213]\n      R 134.148.rrr.rrr                    UNINEWCASTLE      [DM232]\n      R 134.149.rrr.rrr                    APPLE-CAMB        [EF16]\n      C*134.150.rrr.rrr                    NTTNDSTL          [HB7]\n      R*134.151.rrr.rrr                    ASTON             [PF64]\n      D 134.152.rrr.rrr                    OSD-NET           [WSW11]\n      R*134.153.rrr.rrr                    NFRN              [\nDJ104\n]\n      R 134.154.rrr.rrr                    CSUHAYWARD        [CDS28]\n      R 134.155.rrr.rrr                    RUMEL             [RW112]\n      C*134.156.rrr.rrr                    MINN-POWER        [KJ4]\n      R*134.157.rrr.rrr                    UPMC-NET          [MTC]\n      R*134.158.rrr.rrr                    PHYNET            [NG15]\n      R 134.159.rrr.rrr                    OTC               [MH233]\n      R 134.160.rrr.rrr                    RIKEN-NET         [TS158]\n      R 134.161.rrr.rrr                    UNI-NET           [SYM2]\n      C*134.162.rrr.rrr                    SHELL1-NET        [DGA]\n      C*134.163.rrr.rrr                    SHELL2-NET        [DGA]\n      D 134.164.rrr.rrr                    USAEWESNET        [SAA]\n      R 134.165.rrr.rrr                    SRIEXPRIGB1       [PEM4]\n        134.166.rrr.rrr-134.167.rrr.rrr    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*134.168.rrr.rrr                    INFORMIX-NET      [RE84]\n      R*134.169.rrr.rrr                    TU-BS Network     [DJS7]\n      C*134.170.rrr.rrr                    NORTELRCH         [JP283]\n      R*134.171.rrr.rrr                    ESO-NET           [RH315]\n      R 134.172.rrr.rrr                    IGNET             [EL30]\n      R 134.173.rrr.rrr                    CLAREMONT         [NF13]\n      R 134.174.rrr.rrr                    LMANET            [SB28]\n      C*134.175.rrr.rrr                    AII-NET           [SAJ1]\n      R*134.176.rrr.rrr                    UNIGI-NET         [KA14]\n      C 134.177.rrr.rrr                    SYNOPT-NET        [SCB12]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 34]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nG 134.178.rrr.rrr                    MET-AUST-NET      [BT65]\n      G*134.179.rrr.rrr                    NYSDEC-NET        [FM85]\n      R*134.180.rrr.rrr                    SANYO             [HT44]\n      R*134.181.rrr.rrr                    BATES-NET         [RS348]\n      R*134.182.rrr.rrr                    ORION             [WJS1]\n      C*134.183.rrr.rrr                    TI-EUROPE         [JT185]\n      R*134.184.rrr.rrr                    VUB               [EB129]\n      C 134.185.rrr.rrr                    KODAK-BTC         [HC66]\n      G 134.186.rrr.rrr                    TDCNET            [JS550]\n      G*134.187.rrr.rrr                    TEALE             [JS550]\n      R*134.188.rrr.rrr                    OCE-RD-NL         [MB273]\n      D*134.189.rrr.rrr                    GDFW              [BMV]\n        134.190.rrr.rrr-134.191.rrr.rrr    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 134.192.rrr.rrr                    UMAB-NET          [LAM1]\n      R 134.193.rrr.rrr                    UMKC              [BA71]\n      D 134.194.rrr.rrr                    CSTANET           [MH74]\n      C 134.195.rrr.rrr                    CRAYCOS           [BW157]\n      C*134.196.rrr.rrr                    TIMEPLEX-NET      [GP117]\n      R 134.197.rrr.rrr                    UNR-DOM           [MLC34]\n      R 134.198.rrr.rrr                    UOFSCRANTON       [WFG4]\n      C*134.199.rrr.rrr                    MITEL             [DF149]\n      C*134.200.rrr.rrr                    GOODYEAR          [LJE3]\n      G*134.201.rrr.rrr                    LADWP             [BLW2]\n      R 134.202.rrr.rrr                    UPRRNET           [JN12]\n      D*134.203.rrr.rrr                    TNO-HDO-LTD       [RVDA]\n      C*134.204.rrr.rrr                    SEAGATE           [FD44]\n      G 134.205.rrr.rrr                    HQUSAF-LAN        [BP32]\n      R*134.206.rrr.rrr                    LILNET            [GT67]\n      D 134.207.rrr.rrr                    NRL-EXP           [JTS3]\n      R*134.208.rrr.rrr                    ACANET-TWN        [HL65]\n      C*134.209.rrr.rrr                    NELLCOR           [KG12]\n      R*134.210.rrr.rrr                    STOCKTON          [HM80]\n      C 134.211.rrr.rrr                    BULL              [SG146]\n      R*134.212.rrr.rrr                    ONECERT           [PC137]\n      C*134.213.rrr.rrr                    NTGALW            [GO1]\n      R*134.214.rrr.rrr                    ROCAD             [GR85]\n      C*134.215.rrr.rrr                    TDS               [TH131]\n      C*134.216.rrr.rrr                    GULFAERO          [HB14]\n      C*134.217.rrr.rrr                    BECKMAN-DSG       [PA32]\n      G 134.218.rrr.rrr                    SNL-NETA          [AB161]\n      R*134.219.rrr.rrr                    RHBNC             [AM154]\n      R*134.220.rrr.rrr                    WOLVES            [MC280]\n      R*134.221.rrr.rrr                    TNO-NET           [OM1]\n      R*134.222.rrr.rrr                    EUNET-X25         [PB13]\n      C 134.223.rrr.rrr                    GRUMMANLAN        [CPK3]\n      R*134.224.rrr.rrr                    ACNET             [GB184]\n      R*134.225.rrr.rrr                    RDG-UNIV-UK       [AIM4]\n      R*134.226.rrr.rrr                    TCD-NET           [KG16]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 35]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*134.227.rrr.rrr                    CAM-CNCA          [FB15]\n      C 134.228.rrr.rrr                    SSA-NET           [WJL17]\n      D 134.229.rrr.rrr                    CONCGY-PENS1      [DG163]\n      D 134.230.rrr.rrr                    CONCGY-PENS2      [DG163]\n      R 134.231.rrr.rrr                    GALLAUDET         [DVT]\n      D*134.232.rrr.rrr                    USAREUR           [AH124]\n      D*134.233.rrr.rrr                    TAACOM            [AH124]\n      D*134.234.rrr.rrr                    SETAF             [AH124]\n      D 134.235.rrr.rrr                    WORMS-GW1         [SAS49]\n      R 134.236.rrr.rrr                    LAKE-IPNET        [SGM4]\n      C*134.237.rrr.rrr                    YASKAWA           [MK162]\n      C*134.238.rrr.rrr                    FEDMOGUL-PSN      [TGC1]\n      C*134.239.rrr.rrr                    ICI-CP-NE-RT      [MDF13]\n      D 134.240.rrr.rrr                    USMANET-DDN       [PJM24]\n      R*134.241.rrr.rrr                    HECNET            [PC143]\n      C*134.242.rrr.rrr                    NCUBE-NET         [DR212]\n      R*134.243.rrr.rrr                    CAS               [CB217]\n      C*134.244.rrr.rrr                    MDCME             [JA184]\n      R*134.245.rrr.rrr                    UNI-KIEL          [PW98]\n      R*134.246.rrr.rrr                    IFREMER           [AI2]\n      C*134.247.rrr.rrr                    MUNAIR            [HH71]\n      C*134.248.rrr.rrr                    UNOCAL            [GC138]\n      G*134.249.rrr.rrr                    USDA-AMS          [BG101]\n      R 134.250.rrr.rrr                    SUSCNET           [CW159]\n      C*134.251.rrr.rrr                    GCS               [BB267]\n      G 134.252.rrr.rrr                    SNL-NETC          [AB161]\n      G 134.253.rrr.rrr                    SNL-NETB          [AB161]\n      D 134.254.rrr.rrr                    CONCGWAY-NOLA1    [DG163]\n        134.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*135.0.rrr.rrr-135.255.rrr.rrr      AT&T              [GFW6]\n        136.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*136.1.rrr.rrr-136.140.rrr.rrr      FORD-INTERNET     [FJB3]\n      C*136.141.rrr.rrr                    ROHNET            [JAD16]\n      R 136.142.rrr.rrr                    PITT-SUBNET       [DS247]\n      C*136.143.rrr.rrr                    COASTAL           [SM214]\n      R 136.144.rrr.rrr                    MILLIKIN-NET      [JK228]\n      R 136.145.rrr.rrr                    CUN               [JM476]\n      R*136.146.rrr.rrr                    NTC-MATH          [WD58]\n      R*136.147.rrr.rrr                    NTC-GLOBAL        [JD282]\n      R*136.148.rrr.rrr                    SBANK-POLY        [DC298]\n      D 136.149.rrr.rrr                    AFMPC-LAN         [RLR4]\n      R*136.150.rrr.rrr                    SUNYNET           [\nTP91\n]\n        136.151.rrr.rrr-136.155.rrr.rrr    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*136.156.rrr.rrr                    EURO-MET-NET      [DD223]\n      C*136.157.rrr.rrr                    NIXDORF-NET       [GRZ1]\n      C*136.158.rrr.rrr                    SAGA-NETTVERK     [LJV4]\n      R 136.159.rrr.rrr                    U-CALGARY         [RK168]\n      R 136.160.rrr.rrr                    COMBNET           [LAM1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 36]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 136.161.rrr.rrr                    PSINET1           [CPK3]\n      C*136.162.rrr.rrr                    FPSNET            [DLS20]\n      C*136.163.rrr.rrr                    SAAB-SCANIA       [POJ]\n      C*136.164.rrr.rrr                    HYDRO-NET         [SO42]\n      R*136.165.rrr.rrr                    LOUISVILLE        [DJ115]\n      C*136.166.rrr.rrr                    ZENITHNET         [AB128]\n      R 136.167.rrr.rrr                    BC-NET            [BW164]\n      R 136.168.rrr.rrr                    CSUBNET-IP        [DZ17]\n      R 136.169.rrr.rrr                    SACAENET          [IM33]\n      C*136.170.rrr.rrr                    ACORN             [AI4]\n      C*136.171.rrr.rrr                    CHEVRONLH         [AD106]\n      R*136.172.rrr.rrr                    DKRZ-NET          [GH39]\n      G*136.173.rrr.rrr                    EP-PE-NET         [PHK]\n      G*136.174.rrr.rrr                    PINELLAS          [MAG13]\n      C*136.175.rrr.rrr                    TELESOFT          [JSG2]\n      R 136.176.rrr.rrr                    BRADLEY-NET       [LH124]\n      R 136.177.rrr.rrr                    GEO               [THL3]\n      G 136.178.rrr.rrr                    NASA-RIG-NET      [JM663]\n      C*136.179.rrr.rrr                    NORANDS           [LLZ1]\n      D*136.180.rrr.rrr                    GDLS              [BT78]\n      G*136.181.rrr.rrr                    MICHTRANS-NET     [KJK4]\n      C 136.182.rrr.rrr                    MOT-CELL-NET      [SC193]\n      E*136.183.rrr.rrr                    SUCBUFFALO        [JS583]\n      C*136.184.rrr.rrr                    LIBERTY           [JGG23]\n      C*136.185.rrr.rrr                    AMPEX             [MW196]\n      R*136.186.rrr.rrr                    SWINBURNE         [BT65]\n      R*136.187.rrr.rrr                    NACSIS-NET        [JA180]\n      D 136.188.rrr.rrr-136.197.rrr.rrr    DODIIS            [JV7]\n      R*136.198.rrr.rrr                    JVC               [KS154]\n      R*136.199.rrr.rrr                    UNI-TRIER         [HS116]\n      G 136.200.rrr.rrr                    DWR-NET           [JK233]\n      R*136.201.rrr.rrr                    PARK-NET          [CC252]\n      D*136.202.rrr.rrr                    BOE-REN-NET       [GK44]\n      D*136.203.rrr.rrr                    BOE-AUB-NET       [GK44]\n      R*136.204.rrr.rrr                    SUC-MORRIS        [CB222]\n      D 136.205.rrr.rrr                    REDSTONE-NET      [RT64]\n      R*136.206.rrr.rrr                    DCU-NET           [MC293]\n      D 136.207.rrr.rrr                    WUERZBURG-GW1     [LT75]\n      D 136.208.rrr.rrr                    ASCHAFFENBURG-GW1 [GP129]\n      D 136.209.rrr.rrr                    ANSBACH-GW1       [JS573]\n      D 136.210.rrr.rrr                    AUGSBURG-GW1      [LW137]\n      D 136.211.rrr.rrr                    BURTONWOOD-GW1    [LW138]\n      D 136.212.rrr.rrr                    GEOPPINGEN-GW1    [PO2]\n      D 136.213.rrr.rrr                    GRAFENWOEHR-GW1   [SD131]\n      D 136.214.rrr.rrr                    HEIDELBERG-GW1    [AH130]\n      D 136.215.rrr.rrr                    HEILBRONN-GW1     [MG205]\n      D 136.216.rrr.rrr                    KARLSRUHE-GW1     [OT5]\n      D 136.217.rrr.rrr                    MUNICH-GW1        [RJ127]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 37]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 136.218.rrr.rrr                    NUERNBERG-GW1     [SJ65]\n      D 136.219.rrr.rrr                    ULM-GW1           [ML193]\n      D 136.220.rrr.rrr                    SCHWEINFURT-GW1   [WN2]\n      D 136.221.rrr.rrr                    STUTTGART-GW1     [CJC31]\n      D 136.222.rrr.rrr                    BAMBERG-GW1       [DS335]\n      R*136.223.rrr.rrr                    SUC-CERAMICS      [KH128]\n      R*136.224.rrr.rrr                    SUC-TECH-ALF      [TD103]\n      C*136.225.rrr.rrr                    ECN               [BC173]\n      C*136.226.rrr.rrr                    AAI               [TB164]\n      R 136.227.rrr.rrr                    WITTENBERG        [JS591]\n      C*136.228.rrr.rrr                    ALLIANT           [RR77]\n      R 136.229.rrr.rrr                    MMM-GOVT          [BR79]\n      C*136.230.rrr.rrr-136.239.rrr.rrr    Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      C*136.240.rrr.rrr-136.241.rrr.rrr    BOEING-NETS       [GK44]\n      R 136.242.rrr.rrr                    CUAS              [ECM6]\n      C*136.243.rrr.rrr                    SUB-NET           [CS218]\n      R*136.244.rrr.rrr                    CONNCOLLS         [SBB9]\n      G*136.245.rrr.rrr                    ROSEVILLE         [MA119]\n      C 136.246.rrr.rrr                    UCINET            [DA124]\n      R 136.247.rrr.rrr                    MCO               [CLV7]\n      C*136.248.rrr.rrr                    GCA               [LB189]\n      C*136.249.rrr.rrr-136.254.rrr.rrr    HGSNETS           [LH2]\n        136.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [JBP]\n        137.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [JBP]\n      D 137.1.rrr.rrr                      WHITEMAN          [BPW1]\n      D 137.2.rrr.rrr                      GEORGE            [BPW1]\n      D 137.3.rrr.rrr                      LITTLEROCK        [BPW1]\n      D 137.4.rrr.rrr                      CHARLESTON        [AMF2]\n      D 137.5.rrr.rrr-137.14.rrr.rrr       AF Concentrator   [BPW1]\n      G*137.15.rrr.rrr                     METROCMA          [LS224]\n      C*137.16.rrr.rrr                     HI-CFS            [TS193]\n      R*137.17.rrr.rrr                     NLRNET            [FV13]\n      G*137.18.rrr.rrr                     HOUSE             [JS592]\n      C*137.19.rrr.rrr                     ALLIED            [WJL2]\n      C*137.20.rrr.rrr                     PSEG              [JFS37]\n      R*137.21.rrr.rrr                     SUCBROCKPORT      [DS382]\n      R 137.22.rrr.rrr                     CARLETONS         [SB201]\n      C 137.23.rrr.rrr                     MOT-COMM-NET      [SC193]\n      D 137.24.rrr.rrr                     NSWSES-NET        [MJJ1]\n      C*137.25.rrr.rrr-137.27.rrr.rrr      REYNOLDS          [LW134]\n      R 137.28.rrr.rrr                     UWEC              [VS58]\n      D 137.29.rrr.rrr                     BRAGG-MAN         [TN5]\n      R*137.30.rrr.rrr                     UNO-NET-BIG       [DES43]\n      R*137.31.rrr.rrr                     WALLACELABS       [DC304]\n      C*137.32.rrr.rrr                     GDFW-NET          [BSP6]\n      C*137.33.rrr.rrr                     KEMIRA            [EM128]\n      C*137.34.rrr.rrr                     FIRST-BOSTON      [JRF21]\n      C*137.35.rrr.rrr                     MONSANTO          [KNC]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 38]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*137.36.rrr.rrr                     SUC-COBLE         [RH337]\n      R*137.37.rrr.rrr                     SUC-TECH-CAN      [RH336]\n      C*137.38.rrr.rrr                     CRAY-CF           [DJD30]\n      R 137.39.rrr.rrr                     UUNET-WAN         [AP25]\n      R*137.40.rrr.rrr                     MEINET-US         [JY33]\n      C 137.41.rrr.rrr                     MMCSUBNETS        [DR137]\n      C*137.42.rrr.rrr                     SSI               [JO94]\n      R*137.43.rrr.rrr                     UCD               [TW112]\n      R*137.44.rrr.rrr                     SWANSEA           [TO32]\n      R 137.45.rrr.rrr                     RU-NET            [JS593]\n      C 137.46.rrr.rrr                     ISC-INTEL         [BE46]\n      C*137.47.rrr.rrr                     STAVAFT           [OA4]\n      R 137.48.rrr.rrr                     UNOMAHA           [DH309]\n      R 137.49.rrr.rrr                     HARTFORD          [CPK3]\n        137.50.rrr.rrr-137.51.rrr.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 137.52.rrr.rrr                     NOVANET           [JPO4]\n      R*137.53.rrr.rrr                     OHSU              [MB307]\n      R 137.54.rrr.rrr                     VERNET            [JAJ17]\n      C*137.55.rrr.rrr                     PHILIPS           [MS378]\n        137.56.rrr.rrr-137.64.rrr.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 137.65.rrr.rrr                     NOVELL-NET        [JC481]\n      R 137.66.rrr.rrr                     MN-SUPER-NET      [MKS17]\n      D 137.67.rrr.rrr                     CORONA-GW         [MGR2]\n      R 137.68.rrr.rrr                     PAGODA            [JEA18]\n      C*137.69.rrr.rrr                     LEGATO-NET        [\nBN4\n]\n      G*137.70.rrr.rrr                     HCG               [MK132]\n      C*137.71.rrr.rrr                     ANALOG            [\nRP191\n]\n      C*137.72.rrr.rrr                     NETCOMMAND        [LK66]\n      R*137.73.rrr.rrr                     KCLNET            [JP301]\n      R*137.74.rrr.rrr                     NTC-LACH          [GC146]\n      G 137.75.rrr.rrr                     NOAA-FSL          [FG15]\n      C*137.76.rrr.rrr                     MIDENET           [PH120]\n      G 137.77.rrr.rrr                     RECNET            [JIMWW]\n      G*137.78.rrr.rrr                     JPL-NET2          [JAW16]\n      G*137.79.rrr.rrr                     JPL-OA            [JAW16]\n      D 137.80.rrr.rrr                     USACEC-NET        [LFM5]\n      R 137.81.rrr.rrr                     SUPER-NET         [PM177]\n      R 137.82.rrr.rrr                     UBC               [DM354]\n      C 137.83.rrr.rrr                     GENCORP           [RLR57]\n      R 137.84.rrr.rrr                     WHECN-CC          [MW200]\n      R 137.85.rrr.rrr                     WHECN-CWC         [MW200]\n      R 137.86.rrr.rrr                     WHECN-EWC         [MW200]\n      R 137.87.rrr.rrr                     WHECN-LCCC        [MW200]\n      R 137.88.rrr.rrr                     WHECN-NWC         [MW200]\n      R 137.89.rrr.rrr                     WHECN-SC          [MW200]\n      R 137.90.rrr.rrr                     WHECN-WWC         [MW200]\n      C*137.91.rrr.rrr                     APS               [RJH66]\n      R*137.92.rrr.rrr                     CANBERRA-UNI      [RT184]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 39]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*137.93.rrr.rrr                     AALC              [HH77]\n      R*137.94.rrr.rrr                     RMC               [GT73]\n      D 137.95.rrr.rrr                     PATCH-NET         [TTS8]\n      C*137.96.rrr.rrr                     STO-ENERGY        [JL324]\n      C*137.97.rrr.rrr                     GLASGAL           [GMM28]\n      C*137.98.rrr.rrr                     DHLNET            [PSR]\n      R 137.99.rrr.rrr                     UCONN-NET         [JM433]\n      C*137.100.rrr.rrr                    CALSPANATC        [DY28]\n      C*137.101.rrr.rrr                    LOGITEK           [PJV]\n      C*137.102.rrr.rrr                    IWARP-NET         [RLS115]\n      C 137.103.rrr.rrr                    PROSPECT          [JEB84]\n      R 137.104.rrr.rrr                    UWPLATT           [LF70]\n      R*137.105.rrr.rrr                    EDRCNET           [AC154]\n      C*137.106.rrr.rrr                    USRNET-B1         [CC192]\n      C*137.107.rrr.rrr                    USRNET-B2         [CC192]\n      R*137.108.rrr.rrr                    OPEN-UNI          [JS596]\n      C 137.109.rrr.rrr                    LABTAM-NET        [SP116]\n      R 137.110.rrr.rrr                    UCSDMC            [BK29]\n      R 137.111.rrr.rrr                    MACQUARIE         [AVDH1]\n      R*137.112.rrr.rrr                    ROSE-HULMAN       [MM267]\n      R 137.113.rrr.rrr                    WLU               [RWF21]\n      C*137.114.rrr.rrr                    OECO              [JP303]\n      R*137.115.rrr.rrr                    NTC-BVW           [DW239]\n      C*137.116.rrr.rrr                    NTINET-NASH       [RG228]\n      C*137.117.rrr.rrr                    NTINET-RICH       [RG228]\n      C*137.118.rrr.rrr                    NTINET-STMN       [JS598]\n      C*137.119.rrr.rrr                    NTINET-AA         [RD231]\n      R*137.120.rrr.rrr                    MAASNET           [LCVDH]\n      R*137.121.rrr.rrr                    FNET-INRETS       [YK2]\n      R*137.122.rrr.rrr                    UOTTAWA           [JC483]\n      R*137.123.rrr.rrr                    SUC-CORTLAND      [LV6]\n      R*137.124.rrr.rrr                    SUC-TECH-DEL      [DN78]\n      R*137.125.rrr.rrr                    SUC-TECH-FRM      [JA189]\n      D*137.126.rrr.rrr                    USAFMARS          [JHS50]\n      D 137.127.rrr.rrr                    USACAA            [JWB48]\n      D 137.128.rrr.rrr                    TACOM-RDE         [RJ120]\n      G*137.129.rrr.rrr                    METEO-FRANCE      [MG206]\n      D 137.130.rrr.rrr                    JDSSC             [BMW13]\n      R 137.131.rrr.rrr                    SCRIPPSNET-BIG    [SRC16]\n      R*137.132.rrr.rrr                    NUS               [CL134]\n      C*137.133.rrr.rrr                    EBNERA            [RP239]\n      C*137.134.rrr.rrr                    TCS               [RL226]\n      C*137.135.rrr.rrr                    NTMTV             [CY30]\n      D*137.136.rrr.rrr                    BOE-KSCE-NET      [GK44]\n      D*137.137.rrr.rrr                    BOE-SREN-NET      [GK44]\n      R*137.138.rrr.rrr                    CERN-LAN          [TB166]\n      R*137.139.rrr.rrr                    SUC-OLDWEST       [TD104]\n      R*137.140.rrr.rrr                    SUC-NEWPALTZ      [BE47]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 40]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*137.141.rrr.rrr                    SUC-ONEONTA       [EF55]\n      R*137.142.rrr.rrr                    SUC-PLATT         [TD105]\n      R*137.143.rrr.rrr                    SUC-POTSDAM       [DV36]\n      C*137.144.rrr.rrr                    WAII-NET          [MIW]\n      R 137.145.rrr.rrr                    CALINET           [WP8]\n      R 137.146.rrr.rrr                    COLBY             [DWC32]\n      R*137.147.rrr.rrr                    TRLNET            [RL225]\n      R 137.148.rrr.rrr                    CSUOHIO           [AS198]\n      R*137.149.rrr.rrr                    UPEI              [DC307]\n      R 137.150.rrr.rrr                    HSUNET            [CS276]\n      R 137.151.rrr.rrr                    FULNET            [KB129]\n      R 137.152.rrr.rrr                    GCU               [BC176]\n      C*137.153.rrr.rrr                    SONY-ENG-NET      [TU1]\n        137.154.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*137.155.rrr.rrr                    CNC               [SB236]\n      C*137.156.rrr.rrr                    UBS               [MG207]\n      R 137.157.rrr.rrr                    ATOM              [RC306]\n      R*137.158.rrr.rrr                    UCTNET1           [FG51]\n      R*137.159.rrr.rrr                    PEPNET            [JV70]\n      D 137.160.rrr.rrr                    HI-DASD           [TA54]\n        137.161.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C 137.162.rrr.rrr                    MOT-GEG-NET       [SC193]\n        137.163.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      G 137.164.rrr.rrr                    CALREN            [WP8]\n      R 137.165.rrr.rrr                    WILLIAMS-NET      [MM371]\n      R*137.166.rrr.rrr                    CHASTURT-UNI      [PJ40]\n        137.167.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*137.168.rrr.rrr                    HITACH            [SK102]\n      C*137.169.rrr.rrr                    K&E-NET           [JLD42]\n      C*137.170.rrr.rrr                    FNOK              [JFM39]\n      C*137.171.rrr.rrr                    SCI               [MW204]\n      C*137.172.rrr.rrr                    FALNET            [CS277]\n      D*137.173.rrr.rrr                    APOSD             [BD113]\n      C*137.174.rrr.rrr                    EZH-NET           [WS167]\n      C 137.175.rrr.rrr                    MSTAR-NET         [RS487]\n      C*137.176.rrr.rrr-137.185.rrr.rrr    PGXPRESS          [ACL2]\n      C 137.186.rrr.rrr                    NSTN              [JS338]\n      G 137.187.rrr.rrr                    NIH-NETS          [RF57]\n      C*137.188.rrr.rrr                    USWNANET          [JS602]\n      R*137.189.rrr.rrr                    CUHKNET           [CHC7]\n      R 137.190.rrr.rrr                    WEBER-NET         [BC177]\n        137.191.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 137.192.rrr.rrr                    MRNET             [JAW34]\n      R*137.193.rrr.rrr                    UNIBWMNET         [VT7]\n      R*137.194.rrr.rrr                    FNET-ESNET        [PD97]\n      R*137.195.rrr.rrr                    HERIOT-WATT       [JH410]\n      C*137.196.rrr.rrr                    STARDENT          [CC185]\n      R 137.197.rrr.rrr                    UNMC              [MRN6]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 41]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 137.198.rrr.rrr                    HUNET             [TM96]\n      C*137.199.rrr.rrr                    FIDELITYNET       [WRC22]\n      G*137.200.rrr.rrr                    SSA               [TE37]\n      C*137.201.rrr.rrr                    MICRON            [BG112]\n      C*137.202.rrr.rrr                    MENTOR            [MS379]\n      C 137.203.rrr.rrr                    HRINET            [RJB67]\n      R*137.204.rrr.rrr                    BOLOGNA-ALMA-NET  [RD235]\n      R*137.205.rrr.rrr                    WARWICK           [MB310]\n      C*137.206.rrr.rrr                    SHELL-NET         [\nSD134\n]\n      R*137.207.rrr.rrr                    UWINDSORNET       [NP24]\n      R*137.208.rrr.rrr                    WU-WIEN           [AN50]\n      D 137.209.rrr.rrr                    SUMNET1           [AJC5]\n      D 137.210.rrr.rrr                    SUMNET2           [AJC5]\n      D 137.211.rrr.rrr                    SUMNET3           [AJC5]\n      D 137.212.rrr.rrr                    SUMNET            [AJC5]\n      C*137.213.rrr.rrr                    BULLUK            [PM180]\n      R*137.214.rrr.rrr                    UNINET-ZA         [VS59]\n        137.215.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 137.216.rrr.rrr                    SDSTATE           [PH122]\n      C*137.217.rrr.rrr                    BTNETT            [GK91]\n      G*137.218.rrr.rrr                    USBI              [DC310]\n        137.219.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*137.220.rrr.rrr                    BSC               [JB251]\n      C*137.221.rrr.rrr                    GEC-CS-LAN1       [PS216]\n        137.222.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*137.223.rrr.rrr                    SIESOFT           [DM357]\n      R*137.224.rrr.rrr                    WAUNET            [AB171]\n      D 137.225.rrr.rrr                    DFRRS-ECAC        [JS522]\n      R*137.226.rrr.rrr                    ACHSES            [GS199]\n      G*137.227.rrr.rrr                    USBM-CCN          [RW128]\n      R 137.228.rrr.rrr                    SFOCLAN           [JAW16]\n      R 137.229.rrr.rrr                    ALAKANET          [JH306]\n      R 137.230.rrr.rrr                    CATNET            [JWB65]\n      D 137.231.rrr.rrr                    ZWEIBKN-GW1       [GEW13]\n      D 137.232.rrr.rrr                    DIMNET1           [FZ]\n      D 137.233.rrr.rrr                    DIMNET2           [FZ]\n      D 137.234.rrr.rrr                    DIMNET3           [FZ]\n      D 137.235.rrr.rrr                    DIMNET4           [FZ]\n      C*137.236.rrr.rrr                    XSI               [DM335]\n      C 137.237.rrr.rrr                    HARRISNET         [RT182]\n      R*137.238.rrr.rrr                    GENESEO           [SEC2]\n      C*137.239.rrr.rrr                    COMMODORE         [GR53]\n      D 137.240.rrr.rrr                    SMALC-1           [SJ55]\n      D 137.241.rrr.rrr                    OOALC-1           [SJ55]\n      D 137.242.rrr.rrr                    SAALC-1           [SJ55]\n      D 137.243.rrr.rrr                    WRALC-1           [SJ55]\n      D 137.244.rrr.rrr                    OCALC-1           [SJ55]\n      D 137.245.rrr.rrr                    WPAFB-1           [SJ55]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 42]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 137.246.rrr.rrr                    SEBAT             [MM379]\n      D 137.247.rrr.rrr                    CSSNET            [EKO]\n      R*137.248.rrr.rrr                    UNI-MARBURG       [HH84]\n      C 137.249.rrr.rrr                    FAC-COM           [CEB13]\n      R 137.250.rrr.rrr                    AUX               [SS297]\n      R*137.251.rrr.rrr                    FHGIAO-NET        [JW377]\n      C 137.252.rrr.rrr                    POLANET           [DM358]\n        137.253.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C 137.254.rrr.rrr                    ORACLE-BBONET     [AC158]\n        137.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [JBP]\n        138.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [JBP]\n      C 138.1.rrr.rrr                      ORACLE-CHIC       [AC158]\n      C 138.2.rrr.rrr                      ORACLE-BETH       [AC158]\n      C 138.3.rrr.rrr                      ORACLE-UK         [LG115]\n      R*138.4.rrr.rrr                      RUNET             [JAM48]\n        138.5.rrr.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      G*138.6.rrr.rrr                      UPPSALA-SE        [JS603]\n      R*138.7.rrr.rrr                      AIMSNET           [MM406]\n      C*138.8.rrr.rrr                      GOLDSACHS         [JK237]\n      R 138.9.rrr.rrr                      UOP               [DB380]\n      G*138.10.rrr.rrr                     ONTHYD            [RP241]\n      C*138.11.rrr.rrr                     MATROX            [MR198]\n      C*138.12.rrr.rrr                     MEADDATA          [LS226]\n      D 138.13.rrr.rrr                     SSD-NET           [DD38]\n      D*138.14.rrr.rrr                     NOBEL             [RU1]\n      R 138.15.rrr.rrr                     NEC               [AM175]\n      R 138.16.rrr.rrr                     BROWN-UNIV-2      [AD62]\n      D 138.17.rrr.rrr                     ASNET-NETS        [HF35]\n      D 138.18.rrr.rrr                     ASNET-NET         [HF35]\n      G*138.19.rrr.rrr                     GDWB              [WS168]\n      C*138.20.rrr.rrr                     MORGAN-1          [BP123]\n      C*138.21.rrr.rrr                     RENAULT           [EB134]\n      R*138.22.rrr.rrr                     ZAMGNET-WIEN      [GK92]\n      R 138.23.rrr.rrr                     UCRNET            [LM220]\n      R*138.24.rrr.rrr                     IPS-AUSNET        [CB180]\n      R 138.25.rrr.rrr                     UTSNETS           [AB150]\n      R 138.26.rrr.rrr                     UAB               [LM62]\n      D 138.27.rrr.rrr                     HUACHUCA-NET      [LB24]\n      R 138.28.rrr.rrr                     KENYOUN           [SC196]\n      G 138.29.rrr.rrr                     USCGA             [KC105]\n      R 138.30.rrr.rrr                     HQ                [BO34]\n      C*138.31.rrr.rrr                     EPSON-NET         [PN16]\n      C*138.32.rrr.rrr                     PPCO              [PDC1]\n      G*138.33.rrr.rrr                     GMH-NET           [WA32]\n      C*138.34.rrr.rrr                     ETANET            [KS158]\n      C*138.35.rrr.rrr                     CPQINTL           [DD233]\n      D*138.36.rrr.rrr                     MARI-NET          [AB175]\n      R*138.37.rrr.rrr                     QMW               [TJ40]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 43]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*138.38.rrr.rrr                     BATH-AC-UK        [PC153]\n      C*138.39.rrr.rrr                     DELMARVA          [JKS23]\n      R*138.40.rrr.rrr                     UKCITY-NET        [IA52]\n      R*138.41.rrr.rrr                     CS-NET            [GG136]\n      C*138.42.rrr.rrr                     INTERLINK1        [FJD4]\n      C*138.43.rrr.rrr                     NCD               [DM280]\n      C 138.44.rrr.rrr                     CSIRO-BM          [SM164]\n      D 138.45.rrr.rrr                     CACNET            [BG25]\n      C*138.46.rrr.rrr                     PRESTOLITE        [TM128]\n      R*138.47.rrr.rrr                     LATECH            [DRH48]\n      R*138.48.rrr.rrr                     FUNDP-AC-BE       [BD117]\n      R 138.49.rrr.rrr                     UWLAX             [DA128]\n      D 138.50.rrr.rrr                     WIESBADN-GW1      [MW213]\n      R*138.51.rrr.rrr                     CA-NET            [DF133]\n      C*138.52.rrr.rrr                     LIANT             [DC303]\n      C*138.53.rrr.rrr-138.58.rrr.rrr      SHELL-NETS        [\nSD134\n]\n      R*138.59.rrr.rrr                     CANET             [TM159]\n      D*138.60.rrr.rrr                     NADC-LAN          [TED]\n      C 138.61.rrr.rrr                     MAINZ-GW1         [MM413]\n      R*138.62.rrr.rrr                     NSB-NET           [IS12]\n      R*138.63.rrr.rrr                     CERFACS           [HP50]\n      D*138.64.rrr.rrr                     MSG-NET           [MEG8]\n      D 138.65.rrr.rrr                     FRANKFURT-GW1     [SDM8]\n      R*138.66.rrr.rrr                     TCNO              [VL42]\n      R 138.67.rrr.rrr                     CSM-NET           [KL31]\n      R 138.68.rrr.rrr                     DUPONT-EXSTA      [KR80]\n      C*138.69.rrr.rrr                     LISC              [JLB79]\n      R*138.70.rrr.rrr                     PR-BULL-ITALY     [GP133]\n      R*138.71.rrr.rrr                     MAF               [PW96]\n      C*138.72.rrr.rrr                     PIXAR             [SJK1]\n      R*138.73.rrr.rrr                     MTA-IPNET         [DE80]\n      R 138.74.rrr.rrr                     SNC               [DDK7]\n      R*138.75.rrr.rrr                     LINCOLN-LAN-1     [JB542]\n      G 138.76.rrr.rrr                     NASAHQ-M-NET      [CS279]\n      R*138.77.rrr.rrr                     UCQ               [JV98]\n      R 138.78.rrr.rrr                     ST-MARYS-NET      [SJP18]\n      C*138.79.rrr.rrr                     CPNET             [MC301]\n      R*138.80.rrr.rrr                     NTUNET            [TA61]\n      G*138.81.rrr.rrr                     ISO-CS            [BH196]\n      C*138.82.rrr.rrr                     BELL-CA           [GC158]\n      C*138.83.rrr.rrr                     GTE-TELOPS        [DF180]\n      C*138.84.rrr.rrr                     LOF               [GL88]\n      C*138.85.rrr.rrr                     ERI-RICHARDSON    [DR229]\n      R 138.86.rrr.rrr                     UNC-NET           [\nJV97\n]\n        138.87.rrr.rrr-138.252.rrr.rrr     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*138.253.rrr.rrr                    LONDON-UNIV       [MK169]\n        138.254.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n        138.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [JBP]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 44]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n139.0.rrr.rrr                      Reserved          [JBP]\n        139.1.rrr.rrr-139.66.rrr.rrr       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*139.67.rrr.rrr                     WIU-UCAN-NET      [JW382]\n      C*139.68.rrr.rrr                     BOSENET           [CP130]\n      C*139.69.rrr.rrr                     HARNCO            [CH225]\n      R 139.70.rrr.rrr                     VIMS-NET          [RJL49]\n      C*139.71.rrr.rrr                     AMEX-FTL          [RJ134]\n      C*139.72.rrr.rrr                     NWAIR-NET         [TH147]\n      C*139.73.rrr.rrr                     GMAGT             [MD184]\n      C*139.74.rrr.rrr                     VALNET            [KK104]\n      R*139.75.rrr.rrr                     AWIULTRANET       [JMS17]\n      C*139.76.rrr.rrr                     BELLSOUTH         [DS405]\n      D 139.77.rrr.rrr                     CONCGWY-NEWP1     [SCG]\n      R 139.78.rrr.rrr                     OKSTATE           [KD77]\n      C*139.79.rrr.rrr                     ASCOM             [RO68]\n      R*139.80.rrr.rrr                     OTAGO-LAN1        [IG4]\n      C*139.81.rrr.rrr                     GLI               [BA77]\n      R*139.82.rrr.rrr                     PUC-RIO           [MF148]\n        139.83.rrr.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 139.84.rrr.rrr                     LASALLE           [SAL27]\n      R*139.85.rrr.rrr                     HNSNET            [JC490]\n      R*139.86.rrr.rrr                     USQ-NET           [RI13]\n      C*139.87.rrr.rrr                     CORP-3COM         [TC96]\n      G 139.88.rrr.rrr                     LERC-OFFCAMPUS    [DC285]\n      C*139.89.rrr.rrr                     UNIWARE-NET       [HB117]\n      C*139.90.rrr.rrr                     NETCS-CUST-B      [CS218]\n      R*139.91.rrr.rrr                     FORTH             [SA94]\n      R 139.92.rrr.rrr                     EASINET-BB        [WP90]\n      C*139.93.rrr.rrr                     ULTRA-COM         [WH54]\n      C 139.94.rrr.rrr                     TAIU-NET          [WM68]\n      C*139.95.rrr.rrr                     AMDNET            [CR129]\n      C*139.96.rrr.rrr                     SAAB-NET          [SN8]\n      C*139.97.rrr.rrr                     CITYNET           [RA145]\n      G*139.98.rrr.rrr                     FYLKOMOEST        [JT222]\n      C*139.99.rrr.rrr                     ES2               [AY21]\n      R*139.100.rrr.rrr                    CNET              [JMR45]\n      C*139.101.rrr.rrr                    MORELLIAUTRO      [PG108]\n      R 139.102.rrr.rrr                    INDSTATE          [CE56]\n      R*139.103.rrr.rrr                    UMONCTON-IPNET    [DP178]\n      C 139.104.rrr.rrr                    DISNEY            [SFW1]\n      G*139.105.rrr.rrr-139.120.rrr.rrr    NO-MULTI-NET      [OS4]\n      C 139.121.rrr.rrr                    SAIC              [SDF5]\n      G*139.122.rrr.rrr                    SCANIAL           [RS502]\n      C*139.123.rrr.rrr                    MYLNET            [EV26]\n      R*139.124.rrr.rrr                    RRM               [MB324]\n      C*139.125.rrr.rrr                    AIT_VINES         [PY17]\n      C*139.126.rrr.rrr                    ADP               [KB134]\n      R 139.127.rrr.rrr                    SUNYHSCSYR        [RLZ3]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 45]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*139.128.rrr.rrr                    MAELLIAUTRO       [PG108]\n      R*139.129.rrr.rrr                    MAF               [PW96]\n      R*139.130.rrr.rrr                    AARNET            [GH105]\n      R*139.131.rrr.rrr                    SWARE             [PT63]\n        139.132.rrr.rrr                    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*139.133.rrr.rrr                    UNIV-ABDN         [JL338]\n      G*139.134.rrr.rrr                    TBSNET            [CH232]\n      R 139.135.rrr.rrr                    EDGEWOOD          [\nCH233\n]\n      R 139.136.rrr.rrr                    SKF               [RLZ3]\n      R*139.137.rrr.rrr                    CCFNET            [SG144]\n      C*139.138.rrr.rrr                    DATA-IO-NET       [TR103]\n      D 139.139.rrr.rrr                    GIESSEN-GW1       [BR109]\n      R 139.140.rrr.rrr                    BOWDOIN           [TM200]\n      R 139.141.rrr.rrr                    UKWT-NET          [HBA2]\n      C*139.142.rrr.rrr                    MYRIAS            [DR230]\n      G*139.143.rrr.rrr                    DTINPL            [AS205]\n      G*139.144.rrr.rrr                    ATC               [SM235]\n      C*139.145.rrr.rrr                    AKER-STORD        [OG14]\n      C*139.146.rrr.rrr                    PARS-SERVICE      [\nRHG\n]\n      R*139.147.rrr.rrr                    LAFEYETTE         [PK69]\n      R 139.148.rrr.rrr                    SMITHKLINE1       [RLZ3]\n      C*139.149.rrr.rrr                    UBS-LON-PD        [MH269]\n      C*139.150.rrr.rrr                    MOTO-SPS          [RB319]\n        139.151.rrr.rrr-139.160.rrr.rrr    Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 139.161.rrr.rrr                    FSAMGW1           [SM218]\n      C*139.162.rrr.rrr                    NEDLLOYD          [CT100]\n      C*139.163.rrr.rrr                    GHTOURS           [FC52]\n      G*139.164.rrr.rrr                    BUSK-HELSE        [SB258]\n      R*139.165.rrr.rrr                    OFLIEGE-BE        [AP94]\n      R*139.166.rrr.rrr                    NERC-NET          [GE47]\n      R*139.167.rrr.rrr                    KSR               [JMT1]\n      G*139.168.rrr.rrr                    CORPNET           [GG138]\n      G 139.169.rrr.rrr                    JIN               [JC108]\n        139.170.rrr.rrr-191.54.rrr.rrr     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*190.55.rrr.rrr                     FLOW              [DS370]\n        190.56.rrr.rrr-191.254.rrr.rrr     Unassigned        [NIC]\n       *191.255.rrr.rrr                    Reserved          [JBP]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 46]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nClass C Networks\n\n      * Internet Address                   Network           Reference\n      - ----------------                   -------           ----------\n        192.0.0.rrr                        Reserved          [JBP]\n      R 192.0.1.rrr                        BBN-TEST-C        [RH6]\n      R*192.0.2.rrr                        TEST              [JBP]\n        192.0.3.rrr-192.0.255.rrr          Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.1.0.rrr-192.1.1.rrr            BBN Local Nets    [SGC]\n      R 192.1.2.rrr                        BBN-FIBER-NET     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.3.rrr                        BBN-APOLLO-NET    [SGC]\n      R 192.1.4.rrr                        BBN-FIBER-TEST    [SGC]\n      R 192.1.5.rrr                        BBN-SD-ENET       [SGC]\n      R 192.1.6.rrr                        BBN-DGI-ENET      [SGC]\n      R 192.1.7.rrr                        BBN-WASH-ENET     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.8.rrr                        BBN-SCOTLAND-NET  [SGC]\n      R 192.1.9.rrr                        BBN-DGI-APOLLO    [SGC]\n      R 192.1.10.rrr                       BBN-NEWPORT-NET   [SGC]\n      R 192.1.11.rrr                       BBN-TEST-NET      [SGC]\n      R 192.1.12.rrr                       BBN-TEST2-NET     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.13.rrr                       BBN-TEST3-NET     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.14.rrr                       BBN-TEST4-NET     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.15.rrr                       BBNCC-HARDWARE    [SGC]\n      R 192.1.16.rrr                       BBNCC-APOLLO      [SGC]\n      R 192.1.17.rrr                       BBNCC-COLUMBIA    [SGC]\n      R 192.1.18.rrr                       BBNCC-PRO-NET     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.19.rrr                       BBNCC-BILLERICA   [SGC]\n      R 192.1.20.rrr                       BBNACI-MT-VIEW    [SGC]\n      R 192.1.21.rrr                       BBN-DGI-ENET2     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.22.rrr                       BBN-FORT-KNOX     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.23.rrr                       BBN-NEW-LONDON    [SGC]\n      R 192.1.24.rrr                       BBN Local Net     [SGC]\n      R 192.1.25.rrr                       BBN-PCNETSIM      [GL15]\n      R 192.1.26.rrr-192.3.255.rrr         BBN Local Nets    [SGC]\n      R 192.4.0.rrr-192.4.12.rrr           BELLCORE-NET      [PK28]\n      R 192.4.13.rrr                       MRE-MERLOT        [PK28]\n      R 192.4.14.rrr                       MRE-BIRDNET       [PK28]\n      R 192.4.15.rrr-192.4.17.rrr          BELLCORE-NET      [PK28]\n      R 192.4.18.rrr                       MRE-FRAGGLE       [PK28]\n      R 192.4.19.rrr-192.4.31.rrr          BELLCORE-NET      [PK28]\n      R 192.4.32.rrr                       NVC-SHARP         [PK28]\n      R 192.4.33.rrr                       BELLCORE-NET      [PK28]\n      R 192.4.34.rrr                       NVC-BB            [PK28]\n      R 192.4.35.rrr                       NVC-ASPEN         [PK28]\n      R 192.4.36.rrr                       BELLCORE-NET      [PK28]\n      R 192.4.37.rrr                       LCC-APOLLO        [PK28]\n      R 192.4.38.rrr                       PYA-FACS          [PK28]\n      R 192.4.39.rrr-192.4.255.rrr         BELLCORE-NET      [PK28]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 47]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n192.5.0.rrr                        Reserved          [JBP]\n      R 192.5.1.rrr                        CISLHYPERNET      [JLM23]\n      R*192.5.2.rrr                        UF-NET-A          [AW48]\n      C 192.5.3.rrr                        HP-DESIGN-AIDS    [AG67]\n      C 192.5.4.rrr                        HP-TCG-UNIX       [AG67]\n      R 192.5.5.rrr                        DEC-MRNET         [\nAF54\n]\n      R 192.5.6.rrr                        DEC-MRRAD         [\nAF54\n]\n      R 192.5.7.rrr                        ASRI              [PK81]\n      R 192.5.8.rrr                        CSEICNET          [SB90]\n      R 192.5.9.rrr                        AERONET           [LCN]\n      R 192.5.10.rrr                       ECLNET            [MAB4]\n      R 192.5.11.rrr                       CSS-RING          [DC115]\n      R 192.5.12.rrr                       UTAH-NET-C        [GW22]\n      R 192.5.13.rrr                       GSWDNET           [FAS]\n      R 192.5.14.rrr                       RAND-NET          [JDG]\n      R*192.5.15.rrr                       AUVM              [JM586]\n      R 192.5.16.rrr                       LANLLAND          [PCW]\n      R 192.5.17.rrr                       NRL-NET           [MPM]\n      R 192.5.18.rrr                       IPTO-NET          [JS283]\n      R 192.5.19.rrr                       UCIICS            [RAJ3]\n      R 192.5.20.rrr                       CISLTTYNET        [JLM23]\n      D 192.5.21.rrr                       BRLNET1           [TS9]\n      D 192.5.22.rrr                       BRLNET2           [MJM2]\n      D 192.5.23.rrr                       BRLNET3           [TS9]\n      D 192.5.24.rrr                       BRLNET4           [TS9]\n      D 192.5.25.rrr                       BRLNET5           [TS9]\n        192.5.26.rrr                       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 192.5.27.rrr                       DTNSRDC-NET       [RWT2]\n      R 192.5.28.rrr                       RSRE-NULL         [DBH11]\n      R 192.5.29.rrr                       RSRE-ACC          [DBH11]\n      R 192.5.30.rrr                       RSRE-PR           [DBH11]\n      R*192.5.31.rrr                       SIEMENS-NET       [PN23]\n      R 192.5.32.rrr                       CISLTESTNET2      [JLM23]\n      R 192.5.33.rrr                       CISLTESTNET3      [JLM23]\n      R 192.5.34.rrr                       CISLTESTNET4      [JLM23]\n        192.5.35.rrr-192.5.37.rrr          Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.5.38.rrr                       SRI-C3ETHER       [GMR]\n      C 192.5.39.rrr                       USS               [AV24]\n      R 192.5.40.rrr                       PUCC-NET-A        [JS81]\n      R 192.5.41.rrr                       USNO              [NW33]\n      D 192.5.42.rrr                       HYPER-1ISG        [MCA1]\n      R 192.5.43.rrr                       CUCSNET           [BC14]\n      R 192.5.44.rrr                       FARBER-PC-NET     [DJF]\n        192.5.45.rrr                       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.5.46.rrr                       NTA-RING          [PS27]\n      R 192.5.47.rrr                       NSRDC             [RWT2]\n      R 192.5.48.rrr                       PURDUE-CS-NET     [DT50]\n      C 192.5.49.rrr                       TISW-NET          [HKO]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 48]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.5.50.rrr                       CTH-CS-NET        [UB3]\n        192.5.51.rrr                       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.5.52.rrr                       NLM-ETHER-TEMP    [JA1]\n      R 192.5.53.rrr                       UR-CS-ETHER       [LB16]\n      R 192.5.54.rrr                       AERO-A3           [LCN]\n        192.5.55.rrr                       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C 192.5.56.rrr                       TARTAN-NET        [BM156]\n      R 192.5.57.rrr                       UDEL-CC           [RR18]\n      R 192.5.58.rrr                       CSNET-PDN         [WHN2]\n      R 192.5.59.rrr                       INRIA-A-RING      [AR41]\n      R 192.5.60.rrr                       INRIA-SOPHIA      [AR41]\n      R*192.5.61.rrr                       SM90-X2           [MS171]\n      R*192.5.62.rrr                       LITP-SM90         [MS171]\n      G*192.5.63.rrr                       SVERDRUPMSFC      [JMB64]\n      R 192.5.64.rrr                       AMES-NAS-NET      [MF31]\n      R 192.5.65.rrr                       NPRDC-ETHER       [LRB]\n      R 192.5.66.rrr                       HARV-NET          [SB28]\n      R 192.5.67.rrr                       CECOM-ETHER       [GIH]\n        192.5.68.rrr                       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.5.69.rrr                       UIUC-NET          [AKC]\n      G 192.5.70.rrr                       CELAN             [RLS6]\n      R*192.5.71.rrr                       WWU-ADMIN-NET     [JSW12]\n      C*192.5.72.rrr                       ABLE              [CWV1]\n      C*192.5.73.rrr                       LVSUN             [GCS8]\n      C*192.5.74.rrr-192.5.81.rrr          MSC Nets          [SL70]\n      R 192.5.82.rrr                       FSUSTAT           [KMH8]\n      C*192.5.83.rrr                       EPOCH-ENGR        [GK32]\n      R*192.5.84.rrr-192.5.87.rrr          UOC Nets          [MC17]\n      R 192.5.88.rrr                       YALE-EE-NET       [AG22]\n      R 192.5.89.rrr                       HARV-APOLLO       [SB28]\n      R 192.5.90.rrr                       SERI-NET          [CK92]\n      R 192.5.91.rrr                       PURDUE-ECN1       [JRS8]\n      R 192.5.92.rrr                       BRAGG-ETHER       [GIH]\n      R 192.5.93.rrr                       SRI-DEMO          [GIH]\n      R*192.5.94.rrr                       SDCRDCF-10MB      [DJV1]\n      R*192.5.95.rrr                       SDCRDCF-3MB       [DJV1]\n      R*192.5.96.rrr                       UBC-CS-NET        [PB67]\n        192.5.97.rrr-192.5.98.rrr          Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.5.99.rrr                       SPACENET          [TW51]\n      R 192.5.100.rrr                      HCSC-NET          [DB322]\n      R 192.5.101.rrr                      PUCC-NET-B        [JS81]\n      R 192.5.102.rrr                      PUCC-RHF-NET      [JS81]\n      C*192.5.103.rrr                      COMCO             [KF55]\n      R 192.5.104.rrr                      THINK-INET        [BJN1]\n      R 192.5.105.rrr                      XAIT-POND         [AL6]\n      C*192.5.106.rrr                      BITSTREAM         [PGA1]\n      R*192.5.107.rrr                      PASC-ETHER        [GAL5]\n      R*192.5.108.rrr                      PASC-BB           [GAL5]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 49]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.5.109.rrr                      CWRUNET-C0        [JAG3]\n      R 192.5.110.rrr                      CWRUNET-C1        [JAG3]\n      R 192.5.111.rrr                      CWRUNET-C2        [JAG3]\n      R 192.5.112.rrr                      CWRUNET-C3        [JAG3]\n      R 192.5.113.rrr                      CWRUNET-C4        [JAG3]\n      C*192.5.114.rrr                      I2-RING-1         [CB42]\n      C*192.5.115.rrr                      I2-ETHER-1        [CB42]\n      R 192.5.116.rrr                      BRAGGNET-1        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.117.rrr                      BRAGGNET-2        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.118.rrr                      BRAGGNET-3        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.119.rrr                      BRAGGNET-4        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.120.rrr                      BRAGGNET-5        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.121.rrr                      BRAGGNET-6        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.122.rrr                      BRAGGNET-7        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.123.rrr                      BRAGGNET-8        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.124.rrr                      BRAGGNET-9        [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.125.rrr                      BRAGGNET-10       [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.126.rrr                      BRAGGNET-11       [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.127.rrr                      BRAGGNET-12       [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.128.rrr                      BRAGGNET-13       [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.129.rrr                      BRAGGNET-14       [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.130.rrr                      BRAGGNET-15       [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.131.rrr                      BRAGGNET-16       [LDB3]\n      R 192.5.132.rrr                      BRAGGNET-17       [LDB3]\n      R*192.5.133.rrr                      PERCEPT-AI        [\nKC8\n]\n      C*192.5.134.rrr                      I2-ETHER-2        [CB42]\n      R 192.5.135.rrr                      LL-SPEECH-NET     [RH60]\n      R 192.5.136.rrr                      LL43-LEX-BACK     [BC65]\n      R 192.5.137.rrr                      LL43-LEX-SUNA     [BC65]\n      R 192.5.138.rrr                      LL43-LEX-SUNB     [BC65]\n      R 192.5.139.rrr                      LL43-LEX-APO      [BC65]\n      R 192.5.140.rrr                      LL43-TB-BACK      [BC65]\n      R 192.5.141.rrr                      LL43-TB-APO       [BC65]\n      R*192.5.142.rrr                      CCVR              [RD91]\n      R 192.5.143.rrr                      NWU               [AS62]\n      R 192.5.144.rrr                      CRC-ENET          [JS597]\n      R 192.5.145.rrr                      ECRC-SL           [PD39]\n      R 192.5.146.rrr                      CPW-PSC           [ML62]\n      R 192.5.147.rrr                      ALV-ETHER         [LJR5]\n      R 192.5.148.rrr                      DISE              [RHS16]\n      R 192.5.149.rrr                      RDL-ETHER         [MS172]\n      G*192.5.150.rrr                      SP-ACE-NET        [JM304]\n      R 192.5.151.rrr                      PENN-STATE-1      [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.152.rrr                      PENN-STATE-2      [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.153.rrr                      PENN-STATE-3      [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.154.rrr                      PENN-STATE-4      [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.155.rrr                      PENN-STATE-5      [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.156.rrr                      PENN-STATE-6      [SJS11]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 50]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.5.157.rrr                      PENN-STATE-7      [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.158.rrr                      PENN-STATE-8      [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.159.rrr                      PENN-STATE-9      [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.160.rrr                      PENN-STATE-10     [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.161.rrr                      PENN-STATE-11     [SJS11]\n      R 192.5.162.rrr                      PENN-STATE-12     [SJS11]\n      C*192.5.163.rrr                      I2-SPDNET-1       [CB42]\n      C 192.5.164.rrr                      GTEECN            [CH102]\n      R 192.5.165.rrr                      UNISYS-CAM-1      [DSR]\n      G 192.5.166.rrr                      GAT-NET           [DC306]\n      R 192.5.167.rrr                      MCC-ACA6          [CBD]\n      R 192.5.168.rrr                      MCC-CAD2          [CBD]\n      R 192.5.169.rrr                      MCC-CAD3          [CBD]\n      G 192.5.170.rrr                      ANLNET1           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.171.rrr                      ANLNET2           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.172.rrr                      ANLNET3           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.173.rrr                      ANLNET4           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.174.rrr                      ANLNET5           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.175.rrr                      ANLNET6           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.176.rrr                      ANLNET7           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.177.rrr                      ANLNET8           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.178.rrr                      ANLNET9           [LW26]\n      G 192.5.179.rrr                      ANLNET10          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.180.rrr                      ANLNET11          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.181.rrr                      ANLNET12          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.182.rrr                      ANLNET13          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.183.rrr                      ANLNET14          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.184.rrr                      ANLNET15          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.185.rrr                      ANLNET16          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.186.rrr                      ANLNET17          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.187.rrr                      ANLNET18          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.188.rrr                      ANLNET19          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.189.rrr                      ANLNET20          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.190.rrr                      ANLNET21          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.191.rrr                      ANLNET22          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.192.rrr                      ANLNET23          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.193.rrr                      ANLNET24          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.194.rrr                      ANLNET25          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.195.rrr                      ANLNET26          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.196.rrr                      ANLNET27          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.197.rrr                      ANLNET28          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.198.rrr                      ANLNET29          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.199.rrr                      ANLNET30          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.200.rrr                      ANLNET31          [LW26]\n      G 192.5.201.rrr                      ANLNET32          [LW26]\n      R 192.5.202.rrr                      FMC-CTC           [KW2]\n      R*192.5.203.rrr                      OKSTATE-CS        [MV24]\n      R 192.5.204.rrr                      SKL-ENET          [JS597]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 51]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.5.205.rrr                      ARNET2            [TS194]\n      R 192.5.206.rrr                      BU-MATHNET        [BS24]\n      R 192.5.207.rrr                      BU-CHEMNET        [BS24]\n      R 192.5.208.rrr                      BU-CLANET         [BS24]\n      D 192.5.209.rrr                      SSDF-CDCNET       [RE22]\n      G 192.5.210.rrr                      ECSNET            [CAL7]\n      R 192.5.211.rrr                      INTEL-IWARP       [RLS115]\n      R*192.5.212.rrr                      CDC-PCAFAC        [MCB5]\n      R 192.5.213.rrr                      HARRIS            [DAT4]\n      C 192.5.214.rrr                      DECUACNET         [FMA1]\n      R 192.5.215.rrr                      MASONNET          [TH15]\n      R 192.5.216.rrr                      NTT-NET           [YS10]\n        192.5.217.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 192.5.218.rrr                      ARINC-GW-NET      [YN]\n      R 192.5.219.rrr                      CLEMSON           [CH170]\n      C 192.5.220.rrr                      SCCNET            [MJO4]\n      C 192.5.221.rrr                      CSC-LONS          [SWR3]\n      C 192.5.222.rrr                      CSC-OIS           [SWR3]\n      R*192.5.223.rrr                      HWELL-RE          [PP36]\n      D*192.5.224.rrr                      HAIC-NET          [DMK18]\n      C*192.5.225.rrr-192.5.236.rrr        GE Calma Block    [TR38]\n      R 192.5.237.rrr                      SMITHKLINE        [MS9]\n      R 192.5.238.rrr                      KES-NET           [JK59]\n      R*192.5.239.rrr                      CAM-ORL           [JM588]\n      C*192.5.240.rrr                      EXICOM            [DC305]\n      R 192.5.241.rrr                      USC-CYPRESS       [MAB4]\n      C 192.5.242.rrr                      MOT-242           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.243.rrr                      MOT-243           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.244.rrr                      MOT-244           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.245.rrr                      MOT-245           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.246.rrr                      MOT-246           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.247.rrr                      MOT-247           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.248.rrr                      MOT-248           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.249.rrr                      MOT-249           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.250.rrr                      MOT-250           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.251.rrr                      MOT-251           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.252.rrr                      MOT-252           [MJ91]\n      C 192.5.253.rrr                      MOT-253           [MJ91]\n      R*192.5.254.rrr                      ANSA              [DO27]\n        192.5.255.rrr                      Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.6.0.rrr-192.6.148.rrr          Hewlett-Packard   [AG67]\n      R 192.6.149.rrr                      DBCE              [BW158]\n      C*192.6.150.rrr-192.6.200.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [AG67]\n      R 192.6.201.rrr                      UTSANANTONIO      [AA73]\n      C*192.6.202.rrr-192.6.255.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [AG67]\n      C*192.7.0.rrr-192.7.255.rrr          CCI Nets          [RA11]\n      C*192.8.0.rrr-192.8.255.rrr          SPARTACUS         [EK48]\n      C*192.9.0.rrr-192.9.8.rrr            Sun Microsystems  [WM3]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 52]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 192.9.9.rrr                        SUN-BARRNET       [WM3]\n      C*192.9.10.rrr-192.9.255.rrr         Sun Microsystems  [WM3]\n      C*192.10.0.rrr-192.10.40.rrr         SYMBOLICS         [CH2]\n      C*192.10.41.rrr                      TELLABS-MAIN      [DB273]\n      C*192.10.42.rrr-192.10.255.rrr       SYMBOLICS         [CH2]\n      C*192.11.0.rrr-192.11.51.rrr         AT&T Bell Labs    [MH82]\n      C 192.11.52.rrr                      ATT-NET           [MH82]\n      C*192.11.53.rrr-192.11.255.rrr       AT&T Bell Labs    [MH82]\n        192.12.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      R*192.12.1.rrr                       SUSSEX-CSNET      [RS255]\n      R*192.12.2.rrr                       AMDAHL            [KRS21]\n      C*192.12.3.rrr                       SLCS              [CG64]\n      C*192.12.4.rrr                       SCG-NET           [DBM16]\n      R 192.12.5.rrr                       AIC-LISPMS        [WMT]\n      R 192.12.6.rrr                       NPS-C2            [DW15]\n      D 192.12.7.rrr                       SSSD-NET          [RGH21]\n      D 192.12.8.rrr                       PICANET1          [RFD1]\n      R 192.12.9.rrr                       YALE-EE2-NET      [ASW3]\n      R 192.12.10.rrr                      THENETDFW         [DLN12]\n      R 192.12.11.rrr                      MIT-TEST          [NC3]\n      R 192.12.12.rrr                      SANTAFE           [RKJ]\n      R 192.12.13.rrr                      JHU-NET1          [MJO7]\n      R 192.12.14.rrr                      JHU-NET2          [MJO7]\n      R 192.12.15.rrr                      BROOKNET          [GR9]\n      R 192.12.16.rrr                      PRMNET            [PEM4]\n      G 192.12.17.rrr                      LLL-TIS-NET       [NAL]\n      R 192.12.18.rrr                      CIT-CS-10NET      [AD22]\n      R 192.12.19.rrr                      CIT-NET           [AD22]\n      R 192.12.20.rrr                      CIT-SUN-NET       [AD22]\n      R 192.12.21.rrr                      CIT-PHYSCOMP      [AD22]\n      R 192.12.22.rrr                      UTCSRES           [JSQ1]\n      R 192.12.23.rrr                      UTCSTTY           [JSQ1]\n      R 192.12.24.rrr                      MICANET           [WDL]\n      R 192.12.25.rrr                      CSS-GRAMINAE      [DC115]\n      R*192.12.26.rrr                      UMASS-BOSTON      [RM395]\n      R 192.12.27.rrr                      UR-ESM            [WL31]\n      R*192.12.28.rrr                      RIACS             [DG28]\n      D 192.12.29.rrr                      RF-EVANS          [JEQ1]\n      D 192.12.30.rrr                      RF-HEX-A          [JEQ1]\n      D 192.12.31.rrr                      USNA-ENET         [RAD15]\n      R*192.12.32.rrr                      CMU-VINEYARD      [MK68]\n      R 192.12.33.rrr                      SRI-CSL-NET       [EH112]\n      C*192.12.34.rrr-192.12.40.rrr        SCHLUMBERGER      [CG64]\n      C*192.12.41.rrr                      FAIRCHILD         [CG64]\n      C*192.12.42.rrr                      DARNET            [CG64]\n      C*192.12.43.rrr                      BENSON            [CG64]\n      R 192.12.44.rrr                      NRTC-NET          [RSM1]\n      R 192.12.45.rrr                      ACC-SB-IMP-NET    [AB20]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 53]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.12.46.rrr                      ACC-SB-ETHER      [AB20]\n      R*192.12.47.rrr                      BOLOGNA-EXT1      [OB]\n      G 192.12.48.rrr                      AMES-ED-EXPNET    [MSM1]\n      G 192.12.49.rrr                      AMES-ED-NET       [MSM1]\n      G 192.12.50.rrr                      AMES-HY-NET       [MSM1]\n      R 192.12.51.rrr                      THINK-CHAOS       [BJN1]\n        192.12.52.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.12.53.rrr                      PU-LCA            [CYH]\n      R*192.12.54.rrr                      SURFNET-X25       [EJB]\n      R 192.12.55.rrr                      HAZ-LPR-BETA      [KO11]\n      R 192.12.56.rrr                      UTAH-AP-NET       [JL15]\n      R 192.12.57.rrr                      MCC-CAD1          [CBD]\n      R 192.12.58.rrr                      MCC-ACA7          [CBD]\n      R 192.12.59.rrr                      MCC-ACA8          [CBD]\n      R 192.12.60.rrr                      MCC-ACA9          [CBD]\n      R 192.12.61.rrr                      MCC-SW-NET        [CBD]\n      R 192.12.62.rrr                      DREA-ENET         [GLH5]\n      R 192.12.63.rrr                      CYPRESS           [DT50]\n      D 192.12.64.rrr                      LOGNET            [JR15]\n      D 192.12.65.rrr                      HELNET1           [TS9]\n      D 192.12.66.rrr                      HELNET2           [TS9]\n      D 192.12.67.rrr                      HELNET3           [TS9]\n      G 192.12.68.rrr                      ORNL-MSRNET       [THD]\n      R 192.12.69.rrr                      UA-CS-NET         [PAK6]\n      R 192.12.70.rrr                      NPRDC-IPD         [LRB]\n      R 192.12.71.rrr                      NPRDC-ISG         [LRB]\n      R 192.12.72.rrr                      ULCC              [RHC3]\n      R 192.12.73.rrr                      BTRL              [RHC3]\n      R 192.12.74.rrr                      APPLE-ETHER       [EF16]\n      R*192.12.75.rrr                      PASC-RING         [GAL5]\n      R 192.12.76.rrr                      UQ-NET            [LB201]\n      R*192.12.77.rrr                      BOLOGNA-EXT2      [OB]\n      C*192.12.78.rrr                      GENNET            [SM96]\n      C*192.12.79.rrr                      SLI               [MG58]\n      R 192.12.80.rrr                      CAEN              [HWB]\n        192.12.81.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C 192.12.82.rrr                      CU-CC-NET         [BC14]\n      G 192.12.83.rrr                      UCDLA-EXNET       [CL64]\n      G 192.12.84.rrr                      UCDLA-PCNET       [CL64]\n      G 192.12.85.rrr                      UCDLA-OPNET       [CL64]\n      G 192.12.86.rrr                      UCDLA-RADNET      [CL64]\n      G 192.12.87.rrr                      UCDLA-CSLNET      [CL64]\n      R*192.12.88.rrr                      RUTGERS-NWK       [CLH3]\n      R 192.12.89.rrr                      SBCS-CSDEPT-1     [JS268]\n      R 192.12.90.rrr                      SBCS-CSDEPT-2     [JS268]\n      R 192.12.91.rrr                      RPICSNET0         [MS9]\n      R 192.12.92.rrr                      RPICSNET1         [MS9]\n      C*192.12.93.rrr                      TYMNET-MDC        [TDM8]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 54]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.12.94.rrr                      ROCKWELL-AI-TEMP  [BMW7]\n      C*192.12.95.rrr                      NNWSI             [EJ12]\n      R*192.12.96.rrr                      SUPELEC-GIF       [DC159]\n      R 192.12.97.rrr                      MCRC              [MB288]\n      R 192.12.98.rrr                      SHIRBAY-ENET      [JS597]\n      C*192.12.99.rrr                      FCSL-NET          [SA47]\n      D 192.12.100.rrr                     OOG1              [JD86]\n      R*192.12.101.rrr                     OSU-CGRG          [KS62]\n      G 192.12.102.rrr                     AMES-NAS-HY       [MSM1]\n      R 192.12.103.rrr                     CSU-USC-ETHER     [MM333]\n      R 192.12.104.rrr                     CSU-NREL-ETHER    [MM333]\n        192.12.105.rrr-192.12.108.rrr      Reserved          [NIC]\n      R*192.12.109.rrr-192.12.118.rrr      CSU Nets          [RB218]\n      C 192.12.119.rrr                     XYPLEX            [TS196]\n      D 192.12.120.rrr                     MITRE-B-NET       [BSW]\n      R 192.12.121.rrr                     FSUCS             [DK168]\n      R 192.12.122.rrr                     FSUCS2            [DK168]\n      G 192.12.123.rrr                     AMES-CCF-NET      [MSM1]\n      D 192.12.124.rrr                     ETL-LAN           [WWS]\n      D 192.12.125.rrr                     CRDEC-NET1        [REA3]\n      D 192.12.126.rrr                     CRDEC-NET2        [REA3]\n      R 192.12.127.rrr                     LL-MI-NET         [KLS24]\n      R 192.12.128.rrr                     BRADLEY           [LH124]\n      C*192.12.129.rrr                     SYM-CAN           [MMH5]\n        192.12.130.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.12.131.rrr                     SAC-ADMIN         [KMC3]\n      R 192.12.132.rrr                     LLNL-MON          [LL64]\n      R 192.12.133.rrr                     LLNL-TUES         [LL64]\n      R 192.12.134.rrr                     LLNL-WED          [LL64]\n      R 192.12.135.rrr                     LLNL-THU          [LL64]\n      R 192.12.136.rrr                     LLNL-OUTNET       [LL64]\n      R 192.12.137.rrr                     LLNL-SAT          [LL64]\n      R 192.12.138.rrr                     LLNL-SUN          [LL64]\n      D 192.12.139.rrr                     JTELS-BEN-GW      [RR26]\n      R*192.12.140.rrr                     INFERENCE         [DGT6]\n      R 192.12.141.rrr                     CSS-ETHER         [DC115]\n      C*192.12.142.rrr                     SENTRY            [JB348]\n      C*192.12.143.rrr                     VSHIC-NET         [JB348]\n      R 192.12.144.rrr                     ECRCNET           [PD39]\n      C 192.12.145.rrr                     SMVL-THICK        [RG92]\n      C*192.12.146.rrr-192.12.149.rrr      RCA-CADNET        [RG92]\n      C 192.12.150.rrr                     SMVL-THIN         [RG92]\n      C*192.12.151.rrr                     RCA-CADNET        [RG92]\n      C 192.12.152.rrr                     SMVL-APOLLO       [RG92]\n      C 192.12.153.rrr                     SMVL-153          [RG92]\n      C*192.12.154.rrr                     RCA-CADNET        [RG92]\n      C*192.12.155.rrr-192.12.170.rrr      MTCS-CUST         [SF41]\n      D 192.12.171.rrr                     PICANET2          [RFD1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 55]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.12.172.rrr                     ROCKWELLENET      [NG]\n      R 192.12.173.rrr                     LBL-EE-NET1       [CAL3]\n      R*192.12.174.rrr-192.12.183.rrr      TORONTO           [BD55]\n      R 192.12.184.rrr                     AGPS-NET          [KDZ]\n      R 192.12.185.rrr                     BOSTONU-NET       [JSOL]\n      R 192.12.186.rrr                     BU-ACCNET         [JSOL]\n      R 192.12.187.rrr                     BU-BROADB         [JSOL]\n      R 192.12.188.rrr                     BU-SCINET         [JSOL]\n      R 192.12.189.rrr                     BU-ENGNET         [JSOL]\n      R 192.12.190.rrr                     BU-DSGNET         [JSOL]\n      R 192.12.191.rrr                     BU-MEDNET         [JSOL]\n      R 192.12.192.rrr                     ITALY-EXTNET      [ABB2]\n      R 192.12.193.rrr                     ITALY-INTNET      [ABB2]\n      R 192.12.194.rrr                     CNUCE-LAN3        [ABB2]\n      R 192.12.195.rrr                     UNISYS-ISF-7      [MS22]\n      R*192.12.196.rrr                     AZMATH            [JC315]\n      D 192.12.197.rrr                     ACATT-ETHER1      [ERK3]\n      D 192.12.198.rrr                     ACATT-ETHER2      [ERK3]\n      D 192.12.199.rrr                     LEWIS-ETHER1      [ERK3]\n      D 192.12.200.rrr                     SRI-PSON-10       [ERK3]\n      D 192.12.201.rrr                     SRI-PSON-11       [ERK3]\n      D 192.12.202.rrr                     SRI-PSON-12       [ERK3]\n      D 192.12.203.rrr                     SRI-PSON-13       [ERK3]\n      D 192.12.204.rrr                     SRI-PSON-14       [ERK3]\n      R 192.12.205.rrr                     OHIO-STATE1       [RSD2]\n      R 192.12.206.rrr                     INDIANA           [BS69]\n      R 192.12.207.rrr                     SUPERCOMP         [GKN1]\n      G*192.12.208.rrr                     AGPS-IPC          [KDZ]\n      R 192.12.209.rrr                     NSF               [FW17]\n      D 192.12.210.rrr                     FSTC              [BB64]\n      R 192.12.211.rrr                     JVNC              [SH37]\n      R 192.12.212.rrr                     RAND-NET2         [JDG]\n      R 192.12.213.rrr                     RAND-NET3         [JDG]\n        192.12.214.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.12.215.rrr                     XDRENET           [JS597]\n      R 192.12.216.rrr                     STEVENS-TECH      [RCM9]\n      C*192.12.217.rrr                     KYFY-CARTO        [WH96]\n      C*192.12.218.rrr                     KYFY-GEOGR        [WH96]\n      C*192.12.219.rrr                     ARIA              [FL27]\n      R 192.12.220.rrr                     WISC-FERD         [EJN1]\n        192.12.221.rrr-192.12.222.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.12.223.rrr                     WISC-OZNET        [EJN1]\n      R 192.12.224.rrr                     WISC-OZES         [EJN1]\n        192.12.225.rrr-192.12.234.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.12.235.rrr                     IDA-NET           [MSA1]\n      R 192.12.236.rrr                     CITNET            [CBR2]\n      R 192.12.237.rrr                     HCSC-APOLLO       [DB322]\n      R*192.12.238.rrr                     CU-BOULDER        [DCMW]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 56]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*192.12.239.rrr                     CU-ACS            [DCMW]\n      R*192.12.240.rrr                     CU-ENGINEER       [DCMW]\n      R*192.12.241.rrr                     CU-SUNNET         [DCMW]\n      R*192.12.242.rrr                     CU-CER            [DCMW]\n      R*192.12.243.rrr                     CU-OT             [DCMW]\n      R*192.12.244.rrr                     CU-ENTERPRISE     [DCMW]\n      R*192.12.245.rrr                     CU-LASP           [DCMW]\n      R*192.12.246.rrr                     CU-BOULDER        [DCMW]\n      R*192.12.247.rrr                     TROTTINET         [US2]\n      R 192.12.248.rrr                     ATD1              [TS14]\n      R 192.12.249.rrr                     ATD2              [TS14]\n        192.12.250.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.12.251.rrr                     CDCNET-SDD        [RAM57]\n      R*192.12.252.rrr                     LL-VENET1         [BC65]\n      R*192.12.253.rrr                     LL-VENET2         [BC65]\n      R*192.12.254.rrr                     LL-APOLLO         [BC65]\n      R*192.12.255.rrr                     LL-ENET           [BC65]\n      D 192.13.0.rrr-192.14.255.rrr        DODIIS Subnets    [GEG4]\n      C*192.15.0.rrr-192.15.255.rrr        NBINET            [WW2]\n      G 192.16.0.rrr-192.16.12.rrr         LANLLAN           [PCW]\n      G 192.16.13.rrr                      LANL-SERIAL       [\nMWS7\n]\n      G 192.16.14.rrr-192.16.49.rrr        LANLLAN           [PCW]\n      R 192.16.50.rrr-192.16.71.rrr        RPI-LOCALNETS     [MS9]\n      R 192.16.72.rrr                      THENET            [DLN12]\n      R*192.16.73.rrr                      DSU-TOKEN         [GH46]\n      R 192.16.74.rrr                      OTSTOKEN          [DLN12]\n      C*192.16.75.rrr-192.16.122.rrr       CSC Block         [SWR3]\n      R 192.16.123.rrr                     SICSNET           [JW302]\n      R 192.16.124.rrr                     SICS-APOLLORING   [JW302]\n      R*192.16.125.rrr                     SWNET             [BE10]\n      R 192.16.126.rrr                     KTH-ETHER         [AH94]\n      R*192.16.127.rrr-192.16.129.rrr      SWNET             [BE10]\n      R 192.16.130.rrr                     ICU-NET           [AA81]\n      R*192.16.131.rrr-192.16.136.rrr      SWNET             [BE10]\n      R*192.16.137.rrr                     SWNET             [BE10]\n      R 192.16.138.rrr                     LU-SLIP-NET       [JE87]\n      R*192.16.139.rrr                     SWNET             [BE10]\n      R 192.16.140.rrr                     KTH-SICSLINK      [AH94]\n      R 192.16.141.rrr                     NEXUS-NET         [MH246]\n      R 192.16.142.rrr                     LOG-EHTER         [JH87]\n      R*192.16.143.rrr-192.16.145.rrr      SWNET             [BE10]\n      R 192.16.146.rrr                     IMNET             [HB99]\n      R 192.16.147.rrr                     IDEONLUND         [JE87]\n      R*192.16.148.rrr-192.16.151.rrr      SWNET             [BE10]\n      R 192.16.152.rrr                     TVTF-ETHER        [RZ2]\n      R*192.16.153.rrr-192.16.154.rrr      SWNET             [BE10]\n      R*192.16.155.rrr-192.16.166.rrr      CERN-Block        [TB166]\n        192.16.167.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 57]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 192.16.168.rrr                     PICANET3          [RFD1]\n      D 192.16.169.rrr                     NRL-HUBNET        [MPM]\n        192.16.170.rrr                     Reserved          [NIC]\n      R 192.16.171.rrr                     MACOM             [TSC11]\n      C*192.16.172.rrr                     EIK-ENG           [SW78]\n      D 192.16.173.rrr                     NCAD-LAN1         [FJS3]\n      R 192.16.174.rrr                     LL-MICRO-NET      [GLD]\n      R 192.16.175.rrr                     GUACC             [SA]\n      R 192.16.176.rrr                     LSUNET            [CFB1]\n      C*192.16.177.rrr                     FJINET            [CE41]\n      R*192.16.178.rrr                     NTT-Y-ETHER       [RN29]\n      R*192.16.179.rrr                     NTT-Y-APOLLO      [RN29]\n        192.16.180.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.16.181.rrr                     LL-DSN-NET        [KLS24]\n      R*192.16.182.rrr                     GTICS-SUNS        [DD11]\n      R*192.16.183.rrr                     WCW-LAN           [JA]\n      R 192.16.184.rrr                     CWI-ETHER         [PB13]\n      R*192.16.185.rrr-192.16.187.rrr      WCW-LAN           [JA]\n      R 192.16.188.rrr                     NKIS              [JA]\n      R*192.16.189.rrr-192.16.190.rrr      WCW-LAN           [JA]\n      R 192.16.191.rrr                     WCW               [PB13]\n      R*192.16.192.rrr-192.16.200.rrr      WCW-LAN           [JA]\n      R 192.16.201.rrr                     WCWS              [PB13]\n      R 192.16.202.rrr                     CWI-EUNET         [PB13]\n      R 192.16.203.rrr                     HCSC-SUN          [DB322]\n      R 192.16.204.rrr                     IASNET            [KHJ]\n      R 192.16.205.rrr                     DREA-ENET2        [JS597]\n      R 192.16.206.rrr                     DREA-ENET3        [JS597]\n      R 192.16.207.rrr                     DCIEM-CSS         [JS597]\n      R 192.16.208.rrr                     DCIEM-HFD         [JS597]\n      R*192.16.209.rrr-192.16.255.rrr      DREA-LAN          [JS597]\n      R*192.17.0.rrr-192.17.4.rrr          NIBELUNG          [MA24]\n        192.17.5.rrr                       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.17.6.rrr-192.17.255.rrr        NIBELUNG          [MA24]\n      C*192.18.0.rrr-192.18.255.rrr        Sun Microsystems  [WM3]\n      C*192.19.0.rrr-192.19.255.rrr        SYSNET-2          [EY5]\n      C*192.20.0.rrr-192.20.224.rrr        AT&T Bell Labs    [MH82]\n      R 192.20.225.rrr                     MH-INTER-NET      [BC71]\n      C*192.20.226.rrr-192.20.238.rrr      AT&T Bell Labs    [MH82]\n      C 192.20.239.rrr                     ATT-MD-NET        [MH82]\n      C*192.20.240.rrr-192.20.255.rrr      AT&T Bell Labs    [MH82]\n      C*192.21.0.rrr-192.21.255.rrr        FORMATIVE         [SAB17]\n      C*192.22.0.rrr-192.22.255.rrr        APPLICON          [AS90]\n      C*192.23.0.rrr-192.23.255.rrr        FACTRON           [JCB42]\n      C*192.24.0.rrr-192.24.255.rrr        CHROMATICS        [RB219]\n      R*192.25.0.rrr-192.25.255.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      D*192.26.0.rrr                       ACSAD             [SLH19]\n      R 192.26.1.rrr                       MCC-ACA10         [CBD]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 58]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.26.2.rrr                       MCC-ACA11         [CBD]\n      R 192.26.3.rrr                       MCC-ACA12         [CBD]\n      R 192.26.4.rrr                       MCC-ACA13         [CBD]\n      R 192.26.5.rrr                       MCC-ACA14         [CBD]\n      R 192.26.6.rrr                       MCC-ACA15         [CBD]\n      R 192.26.7.rrr                       SPAWAR            [JK7]\n      D 192.26.8.rrr                       SAIC-CPVB         [MAW25]\n      R*192.26.9.rrr                       ICOT              [MY14]\n      R 192.26.10.rrr                      GALLAUDET-TEMP    [KBC]\n      D 192.26.11.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET1       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.12.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET2       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.13.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET3       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.14.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET4       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.15.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET5       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.16.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET6       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.17.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET7       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.18.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET8       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.19.rrr                      NRL-HUBNET9       [MPM]\n      D 192.26.20.rrr                      NSYPTSMH-LAN      [TSD3]\n      R 192.26.21.rrr                      UNISYS-ISF-8      [MS22]\n      R 192.26.22.rrr                      UNISYS-ISF-9      [MS22]\n      R 192.26.23.rrr                      UNISYS-ISF-10     [MS22]\n      R 192.26.24.rrr                      UNISYS-ISF-11     [MS22]\n      R 192.26.25.rrr                      LUCID             [BM68]\n      D 192.26.26.rrr                      NRL-FIBER         [WF3]\n      C 192.26.27.rrr                      ICON-ETHER        [RH227]\n        192.26.28.rrr-192.26.45.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.26.46.rrr-192.26.47.rrr        EPFL              [YD2]\n      G*192.26.48.rrr                      FORUM             [MR101]\n      R 192.26.49.rrr                      OTS-192-26-49     [DLN12]\n      R*192.26.50.rrr-192.26.82.rrr        Silcon Graphics   [RB221]\n      R 192.26.83.rrr                      CSM-NET-TEMP      [KL31]\n      R 192.26.84.rrr                      NPRDC-FTC         [LRB]\n      R 192.26.85.rrr                      NUSAN             [JPD18]\n      R 192.26.86.rrr                      PHYSICS-SAC       [JPD18]\n      R 192.26.87.rrr                      MS-SAC            [JPD18]\n      R 192.26.88.rrr                      YALE-ENG-NET      [HML1]\n      D 192.26.89.rrr                      JTELS-BEN1-GW     [RR26]\n      C*192.26.90.rrr                      SYNTELNET-A       [RAR22]\n      R 192.26.91.rrr                      KDD               [TA24]\n      R*192.26.92.rrr                      WRIGHT            [SH1]\n      R 192.26.93.rrr                      AECL-NET          [\nTK43\n]\n      R*192.26.94.rrr                      NTT-AP-NET        [\nHM38\n]\n      R 192.26.95.rrr                      LL-VLSI-NET       [AHA]\n      R*192.26.96.rrr                      FX-STC-NET2       [SY8]\n      C*192.26.97.rrr                      RCA-SNOOPY        [RAR23]\n      C*192.26.98.rrr                      TASC-CTC-NET      [KDM5]\n      C 192.26.99.rrr                      FAI               [MWS10]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 59]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 192.26.100.rrr                     PROTEON-EXP1      [JS28]\n      C 192.26.101.rrr                     PROTEON-EXP2      [JS28]\n      C 192.26.102.rrr                     PROTEON-EXP3      [JS28]\n      D 192.26.103.rrr                     EXNET             [MB31]\n      R*192.26.104.rrr-192.26.135.rrr      FINLAND           [\nJH141\n]\n      R 192.26.136.rrr                     WASHINGTON-TEMP   [NJB7]\n      R 192.26.137.rrr-192.26.146.rrr      SYR-MH-NET        [JW47]\n      R 192.26.147.rrr                     WLV-ETHER         [SMS1]\n      R 192.26.148.rrr                     UMDNJ-NRAC        [LPM]\n      R 192.26.149.rrr                     LL43-LEX-SUNC     [VBK]\n      R 192.26.150.rrr                     LL43-TB-SUNA      [VBK]\n      C*192.26.151.rrr                     LATICORP          [CC108]\n      R 192.26.152.rrr                     FERNWOODNET1      [GEOF]\n        192.26.153.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.26.154.rrr-192.26.173.rrr      PHILIPS-SERI      [OK6]\n      R*192.26.174.rrr-192.26.193.rrr      UP-NETS           [RF130]\n      G*192.26.194.rrr-192.26.199.rrr      FRB-NETS          [RPD5]\n      G 192.26.200.rrr                     FRB-WS            [RPD5]\n      G*192.26.201.rrr-192.26.209.rrr      FRB-NETS          [RPD5]\n      R 192.26.210.rrr                     CRIM-NET          [MV38]\n        192.26.211.rrr-192.26.239.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 192.26.240.rrr                     BRAGGNET-18       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.241.rrr                     BRAGGNET-19       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.242.rrr                     BRAGGNET-20       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.243.rrr                     BRAGGNET-21       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.244.rrr                     BRAGGNET-22       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.245.rrr                     BRAGGNET-23       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.246.rrr                     BRAGGNET-24       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.247.rrr                     BRAGGNET-25       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.248.rrr                     BRAGGNET-26       [TN5]\n      D 192.26.249.rrr                     BRAGGNET-27       [TN5]\n      R*192.26.250.rrr                     SCRIPPSNET-B      [SRC16]\n      R*192.26.251.rrr                     SCRIPPSNET-C      [SRC16]\n      R*192.26.252.rrr                     SCRIPPSNET-D      [SRC16]\n      R*192.26.253.rrr                     SCRIPPSNET-E      [SRC16]\n      R*192.26.254.rrr                     SCRIPPSNET-F      [SRC16]\n        192.26.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.27.0.rrr-192.27.255.rrr        HAC-VLSI          [PH45]\n      C*192.28.0.rrr-192.28.99.rrr         3M-NETS           [LS103]\n      R*192.28.100.rrr-192.28.255.rrr      FORD-NETS         [FJB3]\n      C*192.29.0.rrr-192.29.255.rrr        Sun Microsystems  [WM3]\n      C*192.30.0.rrr-192.30.255.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      R 192.31.0.rrr                       PURDUE-GEOSC      [DT50]\n      C*192.31.1.rrr                       CSD-GTE-LAN       [MM135]\n      R 192.31.2.rrr                       YCC-SYS-LT        [ASW3]\n      R 192.31.3.rrr                       ALCOA-NET-TEMP    [JOG]\n      C*192.31.4.rrr                       I2-ETHER-3        [CB42]\n      R 192.31.5.rrr                       BOEING-ATC        [PM37]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 60]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 192.31.6.rrr                       SQ-ETHER          [BG23]\n      C 192.31.7.rrr                       CISCO-NET         [KSL]\n      G 192.31.8.rrr                       USNA-CADNET       [RAD15]\n        192.31.9.rrr                       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.10.rrr                      UTACC-ETHER1      [EK18]\n      R 192.31.11.rrr                      UTACC-ETHER2      [EK18]\n      R 192.31.12.rrr                      UTACC-ETHER3      [EK18]\n      R 192.31.13.rrr                      UTACC-ETHER4      [EK18]\n        192.31.14.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.31.15.rrr                      CASETEK           [PML1]\n      D 192.31.16.rrr                      CC1-ENET          [GIH]\n      D 192.31.17.rrr                      CENTCOM-UNCLAS    [KMC3]\n      D 192.31.18.rrr                      CC3-ENET          [GIH]\n      D 192.31.19.rrr                      CC4-ENET          [GIH]\n      D 192.31.20.rrr                      CC5-ENET          [GIH]\n      R 192.31.21.rrr                      SDSC-APOLLO       [GKN1]\n      C*192.31.22.rrr                      SDCCARY           [DK5]\n      R*192.31.23.rrr                      KULEUVEN-CS       [JH18]\n      D 192.31.24.rrr                      ALBM-NET          [DV42]\n      C*192.31.25.rrr                      NBKNET-AI         [JC272]\n      C*192.31.26.rrr                      ISTNET            [NT12]\n      R 192.31.27.rrr                      ALTAIR-NET        [OG4]\n      R 192.31.28.rrr                      STEWARD-OBS       [SS80]\n      R*192.31.29.rrr                      AMDAHL-TTD        [DR71]\n      R 192.31.30.rrr                      ADS-DC-NET        [WR66]\n      C*192.31.31.rrr                      AXION-NET         [NT13]\n      C*192.31.32.rrr-192.31.36.rrr        NSKK-LAN          [AK36]\n      C*192.31.37.rrr                      SDCAPOLL          [DK5]\n      C*192.31.38.rrr                      TIATSPINE         [WDR7]\n      R 192.31.39.rrr                      UTAH-NSS          [AC98]\n        192.31.40.rrr-192.31.42.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.43.rrr                      CNSNET            [DC99]\n      C 192.31.44.rrr                      MRC-NET           [WLG7]\n      R 192.31.45.rrr                      WILLIAMS          [DA106]\n      R*192.31.46.rrr                      LFU_ETHER         [MRK14]\n      R 192.31.47.rrr-192.31.61.rrr        BARRNET           [AB71]\n      R*192.31.62.rrr                      SRI-CAM           [AGS5]\n      R 192.31.63.rrr                      SCUBED-BBONE      [TH60]\n      R 192.31.64.rrr                      S3-RESEARCH       [TH60]\n      R 192.31.65.rrr                      S3-FIBER-NET      [TH60]\n      R 192.31.66.rrr                      S3-ABQNET         [TH60]\n      R 192.31.67.rrr                      S3-SLIP-NET       [TH60]\n      R 192.31.68.rrr                      S3-THIN-NET       [TH60]\n      R 192.31.69.rrr                      S3-BBONE2-NET     [TH60]\n      R 192.31.70.rrr                      S3-ETHER2-NET     [TH60]\n      R 192.31.71.rrr                      S3-ETHER3-NET     [TH60]\n      R 192.31.72.rrr                      S3-ETHER4-NET     [TH60]\n      C*192.31.73.rrr                      MTEL-APOLLO       [TSC11]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 61]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.31.74.rrr                      GSD-PCNET         [MDP16]\n      D 192.31.75.rrr                      HQDA-AI           [RAH64]\n      D 192.31.76.rrr                      CSTLNET           [MP20]\n      C*192.31.77.rrr                      MAPNET            [BH80]\n      C*192.31.78.rrr                      WELLSNET-A1       [JN47]\n      C*192.31.79.rrr                      WACHOVIANET-AI    [PMH3]\n        192.31.80.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.31.81.rrr                      ICAD-ETHER        [CJ57]\n      D 192.31.82.rrr                      HQEIS             [SMK2]\n      R 192.31.83.rrr                      OSUNET            [PW37]\n      C*192.31.84.rrr                      CUBI              [SFJ]\n      C 192.31.85.rrr                      CLINET            [WAH11]\n        192.31.86.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.87.rrr                      HARC-NET          [JRS67]\n      R 192.31.88.rrr                      BCMTECH-NET       [SB98]\n        192.31.89.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.90.rrr                      MORAVIAN          [JPS17]\n      R*192.31.91.rrr                      NECAM-TEMP        [ARS3]\n        192.31.92.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.93.rrr                      CIT-SRLNET        [CJL2]\n      C*192.31.94.rrr                      SYNTHESIS         [LL56]\n      R*192.31.95.rrr                      UCCNET            [AC42]\n      G 192.31.96.rrr                      ORNL-OSTINET      [THD]\n      R 192.31.97.rrr                      KSU-NET           [MSM1]\n      D 192.31.98.rrr                      PBAS-BEN2-GW      [RR26]\n      R 192.31.99.rrr                      UTENNK-RES        [JDC20]\n      D 192.31.100.rrr                     GUNTER-LAN-1      [TMD6]\n      R 192.31.101.rrr                     TSU-NET           [AZ]\n      C*192.31.102.rrr                     LEUZENET          [FBR2]\n      R 192.31.103.rrr                     CSNET-NET         [WHN2]\n      R 192.31.104.rrr                     CSNET-ECC         [WHN2]\n      R*192.31.105.rrr                     UCC-PRO-UCB       [AC42]\n      D 192.31.106.rrr                     NSWSES-NAVY       [MJJ1]\n      R*192.31.107.rrr                     ASN428-NET        [JRS48]\n      R*192.31.108.rrr                     UCFCSNET          [TB64]\n      R*192.31.109.rrr                     FREDONIA          [JM278]\n      C*192.31.110.rrr                     ADCAPOLL          [RC113]\n      R 192.31.111.rrr                     AIRMICS           [WES22]\n      R 192.31.112.rrr                     TRINCOLL          [PS173]\n      C 192.31.113.rrr                     ODYSSEY           [JH22]\n      C*192.31.114.rrr                     DRINET            [KB60]\n      C*192.31.115.rrr                     FIRENET-AI        [CO16]\n      R*192.31.116.rrr-192.31.124.rrr      UTOKYO-NETS       [JM292]\n      R*192.31.125.rrr-192.31.144.rrr      DUT-NET           [FD18]\n      R 192.31.145.rrr                     SIGNET            [PGM]\n      R 192.31.146.rrr                     UCR               [JR283]\n      D 192.31.147.rrr                     NUWESNET          [RM125]\n      C*192.31.148.rrr                     AIGNET-AI         [RK51]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 62]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.31.149.rrr                     WACNET-AI         [PMH3]\n      C*192.31.150.rrr                     STPNET-AI         [RLP30]\n      C*192.31.151.rrr                     COGNITIONNET      [DG177]\n      C 192.31.152.rrr                     ROSENET           [SW73]\n      R 192.31.153.rrr                     SALKNET           [JOO]\n      R 192.31.154.rrr                     UNMHC-DEV         [WTC]\n      R 192.31.155.rrr                     GEOLOGY-NWU       [JPD18]\n      R*192.31.156.rrr                     CANISIUS-CS       [MS101]\n      R 192.31.157.rrr                     RTNET             [SC81]\n        192.31.158.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.159.rrr                     NYTGCYLAB         [SS110]\n      D 192.31.160.rrr                     NUWES-C-NET       [RM125]\n      R 192.31.161.rrr                     UCB-UCSC-NET      [CF4]\n        192.31.162.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.163.rrr                     C3P-NET           [HLW7]\n      D 192.31.164.rrr                     MO-NET            [SM62]\n      R 192.31.165.rrr                     NOAO-TUCSON       [SG1]\n      R*192.31.166.rrr                     EUTEA             [JVE2]\n      R*192.31.167.rrr                     EUTES             [JVE2]\n      R*192.31.168.rrr                     EUTEB             [JVE2]\n      R*192.31.169.rrr                     EUTEEB            [JVE2]\n      R*192.31.170.rrr                     EUTEEA            [JVE2]\n      R*192.31.171.rrr                     EUTEX             [JVE2]\n      D 192.31.172.rrr                     IH-POE-GW         [LK27]\n      R 192.31.173.rrr                     NORTHWESTNET      [GK44]\n      D 192.31.174.rrr                     CORONA-GW-TEMP    [KHJ1]\n      C*192.31.175.rrr                     ZAIAZ             [WDW2]\n      R*192.31.176.rrr                     CADR              [MA56]\n        192.31.177.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.178.rrr                     THINK-INET-2      [BJN1]\n        192.31.179.rrr-192.31.180.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.181.rrr                     THINK-INET-5      [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.182.rrr                     THINK-INET-6      [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.183.rrr                     THINK-INET-7      [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.184.rrr                     THINK-INET-8      [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.185.rrr                     THINK-INET-9      [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.186.rrr                     THINK-INET-10     [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.187.rrr                     THINK-INET-11     [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.188.rrr                     THINK-INET-12     [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.189.rrr                     THINK-INET-13     [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.190.rrr                     THINK-INET-14     [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.191.rrr                     THINK-INET-15     [BJN1]\n      R 192.31.192.rrr                     SUPER             [\nRSH\n]\n      R 192.31.193.rrr                     CUA               [ECM6]\n        192.31.194.rrr-192.31.195.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.31.196.rrr                     SERC-NET          [DT50]\n      G 192.31.197.rrr                     ETLNET            [TO4]\n      G*192.31.198.rrr-192.31.206.rrr      ETL-LAN           [TO4]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 63]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.31.207.rrr                     HCSC-SUN2         [DB322]\n      D 192.31.208.rrr                     CENTERNET-TEMP    [JA91]\n      C*192.31.209.rrr                     PHRED             [MG95]\n      R 192.31.210.rrr                     STSCI-C-NET       [RK146]\n      R 192.31.211.rrr                     EMSE-INET         [JFC6]\n      C*192.31.212.rrr                     LUCID-ETHER1      [LNZ]\n      C*192.31.213.rrr                     LUCID-APOLLO      [LNZ]\n      R 192.31.214.rrr                     ALASKANET         [GK44]\n      R 192.31.215.rrr                     MONTANANET        [GK44]\n      R 192.31.216.rrr                     WSUNET-TEMP       [RW211]\n      R 192.31.217.rrr                     MCC-ACA1          [CBD]\n      R 192.31.218.rrr                     MCC-ACA2          [CBD]\n      R 192.31.219.rrr                     MCC-ACA3          [CBD]\n      R 192.31.220.rrr                     MCC-ACA4          [CBD]\n      R 192.31.221.rrr                     MCC-ACA5          [CBD]\n      R 192.31.222.rrr                     CAYMAN-IP         [BP52]\n      R 192.31.223.rrr                     UNO-NET           [DES43]\n      C*192.31.224.rrr                     HCR-ETHER         [JR222]\n      D 192.31.225.rrr                     MINSY-POE         [RWC34]\n      D 192.31.226.rrr                     LOGAIRCOMNET      [GT37]\n      C*192.31.227.rrr                     KSR-ETHER-1       [BIM]\n        192.31.228.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.31.229.rrr                     AMDAHL-DAPE       [JFD9]\n      R 192.31.230.rrr                     INCSYS            [JS281]\n      R 192.31.231.rrr                     VUCS-AMS          [HVS1]\n      C*192.31.232.rrr                     CFI-NET           [SL47]\n      C*192.31.233.rrr                     CNT-CORP          [RM176]\n        192.31.234.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.31.235.rrr                     SCA-NET           [HML1]\n      R 192.31.236.rrr                     YALE-CS-NET       [HML1]\n        192.31.237.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 192.31.238.rrr                     NCP-LAN           [JM246]\n      D 192.31.239.rrr                     SEACOMNET         [JH10]\n      C*192.31.240.rrr                     LEXICON           [MK75]\n      G 192.31.241.rrr                     MSFC-DR-NET       [MSM1]\n      R 192.31.242.rrr                     DIALUP-IP         [WHN2]\n      R*192.31.243.rrr                     WRIGHT-SE         [JLS45]\n        192.31.244.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 192.31.245.rrr                     BITS-NET          [AM95]\n      C 192.31.246.rrr                     MARBLE-NET        [ME38]\n      C*192.31.247.rrr                     CVBNET            [AC66]\n      R*192.31.248.rrr                     AJTNET            [RJH33]\n      C*192.31.249.rrr                     ADELIE            [BAB7]\n      C*192.31.250.rrr                     THALATTA-NET      [JPB17]\n        192.31.251.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.31.252.rrr                     FTC-ETHER-A       [RS253]\n      R 192.31.253.rrr                     CQENET            [JPD18]\n      R 192.31.254.rrr                     ALFREDNET         [CLB36]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 64]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n192.31.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.32.0.rrr-192.32.255.rrr        WELLFLEET         [AW56]\n        192.33.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      R*192.33.1.rrr                       MTHOLYOKE         [WB53]\n      C*192.33.2.rrr                       MRST-NET          [ER42]\n      D 192.33.3.rrr                       DDN-OFFICE        [\nDM28\n]\n      R 192.33.4.rrr                       NYSERLAN          [MS9]\n      D 192.33.5.rrr                       CAC-CEN1          [BG25]\n      D 192.33.6.rrr                       CAC-CEN2          [BG25]\n      D 192.33.7.rrr                       CAC-CEN3          [BG25]\n      D 192.33.8.rrr                       CAC-CEN4          [BG25]\n      D 192.33.9.rrr                       CAC-CEN5          [BG25]\n      R 192.33.10.rrr                      NOAO-KPNO         [SG1]\n      R 192.33.11.rrr                      NOAO-ORION        [SG1]\n      R*192.33.12.rrr                      HAMPSHIRE         [PT23]\n      D 192.33.13.rrr                      BRL-CDCNET        [RR33]\n      R 192.33.14.rrr                      CIT-WAG-NET       [RED22]\n      C 192.33.15.rrr                      CHORUS-OPERA      [RD104]\n      R*192.33.16.rrr                      COGS              [RS255]\n      R 192.33.17.rrr                      CALTECH-AMA       [DIM2]\n        192.33.18.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.33.19.rrr                      SERI              [AM92]\n      C*192.33.20.rrr                      AUX-DEFAULT       [HK24]\n      C 192.33.21.rrr                      RISC-ANAHEIM      [WAG5]\n      C*192.33.22.rrr                      PORTAL            [JL115]\n      R 192.33.23.rrr                      ROUTETEST0        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.24.rrr                      ROUTETEST1        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.25.rrr                      ROUTETEST2        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.26.rrr                      ROUTETEST3        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.27.rrr                      ROUTETEST4        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.28.rrr                      ROUTETEST5        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.29.rrr                      ROUTETEST6        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.30.rrr                      ROUTETEST7        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.31.rrr                      ROUTETEST8        [SSW]\n      R 192.33.32.rrr                      ROUTETEST9        [SSW]\n      D 192.33.33.rrr                      NISCNET           [VN]\n        192.33.34.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.33.35.rrr                      MIZAR             [MCL9]\n      R 192.33.36.rrr                      VUPHYS-AMS        [FU1]\n      C*192.33.37.rrr-192.33.86.rrr        BOEING-LOCALNETS  [SGR1]\n      R*192.33.87.rrr-192.33.111.rrr       ETH-NETS          [MA63]\n      C 192.33.112.rrr                     TIS-NET           [DID1]\n      C*192.33.113.rrr                     MYBULL            [CM116]\n      C*192.33.114.rrr                     MYDEMO            [CM116]\n      R 192.33.115.rrr                     NRAO-CV           [DCW9]\n      R 192.33.116.rrr                     NRAO-GB           [NM57]\n      R*192.33.117.rrr                     NRAO-VLA          [BP57]\n      R*192.33.118.rrr-192.33.127.rrr      PSI-NETS          [BH103]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 65]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.33.128.rrr                     BNL-AGS           [SM111]\n        192.33.129.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.33.130.rrr                     SPHINX            [BM106]\n      C*192.33.131.rrr                     PHIL-CE           [HB60]\n      C*192.33.132.rrr                     STEREOLITHO       [EM67]\n        192.33.133.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.33.134.rrr                     ESOSUN            [PW49]\n      G*192.33.135.rrr                     AIST-LAN          [MK79]\n      R 192.33.136.rrr                     KUBNET            [TN17]\n      R*192.33.137.rrr                     CT-ETHER          [CS136]\n      R*192.33.138.rrr                     CT-ATALK          [CS136]\n        192.33.139.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.33.140.rrr                     SAO-NET           [KG35]\n      R 192.33.141.rrr                     SAO1-NET          [KG35]\n      R 192.33.142.rrr                     SAO2-NET          [KG35]\n        192.33.143.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.33.144.rrr                     FNET-CERISI       [AR41]\n      R 192.33.145.rrr                     FNET-LIFO         [AR41]\n      R 192.33.146.rrr                     FNET-LAAS         [AR41]\n      R*192.33.147.rrr                     FNET2             [AR41]\n      R 192.33.148.rrr                     FNET-GRECO        [AR41]\n      R 192.33.149.rrr                     FNET-CMA          [AR41]\n      R*192.33.150.rrr-192.33.152.rrr      FNET-LAN          [AR41]\n      R 192.33.153.rrr                     FNET-ENS-LYON     [AR41]\n      R*192.33.154.rrr-192.33.155.rrr      FNET-LAN          [AR41]\n      R 192.33.156.rrr                     UNIV-PARIS8       [AR41]\n      R*192.33.157.rrr-192.33.158.rrr      FNET-LAN          [AR41]\n      R 192.33.159.rrr                     FNET-CNAM         [AR41]\n      R*192.33.160.rrr-192.33.165.rrr      FNET-LAN          [AR41]\n      R 192.33.166.rrr                     GIPSI             [JMO4]\n      R 192.33.167.rrr                     FNET-CRIN         [AR41]\n      R 192.33.168.rrr                     INRIA-LORR        [AR41]\n      R*192.33.169.rrr                     FNET7             [AR41]\n      R 192.33.170.rrr                     INRIA-FRANCE      [AR41]\n      R*192.33.171.rrr-192.33.177.rrr      FNET-LAN          [AR41]\n      R 192.33.178.rrr                     CNET-PARIS        [AR41]\n      R 192.33.179.rrr                     FNET-EXPO         [AR41]\n      R 192.33.180.rrr                     FNET-DEMO         [AR41]\n      R 192.33.181.rrr                     FNET-IBP          [AR41]\n      R 192.33.182.rrr                     UNIV-PARIS13      [AR41]\n      D 192.33.183.rrr                     SAPE-MOBILE       [CAD13]\n      D 192.33.184.rrr                     SAPE-PRNODE       [CAD13]\n      G 192.33.185.rrr                     SAAD-ARPA         [DRM24]\n      D 192.33.186.rrr                     USACEC-NET-TEMP   [DEA]\n      C*192.33.187.rrr                     INNONET           [JW181]\n      R*192.33.188.rrr                     TG-ETHER          [DC115]\n      C 192.33.189.rrr                     FX-NET            [EJ19]\n      C*192.33.190.rrr                     TCP-SECURE        [AW65]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 66]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.33.191.rrr                     WEST              [BML2]\n      R*192.33.192.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-ME    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.193.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-MA    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.194.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-MX    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.195.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-EL    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.196.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-GC    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.197.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-PH    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.198.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-CH    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.199.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-DA    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.200.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-GR    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.201.rrr                     EPFL-DOMAIN-CC    [YD2]\n      R*192.33.202.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-ME     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.203.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-MA     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.204.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-MX     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.205.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-EL     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.206.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-GC     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.207.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-PH     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.208.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-CH     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.209.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-DA     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.210.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-GR     [YD2]\n      R*192.33.211.rrr                     EPFL-APPLE-CC     [YD2]\n      R 192.33.212.rrr                     C-212             [AS116]\n      R 192.33.213.rrr                     C-213             [AS116]\n      R 192.33.214.rrr                     C-214             [AS116]\n      R 192.33.215.rrr                     C-215             [AS116]\n      R 192.33.216.rrr                     C-216             [AS116]\n      R 192.33.217.rrr                     C-217             [AS116]\n      R 192.33.218.rrr                     C-218             [AS116]\n      R 192.33.219.rrr                     C-219             [AS116]\n      R*192.33.220.rrr-192.33.231.rrr      UNI-GENEVA        [AS116]\n        192.33.232.rrr-192.33.239.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.33.240.rrr                     SRHYPER           [MJ33]\n      C*192.33.241.rrr-192.33.250.rrr      SMI-NET           [KD36]\n      C*192.33.251.rrr                     ISA-NET           [CJB15]\n      R 192.33.252.rrr                     CLEMSON-CSD       [CR83]\n      R*192.33.253.rrr                     CANISIUS-CC       [LD46]\n      C*192.33.254.rrr                     RMI-NET           [RM213]\n        192.33.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.34.0.rrr-192.34.255.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      C*192.35.0.rrr-192.35.19.rrr         NIXDORF-NETS      [PD39]\n      C*192.35.20.rrr-192.35.43.rrr        GE-INTERNET       [JEB50]\n      C 192.35.44.rrr                      GECRD-ISONET      [JEB50]\n      C*192.35.45.rrr                      MSDCNET           [PNW]\n      C*192.35.46.rrr                      GMHGATE           [PNW]\n      C*192.35.47.rrr                      GMHNET            [PNW]\n      R 192.35.48.rrr                      VIRGINIA-T1       [JAJ17]\n      R 192.35.49.rrr                      VIRGINIA-T2       [JAJ17]\n      C*192.35.50.rrr                      CLARIS-NET        [CM130]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 67]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n192.35.51.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C 192.35.52.rrr                      LACHMAN-NET       [SA65]\n      C 192.35.53.rrr                      LAI-TCP           [SA65]\n      C 192.35.54.rrr                      LAI-MAC           [SA65]\n      C 192.35.55.rrr                      LAI-ISDN          [SA65]\n      C 192.35.56.rrr                      LAI-SLIP          [SA65]\n      C 192.35.57.rrr                      LAI-STG           [SA65]\n      R*192.35.58.rrr                      ENSUN             [SC136]\n      R 192.35.59.rrr                      AAII              [DM249]\n      C*192.35.60.rrr                      ASCENT            [EB33]\n        192.35.61.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 192.35.62.rrr                      NOSL-POE          [DB211]\n      R*192.35.63.rrr-192.35.72.rrr        UNIDO-NETS        [RV32]\n      C*192.35.73.rrr                      OPTICOM           [CJB1]\n      D 192.35.74.rrr                      FOTLANHS          [FJH1]\n      D 192.35.75.rrr                      FOTLANMS          [FJH1]\n      D 192.35.76.rrr                      FOTLANLS          [FJH1]\n      C*192.35.77.rrr                      GM-AES-NET        [DS229]\n      R 192.35.78.rrr                      IRIS-RING         [JFS22]\n      R 192.35.79.rrr                      CCFNET            [SG144]\n      D 192.35.80.rrr                      NUSC-V702M-1      [SR77]\n      R 192.35.81.rrr                      UWP-IPNET         [TVF1]\n      R 192.35.82.rrr                      CORNELL-DMZ       [JCH17]\n      C*192.35.83.rrr                      SDCCARY2          [RC113]\n      C*192.35.84.rrr                      BDM-MCLEAN        [JS167]\n      R*192.35.85.rrr                      MCGILL-TMP01      [MOUSE]\n      R 192.35.86.rrr                      UMN-MORRIS-NET    [MVO1]\n      C*192.35.87.rrr                      CMPNET            [GC89]\n      R 192.35.88.rrr                      ADEL02-NET        [CLR16]\n      R 192.35.89.rrr                      YCC-SYS-TR        [HKG2]\n      C*192.35.90.rrr                      NLCVX-NET         [SN52]\n      C*192.35.91.rrr                      CSR-NET           [HKG2]\n      C*192.35.92.rrr                      UNISYS-HPW-1      [MS22]\n      C*192.35.93.rrr                      UNISYS-HPW-2      [MS22]\n      G*192.35.94.rrr                      RSRE-SLAN         [BO5]\n      R 192.35.95.rrr                      HCSC-APPLE        [DB322]\n      R 192.35.96.rrr                      UOKECNA           [JW136]\n      R 192.35.97.rrr                      UOKECNB           [JW136]\n      R 192.35.98.rrr                      UOKECNC           [JW136]\n      D 192.35.99.rrr                      WSMR-NET3         [RHM11]\n      R 192.35.100.rrr                     HORIZON-NET       [KJS10]\n      R 192.35.101.rrr                     KEYSTONE-NET      [GR11]\n      C*192.35.102.rrr                     IBINET            [KM79]\n      C*192.35.103.rrr                     SONET             [SWW6]\n        192.35.104.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.35.105.rrr                     POCI              [MA56]\n      R*192.35.106.rrr                     LMSC-LAMS         [GMT6]\n      R*192.35.107.rrr                     NOVANET           [JPO4]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 68]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.35.108.rrr                     SGI-UK            [RA94]\n      C*192.35.109.rrr-192.35.126.rrr      APOLLO-NETS       [SJL]\n        192.35.127.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      G*192.35.128.rrr                     NESDIS-NET        [MSM1]\n      G 192.35.129.rrr                     WWB-NET           [MSM1]\n      C*192.35.130.rrr                     WANG-CAD          [WWP8]\n      C*192.35.131.rrr                     WANG-TEST         [WWP8]\n      D*192.35.132.rrr                     WANG-TLAN         [WWP8]\n      R*192.35.133.rrr                     WANG-WITA         [WWP8]\n      R*192.35.134.rrr                     LL-DIV7           [BC65]\n      R*192.35.135.rrr                     LL-DIV9           [BC65]\n      R*192.35.136.rrr                     LL-GR47-ADT       [BC65]\n      R*192.35.137.rrr                     LL-GR47-RPV       [BC65]\n      C*192.35.138.rrr                     SPIDER            [AD67]\n        192.35.139.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.35.140.rrr                     WWU-NET           [PAN1]\n      C*192.35.141.rrr                     QUADRON           [HP32]\n      D 192.35.142.rrr                     YKTNPOE-GW        [WRR5]\n      R*192.35.143.rrr                     UHCL              [JCN10]\n      R 192.35.144.rrr                     DREV-ENET         [JS597]\n      G*192.35.145.rrr                     HAWAII-UHCC       [TN11]\n      R*192.35.146.rrr                     ARCO-CNR          [MF96]\n      D 192.35.147.rrr                     WVA-1             [JEG27]\n      D 192.35.148.rrr                     SIMASTL-NET       [LJC2]\n      R*192.35.149.rrr                     GMD-FOKUS         [SW111]\n      R*192.35.150.rrr                     GMD-FIRST         [SW111]\n      R*192.35.151.rrr                     GMD-FOKUS-A       [SW111]\n      R*192.35.152.rrr                     GMD-FOKUS-B       [SW111]\n      R*192.35.153.rrr                     GMD-FIRST-A       [SW111]\n      D 192.35.154.rrr                     RIA-2-NET         [\nTC72\n]\n      R*192.35.155.rrr                     ASNCRAY-NET       [JRS48]\n      C 192.35.156.rrr                     QUALNET2          [VH21]\n      R*192.35.157.rrr                     NWNET1            [GK44]\n      R*192.35.158.rrr                     NWNET2            [GK44]\n      R 192.35.159.rrr                     TACTICS-INTA      [GMR]\n      R 192.35.160.rrr                     TACTICS-GRAT      [GMR]\n      R 192.35.161.rrr                     NBB1              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.162.rrr                     NBB2              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.163.rrr                     NBB3              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.164.rrr                     NBB4              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.165.rrr                     NBB5              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.166.rrr                     NBB6              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.167.rrr                     NBB7              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.168.rrr                     NBB8              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.169.rrr                     NBB9              [HWB]\n      R 192.35.170.rrr                     NBB10             [HWB]\n      R 192.35.171.rrr                     MIDNET-NET2       [DF90]\n      R*192.35.172.rrr                     BRISPOLY          [\nPE25\n]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 69]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.35.173.rrr                     MCC-CAD4          [CBD]\n      R 192.35.174.rrr                     MCC-CAD5          [CBD]\n      R 192.35.175.rrr                     MCC-CAD6          [CBD]\n      R 192.35.176.rrr                     MCC-CAD7          [CBD]\n      R 192.35.177.rrr                     MCC-CAD8          [CBD]\n      R 192.35.178.rrr                     MCC-CAD9          [CBD]\n      R 192.35.179.rrr                     MCC-CAD10         [CBD]\n      R 192.35.180.rrr                     NWNET3            [GK44]\n      R*192.35.181.rrr                     NWNET4            [GK44]\n      C*192.35.182.rrr                     KCCS-ETHER        [KC40]\n      R*192.35.183.rrr-192.35.192.rrr      VUCS-NETS         [HVS1]\n      G*192.35.193.rrr                     PNL-SNET          [SCT2]\n      C*192.35.194.rrr                     JAR-NET           [PJ29]\n      R 192.35.195.rrr                     ARIZONA-CMI       [JMS56]\n      G 192.35.196.rrr                     NARDAC-NET        [SW69]\n      C*192.35.197.rrr                     ISTCAMNET         [NT12]\n      C*192.35.198.rrr                     ISTREDNET         [NT12]\n        192.35.199.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.35.200.rrr                     NOAO-SUNSPOT      [RM320]\n      R 192.35.201.rrr                     HAWAII-HIG        [TN11]\n      R 192.35.202.rrr                     HAWAII-RIFT       [TN11]\n      R 192.35.203.rrr                     ECE-ARIZ          [CMG9]\n      C*192.35.204.rrr                     AAEC              [TS118]\n      R*192.35.205.rrr                     EAPSNET           [AB115]\n      R*192.35.206.rrr                     APOLLONET         [AB115]\n      R*192.35.207.rrr                     CSTCDIE           [MN36]\n      D 192.35.208.rrr                     LM-HN-MCC         [SJ55]\n      R 192.35.209.rrr                     UCOP-K3RDNET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.210.rrr                     UCOP-K4THNET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.211.rrr                     UCOP-K5THNET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.212.rrr                     UCOP-K6THNET      [CL64]\n      R 192.35.213.rrr                     UCOP-K8THNET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.214.rrr                     UCOP-PR80NET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.215.rrr                     UCDLA-FE1NET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.216.rrr                     UCDLA-FE2NET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.217.rrr                     UCDLA-UHNET       [CL64]\n      R*192.35.218.rrr                     UCDLA-IINET       [CL64]\n      R*192.35.219.rrr                     UCDLA-SDINET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.220.rrr                     UCDLA-SCINET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.221.rrr                     UCDLA-SFINET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.222.rrr                     UCDLA-SBINET      [CL64]\n      R*192.35.223.rrr                     UCDLA-RINET       [CL64]\n      R*192.35.224.rrr                     UCDLA-SINET       [CL64]\n      R*192.35.225.rrr                     UCDLA-LAINET      [CL64]\n      R 192.35.226.rrr                     UCDLA-DINET       [CL64]\n      R*192.35.227.rrr                     UCDLA-BINET       [CL64]\n      R*192.35.228.rrr                     UCDLA-NLFNET      [CL64]\n      R 192.35.229.rrr                     RWTH-INFO         [GB133]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 70]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n192.35.230.rrr-192.35.255.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.36.0.rrr-192.36.22.0           SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.23.rrr                      IBMCTP-NET        [BGL5]\n      R*192.36.24.rrr-192.36.110.rrr       SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.111.rrr                     CTH-STE-NET       [GL41]\n      R 192.36.112.rrr                     UMDAC-NET         [RH271]\n      R 192.36.113.rrr                     TDB-NET           [RH271]\n      R 192.36.114.rrr                     UMUNET1           [RH271]\n      R*192.36.115.rrr-192.36.119.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.120.rrr                     CTH-DTEK-NET      [GL41]\n      R 192.36.121.rrr                     LU-TDE-NET        [JE87]\n      R 192.36.122.rrr                     LU-REGLER-NET     [JE87]\n      R 192.36.123.rrr                     LU-SLIP2          [JE87]\n      R 192.36.124.rrr                     LU-EFD2-NET       [JE87]\n      R 192.36.125.rrr                     SUNET-BACKBONE    [AH94]\n      R*192.36.126.rrr-192.36.132.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.133.rrr                     LU-QUARK-NET      [JE87]\n      R 192.36.134.rrr                     LU-LDC-NET        [JE87]\n      R*192.36.135.rrr                     SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.136.rrr                     SISU-NET          [AB125]\n      R*192.36.137.rrr-192.36.142.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.143.rrr                     STOCKHOLM-BB      [AH94]\n      R*192.36.144.rrr-192.36.147.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.148.rrr                     NORDUNET-BB       [AH94]\n      R*192.36.149.rrr                     SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.150.rrr                     LUTH-NET          [SW142]\n      R 192.36.151.rrr                     LUTH1-NET         [SW142]\n      R*192.36.152.rrr-192.36.154.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.155.rrr                     MECE1-NET         [LB181]\n      R*192.36.156.rrr-192.36.167.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.168.rrr                     UU1-NET           [AA81]\n      R*192.36.169.rrr-192.36.184.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.185.rrr                     CTH-EKO-NET       [GL41]\n      R*192.36.186.rrr-192.36.223.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      R 192.36.224.rrr                     GBG-XX-NET        [GL41]\n      R 192.36.225.rrr                     CTH-CTKT-NET      [GL41]\n      R*192.36.226.rrr-192.36.255.rrr      SWEDISH-NET       [BE10]\n      C*192.37.0.rrr-192.37.255.rrr        CIBA-GEIGY        [HN3]\n      R*192.38.0.rrr-192.38.255.rrr        DENET             [JPS21]\n      C*192.39.0.rrr-192.39.10.rrr         UNISYS-NETS       [CC129]\n      R 192.39.11.rrr                      UNISYS-RES1       [KL63]\n      R 192.39.12.rrr                      UNISYS-RES2       [KL63]\n      C*192.39.13.rrr-192.39.255.rrr       UNISYS-NETS       [CC129]\n      C*192.40.0.rrr-192.40.50.rrr.rrr     Hewlett-Packard   [DCL10]\n      D 192.40.51.rrr                      PMS312-NET        [DL164]\n      C*192.40.52.rrr-192.40.255.rrr       Hewlett-Packard   [DCL10]\n      C*192.41.0.rrr-192.41.101.rrr        ICON-ETHER        [RH227]\n      R*192.41.102.rrr-192.41.131.rrr      EU-NETS           [WSC5]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 71]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*192.41.132.rrr-192.41.136.rrr      UNIZH-BLOCK       [GP88]\n      C*192.41.137.rrr                     VERDIX-NET        [LD4]\n        192.41.138.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.41.139.rrr                     BBN-SYSENGRC      [DW159]\n      R 192.41.140.rrr                     STC-LAN           [JFW]\n      R*192.41.141.rrr-192.41.145.rrr      UNISG-NETS        [PG62]\n      R 192.41.146.rrr                     CSISRING          [SM164]\n      R*192.41.147.rrr                     FBIHH             [RDM25]\n      G*192.41.148.rrr                     CITY-CALGARY      [AK62]\n      R*192.41.149.rrr-192.41.160.rrr      UNIBE-NETS        [FB61]\n      C*192.41.161.rrr                     ACS-DC-NET        [TR62]\n        192.41.162.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.41.163.rrr                     GURUNET           [KDZ]\n      C*192.41.164.rrr-192.41.169.rrr      UNISYS-NETS       [MS22]\n      R*192.41.170.rrr                     AIT-CS-NET        [TK60]\n      R 192.41.171.rrr                     JVNCNET-TEST      [SH37]\n      C*192.41.172.rrr                     CSPI              [GLC18]\n      R 192.41.173.rrr                     PENNLNK           [TES16]\n      R 192.41.174.rrr                     AMBLER            [TES16]\n      R 192.41.175.rrr                     TYLER             [TES16]\n      R 192.41.176.rrr                     TEMPLE-RC         [TES16]\n      R 192.41.177.rrr                     SURA-NOC          [DO66]\n      R*192.41.178.rrr-192.41.191.rrr      UTOKYO-NET        [JM292]\n      R 192.41.192.rrr                     JUNET-JSFNET      [JM292]\n      R*192.41.193.rrr-192.41.196.rrr      UTOKYO-NET        [JM292]\n      R 192.41.197.rrr                     CCUTRDNET         [JM292]\n      C*192.41.198.rrr                     TYMNET-TTE        [JM451]\n      C*192.41.199.rrr                     CONTEX            [SL97]\n      R 192.41.200.rrr                     NIEHS             [SM157]\n      C*192.41.201.rrr                     HSA-SLNET         [SP69]\n      D 192.41.202.rrr                     LBNS-POE-GW       [DC145]\n      C 192.41.203.rrr                     SOFTWAY-NET       [CM153]\n      G 192.41.204.rrr                     EROS-NET          [MSM1]\n      C*192.41.205.rrr                     VERDIX-HQ         [CG24]\n      R*192.41.206.rrr                     UI-NETLAB         [AT62]\n      D 192.41.207.rrr                     NESEA-NET         [DT59]\n      R 192.41.208.rrr                     CIT-SSDP          [TM19]\n      D*192.41.209.rrr                     GSD-APOLONET      [MDP16]\n      C*192.41.210.rrr                     RTS-IOM           [DB263]\n      R 192.41.211.rrr                     APO-GALILEO       [JRF12]\n      C*192.41.212.rrr                     ARINC-LAN-1       [BM168]\n      G 192.41.213.rrr                     GEODEN            [THL3]\n      C*192.41.214.rrr                     INTERCON-NET      [AW90]\n      C*192.41.215.rrr                     ZARDOZ            [NJG6]\n      R 192.41.216.rrr                     KUBNET-A          [TN17]\n      C 192.41.217.rrr                     DSS               [RLP39]\n      R*192.41.218.rrr                     UDSAB             [AN31]\n      R*192.41.219.rrr                     JVNC-ETA10        [SH37]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 72]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nG*192.41.220.rrr                     VERNET            [JR38]\n      G*192.41.221.rrr                     VERNET-GW         [JR38]\n      C*192.41.222.rrr                     QUICK-NET         [SG58]\n      R*192.41.223.rrr                     ENSCO-FL          [EB95]\n      C*192.41.224.rrr                     BWPCC             [DRM31]\n      G 192.41.225.rrr                     AMES-FEI-NET      [MSM1]\n      C*192.41.226.rrr                     ACAD              [JC345]\n      R*192.41.227.rrr                     ISE-NET           [PJ35]\n      C 192.41.228.rrr                     TGV-NET           [KAA]\n      R 192.41.229.rrr                     NBB11             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.230.rrr                     NBB12             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.231.rrr                     NBB13             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.232.rrr                     NBB14             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.233.rrr                     NBB15             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.234.rrr                     NBB16             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.235.rrr                     NBB17             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.236.rrr                     NBB18             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.237.rrr                     NBB19             [HWB]\n      R 192.41.238.rrr                     NBB20             [HWB]\n      R*192.41.239.rrr                     USW-MPLS-DWT      [BRB8]\n      R*192.41.240.rrr                     USW-MPLS-BEE      [BRB8]\n      R*192.41.241.rrr                     USW-MPLS-MAPLE    [BRB8]\n      R*192.41.242.rrr                     USW-MPLS-MNM      [BRB8]\n      R*192.41.243.rrr                     USW-MPLS-BAK      [BRB8]\n      R*192.41.244.rrr                     WRIGHT-CAIA       [MS272]\n      R 192.41.245.rrr                     IIT-NET           [MD119]\n      D 192.41.246.rrr                     ASIFICS           [SC139]\n      C*192.41.247.rrr                     CHIPCOM           [SE49]\n        192.41.248.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 192.41.249.rrr                     WR-HN-MCC         [SJ55]\n      D*192.41.250.rrr-192.41.255.rrr      DTSA-NET          [BB116]\n        192.42.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.42.1.rrr                       DATUS             [KFS2]\n      R 192.42.2.rrr                       CSCSAV-NET        [TV]\n      R 192.42.3.rrr                       CLEMSON-ENG       [WGS4]\n      G 192.42.4.rrr                       MSCDPA            [MB204]\n      R 192.42.5.rrr                       MACPHYS           [CB162]\n      R 192.42.6.rrr                       MACENG            [CB162]\n      R 192.42.7.rrr                       MONTANACOE        [JM468]\n      C 192.42.8.rrr                       TELEOS-NET        [NW25]\n      R*192.42.9.rrr-192.42.40.rrr         BOEING-NETS       [GK44]\n      D 192.42.41.rrr                      PUGET-POE-NET     [GC104]\n      R*192.42.42.rrr-192.42.47.rrr        UNINE-BLOCK       [\nCW115\n]\n      R 192.42.48.rrr                      CHPCSUNS          [WLJ7]\n      R 192.42.49.rrr                      CHPCAPOLLOS       [WLJ7]\n      R 192.42.50.rrr                      CHPCXMPFEI        [WLJ7]\n      R 192.42.51.rrr                      CHPCXMPOPR        [WLJ7]\n      C*192.42.52.rrr                      ANZNET-AI         [WM96]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 73]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.42.53.rrr                      SUNNET-AI         [PE21]\n      C*192.42.54.rrr                      CBCNET-AI         [BA51]\n      R*192.42.55.rrr                      SBEENET           [JM414]\n      R 192.42.56.rrr                      RAND-NET4         [JDG]\n      R 192.42.57.rrr                      RAND-NET5         [JDG]\n      R 192.42.58.rrr                      RAND-NET6         [JDG]\n      R 192.42.59.rrr                      RAND-NET7         [JDG]\n      R 192.42.60.rrr                      DMS-MELB          [MA88]\n      R 192.42.61.rrr                      DMS-CANB          [MA88]\n      R 192.42.62.rrr                      DMS-PERTH         [MA88]\n        192.42.63.rrr-192.42.64.rrr        Reserved          [NIC]\n      C*192.42.65.rrr                      CINET             [JV69]\n      G 192.42.66.rrr                      WWB-APOLLO-NET    [MSM1]\n      C*192.42.67.rrr                      SOL-ETHER         [NM37]\n      R 192.42.68.rrr                      DREOEWD-ENET      [JS597]\n      R*192.42.69.rrr                      ETHER1            [JV70]\n      G 192.42.70.rrr                      GISS-NET          [MSM1]\n        192.42.71.rrr-192.42.74.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      G 192.42.75.rrr                      LARC-SNS          [SDD8]\n      G 192.42.76.rrr                      LARCNET2          [SDD8]\n      G 192.42.77.rrr                      LARCNET3          [SDD8]\n      G 192.42.78.rrr                      LARCNET4          [SDD8]\n      G 192.42.79.rrr                      LARCNET5          [SDD8]\n      D 192.42.80.rrr                      SA-HN-MCC         [SJ55]\n      D 192.42.81.rrr                      OC-HN-MCC         [SJ55]\n      R 192.42.82.rrr                      SCRIPPSNET        [SRC16]\n      R*192.42.83.rrr                      IIT-2             [PJF7]\n      C*192.42.84.rrr                      NTTDATA-NET1      [HE12]\n      C*192.42.85.rrr                      NTTDATA-NET2      [HE12]\n      C*192.42.86.rrr                      NTTDATA-NET3      [HE12]\n      R*192.42.87.rrr                      KING-POLY         [SB167]\n      D 192.42.88.rrr                      SHAFTER-NET       [DM35]\n      R*192.42.89.rrr                      WELLESLEY         [SS208]\n      C*192.42.90.rrr                      QUANTIC           [JV74]\n      R 192.42.91.rrr                      FB04              [AJ29]\n      G*192.42.92.rrr                      ACLD-NET          [BS168]\n        192.42.93.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.42.94.rrr                      LILLYNET-TEMP     [FDC2]\n      C 192.42.95.rrr                      PSC               [\nBV15\n]\n      R*192.42.96.rrr                      SWIVAX            [HK35]\n      R 192.42.97.rrr                      SOFTWARE          [JLR43]\n      C*192.42.98.rrr                      IEX-NET           [RB548]\n      R*192.42.99.rrr                      RHODENT           [FJG4]\n      R*192.42.100.rrr                     KEELE-CS          [JK186]\n      R*192.42.101.rrr                     UMSMEDCTR         [GAG17]\n      R*192.42.102.rrr                     GRENET            [JA146]\n      R*192.42.103.rrr-192.42.107.rrr      TOHOKU-NET        [YK3]\n      R 192.42.108.rrr                     UMC-NET           [AC98]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 74]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.42.109.rrr                     INCSYS2           [JS281]\n      R 192.42.110.rrr                     SU-ASSOC-NET      [VAF]\n      C*192.42.111.rrr                     ELAN              [JL239]\n        192.42.112.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.42.113.rrr                     SARA-NET          [WVDS]\n      R 192.42.114.rrr                     NKI               [WVDS]\n      R*192.42.115.rrr-192.42.132.rrr      SARA-NET          [WVDS]\n      R*192.42.133.rrr                     ANL-MAN1          [BRB8]\n      R*192.42.134.rrr                     ANL-MAN2          [BRB8]\n      R*192.42.135.rrr                     ANL-MNM           [BRB8]\n      R*192.42.136.rrr                     ANL-BAC           [BRB8]\n      C*192.42.137.rrr                     FIBERCOM          [DM273]\n      C*192.42.138.rrr                     ANSWER-COMP       [RLG36]\n      C*192.42.139.rrr                     SCEARDNET         [MRC13]\n      C*192.42.140.rrr                     ANDERSEN          [BL92]\n      R*192.42.141.rrr                     AFALNET           [HCV1]\n      R 192.42.142.rrr                     ICASE-NET         [LC152]\n      R*192.42.143.rrr                     WSI               [SS218]\n      R 192.42.144.rrr                     UW-ADPNET         [KL40]\n      R 192.42.145.rrr                     UW-ACSNET         [KL40]\n      C*192.42.146.rrr                     VERSATEC          [TT60]\n        192.42.147.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.42.148.rrr                     MONSAN-RCC1       [JRJ16]\n      R*192.42.149.rrr                     MONSAN-RCC2       [JRJ16]\n      R*192.42.150.rrr                     MONSAN-RCC3       [JRJ16]\n      G 192.42.151.rrr                     IPSRADSPACE       [CB180]\n      R 192.42.152.rrr                     UMN-CC-NET        [RG12]\n      R 192.42.153.rrr                     MALONE            [JN91]\n      C*192.42.154.rrr                     NUCLEUS-INTL      [PAG12]\n      R 192.42.155.rrr                     RSRE-BBN-SAT      [MB]\n      R 192.42.156.rrr                     ESD-H3            [NAK2]\n      R*192.42.157.rrr                     NET-SOLUTION      [MAV4]\n      C*192.42.158.rrr                     TRVNET-AI         [NW30]\n      C*192.42.159.rrr                     NMRI              [JB399]\n      R*192.42.160.rrr-192.42.171.rrr      AUSPEX            [BE35]\n      C*192.42.172.rrr                     NEXT-DEFAULT      [PFK]\n        192.42.173.rrr-192.42.177.rrr      Reserved          [NIC]\n      R 192.42.178.rrr                     MICRO-NET         [JAC61]\n      D 192.42.179.rrr                     WSMR-NET2         [RC29]\n      R*192.42.180.rrr-192.42.201.rrr      LUNET             [JL247]\n      C*192.42.202.rrr                     TCR-CAL           [GR67]\n      C*192.42.203.rrr                     TCR-CAL-BG        [GR67]\n      C*192.42.204.rrr                     TCR-BG            [GR67]\n      C*192.42.205.rrr                     TCR-CAL           [GR67]\n      C*192.42.206.rrr                     TCR-EDM           [GR67]\n      D*192.42.207.rrr                     BMA-1             [GK44]\n      D*192.42.208.rrr                     BMA-2             [GK44]\n      D*192.42.209.rrr                     BMA-3             [GK44]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 75]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD*192.42.210.rrr                     BMA-4             [GK44]\n      D*192.42.211.rrr                     BMA-5             [GK44]\n      D*192.42.212.rrr                     BMA-6             [GK44]\n      D*192.42.213.rrr                     BMA-7             [GK44]\n      D*192.42.214.rrr                     BMA-8             [GK44]\n      D*192.42.215.rrr                     BMA-9             [GK44]\n      D*192.42.216.rrr                     BMA-10            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.217.rrr                     BMA-11            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.218.rrr                     BMA-12            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.219.rrr                     BMA-13            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.220.rrr                     BMA-14            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.221.rrr                     BMA-15            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.222.rrr                     BMA-16            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.223.rrr                     BMA-17            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.224.rrr                     BMA-18            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.225.rrr                     BMA-19            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.226.rrr                     BMA-20            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.227.rrr                     BMA-21            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.228.rrr                     BMA-22            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.229.rrr                     BMA-23            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.230.rrr                     BMA-24            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.231.rrr                     BMA-25            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.232.rrr                     BMA-26            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.233.rrr                     BMA-27            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.234.rrr                     BMA-28            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.235.rrr                     BMA-29            [GK44]\n      D*192.42.236.rrr                     BMA-30            [GK44]\n      R*192.42.237.rrr                     CSCE-NET          [MH198]\n      C*192.42.238.rrr                     ITI-NET           [EU4]\n      R 192.42.239.rrr                     FIT               [MAG16]\n      R*192.42.240.rrr                     ORACODEV          [FH53]\n      C 192.42.241.rrr                     TRZDOR            [SP86]\n      C*192.42.242.rrr                     OBJY              [WC86]\n      C*192.42.243.rrr                     DEV-RING          [RB520]\n      D 192.42.244.rrr                     OBL-LINK-LAN      [TTS8]\n      D 192.42.245.rrr                     CPO-LINK-LAN      [TTS8]\n      D 192.42.246.rrr                     LON-LINK-LAN      [TTS8]\n      D 192.42.247.rrr                     RDM-LINK-LAN      [TTS8]\n      D 192.42.248.rrr                     SM-HN-MCC         [SJ55]\n      C 192.42.249.rrr                     APPLE             [EF16]\n      C*192.42.250.rrr                     IMCLONE           [PG76]\n      R 192.42.251.rrr                     LIGONET           [GH125]\n      C*192.42.252.rrr                     NETWORK-GENL      [VL24]\n      C*192.42.253.rrr                     ITT-SEMICON       [BS196]\n      C*192.42.254.rrr                     MEGASYS           [GMP19]\n        192.42.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n        192.43.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.43.1.rrr-192.43.150.rrr        DEERE-NETS        [DF130]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 76]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 192.43.151.rrr                     NET-ARDA          [SS226]\n      R 192.43.152.rrr                     RADC-LAN          [CPK3]\n      R*192.43.153.rrr-192.43.160.rrr      NCD-NETS          [DM280]\n      C*192.43.161.rrr                     CYLINK            [CS219]\n      C*192.43.162.rrr-192.43.171.rrr      TVTLAN            [AH96]\n      R 192.43.172.rrr                     PHOTO-NET         [JAC61]\n      G*192.43.173.rrr                     FIRNLAN           [\nJL256\n]\n      R*192.43.174.rrr                     SONY-CSL          [FT30]\n      C*192.43.175.rrr-192.43.184.rrr      LUCID             [KDO]\n      C 192.43.185.rrr                     BBYMELB           [GB157]\n      C 192.43.186.rrr                     BBYSYD            [GB157]\n        192.43.187.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.43.188.rrr                     SDIO-WAN          [KDZ]\n      R*192.43.189.rrr                     SONY-WS-NET       [HI7]\n      R 192.43.190.rrr                     BETHEL            [GW107]\n      C*192.43.191.rrr                     CAST-CREW         [CRJ5]\n      R*192.43.192.rrr                     UNIBAS-WWZ        [RD232]\n      R*192.43.193.rrr                     UNIBAS-MATH       [RD232]\n      R*192.43.194.rrr                     UNIBAS-ASTRO      [RD232]\n      R*192.43.195.rrr                     UNIBAS-PHIL1      [RD232]\n      R*192.43.196.rrr                     UNIBAS-IFI        [RD232]\n      D 192.43.197.rrr                     GUNTER-LAN-2      [JCB14]\n      C 192.43.198.rrr                     CXNET             [BA59]\n      R 192.43.199.rrr                     ETSU              [DS303]\n      R*192.43.200.rrr                     LVPD              [ER75]\n      C*192.43.201.rrr                     NELM-NET          [HO13]\n      C*192.43.202.rrr                     NELA-NET          [HO13]\n      R 192.43.203.rrr                     NRAO-CCC          [DCW9]\n      R 192.43.204.rrr                     NRAO-AOC          [BP57]\n      R 192.43.205.rrr                     MCD-UDC-2         [DP7]\n        192.43.206.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.43.207.rrr                     UNIMELB-CS-A      [\nRE18\n]\n      R 192.43.208.rrr                     UNIMELB-CS-B      [\nRE18\n]\n      R 192.43.209.rrr                     UNIMELB-CS-C      [\nRE18\n]\n      C*192.43.210.rrr                     WESTGRP-HOL       [WH108]\n      C*192.43.211.rrr                     SAGPD             [BA60]\n      R*192.43.212.rrr                     IZF-TNO           [TV29]\n      C*192.43.213.rrr                     KELCO             [EMH12]\n      R*192.43.214.rrr                     KEY               [PJS22]\n        192.43.215.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.43.216.rrr                     LHASA             [GIL]\n      G 192.43.217.rrr                     NOAASEL-NET       [JW301]\n      C*192.43.218.rrr                     DATX              [EK55]\n      C*192.43.219.rrr                     EMPRESS           [PH106]\n      C*192.43.220.rrr                     SEDNET            [TPS5]\n      C*192.43.221.rrr                     ACUSTAR-HEDC      [JR262]\n      C*192.43.222.rrr                     STEPSTONE         [AAD6]\n        192.43.223.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 77]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*192.43.224.rrr                     CCKU-NET          [\nMK133\n]\n      G*192.43.225.rrr                     GSD-DECTCPIP      [MDP16]\n      R 192.43.226.rrr                     UAENG01           [MP151]\n      R 192.43.227.rrr                     UAENG02           [MP151]\n      R 192.43.228.rrr                     UAENG03           [MP151]\n      R 192.43.229.rrr                     UACOMSCI          [MP151]\n        192.43.230.rrr-192.43.233.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.43.234.rrr                     LUCNET            [EB110]\n      C*192.43.235.rrr                     HSI               [WRS28]\n      C*192.43.236.rrr                     MEGATEK           [RR193]\n      C*192.43.237.rrr                     PCC-TCP           [FO17]\n        192.43.238.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.43.239.rrr                     RSES-TRING        [HM68]\n      R 192.43.240.rrr                     GSFC2             [RD240]\n      C*192.43.241.rrr                     MEDIANETTE        [RMF17]\n      R*192.43.242.rrr                     UNF-CIS           [TFB3]\n      R 192.43.243.rrr                     HUNKNET           [TH111]\n      R 192.43.244.rrr                     NCAR-NSS          [DM84]\n      G 192.43.245.rrr                     MITRE-CG-NET      [MSM1]\n        192.43.246.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.43.247.rrr                     GTRI-AIB          [SPR1]\n      C*192.43.248.rrr                     DNH               [SB185]\n      R 192.43.249.rrr                     JAXLAB            [LJ58]\n      C 192.43.250.rrr                     TELEMATICS        [TG67]\n      C*192.43.251.rrr                     APLDBIO           [MR152]\n      R 192.43.252.rrr                     CHUB-NET          [\nEZ3\n]\n      D 192.43.253.rrr                     AFMPC-NET         [MTF1]\n      R 192.43.254.rrr                     RADFORDU          [JS255]\n        192.43.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n        192.44.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      R 192.44.1.rrr                       FRAUNHOFER-NET    [HF30]\n      R*192.44.2.rrr-192.44.40.rrr         FHG-NETS          [HF30]\n      R*192.44.41.rrr-192.44.80.rrr        FNET-NETS         [AR41]\n      R*192.44.81.rrr                      REVUE-81          [JK198]\n      R 192.44.82.rrr                      REVUE-82          [JK198]\n      R 192.44.83.rrr                      REVUE-83          [JK198]\n      R 192.44.84.rrr                      REVUE-84          [JK198]\n      R 192.44.85.rrr                      REVUE-85          [JK198]\n      R*192.44.86.rrr-192.44.90.rrr        REVUE-86          [JK198]\n      C*192.44.91.rrr-192.44.215.rrr       PGXPRES-BLOCK     [ACL2]\n      R 192.44.216.rrr                     VV-NET1           [PP77]\n      R 192.44.217.rrr                     VV-NET2           [PP77]\n      R 192.44.218.rrr                     VV-NET3           [PP77]\n      R 192.44.219.rrr                     VV-NET4           [PP77]\n      R 192.44.220.rrr                     VV-NET5           [PP77]\n      R 192.44.221.rrr                     VV-NET6           [PP77]\n      R 192.44.222.rrr                     VV-NET7           [PP77]\n      R 192.44.223.rrr                     VV-NET8           [PP77]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 78]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR 192.44.224.rrr                     VV-NET9           [PP77]\n      R 192.44.225.rrr                     VV-NET10          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.226.rrr                     VV-NET11          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.227.rrr                     VV-NET12          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.228.rrr                     VV-NET13          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.229.rrr                     VV-NET14          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.230.rrr                     VV-NET15          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.231.rrr                     VV-NET16          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.232.rrr                     VV-NET17          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.233.rrr                     VV-NET18          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.234.rrr                     VV-NET19          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.235.rrr                     VV-NET20          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.236.rrr                     VV-NET21          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.237.rrr                     VV-NET22          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.238.rrr                     VV-NET23          [PP77]\n      R 192.44.239.rrr                     VV-NET24          [PP77]\n      C*192.44.240.rrr-192.44.251.rrr      SLLLAN            [\nAL16\n]\n      C*192.44.252.rrr                     ACC-LIMULUS       [JFR24]\n      D 192.44.253.rrr                     NTSC-IELN         [DW198]\n      R 192.44.254.rrr                     JVNC-SATNET       [RA17]\n        192.44.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.45.0.rrr-192.45.255.rrr        TRW-BB            [MM313]\n      C*192.46.0.rrr-192.46.255.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      R*192.47.0.rrr-192.47.241.rrr        KIT-NET           [HN21]\n      R 192.47.242.rrr                     IE-INFERNO        [AM29]\n      R 192.47.243.rrr                     SRI-GEC-NET       [TJF13]\n      R*192.47.244.rrr-192.47.249.rrr      UNIFR-BLOCK       [MB262]\n      C*192.47.250.rrr                     APOLLO-MSP1       [TRG4]\n      C*192.47.251.rrr                     APOLLO-MSP2       [TRG4]\n      C*192.47.252.rrr                     APOLLO-MSP3       [TRG4]\n      C*192.47.253.rrr                     ENVOS             [JMT18]\n      R*192.47.254.rrr                     ROBOTX-VWNET      [DR183]\n        192.47.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      D*192.48.0.rrr-192.48.30.rrr         BOEING-BCAR-NETS  [GK44]\n      C*192.48.31.rrr                      TN-TRNET          [AM139]\n      C*192.48.32.rrr                      NORAND            [LLZ1]\n      R 192.48.33.rrr                      HAC-GATE-NET      [PH45]\n      R*192.48.34.rrr                      SMII              [KS121]\n      C*192.48.35.rrr-192.48.36.rrr        GD-NETS           [SJL]\n      C*192.48.37.rrr                      SIMTEK            [KM2]\n      C*192.48.38.rrr-192.48.77.rrr        GD-NETS           [SJL]\n      R 192.48.78.rrr                      TSB-NET           [TG68]\n        192.48.79.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.48.80.rrr                      SRI-WDC           [RS401]\n      R*192.48.81.rrr                      LOGICON-LAN       [JDM9]\n        192.48.82.rrr-192.48.91.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.48.92.rrr                      ACSI              [RH278]\n      C*192.48.93.rrr                      VISTA             [DCN19]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 79]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*192.48.94.rrr                      MHT-FXEXPERT      [CL115]\n      R*192.48.95.rrr                      LAFAYETT          [PK69]\n      R 192.48.96.rrr                      UUNET-ETHER       [RA11]\n      C*192.48.97.rrr                      GLHNET            [JL268]\n      R*192.48.98.rrr                      POLYCI            [GG68]\n      C*192.48.99.rrr                      ONM-NET           [DSN4]\n      R 192.48.100.rrr                     AAAI              [RS406]\n      R*192.48.101.rrr                     CALCOMP           [TAP15]\n      R*192.48.102.rrr                     AMHERST           [JWM53]\n        192.48.103.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.48.104.rrr                     FRONTIER          [KJ36]\n      R 192.48.105.rrr                     NMSU-ISI-NUL      [MSP1]\n      C*192.48.106.rrr                     FINTRONIC         [JW310]\n      R*192.48.107.rrr                     REGENT            [WT39]\n      C*192.48.108.rrr                     LASC-GANET        [BW4]\n      R 192.48.109.rrr                     BOND-3090         [EB112]\n      R 192.48.110.rrr                     BOND-USLINK       [EB112]\n      R 192.48.111.rrr                     SPARTA-NET        [CFM1]\n      R*192.48.112.rrr                     MANHATTAN         [JPH17]\n      C*192.48.113.rrr                     MURPHNET          [JPH17]\n      R 192.48.114.rrr                     IE-PURGATORIO     [AM29]\n      R 192.48.115.rrr                     IE-PARADISO       [AM29]\n      R 192.48.116.rrr                     IE-COMMUNE        [AM29]\n      R*192.48.117.rrr                     NSCF-NET          [LF61]\n      C 192.48.118.rrr                     INTERSIL          [KEW8]\n      C 192.48.119.rrr                     INTERSIL-APOLLO   [KEW8]\n      C 192.48.120.rrr                     INTERSIL-SING     [KEW8]\n        192.48.121.rrr-192.48.122.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.48.123.rrr                     SONY-STEO         [TM166]\n      G*192.48.124.rrr                     USGS-BGRA         [RBP11]\n      G 192.48.125.rrr                     SERI-2            [AM92]\n      R*192.48.126.rrr                     DRURYUNIX         [CE52]\n      C*192.48.127.rrr-192.48.129.rrr      HITACHI-NETS      [SK102]\n      C*192.48.130.rrr-192.48.132.rrr      BURR-BROWN        [JMM50]\n      C*192.48.133.rrr                     ANALOG-TEMP       [\nRP191\n]\n      R 192.48.134.rrr                     ARLUTANET0        [VM49]\n      R 192.48.135.rrr                     ARLUTANET1        [VM49]\n        192.48.136.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.48.137.rrr                     CORDIS            [GLS39]\n        192.48.138.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C 192.48.139.rrr                     SQUIBB-NET        [REB50]\n        192.48.140.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      G*192.48.141.rrr                     ESMNET            [RC241]\n      R*192.48.142.rrr                     UNOMAHA           [FH59]\n      C 192.48.143.rrr                     CONTEL-SPFLD      [MP139]\n      C*192.48.144.rrr                     UNIPRESS-NET      [MG16]\n      C*192.48.145.rrr                     BERUNET           [AR86]\n      C*192.48.146.rrr-192.48.152.rrr      Silicon Graphics  [VS13]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 80]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 192.48.153.rrr                     SGI-NET           [VS13]\n      C*192.48.154.rrr-192.48.209.rrr      Silicon Graphics  [VS13]\n        192.48.210.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.48.211.rrr                     SEATTLEU-NET      [FL34]\n      D 192.48.212.rrr                     NARDAC-NET1       [DB]\n      D 192.48.213.rrr                     NARDAC-NET2       [DB]\n      D 192.48.214.rrr                     NARDAC-NET3       [DB]\n      D 192.48.215.rrr                     NARDAC-NET4       [DB]\n      D 192.48.216.rrr                     NARDAC-NET5       [DB]\n      R 192.48.217.rrr                     OACIS-NET         [GK44]\n      R 192.48.218.rrr                     ISTO-NET          [SC3]\n      R 192.48.219.rrr                     DARPA-1555-NET    [SC3]\n      R 192.48.220.rrr                     DARPA-T1-NET      [SC3]\n      C*192.48.221.rrr                     WHITTLE           [LS198]\n      C*192.48.222.rrr                     KLA-INST          [PML1]\n        192.48.223.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.48.224.rrr                     NETCS-NET         [CS218]\n      C*192.48.225.rrr                     NTISC-CIM         [SH160]\n      R*192.48.226.rrr                     HFH-RADNET        [BW138]\n      C*192.48.227.rrr                     MERGETECH         [DAR20]\n      R*192.48.228.rrr                     DF86-HOME-E       [DF86]\n      R*192.48.229.rrr                     DF86-HOME-S       [DF86]\n      R*192.48.230.rrr                     EDRCNET           [LM185]\n      C*192.48.231.rrr                     GUUG-NET          [GB169]\n      R*192.48.232.rrr                     ASYLUM-NET        [JLR4]\n      R 192.48.233.rrr                     VILLANOVA         [NN20]\n      C*192.48.234.rrr                     WIMSEY-NET        [SL122]\n      C*192.48.235.rrr                     BAY-DIGI-NET      [RT147]\n      R*192.48.236.rrr                     U-PGH-MEDNET      [RJY2]\n      R*192.48.237.rrr                     U-PGH-TXSNET      [RJY2]\n      G*192.48.238.rrr                     DOEHQ             [TMR11]\n      C*192.48.239.rrr                     GHB-LAN01         [CB201]\n      C*192.48.240.rrr                     GHB-LAN02         [CB201]\n      C*192.48.241.rrr                     GHB-LAN03         [CB201]\n      D*192.48.242.rrr                     USACRREL          [GD80]\n      D*192.48.243.rrr                     USACRRELAK        [GD80]\n      R*192.48.244.rrr                     HK-VME-NET        [CP108]\n      R*192.48.245.rrr                     HK-ENG-NET        [CP108]\n      C*192.48.246.rrr                     ITP-NET           [QF]\n      C*192.48.247.rrr                     CCNAIBFIR         [PAG14]\n      C*192.48.248.rrr                     CYBER-MELB        [PH111]\n      C*192.48.249.rrr                     TI-DAD1           [WM110]\n      C*192.48.250.rrr                     TI-DAD2           [WM110]\n      C*192.48.251.rrr                     ITT-SEMICON2      [TS144]\n      C*192.48.252.rrr                     ITT-SEMICON3      [TS144]\n      R*192.48.253.rrr                     UCTNET            [FG51]\n      C*192.48.254.rrr                     SAUER1            [BW143]\n        192.48.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 81]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nG*192.49.0.rrr-192.49.255.rrr        VTKK-ASIAKKAAT    [PI7]\n      R*192.50.0.rrr-192.50.255.rrr        JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      C*192.51.0.rrr-192.51.15.rrr         NORSK-DATA        [AH89]\n      C*192.51.16.rrr-192.51.36.rrr        JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R 192.51.37.rrr                      JAPAN-NET         [JM292]\n      R*192.51.38.rrr-192.51.255.rrr       JAPAN-INET        [JM292]\n      R*192.52.0.rrr-192.52.50.rrr         FDN-NETS          [MW171]\n      C*192.52.51.rrr-192.52.60.rrr        INTEL-NETS        [BW142]\n      R 192.52.61.rrr                      HAYSTACK-1        [AG127]\n      R 192.52.62.rrr                      HAYSTACK-2        [AG127]\n      R 192.52.63.rrr                      HAYSTACK-3        [AG127]\n      R 192.52.64.rrr                      HAYSTACK-4        [AG127]\n      R 192.52.65.rrr                      HAYSTACK-5        [AG127]\n      R 192.52.66.rrr                      HAYSTACK-6        [AG127]\n      C*192.52.67.rrr                      UNIX-RING         [RB520]\n      C*192.52.68.rrr                      PUB-RING          [RB520]\n      C*192.52.69.rrr                      PLUS-FIVE         [HS23]\n      G 192.52.70.rrr                      MEEDIV            [JW326]\n      R 192.52.71.rrr                      BBN-EXT-NET       [DBL1]\n      G*192.52.72.rrr                      COURTSNET         [IR19]\n      G*192.52.73.rrr                      COURTSNET1        [IR19]\n      C*192.52.74.rrr                      SSIWEST           [RES17]\n      G*192.52.75.rrr                      IMIS-NET          [PR99]\n      G*192.52.76.rrr                      DMSTST12          [AD90]\n      G*192.52.77.rrr                      DMSTST16A3        [AD90]\n      G*192.52.78.rrr                      DMSTST37          [AD90]\n      G*192.52.79.rrr                      DMSTSTC           [AD90]\n      G*192.52.80.rrr                      DMSTST15          [AD90]\n      G*192.52.81.rrr                      DMSTST16A4        [AD90]\n      G*192.52.82.rrr                      DMSTST4           [AD90]\n      G*192.52.83.rrr                      DMSTSTD           [AD90]\n      G*192.52.84.rrr                      DMSTST161         [AD90]\n      G*192.52.85.rrr                      DMSTST16A5        [AD90]\n      G*192.52.86.rrr                      DMSTST44          [AD90]\n      G*192.52.87.rrr                      DMSTST162         [AD90]\n      G*192.52.88.rrr                      DMSTST17          [AD90]\n      G*192.52.89.rrr                      DMSTST9           [AD90]\n      G*192.52.90.rrr                      DMSTST16A1        [AD90]\n      G*192.52.91.rrr                      DMSTST32          [AD90]\n      G*192.52.92.rrr                      DMSTSTA           [AD90]\n      G*192.52.93.rrr                      DMSTST36          [AD90]\n      G*192.52.94.rrr                      DMSTSTB           [AD90]\n      G*192.52.95.rrr                      DMSTST16A2        [AD90]\n      G 192.52.96.rrr                      JESTSTI           [ALA6]\n      G 192.52.97.rrr                      JESTSTJ           [ALA6]\n      G 192.52.98.rrr                      JESTSTE           [ALA6]\n      G 192.52.99.rrr                      JESTSTK           [ALA6]\n      G 192.52.100.rrr                     JESTSTL           [ALA6]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 82]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nG 192.52.101.rrr                     JESTSTG           [ALA6]\n      G 192.52.102.rrr                     JESTSTF           [ALA6]\n      G 192.52.103.rrr                     JESTSTM           [ALA6]\n      G 192.52.104.rrr                     JESTSTH           [ALA6]\n      G 192.52.105.rrr                     JESTSTN           [ALA6]\n      R 192.52.106.rrr                     NCAR-HYPER        [DM84]\n      C 192.52.107.rrr                     SIMPACT-NET       [MA107]\n      R*192.52.108.rrr                     BELLQE            [OT3]\n      C*192.52.109.rrr                     MICROWARE         [KK87]\n      C*192.52.110.rrr                     LITTON-DSD        [BR113]\n      D 192.52.111.rrr                     LNX-ETHER1        [JAM38]\n      D 192.52.112.rrr                     LNX-ETHER2        [JAM38]\n      C*192.52.113.rrr                     ZETACO            [DB333]\n        192.52.114.rrr-192.52.115.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.52.116.rrr                     OANET             [MM348]\n      G 192.52.117.rrr                     BELVOIR-NET2      [MDS30]\n        192.52.118.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.52.119.rrr-192.52.150.rrr      JAPAN-INFONETS    [MH226]\n      R*192.52.151.rrr                     MSN               [CAC55]\n      G*192.52.152.rrr                     KNMI-NET          [FF30]\n      C*192.52.153.rrr                     PE-NELSON         [DC273]\n      R 192.52.154.rrr                     ESL               [MV25]\n      R 192.52.155.rrr                     UOFH1-NET         [CR157]\n      R 192.52.156.rrr                     UOFH2-NET         [CR157]\n      C*192.52.157.rrr                     TRIANGLE          [VP12]\n        192.52.158.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.52.159.rrr                     HDN1              [WP64]\n      R 192.52.160.rrr                     HDN2              [WP64]\n      C*192.52.161.rrr                     TADNET            [TS171]\n      R 192.52.162.rrr                     NEURONET          [RML28]\n      R 192.52.163.rrr                     NEURONET-1        [RML28]\n      R 192.52.164.rrr                     NEURONET-2        [RML28]\n      R 192.52.165.rrr                     NEURONET-3        [RML28]\n      R 192.52.166.rrr                     NEURONET-4        [RML28]\n      R 192.52.167.rrr                     NEURONET-5        [RML28]\n      R 192.52.168.rrr                     NEURONET-6        [RML28]\n      R 192.52.169.rrr                     NEURONET-7        [RML28]\n      C*192.52.170.rrr                     ANFNET            [TD87]\n      G*192.52.171.rrr                     COURTSNET2        [IR19]\n      G*192.52.172.rrr                     COURTSNET3        [IR19]\n      G*192.52.173.rrr                     COURTSNET4        [IR19]\n      G*192.52.174.rrr                     COURTSNET5        [IR19]\n      G*192.52.175.rrr                     COURTSNET6        [IR19]\n      G*192.52.176.rrr                     COURTSNET7        [IR19]\n      G*192.52.177.rrr                     NYSERDA           [AA76]\n        192.52.178.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.52.179.rrr                     EDUCOM            [JH92]\n      R 192.52.180.rrr                     NYSERWest         [CPK3]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 83]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.52.181.rrr                     SEANET            [TC124]\n      R 192.52.182.rrr                     SKIDMORE          [CPK3]\n      C*192.52.183.rrr                     CDC-DAY-NET       [BDH]\n      C*192.52.184.rrr                     AGELAN1           [JWH39]\n      R*192.52.185.rrr                     FLINDERS-GW       [\nKM129\n]\n      C*192.52.186.rrr                     BAKS              [CA84]\n      C*192.52.187.rrr                     ASCI              [RT155]\n      C*192.52.188.rrr                     SOUM-NET          [MT108]\n        192.52.189.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.52.190.rrr                     NSFTRANSIT1       [SA21]\n      R 192.52.191.rrr                     NSFTRANSIT2       [SA21]\n      R 192.52.192.rrr                     NSFTRANSIT3       [SA21]\n      R 192.52.193.rrr                     NSFTRANSIT4       [SA21]\n      R 192.52.194.rrr                     FEBA-EAST         [\nMB9\n]\n      R 192.52.195.rrr                     FEBA-WEST         [MSM1]\n      R*192.52.196.rrr                     SAMNET            [BG2]\n      R*192.52.197.rrr                     CFMNET            [BG2]\n      G 192.52.198.rrr                     JSCNETC1          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.199.rrr                     JSCNETC2          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.200.rrr                     JSCNETC3          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.201.rrr                     JSCNETC4          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.202.rrr                     JSCNETC5          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.203.rrr                     JSCNETC6          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.204.rrr                     JSCNETC7          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.205.rrr                     JSCNETC8          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.206.rrr                     JSCNETC9          [JC108]\n      G 192.52.207.rrr                     JSCNETC10         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.208.rrr                     JSCNETC11         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.209.rrr                     JSCNETC12         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.210.rrr                     JSCNETC13         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.211.rrr                     JSCNETC14         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.212.rrr                     JSCNETC15         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.213.rrr                     JSCNETC16         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.214.rrr                     JSCNETC17         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.215.rrr                     JSCNETC18         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.216.rrr                     JSCNETC19         [JC108]\n      G 192.52.217.rrr                     JSCNETC20         [JC108]\n      R 192.52.218.rrr                     UNIONCOLLEGE      [CPK3]\n      R 192.52.219.rrr                     SBU-LAN           [CPK3]\n      R 192.52.220.rrr                     SUNYCT            [CPK3]\n      R*192.52.221.rrr-192.52.223.rrr      OCE-NL-VENLO      [MB273]\n      G*192.52.224.rrr                     GSD-APPLENET      [MDP16]\n      G*192.52.225.rrr                     GSD-MGMTNET       [MDP16]\n      G*192.52.226.rrr                     GSD-LABNET        [MDP16]\n      D 192.52.227.rrr                     SCI-PROC          [GB5]\n        192.52.228.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.52.229.rrr                     HGSNET            [LH2]\n      R*192.52.230.rrr                     HFHINET           [FH2]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 84]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.52.231.rrr                     OCTEL             [TS107]\n      R 192.52.232.rrr                     CNUCE-DARPA       [ABB2]\n      C 192.52.233.rrr                     HARRISNET-1       [RRR1]\n      C 192.52.234.rrr                     HARRISNET-2       [RRR1]\n      C 192.52.235.rrr                     HARRISNET-3       [RRR1]\n      C 192.52.236.rrr                     HARRISNET-4       [RRR1]\n      C*192.52.237.rrr                     GORENET           [JG131]\n      D 192.52.238.rrr                     CNSYD-POE         [MI1]\n      C*192.52.239.rrr                     TSG               [RP211]\n      R*192.52.240.rrr                     ED                [MC261]\n        192.52.241.rrr-192.52.243.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      G*192.52.244.rrr                     TBESPACEPRGM      [TR3]\n      C 192.52.245.rrr                     SAMSUNG-NET       [WJL17]\n      C*192.52.246.rrr                     HANNABARBERA      [JH84]\n      C 192.52.247.rrr                     STRATUS-C1        [WPC]\n      C 192.52.248.rrr                     STRATUS-C4        [WPC]\n      C 192.52.249.rrr                     STRATUS-C3        [WPC]\n      R*192.52.250.rrr                     NIBR              [MT111]\n        192.52.251.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.52.252.rrr                     IRL               [SO]\n      C*192.52.253.rrr                     AMTHQ             [DB343]\n      C*192.52.254.rrr                     THREECOM-FR       [ML171]\n        192.52.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.53.0.rrr-192.53.255.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      D*192.54.0.rrr-192.54.30.rrr         BOEING-BCAR       [GK44]\n      R*192.54.31.rrr                      SELRCP-LAN-A      [DTH4]\n      R*192.54.32.rrr                      SELCRCP-LAN-B     [DTH4]\n      R 192.54.33.rrr                      TA-NET            [HVKR]\n        192.54.34.rrr-192.54.80.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.54.81.rrr                      CARL-NET          [RKS5]\n      C 192.54.82.rrr                      MOT-82            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.83.rrr                      MOT-83            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.84.rrr                      MOT-84            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.85.rrr                      MOT-85            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.86.rrr                      MOT-86            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.87.rrr                      MOT-87            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.88.rrr                      MOT-88            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.89.rrr                      MOT-89            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.90.rrr                      MOT-90            [RB319]\n      C 192.54.91.rrr                      MOT-91            [RB319]\n      R 192.54.92.rrr                      GACNET            [DB346]\n      R 192.54.93.rrr                      CSNET-CYP         [WHN2]\n      R*192.54.94.rrr-192.54.103.rrr       UMD-UNCON         [LAM1]\n      R 192.54.104.rrr                     XLINK             [MR78]\n      R 192.54.105.rrr                     WR-CANB           [KM6]\n      R 192.54.106.rrr                     WR-PERTH          [KM6]\n      C*192.54.107.rrr                     ORA               [JMD6]\n      C*192.54.108.rrr                     SYZYGY            [KJ1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 85]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 192.54.109.rrr                     ISR-HAWAII        [TN11]\n      C*192.54.110.rrr                     TRIAD             [BK85]\n      R 192.54.111.rrr                     ARC-HSP-NET       [MSM1]\n      R 192.54.112.rrr                     CHILEAN-NET       [VC]\n      R*192.54.113.rrr                     MPIS-TCPNET       [PW88]\n      C*192.54.114.rrr                     DRD-NET           [LB8]\n      C*192.54.115.rrr-192.54.120.rrr      BK-NETS           [RJ115]\n      R*192.54.121.rrr                     CAL               [GG123]\n      R*192.54.122.rrr                     SFAF              [MS345]\n      C*192.54.123.rrr                     TIMEPLEX          [GP117]\n      C*192.54.124.rrr                     HARRIS-NET        [JKF2]\n      C*192.54.125.rrr-192.54.128.rrr      SYSTEC-NETS       [CB50]\n      D 192.54.129.rrr                     OSI               [LC57]\n      G*192.54.130.rrr                     WCC               [RH310]\n      C*192.54.131.rrr                     LLHS-NYC-NET      [JMH10]\n      R*192.54.132.rrr                     ABB-ZX            [UR]\n      G 192.54.133.rrr                     ACFP-NE-NET       [SS271]\n      G 192.54.134.rrr                     ACFP-IL-NET       [HR43]\n      R*192.54.135.rrr                     ATLANTEK          [WH125]\n      R*192.54.136.rrr                     AWADI             [WH125]\n      R*192.54.137.rrr                     TECHPK            [WH125]\n      R 192.54.138.rrr                     NALNET            [DS348]\n      R*192.54.139.rrr                     UNI-MAINZ         [BR118]\n      R 192.54.140.rrr                     FNET-ESIEE        [AR41]\n      R*192.54.141.rrr-192.54.147.rrr      FNET-NETS         [AR41]\n      R 192.54.148.rrr                     FNET-ENSMP-F      [AR41]\n      R*192.54.149.rrr-192.54.219.rrr      FNET-NETS         [AR41]\n      R*192.54.220.rrr                     IEZ-WIEN          [PB6]\n      R 192.54.221.rrr                     FERNUNI-DVT       [CR24]\n      R 192.54.222.rrr                     MIT-EXT-NET       [JIS]\n      R 192.54.223.rrr                     HARV-EXT-NET      [SB28]\n      R 192.54.224.rrr                     BU-EXT-NET        [KE1]\n      C*192.54.225.rrr                     KOMMHUSET         [\nSH175\n]\n      C 192.54.226.rrr                     TRANSARC-NET      [PDB5]\n      R*192.54.227.rrr                     AARNET-WA         [KS32]\n      C*192.54.228.rrr                     CSI               [RP94]\n        192.54.229.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.54.230.rrr-192.54.237.rrr      ERI-ANAHEIM       [JA176]\n      R*192.54.238.rrr                     HUORB             [AJD14]\n      C*192.54.239.rrr                     TSI-NET           [MLR4]\n      D 192.54.240.rrr                     PHILA-POE         [DK60]\n        192.54.241.rrr-192.54.244.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.54.245.rrr                     NCR-DUNDEE        [GC132]\n      C*192.54.246.rrr                     FLOW-NET          [DS354]\n      R*192.54.247.rrr                     UOKAYAMA-NET      [TM185]\n      D*192.54.248.rrr                     HI-DSG-NET        [MW135]\n      R*192.54.249.rrr                     CIT-MOC-WEST      [KR72]\n        192.54.250.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 86]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*192.54.251.rrr                     QPSX              [AK79]\n      R 192.54.252.rrr                     AARNET            [GH105]\n      D*192.54.253.rrr                     NOSC-SN           [RLB3]\n      G*192.54.254.rrr                     WABOLU            [CH207]\n        192.54.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n        192.55.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.55.1.rrr-192.55.21.rrr         ITINET            [EU4]\n      C*192.55.22.rrr-192.55.31.rrr        MOTOROLA-SPS      [MJ91]\n      C*192.55.32.rrr-192.55.81.rrr        INTEL-CCAD-NET    [EC101]\n        192.55.82.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.55.83.rrr                      TU-CLAUSTHAL      [GL16]\n      C*192.55.84.rrr                      ISANET            [DW139]\n      C*192.55.85.rrr                      ANASAZI           [DM334]\n      C*192.55.86.rrr                      PARASOFT          [JF47]\n      R 192.55.87.rrr                      USD               [AT16]\n      C*192.55.88.rrr                      ATI-IL2           [NS66]\n      C*192.55.89.rrr                      PAC               [ES148]\n      G 192.55.90.rrr                      LERC-CRAYNET      [DC285]\n      G*192.55.91.rrr                      LERC-CRAYNET2     [DC285]\n        192.55.92.rrr-192.55.94.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.55.95.rrr                      EREHWON           [JW352]\n      R 192.55.96.rrr                      NOAO-GEMINI       [SG1]\n      R 192.55.97.rrr                      AGOURON-INST      [DLS24]\n      R 192.55.98.rrr                      SUNLAB1-NET       [DH296]\n      C 192.55.99.rrr                      MEGADATA          [AM151]\n      D*192.55.100.rrr                     PERSCOM-KEG       [TAK15]\n      R*192.55.101.rrr                     DIS-NET           [GV23]\n      C*192.55.102.rrr                     INFOTEC           [MM384]\n      D 192.55.103.rrr                     BROOKS-HITS       [JLW49]\n      R*192.55.104.rrr                     MINENG-ETHER      [RK154]\n      D 192.55.105.rrr                     TNO-HDO-FULL      [RVDA]\n      G 192.55.106.rrr                     PPPL              [EW62]\n      C*192.55.107.rrr                     SYMBIO-TECH       [KOP2]\n      G 192.55.108.rrr                     GEOROLLA          [JRF]\n      R 192.55.109.rrr                     RSRE-STC-NUL      [JFW]\n      R*192.55.110.rrr                     NICE              [KK92]\n      C*192.55.111.rrr                     MCSNET            [EDE1]\n      G*192.55.112.rrr                     AUS-SEIS          [SI16]\n      C*192.55.113.rrr                     ALGORISTS         [JK218]\n      R 192.55.114.rrr                     MORNET-SER        [RWA15]\n      C*192.55.115.rrr                     GEVEKE-NET        [RV61]\n      D*192.55.116.rrr                     PAF-IBM           [PHN2]\n      D 192.55.117.rrr                     HDL-WRFSEA        [CHW]\n      R*192.55.118.rrr                     NACSIS-RD         [JA180]\n        192.55.119.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.55.120.rrr                     EI-LAN            [CPK3]\n      C*192.55.121.rrr                     SIGMA             [DCW23]\n      C*192.55.122.rrr-192.55.124.rrr      SC-NETS           [FW51]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 87]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.55.125.rrr-192.55.126.rrr      BITBLOCKS         [JAM69]\n      C*192.55.127.rrr                     MAGIC-BB          [JAM69]\n      C*192.55.128.rrr                     OXFORD-LAN        [WOS]\n      R*192.55.129.rrr                     AHKNET            [MB293]\n      C*192.55.130.rrr                     CCC-NET           [HPD1]\n      C*192.55.131.rrr                     EMTEK             [TS107]\n      D*192.55.132.rrr                     RAEF-MODUK        [DR214]\n      D 192.55.133.rrr                     SEA06NET          [BD105]\n      G 192.55.134.rrr                     PMCDNET           [PJB27]\n      G*192.55.135.rrr                     STDSUN            [WH131]\n      C*192.55.136.rrr                     INDX              [DH303]\n      C*192.55.137.rrr-192.55.186.rrr      FEDMOG-NETS       [TGC1]\n      R 192.55.187.rrr                     SSESCONET         [NL35]\n      R 192.55.188.rrr                     DKFZ              [TR85]\n      C*192.55.189.rrr                     CIPHER            [RH326]\n      R 192.55.190.rrr                     RMITCS1           [ED72]\n      R*192.55.191.rrr                     FRC               [RW96]\n      R*192.55.192.rrr                     UVALRI            [HK35]\n      C*192.55.193.rrr                     7E-COMMS          [KT43]\n      R 192.55.194.rrr                     UOFT-XNET         [LO24]\n      C*192.55.195.rrr                     TELEPRO           [TRW18]\n      C*192.55.196.rrr                     SUNDSTRAND        [PS204]\n      R*192.55.197.rrr                     LIS-NET           [SB221]\n      C*192.55.198.rrr                     MINBNE            [CC241]\n      D*192.55.199.rrr                     JSC-SSE-46        [BS214]\n        192.55.200.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.55.201.rrr                     DANAVICTOR        [WS165]\n      C*192.55.202.rrr                     BWCORTP           [JOH]\n      R*192.55.203.rrr                     AGCNET            [CTJ2]\n        192.55.204.rrr-192.55.205.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.55.206.rrr                     CNCP-NET          [IB11]\n      C 192.55.207.rrr                     TRANSARC-INT      [PDB5]\n      R*192.55.208.rrr                     STJUDE            [PE27]\n      C*192.55.209.rrr                     OSIRIS-TECH       [TW102]\n      C*192.55.210.rrr                     GSD-TCPTRUST      [MDP16]\n      C*192.55.211.rrr                     GSD-APPLETP1      [MDP16]\n      C*192.55.212.rrr                     PRAXIS-ETHER      [TR87]\n      C*192.55.213.rrr                     DIGEX-NET         [RES70]\n      R 192.55.214.rrr                     SCTC              [SMM21]\n        192.55.215.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.55.216.rrr                     NTC-MAIR          [RI]\n      R*192.55.217.rrr                     KIT-NET           [YSP3]\n      C*192.55.218.rrr                     FMC-GSD           [DS372]\n      R*192.55.219.rrr                     BIOM-BRIS         [ACC17]\n      R*192.55.220.rrr                     MISHIROSHIMA      [HN27]\n      C*192.55.221.rrr                     NTRLINK-NET       [BH186]\n      C*192.55.222.rrr                     AUTOEX-NET        [GGB2]\n      C*192.55.223.rrr                     TI                [JR206]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 88]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nG*192.55.224.rrr                     BIO-OCEAN         [WWR1]\n      D 192.55.225.rrr                     CONCORD-POE       [SJG2]\n      C*192.55.226.rrr                     FRANKSTON         [RMF2]\n      R 192.55.227.rrr                     JSUNET            [HW59]\n      R 192.55.228.rrr                     COYOTE-NET        [RW247]\n      R 192.55.229.rrr                     USCOLO            [RD225]\n      C 192.55.230.rrr                     ARTEMIS           [JAW34]\n        192.55.231.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.55.232.rrr                     ATMOSNET          [TE35]\n      C*192.55.233.rrr                     DIALOGIC          [DR217]\n      R 192.55.234.rrr                     YSU               [RQ5]\n      C 192.55.235.rrr                     OSA               [MC290]\n      C*192.55.236.rrr                     UPS-RND           [RP230]\n      R*192.55.237.rrr                     STL-MSD           [DD11]\n      C*192.55.238.rrr                     NTTDATA-NET4      [SM217]\n      R 192.55.239.rrr                     WIDENER           [DCW25]\n      G 192.55.240.rrr                     NCEL-NET          [SJG17]\n        192.55.241.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.55.242.rrr                     AURANET           [BD108]\n      C*192.55.243.rrr                     VGH               [DP171]\n      R*192.55.244.rrr                     WICOB             [HAL5]\n      D 192.55.245.rrr                     CDSAR             [LR312]\n      D 192.55.246.rrr                     EDMICS-LAN        [PNP2]\n      C*192.55.247.rrr                     ALTERA            [RH260]\n      C*192.55.248.rrr                     C2S               [CW166]\n      R*192.55.249.rrr                     MSKNET            [JMV7]\n        192.55.250.rrr-192.55.254.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n        192.55.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.56.0.rrr-192.56.255.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      C*192.57.0.rrr-192.57.255.rrr        GM-IPNETS         [JH372]\n        192.58.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      G*192.58.1.rrr                       NOAA-NWS          [HJK4]\n      G 192.58.2.rrr                       NOAA-NWSS11       [HJK4]\n      G 192.58.3.rrr                       NOAA-NWSS1        [HJK4]\n      D*192.58.4.rrr-192.58.18.rrr         APGEA-NETS        [REA3]\n      G*192.58.19.rrr-192.58.27.rrr        JSC-SSE-1         [BS214]\n      C*192.58.28.rrr-192.58.35.rrr        AMBRA-NET         [PHK]\n      G*192.58.36.rrr                      EADS-HC-NET       [RTD]\n      C*192.58.37.rrr-192.58.40.rrr        HGS-NETS          [LH2]\n      C*192.58.41.rrr-192.58.89.rrr        PT-FINLAND        [ET49]\n      R 192.58.90.rrr                      CSNET-WCC         [WHN2]\n      R 192.58.91.rrr                      CSNET-SPR         [WHN2]\n        192.58.92.rrr-192.58.96.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.58.97.rrr-192.58.101.rrr       NTTDATA-NET       [SM217]\n      C*192.58.102.rrr                     TISCPACMMSTA      [CH205]\n      C*192.58.103.rrr                     TISCPACLEV3A      [MS400]\n      C*192.58.104.rrr                     TISCPACLEV3B      [MS400]\n      C*192.58.105.rrr                     TISCPACTESTA      [JO93]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 89]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.58.106.rrr                     TISCPACTESTB      [JO93]\n      R 192.58.107.rrr                     SEI-FW-NET        [TGP3]\n      G*192.58.108.rrr                     REMIS             [RL190]\n      R 192.58.109.rrr                     TAMU1             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.110.rrr                     TAMU2             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.111.rrr                     TAMU3             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.112.rrr                     TAMU4             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.113.rrr                     TAMU5             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.114.rrr                     TAMU6             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.115.rrr                     TAMU7             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.116.rrr                     TAMU8             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.117.rrr                     TAMU9             [WM68]\n      R 192.58.118.rrr                     TAMU10            [WM68]\n      G 192.58.119.rrr                     NAS-HTD-NET       [HAW]\n      C*192.58.120.rrr                     LARK              [CBL4]\n      C*192.58.121.rrr                     VOTEK             [RS479]\n      R*192.58.122.rrr                     NCSUARG           [ARG13]\n      C*192.58.123.rrr                     APUNIX            [PHB4]\n      C*192.58.124.rrr                     STATWARE          [MF4]\n      R*192.58.125.rrr                     TTUCF             [GP128]\n      C*192.58.126.rrr                     SGWARBURG         [TJS38]\n      R 192.58.127.rrr                     COOPERUNION       [CPK3]\n      C*192.58.128.rrr                     APPLE             [KS153]\n      C*192.58.129.rrr-192.58.130.rrr      AUSTEK            [CW169]\n      R*192.58.131.rrr-192.58.132.rrr      GSF-NET           [GH42]\n      C*192.58.133.rrr                     LABTAM-NET1       [SP116]\n      C*192.58.134.rrr                     LABTAM-NET2       [SP116]\n      C*192.58.135.rrr                     LABTAM-NET3       [SP116]\n      C*192.58.136.rrr                     LABTAM-NET4       [SP116]\n        192.58.137.rrr-192.58.148.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.58.149.rrr                     ATARI             [BH188]\n      R 192.58.150.rrr                     AIP               [MS9]\n      G 192.58.151.rrr                     NOAA-NWS1S        [HJK4]\n      G 192.58.152.rrr                     NOAA-NWS1SS       [HJK4]\n      G 192.58.153.rrr                     NOAA-NWS11        [HJK4]\n      G*192.58.154.rrr                     NOAA-NWS1         [HJK4]\n      D*192.58.155.rrr                     JEWC              [RD227]\n      C*192.58.156.rrr-192.58.179.rrr      LOCKHEED-ESC      [MJL37]\n      C*192.58.180.rrr                     EPIC              [AT87]\n      D 192.58.181.rrr                     PHNSY-POE-GW      [AM164]\n      C 192.58.182.rrr                     ASI-NET           [RMC1]\n      C*192.58.183.rrr-192.58.192.rrr      DEVRING           [RB520]\n      C*192.58.193.rrr                     MSA               [KPK3]\n      R 192.58.194.rrr                     BNR-GATE          [BM178]\n      C*192.58.195.rrr                     DUEICORETECH      [MB308]\n      R*192.58.196.rrr                     ACU               [JB509]\n      C*192.58.197.rrr                     ANALYTIKERNA      [BK98]\n      C*192.58.198.rrr                     LPI               [DC303]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 90]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 192.58.199.rrr                     NTSC-NAVAIRHQ     [TR91]\n      G*192.58.200.rrr-192.58.203.rrr      GOVDOJBLS01       [NH36]\n      R 192.58.204.rrr                     GRIDNET           [JAB111]\n      R 192.58.205.rrr                     GRIDNET1          [JAB111]\n      R 192.58.206.rrr                     DEC-AUXNET-1      [BKR]\n      R 192.58.207.rrr                     DEC-AUXNET-2      [BKR]\n      R 192.58.208.rrr                     DEC-AUXNET-3      [BKR]\n      R 192.58.209.rrr                     DEC-AUXNET-4      [BKR]\n      R 192.58.210.rrr                     DEC-AUXNET-5      [BKR]\n      C*192.58.211.rrr                     WEENET            [TD87]\n      D*192.58.212.rrr                     ICUBED            [CF64]\n      R 192.58.213.rrr                     ISTS-XNET         [EC43]\n      R*192.58.214.rrr                     DSUNET            [GH46]\n      C*192.58.215.rrr                     ALCOAVERCIM       [HP49]\n      C*192.58.216.rrr                     LIAS1             [TT84]\n      R*192.58.217.rrr                     PI-TECH           [SO43]\n      R*192.58.218.rrr                     IT-GARR-X25       [ABB2]\n      R 192.58.219.rrr                     MORNET-R-CS       [RWA15]\n      C*192.58.220.rrr                     PELE              [BJORK]\n      R 192.58.221.rrr                     UCB-LOCAL         [CF4]\n      R*192.58.222.rrr                     BANG-NET          [TH60]\n      R 192.58.223.rrr                     NCRDS1            [JRF]\n      R 192.58.224.rrr                     NCRDS2            [JRF]\n      R 192.58.225.rrr                     NCRDS3            [JRF]\n      C*192.58.226.rrr-192.58.229.rrr      WANG-UXCV         [WWP8]\n      D 192.58.230.rrr                     PATCH-GW          [JTM24]\n      R 192.58.231.rrr                     LBL-IPNET-3       [CAL3]\n      G*192.58.232.rrr-192.58.234.rrr      NOAA-NWS-NETS     [HJK4]\n      G 192.58.235.rrr                     NOAA-NWS2         [HJK4]\n      G*192.58.236.rrr-192.58.241.rrr      NOAA-NWS3         [HJK4]\n      R*192.58.242.rrr                     MERRIMACK         [RH338]\n      C*192.58.243.rrr                     BIOGFX            [WKS4]\n      D*192.58.244.rrr                     HDL-TAES          [EBS10]\n      R*192.58.245.rrr                     MDANET            [DF158]\n      G 192.58.246.rrr                     CPLNET            [MN60]\n      R 192.58.247.rrr                     EPA-RTP-NCC       [DW238]\n      C 192.58.248.rrr                     IMATRON           [MT48]\n      C*192.58.249.rrr                     SYNERCOM          [CK117]\n      D*192.58.250.rrr                     MOBILE            [CK116]\n      C*192.58.251.rrr                     CTI-PET           [LD82]\n        192.58.252.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.58.253.rrr                     INMAC             [LC149]\n      C*192.58.254.rrr                     BOHDAN            [PF68]\n        192.58.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.59.0.rrr-192.63.255.rrr        UNISYS-NET2       [CC249]\n      C*192.64.0.rrr-192.64.67.rrr         Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n      C 192.64.68.rrr                      HP-NET            [SI8]\n      C*192.64.69.rrr-192.64.255.rrr       Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 91]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n192.65.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.65.1.rrr-192.65.49.rrr         TEKTRONIX         [MJE]\n      C 192.65.50.rrr                      SSI-SD            [KS156]\n      R*192.65.51.rrr-192.65.70.rrr        OCE-NL            [MB273]\n      R 192.65.71.rrr                      TST-RGN-47        [DM353]\n      R*192.65.72.rrr                      ATG-NET           [RN67]\n      C*192.65.73.rrr                      NETA-3COM         [TC96]\n      C*192.65.74.rrr                      NETB-3COM         [TC96]\n      C*192.65.75.rrr                      YAEC-NET          [BW168]\n      R*192.65.76.rrr                      CMHC              [PG101]\n      R 192.65.77.rrr                      NMSU-SLIP         [JH204]\n      R 192.65.78.rrr                      NMSU-CAR          [JH204]\n      R*192.65.79.rrr                      MRI-NET           [CCL8]\n      C*192.65.80.rrr                      KEY-SYSTEMS       [SB230]\n      R*192.65.81.rrr                      SIPLAN            [MV41]\n      R*192.65.82.rrr-192.65.91.rrr        ARRBNET           [PH120]\n      R*192.65.92.rrr                      SWITCH-TEST       [TL99]\n      R*192.65.93.rrr                      SWITCH-INTER1     [TL99]\n      R*192.65.94.rrr                      SWITCH-INTER2     [TL99]\n      D 192.65.95.rrr                      CORNETT           [PCW]\n      R*192.65.96.rrr                      SURFNET-HSV       [VR32]\n      R 192.65.97.rrr                      MORNET-REEC       [RWA15]\n      C*192.65.98.rrr                      ALZNET-AI         [RP238]\n      D*192.65.99.rrr-192.65.128.rrr       BOEING-AE-NETS    [GK44]\n      C*192.65.129.rrr                     ISIS              [JFM38]\n      R*192.65.130.rrr                     BIOM-PERTH        [ESD3]\n      R 192.65.131.rrr                     SIAM-LAN1         [DB374]\n      C*192.65.132.rrr                     AMTNET            [DB343]\n        192.65.133.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.65.134.rrr                     CORD              [SG154]\n      C*192.65.135.rrr                     PRC-NET           [SM221]\n      C*192.65.136.rrr                     CHARLESRIVER      [JW375]\n      R 192.65.137.rrr                     SONY-SMSC         [AS196]\n      R*192.65.138.rrr                     SONY-SMSC-1       [AS196]\n      C*192.65.139.rrr                     RADIG-LAN         [PR100]\n      C*192.65.140.rrr                     USRNET-C          [CC192]\n      R 192.65.141.rrr                     NTU               [BS220]\n      C*192.65.142.rrr                     NDL               [GG115]\n      R 192.65.143.rrr                     WYOTECHNET        [RM177]\n      C*192.65.144.rrr                     SLXSYSLAN         [JP302]\n      C*192.65.145.rrr                     SLXSINGLAN        [JP302]\n      C*192.65.146.rrr                     SLXINCLAN         [JP302]\n      D 192.65.147.rrr                     LEAD-NET          [BV4]\n      C*192.65.148.rrr                     CTI-NET           [BY20]\n      C*192.65.149.rrr                     COMBIX            [DL169]\n      C*192.65.150.rrr                     MCI               [ME74]\n      C*192.65.151.rrr                     MICROPROGRAM      [RLH94]\n      R*192.65.152.rrr                     IVIC              [CS275]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 92]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.65.153.rrr                     BT-ITS            [TO33]\n      C*192.65.154.rrr-192.54.170.rrr      GHB-CNETS         [CB201]\n      C*192.65.171.rrr                     ACE-ETHER         [JP232]\n      R*192.65.172.rrr                     SALFORD           [RL224]\n      C*192.65.173.rrr                     MTCN-CNET         [JCP26]\n      R 192.65.174.rrr                     TJHSST            [CY29]\n      C 192.65.175.rrr                     IBM-CAMBRIDG      [JP304]\n      R 192.65.176.rrr                     NAIC              [AV25]\n      C 192.65.177.rrr                     UTC               [CPK3]\n      R*192.65.178.rrr                     NIBR2             [MT111]\n      C*192.65.179.rrr                     USS-NET           [SE8]\n      C*192.65.180.rrr                     ESS               [MJK12]\n      R*192.65.181.rrr                     AHA-NET           [HT48]\n      C*192.65.182.rrr                     CORINET           [RP240]\n      R*192.65.183.rrr-192.65.184.rrr      CERN-BLOCK        [TB166]\n      R 192.65.185.rrr                     CERN-NSS          [OM10]\n      R*192.65.186.rrr-192.65.197.rrr      CERN-BLOCK        [TB166]\n      G*192.65.198.rrr                     APC-NE-NET        [HAW]\n      G*192.65.199.rrr                     APC-SE-NET        [HAW]\n      R*192.65.200.rrr                     SDSC-YMP-ETH      [GKN1]\n      C*192.65.201.rrr                     CRLABS-NET        [CRW12]\n      C 192.65.202.rrr                     DSI               [SSW5]\n      D 192.65.203.rrr                     DFRRS-NAVY        [JS522]\n      C*192.65.204.rrr-192.65.210.rrr      MCDNET            [FW54]\n      C*192.65.211.rrr                     EGSE              [BB277]\n      R*192.65.212.rrr                     SCIN              [SWH8]\n      R*192.65.213.rrr                     HAMLINE           [JS599]\n      C*192.65.214.rrr                     TAMRI             [ST81]\n      G*192.65.215.rrr                     MICHLSB           [WJR17]\n      C*192.65.216.rrr                     HYPERION          [SG140]\n      G*192.65.217.rrr                     FOOTLAN           [DL170]\n      C*192.65.218.rrr                     DRA-STL           [SMD1]\n      C*192.65.219.rrr-192.65.228.rrr      BTNET1            [NT13]\n        192.65.229.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.65.230.rrr-192.65.243.rrr      HFH               [BW138]\n      R 192.65.244.rrr                     NOSC-HAWAII       [EHC3]\n      R 192.65.245.rrr                     MWCNET            [ECA]\n      D 192.65.246.rrr                     NTSC-LINK         [SL135]\n      C*192.65.247.rrr                     OPTIMAGE          [KK87]\n      C*192.65.248.rrr                     PROCOR            [DR217]\n      C*192.65.249.rrr                     ALCOAVERCAD       [HP49]\n      R*192.65.250.rrr                     REGNET            [IR24]\n      C*192.65.251.rrr                     MOT-WDC-RDC       [JV13]\n      C*192.65.252.rrr                     MSAIASIC          [SE15]\n      G*192.65.253.rrr                     NUBPU             [MT123]\n      C*192.65.254.rrr                     MERIDIAN          [RB365]\n        192.65.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      R*192.66.0.rrr-192.66.255.rrr        DKNET-CNETS       [KS125]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 93]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n192.67.0.rrr                       Reserved          [JBP]\n      G*192.67.1.rrr                       DITR-NET          [AG149]\n      R*192.67.2.rrr                       AUG               [JU14]\n      R*192.67.3.rrr                       SPCM              [DM356]\n      C*192.67.4.rrr                       WESTHAWK          [SL2]\n      C*192.67.5.rrr                       RUSO-AC           [GK89]\n      R 192.67.6.rrr                       PSINET2           [CPK3]\n        192.67.7.rrr                       Unassigned        [NIC]\n      D 192.67.8.rrr                       WSMR-NET5         [SEM18]\n      R 192.67.9.rrr                       BCNET-1           [MP172]\n      R 192.67.10.rrr                      LWC               [JWE12]\n      R 192.67.11.rrr                      ESNET-THENET      [RW9]\n      R*192.67.12.rrr                      CSIROMLT          [PC148]\n      R 192.67.13.rrr                      HARC-GTRI-NET     [WC117]\n      R 192.67.14.rrr                      HARC-TAC-NET      [WC117]\n      C*192.67.15.rrr                      UNISYSTREDY       [AC155]\n      C*192.67.16.rrr                      MACKNIFE          [DW244]\n      C*192.67.17.rrr                      DII               [MT124]\n      R*192.67.18.rrr                      IBSNET            [BF91]\n      C*192.67.19.rrr                      STILLWATER        [PH121]\n      R*192.67.20.rrr                      SDSC-YMP-OWS      [GKN1]\n      R*192.67.21.rrr                      SDSC-YMP-MWS      [GKN1]\n      G*192.67.22.rrr                      OCRWM-NET         [TB172]\n      C*192.67.23.rrr                      KS-FARCOMP        [ME75]\n      G*192.67.24.rrr                      WASH-STATE        [DF162]\n        192.67.25.rrr-192.67.38.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.67.39.rrr                      INDEPENDENT       [DAE2]\n        192.67.40.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.67.41.rrr                      FIBERNET1         [JG308]\n      C*192.67.42.rrr                      COAXNET1          [JG308]\n      D 192.67.43.rrr                      RSRE-OPEN-NET     [DBH11]\n      C*192.67.44.rrr                      BSUS              [RS489]\n      R*192.67.45.rrr                      FORNET            [DS387]\n      C*192.67.46.rrr                      PBUSH             [WH136]\n      C*192.67.47.rrr                      BAE-ST            [MH257]\n      C*192.67.48.rrr                      ERE-NET           [CGT2]\n      R*192.67.49.rrr                      CSURICH           [JFK23]\n      C*192.67.50.rrr                      MCDDOUGLAS1       [MD177]\n      C*192.67.51.rrr                      DOCUPRO           [SA99]\n      C*192.67.52.rrr                      HILL-SAMUEL       [AJS24]\n      C 192.67.53.rrr                      XEROX-EPBU        [DS394]\n        192.67.54.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.67.55.rrr                      HP-GRAPHICS       [TO34]\n      C*192.67.56.rrr                      FEDEX             [WD60]\n      R*192.67.57.rrr                      MNSMC             [FS86]\n      R*192.67.58.rrr                      FMV-FP-SE         [AP92]\n      C*192.67.59.rrr                      VTA               [GA69]\n      R*192.67.60.rrr                      STTHOMMN          [PR102]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 94]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.67.61.rrr                      ODI               [BIM]\n      D 192.67.62.rrr                      AFLMC-NET         [HW26]\n      C*192.67.63.rrr                      CIRR              [ES158]\n      R*192.67.64.rrr                      SONY-SMSC-2       [AS196]\n      R*192.67.65.rrr                      SONY-SMSC-3       [AS196]\n      R*192.67.66.rrr                      SONY-SMSC-4       [AS196]\n      D 192.67.67.rrr                      NICNET            [MKL]\n      R*192.67.68.rrr                      SONY-SMSC-5       [AS196]\n      R 192.67.69.rrr                      CIT-NET1          [JAJ17]\n      D 192.67.70.rrr                      ZAMANET           [SLV4]\n      D 192.67.71.rrr                      CVC2NET           [BG14]\n      D 192.67.72.rrr                      BUCKERNET         [BJW8]\n      C*192.67.73.rrr                      DOCUPROS          [SA99]\n      D 192.67.74.rrr                      OPSNET            [LC151]\n        192.67.75.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.67.76.rrr                      PTNET-DI-FCUL     [JL329]\n      R 192.67.77.rrr                      UTOS-NMO          [DD230]\n      C 192.67.78.rrr                      MGINET            [LS227]\n      C*192.67.79.rrr                      TEICENET          [BD115]\n      D 192.67.80.rrr                      NDL-NET           [BHM]\n      R 192.67.81.rrr                      SDSC-ULTRA        [GKN1]\n      R*192.67.82.rrr                      SDSC-UNATIVE      [GKN1]\n      R 192.67.83.rrr                      UARS-GSFC         [JB525]\n      R*192.67.84.rrr                      NMPDNET           [GC151]\n      R*192.67.85.rrr                      NNMDBNET          [GC151]\n      D*192.67.86.rrr                      DSNETLINK1        [KR79]\n      C*192.67.87.rrr                      MAUNET            [HF34]\n        192.67.88.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.67.89.rrr                      INTNET-AI         [BB279]\n      C*192.67.90.rrr                      RMCNET            [TRG8]\n      C*192.67.91.rrr                      WATG              [ES165]\n      C 192.67.92.rrr                      UNISYS-CULV       [\nGF75\n]\n      D 192.67.93.rrr                      AMIDS-NET         [MR197]\n      G*192.67.94.rrr                      PKDC-NET          [AB172]\n      C*192.67.95.rrr                      SPSSINC           [GD91]\n      C*192.67.96.rrr                      SCENIC            [PD98]\n      G 192.67.97.rrr                      GFDL              [CK119]\n      C*192.67.98.rrr                      SPECTRADYNE       [CP129]\n      R 192.67.99.rrr                      CLHS              [JT220]\n      C*192.67.100.rrr                     IND-DESIGN        [DAE2]\n      C*192.67.101.rrr                     IND-MAG           [DAE2]\n      C*192.67.102.rrr                     IND-RED           [DAE2]\n      C*192.67.103.rrr                     IND-RSRV1         [DAE2]\n      C*192.67.104.rrr                     IND-RSRV2         [DAE2]\n      R 192.67.105.rrr                     BNR-TEST1         [BM178]\n      R 192.67.106.rrr                     BNR-TEST2         [BM178]\n      G*192.67.107.rrr-192.67.126.rrr      PSCI-NETS         [BS214]\n      D 192.67.127.rrr                     MTMC-NET          [RC309]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 95]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nD 192.67.128.rrr                     UNISYS-RES3       [KL63]\n      C 192.67.129.rrr                     QUORUM-NET        [RMC1]\n      D 192.67.130.rrr                     PC3RANDOLPH       [MTF1]\n      R 192.67.131.rrr                     MBHSNET           [MEV7]\n      R 192.67.132.rrr                     NMSU-SLIP1        [MSP1]\n      R 192.67.133.rrr                     NMSU-MVS          [JH204]\n      G 192.67.134.rrr                     NOAA-NCDC         [EWK4]\n      C*192.67.135.rrr                     GMP-LUTTON        [AP93]\n      C*192.67.136.rrr-192.67.155.rrr      INCA              [BC180]\n      C*192.67.156.rrr                     EXPCIM            [NP34]\n      R*192.67.157.rrr                     CINTIMILATRD      [KW96]\n      C*192.67.158.rrr                     GHSNET            [JY35]\n        192.67.159.rrr-192.67.164.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.67.165.rrr                     ASUHYPER          [SMB33]\n      C*192.67.166.rrr                     AHCC              [MJ100]\n      C*192.67.167.rrr                     LEUZE-OPTO        [FBR2]\n      C*192.67.168.rrr                     BCL               [CM226]\n        192.67.169.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.67.170.rrr                     AIC-NET           [GB169]\n      R*192.67.171.rrr                     REMSEN            [PT62]\n        192.67.172.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.67.173.rrr                     DECUS             [CTP1]\n      G 192.67.174.rrr                     NOAAAA            [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.175.rrr                     NOAAA-WET         [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.176.rrr                     NOAAA-WETH        [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.177.rrr                     NOA-WEATHE        [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.178.rrr                     NOAA-WEATHER      [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.179.rrr                     NOA-WEATHER       [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.180.rrr                     NOAAA-WEATHER     [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.181.rrr                     NO-WEAT           [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.182.rrr                     NO-WEATH          [HJK4]\n      G 192.67.183.rrr                     NO-WEATHE         [HJK4]\n      C 192.67.184.rrr                     OMG               [RMS8]\n        192.67.185.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      G 192.67.186.rrr                     BSU-HST           [JB525]\n      G 192.67.187.rrr                     USF-MSL           [JB525]\n        192.67.188.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.67.189.rrr-192.67.208.rrr      KLICK-NETS        [BL118]\n      D 192.67.209.rrr                     GDSS-XRSNET       [BB276]\n      D 192.67.210.rrr                     GDSS-21AF         [BB276]\n      D 192.67.211.rrr                     GDSS-22AF         [BB276]\n      D 192.67.212.rrr                     GDSS-23AF         [BB276]\n      D 192.67.213.rrr                     GDSS-322ALD       [BB276]\n      D 192.67.214.rrr                     GDSS-834ALD       [BB276]\n      D 192.67.215.rrr                     GDSS-ANG          [BB276]\n      D 192.67.216.rrr                     HQMAC-ADANS       [BB276]\n        192.67.217.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.67.218.rrr                     MPCNET            [LS228]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 96]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC*192.67.219.rrr                     GANNET            [RHS4]\n      G*192.67.220.rrr                     RIJNMOND          [ERD6]\n      G*192.67.221.rrr                     RIJNMKLAV         [ERD6]\n      C*192.67.222.rrr                     FS                [\nJM679\n]\n      R*192.67.223.rrr                     HITACHI-DUB       [NM56]\n      C*192.67.224.rrr                     MBF               [JR311]\n      D 192.67.225.rrr                     SIMNET-RUCKR      [RK174]\n      D 192.67.226.rrr                     SIMNET-DC         [RLC20]\n      D 192.67.227.rrr                     SIMNET-KNOX       [DG152]\n      D 192.67.228.rrr                     SIMNET-LVNW       [JS609]\n      D 192.67.229.rrr                     SIMNET-BNING      [JM678]\n      D 192.67.230.rrr                     SIMNET-GRAF       [GM190]\n      D 192.67.231.rrr                     SIMNET-FRIED      [SC197]\n      D 192.67.232.rrr                     SIMNET-FULDA      [SA87]\n      D 192.67.233.rrr                     SIMNET-SCHWN      [RH300]\n      D 192.67.234.rrr                     SIMNET-MCCAIN     [CH226]\n      D 192.67.235.rrr                     SIMNET-STEW       [RO67]\n      R 192.67.236.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-A   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.237.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-B   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.238.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-C   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.239.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-D   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.240.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-E   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.241.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-F   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.242.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-G   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.243.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-H   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.244.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-I   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.245.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-J   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.246.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-K   [RA17]\n      R 192.67.247.rrr                     NET-JVNC-SLIP-L   [RA17]\n      C*192.67.248.rrr                     MOLDFLOW          [DG212]\n      R*192.67.249.rrr                     FORTH-TO-OTHERS   [SA94]\n      C 192.67.250.rrr                     VSG-COM           [MW178]\n      D 192.67.251.rrr                     DAASNET           [MAM71]\n      D 192.67.252.rrr                     DAASNET1          [MAM71]\n      R*192.67.253.rrr                     TSC               [CR159]\n      C*192.67.254.rrr                     SECNET-AI         [MAG37]\n        192.67.255.rrr                     Reserved          [JBP]\n      C*192.68.0.rrr-192.68.17.rrr         NETCS-CUST        [CS218]\n      C*192.68.18.rrr                      CPQ-GER-NET       [ML204]\n      C*192.68.19.rrr                      ALTCE-NET         [MH268]\n      C*192.68.20.rrr                      INTNET-AI1        [BB28]\n      C*192.68.21.rrr                      NTINET            [TP102]\n      C*192.68.22.rrr                      MELATL            [DH322]\n      C*192.68.23.rrr                      ETX-XD            [SW171]\n        192.68.24.rrr                      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.68.25.rrr                      DOW-CHEM          [JWB65]\n      C 192.68.26.rrr                      HARRIS-NET1       [RRR1]\n      C 192.68.27.rrr                      HARRIS-NET2       [RRR1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 97]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nC 192.68.28.rrr                      HARRIS-NET3       [RRR1]\n      R 192.68.29.rrr                      LAWRENCENET       [JSA2]\n      R 192.68.30.rrr                      TMC-LIBRARY       [SB98]\n      C*192.68.31.rrr-192.68.50.rrr        PHILIPS-SERI      [OK6]\n      C*192.68.51.rrr                      DRESSLER          [SK119]\n      G 192.68.52.rrr                      NASA-STIF         [JB525]\n      R*192.68.53.rrr-192.68.64.rrr        CAN-1-12          [TM129]\n        192.68.65.rrr-192.68.66.rrr        Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.68.67.rrr-192.68.74.rrr        BCITNET           [HH88]\n      C*192.68.75.rrr                      MAXTOR-ENGR       [TC132]\n      G*192.68.76.rrr-192.68.107.rrr       NO-MULTI-NETS     [OS4]\n      R 192.68.108.rrr                     FSTRFWEST         [DH313]\n      C*192.68.109.rrr                     RDC               [HS119]\n      R*192.68.110.rrr-192.68.111.rrr      CHYKO-SCCS        [HO8]\n      R*192.68.112.rrr                     BCNET             [MC299]\n      C*192.68.113.rrr                     MCNNET-R          [SJC22]\n      C*192.68.114.rrr                     RAYO              [RO70]\n      C*192.68.115.rrr                     CHROMC            [RO70]\n      C*192.68.116.rrr                     WORLDBANK         [LWA8]\n        192.68.117.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.68.118.rrr-192.68.125.rrr      PG&E-NET          [AC96]\n      R*192.68.126.rrr                     SONY-SMSC-6       [AS196]\n      R*192.68.127.rrr                     SONY-SMSC-7       [AS196]\n      R*192.68.128.rrr                     SONY-SMSC-8       [AS196]\n      R*192.68.129.rrr                     SONY-SMSC-9       [AS196]\n      R*192.68.130.rrr                     SONY-SMSC-10      [AS196]\n      C*192.68.131.rrr                     MINDEMOYA         [DE81]\n      R*192.68.132.rrr                     MINPROD           [SY19]\n      R 192.68.133.rrr                     UCS-INDY          [BS69]\n      C*192.68.134.rrr                     NUMIS             [JC497]\n      C*192.68.135.rrr                     AMCADNET          [TG94]\n      C*192.68.136.rrr                     MONTANAPOWER      [RC321]\n      C*192.68.137.rrr                     EIS               [WR88]\n      R*192.68.138.rrr                     RSINET            [MM427]\n      C*192.68.139.rrr                     SGI-MELB          [AD112]\n      C*192.68.140.rrr                     RUST              [OC16]\n      C*192.68.141.rrr                     SD-SYSTEMS        [CP131]\n      C*192.68.142.rrr                     FAXON             [MH267]\n      R 192.68.143.rrr                     DMZ-NET           [TAE1]\n      D 192.68.144.rrr                     WDCNET            [MM158]\n      C*192.68.145.rrr                     BDB-NET           [CJB15]\n      C*192.68.146.rrr                     NCHIP             [DL178]\n      R*192.68.147.rrr                     SCT-NET           [SS310]\n      D*192.68.148.rrr                     NOFS              [JP325]\n        192.68.149.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.68.150.rrr                     FS                [\nJM679\n]\n      C*192.68.151.rrr                     CHERNIKEEF        [AW124]\n      C*192.68.152.rrr                     CHERNIKEEFS       [AW124]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 98]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nR*192.68.153.rrr                     MRC-HGRC-NET      [GG16]\n      D*192.68.154.rrr                     LAFB-NET          [RP251]\n      R 192.68.155.rrr                     RPS               [MP183]\n      D 192.68.156.rrr                     WSMR-NETS         [SEM18]\n      C*192.68.157.rrr                     PICTURETEL        [GP137]\n        192.68.158.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.68.159.rrr                     CLSI              [LC160]\n      C 192.68.160.rrr                     AWARE             [DS53]\n      G 192.68.161.rrr                     NOAA-PMEL         [\nRB383\n]\n      C 192.68.162.rrr                     LPARL-SPACE       [DD237]\n      R 192.68.163.rrr                     HAVERFORD         [ED75]\n        192.68.164.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R*192.68.165.rrr-192.68.169.rrr      RHRK-LAN          [BGW3]\n      D*192.68.170.rrr                     SB-HEYFORD        [COV1]\n      C*192.68.171.rrr                     HITECH            [CSS28]\n      C*192.68.172.rrr                     GRAPH-COMP        [DM373]\n      R*192.68.173.rrr                     NSTB              [KL78]\n      C*192.68.174.rrr                     UKIBMPCUGNET      [AJ7]\n      C*192.68.175.rrr                     MARSMCRO          [RH345]\n      R*192.68.176.rrr                     COMBUSTIONE       [AD113]\n      C*192.68.177.rrr                     ARIX              [JD305]\n      R*192.68.178.rrr                     PTUNET-FCTUN1     [SPA]\n      R*192.68.179.rrr                     LEDGENET          [MW225]\n      C*192.68.180.rrr                     INTER-TEL         [TPB1]\n      C*192.68.181.rrr                     DLOGICS           [JH429]\n      C*192.68.182.rrr                     DENKVO            [MVW]\n      C*192.68.183.rrr                     CDSINC            [MW227]\n      G*192.68.184.rrr                     VGH1              [DP171]\n      C*192.68.185.rrr                     ANZUS             [AKW6]\n      R*192.68.186.rrr                     PTNET-LNEC        [AS206]\n      C*192.68.187.rrr                     KEVEX-IPNET       [RB386]\n        192.68.188.rrr                     Unassigned        [NIC]\n      R 192.68.189.rrr                     NRAO-KP           [PPM2]\n      G 192.68.190.rrr                     CTIO              [JB525]\n      R 192.68.191.rrr                     SLAC-DMZ          [JH40]\n      G 192.68.192.rrr                     JCSNETC21         [JC108]\n      G 192.68.193.rrr                     JCSNETC22         [JC108]\n      G 192.68.194.rrr                     JCSNETC23         [JC108]\n      G 192.68.195.rrr                     JCSNETC24         [JC108]\n      G 192.68.196.rrr                     JCSNETC25         [JC108]\n      G 192.68.197.rrr                     JCSNETC26         [JC108]\n      G 192.68.198.rrr                     JCSNETC27         [JC108]\n      G 192.68.199.rrr                     JCSNETC28         [JC108]\n        192.68.200.rrr-192.68.255.rrr      Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*192.69.0.rrr-192.69.255.rrr        Hewlett-Packard   [SI8]\n        192.70.0.rrr-195.5.67.rrr          Unassigned        [NIC]\n      C*195.5.68.rrr                       DIGITAL           [TM84]\n        195.5.69.rrr-223.255.254.rrr       Unassigned        [NIC]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                    [Page 99]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n*223.255.255.rrr                    Reserved          [JBP]\n\n      Other Reserved Internet Addresses\n\n      * Internet Address                   Network           Reference\n      - ----------------                   -------           ----------\n        224.000.000.000-239.255.255.255    Multicast         [JBP]\n        240.000.000.000-255.255.255.255    Reserved          [JBP]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 100]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nNetwork Totals\n\n         Assigned for the ARPA-Internet and the DDN-Internet\n\n            Class         A         B         C     Total\n\n            Research     15       663      1853      2531\n\n            Defense       8       367       698      1073\n\n            Government    1        58       294       353\n\n            Commercial    5       121       127       253\n\n            Total        29      1209      2972      4210\n\n         Allocated for Internet and Independent Uses\n\n            Class         A         B         C     Total\n\n            Research     16      1197      5191      6404\n\n            Defense      10       393       858      1261\n\n            Government    1       129       722       852\n\n            Commercial    7       814      9443     10264\n\n            Total        34      2533     16214     18781\n\n         Maximum Allowed\n\n            Class         A         B         C     Total\n\n            Research      8      1024     65536     66568\n\n            Defense      24      3072    458752    461848\n\n            Government   24      3072    458752    461848\n\n            Commercial   74      9214   1114137   1123394\n\n            Total       126     16382   2097150   2113658\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 101]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nAUTONOMOUS SYSTEM NUMBERS\n\n   The Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) [\n41\n,\n43\n] specifies that groups of\n   gateways may form autonomous systems.  The EGP provides a 16-bit\n   field for identifying such systems.  The values of this field are\n   registered here.\n\n      Autonomous System Numbers:\n\n           Number  System Name                        Contact\n           ------  ---------------------------------- -------\n           1       The BBN Core Gateways              [MB]\n           2       DCN-AS                             [DLM1]\n           3       The MIT Gateways                   [RH164]\n           4       ISI-AS                             [JKR1]\n           5       SYMBOLICS                          [SE31]\n           6       HIS-MULTICS                        [JLM23]\n           7       UK-MOD                             [RNM1]\n           8       RICE-AS                            [PGM]\n           9       CMU-ROUTER                         [MA]\n           10      CSNET-EXT-AS                       [WHN2]\n           11      HARVARD                            [SB28]\n           12      NYU-DOMAIN                         [EF5]\n           13      BRL-AS                             [RR33]\n           14      COLUMBIA-GW                        [BC14]\n           15      NET DYNAMICS EXP                   [ZSU]\n           16      LBL                                [WG]\n           17      PURDUE-CS                          [DT50]\n           18      UTEXAS                             [DLN12]\n           19      CSS-DOMAIN                         [RA11]\n           20      UR                                 [LB16]\n           21      RAND                               [JDG]\n           22      NOSC                               [RLB3]\n           23      RIACS-AS                           [DG28]\n           24      AMES-NAS-GW                        [MF31]\n           25      UCB                                [MK17]\n           26      CORNELL                            [JCH17]\n           27      UMDNET                             [MP12]\n           28      DFVLR-SYS                          [GB7]\n           29      YALE-AS                            [HML1]\n           30      SRI-AICNET                         [WMT]\n           31      CIT-CS                             [AD22]\n           32      STANFORD                           [PA5]\n           33      DEC-WRL-AS                         [BKR]\n           34      UDEL-EECIS                         [NMM]\n           35      MICATON                            [WDL]\n           36      EGP-TESTOR                         [PEM4]\n           37      NSWC                               [DAF9]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 102]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n38      UIUC                               [AKC]\n           39      NRL-ITD                            [AP]\n           40      MIT-TEST                           [NC3]\n           41      AMES                               [MSM1]\n           42      THINK-AS                           [BJN1]\n           43      BNL-AS                             [GR9]\n           44      S1-DOMAIN                          [RAK12]\n           45      LLL-TIS-AS                         [NAL]\n           46      RUTGERS                            [RM8]\n           47      USC-OBERON                         [DRS4]\n           48      NRL-AS                             [WF3]\n           49      ICST-AS                            [CWH3]\n           50      ORNL-MSRNET                        [THD]\n           51      USAREUR-EM-AS                      [FWD]\n           52      UCLA                               [RBW]\n           53      NORTHROP-AS                        [RSM1]\n           54      COA-FIN-NET-AS                     [RR26]\n           55      UPENN-CIS                          [IW5]\n           56      OPTIMIS-P                          [GPL1]\n           57      UMN-REI-UC                         [TJ]\n           58      DREA-AS                            [GLH5]\n           59      WISC-MADISON-AS                    [EJN1]\n           60      DARPA-BFLY                         [MB]\n           61      DEC-MARLBORO-AS                    [JM60]\n           62      TEKVAXC                            [TE16]\n           63      LL-MI                              [KLS24]\n           64      MITRE-B-AS                         [BSW]\n           65      LOGNET-AS                          [JR15]\n           66      ETL-AI                             [MMM3]\n           67      SDC-PRC-AS                         [MS22]\n           68      LANL-INET-AS                       [PCW]\n           69      WHARTON-AS                         [HK2]\n           70      NLM-GW                             [JA1]\n           71      HP-INTERNET-AS                     [DCL10]\n           72      SCHLUMBERGER-AS                    [CG64]\n           73      WASHINGTON-AS                      [DJ99]\n           74      XDRENET-AS                         [TS31]\n           75      ANL-AS                             [LW26]\n           76      SDC-CAM-AS                         [DSR]\n           77      JHUAPL-AS                          [SFP]\n           78      SSDF-CDC-GW                        [RE22]\n           79      DSPO-HC-AS                         [BT5]\n           80      GE-CRD                             [JC106]\n           81      TUCC-MCNC                          [JRR14]\n           82      TWG-DEMO-AS                        [JS171]\n           83      PICANET-AS                         [RFD1]\n           84      DTNSRDC-AS1                        [RWT2]\n           85      AERO-NET                           [LCN]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 103]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n86      SURANET-AS                         [JH92]\n           87      INDIANA-AS                         [BS69]\n           88      PRINCETON-AS                       [LRR1]\n           89      NUSC-CSTLNET-AS                    [MP20]\n           90      SUN-AS                             [WM3]\n           91      RPI-AS                             [MS9]\n           92      CLARKSON-AS                        [ABS6]\n           93      FORD-AS                            [KR9]\n           94      BELVOIR-NET                        [MDS30]\n           95      NUSCLSB1                           [RPP]\n           96      JTELS-BEN1-AS                      [RR26]\n           97      JVNC-AS                            [SH37]\n           98      ROCKEFELLER-AS                     [MK38]\n           99      INTEL-IWARP                        [RLS115]\n           100     FMC-CTC                            [WW82]\n           101     WASH-NSF-AS                        [SH47]\n           102     NSF-HQ-AS                          [FW17]\n           103     NWU-AS                             [JPD18]\n           104     COLORADO-AS                        [DCMW]\n           105     MOT-MCD-AS                         [DP7]\n           106     ETN-WLV-AS                         [SMS1]\n           107     ECSNET-AS                          [CAL7]\n           108     XEROX-AS                           [DCS]\n           109     CISCOSYSTEMS                       [KSL]\n           110     XAIT-AS                            [AL6]\n           111     BOSTONU-AS                         [BS24]\n           112     CMU-SEI-AS                         [PDB5]\n           113     SCCNET-AS                          [MJO4]\n           114     SESQUINET-AS                       [GTA]\n           115     PBAS-BEN2-GW-AS                    [RR26]\n           116     BELLCORE-AS                        [PK28]\n           117     ALBM-NET-AS                        [DV42]\n           118     NSWSES-NAVY-AS                     [DD41]\n           119     AMS-AS                             [SBW4]\n           120     MITRE-OMAHA                        [SM62]\n           121     IH-POE-AS                          [LK27]\n           122     U-PGH-NET-AS                       [SM6]\n           123     LOGAIRCOMNET-AS                    [GT37]\n           124     ENCORE-GW-AS                       [DK70]\n           125     HI-NET-AS                          [\nDB97\n]\n           126     MINSY-POE-AS                       [CV14]\n           127     JPL-AS                             [JAW16]\n           128     ADS-AS                             [MB26]\n           129     CDA-AS                             [FJS3]\n           130     CSOCNET-AS                         [JJD12]\n           131     UCSB-NET-AS                        [AKS31]\n           132     WPAFB-CSD-NET-AS                   [KH59]\n           133     AFIT-AS                            [DWD20]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 104]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n134     CORONA-GW-AS                       [LM35]\n           135     BRL-CDCNET-GW-AS                   [RR33]\n           136     ECONET-AS                          [TD40]\n           137     ITALY-AS                           [ABB2]\n           138     BRL-CMCGW-AS                       [RR33]\n           139     NUWESNET-AS                        [RM125]\n           140     DAITC-NET-AS                       [CG24]\n           141     NWCNET-AS                          [EG17]\n           142     WESTPOINT                          [RLR23]\n           143     OOG1-AS                            [JD86]\n           144     ATT-INTERNET                       [HT19]\n           145     NSFNET-CORE                        [HWB]\n           146     HQEIS-AS                           [SMK2]\n           147     NAVCAMS-LAN-AS                     [JM246]\n           148     NWSC-GW-AS                         [JA91]\n           149     ADEL-AS                            [CM115]\n           150     SEANET-AS                          [JH10]\n           151     IND-NTC-AS                         [AB98]\n           152     SRI-ACCATT-AS                      [RDQ]\n           153     SAAD-ARPA-AS                       [DRM24]\n           154     USACEC-NET-AS                      [DEA]\n           155     CACNET-AS                          [BG25]\n           156     NORTHEASTERN-GW-AS                 [CJ38]\n           157     INTELLIAUTON                       [RJL3]\n           158     ACC-AS                             [AB20]\n           159     SONNET-AS                          [\nMF74\n]\n           160     U-CHICAGO-AS                       [MC17]\n           161     TI-AS                              [DF71]\n           162     NOSL-POE-AS                        [DB211]\n           163     IBM-RESEARCH-AS                    [JP247]\n           164     DDN-MB-AS                          [RH6]\n           165     NESEA-DDN-GW-AS                    [DT59]\n           166     IDA-AS                             [MM227]\n           167     WESLEYAN-AS                        [JGD1]\n           168     UMASS-AMHERST                      [ASG]\n           169     HANSCOM-NET-AS                     [DD63]\n           170     YKTNPOE-GW-AS                      [WRR5]\n           171     NORTHWESTNET-AS                    [GK44]\n           172     CSDA-AS                            [LJC2]\n           173     NTT-AS                             [KM82]\n           174     NYSERNET-AS                        [MF19]\n           175     AFWL-AS                            [BSR]\n           176     BCN-AS                             [JRC27]\n           177     MERIT-AS                           [HWB]\n           178     IBMYORKTOWN-AS                     [HWB]\n           179     IBMMILFORD-AS                      [HWB]\n           180     MCIRESTON-AS                       [HWB]\n           181     NSFNETTEST1-AS                     [HWB]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 105]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n182     NSFNETTEST2-AS                     [HWB]\n           183     NSFNETTEST3-AS                     [HWB]\n           184     NSFNETTEST4-AS                     [HWB]\n           185     NSFNETTEST5-AS                     [HWB]\n           186     CUA-AS                             [ECM6]\n           187     MDC-AS                             [KRH4]\n           188     SAIC-AS                            [SDF5]\n           189     BARRNET-AS                         [DLW31]\n           190     NSYPTSMH-POE-AS                    [TSD3]\n           191     NORDA-AS                           [MG120]\n           192     ROCHINSTTECH                       [CF35]\n           193     MIDNET-AS                          [DF90]\n           194     USAN-AS                            [DM84]\n           195     SDSC-AS                            [PGL]\n           196     RISC-SYSTEM                        [WAG5]\n           197     HAC-ENET-AS                        [PH45]\n           198     BRL-SGW1-AS                        [WAW11]\n           199-203 BARRNET-AS                         [DLW31]\n           204     PSCNET-AS                          [EFH4]\n           205     MONTCLAIR-AS                       [MLT10]\n           206     CSC-LONS-GW-AS                     [SWR3]\n           207     CLI-GW-AS                          [WAH11]\n           208     LBNS-POE-AS                        [DC145]\n           209     WESTNET-EAST                       [DCMW]\n           210     WESTNET-WEST                       [DCMW]\n           211     RADC-LONS-GW-AS                    [SWR3]\n           212     HQAFSC-LONS-GW-AS                  [SWR3]\n           213     APGEA-NET1-AS                      [REA3]\n           214     USNA-AS                            [RAD15]\n           215     RIA-2-AUTO-AS                      [\nTC72\n]\n           216     LMSC-HOSTNET-AS                    [SJ55]\n           217     UMN-AGS-NET-AS                     [RG12]\n           218     AFOTECPCNET-AS                     [KDA5]\n           219     PUGET-POE-AS                       [GC104]\n           220     OOALC-HOSTNET-AS                   [SJ55]\n           221     WRALC-HOSTNET-AS                   [SJ55]\n           222     SMALC-HOSTNET-AS                   [SJ55]\n           223     TISW-AS                            [KH88]\n           224     UNINETT-AS                         [JT122]\n           225     VIRGINIA-AS                        [JAJ17]\n           226     LOS-NETTOS-AS                      [WP8]\n           227     SHAFTER-AS                         [DM35]\n           228     DC-SUN-NET-AS                      [MC202]\n           229     NSFNETTEST6-AS                     [HWB]\n           230     NSFNETTEST7-AS                     [HWB]\n           231     NSFNETTEST8-AS                     [HWB]\n           232     NSFNETTEST9-AS                     [HWB]\n           233     NSFNETTEST10-AS                    [HWB]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 106]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n234     NSFNETTEST11-AS                    [HWB]\n           235     NSFNETTEST12-AS                    [HWB]\n           236     NSFNETTEST13-AS                    [HWB]\n           237     NSFNETTEST14-AS                    [HWB]\n           238     NSFNETTEST15-AS                    [HWB]\n           239     UTORONTO-AS                        [LO24]\n           240     SAALC-HOSTNET-AS                   [SJ55]\n           241     OCALC-HOSTNET-AS                   [SJ55]\n           242     SSSD-AS                            [RGH21]\n           243     HARRIS-ATD-AS                      [TS14]\n           244     ITT-FEC-AS                         [RW45]\n           245     PRC-AS                             [SS172]\n           246     ASIFICS-GW-AS                      [SC139]\n           247     ROMENET-AS                         [PV23]\n           248     OBL-LINK-AS                        [MCB5]\n           249     RDM-LINK-AS                        [MCB5]\n           250     LON-LINK-AS                        [MCB5]\n           251     CPO-LINK-AS                        [MCB5]\n           252     CECOM-A-TACT                       [MB31]\n           253     CIC-NET-AS                         [RG12]\n           254     TWG-NET-AS                         [JS171]\n           255     PATRICK-LONS-GW-AS                 [SWR3]\n           256     NCSC-NET-AS                        [JD130]\n           257     NPS-GATOR-AS                       [SW37]\n           258     BRAGGSRI-EGP-AS                    [TN5]\n           259     SCUBED-AS                          [TH60]\n           260     BBNCC-COL-MD-AS                    [LJK]\n           261     EASINET-AS                         [JLD31]\n           262     JVNC-II-AS                         [JB247]\n           263     JVNC-TEST-AS                       [JB247]\n           264     SRINET-AS                          [DP2]\n           265     WASH-VAX-AS                        [DB310]\n           266     CICNET1-AS                         [JY24]\n           267     CICNET2-AS                         [JY24]\n           268     USUHSNET-AS                        [MK124]\n           269     INCSYS-AS                          [JS281]\n           270     PSCNI-AS                           [BH162]\n           271     BCNET-AS                           [JCD8]\n           272     FTLEENET-AS                        [TWH19]\n           273     DARPA-CISCO-AS                     [SC3]\n           274     SOFT-CON-NTS-AS                    [PP77]\n           275     SESQUI-INTER-AS                    [FG50]\n           276     MCC-NET-AS                         [CBD]\n           277     BBNSTC-KNOX-AS                     [JM113]\n           278     RAM-AS                             [MA105]\n           279     SURANET-AS-2                       [MO48]\n           280     SESQUI-AUX-AS                      [FG50]\n           281     NEARNET-AS                         [DBL1]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 107]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n282     MERIT-AUX-AS                       [JRJ18]\n           283     GATED-TEST-AS                      [JCH17]\n           284     UUNET-AS                           [RA11]\n           285     AVTROS-AS                          [CAD10]\n           286     EUNET-AS                           [PB13]\n           287     CNSYD-POE-AS                       [MI1]\n           288     ESA-AS                             [DS342]\n           289     APGNET-AS                          [VC5]\n           290     SHOWNET-AS                         [NIC]\n           291     ESNET-EAST-AS                      [AT80]\n           292     ESNET-CENTRAL-AS                   [AT80]\n           293     ESNET-WEST-AS                      [AT80]\n           294     FRANCE-IP-NET-AS                   [AR41]\n           295     OSI-GW-AS                          [LC57]\n           296     ACFP-NET-TST-AS                    [HR43]\n           297     NSN-UMD-AS                         [MSM1]\n           298     RADC-LONEX-AS                      [JAM38]\n           299     UCINET-AS                          [DW96]\n           300     GUNTER-LAN-AS                      [TMD6]\n           301     C3PO-AS                            [RR184]\n           302     BCM-INFO-NET-AS                    [SB98]\n           303     NPRDC-AS                           [RFS2]\n           304     SRIEXPRIGNET-AS                    [PEM4]\n           305     WALTER-REED-AS                     [BSA2]\n           306-371 NGNET-AS                           [CAP5]\n           372     NSN-AMES-AS                        [MSM1]\n           373     IE-TESTBED-AS                      [GH122]\n           374     BROOKS-AS                          [JLW49]\n           375     TIETOTIE-AS                        [PI7]\n           376     RISQ-AS                            [MV38]\n           377     SNLA-NET-AS                        [AB161]\n           378     ILAN-AS                            [HN7]\n           379-508 AF-CONC-NET-AS                     [DWB2]\n           509     WORMS-GW1-AS                       [SAS49]\n           510     CSNET-INT-AS                       [WHN2]\n           511     CSNET-MIS-AS                       [WHN2]\n           512     NAVDEC-NET1                        [DG163]\n           513     CERN-AS                            [TB]\n           514     EDMICS-POE                         [PWP2]\n           515     PMS312GATE-ASN                     [DL164]\n           516     KODAK-BTC                          [HCL1]\n           517     XLINK-UKA                          [MR78]\n           518     CONCORD-POE-AS                     [SJG2]\n           519     ISCNET                             [DM27]\n           520     COINSDISNET3                       [RLS6]\n           521     FORD-SRL-AS                        [FJB3]\n           522     AFSC-SSD-AS                        [DD38]\n           523     REDSTONE-AS                        [RT64]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 108]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n524     BBN-PCNETSIM-AS                    [GL15]\n           525     WUERZBURG-GW1-AS                   [LT70]\n           526     ASCHAFFENBURG-GW1-AS               [GP129]\n           527     ANSBACH-GW1-AS                     [JS573]\n           528     AUGSBURG-GW1-AS                    [LW137]\n           529     BURTONWOOD-GW1-AS                  [LW138]\n           530     GEOPPINGEN-GW1-AS                  [PO2]\n           531     GRAFENWOEHR-GW1-AS                 [SD131]\n           532     HEIDELBERG-GW1-AS                  [AH130]\n           533     HEILBRONN-GW1-AS                   [MG205]\n           534     KARLSRUHE-GW1-AS                   [OT5]\n           535     MUNICH-GW1-AS                      [RJ127]\n           536     NUERNBERG-GW1-AS                   [SJ65]\n           537     ULM-GW1-AS                         [ML193]\n           538     SCHWEINFURT-GW1-AS                 [WN2]\n           539     STUTTGART-GW1-AS                   [CJC31]\n           540     BAMBERG-GW1-AS                     [DS335]\n           541     IGAUTON                            [EL30]\n           542     ARNET                              [TS194]\n           543     CONVEX                             [CG105]\n           544     PTN-FINLAND                        [ET49]\n           545     NRI                                [DKE2]\n           546     SPARTA-AS                          [CFM1]\n           547     TST-RGN-47-AS                      [DM353]\n           548     HQUSAF-AS                          [BP32]\n           549     ONET-AS                            [LO24]\n           550     CORNETT-AS                         [PCW]\n           551     TIS-AS                             [DID1]\n           552     PATCH-AS                           [TTS8]\n           553     BELWUE-AS                          [PM178]\n           554     CALINET-AS                         [WP8]\n           555     MRNET-AS                           [JAW34]\n           556     CALREN-AS                          [WP8]\n           557     UMAINE-SYS-AS                      [IKA]\n           558     OLIVETTI-AS1                       [JA13]\n           559     SWITCH-AS                          [TL99]\n           560     NEARNET-EXT-AS                     [DBL1]\n           561     3COM-A                             [TC96]\n           562     3COM-B                             [TC96]\n           563     3COM-C                             [TC96]\n           564     OPSNET                             [LM237]\n           565     VTTNET-AS                          [JK187]\n           567     DART-AS                            [WP8]\n           568     SUMNET-AS                          [AJC5]\n           569     DIMNET-AS                          [FZ]\n           570     SSD-NET-AS                         [DD38]\n           571     CENTCOM-AS                         [KMC3]\n           572     ZWEIBKN-GW1-AS                     [GEW13]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 109]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n573     NAVDEC-NET3-AS                     [DG163]\n           574     PSC-TEST-AS                        [EFH4]\n           576     NAVDAC-NET3-AS                     [DG163]\n           577     CA-NET-AS                          [TM159]\n           578     AS-CA-NET-AS                       [TM159]\n           579     CANET-AS                           [TM159]\n           580     MAINZ-GW1-AS                       [MM413]\n           581     GDSS-XRSNET-AS                     [BB276]\n           582     GDSS-21AF-AS                       [BB276]\n           583     GDSS-22AF-AS                       [BB276]\n           584     GDSS-23AF-AS                       [BB276]\n           585     GDSS-322ALD-AS                     [BB276]\n           586     GDSS-834ALD-AS                     [BB276]\n           587     GDSS-ANG-AS                        [BB276]\n           588     FRANKFRT-GW1-AS                    [SDM8]\n           589     UNT-CAMPUS-AS                      [BB194]\n           590     EASINET-AS1                        [WP90]\n           591     NSTN-AS                            [JS338]\n           592     USNA-NADN-AS                       [AF60]\n           594-598 BARRNET-AS                         [DLW31]\n           599     NISC-AS                            [VN]\n           600     OARNET-AS                          [DW233]\n           601     CANET1-AS                          [DF133]\n           602     CANET2                             [DF133]\n           603     CANET                              [DF133]\n           604     CANET4-AS                          [DF133]\n           605     CANET5-AS                          [DF133]\n           606     CANET6-AS                          [DF133]\n           607     CANET7-AS                          [DF133]\n           608     CANET8-AS                          [DF133]\n           609     CANET9-AS                          [DF133]\n           610     CANET10-AS                         [DF133]\n           611     CANET11-AS                         [DF133]\n           612     CANET12-AS                         [DF133]\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 110]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nDOCUMENTS\n\n   [\n1\n]    Aerospace, Internal Report, ATM-83(3920-01)-3, 1982.\n\n   [\n2\n]    Apollo Computer, Inc., \"Managing TCP/IP-Based Communication\n          Products\", Order No. 008543, Chelmsford, MA, 01824,\n          March 1986.\n\n   [\n3\n]    BBN Proposal No. P83-COM-40, \"Packet Switched Overlay to\n          Tactical Multichannel/Satellite Systems\".\n\n   [\n4\n]    BBN, \"Specifications for the Interconnection of a Host\n          and an IMP\", Report 1822, Bolt Beranek and Newman\n          Cambridge, Massachusetts, revised, December 1981.\n\n   [\n5\n]    CDCNET Network Configuration and Site Administration Guide,\n          CDC Publication Number 60461550.  CDCNET TCP/IP Usage, CDC\n          Publication Number 60000214.\n\n   [\n6\n]    Chon, K., et al., \"SDN: A Computer Network for Korean\n          Research Community\", Proc. of the Pacific Computer\n          Communications Symposium, October 1985, pp. 567-570,\n          Seoul, Korea.\n\n   [\n7\n]    Chon, K., et al., \"System Development Network\", Proc. of\n          TENCON, April 1984, pp. 133-135, Singapore.\n\n   [\n8\n]    cisco Systems, \"cisco Systems Gateway Server Reference\n          Manual\", Revision B, Menlo Park, CA, January 1988.\n\n   [\n9\n]    Clark, D., \"Revision of DSP Specification\", Local Network\n          Note 9, Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT, June 1977.\n\n   [\n10\n]   Cohen, D., \"On Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace\", IEEE\n          Computer Magazine, October 1981.\n\n   [\n11\n]   Comer, D., and T. Narten, \"The Cypress Multifunction Packet\n          Switch\", Technical Report CSD-TR-575, Computer Science\n          Dept., Purdue University, West LaFayette, IN.\n\n   [\n12\n]   Comer, D., \"Internetworking with TCP/IP:  Principles,\n          Protocols and Architecture\", Prentice-Hall, 1988.\n\n   [\n13\n]   Croft, W. J., \"Unix Networking at Purdue\", USENIX\n          Conference, 1980.\n\n   [\n14\n]   Deering, S. E., \"Host Extensions for IP Multicasting\",\nRFC 988\n, Stanford University, December 1985.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 111]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\n15\n]   Digital Equipment Corporation, DELQA User's Guide\n          EK-DELQA-UG-001, Merrimack, NH, 1987.\n\n   [\n16\n]   Digital Equipment Corporation, \"Ultrix-32 Network Management\n          Guide\", Ultrix-32 System, Version 2.0, 1987.\n\n   [\n17\n]   Feinler, E., editor, \"DDN Protocol Handbook\", Network\n          Information Center, SRI International, December 1985.\n\n   [\n18\n]   Feinler, E., editor, \"Internet Protocol Transition\n          Workbook\", Network Information Center, SRI International,\n          March 1982.\n\n   [\n19\n]   Feinler, E. and J. Postel, eds., \"ARPANET Protocol\n          Handbook\", IC 7104, for the Defense Communications Agency by\n          SRI International, Menlo Park, California, Revised\n          January 1978.\n\n   [\n20\n]   Harris Corporation, \"Harris Ethernet Data Link Reference\n          Manual\", Publication No. 0868010-002, Harris Corporation,\n          Computer Systems Divsion, 2101 West Cypress Creek Road,\n          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-1892.\n\n   [\n21\n]   Harris Corporation, \"Harris TCP/IP Manager's Guide\",\n          Publication No. 0868011-100, Harris Corporation,\n          Computer Systems Divsion, 2101 West Cypress Creek Road,\n          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-1892.\n\n   [\n22\n]   Honeywell CISL, Internal Document, \"AFSDSC Hyperchannel RPQ\n          Project Plan\".\n\n   [\n23\n]   Honeywell CISL, Internal Document, \"Multics MR11 PFS\".\n\n   [\n24\n]   Hwang, K., W. J. Croft and G. H. Goble, \"A Unix-Based Local\n          Computer Network with Load Balancing\", IEEE Computer,\n          April 1982.\n\n   [\n25\n]   IBM Corporation, \"Technical Reference Manual for the IBM PC\n          Network\", 6322505, IBM, Boca Raton, Florida, 1984.\n\n   [\n26\n]   IEEE Project 802 Local Area Network Standard, \"IEEE Standard\n          802.3 CSMA/CD Access Method and Physical Layer\n          Specifications\", Approved IEEE 802.3-1985 ISO/DIS 8802/3,\n          July 1983.\n\n   [\n27\n]   Korb, J. T., \"A Standard for the Transmission of IP\n          Datagrams Over Public Data Networks\",\nRFC 877\n, Purdue\n          University, September 1983.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 112]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\n28\n]   Leach, et al., \"The Architecture of an Integrated Local\n          Network\", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,\n          Vol SAC-1, No. 5, November 1983.\n\n   [\n29\n]   Leffler, Samuel J., et al., \"4.2 BSD Network Implementation\n          Notes\", July, 1983, University of California, Berkeley.\n\n   [\n30\n]   Leffler, S.J.; Joy, W.N.; Fabry, R.S.; Karels, M.J.\n          \"Networking Implementation Notes, 4.3 BSD Edition\",\n          CSRG/CSD/EECS, University of California, Berkeley, June\n          1986.\n\n   [\n31\n]   Macgregor, W., and D. Tappan, \"The CRONUS Virtual Local\n          Network\",\nRFC 824\n, Bolt Beranek and Newman, August 1982.\n\n   [\n32\n]   Mills, D., \"Network Time Protocol\",\nRFC 958\n, M/A-COM\n          Linkabit, September 1985.\n\n   [\n33\n]   Postel, J., ed., \"Internet Protocol - DARPA Internet Program\n          Protocol Specification\",\nRFC 791\n, Information Sciences\n          Institute, September 1981.\n\n   [\n34\n]   Prime, \"Medusa, The Prime Ethernet\", PRIME/WS/AI/86/2,\n          July 1986, Framingham, MA.\n\n   [\n35\n]   Proteon, \"Linkway Software:  Operating System, Release 7.0\",\n          SPD 040-013 and \"Linkway Software:  IP Packet Forwarder\",\n          SPD 040-016.  Proteon, Inc., 4 Tech Circle, Natick, MA.\n\n   [\n36\n]   Proteon, \"P4200 Gateway User's Guide\", 42-040-012.  Proteon,\n          Inc., 4 Tech Circle, Natick, MA 01760.\n\n   [\n37\n]   Proteon, ProNET-80 Token Ring Network, Proteon, Inc.,\n          Westborough, MA.\n\n   [\n38\n]   Pyramid Technology Corporation, \"Networking Software Package\n          Product Description:  Ethernet\", 4100-0014-E, April 15,\n          1988.\n\n   [\n39\n]   Reed, D., \"Protocols for the LCS Network\", Local Network\n          Note 3, Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT, November 1976.\n\n   [\n40\n]   Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, \"Official Internet Protocols\",\nRFC 1011\n, Information Sciences Institute, May 1987.\n\n   [\n41\n]   Rosen, E., \"Exterior Gateway Protocol\"\nRFC 827\n, Bolt Beranek\n          and Newman, October 1982.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 113]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\n42\n]   Saltzer, J. H., \"Design of a Ten-megabit/sec Token Ring\n          Network\", MIT Laboratory for Computer Science Technical\n          Report.\n\n   [\n43\n]   Seamonson, L. J., and E. C. Rosen, \"STUB\" Exterior Gateway\n          Protocol\",\nRFC 888\n, BBN Communications Corporation,\n          January 1984.\n\n   [\n44\n]   Shuttleworth, B., \"A Documentary of MFENet, a National\n          Computer Network\", UCRL-52317, Lawrence Livermore Labs,\n          Livermore, California, June 1977.\n\n   [\n45\n]   Skelton, A., S. Holmgren, and D. Wood, \"The MITRE Cablenet\n          Project\", IEN 96, April 1979.\n\n   [\n46\n]   Sun Microsystems, \"Networking on the Sun Workstation\",\n          Part No: 800-1324-03, Revision B of 17 February 1986.\n          Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2550 Garcia Avenue, Mountain\n          View, CA 94043.\n\n   [\n47\n]   \"The Ethernet, A Local Area Network: Data Link Layer and\n          Physical Layer Specification\", AA-K759B-TK, Digital\n          Equipment Corporation, Maynard, MA.  Also as:  \"The\n          Ethernet - A Local Area Network\", Version 1.0, Digital\n          Equipment Corporation, Intel Corporation, Xerox Corporation,\n          September 1980.  And: \"The Ethernet, A Local Area Network:\n          Data Link Layer and Physical Layer Specifications\", Digital,\n          Intel and Xerox, November 1982.  And:  XEROX, \"The Ethernet,\n          A Local Area Network: Data Link Layer and Physical Layer\n          Specification\", X3T51/80-50, Xerox Corporation, Stamford,\n          CT, October 1980.\n\n   [\n48\n]   The High Level Protocol Group, \"A Network Independent File\n          Transfer Protocol\",  INWG Protocol Note 86, December 1977.\n\n   [\n49\n]   Wecker, S., \"DNA:  The Digital Network Architecture\", IEEE\n          Trans., Commun., COM-28, 510-526, April 1980.\n\n   [\n50\n]   Whelan, D., \"The Caltech Computer Science Department\n          Network\", 5052:D F:82, Caltech Computer Science Department,\n          1982.\n\n   [\n51\n]   XEROX, \"Internet Transport Protocols\",  XSIS 028112, Xerox\n          Corporation, Stamford, Connecticut, December 1981.\n\n   [\n52\n]   Internet Activities Board, \"IAB Official Protocol\n          Standards\",\nRFC 1140\n, IAB, May 1990.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 114]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nCONTACTS\n\n   HANDLE               NAME                    MAILBOX\n\n   [\nAA62\n]          Adrualdi, Annarita\n                   aaa0%icineca2.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AA70]          Agnew, Alan\n                   A_AGNEW%QUT.EDU.AU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AA73]          Ayala, Amador            craxa@UTSA86.SA.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [AA76]          Allopenna, Audrey        ---none---\n   [AA81]          Andersson, Anders        Anders-Andersson@DOCS.UU.SE\n   [AAD6]          Datri, Anthony A.        aad@STEPSTONE.COM\n   [AB115]         Banks, Alan\n                   alanb%cengl%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AB125]         Bjoernerstedt, Anders    anders@SISUS.SISU.SE\n   [AB128]         Birner, Andrew           ---none---\n   [AB150]         Bray, Allen              ahbray@CTS.UTS.OZ.AU\n   [AB161]         Breckenridge, Arthurine R.ARBRECK@SANDIA.GOV\n   [AB171]         Bosch, Arnold            ARNOLD.BOSCH@RCL.WAU.NL\n   [AB172]         Barr, Alex               ---none---\n   [AB175]         Berni, Alessandro        ab@ITALY.EU.NET\n   [AB20]          Berggreen, Arthur        art@SALT.ACC.COM\n   [AB98]          Beacham, Albert\n                   hpindda!abeacha@HPLABS.HP.COM\n   [ABB2]          Bonito, A. Blasco        BLASCO@CNUCE.CNR.IT\n   [ABS6]          Stine, Arthur B.\n                   abstine@OMNIGATE.CLARKSON.EDU\n   [AC154]         Craig, Alisdair          sysman@UK.AC.EDRC\n   [AC155]         Cataldi, Alan            ---none---\n   [AC158]         Chance, Anthony          achance@US.ORACLE.COM\n   [AC42]          Cohen, Adam              ---none---\n   [AC66]          Crotty, Art              ---none---\n   [AC85]          Cantrall, Arthur\n                   icsadc%asuic.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AC96]          Conley, Alan             ---none---\n   [AC98]          Cole, Allen              cole@CC.UTAH.EDU\n   [ACC17]         Colborne, A. C.          ailsa@BIOBRIS.OZ.AU\n   [ACL2]          Lumb, Arthur C.          ---none---\n   [AD106]         Deck, Annabella          ---none---\n   [AD112]         Danne, Andrew            ---none---\n   [AD113]         Di Paolo, Antonio        anto@IRC.NA.CNR.IT\n   [AD22]          DesJardins, Arlene A.    Arlene@VLSI.CALTECH.EDU\n   [AD62]          Diwan, Arif              HOSTMASTER@BROWN.EDU\n   [AD67]          Davis, Andy              andy@SPIDER.CO.UK\n   [AD90]          Dang, Anh                lewton@PRANDTL.NAS.NASA.GOV\n   [AD96]          Decerce, Anthony\n                   ASQM-SWM@MONMOUTH-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [AEJ5]          Johannesen, Allan E.     AEJ@WPI.WPI.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 115]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nAF54\n]          Fox, Anthony             lsg-pm@LOGNET2.AF.MIL\n   [AF60]          Fischer, Allan\n                   allan@NADN2.NADN.USNA.NAVY.MIL\n   [AG113]         Ghiselli, Antonia\n                   ghiselli%iboinfn.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AG127]         Gorczyca, Anne           ANNE@HYPERION.HAYSTACK.EDU\n   [AG149]         Gourds, Arthur           ---none---\n   [AG22]          Ganz, Alfred             ganz-alfred@YALE.EDU\n   [AG67]          Garg, Atul               ---none---\n   [AGS5]          Smith, Arnold G.         AGSMITH@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM\n   [AH124]         Hildreth, Alan           hildreth@MWUNIX.MITRE.ORG\n   [AH130]         Hubbard, Al\n                   mmdf@HEIDELBERG-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [AH81]          Hooper, Andrew           HOOPER@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA\n   [AH89]          Hovsto, Asbjorn          ---none---\n   [AH94]          Hillbo, Anders           AHI@NADA.KTH.SE\n   [AH96]          Hellman, Anders\n                   enea!unione!prhla@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [AHA]           Anderson, Allan H.       anderson@VLSI.LL.MIT.EDU\n   [AI2]           Iliou, Alain             ailiou@IFREMER.IFREMER.FR\n   [AI4]           Ingle, Andy              andy@ACORN.CO.UK\n   [AIM4]          Mitchell, Andrew I.\n                   suqaim%cms.am.cc.reading.ac.uk@NSF-RELAY.AC.UK\n   [AIS]           Shore, Andrew I.         shore@ADOBE.COM\n   [AJ180]         Jefferson, Alexis        ---none---\n   [AJ29]          Jha, Ashok               jha@DFTNIC.GSFC.NASA.GOV\n   [AJ7]           Jay, Alan                alanj@IBMPCUG.CO.UK\n   [AJB20]         Blennerhassett, A.J.\n                   postmaster%aukuni.ac.nz@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [AJC11]         Cole, Andrew J.          AJCOLE@AI.LEEDS.AC.UK\n   [AJC5]          Tso, Ann J.              tsoa@IMO-UVAX.DCA.MIL\n   [AJD14]         D'Adamo, Arthur J.       ---none---\n   [AJS24]         Sprott, Alan John        ---none---\n   [AK36]          Kondo, Akio              akondo@ASEVX1.ASE.SLB.COM\n   [AK62]          Kwok, Alex               ---none---\n   [AK70]          King, Art                ---none---\n   [AK75]          Karna, Amitabh           hjuxa!amit@DECVAX.DEC.COM\n   [AK76]          Kornexl, Anton\n                   PARZ00%DERRZE1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AK78]          Kaul, Ajai               ajai%muffin@CVL.UMD.EDU\n   [AK79]          Kennington, Alan         akenning@PICO.QPSX.OZ.AU\n   [AKC]           Cheng, Albert K.         acheng@A.CS.UIUC.EDU\n   [AKC5]          Costanzo, Albert K.      AL@TURBO.KEAN.EDU\n   [AKP]           Powers, Alan K.          akp@INEL.GOV\n   [AKS31]         Stebbens, Alan K.        AKS@HUB.UCSB.EDU\n   [AKW6]          Welch, Arun K.\n                   welch@TUT.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU\n   [AL109]         Liwen, Andrew            liwen@SOFTWARE.ORG\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 116]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nAL16\n]          Liljeberg, Ake           mcvax!hsn!ake@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [AL6]           Layton, Alexis           alex@XAIT.XEROX.COM\n   [ALA6]          Aman, Alice Lewton       lewton@PRANDTL.NAS.NASA.GOV\n   [AM129]         McDermott, Andrew\n                   andrew%informatics.rutherford.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [AM134]         Mattasoglio, Andrea\n                   mattas%imiclvx.bitnet@ICNUCEVM.CNUCE.CNR.IT\n   [AM139]         Moog, Anja               ---none---\n   [AM151]         McRae, Andrew            ANDREW@MEGADATA.MEGA.OZ.AU\n   [AM154]         Morris, Aled             aledm@CS.RHBNC.AC.UK\n   [AM164]         Ma. Allen                ---none---\n   [AM175]         Moschowits, Avi          AVI@RESEARCH.NEC.COM\n   [AM29]          Mankin, Allison          mankin@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG\n   [AM54]          MacPherson, Andrew       andre@STL.STC.CO.UK\n   [AM92]          Mott, Arch               ---none---\n   [AM95]          Mooney, Andrew F.        NARDACPENSA@NARDACVA.ARPA\n   [AMF2]          Finley, Alvin M.         1968cs-cc@AFCC-OA1.AF.MIL\n   [AMM14]         Monteiro, Antonio M.     monteiro@GRAF.POLY.EDU\n   [AN31]          Negro, Alberto\n                   alberto%udsab.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [AN32]          Nudo, Al                 ---none---\n   [AN50]          Nagl, Alfred\n                   nagl!awiwuwll.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AP]            Palmer, Annie            doim-tcc@SAAD-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [AP25]          Partan, Andrew           asp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [AP92]          Petersson, Arne          dennis@INMIC.SE\n   [AP93]          Powell, Andrew           ---none---\n   [AP94]          Pirard, Andre            a-pirard@VM1.EARN-ULG.AC.BE\n   [APT]           Pfeiffer-Traum, Alan     APT@UH.EDU\n   [AR41]          Renard, Annie            fr-zone-contact@INRIA.FR\n   [AR60]          Doyle, Dan               OSDJD@EMORYU1.CC.EMORY.EDU\n   [AR86]          Reinhold, Andreas        ---none---\n   [ARG13]         Galland, A. Ronald       ---none---\n   [ARM5]          Maffei, Andrew R.        arm@aqua.whoi.edu\n   [ARS3]          Silverman, Alan R.       ---none---\n   [AS116]         Schindler, Albert        shindler@UNI2A.UNIGE.CH\n   [AS196]         Schneider, Andrew        ajs@SONY.COM\n   [AS198]         Santilli, Angelo\n                   P1783%CSUOHIO.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AS205]         Smith, Adrian            ---none---\n   [AS206]         Silva, Antonio           AI@VX8700.LNEC.RCCN.PT\n   [AS62]          Steiner, Albert\n                   AJS001%NUACC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AS90]          Schoener, Anthony        ---none---\n   [ASG]           Gaylord, Arthur S.       ART@UMASS-GW.CS.UMASS.EDU\n   [ASW3]          Watt, Alan S.            watt-alan@CS.YALE.EDU\n   [AT16]          Tsai, Allen              TSAI@USDCSV.ACUSD.EDU\n   [AT62]          Tedja, Andreas           indovax!andreas@UUNET.UU.NET\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 117]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nAT79\n]          Torkildsen, Arn          ---none---\n   [AT80]          Hain, Anthony            hain@CCC.MFECC.LLNL.GOV\n   [AT87]          Tan, Andy                tan@LEGEND.EPIC.COM\n   [AV20]          Vilavaara, Asko          vilavaar@RC.NOKIA.FI\n   [AV24]          Vassilicos, Achilles     AV@TCMVAX.USS.COM\n   [AV25]          Venkataraman, Arun\n                   arun%naic.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AVDH1]         van der Helder, Andrew\n                   cc_helder%vaxa.mqcc.mq.oz.au@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [AW124]         Wilson, Anne             acw@CISCO.COM\n   [AW48]          Wilcox, Andy             ajw%ufl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [AW56]          Waldfogel, Asher         ---none---\n   [AW65]          Whiteman, Alan           ---none---\n   [AW90]          Walker, Amanda           AMANDA@INTERCON.COM\n   [AY11]          Yeh, Arthur\n                   C0298%univscvm.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [AY21]          Alastair, Young          alastair@ES2.CO.UK\n   [AZ]            Zadeh, Ansari\n                   ansariza%tsuunix.uucp@RICE.EDU\n   [BA26]          Ayres, Bill              ayres@UCS.ORST.EDU\n   [BA51]          Au-Yeung, Ben            ---none---\n   [BA56]          Allen, Brad W.           ulmo@SSYX.UCSC.EDU\n   [BA59]          Alting, Burn\n                   munnari!comperex.comperex.oz.au!burn@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [BA60]          Anderson, Bruce\n                   banderso%sagpd1%ncr-sd%ncrlnk.dayton.ncr.com@\n                   RELAY.CS.NET\n   [BA71]          Archer, Barry            archerb@VAX1.UMKC.EDU\n   [BA77]          Abeel, Bruce             ---none---\n   [BAB7]          Burke, Barry A.\n                   barry%adelie@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU\n   [BAC9]          Cole, Bruce A.           Hostmaster@CS.WISC.EDU\n   [BAV]           Verser, Brick A.         BAV@KSUVM.KSU.EDU\n   [BB116]         Bjorklund, Barbara       dtsa@NEMS.DT.NAVY.MIL\n   [BB193]         Blackburn, Barry         ---none---\n   [BB194]         Barron, Billy            billy@VAXB.ACS.UNT.EDU\n   [BB208]         Branch, Barry\n                   Barry%servax.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [BB231]         Butterworth, Brandon     brandon@BBC.CO.UK\n   [BB267]         Burroughs, Brian         brian@T2NS1.GCS.CO.NZ\n   [BB276]         Backer, Brian            ---none---\n   [BB277]         Brunner, Brian           ---none---\n   [BB279]         Baker, Bill              ---none---\n   [BB64]          Boyter, Brian\n                   boyter%bimbo.uucp@VIRGINIA.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU\n   [BBJ2]          Johnson, Bruce B.\n                   BBJ@CORNELLA.CCS.CORNELL.EDU\n   [BC130]         Capouch, Brian           brianc@SAINTJOE.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 118]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nBC133\n]         Crews, Bill              crews@EMX.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [BC14]          Cattani, Robert          cattani@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU\n   [BC173]         Carlsson, Berndt         ---none---\n   [BC176]         Carruthers, Bret         BRC@GCU.EDU\n   [BC177]         Chase, Brokke            BCHASE@CC.UTAH.EDU\n   [BC180]         Cocek, Bruce             ---none---\n   [BC65]          Chiarchiaro, Bill        wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU\n   [BC71]          Cheswick, Bill           ches@RESEARCH.ATT.COM\n   [BC72]          Carrihill, Brian         carrhill@NYU.EDU\n   [BD105]         Dofner, Bob              BDofner@NUWES-M1.NAVY.MIL\n   [BD107]         Doughty, Bill            ---none---\n   [BD108]         Davis, Bjoren            BKDAVIS@AURATEK.COM\n   [BD113]         Dietz, Bob               ---none---\n   [BD115]         De Vicente, Belen        belen@TEICE.ES\n   [BD117]         Declourt, Bruno          bde@info.fundp.ac.be\n   [BD55]          Down, Brian\n                   bdown%uturing%toronto.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [BD89]          Davelaar, Brian          ---none---\n   [BDB8]          Buck, Barry D.           BUCK@HQHSD.BROOKS.AF.MIL\n   [BDH]           Hassler, Barry D.\n                   hassler@NAP1.CDS.WPAFB.AF.MIL\n   [BE10]          Eriksen, Bjorn           ber@SUNIC.SUNET.SE\n   [BE35]          Ehrmantraut, Brian       auspex!bae@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [BE46]          Edmark, Bill             bedmark@ISC.INTEL.COM\n   [BE47]          Edison, Bill\n                   edisonwe%snynewba.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [BE6]           Esposito, Bob            espo@BPA.BELL-ATL.COM\n   [BEC1]          Chi, Benjamin E.         bec@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU\n   [BEC5]          Colley, Ben E.\n                   TPMAINT%UMVMB.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [BF49]          Furrow, Buford           NSC-MCCHORD@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [BF81]          Fincher, Bobby           FINCHER@ARO-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [BF91]          Freier, Bob              ---none---\n   [BG101]         Griffith, Bruce          ---none---\n   [BG112]         Brooklin, Gore           ---none---\n   [BG14]          Graff, Charles\n                   bud@HEXSUNFS.C3SYS.ARMY.MIL\n   [BG2]           Goodwin, Bernie          ---none---\n   [BG23]          Greasley, Bud            bud@SQ.SQ.COM\n   [BG25]          Gorman, Bryan            GORMAN@CACFS.ARMY.MIL\n   [BG56]          Gerovac, Brian           ---none---\n   [BGL5]          Lindh, Borje G.          lindh@CTP.SE.IBM.COM\n   [BGW3]          Worden, Brian G.\n                   worden%dkluni85.bitnet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [BH103]         Hale, Bob                HALE@AFCOST.AF.MIL\n   [BH144]         Halsey, Bridget          bah@BANYAN.BANYAN.COM\n   [BH161]         Hulver, Barron           PHULVER@OBERLIN.EDU\n   [BH162]         Hardy, Ben               ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 119]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nBH167\n]         Hughes, Brian            HUGHESB@CSC.ISU.EDU\n   [BH186]         Hartsough, Bruce         BAH@INTERLINK.COM\n   [BH188]         Hutson, Bob              ---none---\n   [BH196]         Henigsen, Brian          ---none---\n   [BH80]          Haanstra, Bruce          ---none---\n   [BHM]           Millar, Brian H.         ---none---\n   [BIM]           Margulies, Benson I.\n                   KSR!BENSON@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU\n   [BJL5]          Lustig, Barry J.         BARRY@ADS.COM\n   [BJN1]          Walker, Bruce            bruce@THINK.COM\n   [BJORK]         Bjork, Steven W.         BJORK@NIC.DDN.MIL\n   [BJR2]          Russell, Bill J.         RUSSELL@NYU.EDU\n   [BJW8]          Ward, Bobby J., Jr.\n                   asqj-sot-amo@BUCKNER-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [BK102]         Kelley, Brian            ---none---\n   [BK29]          Kantor, Brian            brian@UCSD.EDU\n   [BK76]          Kaye, Brian\n                   BDK%UNB.CA@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU\n   [BK78]          Kelton, Bruce\n                   munnari!pta.oz.au!bruce@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [BK85]          Kain, Bill               ---none---\n   [BK88]          Kobler, Ben              ---none---\n   [BK98]          Klebert, Bengt           ---none---\n   [BKR]           Reid, Brian K.           Reid@DECWRL.DEC.COM\n   [BL118]         Lortz, Bruno\n                   lortz@RUS.UNI-STUTTGART.DBP.DE\n   [BL31]          Lemley, Bob\n                   LEMLEYR@BAYLOR.CCIS.BAYLOR.EDU\n   [BL92]          Lord, Bob                lord@ANDERSEN.COM\n   [BLW2]          Wilson, Bennett L.       ---none---\n   [BM106]         Mulligan, Brian\n                   brian%sphinx.co.uk@EDDIE.MIT.EDU\n   [BM156]         Mondics, Brian           MONDICS@TLSUNB0.TARTAN.COM\n   [BM164]         McDougal, Bruce          ---none---\n   [BM168]         Manderville, Bernie      ---none---\n   [BM178]         Murphy, Bernie\n                   BMURPHY%BNR.CA@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU\n   [BM211]         Mizrahi, Benzi\n                   VSBENZI%WEIZMANN.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [BM230]         Mania, Bill              WJM@HTC.COM\n   [BM68]          Murray, Burton           ---none---\n   [BM79]          Michie, Bob              bob@NJITSC1.NJIT.EDU\n   [BML2]          Liblong, Breen M.\n                   liblong@GAEA.WEST.SYMBOLICS.COM\n   [BMV]           Vance, Bill M.           ---none---\n   [BMW13]         Wallack, Barry M.        DCA-JP@DCA-EMS.DCA.MIL\n   [BMW7]          Wilber, B. Michael       wilber@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU\n   [BN38]          Nelson, Brian            brian@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 120]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nBN4\n]           Nowicki, Bill            nowicki@Legato.COM\n   [BNL1]          Lawrence, Bryan N.\n                   postmaster@CANTERBURY.AC.NZ\n   [BO26]          Olausson, Bengt\n                   euaunix@EUAS12.ERICSSON.SE\n   [BO3]           Oesterlin, Bob           oester@IBM.COM\n   [BO34]          O'Neil, Bob              ---none---\n   [BO5]           Ogilvy-Morris, Bruce\n                   bom%rsre.mod.uk@RELAY.MOD.UK\n   [BP123]         Pike, Brian              bpike@MORGAN.COM\n   [BP32]          Brightbill, Patricia L.  brightbi@HQ.AF.MIL\n   [BP42]          Powell, Brian Hill       brian@NATINST.COM\n   [BP52]          Parker, Brad             brad@CAYMAN.COM\n   [BP57]          Payne, Bob               bpayne@NRAO.EDU\n   [BPW1]          Wright, Bradley P.\n                   AFDDN.WRIGHT@GUNTER-ADAM.AF.MIL\n   [BR104]         Reinhold, Barry          bbr@UNH.EDU\n   [BR106]         Rainey, Bill             bill@WYSE.COM\n   [BR109]         Ryan, Bobbie             ---none---\n   [BR113]         Rawson, Bryan\n                   cepu!litvax!rawson@SEAS.UCLA.EDU\n   [BR118]         Renk, Burkhard\n                   RENK%DMZNAT51.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [BR79]          Rhoades, Bradley D.      bdrhoades@MMC.MMMG.COM\n   [BR87]          Ruptash, Brian           bar@DATAPOINT.COM\n   [BR88]          Reid, Bill               Reid@CCM.UMANITOBA.CA\n   [BR92]          Rubin, Bill              RUBIN@IBM.COM\n   [BRA2]          Arnold, Billie R.        OACS-SYS@AFCC-OA2.AF.MIL\n   [BRB8]          Bangaru, Babu R.         ---none---\n   [BS156]         Sandholm, Bo-Erik\n                   enea!erix.ericsson.se!bosse@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [BS157]         Stoltz, Bill             stoltz@IDA.ORG\n   [BS168]         Stewart, Bruce           bruce@BIKINI.CIS.UFL.EDU\n   [BS196]         Schmid, Bernard          ---none---\n   [BS214]         Solomon, Brad            ---none---\n   [BS217]         Schuller, Bernhard\n                   unido!konech!netz@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [BS220]         Stewart, Blake           BLAKE@NTUPUB.NTU.EDU\n   [BS24]          Shein, Barry             BZS@BU-CS.BU.EDU\n   [BS69]          Sweeny, Brent R.         SWEENY@UCS.INDIANA.EDU\n   [BSA2]          Anderson, Brian S.\n                   Andersonb@WRAIR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [BSP6]          Patel, Bharat S.         ---none---\n   [BSR]           Ridout, Brian S.         RIDOUT@USERVX.AFWL.AF.MIL\n   [BSW]           Seeber-Wagner, Barbara N.bnsw@MBUNIX.MITRE.ORG\n   [BT5]           Tomlinson, Bob           tomlin@HC.DSPO.GOV\n   [BT65]          Tehan, Brian             ---none---\n   [BT78]          Turini, Bill             ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 121]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nBV15\n]          Volz, Bernard            VOLZ@PROCESS.COM\n   [BV17]          Victor, Bjorn            victor@DOCS.UU.SE\n   [BV4]           Vagnerini, Beverly\n                   bvagneri@LETTERKENN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [BW134]         Wilder, Bill             WDW@ACADIAU.CA\n   [BW138]         Wolfe, Brian             brian@HFH.EDU\n   [BW142]         Wrenn, Bill              ---none---\n   [BW143]         Warner, Bill             ---none---\n   [BW157]         Wall, Byron              bwall@CRAYCOS.COM\n   [BW158]         Wilson, Bernard          bernard@PLEIADES.OZ.AU\n   [BW164]         Worobey, Brian\n                   brianw%bcvmcms.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [BW168]         White, Barry             ---none---\n   [BW4]           Webb, Barry\n                   galbp!gelac!bwebb@GATECH.EDU\n   [BWA]           Allen, Bobby W.          allen@YUMA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [BWS2]          Schilling, Bruce W.      NSC-Kees@DDN3.DCA.MIL\n   [BY20]          Young, Bradford          ---none---\n   [CA29]          Aronson, Cathy           cja@MERIT.EDU\n   [CA80]          Annable, Conni\n                   annable@THORIN.HSCSA.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [CA84]          Arbaugh, Clinton\n                   cea%pizza@B.CS.WVU.WVNET.EDU\n   [CAC55]         Colona, Chris A.         ---none---\n   [CAD10]         Diak, Christie           Diak@ST-LOUIS-EMH4.ARMY.MIL\n   [CAD13]         DeFranco, Carl A., Jr.   defranco@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL\n   [CAF13]         Finseth, Craig A.        fin@UNET.UMN.EDU\n   [CAL3]          Leres, Craig A.          leres@HELIOS.EE.LBL.GOV\n   [CAL7]          Leach, Charles A.        CAL@OKC-UNIX.AF.MIL\n   [CAP5]          Puchon, Charles A.       ---none---\n   [CAS1]          Steffey, Skeet           csteffey@WSMR-EMH05.ARMY.MIL\n   [CB162]         Beame, Carl              beame@MCMASTER.CA\n   [CB180]         Bevins, Craig            craigb@IPSO.IPS.OZ.AU\n   [CB19]          Brooks, Charles E.       brooks@EDN-VAX.DCA.MIL\n   [CB201]         Brigham, Craig           ---none---\n   [CB217]         Bloomfield, Carl         ---none---\n   [CB222]         Brown, Craig\n                   brownca%snymorba@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CB42]          Ball, Charles            cball@INMET.INMET.COM\n   [CB50]          Bode, Carsten            cb@SYSTEC.DE\n   [CBD]           Dawson, Clive B.         Clive@MCC.COM\n   [CBL4]          Lawrence, Charles B.     chas@MBIR.BCM.TMC.EDU\n   [CBR2]          Ray, Charles B.          ---none---\n   [CC108]         Clanton, Charles         ---none---\n   [CC129]         Cline, Carol\n                   s5000!kline%mscunx.sp.unisys.com@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [CC185]         Caldwell, Christopher    CHRIS@STELLAR.STELLAR.COM\n   [CC192]         Campadore, Craig\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 122]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\ncacampa@VMS2.MNET.USWEST.COM\n   [CC241]         Campbell, Colin          ---none---\n   [CC249]         Cline, Carol             ---none---\n   [CC252]         Collins, Colman\n                   collinsc%itd1.ul.ie@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CC89]          Chaundy, Chris\n                   munnari!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!chris@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [CC99]          Catlett, Charlie         catlett@NCSA.NCSA.UIUC.EDU\n   [CCL8]          LaPlante, Christine C.   ---none---\n   [CD75]          Dowat, Cary              DOWAT@FNNET.FNAL.GOV\n   [CDS28]         da Silva, Chris          ---none---\n   [CE41]          Erickson, Chris          ---none---\n   [CE42]          Erbacher, Claude         ---none---\n   [CE52]          Ess, Charles\n                   dru001d%smsvma.bitnet@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU\n   [CE55]          Echard, Chris            CBE100T@ODUVM.CC.ODU.EDU\n   [CE56]          Edwards, Champe          ---none---\n   [CEB13]         Brooks, Charles E.       CEB@WDL1.FAC.FORD.COM\n   [CF35]          Fung, Charles            cxf@SUNSPOT.RIT.EDU\n   [CF4]           Frost, Cliff\n                   cliff%UCBCMSA.Berkeley.EDU@JADE.Berkeley.EDU\n   [CF57]          Fernandez, Carlos\n                   Fernandez@DDNVX2.AFWL.AF.MIL\n   [CF64]          Frisinger, Chris         cfrisinger@DSAC.DLA.MIL\n   [CFB1]          Brandt, Carl F.\n                   carl%lsumvs.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CFD4]          Dunn, Charles F.         CHUCK@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU\n   [CFM1]          Muckenhirn, Carl F.\n                   Muckenhirn@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL\n   [CG1]           George, Calvin           GEORGE@HQAFSC-VAX.AF.MIL\n   [CG105]         Gibson, Coyne            coyne@CONVEX.COM\n   [CG107]         Gibbs, Charles           chuckg@LUNDY1.VLSI.COM\n   [CG24]          Generous, Curtis         GENEROUS@DEV.DTIC.DLA.MIL\n   [CG64]          Garrigues, Chris         7thSon@SLCS.SLB.COM\n   [CG85]          Grossarth, Clyde         ---none---\n   [CGT2]          Taylor, Clement\n                   CGTAYLO!ERENJ.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CH102]         Henderson, Clarence      HENDERSON@GTEWD.AF.MIL\n   [CH170]         Heck, Chuck              CHUCK@PRISM.CLEMSON.EDU\n   [CH181]         Hayward, Chris           ---none---\n   [CH191]         Hwang, Charlie           ---none---\n   [CH2]           Hornig, Charles          Hornig@SYMBOLICS.COM\n   [CH205]         Harden, Cliff            ---none---\n   [CH207]         Hohmann, Christian\n                   HOHMANN%WABOLU.UUCP%TUB.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [CH225]         Hemann, Chuck            ---none---\n   [CH226]         Hartness, Clark          chartness@BBN.COM\n   [CH232]         Haigh, Chris             ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 123]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nCH233\n]         Hackbart, Chris          hackbart@VMS.MACC.WISC.EDU\n   [CHC7]          Cheng, C. H.\n                   hkucs!cucsc!a563700@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [CHW]           Wilson, Charles H.       cwilson@BRL.MIL\n   [CJ38]          Johnson, Chris           johnson@NORTHEASTERN.EDU\n   [CJ57]          Johnson, Charles         crj@ICAD.COM\n   [CJB1]          Baker, Christopher J.    BAKERC@UV4.EGLIN.AF.MIL\n   [CJB15]         Bedore, Clifford J., III isavax!cliffb@UMD5.UMD.EDU\n   [CJC31]         Copeland, Cecil J.\n                   MMDF@STUTTGART-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [CJL2]          Lydick, Carl J.          carl@CITHEX.CALTECH.EDU\n   [CJW2]          Weinstein, Clifford J.   cjw@SST.LL.MIT.EDU\n   [CK113]         Calle, Claus\n                   A0061!DKORRZKO.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CK116]         Kemp, Charlie            ---none---\n   [CK117]         King, Chenghu            ---none---\n   [CK119]         Kranz, Christopher       clk@GFDL.PRINCETON.EDU\n   [CK2]           Kukulies, Christoph\n                   JYJYKUWA%DACTH51.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CK92]          Kim, Chankyu\n                   knmc%sorak.kaist.ac.kr@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [CK96]          Kaulfuss, Christoph\n                   WZ00600%DWOURZ0.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CL11]          Lindblad, Chris          CJL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU\n   [CL115]         Lee, Chun-mou            ---none---\n   [CL134]         Liem, Chandra\n                   CCECL%NUSVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CL64]          Lynch, Clifford\n                   lynch@POSTGRES.Berkeley.EDU\n   [CL80]          Leser, Christoph\n                   leser%comvax.rus.uni-stuttgart.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [CLB36]         Beckman, Connie L.\n                   beckman%ceramics.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CLH3]          Hedrick, Charles L.      HEDRICK@ARAMIS.RUTGERS.EDU\n   [CLP18]         Peterson, Chris L.       33CGDLNA@SACEMNET.AF.MIL\n   [CLR16]         Rossmark, Carl L.        ddnmgr@ADELPHI-IM2.ARMY.MIL\n   [CLV7]          Vaughan, Clifton L.\n                   vaughan!mcoiarc.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CM115]         McDonald, Catherine M.   DDNMGR@ADELPHI-IM2.ARMY.MIL\n   [CM116]         Moret, Christophe\n                   sysgeg%frpoly11.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CM130]         Maeckel, Clay            clay@CLARIS.COM\n   [CM144]         Manners, Chris           ---none---\n   [CM153]         Maltby, Chris\n                   chris%softway.sw.oz.au@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [CM156]         Michau, Christian\n                   UCIR059%FRORS31.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CM226]         Mackerell, Chris         ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 124]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nCM50\n]          Minnick, Connie\n                   acs_connie%jmuvax1.bitnet@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU\n   [CM57]          Maxson, Charles          maxson@CFA.HARVARD.EDU\n   [CMG9]          Glickman, Charles M.\n                   glickman%evax2@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU\n   [CN33]          Nelson, Christopher\n                   daslink!dasnet!dci2cn!chrisn@SUN.COM\n   [CNK1]          Kafai, Corinna N.        cmcvax!corinna@HUB.UCSB.EDU\n   [CO16]          Olson, Chris             ---none---\n   [COV1]          Vargas, Chris O.         VARGASC@GW2.HANSCOM.AF.MIL\n   [CP108]         Peckham, Clarence        ---none---\n   [CP129]         Pellett, Chert\n                   chert!spdyne.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [CP130]         Palmer, Cam              ---none---\n   [CP131]         Pontzer, Chris           ---none---\n   [CPK3]          Kolb, Christopher P.     KOLB@PSI.COM\n   [CR127]         Rice, Craig              CDR@ACC.STOLAF.EDU\n   [CR129]         Rigney, Carl             cdr@AMDCAD.AMD.COM\n   [CR140]         Ritson, Chris            C.R.Ritson@NEWCASTLE.AC.UK\n   [CR157]         Richards, Charles\n                   charles!hartford.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CR159]         Christopher, Riley       ---none---\n   [CR24]          Rokitansky, Carl-Herbert\n                   roki%DHAFEU52.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CR83]          Reynolds, Christine      quirk@HUBCAP.CLEMSON.EDU\n   [CRC15]         Campbell, Charles R.\n                   GS0004%SIUCVMB.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CRC9]          Craig, C. Robert         ROBERT@VM1.MCGILL.CA\n   [CRJ5]          Jacobsen, Carl R.        pslvax!carl@UCSD.EDU\n   [CRT4]          Tettemer, Clair R., Jr.  tettemer@NOSC.MIL\n   [CRW12]         Wiener, Christopher R.   cwiener@CRLABS.COM\n   [CS136]         Stokely, Celeste         cstokely@COHERENT.COM\n   [CS218]         Schrimpe, Clemens        csch@NETCS.COM\n   [CS219]         Shak, Clifton            ---none---\n   [CS275]         Sevcik, Carlos           ---none---\n   [CS276]         Schall, Cliff\n                   aad002a%calstate.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CS277]         Stevens, Craig           ---none---\n   [CS279]         Spell, Charlie           ---none---\n   [CSG]           Gutekunst, Carl S.       csg@PYRAMID.COM\n   [CSS28]         Smith-Stubbs, Clyde      clyde@HITECH.HT.OZ.AU\n   [CT100]         Tadema, C.               ruud@NEDDATA.NL\n   [CTJ2]          Johnson, Christopher T.  ---none---\n   [CTP1]          Poole, Clyde T.          ctp@CS.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [CV14]          Verboom, Charles         ---none---\n   [CV25]          Vaillancourt, Clement    vaillan@IREQ.HYDRO.QC.CA\n   [CVG1]          van Gennip, Chel\n                   gennip%hlerul54.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 125]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nCW115\n]         Wacker, Claude\n                   CCWACKER%CNEDCU51.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [CW159]         Whitelaw, Chandler       WHITELAW@CC.SUSC.EDU\n   [CW166]         Wilson, Craig            craig@C2S.MN.ORG\n   [CW169]         Wilson, Chris            cwilson@AUSTEK.OZ.AU\n   [CW42]          Welty, Chris             WELTYC@CS.RPI.EDU\n   [CWH3]          Hunt, Craig W.           Hunt@ENH.NIST.GOV\n   [CWM17]         Moser, C.W.              ---none---\n   [CWR4]          Reece, Carole Warner     ---none---\n   [CWV1]          Vertrees, Charles        CVERTREE@ORION.OAC.UCI.EDU\n   [CY29]          Yuen, Chun               ---none---\n   [CY30]          Yamaoka, Cliff           ---none---\n   [CYH]           Huang, Chien Y.\n                   6026959%PUCC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DA106]         Aebersold, Dennis\n                   DAEBERSO@BIGBIRD.CC.WILLIAMS.EDU\n   [DA124]         Anderson, David          dave@UCI.MN.ORG\n   [DA128]         Abts, Daniel             ABTSACS@LAX.WISC.EDU\n   [DA73]          Alter, Diane             diane@RTECH.COM\n   [DAA14]         Abbajay, David A.\n                   hplabs!oracle!hqsun1!booger!dabbajay@SUN.COM\n   [DAE2]          Ernest, Dwight A.\n                   dwight%independent.uucp@UKC.AC.UK\n   [DAF9]          Futcher, Debbie A.       DFUTCHE@RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL\n   [DAR20]         Roth, Dean A.\n                   lakesys!deanr@CSD1.MILW.WISC.EDU\n   [DAS13]         Sanders, Daun A.\n                   SANDERS@WESTPOINT-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [DAT4]          Thomae, Doug A.          ---none---\n   [DAVE]          Roode, R. David          Roode%orc.uucp@UNIX.SRI.COM\n   [DB]            Brack, Dave              DBRACK@NARDACDC002.NAVY.MIL\n   [DB162]         Black, David             ---none---\n   [DB186]         Brooks, Doug             brooks@CERL.CECER.ARMY.MIL\n   [DB211]         Boss, Don                ---none---\n   [DB263]         Badrick, Dave            ---none---\n   [DB273]         Baker, Darryl            dpb@TELLABS.CHI.IL.US\n   [DB296]         Brown, David             david%pyr@GATECH.EDU\n   [DB310]         Base, David              dbase@WASH-VAX.BBN.COM\n   [DB317]         Bradt, Donna\n                   DBRADT%EMRCAN.BITNET@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU\n   [DB322]         Bergstrom, Darryl        hi-csc!bergstr@UMN-CS.ARPA\n   [DB333]         Balafas, Dino            ---none---\n   [DB343]         Baillie, Duncan          dmb@AMTHQ.CO.UK\n   [DB346]         Boehlke, Dan\n                   dan%gacvax1.bitnet@VM1.NODAK.EDU\n   [DB35]          Braniss, Danny           danny@HUMUS.HUJI.AC.IL\n   [DB374]         Bovio, Daniele           HI@IMISIAM.MI.CNR.IT\n   [DB380]         Bodley, Derrill          dgb@UOP.UOP.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 126]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nDB97\n]          Bergum, David I., Jr.\n                   Bergum@CIM-VAX.HONEYWELL.COM\n   [DBH11]         Hearn, David B.          HEARN@CCINT1.RSRE.MOD.UK\n   [DBJ4]          Johnson, David B.        drilltech!dbj@RICE.EDU\n   [DBL1]          Long, Daniel B.          LONG@BBN.COM\n   [DBM16]         Martin, Darrell B.       darrell@HACGATE.SCG.HAC.COM\n   [DC115]         Comay, David S.          dsc@SEISMO.CSS.GOV\n   [DC126]         Cogger, Dick             rhx@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU\n   [DC145]         Crawford, Dennis         crawford@LBNSY.NAVY.MIL\n   [DC159]         Clar, Daniel\n                   CLAR%FRESE51.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DC211]         Capshaw, David           Capshaw@AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM\n   [DC257]         Carrasco, Denis          ---none---\n   [DC272]         Catalano, Don            ---none---\n   [DC273]         Chandler, Douglas        ---none---\n   [DC285]         Cica, Daniel             XXCICA@EARTH.LERC.NASA.GOV\n   [DC298]         Condon, David            COMMS@UK.AC.SBANK.VAX\n   [DC303]         Clampitt, Dustin         JDC@LIANT.COM\n   [DC304]         Carpe, David             ---none---\n   [DC305]         Comte, David\n                   davelec%exicom.oz@MURTOA.CS.MU.OZ\n   [DC306]         Caruso, David\n                   caruso%GAV.MFENET@CCC.NMFECC.GOV\n   [DC307]         Cairns, David            CAIRNS@UPEI.CA\n   [DC310]         Clark, Don               ---none---\n   [DC316]         Crawford, Dave           DJC@CSUN.EDU\n   [DC99]          Chan, David              chan@BEK-MC.CALTECH.EDU\n   [DCL10]         Loughry, Donald C.\n                   don_loughry%hp6600@HPLABS.HP.COM\n   [DCM20]         Menges, David C.         ---none---\n   [DCMW]          Wood, David CM           DCMWOOD@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU\n   [DCN19]         Nicosia, David C.        dave@VISTA.COM\n   [DCS]           Swinehart, Daniel C.     Swinehart.PA@XEROX.COM\n   [DCW23]         Winegarden, David C.     ---none---\n   [DCW25]         Walls, David C.\n                   pxl!WIDNER!BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DCW9]          Wells, Donald C.         dwells@NRAO.EDU\n   [DD11]          Deal, Don                don@PYR.GATECH.EDU\n   [DD112]         Deeth, Dave              ---none---\n   [DD223]         Dixon, Dixk\n                   DIXON!UKECMWF.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DD230]         DeLarue, Durwin          delarue@UTOS.NM.COM\n   [DD233]         Dixon, Dick              CPQHOU!DIXON@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [DD237]         Datlowe, Dayton\n                   datlowe@LOCKHD.DNET.NASA.GOV\n   [DD38]          Danahy, Daniel J.        DANAHY@AFSC-SSD.AF.MIL\n   [DD41]          DeGrossa, Dan            NSC-Huen@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [DD63]          Dorosz, Dave             dorosz@GW2.HANSCOM.AF.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 127]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nDDC1\n]          Clark, David D.          ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU\n   [DDK1]          Knight, Donald D.        CC-SI@EDWARDS-2060.AF.MIL\n   [DDK7]          Koch, David D.\n                   KOCHD%LAWRENCE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DE80]          Edgar, Dale\n                   dedgar%mta.bitnet@UGW.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA\n   [DE81]          Eastick, Douglas         eastick@ME.UTORONTO.CA\n   [DEA]           Anselmi, David E.\n                   DANSELMI@HUACHUCA-EMH8.ARMY.MIL\n   [DEP17]         Page, Daniel E.\n                   DEPAGE%USMCP6.BITNET@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU\n   [DES41]         Shafer, Don E.           e41276%rlvax1@LANL.GOV\n   [DES43]         Smith, Daniel E.\n                   des%uno.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DET]           Towson, David E.         TOWSON@BRL.MIL\n   [DF130]         Foster, Doug             ---none---\n   [DF133]         Ferguson, Dennis         dennis@UTCS.UTORONTO.CA\n   [DF149]         Fernie, Derek\n                   MITEL!SPOCK!FERNIE@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [DF158]         Floer, Douglas           ---none---\n   [DF162]         De Fries, Dennis         ---none---\n   [DF180]         Farr, Dennis             ---none---\n   [DF71]          Fordyce, David           fordyce@CSC.TI.COM\n   [DF86]          Faunt, Doug              FAUNT@CISCO.COM\n   [DF90]          Finkelson, Dale          dmf@WESTIE.UNL.EDU\n   [DG110]         Galloway, David          DRG@CSRI.TORONTO.EDU\n   [DG146]         Goodman, Dean            ---none---\n   [DG152]         Garvey, Dick             rgarvey@BBN.COM\n   [DG163]         Goodwin, Dave            CODE62@NARDACVA.NAVY.MIL\n   [DG177]         Gallaher, Dale           dale@DANDELION.CI.COM\n   [DG212]         Gawler, Dean             ---none---\n   [DG28]          Gehrt, David L.          ---none---\n   [DGA]           Anderson, Dinah G.       dinah@BCM.TMC.EDU\n   [DGL4]          Loudon, Dennis G.        ---none---\n   [DGT6]          Taylor, David G.         taylor@RAND.ORG\n   [DH17]          Hirsch, Douglas E.       DHIRSCH@BBN.COM\n   [DH23]          Hayes, David S.          hayes@SMU.EDU\n   [DH241]         Henize, Dewey            ---none---\n   [DH296]         Hawking, David\n                   munnari!anucsd.oz.au!dave%rigel@uunet.UU.NET\n   [DH303]         Henning, Doug            ---none---\n   [DH309]         Hoffmann, Dan            SYSADMIN@ZEUS.UNOMAHA.EDU\n   [DH313]         Helda, David\n                   garbo!helda%jimmy@BESS.HARVARD.EDU\n   [DH322]         Harris, Dean             ---none---\n   [DI11]          Incerti, Dominique       ---none---\n   [DID1]          Dalva, David I.          dave@TIS.COM\n   [DIM2]          Meiron, Daniel I.        Meiron@DIPOLE.CALTECH.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 128]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nDJ104\n]         Janes, Dave              dave@KEAN.MUN.CA\n   [DJ115]         Jones, Dave\n                   RDJONE01!ULKYVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DJ24]          Jent, David\n                   idej400%indycms.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DJ99]          Jordt, Dan               DANJ@CAC.WASHINGTON.EDU\n   [DJB34]         Banta, Dean J.           ---none---\n   [DJD30]         Dawson, Dana J.          dana@CRAY.COM\n   [DJF]           Farber, David J.         farber@CIS.UPENN.EDU\n   [DJG2]          Grim, Daniel J.          grim@HUEY.UDEL.EDU\n   [DJK13]         Kaufman, David           ---none---\n   [DJS7]          Schmidt, Detlef J.\n                   C0033003%DBSTU1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DJV1]          Van Buer, Darrel J.      VANBUER@ECLA.USC.EDU\n   [DK101]         Koblas, David            koblas@MIPS.COM\n   [DK112]         Keller, Debbie           KELLER@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU\n   [DK116]         Kasielke, Dieter\n                   108%db0tuz01.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DK142]         Karsten, Dale\n                   dale%msus1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DK168]         Kuncicky, David          KUNCICK@NU.CS.FSU.EDU\n   [DK2]           Krafft, Dean B.          dean@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU\n   [DK5]           Kirby, Diana             ---none---\n   [DK60]          Kain, David              GATE@PHILASHPYD-POE.NAVY.MIL\n   [DK70]          Kirschen, Dave           kirschen@MULTIMAX.ARPA\n   [DKE2]          Ely, David K.            dely@NRI.RESON.VA.US[hko\n   [DL164]         Lewis, Donn              LEWIS@PMS312.NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL\n   [DL169]         Lamb, David              ---none---\n   [DL170]         Lavender, David          ---none---\n   [DL178]         Lang, Dick               ---none---\n   [DLL32]         Lippke, David L.         lippke@UTDALLAS.EDU\n   [DLM1]          Mills, Dave              MILLS@HUEY.UDEL.EDU\n   [DLM34]         Merrifield, David L.     DM06900@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU\n   [DLN12]         Nash, Donald L.          don@THENIC.THE.NET\n   [DLS20]         Smith, David L.          celerity!dave@UCSD.EDU\n   [DLS24]         Stockdale, Diana L.      diana@KANGA.AGI.ORG\n   [DLW31]         Wasley, David L.         dlw@VIOLET.Berkeley.EDU\n   [DM147]         Morales, Dan             ---none---\n   [DM232]         Morrison, David          sysnet@CC.NU.OZ.AU\n   [DM249]         Morley, David\n                   munarri!aaii.oz.au!morley@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [DM259]         McDonald, D.\n                   D.McDonald%vaxa.strath.ac.uk%ukacrl.bitnet@\n                   CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DM261]         Mann, Dale               Mann@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM\n   [DM269]         McCrave, Donna           mccrave@KODAKR.KODAK.COM\n   [DM27]          McCallum, Doug           mccallum@ICO.ISC.COM\n   [DM273]         Minnich, David           DWM@FIBERCOM.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 129]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nDM28\n]          Morris, Dennis           Morrisd@IMO-UVAX.DCA.MIL\n   [DM280]         Mackie, Dave             lupine!djm@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [DM313]         McCord, David\n                   portal!cup.portal.com!david@SUN.COM\n   [DM334]         Morse, Duane             ---none---\n   [DM335]         Mutterer, David          rylos!dave@RUTGERS.EDU\n   [DM348]         Molinelli, Daniel        moline@TRWIND.IND.TRW.COM\n   [DM35]          Millard, David A.\n                   asbp%dmillard@SHAFTER-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\n   [DM353]         Matties, Deborah         matties@IBM.COM\n   [DM354]         McWilliam, Don           mcwillm@CC.UBC.CA\n   [DM356]         Murdock, Dominic         ---none---\n   [DM357]         McEwan, Duncan           postmaster@SIESOFT.CO.UK\n   [DM358]         Margossian, David        margosd@POLAROID.COM\n   [DM373]         Moline, David            drm@GAIA.GCS.OZ.AU\n   [DM75]          Murphy, Dave             murphy@MGHCCC.HARVARD.EDU\n   [DM84]          Morris, Don              morris@NCAR.UCAR.EDU\n   [DMH20]         Herron, David M.\n                   BNM|lackland-aim1@LACKLAND-AIM1.AF.MIL\n   [DMK18]         Keirsey, David M.        Keirsey@ECLA.USC.EDU\n   [DN32]          Nordlund, Dave\n                   NORDLUND%UKANVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DN71]          Nastoll, Dieter\n                   hrz100%de0hrz1a.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DN78]          Nabinger, Dick\n                   nabingrw%snydelba.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DO26]          O'Reilly, Dennis         Dennis_O'Reilly@MTSG.UBC.CA\n   [DO27]          Oliver, David\n                   ansa%alvey.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [DO66]          O'leary, David           oleary@NOSC.SURA.NET\n   [DOR]           Rowley, D. Owen          acad!lux!owen@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [DP149]         Phipps, David            davidp@METRO.UCC.SU.OZ.AU\n   [DP154]         Phelps, Duane            phelps@MAXTOR.COM\n   [DP171]         Phillipps, Dan           ---none---\n   [DP173]         Pokorney, Dave           POKE@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU\n   [DP178]         Poirier, Daniel          POIRIED@UMONCTON.CA\n   [DP2]           Pirtle, David A.         PIRTLE@KL.SRI.COM\n   [DP7]           Parter, David            dparter@URBANA.MCD.MOT.COM\n   [DP71]          Palus, David             ---none---\n   [DR137]         Rageth, David            DAVE@MMC.COM\n   [DR161]         Reese, Dave              DAVE@CALSTATE.EDU\n   [DR183]         Ruth, Doug               ruth@ROBOTX.SRI.COM\n   [DR212]         Ruppert, Deborah         nsun1!deborah@CSE.OGC.EDU\n   [DR214]         Reavil, David\n                   D_J_REAVIL%ARE-PN.MOD.UK@RELAY.MOD.UK\n   [DR217]         Rich, Daniel             DRICH@DIALOGIC.COM\n   [DR229]         Ray, David               ---none---\n   [DR230]         Ruiu, Dragos             dr@MYRIAS.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 130]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nDR49\n]          Reynolds, Dick           hcx1!dick@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [DR71]          Rettig, Duane            ---none---\n   [DRE4]          Ehrlich, Daniel Robert   ehrlich@CS.PSU.EDU\n   [DRH48]         Hudson, Donald R.\n                   drh%latech@REX.CS.TULANE.EDU\n   [DRM24]         Meadows, Don             qncdsin@SAAD-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [DRM31]         Miller, David R.         ---none---\n   [DRS4]          Smith, Dennis R.         SMITH@ECLC.USC.EDU\n   [DRY2]          Yingling, David R., Jr.\n                   YINGLING%AVLAB.DNET@AAGATE.AVLAB.WPAFB.AF.MIL\n   [DS229]         Sabino, David\n                   sundc!sneezy!sabino@SUN.COM\n   [DS247]         Salvin, Don              dss@VMS.CIS.PITTSBURGH.EDU\n   [DS303]         Sturdivant, Darrell\n                   darrell%etsuv2.decnet@UTADNX.CC.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [DS335]         Santos, Don              don@BAMBERG-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [DS341]         Spears, Donna            2176nsc@ANKARA.AF.MIL\n   [DS342]         Stafford, Dave\n                   esc1814%esoc.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DS348]         Starr, Dan               ---none---\n   [DS354]         Simmons, David           QUASAR@PANTHER.FLOW.COM\n   [DS370]         Simmons, David           quasar@PANTHER.FLOW.COM\n   [DS372]         Scaletta, Dawn           ---none---\n   [DS382]         Strasenburg, David\n                   straserdr%SNYBROBA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DS387]         St. Jules, Don           dstjules@PNFI.FORESTRY.CA\n   [DS394]         Stokes, David            DAVE@XEROXEP.COM\n   [DS405]         Smith, Dale              ---none---\n   [DS53]          Stefanovic, Dave         daves@AWARE.COM\n   [DS59]          Schmidt, David           DAVIDS@ISC-BR.ISC-BR.COM\n   [DS85]          Smith, Dale C.           dsmith@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU\n   [DSN4]          Notov, Daniel S.         onm3b2!danno@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [DSP11]         St. Pierre, David        david@PACBELL.COM\n   [DSR]           Russell, Dale            dsr@JOVE.CAM.UNISYS.COM\n   [DT50]          Trinkle, Daniel          trinkle@CS.PURDUE.EDU\n   [DT59]          Tetreault, David J.      DJT@NAVELEXNET-STIN.NAVY.MIL\n   [DTG11]         Gregorich, David T.      DTG@CSULA-PS.CALSTATELA.EDU\n   [DTH4]          Henskes, Dieter Th.      dth@RCP.SEL.DE\n   [DV36]          Vining, Dan\n                   viningdp%snypotba.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DV42]          Varga, Doug              varga@AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM\n   [DVL1]          Lewis, Donald V.\n                   lewis%umslvma.bitnet@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU\n   [DVT]           Torr, Donald V.          DVTORR@GALLUX.GALLAUDET.EDU\n   [DW139]         Woerz, Dieter            woerz@ISAAK.ISA.DE\n   [DW15]          Williams, Doug           WILLIAMSD@A.ISI.EDU\n   [DW159]         Wood, Dan                DWOOD@BBN.COM\n   [DW164]         Wiltzius, Dave           wiltzius@LLL-LCC.LLNL.GOV\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 131]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nDW180\n]         Weber, Dieter            ---none---\n   [DW195]         Williams, David\n                   ESC1728%ESOC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DW198]         Williams, David W.       SYSTEMDW@NTSC.NAVY.MIL\n   [DW212]         Weidenhammer, Detlef\n                   weidenhammer%vax.hmi.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [DW233]         Wintringham, Dan         DANW@OSC.EDU\n   [DW238]         Weyel, Donald\n                   wdz!epavax.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [DW239]         Ward, David              ---none---\n   [DW244]         Ware, Donald             ---none---\n   [DW96]          Walker, David            DHWalker@UCI.EDU\n   [DWB2]          Beach, Darrel W.\n                   AFDDN.BEACH@GUNTER-ADAM.AF.MIL\n   [DWC32]         Cooley, David W.         dwcooley@COLBY.EDU\n   [DWD20]         Daniel, David W.\n                   ddaniel@BLACKBIRD.AFIT.AF.MIL\n   [DWJ6]          Johnson, Dennis          2003cgxp@ANKARA.AF.MIL\n   [DY28]          Yearke, David            yearke@CS.BUFFALO.EDU\n   [DZ]            Zabokrtsky, Dianne       ---none---\n   [DZ17]          Zajack, Dennis\n                   azajack@BAD.CSB.CALSTATE.EDU\n   [EA49]          Aarnio, Esa              esa@KONTU.UTU.FI\n   [EB108]         Bibisi, Edmund\n                   ebibisi%utmem1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [EB110]         Burrow, Elaine\n                   mcvax!lucifer!elaine@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [EB112]         Brownrigg, Edwin         ---none---\n   [EB129]         Blockeel, Erik           ERIK@MINF.VUB.AC.BE\n   [EB134]         Belpaire, Eric\n                   belpaire!renault.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [EB33]          Barton, Edward           ---none---\n   [EB95]          Baugh, Earl              baugh@HAL.CSS.GOV\n   [EBS10]         Shine, Elliott B.        ---none---\n   [EC101]         Chan, Eldon              echan@CADEV4.INTEL.COM\n   [EC43]          Carroll, Eric            eric@ISTS.ISTS.CA\n   [EC5]           Cain, Edward A.          Cain@RIGEL.DCA.MIL\n   [ECA]           Ackermaan, Ernest, C.    ---none---\n   [ECM6]          Mulrean, Edward C.\n                   MULREAN%CUA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [ED72]          Delios, Erick            ejd@GOANNA.OZ.AU\n   [ED75]          Davies, Eric\n                   E_DAVIES%HVRFORD.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [EDE1]          Eason, Ernest D.         ---none---\n   [EEL2]          Leyba, Ernest E.         LEYBAEE@AFOTEC.AF.MIL\n   [EF16]          Fair, Erik E.            FAIR@APPLE.COM\n   [EF5]           Franceschini, Edi        FRANCESCHINI@NYU.EDU\n   [EF55]          Formal, Ed\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 132]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nformanel%snyoneva.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [EFH4]          Hastings, Eugene F.\n                   GENE.HASTINGS@BOOLE.ECE.CMU.EDU\n   [EFH6]          Hale, E.F. (Buster), III CCBUSTER@VM.CC.OLEMISS.EDU\n   [EG17]          Guglielmo, Eugene J.     GUGLIELMO@CCF3.NRL.NAVY.MIL\n   [EG51]          Gould, Ed                ed@MTXINU.COM\n   [EH112]         Hogan, Emmett            hogan@CSL.SRI.COM\n   [EH97]          Henry, Ellis\n                   ehenry%nasamail@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV\n   [EHC3]          Coughran, Ed H.          coughran@NOSC.MIL\n   [EHH4]          Hunter, Eddie H.         ---none---\n   [EJ12]          Jorgensen, Ed            jorg%lvva.span@SDS.SDSC.EDU\n   [EJ19]          James, Ed                edjames@BERKELEY.EDU\n   [EJB]           Bos, Erik-Jan            bos@SURFNET.NL\n   [EJN1]          Norman, Eric J.          ejnorman@MACC.WISC.EDU\n   [EK18]          King, Edwin              King@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM\n   [EK48]          Kodinsky, Edward         kodinsk@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [EK55]          Kroeker, Edwin           ---none---\n   [EKO]           Otte, Eric K.            otte@NOSC.MIL\n   [EL30]          Lear, Eliot              lear@TURBO.BIO.NET\n   [EM128]         Manninen, Esa            ---none---\n   [EM67]          Rehm, Eric               REHM@CADSE.DEC.COM\n   [EMB]           Berg, Eric M.            berg@TC.PW.COM\n   [EMH12]         Hayman, Edward M.        ---none---\n   [EP53]          Peterson, Eric           lcc.eric@SEAS.UCLA.EDU\n   [EP70]          Prenowitz, Edward        ep@SIMMONS.EDU\n   [EPA]           Allman, Eric P.          eric@UCBVAX.Berkeley.EDU\n   [ER42]          Rose, Eric               ---none---\n   [ER61]          Rugelis, Eriks           eriks@LIBRA.YORKU.CA\n   [ER75]          Ridenour, Eric           ---none---\n   [ER90]          Rollins, Eugene          ---none---\n   [ERC1]          Crane, Eric R.           Eric.Crane@C.CS.CMU.EDU\n   [ERD6]          de Vreede, E. R.         ---none---\n   [ERK3]          Kozel, Edward R.         Kozel@MILANO.CISCO.COM\n   [ES144]         Schneider, Eric          schneider@SOLOMON.AHA.COM\n   [ES148]         Schnell, Eckhard\n                   ESC%PAC.UUCP%TUB.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [ES158]         Schnoebelen, Eric        ERIC@CIRR.COM\n   [ES165]         Silva, Ed                ---none---\n   [ESD3]          De Boer, E.S.            markp@PER.DMS.CSIRO.AU\n   [ET49]          Torri, Eero              ET@AJK.TELE.FI\n   [ETS4]          Sakabu, Edward T.        CSMSETS@OAC.UCLA.EDU\n   [EU4]           Underlee, Everett        ---none---\n   [EV26]          Vesa, Erolainen          ---none---\n   [EW62]          Weisenberger, Edward\n                   WEISENBERGER%PPC.MFENET@CCC.NMFECC.GOV\n   [EWK4]          Kendall, Everitt         ---none---\n   [EY5]           Yamin, Elaine            ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 133]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nEZ3\n]           Zawacki, Edward          U17375@UICVM.UIC.EDU\n   [EZ8]           Zafar, Esfandiar         zafar@CTRVX1.VANDERBILT.EDU\n   [FAC2]          Custodio, Fredric A.     ---none---\n   [FAF6]          Feurer, Frederick A., Jr.b8tefeu@MICULX.MINC.UMD.EDU\n   [FAS]           Segovich, Fred A.        fred@URBANA.MCD.MOT.COM\n   [FB15]          Bekka, Farid             bekka@CNCA.CNCA-CAM.FR\n   [FB61]          Buetikofer, Fritz        btkfr@ID.UNIBE.CH\n   [FB77]          Baker, Fred              baker%vitam6@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [FBR2]          Raab, Fritz B.\n                   unido!cosmo!fbraab@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [FC52]          Crawford, Frank          frank@TETI.QHTOURS.OZ.AU\n   [FD18]          de Kruijf, F.\n                   FREEK%DUTRUN.UUCP@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [FD41]          Dayton, Fred\n                   fred%psuorvm.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [FD44]          DeCastilhos, Flavio      ---none---\n   [FDC2]          Craft, Frankie D.        ---none---\n   [FE6]           Ellis, Frank             ellis@PVAMU.EDU\n   [FF20]          Fore, Frank P., Jr.      FPF@SWRI.EDU\n   [FF30]          Feunekes, Freerk         ---none---\n   [FG15]          Gould, Fred              gould@RDSS.UCAR.EDU\n   [FG16]          Gutzwiller, Florian      mcvax!ethz!flog\n   [FG50]          Gerbode, Farrell         farrell@RICE.EDU\n   [FG51]          Goldstein, Fred          ---none---\n   [FH2]           Thelander, Fredric       ---none---\n   [FH35]          Haag, F.                 ---none---\n   [FH53]          Hanke, Florence          ---none---\n   [FH59]          Hartranft, Frank         ---none---\n   [FJB3]          Ball, Frederick J.       ball@SRLVX0.SRL.FORD.COM\n   [FJD4]          Deboo, Farokh J.         FJD@INTERLINK.COM\n   [FJG4]          Jacot-Guillarmod, Francois---none---\n   [FJH1]          Halloran, Frank J.       FRANK@JPLOPTO.JPL.NASA.GOV\n   [FJS2]          Smans, F.J.              ---none---\n   [FJS3]          Schmidt, F. Jeffery      JSCHMIDT@NCAD-EMH12.ARMY.MIL\n   [FL27]          Labalme, Fen             ---none---\n   [FL34]          Liang, Fanny             ---none---\n   [FM83]          Maselli, Frank           frank@MAXWELL.CONCORDIA.CA\n   [FM85]          McCaffrey, Frank         ---none---\n   [FMA1]          Avolio, Frederick M.     avolio@DCO.DEC.COM\n   [FMM11]         Maish, F. Michael        maish@ALPHA.BLDR.NIST.GOV\n   [FN]            Neugebauer, Friedrich\n                   FN!DMZRZU71.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [FO17]          Oner, Fatma              ---none---\n   [FS86]          Speck, Francis           ---none---\n   [FT30]          Teraoka, Fumio           tera@CSL.SONY.JP\n   [FU1]           Ullings, Fons            fons@NAT.VU.NL\n   [FV13]          Van den Bosch, Frank     mvdberg@NLR.NL\n   [FW17]          Wendling, Frederic       FWENDLING@NOTE.NSF.GOV\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 134]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nFW18\n]          Watson, Felix            sds-comm@AFCC-OA1.AF.MIL\n   [FW51]          Wright, Frederick\n                   S.SNELSON@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU\n   [FW54]          Wolf, Fritz              ---none---\n   [FWD]           Dyner, Wolfgang J.\n                   DYNERW@HEIDELBERG-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [FZ]            Zhang, Frank             zhangf@IMO-UVAX.DCA.MIL\n   [GA45]          Abrahamian, Garnik       ---none---\n   [GA69]          Ansley, Greg             vta!gja@GATECh.EDU\n   [GAB36]         Barbour, Gary A.         gb@UVM.EDU\n   [GAG17]         Gentry, Glenn A.         ---none---\n   [GAL5]          Loyola, Guillermo A.     loyola@IBM.COM\n   [GAM32]         Meijerink, Gert A.\n                   RCGERT%HENUT5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GAM35]         Marino, Giuseppe A.      Joy.Marino@DIST.UNIGE.IT\n   [GB125]         Brunkhorst, Geoffrey     brunkhorst@MAYO.EDU\n   [GB133]         Bunsen, Guido\n                   unido!rwthinf!guido@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [GB157]         Bond, Gregory\n                   munnari!melba.bby.oz.au!gnb@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [GB167]         Bassy, Gerard            ---none---\n   [GB169]         Bartmuss, Gottfried      gob!aicmuc.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [GB184]         Bass, Guy                ---none---\n   [GB43]          Broomell, George\n                   UKT101%UKCC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GB5]           Bobo, Gary               gbobo@REDSTONE-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\n   [GB7]           Beling, Gerd             GBELING@A.ISI.EDU\n   [GC104]         Cunningham, Gene         ---none---\n   [GC118]         Chartrand, Greg          GREG@SSCVX1.SSC.GOV\n   [GC122]         Carpenter, Graham J.     G.Carpenter@EE.Surrey.Ac.UK\n   [GC132]         Cuthill, Gordon          ---none---\n   [GC138]         Cattelino, Gary          GARY@UNOCAL.COM\n   [GC146]         Coutu, Gino              ---none---\n   [GC148]         Cohn, George             GEO@UB.COM\n   [GC151]         Corfield, Graham         ---none---\n   [GC155]         Collin, Geoff            gco@CCADFA.CC.ADFA.OZ.AU\n   [GC158]         Czirjak, Gary            ---none---\n   [GC89]          Crawford, Geoff          ---none---\n   [GCF7]          Franks, Glenn C.         ---none---\n   [GCS8]          Scott, Glenn C.          glenn@OTTO.LVSUN.COM\n   [GD80]          DeCoff, Gary             ---none---\n   [GD91]          Davis, George            ---none---\n   [GE47]          Evangelides, George      gev@IA.\n   [GEG4]          Guiberson, Gerald E.     DISNETMGR@DDN3.DCA.MIL\n   [GEOF]          Goodfellow, Geoffrey S.  Geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us\n   [GEOFF]         Mulligan, Geoffrey C.    geoff@USAFA.AF.MIL\n   [GEW13]         Wright, George E.\n                   ASQEXKZ300@ZWEIBRUCKEN-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 135]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nGF75\n]          Freeman, George          gman@CC.UNISYS.COM\n   [GFW6]          Wetzel, Gregory F.       gfw@PUEBLO.ATT.COM\n   [GG110]         Gullbekk, Gunnar         ---none---\n   [GG115]         Gilley, Greg             Gilley@NDL.COM\n   [GG123]         Green, Gerry             ---none---\n   [GG136]         Gatto, Giuseppe          pippo@CRAI.IT\n   [GG138]         Geronikos, George        ---none---\n   [GG16]          Gibbs, Geoff\n                   G.GIBBS%UK.AC.CRC@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK\n   [GG68]          Guillerm, Gerard\n                   sysgeg%frpoly11.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GGB2]          Baehr, G. Geoffrey       geoffb@ENG.SUN.COM\n   [GH105]         Huston, Geoff            gih900@CSC.ANU.OZ.AU\n   [GH108]         Huxtable, Glenn\n                   munnari!wacsvax.uwa.oz.au!root@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [GH122]         Hollingsworth, Greg      gregh@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG\n   [GH125]         Hiscott, Greg            gjh@LIGO.CALTECH.EDU\n   [GH29]          Hidley, Gregory R.       hidley%CS@UCSD.EDU\n   [GH39]          Henken, Gerrit\n                   henken@PASSAT.DKRZ-HAMBURG.DBP.DE\n   [GH42]          Hanoefner, Gerhard\n                   HAN!DMOGSF11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GH46]          Helmer, Guy\n                   HELMER!SDNET.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GI4]           Isaackson, Gordon G.     92BMWSCO@SACEMNET.AF.MIL\n   [GIH]           Hastie, Glenn I., II     hastie@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM\n   [GIL]           Lotto, Gerald I.         lotto@LHASA.HARVARD.EDU\n   [GJ35]          Johnson, Glenn           ---none---\n   [GJS13]         Smith, Gregory J.        SMITH@BUCKNELL.EDU\n   [GK32]          Kenley, Gregory          ---none---\n   [GK44]          Kunis, Gary              gkunis@BOEING.COM\n   [GK89]          Kreis, Guenter\n                   guenter!ruso.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [GK91]          Kleiven, Gunnar          ---none---\n   [GK92]          Daindl, Georg            ---none---\n   [GKN1]          Newman, Gerard K.        GKN@SDS.SDSC.EDU\n   [GKW3]          Giles, Wesley            host@CLARK-EMH.AF.MIL\n   [GL15]          Lauer, Gregory           GLAUER@BBN.COM\n   [GL16]          Lange, Gerald            ---none---\n   [GL41]          Lindberg, Gunnar         lindberg@CS.CHALMERS.SE\n   [GL88]          Lapasky, Gwendolyn       ---none---\n   [GLC18]         Cohler, Geoffrey L.      ---none---\n   [GLD]           Durant, Geraldine L.     DURANT@LL.ARPA\n   [GLH5]          Hemphill, Gavin L.       HEMPHILL@XX.DREA.DND.CA\n   [GLS20]         Scherer, Gary L.         NSC-Home@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [GLS39]         Schaps, Gary L.          gls@CORDIS.COM\n   [GM190]         Galbraith, Michael       mgalbrai@BBN.COM\n   [GM199]         Mayer, Georges\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 136]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nAPLGEOR%TECHNION.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GMM28]         Marianko, Glen M.        ---none---\n   [GMP19]         Paxinos, Garry M.        PAX@MEGASYS.COM\n   [GMR]           Roemers, Gustaaf M.      roemers@TSCA.ISTC.SRI.COM\n   [GMT6]          Trimble, Gary M.         lams!gmt@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV\n   [GO1]           O'Carroll, Ger           ---none---\n   [GP117]         Park, Greg               gpark@SUN.TIMEPLEX.COM\n   [GP128]         Plescia, Gary\n                   sngar!TTUVM1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GP129]         Peter, George\n                   mmdf@ASCHAFFENBURG-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [GP133]         Pierluigi, Gianni        Pierluigi.Gianni@EC.BULL.FR\n   [GP137]         Pitkin, Gregg            ---none---\n   [GP88]          Pitteloud, Gerard\n                   K126309%CZHRZU1A.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GPL1]          Licona, George P., Jr.   CES433@WPAFB-INFO5.AF.MIL\n   [GR11]          Ricart, Glenn            glenn@MIMSY.UMD.EDU\n   [GR26]          Richter, Georg\n                   urz07%dmswwulc.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GR53]          Robbins, George          grr@COMMODORE.COM\n   [GR56]          Romano, Giuseppe         Romano@ICNUCEVM.CNUCE.CNR.IT\n   [GR67]          Roy, Greg                ---none---\n   [GR85]          Rech, Gilles             ---none---\n   [GR9]           Rabinowitz, George       gr@BNL.GOV\n   [GRZ1]          Zarse, Gary R.           ---none---\n   [GS101]         Sander, Gernot\n                   hz203sa%unidui.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [GS119]         Smith, Gordon            gordon@UNE.OZ.AU\n   [GS12]          Standorf, Gary P.\n                   STANDORF@MONMOUTH-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\n   [GS123]         Stone, Geof              geof@NETWORK.COM\n   [GS199]         Schellbach-Mattay, Gert\n                   ACNET%DACTH51.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [GS91]          Streeter, Guy            streeter@INGR.COM\n   [GT37]          Tyler, George E.         dstlc@LOGNET2.AF.MIL\n   [GT67]          Temperman, Gerard        ---none---\n   [GT73]          Thomas, Graham           graham@RMC.BITNET.CA\n   [GT76]          Trail, Gary              gary@MSTR.HGC.EDU\n   [GTA]           Almes, Guy T.            Almes@RICE.EDU\n   [GV23]          Ventre, Giorgio          ---none---\n   [GW107]         Wiebe, Glen              wiebe@BETHEL.EDU\n   [GW117]         Watson, Greg             greg@GRIFFIN.ITC.GU.OZ\n   [GW22]          Weiler, Grant            weiler@CS.UTAH.EDU\n   [GW40]          Wallace, Gary            gary@CS.UMASS.EDU\n   [HAL5]          Lindenberg, Hans A.      ---none---\n   [HAW]           Walter, Howard A.        hwalter@NAS.NASA.GOV\n   [HB14]          Bishop, Harold           ---none---\n   [HB60]          Boetzkes, H. A. P. A.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 137]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nmcvax!nlgvax!henkbo@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [HB7]           Brown, Harvey            ---none---\n   [HB76]          Bahmanyar, Hom           sjsumcs!hom@SUN.COM\n   [HB79]          Busch, Hubert            busch@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DBP.DE\n   [HB99]          Berggren, Hans           hans@INMIC.SE\n   [HBA2]          Al-Sadoun, Humoud B.     AL-SADOUN@UKWT.KW\n   [HC66]          Chuang, Hann-Bin         chuang@BTC.KODAK.COM\n   [HCL1]          Lauer, Hugh C.           lauer@BTC.KODAK.COM\n   [HCV1]          Vander Hyde, Kriss C.    VANDERK@AFAL-EDWARDS.AF.MIL\n   [HDW2]          Wactlar, Howard D.       HDW@CS.CMU.EDU\n   [HE12]          Enjo, Hidekazu           enjo@NTTDPE.NTT.JP\n   [HE15]          Eidnes, Haavard          eidnes@IDT.UNIT.NO\n   [HEG6]          Garcia, Hugo E.\n                   hugo%tecmtyvm.bitnet@UTADNX.CC.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [HF30]          Faerber, Hans-Juergen    fae@IITB.FHG.DE\n   [HF34]          Field, Hugh              ---none---\n   [HF35]          Fry, Hubert              PMUB@MELPAR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [HG51]          Goehring, Hans-Georg\n                   uzr112%dbnrhrz1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HH37]          Hesseling, Hans\n                   HESSELING%HGRRUG5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HH45]          Hori, Hidehiko           ---none---\n   [HH50]          Honal, Heinrich\n                   XBR1Y013%DDATHD21.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HH64]          Hilman, Harlan           hilman@INTELOA.BIIN.COM\n   [HH68]          Hipp, Heinz\n                   zrhi001%dtuzdv5a.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HH71]          Hagen, Herr              ---none---\n   [HH77]          Halset, Halvor           ---none---\n   [HH84]          Hahn, Heinz\n                   HAHN%DMRHZ11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HH88]          Han, Hichul              HHAN@BCIT.BC.CA\n   [HI7]           Irie, Hideo\n                   michael%tnkl.ws.sony.junet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [HJK4]          Kelly, Harold J.         ---none---\n   [HK2]           Kensinger, Hollis        HKENSINGER@RIA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [HK24]          Knight, Holly            holly@APPLE.COM\n   [HK29]          Kutar, Hormazdyar        ---none---\n   [HK35]          Knops, Huub\n                   mcvax!swivax!huub@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [HK41]          Kneis, Hermann\n                   kneis%cageir5a.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HKG2]          Gilbert, Howard K.\n                   gilbert%YALEVM.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [HKO]           Orman, Hilarie K.        HO@LA.TIS.COM\n   [HL65]          Liu, Han-Chai\n                   COLOR%TWNMOE10.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HLW7]          Lorenz-Wirzba, Heidi     heidi@ELXBSD.CALTECH.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 138]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nHM38\n]          Mikami, Hirohide\n                   mikami%ntt-20@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU\n   [HM68]          McQueen, Herbert\n                   munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!hsm157@UUNET.UU.ENT\n   [HM80]          Meyers, Herb             ---none---\n   [HML1]          Long, Morrow H.          LONG-MORROW@CS.YALE.EDU\n   [HN20]          Niederle, Herbert\n                   I11C17%DM0TUI1S.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HN21]          Nakayama, Hitoshi\n                   iizuka%jpnkisci.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HN27]          Nakahara, Hayao          ---none---\n   [HN3]           Naef, Heinz              whna%cgch.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [HN7]           Nussbacher, Hank\n                   HANK%BARILVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HO13]          Ohshiba, Hisashi\n                   ohshiba%nttica.ntt.jp@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [HO8]           Ogasawara, Hidemi        HRK@NINCHI.CHUKYO-U.AC.JP\n   [HP32]          Price, Harold            ---none---\n   [HP44]          Parvamo, Heikki          ---none---\n   [HP49]          Preston, Holly           ---none---\n   [HP50]          Prigent, Herve\n                   PRIGENFRTLS12.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HPD1]          Dittler, Hans Peter\n                   Dittler%ccc@UNIKA1.IRA.UKA.DE\n   [HR43]          Reddish, Hal             ---none---\n   [HS116]         Steffes, Helmut          steffes@UNI-TRIER.DBP.DE\n   [HS118]         Steinringer, Hermann\n                   z00hsr01%awiunill.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HS119]         Suzuki, Haruhisa         ---none---\n   [HS23]          Stenn, Hokey             hokey@PLUS5.COM\n   [HT12]          Tam, Henry\n                   rmay%cornelld.bitnet@JADE.Berkeley.EDU\n   [HT19]          Trickey, Howard          trickey@ARPA.ATT.COM\n   [HT40]          Thurn, Herbert\n                   BTR013%DBTHRZ5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [HT44]          Takahashi, Hironobu      ---none---\n   [HT48]          Trompert, Hans           hanst@MAESTRO.HTSA.AHA.NL\n   [HVKR]          Kleist-Retzow, Hans von  hans@ORC.OLIVETTI.COM\n   [HVS1]          van Staveren, Hans       sater@CS.VU.NL\n   [HW26]          Hahn, Willi              ---none---\n   [HW56]          Wright, Hank             hank@HP850.MBARI.ORG\n   [HW59]          Wong, Henry              ---none---\n   [HWB]           Braun, Hans-Werner       HWB@MERIT.EDU\n   [HWP2]          Poor, Henry W. (Hank)    poor@RSMAS.MIAMI.EDU\n   [IA52]          Allen, Ian               I.M.Allen@UK.AC.CITY\n   [IB11]          Bashir, Imran            ---none---\n   [IG4]           Greig, Ian               ian@OTAGO.AC.NZ\n   [IH15]          Hoyle, Ian\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 139]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nmunnari!merlin.bhpmrl.oz.au!ianh@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [IHM]           Merritt, Ian H.          IHM@NRC.COM\n   [IJD1]          Donkervoort, Ing. J.     ---none---\n   [IKA]           Anderson, Irelann K.     KERRY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU\n   [IM24]          Martinez, Ignacio        martinez@IRIS-DCP.ES\n   [IM33]          McDonald, Ian            mcdonaldi@SACAE.OZ.AU\n   [IMK1]          Kirmer, Irwin M.         kirmer@TECHNET.NM.ORG\n   [IR19]          Rohde, Ian               chris@COMMUNICA.OZ.AU\n   [IR24]          Remnant, Ian             ---none---\n   [IS12]          Stormo, Ivar             ---none---\n   [IW5]           Winston, Ira             ira@CIS.UPENN.EDU\n   [JA]            Akkerhuis, Jaap          ---none---\n   [JA1]           Aronson, Jules P.        ARONSON@MCS.NLM.NIH.GOV\n   [JA13]          Aguirre, Jerry           JERRY@ATC.OLIVETTI.COM\n   [JA146]         Archimbaud, Jean-Luc     ---none---\n   [JA155]         Alsters, Jos             josal@SCI.KUN.NL\n   [JA168]         Andrews, John            ja@ESS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [JA175]         Amason, John             JMA@LGC.COM\n   [JA176]         Andersson, Jan           EUDJAN@ERICSSON.COM\n   [JA180]         Adachi, Jun              adachi@NACSIS.AC.JP\n   [JA184]         Augustine, John          ---none---\n   [JA189]         Amodeo, Jim\n                   AMODEOJB%SNYDELBA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JA91]          Angotti, Joseph J.       jja496@CRANE-POE.NAVY.MIL\n   [JA92]          Anderson, Jack\n                   ANDERSONJ@BCLCL1.IM.BATTELLE.ORG\n   [JAB111]        Berry, Joseph            jab0633@USAV00.GLAXO.COM\n   [JAC61]         Cavallaro, Jeffery A.    Jeffery@SYS.CALTECH.EDU\n   [JAD16]         Danos, John A.           ---none---\n   [JAG3]          Gumpf, Jeffrey A.        Gumpf@INS.CWRU.EDU\n   [JAJ17]         Jokl, James A.           jaj@UVAARPA.VIRGINIA.EDU\n   [JAM38]         Mussman, Joel            jam@LONEX.RADC.AF.MIL\n   [JAM48]         Manas, Jose A.           jmanas@DIT.UPM.ES\n   [JAM69]         Markevitch, James A.     jam@MAGIC.COM\n   [JAS8]          Siegel, Jeffrey A.       HOSTADM@YOKOTA-EMH.AF.MIL\n   [JAW16]         Wieclawek, Joseph A.     jaw@SESUN.JPL.NASA.GOV\n   [JAW34]         Wabik, Jeff A.           jwabik@MSC.UMN.EDU\n   [JB113]         Bennett, Jerome          bennett@DFTNIC.GSFC.NASA.GOV\n   [JB218]         Blondeau, Jim\n                   jbb%tektools.tek.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [JB247]         Boyle, Joanne            boyle@JVNCB.CSC.ORG\n   [JB251]         Brannon, James\n                   BRANNEN@STEWART-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [JB348]         Bashinski, John\n                   BASHINSKI%SJSCA4@SPAR.SLB.COM\n   [JB360]         Boccio, John\n                   BOCCIO@CAMPUS.SWARTHMORE.EDU\n   [JB399]         Bonn, John               nmri!bonn@UUNET.UU.NET\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 140]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nJB410\n]         Bradley, Jim\n                   fna104%uriacc.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [JB462]         Bruening, Jochen\n                   rzbng%dknkurz1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JB509]         Boothe, Joe\n                   BOOTH!ACUVAX.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JB525]         Burgan, Jeffrey          jeff@NSIPO.NASA.GOV\n   [JB542]         Baird, John              j.baird@LINCOLN.AC.NZ\n   [JB544]         Blasik, John             JOHN@SEMI.HARRIS.COM\n   [JB550]         Bien, John               jsb@GUMBY.DSD.TRW.COM\n   [JBP]           Postel, Jon              POSTEL@ISI.EDU\n   [JBV2]          VanBokkelen, James B.    jbvb@VAX.FTP.COM\n   [JC106]         Conklin, Joel            CONKLIN@GE-CRD.ARPA\n   [JC108]         Cox, Jan                 lewton@PRANDTL.NAS.NASA.GOV\n   [JC235]         Crowhurst, Jon           crowhurst@ADMIN.OGI.EDU\n   [JC272]         Cowan, Jack              ---none---\n   [JC288]         Cottrell, Jim\n                   jim%easby.dur.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [JC314]         Cahill, John\n                   cahill%utx1%novavax%codas@MOSS.ATT.COM\n   [JC315]         Cushing, James\n                   cushing@AMETHYST.MA.ARIZONA.EDU\n   [JC333]         Carnicle, John           ---none---\n   [JC345]         Carrington, James        JSC@AUTODESK.COM\n   [JC347]         Curran, John             CEI001@UC.MSC.UMN.EDU\n   [JC365]         Carl, Janice\n                   edsews!carl!janice@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [JC394]         Childs, Jack\n                   jchilds@REDSTONE-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\n   [JC403]         Cole, Jay                ---none---\n   [JC414]         Carlier, Janine          jac@LITP.IBP.FR\n   [JC481]         Christensen, Jon         jchriste@CC.UTAH.EDU\n   [JC483]         Carre, Jean              JXC2F@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA\n   [JC490]         Carlsen, Jerry           ---none---\n   [JC497]         Conant, James            ---none---\n   [JCB14]         Bowling, John C.         LAN@GUNTER-ADAM.AF.MIL\n   [JCB42]         Bergeron, Jay C.         ---none---\n   [JCD8]          Demco, John              demco@EAN.UBC.CA\n   [JCH17]         Honig, Jeffrey C.        jch@DEVVAX.TN.CORNELL.EDU\n   [JCH41]         Houlker, John Charles    j.houlker@WAIKATO.AC.NZ\n   [JCJ1]          Jubin, John C., III      JUBIN@A.ISI.EDU\n   [JCN10]         Nunn, John C.            NUNN@CL.UH.EDU\n   [JCP26]         Person, John C.          ---none---\n   [JCW12]         Woodard, James C.        ---none---\n   [JD130]         DiBella, Joseph          JOE@NCSC.NAVY.MIL\n   [JD16]          Dumas, Jean-Pierre\n                   jphd%frsac11.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 141]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nJD238\n]         Demel, Johannes\n                   z3000jd%awituw01.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JD274]         Douglas, James           ---none---\n   [JD282]         Davies, John             ---none---\n   [JD305]         Doyle, John              ---none---\n   [JD86]          Duran, Jose              NSC-HILL@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [JDC20]         Case, Jeffrey D.         case@UTKUX1.UTK.EDU\n   [JDG]           Guyton, James D.         guyton@RAND.ORG\n   [JDH29]         Hagan, John Dotts        HAGAN@UPENN.EDU\n   [JDM9]          Makey, Jeffrey D.        Makey@LOGICON.COM\n   [JE87]          Engvald, Jan             xjeldc@LDC.LU.SE\n   [JEA18]         Ahn, Jae Eon             jean@SORAK.KAIST.AC.KR\n   [JEB45]         Butler, Jeffrey E.       UTLERJE@AFSC-SSD.AF.MIL\n   [JEB50]         Bradt, James E.          bradt@CRD.GE.COM\n   [JEB84]         Bogart, James E.         JBOGART@PROSPECT.COM\n   [JEF8]          Fisher, James E.         1962CGLGU@KADENA-EMH.AF.MIL\n   [JEG27]         Garrett, James E.        JGARRETT@RIA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [JEQ1]          Quigley, John E.\n                   quigley@HEXSUNFS.C3SYS.ARMY.MIL\n   [JES55]         Sitkoski, James E.       ---none---\n   [JF47]          Flower, Jon              JWF@WEGA.CALTECH.EDU\n   [JF78]          Finke, Jon               JFINKE@ITSGW.RPI.EDU\n   [JFAS]          Schillemans, Joop F.A.   rcjoop@URC.TUE.NL\n   [JFC6]          Chambon, J. Francois     ---none---\n   [JFD9]          Detke, John F.           ---none---\n   [JFG21]         Grover, James F.         ---none---\n   [JFK23]         Kent, Joseph F.\n                   kent!urvax.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JFM38]         Martin, Joel F.          jfm%ucsdmr@UCSD.EDU\n   [JFM39]         McAloon, John F.         ---none---\n   [JFR24]         Remillard, James F.      ---none---\n   [JFS22]         Scheimer, James F.       jfs@IRIS.CSS.GOV\n   [JFS37]         Scott, John F.           ---none---\n   [JFW]           Wilkes, Jon              wilkes@ISSUN3.STC.NL\n   [JG131]         Gore, Jacob              jacob@gore.com\n   [JG266]         Gagnon, Jean-Francois\n                   aspyjfg%cmeteoc@IRO.UMONTREAL.CA\n   [JG268]         Gasior, Joseph F.        nsc-kelly@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [JG269]         Gomes, Joseph            gomes@USF.EDU\n   [JG293]         Gonzales, Jesus          ---none---\n   [JG299]         Gauvin, Jimmy\n                   jim%lavalvx1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JG308]         Greene, Jeremy           GREENE@TAIPAN.PERNIX.COM\n   [JG8]           Grina, Jim               ---none---\n   [JGB17]         Bender, J. Gary          ---none---\n   [JGD1]          Deck, Joseph G.          JDECK@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU\n   [JGG23]         Gallo, Julie             ---none---\n   [JH10]          Hargrove, Jimmy          jimmy@SEAHUB.NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 142]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nJH141\n]         Heinanen, Juha           fi-technical-contact@tut.fi\n   [JH18]          Huens, Jean\n                   prlb2!kulcs!jean@SEISMO.CSS.GOV\n   [JH204]         Harris, Jeff             jeff@NMSU.EDU\n   [JH22]          Hook, Jim                ---none---\n   [JH306]         Harrison, Jeff           SXJLH@ACAD3.FAI.ALASKA.EDU\n   [JH307]         Horn, John               ---none---\n   [JH342]         Herb, Jeffrey            ---none---\n   [JH372]         Hughes, James            ---none---\n   [JH40]          Halperin, John           jxh@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU\n   [JH410]         Hill, Julia\n                   CENJMH@CLUSTER.HERIOT-WATT.AC.UK\n   [JH429]         Howard, John             JSH@DLOGICS.COM\n   [JH84]          Haskey, John             ---none---\n   [JH87]          Hammar, Johan            johan@UPLOG.SE\n   [JH92]          Hahn, Jack               hahn@UMD5.UMD.EDU\n   [JHC12]         Choy, Joseph H           choy@NCAR.UCAR.EDU\n   [JHH8]          Haynes, James H.         HAYNES@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU\n   [JHS50]         Silva, Jose H.           ---none---\n   [JIMWW]         Wheeler, James W.        JIMWW@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV\n   [JIS]           Schiller, Jeffrey I.     JIS@BITSY.MIT.EDU\n   [JJ48]          Jongeward, Jeffrey\n                   ssc-vax!root@BEAVER.CS.WASHINGTON.EDU\n   [JJB1]          Batcha, Joseph J.        NSC-Langley@DDN3.DCA.MIL\n   [JJD12]         Diehl, Jeff J.           hq-spcd-xqr@AFCC-OA2.AF.MIL\n   [JK186]         Knight, Jonathan         jonathan@CS.KL.AC.UK\n   [JK187]         Kotovirta, Jukka         ---none---\n   [JK198]         Kleinoeder, Juergen      KLEINOEDER@UNI.ERLANGEN.DE\n   [JK213]         Krieger, Jost\n                   P920012%DBORUB01.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JK218]         Kegler, Jeffrey          JEFFREY@ALGOR2.ALGORISTS.COM\n   [JK228]         Kapp, Jeff               KAPP@MILLIKIN.EDU\n   [JK233]         Kwong, James             kwongj@CALDWR.UCDAVIS.EDU\n   [JK237]         Kopitz, John             ---none---\n   [JK59]          Kitson, Jeffrey          JEFF@KESTREL.EDU\n   [JK7]           Koda, Jim                KODA@ISI.EDU\n   [JKB13]         Buehring, Juergen K.     BUEHRING@HQAFSC-VAX.AF.MIL\n   [JKF2]          Freund, Jeff K.          ---none---\n   [JKR1]          Reynolds, Joyce K.       JKREY@ISI.EDU\n   [JKS23]         Scoggin, John K. Jr.     scoggin@DELMARVA.COM\n   [JL1]           Landwehr, Joseph\n                   landwejb%uccc.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JL115]         Little, John             portal!jel@SUN.COM\n   [JL15]          Lepreau, Jay             LEPREAU@CS.UTAH.EDU\n   [JL152]         Lange, John\n                   hplabs!sun!texsun!radian!altair!johnl@RUTGERS.EDU\n   [JL239]         Lo, Jeff                 jlo@ELAN.COM\n   [JL247]         Longchamp, Jean-Paul     jlongcha@ULYS.UNIL.CH\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 143]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nJL256\n]         Lay, Joel\n                   xndrfn0h%servax.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JL268]         Laventhol, Jonathan      ---none---\n   [JL324]         Lundberg, Jan            ---none---\n   [JL329]         Legatheaux, Jose\n                   jalm!DI-FCUL.UUCP@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [JL338]         Linn, John               j.linn@ABERDEEN.AC.UK\n   [JL52]          Lekashman, John          lekash@ORVILLE.NAS.NASA.GOV\n   [JLB79]         Boyd, Jerry L.           ---none---\n   [JLD31]         Delhaye, Jean-Loic\n                   delhaye@frmop11.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JLD42]         Danrich, Joseph L.       ---none---\n   [JLM23]         Mills, John Luke         Mills@GRANITE.CR.BULL.COM\n   [JLP6]          Peterson, Jan L.\n                   caeco!olyis!sol!jlp@CS.UTAH.EDU\n   [JLR4]          Romkey, John L.          romkey@ASYLUM.SF.CA.US\n   [JLR43]         Russell, James L.        russell@SOFTWARE.ORG\n   [JLS45]         Sloan, John L.\n                   shollen%spots.wright.edu@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [JLW49]         Wilson, Jonathan L.      WILSONJL@HQHSD.BROOKS.AF.MIL\n   [JM113]         McCombie, Jon W.         jmccombie@BBN.COM\n   [JM246]         Moretz, Joseph           rogers@NEMS.DT.NAVY.MIL\n   [JM278]         Mazumdar, Jin\n                   mazumdar%buffalo.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [JM292]         Murai, Jun               jun@u-tokyo.ac.jp\n   [JM303]         Moorfoot, John\n                   jgm%charlie.oz@seismo.CSS.GOV\n   [JM304]         McClurg, Jim             ---none---\n   [JM414]         Miceli, Joe              JMICELI@CCMAIL.SUNYSB.EDU\n   [JM433]         Marshall, John           john@UCONN.EDU\n   [JM451]         Martell, Javier          ---none---\n   [JM468]         Mathisen, Jaye\n                   icsu6000@CAESAR.CS.MONTANA.EDU\n   [JM476]         Mendez, Jose             J_MENDEZ@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU\n   [JM493]         Mann, John               johnm@VAXC.CC.MONASH.EDU.AU\n   [JM551]         Martillo, Joachim\n                   decvax!frog!cpoint!martillo@UCBVAX.Berkeley.EDU\n   [JM561]         Murdock, Joseph          ---none---\n   [JM586]         McIntosh, Jim\n                   jim%auvm.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JM588]         Martin, Jenny\n                   mcvax!cam-orl!jm@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [JM60]          McCollum, Jim            MCCOLLUM@TOPS20.DEC.COM\n   [JM627]         McClure, Jim             ---none---\n   [JM647]         Mizrahi, Jacob\n                   JACOB%HUJIVMS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JM663]         McCabe, Jim              jmccabe@NAS.NASA.GOV\n   [JM678]         Morris, Jim              jmorris@BBN.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 144]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nJM679\n]         Miller, Jeff             STEVE@JHEREG.MN.ORG\n   [JMB64]         Bullington, Joe M.       ---none---\n   [JMD6]          Diaz, Jean Marie         ambar@ORA.COM\n   [JME15]         Elliott, Jeffrey M.\n                   Elliottjm@USAFACDM-AM1.AF.MIL\n   [JMH10]         Hayes, Jordan Michael    jordan@MORGAN.COM\n   [JMM50]         Moe, James M., Jr.       ---none---\n   [JMO4]          Odinot, Jean-Marc        edgard@GIPSI.FR\n   [JMR45]         Roy, Jean Michael        roy@GALAAD.CNET-PAB.FR\n   [JMRM]          Matheson, James M.R.\n                   jmrm%digsys.engineering.cambridge.ac.uk@\n                   NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [JMS17]         Schlueter, Jens-M.\n                   schlueter%vax.awi-bremerhaven.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [JMS56]         Snyder, Joel M.          jms@MIS.ARIZONA.EDU\n   [JMT1]          Turner, James M.         turner@KSR.COM\n   [JMT18]         Turner, James M.\n                   envos.com!jmturn%rattler.uucp@XAIT.XEROX.COM\n   [JMV7]          Visovsky, Joseph M.      ---none---\n   [JN12]          Navarro, Joseph\n                   O_MORENO%ACUPR.UPR.CUN.EDU@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU\n   [JN40]          Noble, John              ---none---\n   [JN47]          Nerbovig, Jerry          ---none---\n   [JN91]          Nichols, Jeff            ---none---\n   [JO54]          O'Connor, John           ---none---\n   [JO93]          Oborny, Jim              ---none---\n   [JO94]          Ott, Jim                 ---none---\n   [JOG]           Gartley, John O.         gartley@ALDNCF.ALCOA.COM\n   [JOH]           Hewett, Johnny O.        ---none---\n   [JOO]           Ostlund, James O.        ostlund@SALK-ADM.SDSC.EDU\n   [JP147]         Petragnani, Joseph       petragna@SJUPHIL.SJU.EDU\n   [JP207]         Pansiot, Jean-Jacques    ---none---\n   [JP220]         Pace, Joe                spked!pace@UCDAVIS.EDU\n   [JP232]         Polk, Jeff               polk@PRISMA.COM\n   [JP247]         Powers, Jack             powers@IBM.COM\n   [JP254]         Prevost, Jacques         PREVOST@DPHVX2.DECNET.CERN\n   [JP262]         Poisson, Joe\n                   00839%aeclcr.bitnet@CORNELLCC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU\n   [JP283]         Patoskie, John           ---none---\n   [JP301]         Packer, John             J.Packer@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK\n   [JP302]         Pettitt, John            jpp@SPECIALIX.CO.UK\n   [JP303]         Paschal, Janine          ---none---\n   [JP304]         Perchik, Jim             perchik@CAMBRIDGE.IBM.COM\n   [JP325]         Pier, Jeff               ---none---\n   [JPB17]         Bossert, John P.\n                   uw-beaver!uw-entropy!thebes!bossert@RUTGERS.EDU\n   [JPC17]         Chion, J.P.              ---none---\n   [JPD]           Dubois, Jean-Paul\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 145]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nJPD%POLYTECA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JPD18]         Draughon, J. Phillip     jpd@ACCUVAX.NWU.EDU\n   [JPH17]         Hanley, John P.          jhanley@ORACLE.COM\n   [JPO4]          O'Brien, John Paul\n                   john%novavax@BIKINI.CIS.UFL.EDU\n   [JPS17]         Stoneback, John P.\n                   allegra!mc70!stonebac@seismo.CSS.GOV\n   [JPS21]         Sorensen, Jan P.         rkujps@VM.UNI-C.DK\n   [JPW11]         Wies, J.P.               ---none---\n   [JR15]          Rhodes, John E.          jrhodes@LOGNET2.AF.MIL\n   [JR206]         Ramey, Joe               ramey@CSC.TI.COM\n   [JR222]         Roberts, Jeffrey         JEFF@HCR.COM\n   [JR262]         Renfro, Jack             ---none---\n   [JR276]         Roth, Jeff               jroth@DSAC.DLA.MIL\n   [JR283]         Richardson, John         JRICH@UCRMATH.UCR.EDU\n   [JR311]         Richardson, John         ---none---\n   [JR38]          Rutemiller, John\n                   Rutemiller@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL\n   [JR40]          Reece, John              jreece@SC.INTEL.COM\n   [JRA26]         Adams, John R.           ---none---\n   [JRC27]         Chappell, Jim R.         jrc@PENTAGON-BCN.ARMY.MIL\n   [JRF]           Fisher, James R.         jfisher@ISDRES.ISD.USGS.GOV\n   [JRF12]         Fowler, James R.\n                   jfowler@GALILEO.APO.NMSU.EDU\n   [JRF21]         Freeman, James           ---none---\n   [JRJ12]         Jaeger, Jay R.           ---none---\n   [JRJ16]         Johnson, Jack R.         ---none---\n   [JRJ18]         Jesson, J. R.            jr@MERIT-TECH.COM\n   [JRL3]          LoVerso, John Robert     loverso@XYLOGICS.COM\n   [JRR14]         Ragland, Joe R.          jrr@NCNOC.CONCERT.NET\n   [JRR6]          Slifko, Gary J.          NSC-McCl@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [JRS48]         Shaeffer, James R.       shaeffer@ASNGAT.ASN.NET\n   [JRS67]         Shiflett, James Russell  Shiflett@SXFEP.HARC.EDU\n   [JRS8]          Schwab, Jeffrey R.       jrs@ECN.PURDUE.EDU\n   [JS167]         Shprentz, Joel           shprentz@BDM.COM\n   [JS171]         Scott, Jerry             JERRY@TWG.COM\n   [JS210]         Stearns, Jeff            jeff@TC.FLUKE.COM\n   [JS255]         Setzer, James            ---none---\n   [JS268]         Simonetti, J.            ---none---\n   [JS28]          Shriver, John A.         jas@PROTEON.COM\n   [JS281]         Shultis, Jonathan C.     Jon.Shultis@INCSYS.COM\n   [JS283]         Schwartz, Jack           JSCHWARTZ@A.ISI.EDU\n   [JS338]         Sherwood, John           SHERWOOD@AC.DAL.CA\n   [JS450]         Stalcup, J.              stalcup@TTACS1.TTU.EDU\n   [JS469]         Segers, Jerry\n                   jsegers%uga.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JS511]         Shumate, John            jcs@NCR-SD.SANDIEGO.NCR.COM\n   [JS522]         Stone, John              STONE@USNA.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 146]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nJS535\n]         Stewart, John            John_Stewart@CARLETON.CA\n   [JS550]         Stadler, Janis           ---none---\n   [JS573]         Sherman, Jan\n                   asqe-y-n-f-ab02@ANSBACH-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [JS583]         Swisher, Joel            ---none---\n   [JS591]         Snyder, Jeff             JCS@WITTENBERG.EDU\n   [JS592]         Schnizlein, John         JOHNS@HOUSE.GOV\n   [JS593]         Setzer, James            JIM_SETZER@MV15.RUNET.EDU\n   [JS596]         Slee, Jamie              J_Slee@VAX.ACS.OPEN.AC.UK\n   [JS597]         Stewart, John            netcoor@NCS.DND.CA\n   [JS598]         Scott, Jack              ---none---\n   [JS599]         Smaby, John              ---none---\n   [JS602]         Spading, John            ---none---\n   [JS603]         Sundman, Jonas           ---none---\n   [JS609]         Stand, John              ---none---\n   [JS81]          Smith, Jeff              JSMITH@CC.PURDUE.EDU\n   [JSA2]          Aldrich, Jeffrey S.\n                   ALDRICHJ%LAWRENCE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JSG1]          Groff, John S.           SGROFF@CCJ.BBN.COM\n   [JSG2]          Goldberg, J. Scott       jgoldberg@TELESOFT.COM\n   [JSL9]          Lowe, James S.           james@UWM.EDU\n   [JSM11]         Miller, James S.         jmiller@CS.BRANDEIS.EDU\n   [JSOL]          Solomon, Jonathan A.     jsol@BU-IT.BU.EDU\n   [JSQ1]          Quarterman, John S.      jsq@LONGWAY.TIC.COM\n   [JSS4]          Sabnis, Jayant S.        SABNIS@CCF3.NRL.NAVY.MIL\n   [JSW12]         Williams, J. Scott       scott@WWU.EDU\n   [JSY2]          Yaplee, Jeffrey S.       ---none---\n   [JT122]         Thomassen, Jens          Jens@IFI.UIO.NO\n   [JT147]         Thompson, James          convex!jthomp@A.CS.UIUC.EDU\n   [JT149]         Tysko, John              tysko@BOSS.CS.OHIOU.EDU\n   [JT166]         Tuomola, Jari            ---none---\n   [JT167]         Tingsell, Jan-Gunnar     jgt@HUM.GU.SE\n   [JT181]         Timlick, John            ---none---\n   [JT185]         Tucker, Jim              ---none---\n   [JT220]         Tarrant, Judith\n                   jtarrant@TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU\n   [JT222]         Tonnesen, Jan            ---none---\n   [JTM24]         McCartin, Joseph T.      MCCARTIN@UNIX1.EUCOM.MIL\n   [JTS3]          Shirron, John T.         jshirron@CMF.NRL.NAVY.MIL\n   [JU14]          Urbach, James            ---none---\n   [JV13]          Vogel, John              ---none---\n   [JV41]          Voigt, John              SYSBJAV@VM.TCS.TULANE.EDU\n   [JV53]          Vinh, Josianne\n                   mcvax!inria!ens.ens.fr!vinh@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [JV69]          Vaerno, Johan            ---none---\n   [JV70]          Vannoy, John\n                   vannoy%pepvax.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JV74]          Vincent, James           ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 147]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nJV97\n]          VanGalder, Janette       ---none---\n   [JV98]          Voss, John\n                   j_voss@SHOGUN.CAPRICORNIA.OZ.AU\n   [JVE2]          Eijndhoven, Jos van      ---none---\n   [JW136]         White, James D.          jdw@AARDVARK.UCS.UOKNOR.EDU\n   [JW156]         Wray, John               JCW2%rsre@CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [JW181]         Washer, James W.         washer@LLL-CRG.LLNL.GOV\n   [JW266]         Westbrock, Jon           jonwest@ROSEMOUNT.COM\n   [JW301]         Winkelman, Jim\n                   jrw%noaasel.gov@HANDIES.UCAR.EDU\n   [JW302]         Widen, Johan             jw@SICS.SE\n   [JW310]         Waters, Jim              waters@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU\n   [JW326]         Whitfill, Jim            whitfill%meediv@LANL.GOV\n   [JW335]         Wolford, James           MWOLFORD@MUSRV.MUOHIO.EDU\n   [JW337]         Watters, John            JWATTERS@UA1VM.UA.EDU\n   [JW352]         Woolverton, John         WOOLSTAR@EREHWON.UUCP\n   [JW375]         Woods, John              ---none---\n   [JW377]         Wagner, Juergen          gandalf@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU\n   [JW382]         Wilman, Jim\n                   CSJAW!ECNCDC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JW47]          Wobus, John              JMWOBUS@SUVM.ACS.SYR.EDU\n   [JWB35]         Bennett, John W.         jwb@DSTOS3.DSTO.OZ.AU\n   [JWB48]         Buchanan, John W.        BUCHNAN@BRL.MIL\n   [JWB65]         Blackmon, Joseph W.      network@NCSA.UIUC.EDU\n   [JWE12]         Erikson, Jon W.          ---none---\n   [JWH39]         Himpel, John W.          ---none---\n   [JWM3]          Meidinger, James W.      jim@BIGBURD.PRC.UNISYS.COM\n   [JWM53]         Manly, John W.\n                   jwmanly%amherst.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [JWN10]         Norris, James W.\n                   a02jwn1%niu.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [JY24]          Yu, Jessica              jyy@MERIT.EDU\n   [JY33]          Yoshida, Jun             ---none---\n   [JY35]          Young, Jeff              ---none---\n   [KA14]          Ackermann, Dr. Kurt      ---none---\n   [KA4]           Auerbach, Karl           auerbach@CSL.SRI.COM\n   [KAA]           Adelman, Kenneth A.      Adelman@TGV.COM\n   [KB129]         Boyer, Kerry\n                   KBOYER%CALSTATE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [KB134]         Baker, Ken               ---none---\n   [KB32]          Berggren, Kent           ---none---\n   [KB60]          Braun, Karl              ---none---\n   [KBC]           Casey, Kevin B.\n                   kbcasey@GALLUX.GALLAUDET.EDU\n   [KC1]           Carney, Kevin            kcarney@UTS.AMDAHL.COM\n   [KC105]         Callison, Kelly\n                   K.CALLISON%USCGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [KC40]          Chang, Kelly             kccs!khc@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 148]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nKC8\n]           Chen, Ken\n                   SIMNET-PERCEPTRONICS@A.ISI.EDU\n   [KCM2]          McDonald, Kelly C.       KELLY@NOC.BYU.EDU\n   [KD36]          DeJager, Keith           sunatl!ninja!dj@SUN.COM\n   [KD77]          Dalton, Kay              u1906AB@VMS.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU\n   [KDA5]          Augustin, Kurt D.        AUGUSTINKD@AFOTEC2.AF.MIL\n   [KDM5]          Miller, Keith D.         ---none---\n   [KDM6]          Mayer-Spohn, Klaus D.\n                   ZRAM%DS0RUS1I.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [KDO]           Olum, Ken D.             KDO@LUCID.COM\n   [KDZ]           Zeilenga, Kurt D.        KURT@AGPS.LANL.GOV\n   [KE1]           England, Kent            kwe@BU-IT.BU.EDU\n   [KEP9]          Pickelheimer, Keith E.   PICKELHKE@WPAFB-AMS1.AF.MIL\n   [KEW8]          Wampler, Kurt E.\n                   hplabs!hpda!intersil!wampler@UNIX.SRI.COM\n   [KF55]          Farghaly, Kerim          ---none---\n   [KFS]           Sauer, Kurt F.           Sauer@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL\n   [KFS2]          Schmidt, K. F.           ---none---\n   [KG12]          Gordon, Kenneth          ---none---\n   [KG16]          Gordon, Ken\n                   gordon%vax1.tcd.ie@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [KG35]          Gilmore, Kirk\n                   gilmore@GALILEO.AS.ARIZONA.EDU\n   [KH128]         Hannan, Kevin\n                   fhannan!ceramics!bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [KH59]          Hull, Kenneth            HULLKE@ASD.WPAFB.AF.MIL\n   [KH74]          Han, Kisoo\n                   kshan%etrivax.etri.re.kr@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [KH88]          Henriksen, Kyle          kyle@TIS-W.ARPA\n   [KHJ]           Jobes, Karen H.\n                   jobes%iassns.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [KHJ1]          Jenkins, Karen H.        cd33xkhj@CORONA-PO.NAVY.MIL\n   [KJ1]           Jensen, Kris             jensen@RYE.CS.UNM.EDU\n   [KJ36]          Johnson, Ken             ---none---\n   [KJ4]           Johnson, Kurt            ---none---\n   [KJK4]          Kramer, Kevin J.         ---none---\n   [KJS10]         Sweet, Kevin J.          SWEET@HORIZON.COM\n   [KK104]         Kolari, Klaus            ---none---\n   [KK87]          Kempf, Kim               mcrware!kim@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [KK92]          Kikuchi, Kunihiro        ---none---\n   [KKS]           Spagnolo, Ken            K.SPAGNOLO@MASSEY.AC.NZ\n   [KL31]          Lamb, Kathleen           klamb@MINES.COLORADO.EDU\n   [KL40]          Lowe, Ken                ken@BLAKE.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU\n   [KL63]          Love, Kim                love@STARS.RESTON.UNISYS.COM\n   [KL66]          Laaksonen, Kimmo         kla@HUT.FI\n   [KL78]          Lockhart, Kent           lockhart@MWUNIX.MITRE.ORG\n   [KLS24]         Smith, Kathryn L.        kathy@XN.LL.MIT.EDU\n   [KM103]         McNees, Kelly            isglgu@RAMSTEIN2-EMH.AF.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 149]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nKM129\n]         Maciunas, Kevin          kevin@CS.FLINDERS.OZ.AU\n   [KM131]         Miller, Kevin            caeco!kev@CS.UTAH.EDU\n   [KM2]           Maletsky, Kerry          ---none---\n   [KM6]           Mayo, Kevin\n                   munnari!biomact.oz.au!kevin@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [KM79]          Moran, Kathy             ---none---\n   [KM82]          Murakami, Ken'ichiro\n                   murakami%ntt-20.ntt.jp@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [KMC3]          Crepea, Kenneth M.       Crepea@CCFS.CENTCOM.MIL\n   [KMH8]          Hays, Kenneth M.         hays@gw.scri.fsu.edu\n   [KNC]           Carpenter, Kevin N.      KNCARP@NICSN1.MONSANTO.COM\n   [KO11]          O'Keefe, Kevin           HAZELTINE@A.ISI.EDU\n   [KOP2]          Peasley, Kim O.          symbio!symbio@CS.ORST.EDU\n   [KP45]          Petraska, Karen          KAREN@UMBC3.UMBC.EDU\n   [KP50]          Percival, Kent           PERCIVAL@VM.UOGUELPH.CA\n   [KPK3]          Kleinfelter, Kevin P.    ---none---\n   [KR35]          Reynolds, Keith          keithr@SCO.COM\n   [KR59]          Rowett, Kevin            KEVINR@TANDEM.COM\n   [KR69]          Rabideau, Karen\n                   karen%tufts.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [KR72]          Reinholtz, Kirk          KIRK@MOC.JPL.NASA.GOV\n   [KR77]          Rugg, Ken                krugg@GOLDHILL.COM\n   [KR79]          Rossbach, Kim            ---none---\n   [KR80]          Rogers, Karen            rogerskm%esvax@DUPONT.COM\n   [KR9]           Rohan, Kevin             JJKKRR@COS1.FAC.FORD.COM\n   [KRF5]          Fuller, Kevin R.         ---none---\n   [KRH4]          Hacke, Keith R.          Hacke@MDC.COM\n   [KRM5]          Magill, K. Richard       rich@OXTRAP.AA.OX.COM\n   [KRS21]         Stephens, Kris R.        krs@UTS.AMDAHL.COM\n   [KS121]         Simpson, Kenneth         ksimpson@LOIHI.HIG.HAWAII.EDU\n   [KS125]         Simonsen, Keld           keld@dkuug.dk\n   [KS133]         Scully, Kevin            ---none---\n   [KS14]          Seo, Karen S.            KSEO@BBN.COM\n   [KS153]         Sandvik, Kent            ksand@APPLEOZ.OZ.AU\n   [KS154]         Shimizu, Kyoichi         ---none---\n   [KS156]         Sanders, Kevin           ---none---\n   [KS158]         Samec, Kathi             ---none---\n   [KS24]          Kupperion, Brian A.      ---none---\n   [KS32]          Stott, Kaye              K_STOTT@VAXA.UWA.OZ.AU\n   [KS62]          Simpson, Kathy           ---none---\n   [KSL]           Lougheed, Kirk S.        LOUGHEED@CISCO.COM\n   [KT43]          Twidle, Kevin            ---none---\n   [KV14]          Vickers, Kyle            ---none---\n   [KW2]           Wescourt, Keith T.       WESCOURT@CEL.FMC.COM\n   [KW75]          Walker, Katie            NSC-Bark@DDN3.DCA.MIL\n   [KW8]           Wuerfl, Karl\n                   wuerfl%vax1.rz.uni-regensburg.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [KW96]          Wehmeyer, Keith          ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 150]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nLA55\n]          Allison, Larry           ---none---\n   [LAM1]          Mamakos, Louis A.        louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU\n   [LB110]         Binding, Lothar\n                   $45%dhdurz1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [LB16]          Bukys, Liudvikas         bukys@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU\n   [LB164]         Bradley, Larry           larry@VM.NRC.CA\n   [LB181]         Bengtsson, Lars          lars@MECEL.SE\n   [LB189]         Beaulieu, Laurier        ---none---\n   [LB190]         Benjamin, Lee            ---none---\n   [LB201]         Barram, Laurie           ccnetman@BUNYIP.CC.UQ.OZ.AU\n   [LB24]          Burris, Lee\n                   asqnh-nsc@HUACHUCA-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\n   [LB8]           Brown, Lawrence          drd!zlhb0a@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [LC149]         Caylor, Larry            ---none---\n   [LC151]         Coulson, Leilani\n                   lcoulson@NARDACDC002.NARDAC-DC.NAVY.MIL\n   [LC152]         Clancy, Leon             LMCLAN@ICASE.EDU\n   [LC160]         Claiborne, Louvenia\n                   CLAIBORN@PENTAGON-OPTI.ARMY.MIL\n   [LC57]          Claudio, Lester          lclaudio@WNYOSI2.NAVY.MIL\n   [LCH9]          Holmberg, Leo C.         CSERH000@KSUVXA.KENT.EDU\n   [LCN]           Nelson, Louis C.         lou@AEROSPACE.AERO.ORG\n   [LCV]           Varian, Lee C.           lvarian@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU\n   [LCVDH]         van den Heuvel, L. C.\n                   SYVAXVDH%HMARL5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [LD4]           Damon, Lee               NOMAD@CASTLE.ORG\n   [LD46]          Deni, Larry\n                   deni%canisius.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [LD82]          Davis, Laurie            ---none---\n   [LDB3]          Borchert, L. David\n                   borchert@ARSOCOMVAX.SOCOM.MIL\n   [LE24]          Eriksson, Lars-Anders    larsa@TOTT.LIU.SE\n   [LF58]          Felder, Harry            janus!harry@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [LF61]          Freil, Lawrence          lef@DOGWOOD.ATL.GA.US\n   [LF70]          Fahnoe, Lawrence         FAHNOE@UWPLATT.EDU\n   [LFM5]          Morales, Luis F., Jr.\n                   lmorales@HUACHUCA-EMH8.ARMY.MIL\n   [LG115]         Gasparro, Lou            shooter@UK.ORACLE.COM\n   [LG91]          Goodhue, Lynn\n                   lgoodhue%smith.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [LGB1]          Bussard, Lewis G.        BUSSARD@EDWARDS-2060.AF.MIL\n   [LH124]         Hicks, Larry\n                   UIUCDCS!BRADLEY!LARZ@SEAS.UCLA.EDU\n   [LH2]           Hayford, Lloyd           ---none---\n   [LHG3]          Gindler, Lawrence H.\n                   LGINDLER%TRINITY.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [LJ58]          Jones, Louis             postmaster@JAX.ORG\n   [LJC2]          Crosby, Linda J.\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 151]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nLCROSBY@ST-LOUIS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\n   [LJE3]          Edel, Leander J.         ---none---\n   [LJK]           Kaufman, Lawrence J.     lkaufman@BBN.COM\n   [LJR5]          Romero, Louis J.         ---none---\n   [LJV4]          Vik, Leif Jarle          ---none---\n   [LK27]          Kurtz, Linda J.          KURTZ@EODTC-POE.NAVY.MIL\n   [LK66]          Krystek, Lee             ---none---\n   [LL115]         Lane, Lee                llane@CISS.DAYTON.NCR.COM\n   [LL56]          Lattanzi, Len            len@SYNTHESIS.COM\n   [LL64]          Leedom, Leith (Casey)    casey@LLL-CRG.LLNL.GOV\n   [LLZ1]          Zumbach, Lyle L.         ---none---\n   [LM176]         McDonald, Larry          ---none---\n   [LM185]         McCormick, Linda\n                   L.McCormick@UK.AC.GLA.ENG.CAE\n   [LM220]         Mcgee, Lance             mcgee@UCRAC1.UCR.EDU\n   [LM237]         Morales, Lydia\n                   lmorales@NARDACDC002.NARDAC-DC.NAVY.MIL\n   [LM35]          Michela, Larry J.        ---none---\n   [LM62]          Manderson, Landy\n                   usts034%uabtucc.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [LM88]          McLoughlin, Lee\n                   lmjm%DOC.IC.AC.UK@CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [LN1]           Nielsen, Leonard         u16278@UICVM.UIC.EDU\n   [LN4]           Needleman, Lee L.        NSC-Dobb@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [LN42]          Nerenberg, Lyndon\n                   lyndon@CS.ATHABASCAU.CA\n   [LN47]          Newton, Lawrence\n                   lnewt@MDA85.CANCER.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [LNZ]           Zubkoff, Leonard N.      edsel!lnz@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU\n   [LO24]          Oattes, Lee              oattes@UTCS.UTORONTO.CA\n   [LO28]          Owen, Larry              OWEN@DUCVAX.AUBURN.EDU\n   [LP71]          Paniccia, Larry          ---none---\n   [LPM]           Michelson, Leslie P.     michelso@JVNCF.CSC.ORG\n   [LR312]         Ragans, Lawrence T. (Larry)---none---\n   [LR44]          Roy, Lynette             roy@GMR.COM\n   [LRB]           Bierma, Larry R.         BIERMA@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL\n   [LRC7]          Custead, Larry R.\n                   CUSTEAD%SASK.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [LRR1]          Rogers, Lawrence R.      lrr@PRINCETON.EDU\n   [LS103]         Schilmoeller, Leon       ---none---\n   [LS198]         Shipley, Lisa            ---none---\n   [LS224]         Sugar, Laszlo            ---none---\n   [LS226]         Snyder, Larry            ---none---\n   [LS227]         Schoenzeit, Loren        loren@MGI.COM\n   [LS228]         Schafer, Lutz\n                   LUS!DMZMP15P.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [LS64]          Shumate, Lonnie          ---none---\n   [LT70]          Thomas, Larry\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 152]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nEAID-SI-SI@CASEY-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [LT75]          Tillman, Lin             lin @WUERZBURG-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [LV6]           Viswanath, L.\n                   viswanat%snycorba.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [LW134]         Webb, Larry              ---none---\n   [LW137]         Wolf, Lee                mmdf@AUGSBURG-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [LW138]         Webster, Leslie\n                   mmdf@BURTONWOOD-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [LW26]          Winkler, Linda           b32357@anlvm.ctd.anl.gov\n   [LWA8]          Austin, Larry W.         ---none---\n   [MA]            Accetta, Michael         MIKE.ACCETTA@A.CS.CMU.EDU\n   [MA105]         Ambriz-Maguey, Marco\n                   red%unamvm1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MA107]         Anello, Mike             mja@SIMPACT.COM\n   [MA119]         Allen, Michael           ---none---\n   [MA24]          Anderson, Melanie        m-anderson@UIUC.EDU\n   [MA56]          Alexander, Mark\n                   kma@samson.cadr.dialnet.symbolics.com\n   [MA63]          Allen, Mike              allen@ETHZ.CH\n   [MA88]          Andrews, Mark            marka@SYD.DMS.CSIRO.AU\n   [MAB4]          Brown, Mark A.           Mark@OBERON.USC.EDU\n   [MAG13]         Gadiwalla, Muslim A.     ---none---\n   [MAG16]         Gallo, Michael A.        gallo@ZENO.FIT.EDU\n   [MAG37]         Goldsberry, Michael      ---none---\n   [MAJ1]          Joyce, Marlena A.        ---none---\n   [MAJ14]         Jackson, Michael A.      ---none---\n   [MAM71]         Metzner, Mark A.         ---none---\n   [MAV4]          Verber, Mark A.          VERBER@SOLUTIONS.COM\n   [MAW25]         Waldschmidt, Mark A.     MARKW%CPVB.SPAN@SDS.SDSC.EDU\n   [MB]            Brescia, Michael         BRESCIA@BBN.COM\n   [MB143]         Brichta, Michael         brichta@SIEMENS.SIEMENS.COM\n   [MB203]         Bernards, Marcel         bernards@ECN.NL\n   [MB204]         Bounds, Mitchell         ---none---\n   [MB26]          Brzustowicz, Mike        MAB@ADS.COM\n   [MB262]         Berchier, Marcel\n                   BERCHIER%CFRUNI51.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MB273]         Beelen, Marcel\n                   hp4nl!oce.nl!mbee@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MB288]         Beckerle, Michael        mikeb@MCRC.MOT.COM\n   [MB293]         Betel, Michiel           michiel%cadlab1@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MB307]         Bushway, Marilyn         MKB@OHSU.EDU\n   [MB308]         Bell, Michael            ---none---\n   [MB31]          Bereschinsky, Michael\n                   beresch@HEXSUNFS.C3SYS.ARMY.MIL\n   [MB310]         Barker, Malcolm          M.Barker@WARWICK.AC.UK\n   [MB32]          Belot, Michel            ---none---\n   [MB324]         Bourguel, Maurice\n                   BOURGUELAFRMRS11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 153]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nMB9\n]           Boring, Mike             BORING@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG\n   [MC128]         Cooper, Mike\n                   PACISMO@HAWAII-EMH1.PACOM.MIL\n   [MC17]          Crawford, Matt           matt@ODDJOB.UCHICAGO.EDU\n   [MC202]         Curran, Mike             MCURRAN@NARDACDC002.NAVY.MIL\n   [MC261]         Cronenweth, Mark         ---none---\n   [MC264]         Cooling, Mike            cooling@CSUS.EDU\n   [MC280]         Caines, Max\n                   M.Caines@SYSA.WOLVERHAMPTON.AC.UK\n   [MC290]         Colburn, Mark            mark@MINNETECH.MN.ORG\n   [MC293]         Connolly, Michael        connollym@DCU.IE\n   [MC299]         Coleman, Michael         ---none---\n   [MC301]         Chesterfield, Mark       mark@BOHRA.CPG.OZ\n   [MC65]          Corn, Michael            ---none---\n   [MCA1]          Akers, Mary\n                   steapqa@APG-EMH3.APG.ARMY.MIL\n   [MCB5]          Berch, Michael C.        mcb@PRESTO.IG.COM\n   [MCD11]         Donahue, Michael         ---none---\n   [MCL9]          Linimon, Mark C.\n                   hpda!sun!central!mizarvme!linimon@UCBVAX.Berkeley.EDU\n   [MD119]         Draughn, Mark            draughn@IITMAX.IIT.EDU\n   [MD127]         Devauze, Michel          ---none---\n   [MD142]         Dubetz, Martin           dubetz@WUGATE.WUSTL.EDU\n   [MD177]         Dew, Martin              mcd!mcdd1.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MD184]         Dupont, Michael          ---none---\n   [MD97]          Dunston, Bobby           NSC-Elm@DDN3.DCA.MIL\n   [MDE3]          Eggers, Mark D.\n                   CF4A8X%IRISHMVS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MDF13]         Ferrar, M. D.            ---none---\n   [MDL1]          Lumby, Michael B.        NSC-Peter@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [MDP16]         Parker, Michael D.       chip!mparker@NOSC.MIL\n   [MDS30]         Spicer, Marc D.\n                   mspicer@BELVOIR-EMH3.ARMY.MIL\n   [ME38]          Elvy, Marc               ELVY@CARRARA.MARBLE.COM\n   [ME57]          Ernst, Michael\n                   r02ern%dhhdesy3.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [ME74]          Eastep, Michael          ---none---\n   [ME75]          Epard, Marc              ---none---\n   [MEG8]          Gibbons, Mark E.         ---none---\n   [MEV7]          Verona, Mary Ellen\n                   MHANEY@TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU\n   [MF14]          Fingerhut, Michael       ircam!mf@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MF148]         Frutig, Marvello\n                   USERMEFF%LNCC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MF19]          Fedor, Mark              fedor@patton.NYSER.NET\n   [MF31]          Fouts, Martin            FOUTS@AMELIA.ARC.NASA.GOV\n   [MF4]           Federspiel, Mathieu\n                   mcf!STATWARE.UUCP@UUNET.UU.NET\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 154]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nMF74\n]          Fidler, Michael L.\n                   ts0026@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU\n   [MF96]          Furnari, Mario           FURNARI@ARCO.NA.CNR.IT\n   [MG120]         Garcia, Mary\n                   GARCIA@TURNER-JOY.NOARL.NAVY.MIL\n   [MG16]          Gallaher, Michael        gallaher@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU\n   [MG205]         Ganswindt, Helena\n                   helenag@HEILBRONN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [MG206]         Girard, Michel           ---none---\n   [MG207]         Giger, Max               ---none---\n   [MG58]          Gilbert, Mike            JNG%SLI.COM@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MG95]          Greisen, Marc            ---none---\n   [MGR2]          Rohren, Mark G.\n                   c3314mgr@DOM1.NWAC.SEA06.NAVY.MIL\n   [MH118]         Harper, Malcom\n                   mkh%sevax.prg.oxford.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [MH15]          Harrison, Mark S.        NSC-Patrick@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [MH198]         Hirabaru, Masaki         hi@CSCE.KYUSHU-U.AC.JP\n   [MH225]         Hamilton, Molly          system@BEACH.GAL.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [MH226]         Hirose, Masahito         hirose@FURUKAWA.CO.JP\n   [MH233]         Homsey, Mike             msh@OTC.OTCA.OZ.AU\n   [MH246]         Hamberg, Mats            mats@NEXUS.SE\n   [MH257]         Heley, Mike              mheley@STE.DYN.BAE.CO.UK\n   [MH267]         Heavey, Martin           ---none---\n   [MH269]         Haringman, Mark          ---none---\n   [MH74]          Hartmann, Manfred\n                   mhartma@APG-EMH5.APG.ARMY.MIL\n   [MH82]          Horton, Mark             mark@CBLPF.ATT.COM\n   [MHW9]          Warfield, Michael H.     wittsend!mhw@GATECH.EDU\n   [MI1]           Isaacson, Mark           ---none---\n   [MIW]           Whetzel, Mark I.         markw@AIRGUN.WG.WAII.COM\n   [MJ100]         Jacob, Matthew           ---none---\n   [MJ33]          Johnson, Mark            ---none---\n   [MJ65]          Jensen, Murray\n                   mjj%mimir.dmt.oz@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MJ91]          Jacott, Marc             ---none---\n   [MJA14]         Ames, Michael J.         mike@JUPITER.NMT.EDU\n   [MJE]           Edelman, Michael J.      michaele@TEKTRONIX.TEK.COM\n   [MJJ1]          Jordaan, Martin J.\n                   MJORDAAN@VAXB.NSWSES.NAVY.MIL\n   [MJK12]         Kelly, Marvin J.         ---none---\n   [MJL37]         Lippold, Michael J.      ---none---\n   [MJM2]          Muuss, Michael John      MIKE@BRL.MIL\n   [MJO4]          O'Connor, Michael J.     OCONNOR@SCCGATE.SCC.COM\n   [MJO7]          O'Donnell, Michael J.    ---none---\n   [MK124]         Karas, Michael\n                   KARAS@USUHSB.UCC.USUHS.NNMC.NAVY.MIL\n   [MK132]         Kalscheuer, Michael      ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 155]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nMK133\n]         Kawasaki, Masako         ---none---\n   [MK162]         Kawabe, Mitsunori\n                   kawa%yaskawa.co.jp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MK169]         Kahn, Michael            M.Kahn@LON.AC.UK\n   [MK17]          Karels, Mike             karels@UCBARPA.BERKELEY.EDU\n   [MK38]          Kowitz, Mark             mark@ROCKY2.ROCKEFELLER.EDU\n   [MK68]          Kazar, Michael           kazar@ANDREW.CMU.EDU\n   [MK75]          Koulopoulos, Mike        well!rk@LLL-LCC.ARPA\n   [MK79]          Kito, Masafumi           ipmaster@ETL.GO.JP\n   [MKL]           Lottor, Mark K.          MKL@NIC.DDN.MIL\n   [MKS17]         Spengler, Michael K.     mks@MSC.UMN.EDU\n   [ML129]         Lobelle, Marc            ml@INFO.UCL.AC.BE\n   [ML163]         Leech, Marcus            ml@GANDALF.CA\n   [ML171]         Legendre, Michel         ---none---\n   [ML192]         Lawrence, Michael\n                   munnari!wcc.oz.au!mike@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [ML193]         Leger, Ms.               mmdf@NEUULM-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [ML62]          Levine, Michael          LEVINE@A.PSY.CMU.EDU\n   [ML95]          Liu, Mei-Ling            mliu@POLYSLO.CALPOLY.EDU\n   [MLC]           Corrigan, Michael        Corrigan@DDN3.DCA.MIL\n   [MLC34]         Carlock, Malcolm L.      malc@UNRVAX.UNR.EDU\n   [MLR1]          Roman, Mark L.\n                   EANC-CP-CL@SEOUL-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [MLR4]          La Rouche, Mark          markl@TWINSUN.COM\n   [MLT10]         Truesdell, M. Lynn       truesdel@PILOT.NJIN.EDU\n   [MM135]         Macbeth, Mary            ---none---\n   [MM147]         Meyer, Mark\n                   mark%unlcdc3.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MM149]         Miller, Mark             LUMM@VAX1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU\n   [MM158]         Minsker, Manley          manley@SHARPE-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [MM227]         Mohar, Mike              mohar@IDA.ORG\n   [MM267]         Monnin, Mark\n                   MGRMEM@BITWAY.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU\n   [MM313]         Marcinkevicz, Michael    mdm@GUMBY.DSD.TRW.COM\n   [MM333]         Moravan, Mike            moravan@CSUPWB.COLOSTATE.EDU\n   [MM334]         Murphy, Michael          mm06@GTE.COM\n   [MM348]         McGuire, Michael         ---none---\n   [MM352]         MacLeod, Mike\n                   mmacleod@UTCCSP.SPRD.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [MM371]         Martys, Mike             mmartys@VAX.CC.WILLIAMS.EDU\n   [MM379]         Mastrangeli, Mark        ---none---\n   [MM384]         Mel, Michael             ---none---\n   [MM406]         McKenzie, Malcolm        M_Mckenzie@AMIS.GOV.AU\n   [MM413]         Mailand, Mary\n                   asqexlbm4@mainz-ems1.mainz-emh1.army.mil\n   [MM427]         Mondher, Makni           ---none---\n   [MMH5]          Hayman, Martin M.        ---none---\n   [MMJ1]          Janiczek, Martin         MJANICZEK@RIA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 156]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nMML8\n]          Lanza, Mario M.          BL-SCL@BITBURG-PIV-1.AF.MIL\n   [MMM3]          McDonnell, Michael M.    MIKE@ETL.ARMY.MIL\n   [MN36]          Nowlan, Michael\n                   mcvax!cs.tcd.ie!michael@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MN43]          Nusinov, Marc            ---none---\n   [MN44]          Newbery, Michael         newbery@RS1.VUW.AC.NZ\n   [MN54]          Noth, Mike\n                   FMNOTHPB%UIAMVS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MN60]          Nekic, Mark              ---none---\n   [MO33]          Olafsson, Marius\n                   marius%rhi.hi.is@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MO48]          Oros, Mark               oros@UMD5.UMD.EDU\n   [MO57]          Ohta, Masataka\n                   coordinator@TITECH.AC.JP\n   [MOUSE]         Parker, Mike\n                   mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU\n   [MP12]          Petry, Michael           petry@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU\n   [MP138]         Portal, M.               ---none---\n   [MP139]         Powell, Michael          powell@ISS.EATON.COM\n   [MP151]         Prior, Mark\n                   hostmaster@UCS.ADELAIDE.EDU.AU\n   [MP172]         Patterson, Mike          Mike_Patterson@MTSG.UBC.CA\n   [MP183]         Puccetti, Matt           PUCCETTI@ROCKY.RPS.NM.COM\n   [MP20]          Perras, Mickey           PERRAS@NUSC-ADA.NAVY.MIL\n   [MPM]           Mullen, M. Preston, Jr.  MULLEN@ITD.NRL.NAVY.MIL\n   [MQ7]           Quipourt, M.             ---none---\n   [MR101]         Roberson, Milton         POSTMASTER@FORUM.VA.GOV\n   [MR137]         Rackley, Mike            Rackley@CC.MSState.EDU\n   [MR152]         Raff, Malcolm            mal@BIOSYS.APLDBIO.COM\n   [MR159]         Reilly, Michael          reilly@NSL.DEC.COM\n   [MR160]         Reichling, Matthias\n                   reichling@VAX.RZ.UNI-WUERZBURG.DBP.DE\n   [MR166]         Roy, Michael             ---none---\n   [MR197]         Rose, Mark               ---none---\n   [MR198]         Rinfret, Marc            mrinfret@MATROX.COM\n   [MR29]          Russell, Mike            russell@CSC.BROWN.EDU\n   [MR78]          Rotert, Michael          Rotert@IRA.UKA.DE\n   [MRC13]         Campbell, Michael R.     ---none---\n   [MRK14]         Kaufmann, Mark R.\n                   wucs1!onemohr!mrk@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MRN6]          Newcomb, Michael\n                   mnewcomb!unmcvm.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MS101]         Szymendera, Michael      mikey@CANISIUS.EDU\n   [MS171]         Shapiro, Marc            Marc.Shapiro@C.CS.CMU.EDU\n   [MS172]         Simonians, Marina        ---none---\n   [MS195]         Shojima, Makoto          ---none---\n   [MS22]          Starner, Mark L.         starner@PRC.UNISYS.COM\n   [MS272]         Sadowski, Mike           sadowski@CAIA.WRIGHT.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 157]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nMS300\n]         Scolyer, Mark\n                   munnari!cidam.oz.au!rxxmts@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MS345]         Schleicher, Marcel       ---none---\n   [MS355]         Snir, Mark\n                   MCCCOMS%HAIFAUVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MS378]         Seguin, Mark             sysadm@PHILMTL.PHILIPS.CA\n   [MS379]         Silbernagel, Mark        ---none---\n   [MS400]         Smiley, Maria\n                   EAID-DC-IT@CASEY-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [MS9]           Schoffstall, Martin Lee  SCHOFF@PSI.COM\n   [MSA1]          Andersson, Mats S.\n                   enea!liuida!msa@seismo.CSS.GOV\n   [MSM1]          Medin, Milo              MEDIN@NSIPO.NASA.GOV\n   [MSM3]          Marshall, Mike S.        hubcap@HUBCAP.CLEMSON.EDU\n   [MSP1]          St. Paul, Mark           stpaul@NMSU.EDU\n   [MT105]         Tiberia, Marguerite      ---none---\n   [MT108]         Tadamichi, Matsuyama\n                   kddlab!soum.junet!ko@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [MT111]         Timmerman, Marcel        ---none---\n   [MT123]         Thomas, Michael          ---none---\n   [MT124]         Templeton, Marjorie      ---none---\n   [MT48]          Tokunaga, Manabu         SYSADM@IMATRON.COM\n   [MTC]           Champarnaud, M.T.\n                   mtc%frunip62.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MTF1]          Franklin, Maurice T.     mfrankl@HAFGW.PC3.AF.MIl\n   [MU7]           Urizar, Mike             dosuriza@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU\n   [MV24]          Vasoll, Mark             vasoll@A.CS.OKSTATE.EDU\n   [MV25]          Vieler, Mark             MAV@ESL.ARPA\n   [MV38]          Vachon, Mario            vachon@CRIM.CA\n   [MV41]          Vandecappelle, Marijke   cappelle@SURFNET.NL\n   [MVO1]          Van Overbeke, Mark\n                   mark%umnmor.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [MVW]           van Wolfswinkel, M.      ---none---\n   [MW135]         Widell, Mike             MWIDELL@CIM-VAX.HONEYWELL.COM\n   [MW171]         Walter, Martin\n                   mawa@SUN1.RUF.UNI-FREIBURG.DBP.DE\n   [MW176]         Whitehead, Mike\n                   cs11%primea.dundee.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [MW178]         Witt, Michael            MWITT@CSE.OGI.EDU\n   [MW180]         Wehrmeister, Mark        wehrmeis@SDSU.EDU\n   [MW196]         Willett, Michael         ---none---\n   [MW200]         Walters, Michael         MWalters@CORRAL.UWYO.EDU\n   [MW204]         Wilcox, Michael          ---none---\n   [MW213]         Williams, Maryann\n                   ASQEXLBW@WIESBADN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [MW225]         Watson, Mark             lemww@LEDGE.CC.MONASH.EDU.AU\n   [MW227]         Wong, Mark               ---none---\n   [MWS10]         Stalnaker, Michael W.    mws@APLVAX.JHUAPL.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 158]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nMWS7\n]          Sukalski, Mitchel W.     mws@LANL.GOV\n   [MY14]          Yokotsuka, M.            yokotuka%icot.jp@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [NAK2]          Kuo, Nancy A.            KUOA@GW2.HANSCOM.AF.MIL\n   [NAL]           Lann, Neil               nal@MORDOR.S1.GOV\n   [NB39]          Bonney, Norman           Andrew.Findlay@BRUNEL.AC.UK\n   [NC3]           Chiappa, Noel            JNC@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU\n   [ND22]          Danielson, Nancy         ---none---\n   [NF13]          Freed, Ned               ned@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU\n   [NG]            Gower, Neil E.           GOWER@A.ISI.EDU\n   [NG15]          Giraud, Noel             ---none---\n   [NG48]          Goetz, Norman\n                   goetz%reed.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [NH36]          Heiner, Nat              ---none---\n   [NHC]           Cuccia, Nichlos H.       cuccia@LLL-CRG.LLNL.GOV\n   [NJ]            Janakiraman, Narayanan\n                   CCSNJ%SEMASSU.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [NJB7]          Burr, Nancy Johnson      Burr@CS.WASHINGTON.EDU\n   [NJG6]          Gorsuch, Neil J.         NEIL@CPD.COM\n   [NK19]          Kaull, Nancy             NGK@MATH.AMS.COM\n   [NL35]          Lincoln, Neil            lincoln@SSESCO.COM\n   [NL39]          Lehrer, Nancy            nlehrer@ISX.COM\n   [NM31]          Mishkin, Nat             mishkin@APOLLO.COM\n   [NM37]          McNeill, Neil            neilm@SOLBOURNE.COM\n   [NM56]          Mc Loughlin, N.          mclghlnn%vax1.tcd.ie\n   [NM57]          Maddalena, Nancy         nmaddale@NRAO.EDU\n   [NMM]           Minnich, N. Michael      mminnich@HUEY.UDEL.EDU\n   [NMS5]          Sturm, Neal M.           nsturm@PILOT.NJIN.NET\n   [NN20]          Nadi, Najib              nadi@VILLANOVA.EDU\n   [NP24]          Page, Nancy              PAGEN@INDPLS-ASAFM1.ARMY.MIL\n   [NP34]          Penla, Nick              ---none---\n   [NRG4]          Gardner, Neil R.         NSC-Rob@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [NS66]          Swartz, Neil             ---none---\n   [NT12]          Todd, Neil               ist.co.uk!neil@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [NT13]          Titley, Nigel\n                   mcvax!axion.bt.co.uk!ntitley@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [NVT]           Truong, Ninh Van\n                   jgtk496%calstate.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [NW25]          Wilson, Nathan           nathan@TELEOS.COM\n   [NW30]          White, Nelson            ---none---\n   [NW33]          Withington, F. Neville   FNW@USNO01.UNSO.NAVY.MIL\n   [NY3]           Yamamoto, Nobuhito\n                   yamamoto%jpntsuku.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [OA4]           Aarreberg, Odd           ---none---\n   [OB]            Babaoglu, Ozalp          ozalp@DM.UNIBO.IT\n   [OC16]          Coggin, Ollie            ---none---\n   [OC4]           Comay, Oded\n                   A19%TAUNIVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [OD8]           Deguine, Olivier\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 159]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nmcvax!crg.bull.fr!root@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [OG14]          Grandrud, Ove            ---none---\n   [OG4]           Gremont, Olivier\n                   mcvax!inria!gipaltair-bdblues!root@seismo.CSS.GOV\n   [OHB]           Byeon, Ok Hwan\n                   chlim%gaya.seri.re.kr@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [OK6]           Khan, Osman              khan@SERI.PHILIPS.NL\n   [OM1]           Massar, Onno             NETMAN@TNO.NL\n   [OM10]          Martin, Olivier          martin@CEARN.CERN.CH\n   [OP]            Pugh, Orville            PUGHO@AFOTEC.AF.MIL\n   [OS4]           Seljeseth, Oyvind        ---none---\n   [OT3]           Tanir, Oryal             ---none---\n   [OT5]           Thomas, Odette           mmdf@KARLSRUHE-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [PA32]          Ashton, Paul             ---none---\n   [PA43]          Andreas, Passler\n                   haselbacher@EDVZ.TU-GRAX.ADA.AT\n   [PA5]           Almquist, Philip\n                   Almquist@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU\n   [PAG12]         Ganschow, Paul A.        ---none---\n   [PAG14]         Greenberg, Peter A.      ---none---\n   [PAK6]          Kaslo, Philip A.         phil@CS.ARIZONA.EDU\n   [PAN1]          Nelson, Philip A.        phil@WWU.EDU\n   [PB1]           Balyoz, Paul\n                   root%naucse.uucp@CS.ARIZONA.EDU\n   [PB13]          Beertema, Piet           piet@CWI.NL\n   [PB145]         Beck, Paul\n                   K029901%CZHRZU1A.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PB40]          Bowden, Phillip E.       BOWDENPE@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU\n   [PB6]           Berger, Peter\n                   Z10BER01%AWIIEZ11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PB67]          Boyle, Pat               boyle%ubc.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [PC116]         County, Phil\n                   munnari!latvax8.lat.oz.au!ccpc@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [PC137]         Chene, Pierre            chene@TLS-CS.CERT.FR\n   [PC138]         Cormier, Pierre\n                   S602%UQAM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PC143]         Cronin, Patrick\n                   pcronin%rcn.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [PC148]         Campbell, Peter          peter@CMLTAS.CML.OZ\n   [PC153]         Powell, Andy             A.Powell@BATH.AC.UK\n   [PCW]           Wood, C. Philip          cpw@LANL.GOV\n   [PD39]          Delaney, Pete\n                   pete%crcvax.uucp%germany.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [PD97]          Dax, Philippe            dax@ENST.ENST.FR\n   [PD98]          Davis, Paul              pauld@SCENIC.NWNEXUS.WA.COM\n   [PDB5]          Barron, Patrick D.       pat@TRANSARC.COM\n   [PDC1]          Crawford, D. Paul        ---none---\n   [PE21]          Eaton, Paul              ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 160]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nPE25\n]          Evans, Phil\n                   lcc100%prime2.bristol-poly.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [PE27]          Eddy, Patricia           EDDY@STJUDE.ORG\n   [PEM4]          McKenney, Paul E.        mckenney@SRI.COM\n   [PF64]          Findon, Phil             FINDONPJ@UK.AC.ASTON\n   [PF68]          Fischer, Paul            ---none---\n   [PFK]           King, Peter F.           peter_king@NEXT.COM\n   [PFS2]          Sass, Paul F.            SASS@FOTLAN5.FOTLAN.ARMY.MIL\n   [PG101]         Goldberg, Phil           ---none---\n   [PG108]         Gouthier, Paole\n                   PGOUTHIER%MARAUT.UUCP@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [PG40]          Gillis, Paul             paulg@USAGE.UNSW.OZ\n   [PG62]          Gloor, Peter\n                   gloor%csghsg5a.bitnet@CUMYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PG76]          Greenberg, Peter\n                   hombre!imclone!peter@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [PG97]          Groff, Paul              groff@WESTFORD.CCUR.COM\n   [PGA1]          Apley, Phillip G.        ---none---\n   [PGL]           Love, E. Paul            loveep@SDS.SDSC.EDU\n   [PGM]           Milazzo, Paul G.         MILAZZO@BBN.COM\n   [PH106]         Halsey, Pauline          ---none---\n   [PH111]         Hunter, Peter            ---none---\n   [PH120]         Harrison, Peter\n                   petera%cdcentr.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PH121]         Homer, Philip            ---none---\n   [PH122]         Haskett, Philip\n                   CC13%SDSUMUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PH45]          Ho, Peter                HO@HAC2ARPA.HAC.COM\n   [PH73]          Hubbard, Paul            paul@OXY.EDU\n   [PHB4]          Berens, Peter H.         phb@APUNIX.COM\n   [PHK]           Kamp, Poul-Henning       ---none---\n   [PHN2]          Nguyen, Paul H.          nguyen@MSDDNPENT.AF.MIL\n   [PI7]           Isomaki, Pekka           pisomaki@OPMVAX.KPO.FI\n   [PJ29]          Jensen, Peter            JENSEN@JARSUN1.ZONE1.COM\n   [PJ35]          Jaegle, Peter            peja@ISE.FHG.DE\n   [PJ40]          Jennings, Paul\n                   pjennings@BATHURST.CHASTURT.EDU.AU\n   [PJB27]         Brainard, Philip J.      brainard@DAN.APGEA.ARMY.MIL\n   [PJF7]          Feldner, Patrick J.      feldner@IITMAX.IIT.EDU\n   [PJM24]         McGuinness, Patrick J.\n                   MCGUINNESS@WESTPOINT-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [PJS22]         Sivo, Peter J.           peter@KEY.COM\n   [PJV]           Vickers, Paul J.         paulv@LOGITEK.CO.UK\n   [PK]            Kirstein, Peter T.       KIRSTEIN@CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [PK19]          Karr, Penny              PKARR@BBN.COM\n   [PK28]          Karn, Phil               KARN@THUMPER.BELLCORE.COM\n   [PK32]          Keller, Paul             pk%sbsvax.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [PK69]          Kostenbader, Phil\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 161]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nkostenba%lafayett.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PK81]          Kanaitis, Peter          ---none---\n   [PL37]          Laforgue, Pierre         laforgue@IMAG.FR\n   [PLH8]          Haymon, Paula Langford\n                   apctrc!bigmac!haymon@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [PM115]         Myers, Patrick\n                   p.j.myers%mcc.ac.uk@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PM140]         Manske, Paul             ---none---\n   [PM155]         Mazzarelli, Paul         PM@CAMEX.COM\n   [PM177]         McGillan, Patrick        uwssup@UB.D.UMN.EDU\n   [PM178]         Merdian, Peter\n                   merdian@RUS.UNI-STUTTGART.DBP.DE\n   [PM180]         Moore, Paul\n                   paulm%BULLHM.UUCP@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [PM37]          Melvin, Phyllis          phyllis@BOEING.COM\n   [PM72]          Mies, Paul\n                   unido!gmdzi!mies@seismo.CSS.GOV\n   [PM81]          Marshall, Peter          peter.marshall@UWO.CA\n   [PMH3]          Henderson, P. Marshall   ---none---\n   [PML1]          Lashley, Patrick M.      cohesive!kla!pat@SUN.COM\n   [PN13]          Nunley, Pat              NUNLEY@SACEMNET.AF.MIL\n   [PN16]          Noack, Patricia          ---none---\n   [PN23]          Nellessen, Peter         CRTVAX!PN@SPICE.CS.CMU.EDU\n   [PNP2]          Phair, Pamela W.         ---none---\n   [PNW]           Wan, Peter N.            peter%msdc.uucp@GATECH.EDU\n   [PO16]          O'Regan, Paddy           ---none---\n   [PO2]           O'Brien, Patrick G.\n                   asqe-y-v-kcg@GOEPPINGEN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [POJ]           Jakobsson, Per-Ove       ---none---\n   [PP14]          Pomes, Paul              paul@UXC.CSO.UIUC.EDU\n   [PP36]          Patton, Paul             ---none---\n   [PP62]          Peccararo, Paul          ---none---\n   [PP77]          Park, Philippe           ppark@BBN.COM\n   [PPM2]          Murphy, Patrick P.       pmurphy@NRAO.EDU\n   [PR100]         Radig, Peter             radig!peter@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [PR102]         Rieckmann, Peter         ---none---\n   [PR79]          Reid, Phil               2D49@LINK.COM\n   [PR99]          Rodrigo, Paul\n                   rodrigo%col01.dec@DECWRL.DEC.COM\n   [PRT2]          Taylor, Paul R.          taylor@OSWEGO.OSWEGO.EDU\n   [PS173]         Sobering, Peter          trin3@VAX1.TRINCOLL.EDU\n   [PS191]         Sharma, Pradeep\n                   sharma@ROHINI.TELECOMM.UMN.EDU\n   [PS204]         St. Clair, Phil          ---none---\n   [PS216]         Stephenson, Paul         ---none---\n   [PS27]          Spilling, Paal           SPILLING@A.ISI.EDU\n   [PSR]           Rarey, Paul S.\n                   prarey@SSF-SYS.GLOBAL-MIS.DHL.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 162]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nPSS1\n]          Schwarz, Phil S.         PHIL@YODA.CEO.DG.COM\n   [PT23]          Tomb, Peter\n                   ptomb%umass.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PT55]          Teegarden, Paul\n                   egtlspr@CCS.CSUSCC.CALSTATE.EDU\n   [PT62]          Turner, Peter            pjt@AMOS.DAR.CSIRO.AU\n   [PT63]          Thublin, Paul            ---none---\n   [PV23]          Valotto, Peter J.        ---none---\n   [PW37]          Woods, Paul              ---none---\n   [PW49]          Ware, Pete               esosun!pete@SEISMO.CSS.GOV\n   [PW83]          Weselmann, Peter\n                   unido!tuhhco!rv-pw@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [PW88]          Winker, Peter\n                   winker%ds0mpi11.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [PW96]          Wilson, Peter            pjw@FRC.MAF.GOVT.NZ\n   [PW98]          Wick, Peter              wick@RZ.UNI-KIEL.DBP.DE\n   [PWB12]         Bernier, Paul W.         BERNIER@CTRON.COM\n   [PWM]           Murphy, Patrick W.\n                   pmurphy@ISDMNL.MENLO.USGS.GOV\n   [PWP2]          Phillips, Paul W.        PHILLIPS@EDWARDS-2060.AF.MIL\n   [PY17]          Young, Peter             ---none---\n   [PYC]           Chen, Pin-Yee            chen@ENCORE.COM\n   [QF]            Fennessy, Quentin\n                   quentin%hub.umb.edu@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [RA11]          Adams, Rick              rick@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RA145]         Ahti, Reijo              jjk@TUT.FI\n   [RA17]          Albrightson, Robert      ALBRIGHT@NISC.JVNC.NET\n   [RA62]          Aschenbrenner, Rex       Rex@CGI.COM\n   [RA66]          Antonorsi, Richard       ---none---\n   [RA94]          Allison, Roger           ---none---\n   [RAD15]         Disque, Robert A.        disque@CAD.USNA.MIL\n   [RAF4]          Fischer, Richard         fischer@OCFMAIL.OCF.LLNL.GOV\n   [RAG36]         Gilmour, R. A.\n                   R.Gilmour%vme.glasgow.ac.uk@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RAH64]         Hernandez, Robert A.     Bob@PENTAGON-AI.ARMY.MIL\n   [RAJ3]          Johnson, Richard A.      RAJ@ICS.UCI.EDU\n   [RAJ8]          Jones, Richard A.        jones@COLO.COLORADO.EDU\n   [RAK12]         Kawin, Richard A.        kawin@STAT.BERKELEY.EDU\n   [RAM57]         Mann, Rex A.             ---none---\n   [RAR22]         Ridder, Robert A.        ---none---\n   [RAR23]         Ragosa, Richard A.       ---none---\n   [RAY4]          Yamin, Raymond A.        ---none---\n   [RB218]         Bentson, Randolph\n                   bentson%colostate.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [RB219]         Bybee, Robert            ---none---\n   [RB221]         Blachley, Rick           ---none---\n   [RB319]         Buchholz, Randy          ---none---\n   [RB365]         Belics, Rob              ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 163]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nRB383\n]         Barzel, Ron              barzel@NOAAPMEL.GOV\n   [RB386]         Brown, Randolph          postmaster@KEVEX.COM\n   [RB520]         Bonham, Robert           ---none---\n   [RB536]         Brown, Randall           ---none---\n   [RB548]         Brazile, Robert          BRAZILE@IEX.COM\n   [RB577]         Bilson, Rod\n                   munnari!diemen.cc.utas.oz.au!rod@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RB578]         Boelma, Rick\n                   mcvax!rivm!ccerick@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RBB2]          Butler, Robert B.        rbutler@YUMA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [RBP11]         Park, Robert B.          ---none---\n   [RBW]           Wales, Richard B.        WALES@CS.UCLA.EDU\n   [RC113]         Collier, Renee           ---none---\n   [RC234]         Cape, Robert\n                   r.cape%stpaul.ncr.com@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [RC241]         Cairns, Rob              ---none---\n   [RC247]         Chambers, Rita\n                   CHAMBERS%CEBAFVAX.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RC278]         Ching, Robert            rching@IBM.COM\n   [RC29]          French, Ruth E.          rFrench@WSMR-EMH08.ARMY.MIL\n   [RC306]         Cawley, Robert           rjc@ATOM.OZ\n   [RC309]         Cunningham, Robert       ---none---\n   [RC321]         Cannada, Rick            ---none---\n   [RCD13]         Drye, Robert C.          Rob.Drye@DARTMOUTH.EDU\n   [RCL1]          Lang, Ralph C.           2155CSDOA@SACEMNET.AF.MIL\n   [RCM9]          McQueen, Robert C.\n                   SIT.MCQUEEN@CU20B.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU\n   [RD104]         Dirlewanger, Roland      rd@CHORUS.FR\n   [RD108]         Dalhoff, Randal\n                   GR.RFD%ISUMVS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RD187]         Decoste, Ronald          decoste@CC.UMONTREAL.CA\n   [RD225]         Dehn, Ron                ---none---\n   [RD227]         Dinwiddie, Ronald        ---none---\n   [RD231]         Duncan, Robert           ---none---\n   [RD232]         Doelz, Reinhard          doelz@URZ.UNIBAS.CH\n   [RD235]         Davoli, Renzo            renzo@DM.UNIBO.IT\n   [RD240]         Dunbar, Richard\n                   postmaster@DFTSRV.GSFC.NASA.GOV\n   [RD91]          Dussaulx, Regine         ---none---\n   [RDB30]         Bailey, Robert D.        avonsc@ANKARA.AF.MIL\n   [RDC36]         Carr, Robert D.\n                   c130rdc@UTARLG.ARL.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [RDG12]         Garvie, Robert D.\n                   garvie%grumpy.dnet@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU\n   [RDM25]         Marzusch, Ralph-Diether\n                   marzusch%rz.informatik.uni-hamburg.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [RDQ]           Quigley, Roger D.\n                   quigley@SRI-LEWIS.ITSTD.SRI.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 164]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nRE18\n]          Elz, Robert              kre@MUNNARI.OZ.AU\n   [RE22]          Enas, R.                 cdc-ddn@DDN2.ARPA\n   [RE73]          Evans, Robert\n                   robert%computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk@NSF.RELAY.AC.UK\n   [RE77]          Ebert, Rick              rick@IPAC.CALTECH.EDU\n   [RE84]          Esqueda, Robert          ---none---\n   [REA3]          Amos, Robert E.          amos@CRDEC3.APGEA.ARMY.MIL\n   [REB50]         Bruccoleri, Robert E.    BRUC@SQUIBB.COM\n   [RED22]         Donnelly, Robert  E.     ---none---\n   [RER20]         Rogers, Robert E.        ---none---\n   [RES17]         Strout, Robert E., II\n                   ssiwest!resii@LLL-LCC.LLNL.GOV\n   [RES70]         Seastrom, Robert E.      RS@EDDIE.MIT.EDU\n   [RF130]         Funke, Rainer\n                   unido!pbinfo!leo.uni-paderborn.de!rainer@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RF50]          Fry, Roger\n                   MSITD18@PENTAGON-BCN.ARMY.MIL\n   [RF57]          Fajman, Roger            RAF@CU.NIH.GOV\n   [RFD1]          Donnelly, Robert F.      DONNELLY@PICA.ARMY.MIL\n   [RFS2]          Stanonik, Ron F.         STANONIK@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL\n   [RG12]          Gulbranson, Roger        roger@UX.ACSS.UMN.EDU\n   [RG188]         Glowka, Ron              ---none---\n   [RG225]         Glaschick, Rainer\n                   unido!nixpbe!glaschick@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RG228]         Gill, Rick               ---none---\n   [RG92]          Gopstein, Richard        soleil!gopstein@RUTGERS.EDU\n   [RGB14]         Bookbinder, Robert G.    rgb@LAMONT.LDGO.COLUMBIA.EDU\n   [RGH21]         Hesser, Robert G.        ---none---\n   [RH164]         Hoffmann, Ron            hoffmann@MIT.EDU\n   [RH227]         Holt, Ron                RON@ICONSYS.UU.NET\n   [RH260]         Haddick, Robert          ROBERT@NIC.DDN.MIL\n   [RH271]         Hedberg, Roland          roland@UMU.SE\n   [RH278]         Helbig, Russell          ---none---\n   [RH286]         Hagan, Randy             randy@PIKES.COLORADO.EDU\n   [RH300]         Roberts, Hal             hrobert@FRG.BBN.COM\n   [RH310]         Hardy, Richard D.        33CGXPP@SACEMNET.AF.MIL\n   [RH315]         Hook, Richard            ---none---\n   [RH326]         Harvey, Russ             UCSD!NCR-S\n   [RH336]         Hayden, Robert\n                   haydenrr!snycanba.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RH337]         Horton, Randy\n                   hortondr!snycobba.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RH338]         Hall, Rand               rand@merrimack.EDU\n   [RH345]         Huber, Rich              ---none---\n   [RH5]           Hobby, Russell           RDHOBBY@UCDAVIS.UCDAVIS.EDU\n   [RH6]           Hinden, Robert           HINDEN@BBN.COM\n   [RH60]          Hale, Roger              ROGER@SST.LL.MIT.EDU\n   [RHC3]          Cole, Robert H.          rhc%otter@HPLABS.HP.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 165]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nRHG\n]           Gumpertz, Richard H.     rhg@CPS.COM\n   [RHM11]         Moreno, Robert H.        rmoreno@WSMR-EMH82.ARMY.MIL\n   [RHS16]         Sweed, Richard H.        SWEED@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL\n   [RHS4]          Schwartz, Ralph H.       ---none---\n   [RI]            Ip, Roque                ---none---\n   [RJ115]         Jul-Hansen, Rene         rjh02@BK.DK\n   [RJ120]         Jacobson, Richard        jacobson@TACOM-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\n   [RJ127]         James, Rita              mmdf@MUNICH-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [RJ134]         Jordak, Russell          techmgr@amex.com\n   [RJA21]         Aiken, Robert J.         AIKEN@NERSC.GOV\n   [RJB3]          Bruce, Richard J.        SAC.42SPS@E.ISI.EDU\n   [RJB67]         Betterini, Raymond J.    ray@HRI.COM\n   [RJH33]         Hickman, Robert J.       ---none---\n   [RJH37]         Hendley, R.J.\n                   HendleyRJ%CS.BHAM.AC.UK@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RJH66]         Henry, Robert J.         ---none---\n   [RJL3]          Liebschutz, Robert J.    ROB@OC.RJL.COM\n   [RJL49]         Lukens, Robert J.        rjl@CHES.CS.VIMS.EDU\n   [RJP23]         Plesset, Robert J.       RJP@SARNOFF.COM\n   [RJY2]          Yount, Russell J.        rjy@MED.PIT.EDU\n   [RK146]         Kidwell, Richard         RKIDWELL@STSCI.EDU\n   [RK154]         Kerpen, Ron\n                   munnari!mineng.oz.au!kerpen@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RK168]         Kieffer, Rom             Kieffer@UCNET.UCALGARY.CA\n   [RK174]         Kubik, Randy             rkubik@BBN.COM\n   [RK51]          Kisielewski, Richard     ---none---\n   [RK75]          Kocian, Ray              kocian@SDR.SLB.COM\n   [RKJ]           Justice, Robin K.        RKJ@SFI.SANTAFE.EDU\n   [RKS1]          Stodola, Robert K.       STODOLA@FCCC.EDU\n   [RKS5]          Shafer, Robert K.        bshafer@SERVER.CARL.ORG\n   [RL104]         Lynch, Rich\n                   U10CA%WVNVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RL180]         Levow, Roy\n                   levowrb%servax.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RL190]         Lee, Ray                 LEE@REMIS-WP.AF.MIL\n   [RL202]         Lindner, Ralf            ---none---\n   [RL224]         Letts, Richard           R.J.Letts@UK.AC.SALFORD\n   [RL225]         Liu, Richard             liu@CHIVA.TRL.OZ.AU\n   [RL226]         Linton, Richard          rlinton@TCS.COM\n   [RLB3]          Broersma, Ronald L.      ron@NOSC.MIL\n   [RLC20]         Clover, Robert L.        SIMNET-WASHINGTON@A.ISI.EDU\n   [RLG36]         Gifford, Rick L.         ---none---\n   [RLH94]         Harris, Robert L.        ---none---\n   [RLP30]         Paulson, Ray L.          ---none---\n   [RLP39]         Rupp, Richard L., Jr.\n                   rich%dss.med.nyu.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RLR23]         Reyenga, Robert L.\n                   REYENGA@WESTPOINT-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 166]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nRLR36\n]         Rawlins, Ray L.          ray@CC.USU.EDU\n   [RLR4]          Reed, Robert L.          bobr@DBM.MPC.AF.MIL\n   [RLR46]         Ray, Ron L.              rlr@JHUVMS.HCF.JHU.EDU\n   [RLR57]         Riedinger, Randal L.     RIEDINGER@GENCORP.COM\n   [RLS115]        Schwartz, Randal L.      merlyn@IWARP.INTEL.COM\n   [RLS6]          Smith, Ronald L.         COINS@A.ISI.EDU\n   [RLU3]          Ullmann, Robert L.       Ariel@RELAY.PRIME.COM\n   [RLY1]          Young, Ronald L.         ron@UNSVAX.NEVADA.EDU\n   [RLZ3]          Zort, Robert L., Jr.     ZORT@UU.PSI.COM\n   [RM120]         McCarthy, Richard\n                   SP0003@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU\n   [RM125]         McCorkle, Ray            ray@NUWES-M1.NAVY.MIL\n   [RM176]         Merry, Rod               ---none---\n   [RM177]         Morrison, Robert         morrison@CORRAL.UWYO.EDU\n   [RM213]         Mohr, Rupert\n                   UNIDO!RMI!ZENTRALE@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RM256]         Morales, Robert          R_Morales@MAIL.UWA.OZ.AU\n   [RM300]         Moulder, Raymond         hahnnsc@RAMSTEIN2-EMH.AF.MIL\n   [RM306]         Minder, Ruedi            ---none---\n   [RM320]         McGraw, Robert           rmcgraw@SUNSPOT.NOAO.EDU\n   [RM395]         Martin, Rick             rickm@UMB.EDU\n   [RM8]           Marantz, Roy             MARANTZ@KLINZHAI.RUTGERS.EDU\n   [RMC1]          Chavez, R. Martin\n                   chavez@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU\n   [RMD1]          Devonshire, Robert M.    DEVONSHIRE@CCSC-VAX.AF.MIL\n   [RMD26]         Deering, Richard M.      ---none---\n   [RMF17]         Fujii, Roger M.\n                   rmf%media@PENTAGON-AI.ARMY.MIL\n   [RMF2]          Frankston, Robert M.     bobf@LOTUS.COM\n   [RML28]         Lofink, Raymond M.\n                   lofink@UNIX.CIS.PITTSBURGH.EDU\n   [RMS8]          Soley, Richard Mark      SOLEY@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU\n   [RN25]          Negaret, Roger           negaret@CICB.FR\n   [RN29]          Nomura, Ryo\n                   nomura%nttkb.ntt.junet%ntt-20@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU\n   [RN58]          Nienhueser, Rolf\n                  910003%DOSUNI.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RN67]          Newman, Rob              ---none---\n   [RNB5]          Berlinger, Robert N.     naftoli@AECOM.YU.EDU\n   [RNM1]          MacKenzie, R. Neil       cle%rsre.mod.uk@RELAY.MOD.UK\n   [RO44]          Obendorf, Reinhard\n                   ZZOBI%DHVRRZN1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RO58]          O'Brien, Richard\n                   mcvax!planet.bt.co.uk!rob@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RO67]          Ogden, Richard           rogden@BBN.COM\n   [RO68]          Owen, Robert\n                   owen%hslrswi.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RO70]          Obrien, Ray              ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 167]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nRP191\n]         Penumalli, Reddy         ---none---\n   [RP210]         Preston, Rick            unet!flp@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV\n   [RP211]         Paulson, Ragnar          ---none---\n   [RP230]         Pinson, Rick             ---none---\n   [RP238]         Peck, Robert             ---none---\n   [RP239]         Pettersen, Roar          ---none---\n   [RP240]         Perini, Richard\n                   munnari!rilin.ci.oz.au!rl@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RP241]         Payne, Richard           ---none---\n   [RP251]         Papp, Raymond            ---none---\n   [RP88]          Perry, Russ              RUSS@CSUFRESNO.EDU\n   [RP94]          Peglar, Rob              ---none---\n   [RPD5]          Drzyzgula, Robert P.     rcd@FED.FRB.GOV\n   [RPP]           Pendleton, Ronald P.     PENDLETON@CCF3.NRL.NAVY.MIL\n   [RQ5]           Quigley, Robert          BOB@YSUB.YSU.EDU\n   [RR156]         Rizzio, Rioh             ---none---\n   [RR163]         Ronke, Rainer\n                   steffens%zedat.fu-berlin.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [RR18]          Reisor, Ron              REISOR@UDEL.EDU\n   [RR181]         Ross, Rollo              rollo.ross@SAIT.EDU.AU\n   [RR184]         Robak, Richard           Robak@C3PO.SM-ALC.AF.MIL\n   [RR193]         Rupp, Richard            megatek!rupp@UCSD.EDU\n   [RR26]          Reilly, William R.\n                   REILLY@INDPLS-ASAFM1.ARMY.MIL\n   [RR33]          Romanelli, Richard       tabdd@APG-EMH5.APG.ARMY.MIL\n   [RR77]          Roles, Roger             ---none---\n   [RR97]          Russell, Robb\n                   ROBB%DUVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RRR1]          Rock, Robert R.          RRRock@X102C.HARRIS-ATD.COM\n   [RS253]         Saccoman, Remi\n                   remi%framentec.FR@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RS255]         Sinnhuber, Roger\n                   rogers%cogs.sussex.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [RS348]         Spellman, Robert         RSpellman@BAT.BATES.EDU\n   [RS393]         Svartstrom, Ralf         ---none---\n   [RS401]         Sarran, Richard          sarran@TSCA.ISTC.SRI.COM\n   [RS406]         Skalsky, Rick            aaai@KSL.STANFORD.EDU\n   [RS409]         Sassoon, Richard         ---none---\n   [RS414]         St. Pierre, Robert       stpierre@ULOWELL.EDU\n   [RS479]         Siddall, Robert          ---none---\n   [RS486]         Sinnarajah, Ravi         RAVI@UMUC.UMD.EDU\n   [RS487]         Sutterfield, Robert      bob@MORNINGSTAR.COM\n   [RS489]         Stafford, Randy          ---none---\n   [RS49]          Strich, Ronald           SSDS@BLACKBIRD.AFIT.AF.MIL\n   [RS502]         Sondaar, Roelof          ---none---\n   [RS95]          Sherwin, Russ            ---none---\n   [RSD2]          Dixon, Robert S.\n                   ts0400@%OHSTVMA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 168]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nRSH\n]           Hammel, Randall S.       rsh@SUPER.ORG\n   [RSM1]          Miles, Robert S.         rsm@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM\n   [RT114]         Toussaint, Riley         TOUSSAINT@NUSC.NAVY.MIL\n   [RT135]         Torres, Robert           HADMIN@LAKEHTH-PIV.AF.MIL\n   [RT140]         Thirlby, Rob\n                   rob%suna.lut.ac.uk@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RT142]         Turner, Robert           ---none---\n   [RT144]         Trepos, Raymond          trepos@IRISA.FR\n   [RT147]         Tribble, Richard         ---none---\n   [RT148]         Thornton, Ronald         thornton@QM7501.GENRAD.COM\n   [RT155]         Tripamer, Raymond\n                   ray%jimi.cs.unlv.edu@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [RT182]         Thibodeaux, Rich         IPCRPT@SUCLA.CORP.HARRIS.COM\n   [RT184]         Thompson, Robert\n                   munnari!cancol.oz.au!rit@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RT60]          Thigpen, Robert\n                   decvax!savax!thigpen@UCBVAX.Berkeley.EDU\n   [RT64]          Tucker, Ray\n                   RTUCKER@REDSTONE-EMH2.ARMY.MIL\n   [RTD]           Drinkard, Richard T.\n                   Drinkard@GARFLD.MSFC.NASA.GOV\n   [RU1]           Ulrik, Rosen             ---none---\n   [RV32]          Volk, Ruediger           rv%unido@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [RV61]          van der Hauw, Rene       ---none---\n   [RVDA]          van den Assem, Rene      tnofelr6@ET.TUDELFT.NL\n   [RW112]         Winkens, Ralf-Peter\n                   WINKENS%DMARUM8.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [RW128]         Waldron, Robert W.       ---none---\n   [RW15]          Wahl, Roger A.           datadog@TAEGU-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [RW206]         Wilson, Ric              ---none---\n   [RW211]         Wegner, Rick             rwegner@WSUVMS1.WSU.EDU\n   [RW237]         Woodworth, Robert        sytek!texx@SUN.COM\n   [RW24]          Wildgruber, Rudi         rw@PCSBST.PCS.COM\n   [RW247]         Wood, Robert             RWOOD@CHARLIE.USD.EDU\n   [RW45]          Waffle, Ron              waffle@SM-EDS.AF.MIL\n   [RW9]           Watson, Richard          watson@UTADNX.CC.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [RW96]          Warren, Richard          RWARREN@AAMRL.AF.MIL\n   [RWA15]         Altheide, Richard W.     C0004@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU\n   [RWC34]         Camerer, Robert W.       rwc116@MINSY-POE.ARPA\n   [RWF21]         Floyd, Ruth W.           ruth@P9955.WLU.EDU\n   [RWH29]         Hayes, Rodney W.         HQMACSCO@SCOTT-PIV-3.AF.MIL\n   [RWH36]         Hartle, Robert W.        ---none---\n   [RWH5]          Henry, Robert W.         rwh@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU\n   [RWJ3]          Johnson, Roscoe W.       15NSC@HICKAM-EMH.AF.MIL\n   [RWT2]          Tinker, Robert W.        tinker@DTRC.DT.NAVY.MIL\n   [RZ2]           Zamparo, Roberto         roberto@TVT-F.SE\n   [SA]            Allen, Scott             ---none---\n   [SA21]          Atlas, Stephen           SATLAS@BBN.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 169]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nSA42\n]          Arnett, Sid              ---none---\n   [SA47]          Ayers, Stephen           ---none---\n   [SA65]          Alexander, Steve         stevea@i88.isc.com\n   [SA72]          Aoshima, Shigeru         ---none---\n   [SA87]          Smisek, Anthony          asmisek@BBN.COM\n   [SA94]          Alexiou, Stergios        alexiou@ARIADNE.GR\n   [SA99]          Amerige, Stephen         ---none---\n   [SAA]           Adamec, Stephen A., Jr.  adamec@BRL.MIL\n   [SAB17]         Baird, Scott A.          ---none---\n   [SAJ1]          Joseph, Samuel A.        SAJ@TARPIT.UUCP\n   [SAL27]         Longo, Stepehn A.        LONGO@ACA.LASALLE.EDU\n   [SAS49]         Smith, Scott A.          netadmin@WORMS-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [SB152]         Boyles, Steve            wingtcf@RAMSTEIN2-EMH.AF.MIL\n   [SB167]         Brown, Syngen            syngen@UX.KINGSTON.AC.UK\n   [SB185]         Bunger, Sam              ---none---\n   [SB201]         Burgess, Steven          sburgess@CARLETON.EDU\n   [SB205]         Barnes, Simon\n                   barnes%scrsu1%sdr.slb.com@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [SB206]         Biesbroeck, Stephan      stephan@CS.KULEUVEN.AC.BE\n   [SB221]         Bamberg, Severin         ---none---\n   [SB228]         Burns, Steve             ---none---\n   [SB230]         Bartram, Scott           SCOTT@KEYSEC.KSE.COM\n   [SB236]         Blandford, Scott         ---none---\n   [SB258]         Bernhardsen, Svein       ---none---\n   [SB28]          Bradner, Scott           SOB@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU\n   [SB90]          Brady, Sean              brady@DCN9.ARPA\n   [SB98]          Barber, Stan             SOB@BCM.TMC.EDU\n   [SBB9]          Burdick, Scott B.\n                   SBBUR%CONNCOLL.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [SBH4]          Heidt, Samuel B.\n                   syssbh%gsuvm1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [SBW4]          Whidden, Samuel B.       sbw@MATH.AMS.COM\n   [SC136]         Carter, Sam              carter@ENSUN.CSS.GOV\n   [SC139]         Corbett, Stanley A.      SAC@ASIF1.ARPA\n   [SC143]         Cliffe, Steve\n                   munnari!wolfen.cc.uow.oz.au!steve@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [SC193]         Crumb, Steve             scrumb@CORP.MOT.COM\n   [SC196]         Cory, Sharryn\n                   ts7049@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU\n   [SC197]         Campbell, Steve          scampbell@BBN.COM\n   [SC3]           Casner, Steve            CASNER@ISI.EDU\n   [SC59]          Campbell, Stephen        Steve.Campbell@DARTMOUTH.EDU\n   [SC81]          Callahan, Sean           sean@ELXSI.CALTECH.EDU\n   [SCB12]         Blair, Steven C.         sblair@SYNOPTICS.COM\n   [SCG]           Gruenke, Stephen C.      NSC-PENS@DDN3.DCA.MIL\n   [SCT2]          Tollbom, S. Cullen       d39080@PNLG.PNL.GOV\n   [SD131]         Doetterl, Siegfried\n                   mmdf@GRAFENWOEHR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 170]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nSD134\n]         Dang, Susan              dang%shell.uucp@SUN.COM\n   [SD139]         Decker, Sharan\n                   sharan@MICKEY.NIC.KINGSTON.IBM.COM\n   [SD78]          Donegan, Steve           ---none---\n   [SDD8]          Derry, Stephen D.        sdd@UXV.LARC.NASA.GOV\n   [SDF5]          Freyder, Steven\n                   freyder%cpva.span@SDS.SDSC.EDU\n   [SDM8]          Martin, Scott D.\n                   Martin@FRANKFURT-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [SE15]          Estrich, Scott           ---none---\n   [SE31]          Eldridge, Steve\n                   eldridge@ALDERAAN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM\n   [SE49]          Elias, Steve\n                   spdcc!eli@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU\n   [SE7]           Ellis, Billy             ---none---\n   [SE8]           Emery, Sean              ---none---\n   [SEC2]          Chichester, Susan E.\n                   SUE%GENESEO.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [SEL10]         Logcher, Suzanne         logcher@DECVAX.DEC.COM\n   [SEM18]         Mendoza, Sonja E.        mendoza@WSMR-EMH85.ARMY.MIL\n   [SF34]          Fenstermacher, Scott     scott@WMVM1.CC.WM.EDU\n   [SF41]          Fogel, Steve\n                   SFOGEL!MTCS!MTXINU@UCBARPA.Berkeley.EUD\n   [SF46]          Fountain, Steven         stevef@MATHER1.AF.MIL\n   [SF59]          Fulcomer, Sam            sgf@CSC.BROWN.EDU\n   [SF76]          Finch, Scott             FINCHSA@ASD.WPAFB.AF.MIL\n   [SFJ]           Johnston, Scott F.       ---none---\n   [SFP]           Parr, Steven Franklin    sfp@APLCOMM.JHUAPL.EDU\n   [SFW1]          Watson, Scott F.         scott@HEIM.GLENDALE.CA.US\n   [SG1]           Grandi, Steve            grandi@NOAO.EDU\n   [SG140]         Grimm, Steven            koreth@SPUD.HYPERION.COM\n   [SG144]         Gumpf, Shirley           SYSTEM@CCISD2.CCF.ORG\n   [SG146]         Gerraty, Simon\n                   sjg%sun0.melb.bull.oz.au@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [SG147]         Gruber, Shmuel\n                   CLGB100%BGUNVE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [SG154]         Gammill, Susan           ---none---\n   [SG58]          Garrett, Spencer         srg@QUICK.COM\n   [SG68]          Goodman, Steve           manager@SPOOL.MU.EDU\n   [SG83]          Garwood, Steve           ---none---\n   [SG88]          Gai, Silvano\n                   silvano%itopoli.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [SGC]           Chipman, Stephen G.      CHIPMAN@BBN.COM\n   [SGM4]          Goodman, Steven M.       steven@LAKESYS.LAKESYS.COM\n   [SGR1]          Roediger, Steve G.       ---none---\n   [SH1]           Hollenbaugh, Sheila      shollen@SPOTS.WRIGHT.EDU\n   [SH160]         Hung, Saneming           ---none---\n   [SH162]         Hubert, Steve            hubert@CAC.Washington.EDU\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 171]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nSH175\n]         Hagnell, Staffan         ---none---\n   [SH33]          Henry, S. Lee            master@NEMS.DT.NAVY.MIL\n   [SH37]          Heker, Sergio            HEKER@NISC.JVNC.NET\n   [SH47]          Hallstrom, Steve\n                   SteveH@BLAKE.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU\n   [SH71]          Herber, Steve            herber@ANDY.BGSU.EDU\n   [SHB]           Blumenthal, Steven H.    BLUMENTHAL@BBN.COM\n   [SI16]          Ingate, Shane            ingate@seismo.CSS.GOV\n   [SI8]           Ilnicki, Slawomir        ---none---\n   [SJ28]          Jensen, Soren            SERGEJ@DIKU.DK\n   [SJ33]          Johnson, Sharon          SJohnson.pa@XEROX.COM\n   [SJ50]          Jacobs, Stephen          jacobss@IMO-UVAX1.DCA.MIL\n   [SJ55]          Jacob, Stephen           sjacob@LOGNET1.AF.MIL\n   [SJ65]          Johnson, Peggy           mmdf@NUERNBERG-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [SJC22]         Corso, Steven J.         ---none---\n   [SJG17]         Gunderson, Steven J.     NCELVAX!STEVE@NOSC.MIL\n   [SJG2]          Gutridge, Steve          ---none---\n   [SJK1]          Kramer, Scott J.\n                   pixar!nil@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU\n   [SJL]           Lucks, Steven J.         ---none---\n   [SJM9]          Mahler, Stephen J.       mahler@USL.EDU\n   [SJP10]         Piatz, Steven J.         piatz@SP.UNISYS.COM\n   [SJP18]         Punnoose, Sunil J.       sunil@OYSTER.SMC.EDU\n   [SJS11]         Schroeder, Steven J.\n                   SJS%PSUVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [SK102]         Kaplan, Scott            ---none---\n   [SK119]         Katerkamp, Stefan\n                   stefan@INFORMATIK.RWTH-AACHEN.DE\n   [SL122]         Lynne, Stuart            sl@WIMSEY.BC.CA\n   [SL129]         Lange, Ssgt              ---none---\n   [SL135]         Legrys, Scott            ---none---\n   [SL2]           Leviseur, Sean           ---none---\n   [SL47]          Laube, Sheldon\n                   cfisun!shel@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU\n   [SL55]          Leaviseur, Sean          SJL%UKC.AC.UK@CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [SL60]          Linnemann, Stefan        ---none---\n   [SL70]          Levy, Stuart             slevy@UC.MSC.UMN.EDU\n   [SL97]          Lee, Sang                ---none---\n   [SLH19]         Howell, Steven L.        showell@NSWC-WO.ARPA\n   [SLV4]          Vandenburg, Steven L.\n                   ASQJ-NIC-01@ZAMA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [SM10]          Morrison, Stuart         ---none---\n   [SM111]         Mandell, Stewart         mandell@BN1.ARPA\n   [SM137]         Morgan, Scott            smorgan@ARIEL.UNM.EDU\n   [SM157]         McBride, Sam\n                   mcbride%niehs.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [SM164]         Milton, Scott            root@CSIS.OZ.AU\n   [SM188]         Moss, Stephen            ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 172]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nSM197\n]         Miller, Scott            ---none---\n   [SM214]         McDonald, Scott          ---none---\n   [SM217]         Matsuda, Shigeyuki       matu@RD.NTTDATA.JP\n   [SM218]         Martinez, Cid            ---none---\n   [SM221]         Momchilovich, Steve      ---none---\n   [SM235]         Mittur, Shyam            ---none---\n   [SM6]           McLinden, Sean\n                   MCLINDEN@CADRE.DSL.PITTSBURGH.EDU\n   [SM62]          Mackey, Sandy            skm@OMAHA.MITRE.ORG\n   [SM67]          Miller, Steve            miller@M2C.ORG\n   [SM83]          McPherson, Stew          stew@CSUPWB.COLOSTATE.EDU\n   [SM96]          Morris, Scooter          scooter@CGL.UCSF.EDU\n   [SMA9]          Arnold, Susan M.         SUSIE@SDS.SDSC.EDU\n   [SMB33]         Brown, Stephen M.        icssmb@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU\n   [SMD1]          Donelan, Sean M.         sean@DRANET.DRA.COM\n   [SMF5]          Feldman, Steven M.       feldman@TYMNET.COM\n   [SMK2]          King, Stephen Michael    KING@HQAFSC-VAX.AF.MIL\n   [SMM21]         Miller, Steven M.        miller@SCTC.COM\n   [SMP2]          Polinsky, Steven M.\n                   SMPCU%CUNYVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [SMS1]          Schultz, Steve M.        sms@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM\n   [SN52]          Naarding, Steven\n                   mcvax!nlcvx.convex.nl!jep@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [SN8]           Silsson, Soren           ---none---\n   [SO]            Oliphant, Steven         oliphant.pa@XEROX.COM\n   [SO35]          Oetinger, Steve          ---none---\n   [SO42]          Odegaard, Sverre         ---none---\n   [SO43]          Overall, Stephen         ---none---\n   [SP116]         Prince, Stephen          sp@LABTAM.OZ.AU\n   [SP69]          Perelgut, Steve          perelgut@TURING.TORONTO.EDU\n   [SP81]          Portner, Stan            escd!stan@DECWRL.DEC.COM\n   [SP86]          Piccardi, Stefano\n                   oliveb!trzdor1.ico.olivetti.com!stefano@SUN.COM\n   [SPA]           Abreu, Salvador Pinto    spa@FCTUN1.RCCN.PT\n   [SPR1]          Roth, Stefan P.          spr%pyr@GATECH.EDU\n   [SR127]         Root, Tsgt.\n                   SHEPPARD-AIM1@SHEPPARD-AIM1.AF.MIL\n   [SR77]          Rousseau, Susan          susan@NUSC.NAVY.MIL\n   [SRC16]         Cary, Stephen R.         cary@RISCSM.SCRIPPS.EDU\n   [SS110]         Smith, Stanfield         stan@H1.GCY.NYTEL.COM\n   [SS130]         Schneidler, Stephan      NSC-DAVM@DDN2.DCA.MIL\n   [SS131]         Sutphen, Steven          steve@CS.UALBERTA.CA\n   [SS172]         Sidner, Steve J.         PRC@SACEMNET.AF.MIL\n   [SS208]         Shurr, Scott             sshurr@WELLESLEY.EDU\n   [SS218]         Seitz, Steffen\n                   iase001%dtuzdv5a.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [SS226]         Sewall, Scott            sewall@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU\n   [SS253]         Sharkey, Scott\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 173]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nsharkey@OSU-20.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU\n   [SS271]         Spencer, Shawn           ---none---\n   [SS297]         Stindl, Siegfried        stindl%uniaug@IRA.UKA.DE\n   [SS310]         Skaar, Steve             ---none---\n   [SS80]          Schaller, Skip           skip@AS.ARIZONA.EDU\n   [SST]           Tabron, Susan S.         stabron@DCSC.DLA.MIL\n   [SSW]           Wolff, Stephen S.        SWOLFF@NOTE.NSF.GOV\n   [SSW5]          Weinstein, Sydney S.     syd@DSI.COM\n   [ST22]          Thung, Sturla            ---none---\n   [ST23]          Toal, Steve              ---none---\n   [ST81]          Tchehrazi, Sissi         ---none---\n   [SW111]         Wasserroth, Stephan\n                   wasserroth%fokus.berlin.gmd.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [SW114]         Weismuller, Steve        ---none---\n   [SW142]         Westberg, Sven-Ove       sow@CAD.LUTH.SE\n   [SW143]         White, Stephen           SRGHSPW@WNV.DSIR.GOVT.NZ\n   [SW171]         Wright, Samuel           pcessw@SWE.ERI.APNDEVA\n   [SW37]          Whalen, Sue              whalen@CS.NPS.NAVY.MIL\n   [SW69]          Winn, Scott F.           SWINN@NARDACDC002.NAVY.MIL\n   [SW73]          Warren, Scott            scott@ROSETTA.COM\n   [SW78]          Wadle, Steve             ---none---\n   [SWH8]          Hoehn, Steven W.         ---none---\n   [SWR3]          Rogers, Scott W.\n                   rogers@OSI540SN.GSFC.NASA.GOV\n   [SWW6]          Weller, Scott W.\n                   rochester!tropics!orion!sww.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [SY19]          Youl, Shane              shane@DMPMELA.OZ.AU\n   [SY8]           Yokota, Shozo            ---none---\n   [SYM2]          Moon, Steven Y.\n                   moonstni%uiamvs.bitnet@VM1.NODAK.EDU\n   [SZ21]          Zapata, Santiago\n                   szapata%vmtecmex.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TA24]          Asami, Tohru             ---none---\n   [TA54]          Andrego, Tom             ---none---\n   [TA61]          Anstey, Terry            t_anstey@UCNT.EDU.AU\n   [TAE1]          Easterday, Thomas A.\n                   TOM@NISCA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU\n   [TAK15]         Kanka, Terrence A.       KANKA@PENTAGON-OPTI.ARMY.MIL\n   [TAP15]         Pham, Tuan A.            ---none---\n   [TB]            Byrnes, Tim\n                   tbyrnes@APG-EMH5.APG.ARMY.MIL\n   [TB164]         Blankenship, Tom         ---none---\n   [TB166]         Bothner, Tor             bothner@PRIAM.CERN.CH\n   [TB172]         Boarth, Tom              ---none---\n   [TB6]           Baker, Todd              tzb@BRIDGE2.3COM.COM\n   [TB64]          Becker, Tony             ---none---\n   [TC124]         Colegrove, Tod           ---none---\n   [TC132]         Clark, Thomas            ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 174]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nTC72\n]          Crouch, Terry            TCROUCH@RIA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [TC84]          Carter, Tom              tom@ALTAIR.CSUSTAN.EDU\n   [TC96]          Conroy, Tom              trc@ESD.3COM.COM\n   [TD103]         Dawson, Tom\n                   dawsontc!snyalfba!bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TD104]         D'Angelo, Tony\n                   dangelar%snyoldba.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TD105]         Deso, Tom\n                   desotm%snyplava.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TD40]          Davis, Tom               DAVIS@UV4.EGLIN.AF.MIL\n   [TD68]          Dunning, Terry           ---none---\n   [TD87]          Davis, Theron            ---none---\n   [TD91]          Dawson, Teddy            NSC-Luke@DDN3.DCA.MIL\n   [TDG9]          Gerrity, Timothy D.      tgerrity@CRVAX.SRI.COM\n   [TDM8]          Mudgett, Trish Dailey    ---none---\n   [TE16]          Eldredge, Timothy        teldredge@UVAX.ISX.COM\n   [TE35]          Eccleston, Tony          aje@ATMOS.DAR.CSIRO.AU\n   [TE37]          Evans, Tim\n                   tkevans!woodb.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [TED]           Calkins, Ted             TED@NADC.NAVY.MIL\n   [TES16]         Swazuk, Thomas E.        swazuk@FAC.CIS.TEMPLE.EDU\n   [TF30]          Frohling, Ted            tsf@ARIZONA.EDU\n   [TF6]           Ferrin, Thomas           TEF@CGL.UCSF.EDU\n   [TFB3]          Blakely, Thomas F.\n                   tfb%unfvm.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TG67]          Goldblatt, Ted           ted@TELEMATICS.COM\n   [TG68]          Gross, Tim               gross@TSB.NRL.NAVY.MIL\n   [TG94]          Gau, Troy                ---none---\n   [TGC1]          Cahoon, Timothy G.       ---none---\n   [TGN]           Norman, T.G.\n                   net-admin!cs.flinders.oz.au@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [TGP3]          Pike, Tod G.             tgp@SEI.CMU.EDU\n   [TGS6]          Sickles, Theodore G.     tgsickle@RISC.COM\n   [TH101]         Hackl, Toni\n                   anh%dgaipp1s.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TH111]         Hunkapiller, Tim         tim@HOOD.CALTECH.EDU\n   [TH131]         Handel, Todd             ---none---\n   [TH147]         Halvorson, Tim           ---none---\n   [TH15]          Holt, Tracy              holt@GMUVAX.GMU.EDU\n   [TH28]          Higgins, Thomas          ---none---\n   [TH60]          Hutton, Thomas           hutton@SCUBED.SCUBED.COM\n   [THD]           Dunigan, Thomas H.       DUNIGAN@MSR.EPM.ORNL.GOV\n   [THL3]          Lee, Timothy H.          tlee@ISDDEN.ISD.USGS.GOV\n   [TJ]            Jacobson, Thomas         thomas@UC.MSC.UMN.EDU\n   [TJ40]          Jandu, Tavinder          M.NURSE@UK.AC.GMW\n   [TJF13]         Frivold, Thane J.        frivold@UNIX.SRI.COM\n   [TJS38]         Stone, Timothy J.        TIM@WARBURG.COM\n   [TJT1]          Tessin, Timothy J.       tjt@SAMEDI.LLNL.GOV\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 175]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nTK43\n]          Kobayashi, Tsutomu\n                   koba%ntt-20@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU\n   [TK60]          Kimura, Tomonori         tk%ait.th@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [TK86]          Kelly, Tsgt              ---none---\n   [TKH4]          Hallberg, Theodore K.    ads27lgu@CLARK-EMH.AF.MIL\n   [TL99]          Lenggenhager, Thomas\n                   ch-zone-contact@VERW.SWITCH.CH\n   [TLC28]         Canipe, Todd L.          HOSTADM@OSAN-EMH.AF.MIL\n   [TLL8]          LaQuey, Tracy L.         tracy@EMX.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [TLO]           O'Hara, Thomas L.        SAC.42AD-SCX@E.ISI.EDU\n   [TM10]          Mallory, Tracy           tmallory@CCV.BBN.COM\n   [TM128]         McDowell, Terry          ---none---\n   [TM129]         Minter, Theresa Jean\n                   TMINTER@AEGIS-DAHLGREN.NSWC.NAVY.MIL\n   [TM159]         Molnar, Tom              molnar@GPU.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU\n   [TM166]         Morris, Thomas           ---none---\n   [TM169]         McNeal, Terry\n                   mcneal%grin1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TM185]         Matsuyama, Takashi\n                   TM%OKAYAMA-U.AC.JP@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [TM19]          McGill, Thomas C.        TCM@SSDP.CALTECH.EDU\n   [TM199]         McDermott, Tracy         ---none---\n   [TM200]         Macy, Tad\n                   tmacy%bowdoin.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU\n   [TM37]          Lafleur, Tom             LAFLEUR@QUALCOMM.COM\n   [TM57]          Mead, Theodore           mead@CC.ROCHESTER.EDU\n   [TM84]          Maegawa, Toshiyuki       ---none---\n   [TM96]          Majithia, Tushar         TM@HAMPTONU.EDU\n   [TMD6]          Dillon, Theresa M.       tmd@MBUNIX.MITRE.ORG\n   [TMH6]          Herrick, Thomas M.       herrickt@IMO-UVAX1.DCA.MIL\n   [TML]           Louden, T. Michael       LOUDEN@MWUNIX.MITRE.ORG\n   [TMR11]         Rowlett, Thomas M.\n                   rowlett#tom%b.mfenet@NMFECC.LLNL.GOV\n   [TN11]          Nielsen, Torben          torben@DORSAI.ICS.HAWAII.EDU\n   [TN17]          Nijssen, Teun\n                   TEUN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TN29]          Newell, Tom              Newell@TWG.COM\n   [TN40]          Naito, Takashi\n                   gack%ntt-twins.ntt.jp@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [TN5]           Nolan, Ted               TED@ARSOCOMVAX.SOCOM.MIL\n   [TO32]          Ollier, Tony             ccollier@VAX.SWAN.AC.UK\n   [TO33]          Oldham, Tim              tjo@ITS.BT.CO.UK\n   [TO34]          Oeser, Thomas            ---none---\n   [TO4]           Oishi, Tosaku\n                   oishi%etl.junet%etl.jp@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [TONY]          Holland, Anthony R.      TONY@KL.SRI.COM\n   [TP102]         Pronton, Tim             ---none---\n   [TP58]          Pittari, Tony            ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 176]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nTP91\n]          Phelps, Ted\n                   phelps!snycenvm!bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TPB1]          Berk, Thomas P           BERK@INTER-TEL.COM\n   [TPS5]          Senay, Terence P.        ---none---\n   [TR103]         Rosmus, Tim              TIM@DATA-IO.COM\n   [TR3]           Ridinger, Tom            ---none---\n   [TR38]          Radzykewycz, Tim\n                   calma!radzy@UCBVAX.Berkeley.EDU\n   [TR62]          Reed, Tim                wash08!txr98@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [TR85]          Reber, Tobias\n                   dok235%dhddkfz1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TR87]          Rylance, Tim             tkr@praxis.co.uk\n   [TR91]          Ross, Tom                ---none---\n   [TRG4]          Giebelhaus, Tim R.\n                   hi-csc!apcimsp!tim@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [TRG8]          Grubbs, Thomas R.        ---none---\n   [TRW18]         Walworth, Timothy R.     ---none---\n   [TS107]         Smith, Thorn             ---none---\n   [TS118]         Silva, Tony\n                   tsilva%aaec1.uucp@DSPVAX.MIT.EDU\n   [TS14]          Stuckey, Trish           TRISH@TRANTOR.HARRIS-ATD.COM\n   [TS141]         Schneider, Tom           ---none---\n   [TS144]         Scialdone, Tony          ---none---\n   [TS146]         Stoneley, Tony\n                   ajms%phx.cam.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [TS147]         Sato, Tomomitsu          tomo%keo.junet@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [TS149]         Sutherland, Thomas\n                   NSC|RAN314@RANDOLPH-AIM1.AF.MIL\n   [TS154]         Shimoyama, Tomoaki\n                   tomo%ctc.citoh.jp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [TS158]         Suzuki, Tomio            r21233@RKNA50.RIKEN.GO.JP\n   [TS160]         Saito, Tetsuya           ---none---\n   [TS171]         Steele, Tim\n                   tjfs%tadtec.uucp@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [TS193]         Sigurdson, Todd          ---none---\n   [TS194]         Tse, Steve               TSE@ARC.AB.CA\n   [TS196]         Stockman, Tony           STOCKMAN@XYPLEX.COM\n   [TS31]          Symchych, Tim            symchych@NCS.DND.CA\n   [TS9]           Slattery, Terry          tcs@BRL.MIL\n   [TSC11]         Collins, Terrance S.     macomw!tcollins@NOSC.MIL\n   [TSD3]          Dunn, Thomas S.          ---none---\n   [TT32]          Thomas, Tony             ---none---\n   [TT35]          Terbush, Terry\n                   tlt%gwuvm.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [TT60]          Tran, Tony               versatc!tran@SUN.COM\n   [TT69]          Tuomi, Tarmo             ---none---\n   [TT70]          Terrall, Tom             tlt@RSCH.OCLC.OR\n   [TT84]          Thiersch, Tom            ---none---\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 177]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nTTO\n]           Olson, Timothy T.        SAC.NRCH-LMR@E.ISI.EDU\n   [TTS8]          Spengler, Thomas T.      spengler@TIS.LLNL.GOV\n   [TU1]           Usuki, Takashi           usuki@SONY.CO.JP\n   [TV]            Vollmer, Tom             vollmer@NOSC.MIL\n   [TV29]          Vijlbrief, Tom\n                   mcvax!tnosoes!tom@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [TVF1]          Fossum, Timothy V.       fossum@VACS.UWP.WISC.EDU\n   [TW102]         Wooller, Timothy         ---none---\n   [TW112]         Wade, Tom                t.wade@CC.UCD.IE\n   [TW3]           West, Todd               west@CCF3.NRL.NAVY.MIL\n   [TW51]          Wadlow, Tom A.           taw@MORDOR.S1.GOV\n   [TW8]           Wieland, Terry           nu023467@VM1.NODAK.EDU\n   [TWH19]         Higbe, Thomas W.\n                   ASNBLERP@PENTAGON-OPTI.ARMY.MIL\n   [UB3]           Bilting, Ulf             bilting@CS.CHALMERS.SE\n   [UR]            Ritter, Uwe              ---none---\n   [US2]           Straumann, Ulrich\n                   K538915%CZHRZU1A.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [VAF]           Fuller, Vince            VAF@STANFORD.EDU\n   [VBK]           Kava, Victor B.          ---none---\n   [VC]            Cid, Victor\n                   vcid%uchcecvm.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [VC5]           Cericole, Victor, Jr.\n                   vcerico@APG-EMH5.APG.ARMY.MIL\n   [VH21]          Hutchison, Vicki         vicki@QUALCOMM.COM\n   [VHB]           Barnes, Vonnie H.        VBARNES@RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL\n   [VL24]          Lasker, Valerie          ---none---\n   [VL42]          Lagioia, Vincenzo        ---none---\n   [VLG]           Gordon, Vicki L.         VGORDON@ISI.EDU\n   [VM49]          Moore, Virgil            ABC@ARLVS1.ARLUT.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [VN]            Neou, Vivian             VIVIAN@NIC.DDN.MIL\n   [VP12]          Pratt, Vaughan Ronald    pratt@TRIANGLE.COM\n   [VR32]          Reijs, Victor            REIJS@SURFNET.NL\n   [VS13]          Schryver, Vernon         vjs@sgi.com\n   [VS50]          Summerour, Vic\n                   vic%utsw.decnet@UTADNX.CC.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [VS58]          Streif, Vincent\n                   STREIF@UWECVAXA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [VS59]          Shaw, Vic\n                   uninet.frd@F4.N494.Z5.FIDONET.ORG\n   [VT7]           Troeltsch, Verena\n                   R41DLRZ!UBW-M.UUCP@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [WA16]          Armitage, William\n                   wja%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK\n   [WA32]          Anderson, Walt           ---none---\n   [WAG5]          Guthmiller, Wayne A.     wag@RISC.COM\n   [WAH11]         Hunt, Warren A., Jr.     HUNT@CLI.COM\n   [WAW11]         Winner, Wendy A.         wendy@BRL.MIL\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 178]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nWB102\n]         Brinkmann, Willi         ---none---\n   [WB53]          Ball, Wayne\n                   wball%umass.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [WC117]         Colquitt, Walt           C46WALT@HARC.EDU\n   [WC86]          Cheng, Wing              objy!objy1!wing@SUN.COM\n   [WC89]          Chapeskie, Wayne         microsof!waynec@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [WCW7]          Wells, William C.        ---none---\n   [WCWI]          Ince, W.C.W.             wcwince@WATMATH.WATERLOO.EDU\n   [WD27]          Dair, Willis\n                   DAIR%SCU.BITNET@JADE.Berkeley.EDU\n   [WD58]          Davidson, William        ---none---\n   [WD60]          Daniels, William         ---none---\n   [WDL]           Lazear, Walter D.        LAZEAR@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG\n   [WDR7]          Rolph, W. Don, III       ---none---\n   [WDS11]         Smith, William D.        smith@GROUCHO.MRC.UIDAHO.EDU\n   [WDW2]          Welch, William D., Jr.   ingr!zaiaz!bill@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [WE12]          Edgington, Will          wedgingt@DU.EDU\n   [WES22]         Strickland, Win E., Jr.  win@audiofax.com\n   [WF3]           Fink, William E.         bill@NET.NRL.NAVY.MIL\n   [WF42]          Fulton, William          iswaf@DCATLA.COM\n   [WFG4]          Gunshannon, William F.   WFG702@JAGUAR.UOFS.EDU\n   [WG]            Graves, Wayne            WRGraves@LBL.ARPA\n   [WGS4]          Stefancik, W. Gregg      wstef@ENG.CLEMSON.EDU\n   [WH108]         Helgers, Wim\n                   mcvax!westc!netadm@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [WH110]         Holmes, Walter           ---none---\n   [WH125]         Hosking, Wesley          wes@ATLANTEK.OZ.AU\n   [WH131]         Higgins, William         76420.25@COMPUSERVE.COM\n   [WH136]         Hoover, Bill             ---none---\n   [WH2]           Heinrich, Werner\n                   heinrich%rz.uni-ulm.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [WH54]          Hathaway, Wayne          WAYNE@ULTRA.COM\n   [WH64]          Hake, Wolfgang\n                   UHRZS007%DBIUNI11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [WH96]          Hein, W.                 ---none---\n   [WHN2]          Nugent, William H.       whn@CS.NET\n   [WJF1]          Flynn, William J.        ---none---\n   [WJK6]          Kelly, William J., Jr.   KELLY@AFGL-VAX.AF.MIL\n   [WJL17]         Lavallee, Warren J.      warren@PWS.BULL.COM\n   [WJL2]          LaRocca, William J.      ---none---\n   [WJM1]          Moeller, Wolfgang J.\n                   U0012%DGOGWDG5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [WJM26]         Marko, William J.        wmarko@UB.D.UMN.EDU\n   [WJR17]         Redmond, William J.      ---none---\n   [WJS1]          Showalter, Weldon Jim    GAMMA@MINTAKA.DCA.MIL\n   [WK56]          Koblitz, Werner\n                   mcvax!egh780!koblitz@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [WKS4]          Smith, Wade              WKS@BIOGFX.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 179]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\n[\nWKT\n]           Tong, William K.         Tong@SBCS.SUNYSB.EDU\n   [WL31]          Lampeter, William        bill@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU\n   [WLB5]          Boyer, William L.        WLB@NCIFCRF.GOV\n   [WLG7]          Gordon, Windy L.         ---none---\n   [WLJ7]          Jones, William L.        jones@HERMES.CHPC.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [WLR6]          Riess, William L.        ---none---\n   [WM110]         Manning, William         bmanning@MICRO.TI.COM\n   [WM112]         Mingus, William          ---none---\n   [WM3]           Melohn, William          Melohn@SUN.COM\n   [WM68]          Magnussen, Walt          X048WM@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU\n   [WM96]          Marty, Walter            ---none---\n   [WMT]           Tyson, William Mabry     TYSON@AI.SRI.COM\n   [WN19]          Nowlin, William          ---none---\n   [WN2]           Nagey, Walter\n                   mmdf@SCHWEINFURT-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   [WOS]           Sibert, W. Olin          Sibert@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL\n   [WP64]          Pommerer, Werner\n                   dehnhardt@COMVAX.RUS.UNI-STUTTGART.DBP.DE\n   [WP8]           Prue, Walt               PRUE@ISI.EDU\n   [WP90]          Porten, Willi\n                   grz049%DBNGMD21.BITNET@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU\n   [WPBS]          Sjouw, Wim P.B.\n                   sjouw%hutruu51.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [WPC]           Caloccia, William P.\n                   caloccia%lectroid.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET\n   [WR66]          Roberts, Wayne           wmr@POTOMAC.ADS.COM\n   [WR88]          Ryder, W.                ---none---\n   [WRC22]         Cronin, W. Robert        ---none---\n   [WRH20]         Harris, Weldon R.\n                   killer!escort!harris@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV\n   [WRR5]          Ritchie, William R.      DDNWRR@FLTAC-POE.NAVY.MIL\n   [WRS28]         Stevens, W. Richard      stevens@HSI.COM\n   [WS165]         Smith, Warren            ---none---\n   [WS167]         Stolk, Wim               ---none---\n   [WS168]         Stokes, Warren           ---none---\n   [WS94]          Spirk, Werner\n                   A2824AB%DMOLRZ01.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [WSC1]          Chen, Wen-Sung           ZCHEN@TWNMOE10.BITNET\n   [WSC5]          Currie, W.S.\n                   S.Currie%edinburgh.ac.uk@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [WSW11]         Wainner, W. Scott        WAINNER@HQ.AF.MIL\n   [WT39]          Tolle, Werner\n                   wet%tumuc.e-technik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET\n   [WTC]           Cyrus, W. Tait           cyrus@PPRG.UNM.EDU\n   [WTE4]          Embach, William T.\n                   bill%ucf1vm.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [WU1]           Underwood, Walter        wunder@HPLABS.HP.COM\n   [WVDS]          van der Scheun, Willem\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 180]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nbssara%sara.nl@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [WW2]           Wedel, Wally             wedel@NGP.UTEXAS.EDU\n   [WW82]          White, William           wwhite@CEL.FMC.COM\n   [WWP8]          Plummer, William W.      Plummer@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL\n   [WWR1]          Richard, W. W.           ---none---\n   [WWS]           Seemuller, William W.    BILL@ETL.ARMY.MIL\n   [YB4]           Banno, Yoshiaki\n                   Banno%JPNKEKVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [YC4]           Cruz, Yellixa            sac.341smw-scx@E.ISI.EDU\n   [YD2]           Despond, Yves            despond@SIC.EPFL.CH\n   [YK2]           Karsenti, Yves\n                   karsenti%frirts71.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU\n   [YK3]           Kameyama, Yukiyoshi      kam@SATO.RIEC.TOHOKU.AC.JP\n   [YL14]          Leong, Y.                ---none---\n   [YN]            Nguyen, Yen              yen@ARINC-GW.ARPA\n   [YS10]          Saito, Yaski\n                   yaski%ntt-20@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU\n   [YSP3]          Park, Young S.           root@KIT.KIT.AC.KR\n   [ZSU]           Su, Zaw-Sing             Zsu@NISC.SRI.COM\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 181]\nRFC 1166\nInternet Numbers                   July 1990\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthors' Addresses\n\n   Sue Kirkpatrick\n   SRI International\n   Network Information Systems Center\n   333 Ravenswood Avenue, EJ217\n   Menlo Park, CA 94025\n\n   Phone: (415) 859-5539\n\n   Email: SUE@NIC.DDN.MIL\n\n\n   Mary Stahl\n   SRI International\n   Network Information Systems Center\n   333 Ravenswood Avenue, EJ296\n   Menlo Park, CA 94025\n\n   Phone: (415) 859-4775\n\n   Email: STAHL@NIC.DDN.MIL\n\n\n\n   Mimi Recker\n   SRI International\n   Network Information Systems Center\n   333 Ravenswood Avenue, EJ268\n   Menlo Park, CA 94025\n\n   Phone: (415) 859-2110\n\n   Email: MIMI@NIC.DDN.MIL\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nKirkpatrick, Stahl & Recker                                   [Page 182]\nRFC\n1166\n: Internet numbers\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1990-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1990-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1990-07-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:46.017825+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "c8ba8807-890f-4638-a440-b58f8ac42346", "source_id": "d625db26c3f20b013a2409b1", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.ietf.org/standards/rfcs/", "final_url": "https://www.ietf.org/process/rfcs/", "artifact_sha256": "d23bb8a9b42e7219f17cfea872e3b7c36c8d856d122d17336931412a236d7a67", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 89257, "title": "IETF  | RFCs", "language": "en", "text_length": 12773, "characters": 12773, "text": "IETF | RFCs\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nProcess\nAbout RFCs\nRFCs are the core output of the IETF.\nIntroduction\nStructure of the series\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nObsoleting and updating\nCorrections and errata\nReporting vulnerabilities in RFCs\nIntroduction\nThe IETF publishes its technical documentation as RFCs, an acronym for their historical title\nRequests for Comments\n. They describe the Internet's technical foundations, such as addressing, routing, and transport technologies. RFCs also specify protocols like TLS 1.3, QUIC, and WebRTC that are used to deliver services used by billions of people every day, such as real-time collaboration, email, and the domain name system.\nSoftware developers, hardware manufacturers, and network operators around the world voluntarily implement and adopt the technical specifications and best practices described by RFCs.\nThe\nRFC Editor\nwebsite is the authoritative site for RFCs. The\nIETF Datatracker\nprovides transparency on the process that resulted in the publication of each IETF RFC.\nStructure of the series\nRFCs are sequentially numbered, starting with RFC 1 published in 1969. (The RFC series predates the IETF.) Today, there are more than 9000 documents in the series.\nThe RFC series has two subseries, STDs and BCPs, with each numbered STD and BCP comprising one or more RFCs. STDs are 'Internet Standard' RFCs, and BCPs are RFCs that describe 'Best Current Practices' for the Internet, some of which are administrative processes for the IETF.\nAvailability and use\nRFCs are freely available to download, copy, publish, display and distribute, in a variety of formats, under a license granted by the\nIETF Trust\n. This license, the\nTrust Legal Provisions\nhas some important restrictions, including a prohibition on modification of IETF RFCs outside of the IETF Standards Process.\nRFCs are not guaranteed to be patent-free and anyone interested in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) constraints on a specific document should consult the IETF's\nIPR disclosure database\n, though this is not guaranteed to be a complete record of applicable patents.\nPublication formats\nRFCs are published in the following formats:\nHTML\n. This is the most flexible format for reading an RFC: the page layout adapts to the window size; if SVG diagrams are supplied, they are displayed; and the text is accompanied by a header showing important metadata, including the details of any RFCs that this RFC updates or obsoletes, and vice versa, as well as indicating the existence of errata and linking to those. For RFCs before RFC 8650, the HTMLised (see below) format is used in place of the HTML.\nPlain Text\n. RFCs were originally produced on typewriters, and a plain text format that looks very similar to those original RFCs is still available. The main limitations of the plain text format are that the metadata cannot change, only ASCII diagrams can be displayed, links in the text are shown as annotations, the line width is fixed so may be difficult to read on a mobile device, and there is no indication of the existence of errata.\nHTMLised\n. This format displays the Plain Text format as an HTML page with working links and the same metadata as the HTML version; however, it shares the rest of the limitations as the plain text format. This format is available for RFCs before RFC 8650.\nPDF\n. This is a PDF of an HTML rendering of the RFC, so it can display any SVG diagrams and it provides working links. However, the metadata is limited. PDFs are the only paginated RFC format.\nRFCXML\n. This is the raw source of RFCs, not a publication format. RFCXML is an XML language fully documented on the\nI-D Authors Resource Site\nand has been used as the source format since RFC 8650.\nStatuses\nMost RFCs and all new RFCs have one of the following statuses. Statuses may change over time.\nInformational\n.\nAn \"Informational\" specification is published for the general information of the Internet community, and does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation.\nRFC 2026, Section 4.2.2\nExperimental\n.\nThe \"Experimental\" designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification is published for the general information of the Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work\nRFC 2026, Section 4.2.1\nStandards have one of the following statuses:\nProposed Standard (PS)\n. The first official stage. Many standards never progress beyond this level.\nDraft Standard\n. An intermediate stage that is no longer used for new standards.\nInternet Standard\n. The final stage, when the standard is shown to be interoperable and widely deployed.\nBest Current Practice (BCP)\n. BCPs have a dual role. One is to document IETF processes as agreed by the IETF community, and the other is explained in\nRFC 2026, Section 5\nas:\nsince the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user service requires that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.\nHistoric\n.\nA specification that has been superseded by a more recent specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is assigned to the \"Historic\" level.\nRFC 2026, Section 4.2.4\nRFCs that were published before statuses were introduced (before RFC 1128) are mostly considered to have an\nUnknown\nstatus, with a handful having had statuses retroactively applied.\nPublication streams\nThere are five streams that can publish an RFC.\nThe\nIETF Stream\nis the only stream that can publish standards and by far the largest. All RFCs published in the IETF Stream must have community rough consensus, whatever their status.\nThe\nIAB Stream\nand\nIRTF Stream\ncan also publish technical and process RFCs related to their role.\nThe\nEditorial Stream\n, as described by\nRFC 9920\npublishes policies governing the RFC Series as a whole.\nThe\nIndependent Submissions Stream\npublishes RFCs that are outside the official processes of the IETF, IAB, and IRTF but are relevant to the Internet community and achieve reasonable levels of technical and editorial quality.\nObsoleting and updating\nAn RFC can be entirely obsoleted by a new RFC or have parts of it updated by other RFCs. A new RFC can update parts of multiple RFCs, and can obsolete multiple RFCs.\nMost of the publication formats note if an RFC has been obsoleted or updated and lists the RFCs responsible.\nCorrections and errata\nWith one exception, once an RFC is published, it is never changed, which is why the RFC series is often described as \"archival\" in nature. The one exception to this rule is if an RFC is rendered incorrectly, such as some text cut off, in which case the specific publication format with the problem may be replaced.\nIf a technical or editorial error in an RFC is reported, an erratum may be created that documents the error and optionally provides a correction. Newly Reported errata are checked and either Verified, Rejected or Held for Document Update. For Technical errata, this decision is made by the appropriate stream-specific party, and for Editorial errata, by the RFC Editor.\nThe RFC Editor site has more details on these\nstatuses\nand a\nsearchable errata database\n.\nVerified errata are linked to the RFC, but the RFC is not republished with the errata incorporated. There is ongoing work to provide a good way of displaying an RFC with the errata incorporated.\nReporting vulnerabilities in RFCs\nThe IETF recognizes that security vulnerabilities will be discovered in IETF protocols and welcomes their critical evaluation by researchers. If you believe that you have discovered a vulnerability in an IETF protocol then please follow our guidance on\nhow to report vulnerabilities\n.\nyou might be interested in\nRFC Editor website\nHow to Read an RFC\nRFC 8700: Fifty Years of RFCs\nKey moments in RFC History (from RFC 8700)\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "segments": [{"segment_id": "8f24d9b2-f92e-4b3e-a23b-317de1ce4a67", "document_id": "c8ba8807-890f-4638-a440-b58f8ac42346", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IETF | RFCs\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nProcess\nAbout RFCs\nRFCs are the core output of the IETF.\nIntroduction\nStructure of the series\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nObsoleting and updating\nCorrections and errata\nReporting vulnerabilities in RFCs\nIntroduction\nThe IETF publishes its technical documentation as RFCs, an acronym for their historical title\nRequests for Comments\n. They describe the Internet's technical foundations, such as addressing, routing, and transport technologies. RFCs also specify protocols like TLS 1.3, QUIC, and WebRTC that are used to deliver services used by billions of people every day, such as real-time collaboration, email, and the domain name system.\nSoftware developers, hardware manufacturers, and network operators around the world voluntarily implement and adopt the technical specifications and best practices described by RFCs.\nThe\nRFC Editor\nwebsite is the authoritative site for RFCs. The\nIETF Datatracker\nprovides transparency on the process that resulted in the publication of each IETF RFC.\nStructure of the series\nRFCs are sequentially numbered, starting with RFC 1 published in 1969. (The RFC series predates the IETF.) Today, there are more than 9000 documents in the series.\nThe RFC series has two subseries, STDs and BCPs, with each numbered STD and BCP comprising one or more RFCs. STDs are 'Internet Standard' RFCs, and BCPs are RFCs that describe 'Best Current Practices' for the Internet, some of which are administrative processes for the IETF.\nAvailability and use\nRFCs are freely available to download, copy, publish, display and distribute, in a variety of formats, under a license granted by the\nIETF Trust\n. This license, the\nTrust Legal Provisions\nhas some important restrictions, including a prohibition on modification of IETF RFCs outside of the IETF Standards Process.\nRFCs are not guaranteed to be patent-free and anyone interested in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) constraints on a specific document should consult the IETF's\nIPR disclosure database\n, though this is not guaranteed to be a complete record of applicable patents.\nPublication formats\nRFCs are published in the following formats:\nHTML\n. This is the most flexible format for reading an RFC: the page layout adapts to the window size; if SVG diagrams are supplied, they are displayed; and the text is accompanied by a header showing important metadata, including the details of any RFCs that this RFC updates or obsoletes, and vice versa, as well as indicating the existence of errata and linking to those. For RFCs before RFC 8650, the HTMLised (see below) format is used in place of the HTML.\nPlain Text\n. RFCs were originally produced on typewriters, and a plain text format that looks very similar to those original RFCs is still available. The main limitations of the plain text format are that the metadata cannot change, only ASCII diagrams can be displayed, links in the text are shown as annotations, the line width is fixed so may be difficult to read on a mobile device, and there is no indication of the existence of errata.\nHTMLised\n. This format displays the Plain Text format as an HTML page with working links and the same metadata as the HTML version; however, it shares the rest of the limitations as the plain text format. This format is available for RFCs before RFC 8650.\nPDF\n. This is a PDF of an HTML rendering of the RFC, so it can display any SVG diagrams and it provides working links. However, the metadata is limited. PDFs are the only paginated RFC format.\nRFCXML\n. This is the raw source of RFCs, not a publication format. RFCXML is an XML language fully documented on the\nI-D Authors Resource Site\nand has been used as the source format since RFC 8650.\nStatuses\nMost RFCs and all new RFCs have one of the following statuses. Statuses may change over time.\nInformational\n.\nAn \"Informational\" specification is published for the general information of the Internet community, and does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation.\nRFC 2026, Section 4.2.2\nExperimental\n.\nThe \"Experimental\" designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification is published for the general information of the Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work\nRFC 2026, Section 4.2.1\nStandards have one of the following statuses:\nProposed Standard (PS)\n. The first official stage. Many standards never progress beyond this level.\nDraft Standard\n. An intermediate stage that is no longer used for new standards.\nInternet Standard\n. The final stage, when the standard is shown to be interoperable and widely deployed.\nBest Current Practice (BCP)\n. BCPs have a dual role. One is to document IETF processes as agreed by the IETF community, and the other is explained in\nRFC 2026, Section 5\nas:\nsince the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user service requires that the operators and administrators of the Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.\nHistoric\n.\nA specification that has been superseded by a more recent specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is assigned to the \"Historic\" level.\nRFC 2026, Section 4.2.4\nRFCs that were published before statuses were introduced (before RFC 1128) are mostly considered to have an\nUnknown\nstatus, with a handful having had statuses retroactively applied.\nPublication streams\nThere are five streams that can publish an RFC.\nThe\nIETF Stream\nis the only stream that can publish standards and by far the largest. All RFCs published in the IETF Stream must have community rough consensus, whatever their status.\nThe\nIAB Stream\nand\nIRTF Stream\ncan also publish technical and process RFCs related to their role.\nThe\nEditorial Stream\n, as described by\nRFC 9920\npublishes policies governing the RFC Series as a whole.\nThe\nIndependent Submissions Stream\npublishes RFCs that are outside the official processes of the IETF, IAB, and IRTF but are relevant to the Internet community and achieve reasonable levels of technical and editorial quality.\nObsoleting and updating\nAn RFC can be entirely obsoleted by a new RFC or have parts of it updated by other RFCs. A new RFC can update parts of multiple RFCs, and can obsolete multiple RFCs.\nMost of the publication formats note if an RFC has been obsoleted or updated and lists the RFCs responsible.\nCorrections and errata\nWith one exception, once an RFC is published, it is never changed, which is why the RFC series is often described as \"archival\" in nature. The one exception to this rule is if an RFC is rendered incorrectly, such as some text cut off, in which case the specific publication format with the problem may be replaced.\nIf a technical or editorial error in an RFC is reported, an erratum may be created that documents the error and optionally provides a correction. Newly Reported errata are checked and either Verified, Rejected or Held for Document Update. For Technical errata, this decision is made by the appropriate stream-specific party, and for Editorial errata, by the RFC Editor.\nThe RFC Editor site has more details on these\nstatuses\nand a\nsearchable errata database\n.\nVerified errata are linked to the RFC, but the RFC is not republished with the errata incorporated. There is ongoing work to provide a good way of displaying an RFC with the errata incorporated.\nReporting vulnerabilities in RFCs\nThe IETF recognizes that security vulnerabilities will be discovered in IETF protocols and welcomes their critical evaluation by researchers. If you believe that you have discovered a vulnerability in an IETF protocol then please follow our guidance on\nhow to report vulnerabilities\n.\nyou might be interested in\nRFC Editor website\nHow to Read an RFC\nRFC 8700: Fifty Years of RFCs\nKey moments in RFC History (from RFC 8700)\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12773, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1996}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "cb796914-f2ce-4f7f-b535-ab310e44bdbc", "source_id": "d19a09cb54bf40911959fa83", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.ietf.org/process/", "final_url": "https://www.ietf.org/process/", "artifact_sha256": "77eba9ebf7ba56188597d3ec5ad6eb181d07e01781c1c98d517c26a667d83c23", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 79828, "title": "IETF  | Process", "language": "en", "text_length": 6872, "characters": 6872, "text": "IETF | Process\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nImproving existing standards and creating, implementing, and deploying new standards is an ongoing effort. The\nIETF's mission\nis to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that describe these voluntary standards.\nIETF working groups\nare the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines.\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nThe IETF follows open and well-documented processes for its work, including setting Internet standards. This guide synthesizes various sources to describe the IETF standards process at a high level.\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nThis informal guide to documents about the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standards process aims to assist IETF participants by providing an introduction to the variety of documents that describe it, as well as related groups and processes.\nBringing new work to the IETF\nA guide for people who have a new idea or some proposed work they wish to bring to the IETF.\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nA basic guide to the complex subject of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the IETF\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nWorking Groups (WGs) are the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines, many of which are intended to be standards or recommendations.\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nBirds of a Feather sessions (BOFs) are initial discussions about a particular topic of interest to the IETF community. BOFs are usually held at IETF meetings, and requests to hold a BOF must be made significantly in advance of the meeting.\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nThe global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources is performed as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.\nAbout RFCs\nRFC documents contain technical specifications and organizational notes for the Internet and are the core output of the IETF.\nPublishing and accessing RFCs\nInternet-Drafts that have successfully completed the IETF review process are submitted to the RFC Editor for publication.\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "segments": [{"segment_id": "4281cbed-8a82-49bc-aca2-461294f1aab8", "document_id": "cb796914-f2ce-4f7f-b535-ab310e44bdbc", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IETF | Process\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nImproving existing standards and creating, implementing, and deploying new standards is an ongoing effort. The\nIETF's mission\nis to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that describe these voluntary standards.\nIETF working groups\nare the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines.\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nThe IETF follows open and well-documented processes for its work, including setting Internet standards. This guide synthesizes various sources to describe the IETF standards process at a high level.\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nThis informal guide to documents about the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standards process aims to assist IETF participants by providing an introduction to the variety of documents that describe it, as well as related groups and processes.\nBringing new work to the IETF\nA guide for people who have a new idea or some proposed work they wish to bring to the IETF.\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nA basic guide to the complex subject of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the IETF\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nWorking Groups (WGs) are the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines, many of which are intended to be standards or recommendations.\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nBirds of a Feather sessions (BOFs) are initial discussions about a particular topic of interest to the IETF community. BOFs are usually held at IETF meetings, and requests to hold a BOF must be made significantly in advance of the meeting.\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nThe global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources is performed as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.\nAbout RFCs\nRFC documents contain technical specifications and organizational notes for the Internet and are the core output of the IETF.\nPublishing and accessing RFCs\nInternet-Drafts that have successfully completed the IETF review process are submitted to the RFC Editor for publication.\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6872, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1003}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "cbcc2486-5dc9-4ee9-87d5-9cb5017c662f", "source_id": "3e8777bf2b1c596922686c74", "source": "UN", "source_url": "https://www.un.org/techenvoy/content/global-digital-compact", "final_url": "https://www.un.org/digital-emerging-technologies/content/global-digital-compact", "artifact_sha256": "da4e2bf86397e82077cd30ab00a0bd981c80913f92f17b0fd995eff4c0596e84", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 53417, "title": "Global Digital Compact | Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies", "language": "en", "text_length": 1456, "characters": 1456, "text": "Global Digital Compact | Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\nToggle navigation\nLanguage:\nعربي\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nOffice for Digital and Emerging Technologies\nSearch form\nA-Z Site Index\nSearch\nToggle navigation\nHome\nGlobal Digital Compact\nEndorse the Global Digital Compact\nUN Digital Cooperation Portal\nAI Governance\nIndependent International Scientific Panel on AI\nGlobal Dialogue on AI Governance\nAI Governance for Humanity Lab\nHLAB on Artificial Intelligence (2023–2024)\nDigital Public Infrastructure\nEvents\nPast Events\nIndia AI Impact Summit (February 2026)\nBuilding the Commons (December 2025)\nUN Digital Cooperation Day (September 2025)\nSTI Forum Action Day (May 2025)\nUN Open Source Week 2026 (June 2026)\nUN Digital Cooperation Day (September 2026)\nAbout\nContact\nNews and Resources\nHome\nGlobal Digital Compact\nGlobal Digital Compact\nYour browser does not support the video tag.\nGet Involved with the Global Digital Compact\nJoin the Global Digital Compact\nAccess the UN Digital Cooperation Portal\nBackground on Intergovernmental Processes\nGlobal Digital Compact Intergovernmental Process (2023–2024)\nAI Panel & Dialogue Intergovernmental Process (2025)\nContact Us\nGlobal Digital Compact:\ndigitalcompact@un.org\nGeneral Inquiries:\nodet@un.org\nDonate\nfacebook\ntwitter\nyoutube\nflickr\ninstagram\nFooter\nA-Z Site Index\nContact\nCopyright\nFAQ\nFraud Alert\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use", "segments": [{"segment_id": "0b2efcb7-e804-4dd6-866f-007cc8629407", "document_id": "cbcc2486-5dc9-4ee9-87d5-9cb5017c662f", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Global Digital Compact | Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\nToggle navigation\nLanguage:\nعربي\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nOffice for Digital and Emerging Technologies\nSearch form\nA-Z Site Index\nSearch\nToggle navigation\nHome\nGlobal Digital Compact\nEndorse the Global Digital Compact\nUN Digital Cooperation Portal\nAI Governance\nIndependent International Scientific Panel on AI\nGlobal Dialogue on AI Governance\nAI Governance for Humanity Lab\nHLAB on Artificial Intelligence (2023–2024)\nDigital Public Infrastructure\nEvents\nPast Events\nIndia AI Impact Summit (February 2026)\nBuilding the Commons (December 2025)\nUN Digital Cooperation Day (September 2025)\nSTI Forum Action Day (May 2025)\nUN Open Source Week 2026 (June 2026)\nUN Digital Cooperation Day (September 2026)\nAbout\nContact\nNews and Resources\nHome\nGlobal Digital Compact\nGlobal Digital Compact\nYour browser does not support the video tag.\nGet Involved with the Global Digital Compact\nJoin the Global Digital Compact\nAccess the UN Digital Cooperation Portal\nBackground on Intergovernmental Processes\nGlobal Digital Compact Intergovernmental Process (2023–2024)\nAI Panel & Dialogue Intergovernmental Process (2025)\nContact Us\nGlobal Digital Compact:\ndigitalcompact@un.org\nGeneral Inquiries:\nodet@un.org\nDonate\nfacebook\ntwitter\nyoutube\nflickr\ninstagram\nFooter\nA-Z Site Index\nContact\nCopyright\nFAQ\nFraud Alert\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1456, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 204}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "d15b8ef1-3607-4b52-b018-4292d3761112", "source_id": "df29e9803d4556b4b4afa41e", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/history/Pages/ConstitutionAndConvention.aspx", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/history/Pages/ConstitutionAndConvention.aspx", "artifact_sha256": "df29e9803d4556b4b4afa41e0ce183f97154503cfc717fad2bc03d9a8e5a5794", "content_type": "text/html; charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 98005, "title": "ITU Constitution and Convention (1992)", "language": "en", "text_length": 5992, "characters": 5992, "text": "Constitution and Convention Collection\nConnecting the world and beyond\nعربي\n中文\nEspañol\nFrançais\nРусский\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nAbout ITU\nMedia Centre\nEvents\nPublications\nStatistics\nAction areas\nRegional Presence\nCareers\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nConstitution and Convention Collection\n​ ​\nSearch this Collection\n​​​\nImageUrl\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nHistory of ITU Portal\nShare\nHistory of ITU Portal\nSite Map\nExplore the Digital Collections\nDiscover ITU's History\nFocus on Areas of Work\nOverview of ITU's History article\nITU Library and Archives\nSend feedback\n​​\nPage Content 20\nPersistent Identifier for this page\nPage Content 20 Title Hyperlink\nhttp://handle.itu.int/11.1004/020.1000/5\nPage Content 2\nThe International Telegraph (later Telecommunication) Convention, today the Constitution and Convention of ITU, is the basic treaty that establishes the legal basis for the Union and defines its purpo​se and structure.\nThe first International Telegraph Convention signed in 1865 established the basic principles for international telegraphy. In order to keep up with advances in telegraphy, the Member States met regularly to revise the Convention and the annexed International Service Regulations (also known as the Telegraph Regulations).\nUseful links\nPage Content 3\nSignature and ratification status of ITU's treaties (Position of Member States)\nGlossary of terms relating to Treaty actions​ (UN Treaty Collection​)\nPage Content\nFor a brief period from 1906 to 1932, the regulation of radiotelegraph (“wireless”) communications was managed by a separate, but related, treaty – the International Radiotelegraph Convention.\n​​​​​​​​​​​​​In 1932, the International Telegraph Convention and the International Radiotelegraph Convention were merged into a single new convention, the International Telecommunication Convention. This new Convention covered the three fields of telegraphy, telephony and radio.\nThe International Telecommunication Convention was revised regularly until 1989, when the Plenipotentiary Conference in Nice agreed to establish a stable Constitution and Convention. The 1989 Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union never received the required number of ratifications, however, and so it never came into effect. It is not included in the list below for this reason.\nA thoroughly revised Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union was adopted at the 1992 Additional Plenipotentiary Conference held in Geneva. Subsequent plenipotentiary conferences have adopted only amending instruments to the 1992 documents. The Constitution and Convention currently in force are the Consti\ntution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva, 1992) as amended by subsequent plenipotentiary conferences.​​​​​\n​\n​​\nThe History of ITU Portal uses Persistent Identifiers for its digitized \r\ndocuments. To copy a Persistent ID, hover the cursor over the document link and then right-click on it.\n​​​\nYear\nTitle\nEnglish\nFrançais\nEspañol\nعربي\n中文\nРусский\n1865\nInternational Telegraph Convention (Paris, 1865)\nFR\n1868\nInternational Telegraph Convention (Vienna, 1868)\nFR\n1872\nInternational Telegraph Convention (Rome, 1872)\nEN\nFR\n1875\nInternational Telegraph Convention (St. Petersburg, 1875)\nFR\n1906\nInternational Radiotelegraph Convention (Berlin, 1906)\nFR\n1912\nInternational Radiotelegraph Convention (London, 1912)\nEN\nFR\n1927\nInternational Radiotelegraph Convention (Washington, 1927)\nEN\nFR\n1932\nInternational Telecommunication Convention (Madrid, 1932)\nEN\nFR\n1947\nInternational Telecommunication Convention (Atlantic City, 1947)\nEN\nFR\nES\nZH\n1952\nInternational Telecommunication Convention (Buenos Aires, 1952)\nEN\nFR\nES\nZH\n1959\nInternational Telecommunication Convention (Geneva, 1959)\nEN\nFR\nES\n1965\nInternational Telecommunication Convention (Montreux, 1965)\nEN\nFR\nES\nZH\n1973\nInternational Telecommunication Convention (Málaga-Torremolinos, 1973)\nEN\nFR\nES\n1982\nInternational Telecommunication Convention (Nairobi, 1982)\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n1992\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (published in Final Acts of the Additional Plenipotentiary Conference (Geneva, 1992))\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n1994\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union as amended by the 1994 Plenipotentiary Conference (published in Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto, 1994))\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n1998\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union as amended by the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference (published in Basic Texts, 1999)\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n2002\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union as amended by the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference (published in Basic Texts, 2003)\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n2006\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union as amended by the 2006 Plenipotentiary Conference (published in Basic Texts, 2007)\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n2010\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union as amended by the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference (published in Basic Texts, 2011) - English version includes index\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n2014\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union adopted by the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference (published in Basic Texts, 2015)\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n2018\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union adopted by the 2018 Plenipotentiary Conference (published in Basic Texts, 2019)\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\n2022\nConstitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union adopted by the 2022 Plenipotentiary Conference (published in Basic Texts, 2023)\nEN\nFR\nES\nAR\nZH\nRU\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-07-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:30.078283+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "d2509c4a-9b37-42b9-808d-2100ddc08410", "source_id": "8bc717a98a58c9588a68067e", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/domain-name-registrants-2017-06-20-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/registrants", "artifact_sha256": "60c02926c5b50160dc9cd1708217f38600ff688f719383d122a0bf79ae0154f7", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 76964, "title": "Information for Domain Name Registrants - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 12916, "characters": 12916, "text": "Information for Domain Name Registrants - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nInformation for Domain Name Registrants\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nWhat is a Registrant?\nA\ndomain name registrant\nis an individual or entity who registers a\ndomain name\n. Upon registration of a\ndomain name\n, a\nregistrant\nenters into a contract with a\nregistrar\n. The contract describes the terms under which the\nregistrar\nagrees to register and maintain the requested name. After registration,\nregistrants\nmanage their\ndomain name\nsettings through their\nregistrar\n.\nAs a domain name registrant, you have certain\nrights and responsibilities\n. Your rights include access to information from your registrar regarding processes for registering, managing, transferring, renewing, and restoring your domain name registration.\nTake Action\nClick here\nto use ICANN's Lookup Tool to find your registrar.\nIf you have suggestions, or would like to submit an inquiry, please contact ICANN's\nGlobal Support Center\n.\nContractual Compliance complaints can be submitted\nhere\n.\nRegistrant Resources\nThe ICANN Registrant Program team has developed a number of informational series that aim to help educate registrants about their rights and responsibilities, the domain name ecosystem, how to navigate it, and the ICANN policies that impact them.\nICANN Learn\nSign up for the free ICANN Learn course:\nRegistrant Basics: Essentials for Domain Name Holders\nWhat You Need to Know\nThinking About Registering a Domain Name?\nNeed Help With Your Domain Name?\nBlog series\n: Includes info on keeping your contact information up-to-date, transfer and renewal policies, and how to protect your domain name.\n5 Things Every Domain Name Registrant Should Know\nFrequently Asked Questions (FAQs)\nDomain Name Renewals and Expiration\nRegistrant Contact Information and the WDRP\nTransferring your domain name\nAbout ICANN\nVarious FAQs\nGeneral Questions and Registering a Domain Name\nRegistration and Management of Domain Names\nRegistering domain names\nTransferring domain names\nRenewing domain names\nProtecting domain names\nDomain Name Registration Data Policies and Related Requirements\nProvides information on the existing requirements and ongoing work related to domain name registration data by the ICANN community (SO/ACs).\nInfographics\nThinking About Registering a Domain Name?\nNeed Help With Your Domain Name?\nImportant Tips to Help Keep Your Domain Name Secure\nArabic\nChinese\nEnglish\nFrench\nRussian\nSpanish\nGet Involved\nICANN Public Meetings\nICANN Policy Development\nPublic Comment Opportunities\nGet Involved in the ICANN Community\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "e8219ddc-d5d5-46b7-899c-e4bbbb12c910", "document_id": "d2509c4a-9b37-42b9-808d-2100ddc08410", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Information for Domain Name Registrants - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nInformation for Domain Name Registrants\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nEspañol\nFrançais\nPусский\n中文\nWhat is a Registrant?\nA\ndomain name registrant\nis an individual or entity who registers a\ndomain name\n. Upon registration of a\ndomain name\n, a\nregistrant\nenters into a contract with a\nregistrar\n. The contract describes the terms under which the\nregistrar\nagrees to register and maintain the requested name. After registration,\nregistrants\nmanage their\ndomain name\nsettings through their\nregistrar\n.\nAs a domain name registrant, you have certain\nrights and responsibilities\n. Your rights include access to information from your registrar regarding processes for registering, managing, transferring, renewing, and restoring your domain name registration.\nTake Action\nClick here\nto use ICANN's Lookup Tool to find your registrar.\nIf you have suggestions, or would like to submit an inquiry, please contact ICANN's\nGlobal Support Center\n.\nContractual Compliance complaints can be submitted\nhere\n.\nRegistrant Resources\nThe ICANN Registrant Program team has developed a number of informational series that aim to help educate registrants about their rights and responsibilities, the domain name ecosystem, how to navigate it, and the ICANN policies that impact them.\nICANN Learn\nSign up for the free ICANN Learn course:\nRegistrant Basics: Essentials for Domain Name Holders\nWhat You Need to Know\nThinking About Registering a Domain Name?\nNeed Help With Your Domain Name?\nBlog series\n: Includes info on keeping your contact information up-to-date, transfer and renewal policies, and how to protect your domain name.\n5 Things Every Domain Name Registrant Should Know\nFrequently Asked Questions (FAQs)\nDomain Name Renewals and Expiration\nRegistrant Contact Information and the WDRP\nTransferring your domain name\nAbout ICANN\nVarious FAQs\nGeneral Questions and Registering a Domain Name\nRegistration and Management of Domain Names\nRegistering domain names\nTransferring domain names\nRenewing domain names\nProtecting domain names\nDomain Name Registration Data Policies and Related Requirements\nProvides information on the existing requirements and ongoing work related to domain name registration data by the ICANN community (SO/ACs).\nInfographics\nThinking About Registering a Domain Name?\nNeed Help With Your Domain Name?\nImportant Tips to Help Keep Your Domain Name Secure\nArabic\nChinese\nEnglish\nFrench\nRussian\nSpanish\nGet Involved\nICANN Public Meetings\nICANN Policy Development\nPublic Comment Opportunities\nGet Involved in the ICANN Community\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12916, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1754}}], "published_at": "2017-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2017-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2017-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "d2b52fce-973b-4f08-a748-ecf250544cc5", "source_id": "0e9fac1aeb321f77499b7340", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/compliance", "artifact_sha256": "d2162d80ba6b60a19a912830645359fcef6434a920cad668dab29a938c6bae1a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 75880, "title": "Contractual Compliance - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 12460, "characters": 12460, "text": "Contractual Compliance - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nContractual Compliance\nUpdated 15 September 2025 to improve navigation and make it easier to access information.\nLatest News from Contractual Compliance\nJune 2026 Contractual Compliance Monthly Report\nJanuary 2026 Contractual Compliance gTLD Registry Audit Report\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nupdated SEP 2025\nJanuary 2026 Contractual Compliance Monthly Metrics\nEnforcement of DN‌S Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Se‌curi‌ty Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of D‌NS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\nICANN Contractual Compliance – Functional Activities Overview\nWhat we do:\nEnforce ICANN org's agreements with Registry Operators, ICANN-Accredited Registrars and the community-developed policies incorporated into those agreements.\nEnforcement activities include addressing external complaints, proactive monitoring to ensure contracted parties comply with the agreements, and conducting regularly scheduled audits.\nSupport ICANN's policy development processes and working groups efforts by providing input on clarity and enforceability of proposed recommendations and sharing relevant historical Compliance data and reporting.\nParticipate in training and outreach sessions to increase awareness and understanding of the role of ICANN Compliance in enforcing ICANN's agreements with Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited Registrars.\nProduce, publish, and maintain detailed monthly metrics and reports on the enforcement activities of ICANN Contractual Compliance.\nLearn More About ICANN Contractual Compliance\nInformation about how to submit a complaint to ICANN Contractual Compliance\n.\nInformation about the process ICANN Contractual Compliance follows to address complaints and to enforce contractual obligations\n.\nContractual Compliance Vision, Mission, Approach, and Team\nArchived ICANN Contractual Compliance Reports\nArchive\n2024 Achive Page\n2012 Archive Page\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "c9e7121d-1076-44b9-a717-610a96858a84", "document_id": "d2b52fce-973b-4f08-a748-ecf250544cc5", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Contractual Compliance - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nContractual Compliance\nUpdated 15 September 2025 to improve navigation and make it easier to access information.\nLatest News from Contractual Compliance\nJune 2026 Contractual Compliance Monthly Report\nJanuary 2026 Contractual Compliance gTLD Registry Audit Report\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nupdated SEP 2025\nJanuary 2026 Contractual Compliance Monthly Metrics\nEnforcement of DN‌S Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Se‌curi‌ty Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of D‌NS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\nICANN Contractual Compliance – Functional Activities Overview\nWhat we do:\nEnforce ICANN org's agreements with Registry Operators, ICANN-Accredited Registrars and the community-developed policies incorporated into those agreements.\nEnforcement activities include addressing external complaints, proactive monitoring to ensure contracted parties comply with the agreements, and conducting regularly scheduled audits.\nSupport ICANN's policy development processes and working groups efforts by providing input on clarity and enforceability of proposed recommendations and sharing relevant historical Compliance data and reporting.\nParticipate in training and outreach sessions to increase awareness and understanding of the role of ICANN Compliance in enforcing ICANN's agreements with Registry Operators and ICANN-accredited Registrars.\nProduce, publish, and maintain detailed monthly metrics and reports on the enforcement activities of ICANN Contractual Compliance.\nLearn More About ICANN Contractual Compliance\nInformation about how to submit a complaint to ICANN Contractual Compliance\n.\nInformation about the process ICANN Contractual Compliance follows to address complaints and to enforce contractual obligations\n.\nContractual Compliance Vision, Mission, Approach, and Team\nArchived ICANN Contractual Compliance Reports\nArchive\n2024 Achive Page\n2012 Archive Page\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12460, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1636}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "d424883c-28a7-40d2-8e18-f1b5927c8619", "source_id": "3da6aa50fb12707cd612742b", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/about-igf", "final_url": "https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/about-igf", "artifact_sha256": "41650a5bbaf09e2be2635f9dd494ee692fbf92f131ce9979e21341ff84f52c6b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 79645, "title": "Page not found | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)", "language": "en", "text_length": 3197, "characters": 3197, "text": "Page not found | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nPage not found\nThe requested page could not be found.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "a7f77dd5-cab4-4ed3-ba57-67244faf3bab", "document_id": "d424883c-28a7-40d2-8e18-f1b5927c8619", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Page not found | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nPage not found\nThe requested page could not be found.\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3197, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 487}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "d5befe3f-45cc-4070-bfc0-eb9ff7c0e5e5", "source_id": "61aa3b1c31ae8e2ed9fee548", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/government-engagement", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/government-engagement", "artifact_sha256": "60ee347bb6a355d262613430e6775cd7514fb4c8ca0a811010f3331101d69db6", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 334125, "title": "Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement", "language": "en", "text_length": 4949, "characters": 4949, "text": "Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGovernment and IGO Engagement\nStay up-to-date on the latest government and intergovernmental organization engagement information by subscribing to ICANN News.\nSubscribe\nGE Home\nGE Publications\nThird Party Contributions\nReports to the GAC\nGAC\nInternet Governance Network\nGovernment and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement\nOne of ICANN’s strategic objectives is to address geopolitical issues with the potential to impact its mission to ensure a single, stable, and globally interoperable Internet through the secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. To support this objective, ICANN organization (org) monitors activity and builds alliances in the Internet ecosystem and beyond to raise awareness of our important mission and technical work.\nICANN has a dedicated Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement (GE) team responsible for the development and implementation of a global strategy to engage with governments and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). ICANN seeks to ensure that all decision-makers understand how the Internet’s technical foundation works. This is to ensure that any actions, regulations, or laws do not disrupt the Internet’s functioning or unintentionally disadvantage users.\nGovernments are critical to ICANN’s multistakeholder model. ICANN works with governments within ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is one of ICANN’s Advisory Committees. ICANN also works with governments directly and with relevant IGOs, whose roles have the potential to touch upon ICANN’s mission.\nInternet Governance Network\nThe Internet Governance Network brings together members of the global Internet community to share information, resources, and perspectives on developments related to ICANN's remit. Learn more on our page.\nLearn more on our page\n.\nPublications and Reports\nThe GE team, comprised of subject-matter experts, monitors and analyzes government and IGO activities to ensure that ICANN has the necessary information and tools to address geopolitical issues. As part of this work, the GE team publishes analytical papers, which explore relevant legislative, regulatory, and governmental structures, policies, and processes. We also make submissions to Internet ecosystem processes when appropriate, and we publish bi-monthly reports to the GAC on government and IGO engagement activities.\nAccess these publications, reports, and submissions below.\nGovernment Engagement Publications\nCommunity Contribution Opportunities\nICANN org Submissions to External Bodies\nGovernment Engagement Public Reporting\nGovernment Engagement Publications\nCommunity Contribution Opportunities\nICANN org Submissions to External Bodies\nGovernment Engagement Public Reporting\nInterested in ICANN's Government Engagement Publications?\nSign up for email alerts to get notified when new reports are published.\nSubscribe\nGE Announcements\nICANN Seeks Input on IGO and INGO Curative Rights Implementation\nICANN Announces US$ 1 Million Contribution to Support the Internet Governance Forum\nICANN Leads Critical Discussions at 2024 Internet Governance Forum\nSee more announcements\nGE Blogs\nICANN at WSIS Forum 2026: Advancing Global Internet Cooperation\nA Permanent Internet Governance Forum: The Work Ahead\nBuilding on Long-Standing Cooperation to Strengthen Digital Capacity in Africa\nSee more blogs\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f7d8b927-87e4-4bc0-9996-ecb2eef0a505", "document_id": "d5befe3f-45cc-4070-bfc0-eb9ff7c0e5e5", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGovernment and IGO Engagement\nStay up-to-date on the latest government and intergovernmental organization engagement information by subscribing to ICANN News.\nSubscribe\nGE Home\nGE Publications\nThird Party Contributions\nReports to the GAC\nGAC\nInternet Governance Network\nGovernment and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement\nOne of ICANN’s strategic objectives is to address geopolitical issues with the potential to impact its mission to ensure a single, stable, and globally interoperable Internet through the secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. To support this objective, ICANN organization (org) monitors activity and builds alliances in the Internet ecosystem and beyond to raise awareness of our important mission and technical work.\nICANN has a dedicated Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement (GE) team responsible for the development and implementation of a global strategy to engage with governments and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). ICANN seeks to ensure that all decision-makers understand how the Internet’s technical foundation works. This is to ensure that any actions, regulations, or laws do not disrupt the Internet’s functioning or unintentionally disadvantage users.\nGovernments are critical to ICANN’s multistakeholder model. ICANN works with governments within ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is one of ICANN’s Advisory Committees. ICANN also works with governments directly and with relevant IGOs, whose roles have the potential to touch upon ICANN’s mission.\nInternet Governance Network\nThe Internet Governance Network brings together members of the global Internet community to share information, resources, and perspectives on developments related to ICANN's remit. Learn more on our page.\nLearn more on our page\n.\nPublications and Reports\nThe GE team, comprised of subject-matter experts, monitors and analyzes government and IGO activities to ensure that ICANN has the necessary information and tools to address geopolitical issues. As part of this work, the GE team publishes analytical papers, which explore relevant legislative, regulatory, and governmental structures, policies, and processes. We also make submissions to Internet ecosystem processes when appropriate, and we publish bi-monthly reports to the GAC on government and IGO engagement activities.\nAccess these publications, reports, and submissions below.\nGovernment Engagement Publications\nCommunity Contribution Opportunities\nICANN org Submissions to External Bodies\nGovernment Engagement Public Reporting\nGovernment Engagement Publications\nCommunity Contribution Opportunities\nICANN org Submissions to External Bodies\nGovernment Engagement Public Reporting\nInterested in ICANN's Government Engagement Publications?\nSign up for email alerts to get notified when new reports are published.\nSubscribe\nGE Announcements\nICANN Seeks Input on IGO and INGO Curative Rights Implementation\nICANN Announces US$ 1 Million Contribution to Support the Internet Governance Forum\nICANN Leads Critical Discussions at 2024 Internet Governance Forum\nSee more announcements\nGE Blogs\nICANN at WSIS Forum 2026: Advancing Global Internet Cooperation\nA Permanent Internet Governance Forum: The Work Ahead\nBuilding on Long-Standing Cooperation to Strengthen Digital Capacity in Africa\nSee more blogs\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4949, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 671}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "d8988283-7808-4e51-9304-70303e819f49", "source_id": "7a3d8c6cbd58f550b50509fb", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/implementation/index.html", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/implementation/index.html", "artifact_sha256": "949e83c4dae8886be74bce81460348baab6c593720484de1c261894bac830372", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 11805, "title": "World Summit on the Information Society", "language": null, "text_length": 1488, "characters": 1488, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nWSIS IMPLEMENTATION BY\nACTION LINE\nThe\nTunis Agenda for the Information Society\nstates that the\nWSIS\nimplementation mechanism at the international level\nshould\nbe organised taking into account the themes and action lines in\nthe Geneva Plan of Action, and moderated or facilitated by UN\nagencies when appropriate. It also states that\nITU, UNESCO and UNDP\nshould play a leading facilitating role in the implementation of\nthe Geneva Plan of Action.\nMeetings of\nAction Line Moderators/Facilitators\nAction Line\nFacilitators and Focal Points\nWSIS Action Lines\nС1.\nThe role of public governance authorities and\nall stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development\nС2.\nInformation and communication infrastructure\nC3.\nAccess to information and knowledge\nC4.\nCapacity building\nC5.\nBuilding confidence and security in the use\nof ICTs\nC6.\nEnabling environment\nC7.\nICT Applications:\nE-government\nE-business\nE-learning\nE-health\nE-employment\nE-environment\nE-agriculture\nE-science\nC8.\nCultural diversity and identity, linguistic\ndiversity and local content\nC9.\nMedia\nC10.\nEthical dimensions of the Information\nSociety\nC11.\nInternational\nand regional cooperation\nWSIS\nStocktaking\nWSIS\nGolden Book\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2024\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2015-01-22", "segments": [{"segment_id": "dfefc09e-97af-40d2-8eb5-aa906bd15f44", "document_id": "d8988283-7808-4e51-9304-70303e819f49", "ordinal": 0, "text": "World Summit on the Information Society\nhome\n|\nfrançais\n|\nespañol\nsearch\n|\nsite map\n|\ncontact\n|\ntext only\nWSIS IMPLEMENTATION BY\nACTION LINE\nThe\nTunis Agenda for the Information Society\nstates that the\nWSIS\nimplementation mechanism at the international level\nshould\nbe organised taking into account the themes and action lines in\nthe Geneva Plan of Action, and moderated or facilitated by UN\nagencies when appropriate. It also states that\nITU, UNESCO and UNDP\nshould play a leading facilitating role in the implementation of\nthe Geneva Plan of Action.\nMeetings of\nAction Line Moderators/Facilitators\nAction Line\nFacilitators and Focal Points\nWSIS Action Lines\nС1.\nThe role of public governance authorities and\nall stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development\nС2.\nInformation and communication infrastructure\nC3.\nAccess to information and knowledge\nC4.\nCapacity building\nC5.\nBuilding confidence and security in the use\nof ICTs\nC6.\nEnabling environment\nC7.\nICT Applications:\nE-government\nE-business\nE-learning\nE-health\nE-employment\nE-environment\nE-agriculture\nE-science\nC8.\nCultural diversity and identity, linguistic\ndiversity and local content\nC9.\nMedia\nC10.\nEthical dimensions of the Information\nSociety\nC11.\nInternational\nand regional cooperation\nWSIS\nStocktaking\nWSIS\nGolden Book\nb\na\nsic information\n|\nfirst\nphase: Geneva\n|\nsecond phase: Tunis\n|\nstocktaking\n|\nnewsroom\n|\nlinks\nTop\n-\nCopyright © WSIS 2024\nAll Rights\nReserved -\nLogo Policy\nPrivacy Notic\nes\nUpdated : 2015-01-22", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 1488, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 225}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "source_id": "dba16644e9a409c229fa361e", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3172", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3172/", "artifact_sha256": "3a6deef4bb7e547f9919628c259255cbe1f868996d5398dad3d148f0944fd5ec", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 141931, "title": "RFC 3172: Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\") | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 17627, "characters": 17627, "text": "RFC 3172: Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\") | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3172\nInfo\nRFC\n3172\n:\nBCP\n52\n:\nManagement Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\nG. Huston\n,\nEd.\nBest Current Practice\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n9120\n.\nNetwork Working Group G. Huston, Editor\nRequest for Comments: 3172 IAB\nBCP: 52 September 2001\nCategory: Best Current Practice\nManagement Guidelines & Operational Requirements for\nthe Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo describes the management and operational requirements for\nthe address and routing parameter area (\"arpa\") domain. The \"arpa\"\ndomain is used to support a class of infrastructural identifier\nspaces, providing a distributed database that translates elements of\na structured name space derived from a protocol family to service\nnames. The efficient and reliable operation of this DNS space is\nessential to the integrity of operation of various services within\nthe Internet. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has the\nresponsibility, in cooperation with the Internet Corporation for\nAssigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to manage the \"arpa\" domain.\nThis document describes the principles used by the IAB in undertaking\nthis role.\n1\n. Introduction\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) [\n1\n] [\n2\n] is predominately used to\ntranslate a structured textual identifier into a protocol-specific\nvalue. It uses the structure embedded within a hierarchical\nidentifier space to create a distributed database, where every node\nwithin the database corresponds to a node within the name structure.\nThe most prevalent role of the DNS is to store a set of name to\naddress translations, allowing a domain name to be translated to an\nIP address. The DNS is also used to store a number of other\ntranslations from hierarchically structured identifier spaces into\ntarget values of various types.\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nThe DNS is also capable of supporting a translation in the opposite\ndirection, from protocol values to the names of service entities.\nOne approach in using the DNS in this fashion has been to transform\nprotocol values into a hierarchically structured identifier space,\nand then use these transformed protocol value names as a DNS lookup\nkey into the appropriate DNS name hierarchy. A common use of this\nmechanism has been the reverse of the name to address lookup,\nallowing for an IPv4 address to be used to look up a matching domain\nname. For example, the IP address 128.9.160.55 can be associated\nwith the domain name \"www.iab.org.\" by creating the DNS entry\n55.160.9.128.in-addr.arpa.\" and mapping this entry, via a DNS PTR\nrecord, to the value \"www.iab.org.\".\n\nThe resolution of protocol objects into service names is used by a\nnumber of applications to associate services with a particular\nprotocol object. The correct and efficient operation of these\napplications is dependent on the correct and efficient operation of\nthe associated \"arpa\" domain name servers.\n2\n. The \"arpa\" domain\nThe \"arpa\" domain was originally established as part of the initial\ndeployment of the DNS, to provide a transition mechanism from the\nHost Tables that were common in the ARPANET, as well as a home for\nthe IPv4 reverse mapping domain. During 2000, the abbreviation was\nredesignated to \"Address and Routing Parameter Area\" in the hope of\nreducing confusion with the earlier network name.\n\nThe Internet Architecture Board (IAB), in cooperation with the\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), is\ncurrently responsible for managing the Top Level Domain (TLD) name\n\"arpa\". This arrangement is documented in\nAppendix A\n. This domain\nname provides the root of the name hierarchy of the reverse mapping\nof IP addresses to domain names. More generally, this domain name\nundertakes a role as a limited use domain for Internet\ninfrastructure applications, by providing a name root for the mapping\nof particular protocol values to names of service entities. This\ndomain name provides a name root for the mapping of protocol values\ninto lookup keys to retrieve operationally critical protocol\ninfrastructure data records or objects for the Internet.\n\nThe IAB may add other infrastructure uses to the \"arpa\" domain in the\nfuture. Any such additions or changes will be in accordance with the\nprocedures documented in\nSection 2.1\nand\nSection 3\nof this document.\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nThis domain is termed an \"infrastructure domain\", as its role is to\nsupport the operating infrastructure of the Internet. In particular,\nthe \"arpa\" domain is not to be used in the same manner (e.g., for\nnaming hosts) as other generic Top Level Domains are commonly used.\n\nThe operational administration of this domain, in accordance with the\nprovisions described in this document, shall be performed by the IANA\nunder the terms of the MoU between the IAB and ICANN concerning the\nIANA [\n3\n].\n2.1\nCriteria for \"arpa\" Sub-domains\nThe \"arpa\" sub-domains are used for those protocol object sets\ndefined as part of the Internet Standards Process [\n4\n], and are\nrecommended to be managed as infrastructure protocol objects.\nNormally, the recommendation is to be made in the \"IANA\nConsiderations\" section of the Internet Standard protocol\nspecification. The recommendation should include the manner in which\nprotocol objects are to be mapped into lookup keys, and\nrecommendations to IANA concerning the operation of the \"arpa\" sub-\ndomain in conjunction with the recommendations concerning the\noperation of the protocol object registry itself.\n\nThe IESG consideration of a document which proposes the use of an\n\"arpa\" sub-domain shall include consideration of the \"IANA\nConsiderations\" section. If the document is approved, the IESG will\nask the IAB to request the IANA to add the corresponding protocol\nobject sub-domain domain to the \"arpa\" domain, in accordance with\nRFC\n2860\n[\n3\n], with administration of the sub-domain undertaken in\naccordance with the provisions described in this document.\n2.2\n\"arpa\" Name Server Requirements\nAs this domain is part of the operationally critical infrastructure\nof the Internet, the stability, integrity and efficiency of the\noperation of this domain is a matter of importance for all Internet\nusers.\n\nThe \"arpa\" domain is positioned as a top level domain in order to\navoid potential operational instabilities caused by multiple DNS\nlookups spanning several operational domains that would be required\nto locate the servers of each of the parent names of a more deeply\nnested infrastructure name. The maximal lookup set for \"arpa\" is a\nlookup of the name servers for the \"arpa\" domain from a root server,\nand the query agent is then provided with a list of authoritative\n\"arpa\" name servers.\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nThe efficient and correct operation of the \"arpa\" domain is\nconsidered to be sufficiently critical that the operational\nrequirements for the root servers apply to the operational\nrequirements of the \"arpa\" servers. All operational requirements\nnoted in\nRFC 2870\n[\n5\n] as they apply to the operational requirements\nof the root servers shall apply to the operation of the \"arpa\"\nservers. Any revision to\nRFC 2870\nin relation to the operation of\nthe root servers shall also apply to the operation of the \"arpa\"\nservers.\n\nMany of the servers that are authoritative for the root zone (or the\n\".\" zone) also currently serve as authoritative for the \"arpa\" zone.\nAs noted in\nRFC 2870\n[\n5\n], this arrangement is likely to change in the\nfuture.\n3\n. Delegation of \"arpa\" Sub-Domains\nWhile the decision as to which protocol elements are loaded into the\n\"arpa\" domain, and the hierarchical structure of such protocol\nelements, remains within the role of the IAB, the role of managing\nthe sub-domain may be delegated by the IAB to an appropriate protocol\nmanagement entity.\n\nThe IAB shall only recommend the creation of \"arpa\" sub-domains\ncorresponding to protocol entities where:\n\n- the delegation, and the hierarchical name structure, is described\nby an IETF Standards Track document [\n4\n], and\n\n- the use of the \"arpa\" domain is explicitly recommended in the\n\"IANA Considerations\" section of that document.\n\nThe \"IANA Considerations\" section should include the name of the\nsubdomain, the rules for how the subdomain is to be administered, and\nthe criteria for entries within the subdomain.\n4\n. Current Status of \"arpa\"\nThe \"arpa\" domain is used for the sub-domains \"in-addr.arpa\" [\n1\n],\n\"ip6.arpa\" [\n7\n] and \"e164.arpa\" [\n8\n].\n\nCurrently, the \"arpa\" zone is located on a subset of the root\nservers, and the zone is managed in accordance with these\nspecifications. The IAB is working with ICANN, IANA, and the\nregional registries to move \"arpa\" and \"in-addr.arpa\" records from\nthe root servers in accord with the\nRFC 2870\nrecommendation for\nexclusive use of those servers [\n5\n].\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nThe IPv4 reverse address domain, \"in-addr.arpa\" is delegated to the\nIANA. The \"in-addr.arpa\" zone is currently located on the same same\nsubset of the root servers as \"arpa\". Sub-delegations within this\nhierarchy are undertaken in accordance with the IANA's address\nallocation practices.\n\nThe \"ip6.arpa\" IPv6 reverse address domain uses a method of\ndelegation that is the same as is used for \"in-addr.arpa\", where the\n\"ip6.arpa\" domain is delegated to the IANA, and names within this\nzone further delegated to the regional IP registries in accordance\nwith the delegation of IPv6 address space to those registries [\n6\n]\n[\n7\n].\n\nThe \"e164.arpa\" domain is used to map E.164 style phone numbers into\nURIs. This mechanism is defined in\nRFC 2916\n[\n9\n].\nRFC 2916\nnotes\nthat the provision that names within this DNS zone are to be\ndelegated to parties according to ITU recommendation E.164 [\n10\n].\nRFC\n3026\n[\n8\n] describes the overall liaison arrangements between the IETF\nand ITU-T about the use of this domain.\n5\n. Infrastructure domains elsewhere in the DNS tree\nAny infrastructure domains that are located elsewhere in the DNS tree\nthan as sub-domains of \"arpa\", for historical or other reasons,\nshould adhere to all of the requirements established in this document\nfor sub-domains of \"arpa\", and consideration should be given to\nmigrating them into \"arpa\" as and when appropriate.\n6\n. Security Considerations\nThe security considerations as documented in\nRFC 2870\n[\n5\n], and any\nsuccessors to that document, apply to the operation of the \"arpa\"\nservers.\n\nThe security considerations specific to the E.164 subdomain are\ndocumented in\nSection 5 of RFC 2916\n[\n9\n].\n\nAny new subdomain delegation must adequately document any security\nconsiderations specific to the information stored therein.\n7\n. IANA Considerations\nAs noted in\nsection 3\nof this document, the IAB may request the IANA\nto delegate the sub-domains of \"arpa\" in accordance with the \"IANA\nConsiderations\" section of an IETF Standards Track document. This\nrequest falls under the scope of\nsection 4\nof the MoU between the\nIETF and ICANN concerning the IANA [\n3\n].\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nAcknowledgements\n\nThis document is a document of the IAB, and the editor acknowledges\nthe contributions of the members of the IAB in the preparation of the\ndocument. In addition, suggestions have been incorporated from Scott\nBradner.\n\nReferences\n\n[\n1\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain names - concepts and facilities\", STD\n13,\nRFC 1034\n, November 1987.\n\n[\n2\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain names - implementation and\nspecification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, November 1987.\n\n[\n3\n] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, \"Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet\nAssigned Numbers Authority\",\nRFC 2860\n, June 2000.\n\n[\n4\n] Bradner, S., \"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\",\nBCP\n9\n,\nRFC2026\n, October 1996.\n\n[\n5\n] Bush, R., Karrenberg, D., Kosters, M. and R. Plzak, \"Root Name\nServer Operational Requirements\",\nBCP 40\n,\nRFC 2870\n, June 2000.\n\n[\n6\n] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, \"DNS Extensions to Support IPv6\nAddress Aggregation and Renumbering\",\nRFC 2874\n, July 2000.\n\n[\n7\n] Bush, R., \"Delegation of IP6.arpa\",\nBCP 49\n,\nRFC 3152\n, August\n2001.\n\n[\n8\n] Blane, P., \"Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM\",\nRFC 3026\n, January\n2001.\n\n[\n9\n] Falstrom, P., \"E.164 number and DNS\",\nRFC 2916\n, September 2000.\n\n[\n10\n] ITU-T Recommendation E.164/I.331 (05/97): The International\nPublic Telecommunication Numbering Plan. 1997.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\nInternet Architecture Board\nGeoff Huston, Editor\n\niab@iab.org\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nAppendix A\n\nApril 28, 2000\n\nMr. Louis Touton\nVice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\n4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330\nMarina del Rey, CA 90292\n\nRe: Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020:\nAdministration of the arpa Top Level Domain\n\nDear Mr. Touton:\n\nAs noted in your organization's quotation of February 2, 2000, the\narpa Top Level Domain (TLD) exists in the root zone of the domain\nname system as a limited use domain currently consisting of one\nrecord, in-addr.arpa. On April 14, 2000, the Defense Advanced\nResearch Projects Agency (DARPA), formerly known as the Advanced\nResearch Projects Agency (ARPA), officially signaled its\ndisassociation with the arpa domain and its understanding the domain\nwould be used by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names (ICANN)\nand Numbers and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) for additional\nInternet infrastructure uses.\n\nIn keeping with the DARPA understanding, we believe that the arpa\ndomain should be made available for this specific, limited purpose.\nThe Department of Commerce considers this an Internet Assigned\nNumbers Authority (IANA) function and has requested that the WHOIS\nentry for the arpa domain reflect IANA as the registrant.\n\nPurchase Order No. 40SBNT067020 provides that \"[ICANN] will perform\nother IANA functions as needed upon request of DOC.\" As such, the\nDepartment of Commerce requests that, as part of the IANA functions,\nICANN undertake administration of the arpa TLD in cooperation with\nthe Internet technical community under the guidance of the IAB, as a\nlimited use domain for Internet infrastructure applications,\nincluding the migration of Internet infrastructure applications that\ncurrently reside in the .int TLD. Further, as indicated by DARPA,\nthe arpa TLD string should be given a different expansion such as\n\"Address and Routing Parameter Area\" to avoid any implication that\nDARPA has operational responsibility for the domain.\n\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.\n\nSincerely, Karen Rose\nPurchase Order Technical Representative\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.\n\nThe limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 8]\nRFC\n3172\n: Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. The \"arpa\" domain\n2.1 Criteria for \"arpa\" Sub-domains\n2.2 \"arpa\" Name Server Requirements\n3. Delegation of \"arpa\" Sub-Domains\n4. Current Status of \"arpa\"\n5. Infrastructure domains elsewhere in the DNS tree\n6. Security Considerations\n7. IANA Considerations\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "bf546926-36cd-4a95-a6fc-9774288ccb73", "document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 3172: Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\") | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 3172\nInfo\nRFC\n3172\n:\nBCP\n52\n:\nManagement Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\nG. Huston\n,\nEd.\nBest Current Practice\nThis RFC was updated\n, see\nRFC\n9120\n.\nNetwork Working Group G. Huston, Editor\nRequest for Comments: 3172 IAB\nBCP: 52 September 2001\nCategory: Best Current Practice\nManagement Guidelines & Operational Requirements for\nthe Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\nStatus of this Memo\n\nThis document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the\nInternet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for\nimprovements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nCopyright Notice\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.\n\nAbstract\n\nThis memo describes the management and operational requirements for\nthe address and routing parameter area (\"arpa\") domain. The \"arpa\"\ndomain is used to support a class of infrastructural identifier\nspaces, providing a distributed database that translates elements of\na structured name space derived from a protocol family to service\nnames. The efficient and reliable operation of this DNS space is\nessential to the integrity of operation of various services within\nthe Internet. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has the\nresponsibility, in cooperation with the Internet Corporation for\nAssigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to manage the \"arpa\" domain.\nThis document describes the principles used by the IAB in undertaking\nthis role.\n1\n. Introduction\nThe Domain Name System (DNS) [\n1\n] [\n2\n] is predominately used to\ntranslate a structured textual identifier into a protocol-specific\nvalue. It uses the structure embedded within a hierarchical\nidentifier space to create a distributed database, where every node\nwithin the database corresponds to a node within the name structure.\nThe most prevalent role of the DNS is to store a set of name to\naddress translations, allowing a domain name to be translated to an\nIP address. The DNS is also used to store a number of other\ntranslations from hierarchically structured identifier spaces into\ntarget values of various types.\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 1]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nThe DNS is also capable of supporting a translation in the opposite\ndirection, from protocol values to the names of service entities.\nOne approach in using the DNS in this fashion has been to transform\nprotocol values into a hierarchically structured identifier space,\nand then use these transformed protocol value names as a DNS lookup\nkey into the appropriate DNS name hierarchy. A common use of this\nmechanism has been the reverse of the name to address lookup,\nallowing for an IPv4 address to be used to look up a matching domain\nname. For example, the IP address 128.9.160.55 can be associated\nwith the domain name \"www.iab.org.\" by creating the DNS entry\n55.160.9.128.in-addr.arpa.\" and mapping this entry, via a DNS PTR\nrecord, to the value \"www.iab.org.\".", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3175, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 500}}, {"segment_id": "01287a23-faa5-4b5d-896a-ff0c0b0e3486", "document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "ordinal": 1, "text": "The resolution of protocol objects into service names is used by a\nnumber of applications to associate services with a particular\nprotocol object. The correct and efficient operation of these\napplications is dependent on the correct and efficient operation of\nthe associated \"arpa\" domain name servers.\n2\n. The \"arpa\" domain\nThe \"arpa\" domain was originally established as part of the initial\ndeployment of the DNS, to provide a transition mechanism from the\nHost Tables that were common in the ARPANET, as well as a home for\nthe IPv4 reverse mapping domain. During 2000, the abbreviation was\nredesignated to \"Address and Routing Parameter Area\" in the hope of\nreducing confusion with the earlier network name.\n\nThe Internet Architecture Board (IAB), in cooperation with the\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), is\ncurrently responsible for managing the Top Level Domain (TLD) name\n\"arpa\". This arrangement is documented in\nAppendix A\n. This domain\nname provides the root of the name hierarchy of the reverse mapping\nof IP addresses to domain names. More generally, this domain name\nundertakes a role as a limited use domain for Internet\ninfrastructure applications, by providing a name root for the mapping\nof particular protocol values to names of service entities. This\ndomain name provides a name root for the mapping of protocol values\ninto lookup keys to retrieve operationally critical protocol\ninfrastructure data records or objects for the Internet.\n\nThe IAB may add other infrastructure uses to the \"arpa\" domain in the\nfuture. Any such additions or changes will be in accordance with the\nprocedures documented in\nSection 2.1\nand\nSection 3\nof this document.\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 2]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nThis domain is termed an \"infrastructure domain\", as its role is to\nsupport the operating infrastructure of the Internet. In particular,\nthe \"arpa\" domain is not to be used in the same manner (e.g., for\nnaming hosts) as other generic Top Level Domains are commonly used.", "char_start": 3177, "char_end": 5217, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 329}}, {"segment_id": "86998e41-e8dd-45ea-a6e9-0ab49ee08245", "document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "ordinal": 2, "text": "The operational administration of this domain, in accordance with the\nprovisions described in this document, shall be performed by the IANA\nunder the terms of the MoU between the IAB and ICANN concerning the\nIANA [\n3\n].\n2.1\nCriteria for \"arpa\" Sub-domains\nThe \"arpa\" sub-domains are used for those protocol object sets\ndefined as part of the Internet Standards Process [\n4\n], and are\nrecommended to be managed as infrastructure protocol objects.\nNormally, the recommendation is to be made in the \"IANA\nConsiderations\" section of the Internet Standard protocol\nspecification. The recommendation should include the manner in which\nprotocol objects are to be mapped into lookup keys, and\nrecommendations to IANA concerning the operation of the \"arpa\" sub-\ndomain in conjunction with the recommendations concerning the\noperation of the protocol object registry itself.\n\nThe IESG consideration of a document which proposes the use of an\n\"arpa\" sub-domain shall include consideration of the \"IANA\nConsiderations\" section. If the document is approved, the IESG will\nask the IAB to request the IANA to add the corresponding protocol\nobject sub-domain domain to the \"arpa\" domain, in accordance with\nRFC\n2860\n[\n3\n], with administration of the sub-domain undertaken in\naccordance with the provisions described in this document.\n2.2\n\"arpa\" Name Server Requirements\nAs this domain is part of the operationally critical infrastructure\nof the Internet, the stability, integrity and efficiency of the\noperation of this domain is a matter of importance for all Internet\nusers.\n\nThe \"arpa\" domain is positioned as a top level domain in order to\navoid potential operational instabilities caused by multiple DNS\nlookups spanning several operational domains that would be required\nto locate the servers of each of the parent names of a more deeply\nnested infrastructure name. The maximal lookup set for \"arpa\" is a\nlookup of the name servers for the \"arpa\" domain from a root server,\nand the query agent is then provided with a list of authoritative\n\"arpa\" name servers.\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 3]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nThe efficient and correct operation of the \"arpa\" domain is\nconsidered to be sufficiently critical that the operational\nrequirements for the root servers apply to the operational\nrequirements of the \"arpa\" servers. All operational requirements\nnoted in\nRFC 2870\n[\n5\n] as they apply to the operational requirements\nof the root servers shall apply to the operation of the \"arpa\"\nservers. Any revision to\nRFC 2870\nin relation to the operation of\nthe root servers shall also apply to the operation of the \"arpa\"\nservers.", "char_start": 5219, "char_end": 7864, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 426}}, {"segment_id": "c15d85f3-b6a4-404c-9034-a7de33f94ea3", "document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "ordinal": 3, "text": "Many of the servers that are authoritative for the root zone (or the\n\".\" zone) also currently serve as authoritative for the \"arpa\" zone.\nAs noted in\nRFC 2870\n[\n5\n], this arrangement is likely to change in the\nfuture.\n3\n. Delegation of \"arpa\" Sub-Domains\nWhile the decision as to which protocol elements are loaded into the\n\"arpa\" domain, and the hierarchical structure of such protocol\nelements, remains within the role of the IAB, the role of managing\nthe sub-domain may be delegated by the IAB to an appropriate protocol\nmanagement entity.\n\nThe IAB shall only recommend the creation of \"arpa\" sub-domains\ncorresponding to protocol entities where:\n\n- the delegation, and the hierarchical name structure, is described\nby an IETF Standards Track document [\n4\n], and\n\n- the use of the \"arpa\" domain is explicitly recommended in the\n\"IANA Considerations\" section of that document.\n\nThe \"IANA Considerations\" section should include the name of the\nsubdomain, the rules for how the subdomain is to be administered, and\nthe criteria for entries within the subdomain.\n4\n. Current Status of \"arpa\"\nThe \"arpa\" domain is used for the sub-domains \"in-addr.arpa\" [\n1\n],\n\"ip6.arpa\" [\n7\n] and \"e164.arpa\" [\n8\n].\n\nCurrently, the \"arpa\" zone is located on a subset of the root\nservers, and the zone is managed in accordance with these\nspecifications. The IAB is working with ICANN, IANA, and the\nregional registries to move \"arpa\" and \"in-addr.arpa\" records from\nthe root servers in accord with the\nRFC 2870\nrecommendation for\nexclusive use of those servers [\n5\n].\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 4]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nThe IPv4 reverse address domain, \"in-addr.arpa\" is delegated to the\nIANA. The \"in-addr.arpa\" zone is currently located on the same same\nsubset of the root servers as \"arpa\". Sub-delegations within this\nhierarchy are undertaken in accordance with the IANA's address\nallocation practices.", "char_start": 7866, "char_end": 9780, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 317}}, {"segment_id": "87425bba-aefc-4a61-a436-295c723ac505", "document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "ordinal": 4, "text": "The \"ip6.arpa\" IPv6 reverse address domain uses a method of\ndelegation that is the same as is used for \"in-addr.arpa\", where the\n\"ip6.arpa\" domain is delegated to the IANA, and names within this\nzone further delegated to the regional IP registries in accordance\nwith the delegation of IPv6 address space to those registries [\n6\n]\n[\n7\n].\n\nThe \"e164.arpa\" domain is used to map E.164 style phone numbers into\nURIs. This mechanism is defined in\nRFC 2916\n[\n9\n].\nRFC 2916\nnotes\nthat the provision that names within this DNS zone are to be\ndelegated to parties according to ITU recommendation E.164 [\n10\n].\nRFC\n3026\n[\n8\n] describes the overall liaison arrangements between the IETF\nand ITU-T about the use of this domain.\n5\n. Infrastructure domains elsewhere in the DNS tree\nAny infrastructure domains that are located elsewhere in the DNS tree\nthan as sub-domains of \"arpa\", for historical or other reasons,\nshould adhere to all of the requirements established in this document\nfor sub-domains of \"arpa\", and consideration should be given to\nmigrating them into \"arpa\" as and when appropriate.\n6\n. Security Considerations\nThe security considerations as documented in\nRFC 2870\n[\n5\n], and any\nsuccessors to that document, apply to the operation of the \"arpa\"\nservers.\n\nThe security considerations specific to the E.164 subdomain are\ndocumented in\nSection 5 of RFC 2916\n[\n9\n].\n\nAny new subdomain delegation must adequately document any security\nconsiderations specific to the information stored therein.\n7\n. IANA Considerations\nAs noted in\nsection 3\nof this document, the IAB may request the IANA\nto delegate the sub-domains of \"arpa\" in accordance with the \"IANA\nConsiderations\" section of an IETF Standards Track document. This\nrequest falls under the scope of\nsection 4\nof the MoU between the\nIETF and ICANN concerning the IANA [\n3\n].\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 5]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nAcknowledgements", "char_start": 9782, "char_end": 11706, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 325}}, {"segment_id": "fcb35b1a-89b8-4065-8e79-ed7a6b60628a", "document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "ordinal": 5, "text": "This document is a document of the IAB, and the editor acknowledges\nthe contributions of the members of the IAB in the preparation of the\ndocument. In addition, suggestions have been incorporated from Scott\nBradner.\n\nReferences\n\n[\n1\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain names - concepts and facilities\", STD\n13,\nRFC 1034\n, November 1987.\n\n[\n2\n] Mockapetris, P., \"Domain names - implementation and\nspecification\", STD 13,\nRFC 1035\n, November 1987.\n\n[\n3\n] Carpenter, B., Baker, F. and M. Roberts, \"Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet\nAssigned Numbers Authority\",\nRFC 2860\n, June 2000.\n\n[\n4\n] Bradner, S., \"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3\",\nBCP\n9\n,\nRFC2026\n, October 1996.\n\n[\n5\n] Bush, R., Karrenberg, D., Kosters, M. and R. Plzak, \"Root Name\nServer Operational Requirements\",\nBCP 40\n,\nRFC 2870\n, June 2000.\n\n[\n6\n] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, \"DNS Extensions to Support IPv6\nAddress Aggregation and Renumbering\",\nRFC 2874\n, July 2000.\n\n[\n7\n] Bush, R., \"Delegation of IP6.arpa\",\nBCP 49\n,\nRFC 3152\n, August\n2001.\n\n[\n8\n] Blane, P., \"Liaison to IETF/ISOC on ENUM\",\nRFC 3026\n, January\n2001.\n\n[\n9\n] Falstrom, P., \"E.164 number and DNS\",\nRFC 2916\n, September 2000.\n\n[\n10\n] ITU-T Recommendation E.164/I.331 (05/97): The International\nPublic Telecommunication Numbering Plan. 1997.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\nInternet Architecture Board\nGeoff Huston, Editor\n\niab@iab.org\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 6]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nAppendix A\n\nApril 28, 2000\n\nMr. Louis Touton\nVice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel\nInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\n4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330\nMarina del Rey, CA 90292\n\nRe: Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020:\nAdministration of the arpa Top Level Domain\n\nDear Mr. Touton:\n\nAs noted in your organization's quotation of February 2, 2000, the\narpa Top Level Domain (TLD) exists in the root zone of the domain\nname system as a limited use domain currently consisting of one\nrecord, in-addr.arpa. On April 14, 2000, the Defense Advanced\nResearch Projects Agency (DARPA), formerly known as the Advanced\nResearch Projects Agency (ARPA), officially signaled its\ndisassociation with the arpa domain and its understanding the domain\nwould be used by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names (ICANN)\nand Numbers and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) for additional\nInternet infrastructure uses.", "char_start": 11708, "char_end": 14096, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 385}}, {"segment_id": "b78a1bb7-c86a-408c-a31f-a48a82bf6915", "document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "ordinal": 6, "text": "In keeping with the DARPA understanding, we believe that the arpa\ndomain should be made available for this specific, limited purpose.\nThe Department of Commerce considers this an Internet Assigned\nNumbers Authority (IANA) function and has requested that the WHOIS\nentry for the arpa domain reflect IANA as the registrant.\n\nPurchase Order No. 40SBNT067020 provides that \"[ICANN] will perform\nother IANA functions as needed upon request of DOC.\" As such, the\nDepartment of Commerce requests that, as part of the IANA functions,\nICANN undertake administration of the arpa TLD in cooperation with\nthe Internet technical community under the guidance of the IAB, as a\nlimited use domain for Internet infrastructure applications,\nincluding the migration of Internet infrastructure applications that\ncurrently reside in the .int TLD. Further, as indicated by DARPA,\nthe arpa TLD string should be given a different expansion such as\n\"Address and Routing Parameter Area\" to avoid any implication that\nDARPA has operational responsibility for the domain.\n\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.\n\nSincerely, Karen Rose\nPurchase Order Technical Representative\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 7]\nRFC 3172\narpa Guidelines September 2001\nFull Copyright Statement\n\nCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.\n\nThis document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to\nothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it\nor assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published\nand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any\nkind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are\nincluded on all such copies and derivative works. However, this\ndocument itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing\nthe copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other\nInternet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of\ndeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures for\ncopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be\nfollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than\nEnglish.", "char_start": 14098, "char_end": 16238, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 330}}, {"segment_id": "090b6c7c-4215-49b6-af23-d6b6f584c769", "document_id": "d97504d6-a2f9-41a2-8eb4-102b98220606", "ordinal": 7, "text": "The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be\nrevoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.\n\nThis document and the information contained herein is provided on an\n\"AS IS\" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING\nTASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING\nBUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION\nHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF\nMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.\n\nAcknowledgement\n\nFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the\nInternet Society.\n\nHuston Best Current Practice [Page 8]\nRFC\n3172\n: Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain (\"arpa\")\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1. Introduction\n2. The \"arpa\" domain\n2.1 Criteria for \"arpa\" Sub-domains\n2.2 \"arpa\" Name Server Requirements\n3. Delegation of \"arpa\" Sub-Domains\n4. Current Status of \"arpa\"\n5. Infrastructure domains elsewhere in the DNS tree\n6. Security Considerations\n7. IANA Considerations\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 16240, "char_end": 17627, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 209}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "dd262f01-e877-4e17-ba73-a9f58afd0112", "source_id": "f8e87cd3b10a52cebe62baeb", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.ietf.org/standards/", "final_url": "https://www.ietf.org/process/", "artifact_sha256": "5c2014eaff7cdb2e6fcee41df0608dc4c396ed7f5d016cc7e99da15cbaad086e", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 79828, "title": "IETF  | Process", "language": "en", "text_length": 6872, "characters": 6872, "text": "IETF | Process\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nImproving existing standards and creating, implementing, and deploying new standards is an ongoing effort. The\nIETF's mission\nis to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that describe these voluntary standards.\nIETF working groups\nare the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines.\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nThe IETF follows open and well-documented processes for its work, including setting Internet standards. This guide synthesizes various sources to describe the IETF standards process at a high level.\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nThis informal guide to documents about the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standards process aims to assist IETF participants by providing an introduction to the variety of documents that describe it, as well as related groups and processes.\nBringing new work to the IETF\nA guide for people who have a new idea or some proposed work they wish to bring to the IETF.\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nA basic guide to the complex subject of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the IETF\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nWorking Groups (WGs) are the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines, many of which are intended to be standards or recommendations.\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nBirds of a Feather sessions (BOFs) are initial discussions about a particular topic of interest to the IETF community. BOFs are usually held at IETF meetings, and requests to hold a BOF must be made significantly in advance of the meeting.\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nThe global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources is performed as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.\nAbout RFCs\nRFC documents contain technical specifications and organizational notes for the Internet and are the core output of the IETF.\nPublishing and accessing RFCs\nInternet-Drafts that have successfully completed the IETF review process are submitted to the RFC Editor for publication.\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "segments": [{"segment_id": "ee5f56f2-7aa2-44f3-b8e5-ce6c784f126c", "document_id": "dd262f01-e877-4e17-ba73-a9f58afd0112", "ordinal": 0, "text": "IETF | Process\nSkip to main content\nSearch\nAbout\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nIntroduction to the IETF\nParticipants\nMission\nPrinciples\nThe work\nStructure of the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nInternet Architecture Board\nInternet Research Task Force\nLiaison relationships\nNominating Committee\nIETF Trust\nRFC Editor\nIndependent Submissions Editor\nLegal requests\nLegal request procedures\nLegal requests\nAdministration\nIETF Administration LLC\nAdministrative announcements\nAdministrative reports\nIETF Administration LLC Board\nIETF Administration LLC Staff\nFinancial statements\nRFPs and contracts\nAdministrative policies and procedures\nIETF LLC transparency report\nTechnologies\nThe IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies that provide the foundation for the Internet's growth and evolution.\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF technologies in action\nDomain Name System\nIETF technology groups\nIETF Areas\nWorking Group keywords\nRecent posts about IETF technologies\nAgentic AI communications: Identifying the standards we need\nEnabling Publishers to Express Preferences for AI Crawlers: An Update on the AIPREF Working Group\nPreventing Internet Route Hijack with SIDRops Technology\nEnd-to-end encryption based on the IETF-developed Messaging Layer Security set be used on 100s of millions of mobile devices\nThe new GREEN working group gets ready for an energy efficient Internet\nMeetings\nWhile most IETF work takes place online, meetings and other events such as Hackathons provide in-person opportunities to advance work within the IETF.\nMeetings\nIETF 126 Vienna\nIETF 127 San Francisco\nIETF 128 Kuala Lumpur\nIETF 129 Berlin\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nInterim meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nCode Sprint\nParticipation information\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nIETF meeting terms and conditions\nNew Participants\nIETF Guides program\nMeeting network and technology\nMeetecho guide for participants\nVisas and Letters of Invitation\nMeeting Registration Fee Waivers\nOnsite Childcare\nOrganizing meetings\nMeeting planning\nMeeting sponsorship\nSide meetings and private meetings\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nBringing new work to the IETF\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nRFCs\nAbout RFCs\nRFC Editor\nAvailability and use\nPublication formats\nStatuses\nPublication streams\nCorrections and errata\nReporting protocol vulnerabilities to the IETF\nParticipate\nThe global IETF community works together in many different ways to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nInternet-Drafts\nIETF Systers\nTools and services\nDatatracker\nMailing lists\nTools and services\nOpen records\nChairs resources\nI-D authors resources\nDraftForge\nParticipation guides\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nRoles in the IETF\nKey policies\nNote Well - A reminder of IETF policies\nAnti-harassment policy\nInternet Standards process (BCP 9)\nWorking Group processes (BCP 25)\nGuidelines for conduct (BCP 54)\nCopyright (BCP 78)\nPatents, Participation (BCP 79)\nIETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement\nSupport us\nBy supporting the IETF today, you are ensuring a free and open Internet exists tomorrow.\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nIETF financial supporters\nDonate to the IETF\nWays to give\nIETF Endowment\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nTechnical foundations for business\nSupporting values\nRunning Code\nSustainability\nDiversity and Inclusion\nOpen Internet\nNews & blog\nSearch\nGo\nProcess\nThe IETF is the premier Internet standards organization. It follows open and well-documented processes for setting these standards. Once published, those standards are made freely available.\nImproving existing standards and creating, implementing, and deploying new standards is an ongoing effort. The\nIETF's mission\nis to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that describe these voluntary standards.\nIETF working groups\nare the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines.\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nThe IETF follows open and well-documented processes for its work, including setting Internet standards. This guide synthesizes various sources to describe the IETF standards process at a high level.\nInformal guide to IETF process documents\nThis informal guide to documents about the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standards process aims to assist IETF participants by providing an introduction to the variety of documents that describe it, as well as related groups and processes.\nBringing new work to the IETF\nA guide for people who have a new idea or some proposed work they wish to bring to the IETF.\nIntellectual property rights (IPR)\nA basic guide to the complex subject of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the IETF\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nWorking Groups (WGs) are the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines, many of which are intended to be standards or recommendations.\nBirds of a Feather (BOF)\nBirds of a Feather sessions (BOFs) are initial discussions about a particular topic of interest to the IETF community. BOFs are usually held at IETF meetings, and requests to hold a BOF must be made significantly in advance of the meeting.\nProtocol registries (IANA)\nThe global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources is performed as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.\nAbout RFCs\nRFC documents contain technical specifications and organizational notes for the Internet and are the core output of the IETF.\nPublishing and accessing RFCs\nInternet-Drafts that have successfully completed the IETF review process are submitted to the RFC Editor for publication.\nAbout\nIntroduction to the IETF\nInternet Engineering Steering Group\nAdministration\nPrivacy and policies\nContact us\nSystem status\nTechnologies\nAutomated network management\nThe Internet of Things\nNew transport technology\nSecurity & privacy\nIETF Areas\nMeetings\nUpcoming meetings\nPast meetings\nIETF Hackathons\nPreparing for an IETF Meeting\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nProcess\nGuide to the IETF standards process\nAbout RFCs\nBringing new work to the IETF\nParticipate\nGetting started in the IETF\nGuide to IETF Meetings\nGuide to IETF Working Groups\nMailing lists\nSupport us\nWhy we need your support\nMeeting sponsorship\nOther ways to give\nIETF financial supporters\nIETF LLC\nRFC Editor\nIANA\nIAB\nIRTF\nIETF Trust", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6872, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 6, "word_count": 1003}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "de08988a-0079-4737-8afc-6353f66dc31b", "source_id": "4c71d26846d5c51fc92bf25c", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/complaints-office", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/complaints-office", "artifact_sha256": "d3969c7b3b1d12d482678d21dc8b6971a47645e1510a0aaf6beca443a6768ab9", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 79177, "title": "ICANN Complaints Office - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 16310, "characters": 16310, "text": "ICANN Complaints Office - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Complaints Office\nClick Here to Submit a Complaint\nOverview and Scope – ICANN Complaints Office\nThe Complaints Office is a function within the ICANN organization (org) that:\nProvides a centralized location to submit complaints regarding ICANN org.\nReceives and investigates complaints, collects facts, and reviews, analyzes, and resolves issues as openly as possible.\nHelps ICANN org build on its effectiveness, and increase its transparency.\nAggregates the data from complaints to identify and solve for operational trends that should be improved.\nThe Complaints Office handles complaints about ICANN org that don't fall into an existing complaints mechanism, such as\nContractual Compliance\n,\nRequest for Reconsideration\nand the\nOmbuds\n(see\nExisting Complaints Mechanisms Guidance\nbelow). This may include complaints about how ICANN org previously handled a request, structured a process, solved an issue, or failed to account for something that may indicate a systemic issue, among other things. To learn more about the kinds of complaints the Complaints Office handles, please visit the\nComplaints Office Report page\n.\nThe Complaints Office reviews verifiable information to ensure recommendations and resolutions are based in fact. It strives to be open and transparent to all stakeholders; to be responsive and accountable to all parties; and to be constructive and actionable in its final recommendations so as to fulfill its core purpose. Above all else, the Complaints Office acts with the utmost integrity in service of ICANN's mission.\nExisting Complaints Mechanisms Guidance\nFor complaints that fall into other existing complaints mechanisms, please visit the\nContractual Compliance\n,\nRequest for Reconsideration\n, and the\nOmbuds\nwebpages. To submit a complaint for the most common Contractual Compliance complaint types, please refer to the following pages:\nDomain Name Abuse Complaint\nDomain Name Renewal/Redemption Complaint\nDomain Name Transfer Complaint\nDomain Name Registration Data Complaint\nFor other common complaint areas, please refer to\nInformation for Domain Name Registrants\n, the\nUniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy\n, and\nAbout ccTLD Compliance\n.\nSubmitting a Complaint to the ICANN Complaints Office\nAnyone wishing to submit a complaint related to the ICANN org may do so by completing this\nweb-form\n. When submitting a complaint, please be sure to include all relevant information. Once a complaint is received, it will be reviewed to ensure it falls within the scope of the office, and you will be notified of next steps via email. Out of scope submissions are forwarded and responded to by ICANN's Global Support Center team whose expertise in navigating the entire ICANN org and will get the submitter the submitter with the information and/or assistance they need.\nSubmissions that fall within the scope of the Complaints Office will be handled in the following stages:\n1. Receive, Acknowledge, and Publish\nAcknowledge receipt of the complaint.\nRemind submitter that the process is transparent, that the complaint will be published on the\nComplaints Office Report page\nwith personal information redacted (as appropriate), and that the next update will arrive as per a specific, stipulated time frame.\n2. Evaluate and Consider\nThe Complaints Officer interviews ICANN org employees with subject-matter expertise, collects, reviews and analyzes facts, researches appropriate data, and works with management to determine if improvements are warranted and if so—what can be done.\nThe Complaints Officer is independent and will make recommendations based on research and facts.\nIf there is disagreement regarding improvements between the Complaints Officer and relevant department executives, the issue is escalated to the Complaints Officer's supervisor and the ICANNCEO.\n3. Response Drafting\nOnce a complaint is fully researched, a path forward is identified.\nA path forward can be many things, for example: improvements to a process, an educational opportunity, no improvements can be implemented, among others.\nThe path forward is agreed upon and the Complaints Officer drafts a response to the submitter.\n4. Response Issued and Published\nThe Complaints Officer provides the complainant with the response and the response is published on the\nComplaints Office Report Page\n.\nResources about the Complaints Office\nComplaints Report\nComplaints Office Semi-Annual Report for 1 January – 30 June 2018\nComplaints Office Semi-Annual Report for 15 March 2017 – 31 December 2017\nFrequently Asked Questions\n[PDF, 296 KB] (18 May 2017)\nالعربية\n[PDF, 368 KB]\nEspañol\n[PDF, 41 KB]\nFrançais\n[PDF, 42 KB]\nPortuguês\n[PDF, 43 KB]\nPусский\n[PDF, 196 KB]\n中文\n[PDF, 135 KB]\nAnnouncements, Blogs, and More\n[Announcement] ICANN Publishes First Complaints Office Semi-Annual Report\n(7 March 2018)\n[ICANN60 Session] A Conversation with the ICANN Complaints Officer\n(30 October 2017)\n[Webinar - APAC] A Conversation With The ICANN Complaints Officer\n(22 August 2017)\n[Blog] Publishing Submissions to the Complaints Office\n(24 June 2017)\n[Blog] Clarifying the Roles of the ICANN Complaints Office and Ombudsman\n(18 May 2017)\n[Blog] Complaints Office Update: Objectives & Next Steps\n(27 April 2017)\n[Announcement] Krista Papac Named as ICANN Complaints Officer\n(10 Mar 2017)\nTerms and Conditions for Submission to the Complaints Office\nSubmitted complaints will be handled in accordance with the\nICANN Bylaws\nand the\nICANN Privacy Policy\n. By submitting this\nweb-form\nyou acknowledge that the complaints process shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner, and shall be consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. Except as noted above, information you submit is subject to being published on the\nICANN website\n.\nBy submitting my personal data, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy, and agree to abide by the website Terms of Service.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "0c4250bb-dd5d-4d2a-af14-d42133db3469", "document_id": "de08988a-0079-4737-8afc-6353f66dc31b", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN Complaints Office - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nICANN Complaints Office\nClick Here to Submit a Complaint\nOverview and Scope – ICANN Complaints Office\nThe Complaints Office is a function within the ICANN organization (org) that:\nProvides a centralized location to submit complaints regarding ICANN org.\nReceives and investigates complaints, collects facts, and reviews, analyzes, and resolves issues as openly as possible.\nHelps ICANN org build on its effectiveness, and increase its transparency.\nAggregates the data from complaints to identify and solve for operational trends that should be improved.\nThe Complaints Office handles complaints about ICANN org that don't fall into an existing complaints mechanism, such as\nContractual Compliance\n,\nRequest for Reconsideration\nand the\nOmbuds\n(see\nExisting Complaints Mechanisms Guidance\nbelow). This may include complaints about how ICANN org previously handled a request, structured a process, solved an issue, or failed to account for something that may indicate a systemic issue, among other things. To learn more about the kinds of complaints the Complaints Office handles, please visit the\nComplaints Office Report page\n.\nThe Complaints Office reviews verifiable information to ensure recommendations and resolutions are based in fact. It strives to be open and transparent to all stakeholders; to be responsive and accountable to all parties; and to be constructive and actionable in its final recommendations so as to fulfill its core purpose. Above all else, the Complaints Office acts with the utmost integrity in service of ICANN's mission.\nExisting Complaints Mechanisms Guidance\nFor complaints that fall into other existing complaints mechanisms, please visit the\nContractual Compliance\n,\nRequest for Reconsideration\n, and the\nOmbuds\nwebpages. To submit a complaint for the most common Contractual Compliance complaint types, please refer to the following pages:\nDomain Name Abuse Complaint\nDomain Name Renewal/Redemption Complaint\nDomain Name Transfer Complaint\nDomain Name Registration Data Complaint\nFor other common complaint areas, please refer to\nInformation for Domain Name Registrants\n, the\nUniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy\n, and\nAbout ccTLD Compliance\n.\nSubmitting a Complaint to the ICANN Complaints Office\nAnyone wishing to submit a complaint related to the ICANN org may do so by completing this\nweb-form\n. When submitting a complaint, please be sure to include all relevant information. Once a complaint is received, it will be reviewed to ensure it falls within the scope of the office, and you will be notified of next steps via email. Out of scope submissions are forwarded and responded to by ICANN's Global Support Center team whose expertise in navigating the entire ICANN org and will get the submitter the submitter with the information and/or assistance they need.\nSubmissions that fall within the scope of the Complaints Office will be handled in the following stages:\n1. Receive, Acknowledge, and Publish\nAcknowledge receipt of the complaint.\nRemind submitter that the process is transparent, that the complaint will be published on the\nComplaints Office Report page\nwith personal information redacted (as appropriate), and that the next update will arrive as per a specific, stipulated time frame.\n2. Evaluate and Consider\nThe Complaints Officer interviews ICANN org employees with subject-matter expertise, collects, reviews and analyzes facts, researches appropriate data, and works with management to determine if improvements are warranted and if so—what can be done.\nThe Complaints Officer is independent and will make recommendations based on research and facts.\nIf there is disagreement regarding improvements between the Complaints Officer and relevant department executives, the issue is escalated to the Complaints Officer's supervisor and the ICANNCEO.\n3. Response Drafting\nOnce a complaint is fully researched, a path forward is identified.\nA path forward can be many things, for example: improvements to a process, an educational opportunity, no improvements can be implemented, among others.\nThe path forward is agreed upon and the Complaints Officer drafts a response to the submitter.\n4. Response Issued and Published\nThe Complaints Officer provides the complainant with the response and the response is published on the\nComplaints Office Report Page\n.\nResources about the Complaints Office\nComplaints Report\nComplaints Office Semi-Annual Report for 1 January – 30 June 2018\nComplaints Office Semi-Annual Report for 15 March 2017 – 31 December 2017\nFrequently Asked Questions\n[PDF, 296 KB] (18 May 2017)\nالعربية\n[PDF, 368 KB]\nEspañol\n[PDF, 41 KB]\nFrançais\n[PDF, 42 KB]\nPortuguês\n[PDF, 43 KB]\nPусский\n[PDF, 196 KB]\n中文\n[PDF, 135 KB]\nAnnouncements, Blogs, and More\n[Announcement] ICANN Publishes First Complaints Office Semi-Annual Report\n(7 March 2018)\n[ICANN60 Session] A Conversation with the ICANN Complaints Officer\n(30 October 2017)\n[Webinar - APAC] A Conversation With The ICANN Complaints Officer\n(22 August 2017)\n[Blog] Publishing Submissions to the Complaints Office\n(24 June 2017)\n[Blog] Clarifying the Roles of the ICANN Complaints Office and Ombudsman\n(18 May 2017)\n[Blog] Complaints Office Update: Objectives & Next Steps\n(27 April 2017)\n[Announcement] Krista Papac Named as ICANN Complaints Officer\n(10 Mar 2017)\nTerms and Conditions for Submission to the Complaints Office\nSubmitted complaints will be handled in accordance with the\nICANN Bylaws\nand the\nICANN Privacy Policy\n. By submitting this\nweb-form\nyou acknowledge that the complaints process shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner, and shall be consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. Except as noted above, information you submit is subject to being published on the\nICANN website\n.\nBy submitting my personal data, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy, and agree to abide by the website Terms of Service.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 16310, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 12, "word_count": 2277}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "dfb3d010-ecc6-46a0-9a28-7be8ab99b65b", "source_id": "0dfe8a83652149488b15dab3", "source": "IGF", "source_url": "https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/policy-networks", "final_url": "https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/policy-networks", "artifact_sha256": "63498a754214adf821c69d3c2924fb60840dacd3eb6536b89c9a406148c0687b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 90103, "title": "Policy Networks | Internet Governance Forum", "language": "en", "text_length": 6141, "characters": 6141, "text": "Policy Networks | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nIntersessional\nIn between the two annual\nIGF\nmeetings, the community works on several substantive activities and presents and discusses them at the annual\nIGF\nmeeting.\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIntersessional Work\nPolicy Networks\nIGF\nPolicy Networks are open, multistakeholder groups that work throughout the year on key Internet governance issues of global priority. Their focus areas are determined through a bottom-up, inclusive and consultative process. Policy Networks bring together stakeholders from governments, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and intergovernmental organizations from all parts of the world to exchange expertise, identify policy challenges and develop substantive outputs.\nWorking Modalities and Way to Participate\nPolicy Networks are facilitated by multistakeholder working groups of experts, formed through broad bottom-up community consultations. Members of the\nIGF\nMultistakeholder Advisory Group (\nMAG\n) serve as facilitators, while the\nIGF\nSecretariat provides overall neutral coordination and supports the development of the final outputs. The organizational structure of each group may further evolve based on the consensus of participating stakeholders and may include roles such as chairs or co-chairs, as well as leads for specific substantive workstreams.\nAll Policy Networks operate through an open, inclusive and bottom-up consultative process. Interested stakeholders are invited to subscribe to the dedicated mailing lists or contact the\nIGF\nSecretariat for further information.\nIGF\nPolicy Networks in 2026\nFor the 2026 cycle, the community was invited to submit proposals. The proposals\nreceived\nwere reviewed by the 2026 Multistakeholder Advisory Group (\nMAG\n), which considered their quality, relevance and potential contribution to addressing globally significant digital policy issues. Based on this assessment, the\nIGF\n2026 cycle focuses on the following four Policy Networks:\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity (PNC)\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion (PNDI)\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure (PNODI)\nPast Work and Learn More\nBelow are the\nIGF\nPolicy Networks implemented since 2015.\nIGF Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)\nIGF Policy Network on Environment (PNE)\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nMore about the concept of policy networks is available\nhere\n.\nJoin a Policy Network\nParticipation is open to all stakeholders. Whether you are an expert, policymaker, researcher, practitioner, community organizer or eager to learn and network, you can contribute to the discussions.\nSubscribe to\nopen mailing lists\nand\nIGF newsletter\nJoin regular\nmonthly meetings\nShare research, experience and case studies\nEngage at the activities organized at\nIGF\nannual meeting and others\nSubscribe to mailing lists\n|\nSubscribe to IGF Newsletter\n|\nContact the IGF Secretariat\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "segments": [{"segment_id": "7fd5da23-a0f1-4a4f-abaa-6157a00210b5", "document_id": "dfb3d010-ecc6-46a0-9a28-7be8ab99b65b", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Policy Networks | Internet Governance Forum\nSkip to main content\nWelcome to the United Nations\n|\nDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nالعربية\n简体中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nРусский\nEspañol\nMenu\nQuick links\nI am new to the IGF\nSubscribe to our mailing list\nRegister for an IGF activity\nDonate to the IGF\nFind/Become a Resource Person\nSearch\nFeed me\nLog in\nHeader Menu\nAbout\nAbout\nAbout IGF\nFAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025\nGet Started\nTeam\nIGF Donors\nWork With Us\nIGF Mailing Lists\nContact Us\nIGF Leadership Panel\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMulti-stakeholder Advisory Group\nMAG Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair Terms of Reference\nMAG Chair's Blog\nMAG Members\nMAG Members\nPrevious MAG Members\nMAG Working Groups\nMAG Meeting Records\nMAG Activities\nMAG Member Dashboard\nIGF 2026 MAG Renewal\nUN Global Advocate\nIGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)\nIGF Expert Group Meeting 2026\nEGM Report\nThe IGF and UN Processes\nCode of Conduct\nNewsletter\nPress\nSupport the IGF\nDonate\nIGF Trust Fund\nDonors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund\nGlobal South Contributions\nHost the IGF\nShare Your Experience - \"Voices of the IGF\"\nIGF 2026\nIGF 2026 Entry Page\nIGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals\nIGF 2026 Call for Village Booths\nIGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs\nIGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting\nIGF 2026 Timeline\nIGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals\nIGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs\nIGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements\nIGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations\nIGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants\nIGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement\nIGF 2026 Parliamentary Track\nIGF 2026 Youth Track\nIGF 2026 Business Engagement\nIntersessional Work\nThematic Intersessional Work\nDynamic Coalitions\nDynamic Coalitions\nDC Coordination Activities\nTerms of Reference\nBest Practice Forums\nPolicy Networks\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion\nPrevious Work\nCapacity Development\nIntersessional News\nNational and Regional IGFs\nOverview\nNRIs FAQs\nNRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?\nYouth Initiatives\nRegional IGF Initiatives\nNational IGF Initiatives\nAll National Initiatives\nAfrica\nAsia Pacific\nEastern Europe\nGRULAC\nWEOG\nNRI Dashboard\nNRIs Library\nNRIs Collaborative Work\nIGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process\nBrochures about NRIs\nIGF NRIs Call for Grants\nNRIs Meetings - overview\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Brochures and Select Publications\nPublications and Reports\nIGF Annual Meeting Proceedings\nIGF Intersessional Work\nCSTD Reports\nUN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD\nCalendar\nIntersessional\nIn between the two annual\nIGF\nmeetings, the community works on several substantive activities and presents and discusses them at the annual\nIGF\nmeeting.\nBreadcrumb\nHome\nIntersessional Work\nPolicy Networks\nIGF\nPolicy Networks are open, multistakeholder groups that work throughout the year on key Internet governance issues of global priority. Their focus areas are determined through a bottom-up, inclusive and consultative process. Policy Networks bring together stakeholders from governments, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and intergovernmental organizations from all parts of the world to exchange expertise, identify policy challenges and develop substantive outputs.\nWorking Modalities and Way to Participate\nPolicy Networks are facilitated by multistakeholder working groups of experts, formed through broad bottom-up community consultations. Members of the\nIGF\nMultistakeholder Advisory Group (\nMAG\n) serve as facilitators, while the\nIGF\nSecretariat provides overall neutral coordination and supports the development of the final outputs. The organizational structure of each group may further evolve based on the consensus of participating stakeholders and may include roles such as chairs or co-chairs, as well as leads for specific substantive workstreams.\nAll Policy Networks operate through an open, inclusive and bottom-up consultative process. Interested stakeholders are invited to subscribe to the dedicated mailing lists or contact the\nIGF\nSecretariat for further information.\nIGF\nPolicy Networks in 2026\nFor the 2026 cycle, the community was invited to submit proposals. The proposals\nreceived\nwere reviewed by the 2026 Multistakeholder Advisory Group (\nMAG\n), which considered their quality, relevance and potential contribution to addressing globally significant digital policy issues. Based on this assessment, the\nIGF\n2026 cycle focuses on the following four Policy Networks:\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nPolicy Network on Cybersecurity (PNC)\nPolicy Network on Digital Inclusion (PNDI)\nPolicy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure (PNODI)\nPast Work and Learn More\nBelow are the\nIGF\nPolicy Networks implemented since 2015.\nIGF Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)\nIGF Policy Network on Environment (PNE)\nPolicy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)\nPolicy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)\nPolicy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)\nMore about the concept of policy networks is available\nhere\n.\nJoin a Policy Network\nParticipation is open to all stakeholders. Whether you are an expert, policymaker, researcher, practitioner, community organizer or eager to learn and network, you can contribute to the discussions.\nSubscribe to\nopen mailing lists\nand\nIGF newsletter\nJoin regular\nmonthly meetings\nShare research, experience and case studies\nEngage at the activities organized at\nIGF\nannual meeting and others\nSubscribe to mailing lists\n|\nSubscribe to IGF Newsletter\n|\nContact the IGF Secretariat\nUNITED NATIONS\nContact information\nUnited Nations\nSecretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)\nVilla Le Bocage\nPalais des Nations,\nCH-1211 Geneva 10\nSwitzerland\nigf [at] un [dot] org\n+41 (0) 229 173 411\nAdditional Information\nDonate to the IGF\nParticipant Funding\nVacancies\nMultilingualism\nAccessibility Statement\nResources\nPublications\nPress\nGlossary\nCONNECT WITH US\nDonate\nFooter menu\nCopyright\nPrivacy Notice\nTerms of Use\nAccessibility menu\nContrast settings\nFont size\nLetter spacing\nLine height\nImages\nFont\nReset the settings", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6141, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 903}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "e088eb08-fc28-4868-ba19-a6a5c42e8415", "source_id": "eba7e4bf9f668d1026cb34d3", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties", "artifact_sha256": "ab55ec8153d5fc4cd2c30bd3ab5317efa11379504ea4ceb77f6ee4242b8e153a", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 311359, "title": "About Contracted Parties", "language": "en", "text_length": 3759, "characters": 3759, "text": "About Contracted Parties\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nContracted Parties\nICANN’s contracted parties consist of generic top-level domain (gTLD) registry operators and accredited registrars.\nSubscribe\nContracted Parties Home\nAccredited Registrars\nRegistry Operators\nConsensus Policies and Advisories\nAbout Contracted Parties\nAccredited Registrars\nAn accredited registrar is an entity that offers domain name registration services to registrants in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The relationship between ICANN and every ICANN-accredited registrar is governed by the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs), which sets out the obligations of both parties.\nREAD MORE\nRegistry Operators\nThe role of the registry operator within the Internet ecosystem is to keep the master database of all domain names registered in each top-level domain (TLD) and generate the \"zone file\" that allows computers to route Internet traffic to and from TLDs anywhere in the world.\nREAD MORE\nAccredited Registrars\nAn accredited registrar is an entity that offers domain name registration services to registrants in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The relationship between ICANN and every ICANN-accredited registrar is governed by the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs), which sets out the obligations of both parties.\nREAD MORE\nRegistry Operators\nThe role of the registry operator within the Internet ecosystem is to keep the master database of all domain names registered in each top-level domain (TLD) and generate the \"zone file\" that allows computers to route Internet traffic to and from TLDs anywhere in the world.\nREAD MORE\nHelpful Links\nContracted Parties Communications\nConsensus Policies\nContracted Parties Summit\nContractual Compliance\nGDS Metrics\nGlobal Support\nICANN Public Meetings\nInternationalized Domain Names\nNaming Services Portal\nNew gTLD Program: Next Round\nRelationship Between Domain Name Industry Parties\nUniversal Acceptance\nContracted Parties Communications\nConsensus Policies\nContracted Parties Summit\nContractual Compliance\nGDS Metrics\nGlobal Support\nICANN Public Meetings\nInternationalized Domain Names\nNaming Services Portal\nNew gTLD Program: Next Round\nRelationship Between Domain Name Industry Parties\nUniversal Acceptance\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "372606af-35b7-4681-853e-bf84bf118e6e", "document_id": "e088eb08-fc28-4868-ba19-a6a5c42e8415", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About Contracted Parties\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nContracted Parties\nICANN’s contracted parties consist of generic top-level domain (gTLD) registry operators and accredited registrars.\nSubscribe\nContracted Parties Home\nAccredited Registrars\nRegistry Operators\nConsensus Policies and Advisories\nAbout Contracted Parties\nAccredited Registrars\nAn accredited registrar is an entity that offers domain name registration services to registrants in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The relationship between ICANN and every ICANN-accredited registrar is governed by the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs), which sets out the obligations of both parties.\nREAD MORE\nRegistry Operators\nThe role of the registry operator within the Internet ecosystem is to keep the master database of all domain names registered in each top-level domain (TLD) and generate the \"zone file\" that allows computers to route Internet traffic to and from TLDs anywhere in the world.\nREAD MORE\nAccredited Registrars\nAn accredited registrar is an entity that offers domain name registration services to registrants in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The relationship between ICANN and every ICANN-accredited registrar is governed by the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs), which sets out the obligations of both parties.\nREAD MORE\nRegistry Operators\nThe role of the registry operator within the Internet ecosystem is to keep the master database of all domain names registered in each top-level domain (TLD) and generate the \"zone file\" that allows computers to route Internet traffic to and from TLDs anywhere in the world.\nREAD MORE\nHelpful Links\nContracted Parties Communications\nConsensus Policies\nContracted Parties Summit\nContractual Compliance\nGDS Metrics\nGlobal Support\nICANN Public Meetings\nInternationalized Domain Names\nNaming Services Portal\nNew gTLD Program: Next Round\nRelationship Between Domain Name Industry Parties\nUniversal Acceptance\nContracted Parties Communications\nConsensus Policies\nContracted Parties Summit\nContractual Compliance\nGDS Metrics\nGlobal Support\nICANN Public Meetings\nInternationalized Domain Names\nNaming Services Portal\nNew gTLD Program: Next Round\nRelationship Between Domain Name Industry Parties\nUniversal Acceptance\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3759, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 514}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "e13e48f9-0808-487c-a0d3-7c8a23234862", "source_id": "c232dfd30ba5816cc4d76d32", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1358", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1358/", "artifact_sha256": "c232dfd30ba5816cc4d76d32d9fd124c5ee107911fcf09822893d94173bda7ea", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 103245, "title": "RFC 1358: Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", "language": "en", "text_length": 11554, "characters": 11554, "text": "RFC 1358: Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1358\n:\nCharter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)\nL. Chapin\nInformational\nThis RFC is now obsolete\n, see\nRFC\n1601\n.\nNetwork Working Group                                   L. Chapin, Chair\nRequest for Comments: 1358                   Internet Architecture Board\n                                                             August 1992\nCharter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does\n   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is\n   unlimited.\nSection 1\n.\n\n   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) shall be constituted and shall\n   operate as a technical advisory group of the Internet Society.  Its\n   responsibilities shall include:\n\n      (1)  Expert and experienced oversight of the architecture of the\n           worldwide multiprotocol Internet.\n\n      (2)  The editorial management and publication of the Request for\n           Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the\n           archival publication series for Internet Standards and\n           related contributions by the Internet research and\n           engineering community.\n\n      (3)  The development, review, and approval of Internet\n           Standards, according to a well-defined and documented set\n           of \"Procedures for Internet Standardization\".  Internet\n           Standards shall be published in the form of specifications\n           as part of the RFC series.\n\n      (4)  The provision of advice and guidance to the Board of Trustees\n           and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical,\n           architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy\n           matters pertaining to the Internet and its enabling\n           technologies.\n\n      (5)  Representation of the interests of the Internet Society in\n           liaison relationships with other organizations.\n\n   The IAB may be charged with additional responsibilities within the\n   Internet Society, or undertake additional specific activities from\n   time to time, as the needs and requirements of the Internet Society\n   demand.\nIAB                                                             [Page 1]\nRFC 1358\nCharter of the IAB                August 1992\nSection 2\n.\n\n   The IAB shall consist of a number of members not to exceed 15.\n   Members of the IAB shall serve in that capacity as individuals, and\n   not as representatives of any company, agency, or other organization.\n   Individuals shall be nominated for membership by:\n\n      (a) the IAB;\n\n      (b) the President of the Internet Society;\n\n      (c) the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society;  or\n\n      (d) a duly executed petition of at least 1% of the current\n          membership of the Internet Society, or, if the current\n          membership of the Society exceeds 15,000, of at least 150\n          members, delivered to and validated by the Secretary of\n          the Society.\n\n   The Internet Society Board of Trustees shall approve or disapprove\n   such a nomination within 60 days.  Approval shall be by the\n   affirmative vote of at least three-fifths of the members of the Board\n   of Trustees then in office.\n\n   Any member of the IAB may be replaced by the Board of Trustees, by\n   the affirmative vote of at least four-fifths of the members of the\n   Board of Trustees then in office, whenever in their judgement the\n   best interests of the Society will be served thereby.  A member of\n   the IAB shall also be replaced, upon the confirming vote of a\n   majority of the members of the Board of Trustees then in office, if\n   and when a duly executed petition of at least 5% of the voting\n   membership of the Internet Society is delivered to and validated by\n   the Secretary of the Society.  The vote of the Board of Trustees, and\n   any action pursuant to that vote, shall be taken no later than at the\n   next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board following the date on\n   which the Secretary declares the receipt of a valid petition.\n\n   The Board of Trustees shall review each IAB member's contribution to\n   the IAB at three-year intervals, and shall at that time explicitly\n   reaffirm or revoke the membership.  There is no limit to the number\n   of times the Board of Trustees may reaffirm the membership of any\n   individual IAB member.  However, it is expected that the decision to\n   reaffirm or revoke will be reached with respect to the current\n   composition of the IAB as a whole, and the extent to which the goals\n   and requirements of the Internet Society are served by the IAB as\n   then currently constituted.\nIAB                                                             [Page 2]\nRFC 1358\nCharter of the IAB                August 1992\nWhenever the Board of Trustees determines that a vacancy exists on\n   the IAB, it shall circulate among the membership of the Internet\n   Society, by electronic mail, a call for nominations, specifying a\n   closing date for nominations to be received by the Secretary of the\n   Society that is no less than 30 days after the date on which the call\n   is circulated.  At its discretion, the Board may also circulate the\n   call for nominations among the membership of the Society my means\n   other than electronic mail, and may also advertise or circulate the\n   call by such other means and among the members of such other groups\n   as it sees fit and appropriate.\nSection 3\n.\n\n   The IAB may create and empower task forces, committees, and working\n   groups, as it sees fit, to carry out activities that fall within the\n   scope of the IAB's responsibilities.  The initial task forces of the\n   IAB are the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet\n   Research Task Force (IRTF).\nSection 4\n.\n\n   The Internet Society shall provide support for secretariat functions\n   that are required by the IAB or its task forces, committees, and\n   working groups, subject to approval by the Board of Trustees.  In\n   particular, the secretariat shall include support for the Internet\n   standards-making activity of the IAB.  During the Internet Society's\n   Initial Period of operations, support for secretariat functions shall\n   depend on the availability of funding provided specifically for this\n   purpose.\nSection 5\n.\n\n   Members of the IAB and its task forces, committees, and working\n   groups shall serve on a volunteer basis without compensation, except\n   as provided in (a) and (b) below:\n\n   (a)  The President of the Internet Society may approve the\n        reimbursement by the Society of expenses incurred by a\n        member of the IAB or one of its corollary organizations,\n        if he or she determines that reimbursement of specific\n        expenses is appropriate.\n\n   (b)  Acting on the recommendation of the President of the Internet\n        Society, the Board of Trustees may approve the payment of\n        compensation to an individual whose service as a member of the\n        IAB or of one of its corollary organizations is\nIAB                                                             [Page 3]\nRFC 1358\nCharter of the IAB                August 1992\n(1) considered by the Board to be essential to the welfare of\n            the Society, and\n\n        (2) is, in the Board's estimation, unobtainable in the absence\n            of reasonable compensation.\n\n        In determining the need for and amount of compensation, the\n        Board shall apply the criteria and voting rules that it normally\n        applies to matters concerning the allocation of Internet Society\n        funds.\nSection 6\n.\n\n   The members of the IAB shall appoint one of their number to serve as\n   the chair of the IAB, with all of the duties and responsibilities\n   normally associated with such a position.  The chair of the IAB may\n   be removed at any time by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the\n   members of the IAB, or as a result of his or her departure from the\n   IAB.\nSection 7\n.\n\n   The chair of the IAB shall have the authority to organize the IAB as\n   he or she sees fit.\nSection 8\n.\n\n   The chair of the IAB, with the approval of at least two-thirds of the\n   IAB membership, shall have the authority to appoint an Editor for the\n   Request for Comments (RFC) publication series (the \"RFC Editor\"), who\n   shall be responsible for the editorial management and publication of\n   the RFC series.  If the RFC Editor is not a member of the IAB, he or\n   she shall serve ex officio as a member of the IAB unless and until\n   made a regular member of the IAB.  The RFC Editor may be removed at\n   any time by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the\n   IAB.\nSection 9\n.\n\n   The chair of the IAB, with the approval of at least two-thirds of the\n   IAB membership, shall have the authority to appoint the chair of the\n   Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), who shall be responsible for\n   the management and organization of the IETF.  If the IETF chair is\n   not a member of the IAB, he or she shall serve ex officio as a member\n   of the IAB unless and until made a regular member of the IAB.  The\n   IETF chair may be removed at any time by the affirmative vote of\n   two-thirds of the members of the IAB.\nIAB                                                             [Page 4]\nRFC 1358\nCharter of the IAB                August 1992\nSection 10\n.\n\n   The chair of the IAB, with the approval of at least two-thirds of the\n   IAB membership, shall have the authority to appoint the chair of the\n   Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), who shall be responsible for the\n   management and organization of the IRTF.  If the IRTF chair is not a\n   member of the IAB, he or she shall serve ex officio as a member of\n   the IAB unless and until made a regular member of the IAB.  The IRTF\n   chair may be removed at any time by the affirmative vote of two-\n   thirds of the members of the IAB.\nSection 11\n.\n\n   The Internet Society News shall serve as the formal Publication of\n   Record for the announcement of actions taken and decisions made by\n   the IAB on matters related to the Internet Standards.  Other official\n   actions and decisions of the IAB may be announced and recorded in the\n   News.  All IAB announcements published in the News shall also be\n   distributed by electronic mail to the Internet Society membership.\n\n   The Internet Society shall, through its various publications and by\n   any other means that may be suitable in each circumstance, provide\n   timely information to its members concerning the actions and\n   decisions of the IAB;  and shall actively solicit and promote the\n   participation of its members in IAB-administered activities such as\n   the development and review of Internet Standards.\nSection 12\n.\n\n   The Internet Society shall regularly publish as an RFC a definitive\n   record of the status of the Internet Standards process.  As it is\n   used in this section, the term \"regularly\" shall mean \"no less\n   frequently than once every six months\".\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   A. Lyman Chapin\n   Bolt, Beranek & Newman\n   Mail Stop 20/5b\n   150 Cambridge Park Drive\n   Cambridge, MA 02140\n\n   Phone: (617) 873-3133\n   EMail: lyman@BBN.COM\n\n\n\nIAB                                                             [Page 5]\nRFC\n1358\n: Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)\nInformational\nObsoleted by\nRFC\n1601\nCharter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", "segments": [], "published_at": "1992-08-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1992-08-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1992-08-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:33:09.015036+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "e22c0a50-8a43-4aea-be02-e12786f1a9eb", "source_id": "0085917411d732c8ab977712", "source": "EU", "source_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act", "final_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act", "artifact_sha256": "4b4337d86aaccf790ab1eed814fb1b4f18abc34222fcc5622a62bb9b91c67c8b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 77144, "title": "The Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future", "language": "en", "text_length": 11297, "characters": 11297, "text": "The Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\n...\nPolicies\nOnline platforms and e-commerce\nThe Digital Services Act\nThe Digital Services Act\nPage Contents\nPage Contents\nWhat is the Digital Services Act?\nWhat does the DSA do for citizens?\nWhat does the DSA do for businesses?\nWhich providers are covered?\nWhich authorities ensure companies follow the Digital Services Act?\nThe Digital Services Act helps to make the online environment safe and trustworthy.\nWhat is the Digital Services Act?\nThe Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces rules for online services used by European citizens in their everyday life. These services include marketplaces, social media networks, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms.\nFind out more about your rights under DSA\nThe main goal of the DSA is to create a digital space that respects citizens and consumers’ fundamental rights. By establishing a clear set of rules across the EU, the DSA also enables smaller platforms, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups to scale up in Europe, fostering innovation, growth and competitiveness.\nThe DSA is complemented by the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which includes rules for gatekeeper online platforms. Gatekeepers function as bottlenecks between businesses and consumers for digital services, affecting competition and the functioning of the EU internal market. Some of these services are also covered in the DSA, but for different reasons and with different types of provisions.\nFind out more about how the\nDMA benefits\nyou.\nWhat does the DSA do for citizens?\nThe\nDSA empowers citizens\nby strengthening the protection of their fundamental rights online and giving them greater control and more choices when they navigate online platforms and search engines.\nThe DSA also requires platforms to minimise the risks of exposing citizens, including children and young people, to illegal and harmful content. With the DSA, your digital rights include:\nTransparency in content removals\n- If your content is removed or suspended, platforms must explain why this has been done.\nOptions to appeal to content moderation decisions\n- If you disagree with a content moderation decision taken by a platform, you can appeal it through the platform itself or an\nout-of-court dispute settlement body\n, which is faster and cheaper than going to court.\nEasy flagging of illegal content\n- You can report illegal content, goods or services via an easy-to-use mechanism directly on the platform you are using. Platforms must respond to your reports and offer options to appeal their decisions\n.\nEnhanced protection for minors\n- Platforms must take measures to safeguard minors on their services, such as reducing the risks of exposure to age-inappropriate content like gambling or pornography. The DSA also introduces a complete ban on showing targeted advertisements to children.\nFeed options\n- On\nlarge platforms\nwith over 45 million monthly users in the EU, you can now opt for\nnon-personalised feeds. This way, you decide whether to see content based on the algorithm’s suggestions, sometimes pushing specific content which may be more appealing or even addictive, or other criteria, such as the chronological order.\nAd transparency\n- Ads must be clearly labelled as such and include information like who is placing them and why you are seeing them, while very large online platforms are required to store ad information in a publicly accessible repository. Platforms can no longer show you ads based on your sensitive data, such as sexual orientation, religion, or race.\nBan on dark patterns\n- Deceptive design tactics, such as aggressive pop-ups or confusing and misleading consent buttons, are now prohibited.\nVerified sellers\n- Marketplaces must verify and display the contact details of sellers, so you have clear information about whom you’re buying goods or services from.\nWhat does the DSA do for businesses?\nThe DSA provides several benefits for your company:\nOne single set of rules across the EU\n- All online services operating in the European Union are required to comply with the DSA. The DSA replaces 27 different regulations with one unified framework, giving you legal certainty and the ability to scale up across the EU.\nA proportionate approach\n- The DSA’s obligations are tailored to each online services’ role, size and impact in the online ecosystem. Micro and small companies have lighter requirements based on their size, to keep them accountable while helping them scale up, while bigger platforms have more responsibilities and therefore, obligations.\nSimplified reporting of illegal content\n- You can use a user-friendly mechanism to flag illegal content and goods that infringe your rights, including intellectual property rights. Your company may also become ‘trusted flaggers’, whose notices of illegal content or goods gain priority in platforms’ assessment.\nBetter protection against unfair content moderation decisions\n- New appealing mechanisms through the platform or through\nout-of-court dispute settlement bodies\nallow you to protect your online presence in case you disagree with a content moderation decision by a platform.\nMore transparency on marketplaces\n- New obligations for marketplaces, such as the requirement to list a seller’s contact information, enhance transparency and trustworthiness in ecommerce. For the same reason, the DSA requires marketplaces to make reasonable efforts to perform random checks on products sold on their service or adopt new technologies for product traceability.\nWhich providers are covered?\nThe DSA applies to all companies proportionally to their size. The DSA recognises that the\nbiggest online platforms\n– those with over 45 million monthly users in the EU – play a significant role in our societies and democracies. They must therefore follow specific rules to ensure they do not pose unintentional risks to us, such as amplifying illegal content and shaping opinion at scale, and to minimise the possibility of malicious actors using them to inflict harm on Europe.\nIn particular, these large platforms must identify and analyse wide-spread risks. These risks include:\nThe spreading of illegal content, as defined in national or EU laws\nThreats to fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression\nThreats to media freedom and pluralism, public security and electoral processes\nGender-based violence, public health, protection of minors and physical and mental wellbeing\nOnce these risks are identified, these larger platforms must put measures in place to reduce them. Similarly, these platforms must meet other requirements to\nenhance transparency and accountability\n. A\nfull list of these platforms\nis published on the Commission’s website.\nWhich authorities ensure companies follow the Digital Services Act?\nThe Commission enforces the DSA together with\nDigital Services Coordinators\n– national authorities who supervise the compliance of the platforms established in their territory. The Commission is primarily responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of the additional obligations applying to the biggest platforms and search engines, such as the measures to mitigate systemic risks. Digital Services Coordinators\nsupervise and enforce compliance with the DSA in their Member States\n.\nIf you want to file a complaint about a violation of the DSA, you can contact the\nDigital Services Coordinator of your Member State\n.\nSubscribe to the latest news on this topic and more\nExplore more\nWhat are your rights under the DSA?\nDSA Questions & Answers\nDSA's enforcement framework\nDSA's cooperation framework\nUser rights under the DSA\nDSA's impact on digital platforms\nText of the DSA\nList of designated very large online platforms and search engines\nFollow us\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigitalEU on X\nLatest News\nPress release\n24 July 2026\nCommission preliminary finds TikTok in breach of Digital Services Act for failing to ensure safe accounts for minors\nToday, the European Commission sent TikTok preliminary findings indicating that TikTok accounts of minors do not meet the safety standards required under the Digital Services Act (DSA).\nPress release\n20 July 2026\nCommission fines AliExpress €550 million for breaching the Digital Services Act\nThe European Commission fined AliExpress €550 million for breaching its obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to diligently assess and mitigate risks relating to the sale of illegal, unsafe or counterfeit products on its e-commerce platform.\nPress release\n16 July 2026\nCommission accepts X’s action plan to comply with Digital Services Act\nThe European Commission has accepted X’s action plan to comply with transparency obligations and researchers’ access to data, under the Digital Services Act.\nDigibyte\n15 July 2026\nCommission accepts X's corrective measures to terminate breaches of the DSA\nThe European Commission has accepted X’s action plan to comply with transparency obligations and researchers’ access to data, under the Digital Services Act.\nBrowse DSA - Digital Services Act\nRelated Content\nBig Picture\nOnline platforms and e-commerce\nThe EU wants to ensure businesses and citizens can use online platforms and e-commerce services no matter where they are in the EU.\nDig deeper\nThe impact of the Digital Services Act on digital platforms\nWith the Digital Services Act (DSA) platforms have already changed their systems and interfaces to...\nDSA: Making the online world safer\nFind out how the DSA can make the online world safer and protect your fundamental rights.\nThe enforcement framework under the Digital Services Act\nThe enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA) includes a full set of investigative and...\nThe cooperation framework under the Digital Services Act\nThe Digital Services Act (DSA) provides a framework for cooperation between the Commission, EU and...\nHow the Digital Services Act enhances transparency online\nThe Digital Services Act (DSA) details a range of actions to promote transparency and accountability...\nDSA whistleblower tool\nThe DSA (Digital Services Act) whistleblower tool allows employees and other insiders to report...\nLast update\n18 May 2026\nPrint as PDF\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "segments": [{"segment_id": "35a1d71e-d70f-4dfe-9a65-0fe45e9fe08c", "document_id": "e22c0a50-8a43-4aea-be02-e12786f1a9eb", "ordinal": 0, "text": "The Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\n...\nPolicies\nOnline platforms and e-commerce\nThe Digital Services Act\nThe Digital Services Act\nPage Contents\nPage Contents\nWhat is the Digital Services Act?\nWhat does the DSA do for citizens?\nWhat does the DSA do for businesses?\nWhich providers are covered?\nWhich authorities ensure companies follow the Digital Services Act?\nThe Digital Services Act helps to make the online environment safe and trustworthy.\nWhat is the Digital Services Act?\nThe Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces rules for online services used by European citizens in their everyday life. These services include marketplaces, social media networks, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms.\nFind out more about your rights under DSA\nThe main goal of the DSA is to create a digital space that respects citizens and consumers’ fundamental rights. By establishing a clear set of rules across the EU, the DSA also enables smaller platforms, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups to scale up in Europe, fostering innovation, growth and competitiveness.\nThe DSA is complemented by the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which includes rules for gatekeeper online platforms. Gatekeepers function as bottlenecks between businesses and consumers for digital services, affecting competition and the functioning of the EU internal market. Some of these services are also covered in the DSA, but for different reasons and with different types of provisions.\nFind out more about how the\nDMA benefits\nyou.\nWhat does the DSA do for citizens?\nThe\nDSA empowers citizens\nby strengthening the protection of their fundamental rights online and giving them greater control and more choices when they navigate online platforms and search engines.\nThe DSA also requires platforms to minimise the risks of exposing citizens, including children and young people, to illegal and harmful content. With the DSA, your digital rights include:\nTransparency in content removals\n- If your content is removed or suspended, platforms must explain why this has been done.\nOptions to appeal to content moderation decisions\n- If you disagree with a content moderation decision taken by a platform, you can appeal it through the platform itself or an\nout-of-court dispute settlement body\n, which is faster and cheaper than going to court.\nEasy flagging of illegal content\n- You can report illegal content, goods or services via an easy-to-use mechanism directly on the platform you are using. Platforms must respond to your reports and offer options to appeal their decisions\n.\nEnhanced protection for minors\n- Platforms must take measures to safeguard minors on their services, such as reducing the risks of exposure to age-inappropriate content like gambling or pornography. The DSA also introduces a complete ban on showing targeted advertisements to children.\nFeed options\n- On\nlarge platforms\nwith over 45 million monthly users in the EU, you can now opt for\nnon-personalised feeds. This way, you decide whether to see content based on the algorithm’s suggestions, sometimes pushing specific content which may be more appealing or even addictive, or other criteria, such as the chronological order.\nAd transparency\n- Ads must be clearly labelled as such and include information like who is placing them and why you are seeing them, while very large online platforms are required to store ad information in a publicly accessible repository. Platforms can no longer show you ads based on your sensitive data, such as sexual orientation, religion, or race.\nBan on dark patterns\n- Deceptive design tactics, such as aggressive pop-ups or confusing and misleading consent buttons, are now prohibited.\nVerified sellers\n- Marketplaces must verify and display the contact details of sellers, so you have clear information about whom you’re buying goods or services from.\nWhat does the DSA do for businesses?\nThe DSA provides several benefits for your company:\nOne single set of rules across the EU\n- All online services operating in the European Union are required to comply with the DSA. The DSA replaces 27 different regulations with one unified framework, giving you legal certainty and the ability to scale up across the EU.\nA proportionate approach\n- The DSA’s obligations are tailored to each online services’ role, size and impact in the online ecosystem. Micro and small companies have lighter requirements based on their size, to keep them accountable while helping them scale up, while bigger platforms have more responsibilities and therefore, obligations.\nSimplified reporting of illegal content\n- You can use a user-friendly mechanism to flag illegal content and goods that infringe your rights, including intellectual property rights. Your company may also become ‘trusted flaggers’, whose notices of illegal content or goods gain priority in platforms’ assessment.\nBetter protection against unfair content moderation decisions\n- New appealing mechanisms through the platform or through\nout-of-court dispute settlement bodies\nallow you to protect your online presence in case you disagree with a content moderation decision by a platform.\nMore transparency on marketplaces\n- New obligations for marketplaces, such as the requirement to list a seller’s contact information, enhance transparency and trustworthiness in ecommerce. For the same reason, the DSA requires marketplaces to make reasonable efforts to perform random checks on products sold on their service or adopt new technologies for product traceability.\nWhich providers are covered?\nThe DSA applies to all companies proportionally to their size. The DSA recognises that the\nbiggest online platforms\n– those with over 45 million monthly users in the EU – play a significant role in our societies and democracies. They must therefore follow specific rules to ensure they do not pose unintentional risks to us, such as amplifying illegal content and shaping opinion at scale, and to minimise the possibility of malicious actors using them to inflict harm on Europe.\nIn particular, these large platforms must identify and analyse wide-spread risks. These risks include:\nThe spreading of illegal content, as defined in national or EU laws\nThreats to fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression\nThreats to media freedom and pluralism, public security and electoral processes\nGender-based violence, public health, protection of minors and physical and mental wellbeing\nOnce these risks are identified, these larger platforms must put measures in place to reduce them. Similarly, these platforms must meet other requirements to\nenhance transparency and accountability\n. A\nfull list of these platforms\nis published on the Commission’s website.\nWhich authorities ensure companies follow the Digital Services Act?\nThe Commission enforces the DSA together with\nDigital Services Coordinators\n– national authorities who supervise the compliance of the platforms established in their territory. The Commission is primarily responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of the additional obligations applying to the biggest platforms and search engines, such as the measures to mitigate systemic risks. Digital Services Coordinators\nsupervise and enforce compliance with the DSA in their Member States\n.\nIf you want to file a complaint about a violation of the DSA, you can contact the\nDigital Services Coordinator of your Member State\n.\nSubscribe to the latest news on this topic and more\nExplore more\nWhat are your rights under the DSA?\nDSA Questions & Answers\nDSA's enforcement framework\nDSA's cooperation framework\nUser rights under the DSA\nDSA's impact on digital platforms\nText of the DSA\nList of designated very large online platforms and search engines\nFollow us\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigitalEU on X\nLatest News\nPress release\n24 July 2026\nCommission preliminary finds TikTok in breach of Digital Services Act for failing to ensure safe accounts for minors\nToday, the European Commission sent TikTok preliminary findings indicating that TikTok accounts of minors do not meet the safety standards required under the Digital Services Act (DSA).\nPress release\n20 July 2026\nCommission fines AliExpress €550 million for breaching the Digital Services Act\nThe European Commission fined AliExpress €550 million for breaching its obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to diligently assess and mitigate risks relating to the sale of illegal, unsafe or counterfeit products on its e-commerce platform.\nPress release\n16 July 2026\nCommission accepts X’s action plan to comply with Digital Services Act\nThe European Commission has accepted X’s action plan to comply with transparency obligations and researchers’ access to data, under the Digital Services Act.\nDigibyte\n15 July 2026\nCommission accepts X's corrective measures to terminate breaches of the DSA\nThe European Commission has accepted X’s action plan to comply with transparency obligations and researchers’ access to data, under the Digital Services Act.\nBrowse DSA - Digital Services Act\nRelated Content\nBig Picture\nOnline platforms and e-commerce\nThe EU wants to ensure businesses and citizens can use online platforms and e-commerce services no matter where they are in the EU.\nDig deeper\nThe impact of the Digital Services Act on digital platforms\nWith the Digital Services Act (DSA) platforms have already changed their systems and interfaces to...\nDSA: Making the online world safer\nFind out how the DSA can make the online world safer and protect your fundamental rights.\nThe enforcement framework under the Digital Services Act\nThe enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA) includes a full set of investigative and...\nThe cooperation framework under the Digital Services Act\nThe Digital Services Act (DSA) provides a framework for cooperation between the Commission, EU and...\nHow the Digital Services Act enhances transparency online\nThe Digital Services Act (DSA) details a range of actions to promote transparency and accountability...\nDSA whistleblower tool\nThe DSA (Digital Services Act) whistleblower tool allows employees and other insiders to report...\nLast update\n18 May 2026\nPrint as PDF\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11297, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1743}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "e55334ae-a909-4403-9ea4-065012341cb0", "source_id": "939b9165c05b128f91a343c7", "source": "RIPE", "source_url": "https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/", "final_url": "https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/", "artifact_sha256": "15cd800855da949c2baac1c51b3c1a1848b1b895958ba611e23d029aa07e7ec6", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 117907, "title": "RIPE Policy Development — RIPE Network Coordination Centre", "language": "en", "text_length": 11955, "characters": 11955, "text": "RIPE Policy Development — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nPDP Glossary\nPolicy Proposal Template\nPolicy Implementation Status\nRIPE Document: Policy Development Process\nRIR Comparative Policy Overview (nro.net)\nRIPE Policies\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nArchived Policy Proposals\nHome\n/\nCommunity\n/\nPolicy Development\nRIPE Policy Development\nThe RIPE community develops and sets policies through a long established, open, bottom-up process of discussion and consensus-based decision making.\nWhere does it happen?\nPolicy development happens at\nRIPE Meetings\n(where RIPE Working Groups meet) and the\nRIPE Working Group mailing lists\n.\nWho can contribute?\nAll RIPE Meetings and RIPE Working Group mailing lists are open to everyone.\nThe policy-making process involves all relevant parties. This means that discussions cannot be rushed, and anyone that could be affected by a decision should have a chance to become aware of discussions, review proposals and provide their input.\nTo promote and support the inclusive and open process:\nEveryone is welcome and encouraged to take part in the workings of RIPE by attending RIPE Meetings and participating on RIPE Working Group mailing lists;\nMailing lists are publicly archived;\nThe minutes of working group sessions at RIPE Meetings are publicly archived;\nAll policies are formally documented and publicly available.\nHow can I contribute?\nStudy the\nlist of current proposals\nand if you wish to take part in discussions, post messages to the appropriate RIPE Working Group mailing list noted in each proposal.\nI've got a better idea\nIf you want to propose a policy for the RIPE community, you are free to do so. You\ndon't\nhave to be a member of the RIPE NCC\nor\na regular at any of our meetings.\nRead the RIPE Document\nthat outlines how the Policy Development Process (PDP) works. If you still have questions,\nget in touch\n.\nGlobal Policy\nRIPE Policies for Internet resources may differ from those used in other regions.\nThe\nRIR Comparative Policy Overview\nmaintained by the Number Resource Organisation (NRO) gives you an overview of the policies for each Regional Internet Registry (RIR).\nOfficial regional policy documents can be found at the respective websites of the RIRs:\nAFRINIC\nAPNIC\nARIN\nLACNIC\nRIPE NCC\nOn this page\nWhere does it happen?\nWho can contribute?\nHow can I contribute?\nI've got a better idea\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "segments": [{"segment_id": "204e0f56-c07a-4652-bf66-1039ff634053", "document_id": "e55334ae-a909-4403-9ea4-065012341cb0", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RIPE Policy Development — RIPE Network Coordination Centre\nSkip to main content\nIPs & ASNs\nIPs & ASNs\nWe distribute Internet number resources to our members and provide tools to help them manage their allocations and assignments.\nVisit page\nIPv4\nRequest /24 Allocation\nIPv4 Run-out\nHow Does The IPv4 Waiting List Work?\nIPv4 Transfer Request\nIPv4 Waiting List\nIPv6\nRequest IPv6\nIPv6 Info Centre\nAS Numbers\nReassigning Referenced AS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nWhois Search\nWebupdates\nDatabase Support\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nReverse DNS\nDNSSEC\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nInter-RIR Transfers\nMergers and Acquisitions\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nPolicy Implementation\nAssisted Registry Check\nClose\nAnalyse\nAnalyse\nWe collect a wide range of Internet data and provide statistics and tools you can use for your own operations and analyses.\nVisit page\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPEstat\nRIS\nRIPE IPMap\nInternet Traffic Maps\nAnalyses and Use Cases\nIXP Country Jedi (Alpha)\nDNS\nK-root\nAuthDNS\nReverse DNS Zonecheck\nDNS Monitoring Service (DNSMON)\nRaw Datasets\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data Format\nRIPE Atlas Raw Data\nRIS Raw Data\nTerms and Conditions\nArchived Projects\nRIS Tools and Web Interfaces\nTTM\nRRCC\nDISI\nIRRToolset\nRe-implementation Project\nDBConstat\nSponsorship\nClose\nCommunity\nCommunity\nMore information about RIPE\nVisit page\nWorking Groups\nWorking Group Chairs\nActive Working Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Implementation Status\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nInternet Governance\nInternet Technical Community\nMulti-stakeholder Engagement\nInternet Governance News\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nAbout the NRO NC\nNRO NC Nominations - October 2025\nICP-2 Review\nInitiatives\nAcademic Cooperation (RACI)\nRIPE Fellowship\nDiversity\nCommunity Projects Fund\nRob Blokzijl Foundation\nCommunity Sponsorship\nRIPE Governance\nThe RIPE Chair Team\nRIPE Code of Conduct\nRIPE Community Plenary\nThe History of RIPE\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nHow to Participate\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nClose\nMembership\nMembership\nGet information about your membership, the benefits you get and how you can participate and shape RIPE NCC's activities.\nVisit page\nRIPE NCC Membership\nBecome a Member\nLIR Basics for Members\nRIPE NCC Access\nRIPE NCC Surveys\nGeneral Meetings\nGeneral Meeting October 2026\nMeetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nCharging Schemes\nBilling Procedure 2026\nBilling Procedure 2025\nTax Information\nFinancial Information\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nActivity Plan and Budget\nAnnual Reports\nFinancial Reports\nCharging Schemes\nQuarterly Sanctions Transparency Reports\nRIPE NCC Strategy\nJoin a Discussion\nMembership Mailing Lists\nRIPE Mailing Lists\nConsultations\nRIPE NCC Forum\nClose\nEvents\nEvents\nThe RIPE community carries out much of its work through mailing lists, but face-to-face meetings are equally important.\nVisit page\nRIPE Meetings\nPresenting at a RIPE Meeting\nProgramme Committee\nUpcoming RIPE Meetings\nPrevious RIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nCAPIF\nMENOG\nSEE\nRIPE NCC Days\nNext Regional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nPrevious Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nPrevious Events\nInternet Measurement Days\nSofia\nBucharest\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nClose\nTraining\nTraining\nFollow our courses, build skills, and earn certifications. Browse topics and skill levels for the learning path that best matches your goals and learning style.\nVisit page\nIn-Person Training Courses\nUpcoming Training Courses\nHost a Training Course\nTraining Material\nWebinars\nWebinar Recordings\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nSchedule an Exam\nBGP Security Associate\nIPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst\nIPv6 Security Expert\nLocal Internet Registry (LIR) Fundamentals\nRIPE Database Associate\nPractical Information\nExam Vouchers\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nClose\nDocs\nDocs\nFind the documents that you need from the RIPE Document Store, the RIPE NCC's technical documentation and IPv6 resources.\nVisit page\nRIPE Document Store\nRIPE Documents by Number\nRIPE Documents by Category\nRIPE Policies\nDocumentation\nDeveloper Documentation\nQuarterly Plans\nRIPE Atlas Documentation\nRIPE Database Documentation\nRIS Documentation\nRIPE IPmap Documentation\nRIPEstat Documentation\nDisclosures and Reports\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout IPv6\nDeploy IPv6 Now\nStatistics and Tools\nTraining and Materials\nDocuments\nCommunity\nClose\nAbout\nAbout\nWe're a not-for-profit membership association, a Regional Internet Registry and the secretariat for the RIPE community supporting the Internet.\nVisit page\nWhat We Do\nRegional Internet Registry\nRIPE NCC Service Region\nCoordination Function\nStatistics\nTransition to IPv6\nList of RIPE NCC Services\nUser Research\nStaff\nRIPE NCC Staff\nCareers at the RIPE NCC\nExecutive Board\nFunctions and Expectations\nMinutes from Executive Board Meetings\nFinancial Information\nCurrent Charging Scheme\nCurrent Billing Procedure\nPress Centre\nRIPE NCC in the News\nPublications and Presentations\nPress Releases\nPress Quality Photos\nLegal\nArbitration\nCorporate Governance\nInternet Number Resources\nOther RIPE NCC Services\nInformation for LEA\nNews\nRSS News Feeds\nRIPE NCC Member Updates\nSupport\nContact Us\nSpam, Hacking and Phishing\nService and Security Announcements\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nClose\nLanguages\nFind information about the RIPE NCC translated into eight languages. Use the menu to read text in Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian and Russian.\nVisit page\nEnglish\nHow to Become a Member\nBilling, Fees and Payments\nHow to Get IP Addresses\nHow to Transfer IP Addresses and ASNs\nHow to get involved at the RIPE NCC\nHow the RIPE NCC is Run\nHow to Find Abuse Contact Information\nTraining and Certification\nTürkçe\nRIPE NCC’ye Nasıl Üye Olabilirsiniz?\nFaturalandırma, Ücretler ve Ödemeler\nIP Adresleri Nasıl Alınır\nIP Adreslerinin ve ASN'lerin Aktarılması\nRIPE NCC’nin faaliyetlerinde nasıl yer alınır\nRIPE NCC Nasıl Çalışır\nKötüye Kullanımdan Sorumlu İrtibat Kişisinin Bilgileri Nasıl Bulunur?\nEğitim ve Sertifikalar\nEspañol\nCómo hacerse miembro\nFacturación, Tarifas y Pagos\nCómo obtener direcciones IP\nCómo transferir direcciones IP y ASN\nCómo involucrarse en RIPE NCC\nCómo funciona el RIPE NCC\nCómo encontrar información de contacto de abuso\nFormación y certificación\nItaliano\nCome associarsi\nCosti, fatturazione e pagamenti\nCome ottenere indirizzi IP\nCome trasferire indirizzi IP e ASN\nCome partecipare al RIPE NCC\nCome viene gestito il RIPE NCC\nCome trovare informazioni di contatto sugli abusi\nFormazione e certificazione\nPусский\nКак стать членом RIPE NCC\nОформление счетов, взносы и платежи\nКак получить IP-адреса\nКак передавать IP-адреса и ASN\nКак принять участие в работе RIPE NCC\nКто руководит RIPE NCC\nКак найти контактную информацию для обращений касательно злоупотреблений\nОбучение и сертификация\nعربي\nكيف تصبح عضوًا\nرسوم العضوية\nكيفية الحصول على عناوين IP\nكيفية نقل عناوين IP وأرقام ASN\nكيف تشارك في RIPE NCC\nكيف تُدار RIPE NCC\nكيف تصل إلى معلومات الاتصال الخاصة بإساءة الاستخدام\nالتدريب والشهادات\nفارسی\nنحوۀ عضویت\nصدور صورتحساب، هزینه‌ها و پرداخت‌ها\nچگونه میتوان آدرس های IPرا گرفت\nنحوۀ انتقال آدرس های IP و شماره های سیستم خودمختار\nنحوۀ همکاری با مرکز هماهنگی شبکه RIPE NCC\nRIPE NCC نحوۀ ادارۀ\nنحوۀ یافتن اطلاعات تماس سوءاستفاده‌گر\nآموزش و اعطای گواهی\nУкраїнська\nЯк стати членом RIPE NCC\nВиставлення рахунків, збори та платежі\nЯк отримати IP-адреси\nЯк передавати IP-адреси та ASN\nНавчання та сертифікація\nЯк функціонує RIPE NCC\nЯк знайти контактну інформацію для повідомлення про зловживання\nFrançais\nComment devenir membre ?\nFacturation, frais et paiements\nComment obtenir des adresses IP\nComment transférer des adresses IP et des numéros de système autonome (ASN)\nComment s'impliquer au sein du RIPE NCC\nComment fonctionne le RIPE NCC\nComment trouver les Informations de Contact d'Abus\nFormation et certification\nClose\nSearch\nSearch\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nTip: try using \"quotes around your search phrase\"\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nMenu\nClose\nApps\nRIPE.NET\nLIR Portal\nRIPE Database\nRIPE Labs\nRIPEstat\nRIPE Atlas\nRIPE NCC Academy\nRPKI\nDNSMON\nLog in\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nPDP Glossary\nPolicy Proposal Template\nPolicy Implementation Status\nRIPE Document: Policy Development Process\nRIR Comparative Policy Overview (nro.net)\nRIPE Policies\nCurrent Policy Proposals\nArchived Policy Proposals\nHome\n/\nCommunity\n/\nPolicy Development\nRIPE Policy Development\nThe RIPE community develops and sets policies through a long established, open, bottom-up process of discussion and consensus-based decision making.\nWhere does it happen?\nPolicy development happens at\nRIPE Meetings\n(where RIPE Working Groups meet) and the\nRIPE Working Group mailing lists\n.\nWho can contribute?\nAll RIPE Meetings and RIPE Working Group mailing lists are open to everyone.\nThe policy-making process involves all relevant parties. This means that discussions cannot be rushed, and anyone that could be affected by a decision should have a chance to become aware of discussions, review proposals and provide their input.\nTo promote and support the inclusive and open process:\nEveryone is welcome and encouraged to take part in the workings of RIPE by attending RIPE Meetings and participating on RIPE Working Group mailing lists;\nMailing lists are publicly archived;\nThe minutes of working group sessions at RIPE Meetings are publicly archived;\nAll policies are formally documented and publicly available.\nHow can I contribute?\nStudy the\nlist of current proposals\nand if you wish to take part in discussions, post messages to the appropriate RIPE Working Group mailing list noted in each proposal.\nI've got a better idea\nIf you want to propose a policy for the RIPE community, you are free to do so. You\ndon't\nhave to be a member of the RIPE NCC\nor\na regular at any of our meetings.\nRead the RIPE Document\nthat outlines how the Policy Development Process (PDP) works. If you still have questions,\nget in touch\n.\nGlobal Policy\nRIPE Policies for Internet resources may differ from those used in other regions.\nThe\nRIR Comparative Policy Overview\nmaintained by the Number Resource Organisation (NRO) gives you an overview of the policies for each Regional Internet Registry (RIR).\nOfficial regional policy documents can be found at the respective websites of the RIRs:\nAFRINIC\nAPNIC\nARIN\nLACNIC\nRIPE NCC\nOn this page\nWhere does it happen?\nWho can contribute?\nHow can I contribute?\nI've got a better idea\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nRIPE Governance\nInitiatives\nRIPE 93\nHow to Participate\nIPs & ASNs\nIPv4\nIPv6\nAS Numbers\nRIPE Database\nLIR Portal\nDNS\nResource Transfers and Mergers\nLegacy Internet Resources\nDocumentation for Resource Management\nAnalyse\nStatistics\nInternet Measurements\nDNS\nRaw Datasets\nArchived Projects\nSponsorship\nCommunity\nWorking Groups\nTask Forces\nPolicy Development\nInternet Governance\nRIPE Labs\nNRO NC\nInitiatives\nRIPE Governance\nRIPE Document Store\nParticipate\nMembership\nRIPE NCC Membership\nGeneral Meetings\nBilling, Payment and Fees\nRIPE NCC Organisational Documents\nJoin a Discussion\nRIPE NCC Forum\nEvents\nRIPE Meetings\nRegional Meetings\nRoundtable Meetings\nGeneral Meetings\nOpen House\nInternet Measurement Days\nHackathons\nEvents Calendar\nEvent Sponsorship\nTraining\nIn-Person Training Courses\nWebinars\nRIPE NCC Academy\nCertified Professionals\nVideos\nSummer School 2026\nDocs\nRIPE Document Store\nDocumentation\nIPv6 Information Centre\nAbout\nWhat We Do\nStaff\nExecutive Board\nFinancial Information\nPress Centre\nLegal\nNews\nSupport\nRIPE NCC Trust Portal\nRIPE NCC Middle East\nLanguages\nEnglish\nTürkçe\nEspañol\nItaliano\nPусский\nعربي\nفارسی\nУкраїнська\nFrançais\n© 1992–2026 RIPE NCC\nYour IP Address is:\n193.171.242.40\nHome\nSitemap\nContact Us\nCareers\nService Announcements\nPrivacy Statement\nLegal\nCookies\nCopyright Statement\nTerms of Service\nRSS Feeds", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11955, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1762}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "e75e587a-dd7d-4aba-9390-488877b51fa3", "source_id": "07ebb9994bbdd01b6ae34fe5", "source": "APNIC", "source_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/", "final_url": "https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/process/", "artifact_sha256": "52cf2f101b6819ce7beace0af756795757b536f1a4b96c4dcd8166d7a067ee25", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 77754, "title": "Policy Development – APNIC", "language": "en-AU", "text_length": 4408, "characters": 4408, "text": "Policy Development – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nPolicy Development\nAPNIC Policies are the rules that control the way IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers are distributed and registered in the Asia Pacific. The procedures for discussing and deciding proposed changes to APNIC policies are called the Policy Development Process (usually referred to as the PDP).\nPolicies are decided by the APNIC membership and the broader Internet community.\nAPNIC staff support the PDP by providing administrative services to the Policy SIG, drafting policy wording, and managing the implementation of policy changes.\nMost of the policy development activity takes place on the Policy SIG mailing list. Proposed changes to policy are discussed over email. Two times each year the SIG holds a face-to-face Open Policy Meeting to decide the outcomes by trying to reach consensus on the policy changes proposed.\nThe policy development process is explained\nhere\n. You can also refer to the official APNIC\nPolicy Development Process\npolicy.\nPolicy process values\nOpen\nAnyone can propose policies\nEveryone can discuss policy proposals\nTransparent\nArchives of all policy discussions and decisions are available publicly\nBottom-up\nThe community drives policy development\nAPNIC keeps a public record of all policy discussions and decisions. This transparency means you can always understand why policies were decided. You will find the results of all policy discussions in\nPolicy Proposals\n.\nThe Policy Cycle\nRelated links\nAPNIC Policy Development Process\nSubmit a policy proposal\nSee also\nTemplate for proposal presentations\nCommunity demographics\nCommunity Consultations\nSend us feedback\nResource Policies\nParticipate\nCurrent policies\nPolicy SIG\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Development Process\nGuidelines for Proposal Authors\nThe APNIC Consensus Process\nPolicy proposals\nAPNIC drafts for public comment\nEditorial comment period for APNIC 54 and APNIC 55 Policies\nPolicies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region\nExperimental allocations policy\nIPv6 address allocation and assignment policy\nCriteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region\nAPNIC Internet Number Resource Policies\nOperational policies for National Internet Registries in the APNIC region\nPolicy environment for Internet number resource distribution in the Asia Pacific\nAPNIC transfer, merger, acquisition, and takeover policy\nFellowship\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nParticipate\nCommunity Technical Support\nSecurity at APNIC\nIPv6@APNIC\nAPNIC Foundation\nAPNIC IPv4 post-exhaustion\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f56b5ce3-f475-48fb-9519-da85e8149e9d", "document_id": "e75e587a-dd7d-4aba-9390-488877b51fa3", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Policy Development – APNIC\nSkip to content\nMyAPNIC\nAcademy\nBlog\nOrbit\nREx\nDASH\nHome\nWhois and website search\nSearch\nAdvanced Whois\nMake\na\npayment\nClose Search\nSearch APNIC.net OR enter Whois database\nquery\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nAdvanced Whois\nMake a payment\nGet IP\nGet IP\nMake a payment\nMembership\nFAQs\nManage IP\nMyAPNIC\nUsing Whois\nIPv4 exhaustion\nGo IPv6\nRouting Registry\nMake a payment\nTraining\nAbout\nEvents\nAPNIC Academy\nCommunity Trainers\nCourses\nEvents\nConferences\nCalendar\nSponsorship\nCode of Conduct\nInsights\nAPNIC Labs\nDASH to secure your networks\nREx\nRaw Data\nCommunity\nOrbit\nCommunity demographics\nPolicy Development\nFellowship\nAddressing policies\nInternet community\nCode of Conduct\nTechnical Assistance\nRoot servers\nSecurity at APNIC\nISIF Asia\nAPNIC Foundation\nNRO Number Council (NC)\nBlog\nHelp Centre\nAbout\nAPNIC Region\nAPNIC Membership\nExecutive Council\nService updates\nTeam\nAnnual Reports\nTransparency\nAPNIC Survey\nCorporate Documents\nPublications Archive\nCareers\nGlossary\nContact\nPolicy Development\nAPNIC Policies are the rules that control the way IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers are distributed and registered in the Asia Pacific. The procedures for discussing and deciding proposed changes to APNIC policies are called the Policy Development Process (usually referred to as the PDP).\nPolicies are decided by the APNIC membership and the broader Internet community.\nAPNIC staff support the PDP by providing administrative services to the Policy SIG, drafting policy wording, and managing the implementation of policy changes.\nMost of the policy development activity takes place on the Policy SIG mailing list. Proposed changes to policy are discussed over email. Two times each year the SIG holds a face-to-face Open Policy Meeting to decide the outcomes by trying to reach consensus on the policy changes proposed.\nThe policy development process is explained\nhere\n. You can also refer to the official APNIC\nPolicy Development Process\npolicy.\nPolicy process values\nOpen\nAnyone can propose policies\nEveryone can discuss policy proposals\nTransparent\nArchives of all policy discussions and decisions are available publicly\nBottom-up\nThe community drives policy development\nAPNIC keeps a public record of all policy discussions and decisions. This transparency means you can always understand why policies were decided. You will find the results of all policy discussions in\nPolicy Proposals\n.\nThe Policy Cycle\nRelated links\nAPNIC Policy Development Process\nSubmit a policy proposal\nSee also\nTemplate for proposal presentations\nCommunity demographics\nCommunity Consultations\nSend us feedback\nResource Policies\nParticipate\nCurrent policies\nPolicy SIG\nPolicy Development\nPolicy Development Process\nGuidelines for Proposal Authors\nThe APNIC Consensus Process\nPolicy proposals\nAPNIC drafts for public comment\nEditorial comment period for APNIC 54 and APNIC 55 Policies\nPolicies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific region\nExperimental allocations policy\nIPv6 address allocation and assignment policy\nCriteria for the recognition of NIRs in the APNIC region\nAPNIC Internet Number Resource Policies\nOperational policies for National Internet Registries in the APNIC region\nPolicy environment for Internet number resource distribution in the Asia Pacific\nAPNIC transfer, merger, acquisition, and takeover policy\nFellowship\nAPNIC in the Internet ecosystem\nParticipate\nCommunity Technical Support\nSecurity at APNIC\nIPv6@APNIC\nAPNIC Foundation\nAPNIC IPv4 post-exhaustion\nAPNIC Home\nConnect with us\nFacebook\nTwitter\nYouTube\nFlickr\nWeibo\nSlideshare\nLinkedIn\nRSS\n©\n2026\nAPNIC\nABN 42 081 528 010\nPrivacy\nContact\nHelp Centre\nNRO News\nService Status\nCareers\nFeedback", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 4408, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 4, "word_count": 636}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "e8219cc6-9012-4a9a-99d2-41fbe0fe24d4", "source_id": "d1a9144c2f13687161f6ec5b", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9364", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9364/", "artifact_sha256": "4d81f67b83114a490403546fc4edc97683731e4d04db7661fac02ab72b608a3d", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 322771, "title": "RFC 9364: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 21067, "characters": 21067, "text": "RFC 9364: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 9364\nInfo\nRFC\n9364\n:\nBCP\n237\n:\nDNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\nP. Hoffman\nBest Current Practice\nAbstract\nThis document describes the DNS Security Extensions (commonly called \"DNSSEC\") that are\nspecified in RFCs 4033, 4034, and 4035, as well as a handful of others. One purpose is to introduce\nall of the RFCs in one place so that the reader can understand the many aspects of DNSSEC.\nThis document does not update any of those RFCs.\nA second purpose is to state that using DNSSEC for origin authentication of DNS data is the best current practice.\nA third purpose is to provide a single reference for other documents that want to refer to DNSSEC.\n¶\nStatus of This Memo\nThis memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.\n¶\nThis document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force\n(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has\nreceived public review and has been approved for publication by\nthe Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information\non BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.\n¶\nInformation about the current status of this document, any\nerrata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9364\n.\n¶\nCopyright Notice\nCopyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n¶\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttps://\ntrustee\n.ietf\n.org\n/license\n-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with\nrespect to this document. Code Components extracted from this\ndocument must include Revised BSD License text as described in\nSection 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without\nwarranty as described in the Revised BSD License.\n¶\n1.\nIntroduction\nThe core specification for what we know as DNSSEC (the combination of\n[\nRFC4033\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n) describes a set of protocols that provide origin\nauthentication of DNS data.\n[\nRFC6840\n]\nupdates and extends those core RFCs\nbut does not fundamentally change the way that DNSSEC works.\n¶\nThis document lists RFCs that should be considered by someone\ncreating an implementation of, or someone deploying, DNSSEC as it is currently standardized.\nAlthough an effort was made to be thorough, the reader should not assume this list is comprehensive.\nIt uses terminology from those documents without defining that terminology.\nIt also points to the relevant IANA registry groups that relate to DNSSEC.\nIt does not, however, point to standards that rely on zones needing to be signed by DNSSEC,\nsuch as DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)\n[\nRFC6698\n]\n.\n¶\n1.1.\nDNSSEC as a Best Current Practice\nUsing the DNSSEC set of protocols is the best current practice for adding\norigin authentication of DNS data. To date, no Standards Track RFCs offer any other\nmethod for such origin authentication of data in the DNS.\n¶\nMore than 15 years after the DNSSEC specification was published,\nit is still not widely deployed. Recent estimates are that fewer than 10% of the domain names\nused for websites are signed, and only around a third of queries to recursive resolvers\nare validated. However, this low level of deployment does not affect whether using DNSSEC\nis a best current practice; it just indicates that the value of deploying DNSSEC is often\nconsidered lower than the cost.\nNonetheless, the significant deployment of DNSSEC beneath some top-level domains (TLDs)\nand the near-universal deployment of DNSSEC for the TLDs in the DNS root zone\ndemonstrate that DNSSEC is applicable for implementation by both ordinary and highly sophisticated domain owners.\n¶\n1.2.\nImplementing DNSSEC\nDevelopers of validating resolvers and authoritative servers,\nas well as operators of validating resolvers and authoritative servers,\nneed to know the parts of the DNSSEC protocol that would affect them.\nThey should read the DNSSEC core documents and probably at least be familiar\nwith the extensions.\nDevelopers will probably need to be very familiar with the algorithm documents as well.\n¶\nAs a side note, some of the DNSSEC-related RFCs have significant errata, so reading the\nRFCs should also include looking for the related errata.\n¶\n2.\nDNSSEC Core Documents\nWhat we refer to as \"DNSSEC\" is the third iteration of the DNSSEC specification;\n[\nRFC2065\n]\nwas the first, and\n[\nRFC2535\n]\nwas the second.\nEarlier iterations have not been deployed on a significant scale.\nThroughout this document, \"DNSSEC\" means the protocol initially defined in\n[\nRFC4033\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n.\n¶\nThe three initial core documents generally cover different topics:\n¶\n[\nRFC4033\n]\nis an overview of DNSSEC, including how it might change the resolution of DNS queries.\n¶\n[\nRFC4034\n]\nspecifies the DNS resource records used in DNSSEC.\nIt obsoletes many RFCs about earlier versions of DNSSEC.\n¶\n[\nRFC4035\n]\ncovers the modifications to the DNS protocol incurred by DNSSEC.\nThese include signing zones, serving signed zones, resolving in light of\nDNSSEC, and authenticating DNSSEC-signed data.\n¶\nAt the time this set of core documents was published, someone could create a DNSSEC\nimplementation of signing software, of a DNSSEC-aware authoritative server, and/or of\na DNSSEC-aware recursive resolver from the three core documents, plus a few older\nRFCs specifying the cryptography used. Those two older documents are the following:\n¶\n[\nRFC2536\n]\ndefines how to use the DSA signature algorithm (although it refers to other\ndocuments for the details).\nDSA was thinly implemented and can safely be ignored by DNSSEC implementations\n.\n¶\n[\nRFC3110\n]\ndefines how to use the RSA signature algorithm (although refers to other\ndocuments for the details).\nRSA is still among the most popular signing algorithms for DNSSEC.\n¶\nIt is important to note that later RFCs update the core documents. As just one example,\n[\nRFC9077\n]\nchanges how TTL values are calculated in DNSSEC processing.\n¶\n2.1.\nAddition to the DNSSEC Core\nAs with any major protocol, developers and operators discovered issues with the original\ncore documents over the years.\n[\nRFC6840\n]\nis an omnibus update to the original core documents and thus itself has\nbecome a core document.\nIn addition to covering new requirements from new DNSSEC RFCs, it describes many important\nsecurity and interoperabilit\ny issues that arose during the deployment of the initial\nspecifications, particularly after the DNS root was signed in 2010.\nIt also lists some errors in the examples of the core specifications.\n¶\n[\nRFC6840\n]\nbrings a few additions into the core of DNSSEC.\nIt makes NSEC3\n[\nRFC5155\n]\nas much a part of DNSSEC as NSEC is.\nIt also makes the SHA-256 and SHA-512 hash functions defined in\n[\nRFC4509\n]\nand\n[\nRFC5702\n]\npart of the core.\n¶\n3.\nAdditional Cryptographic Algorithms and DNSSEC\nCurrent cryptographic algorithms typically weaken over time as computing power improves and new cryptoanalysis emerges.\nTwo new signing algorithms have been adopted by the DNSSEC community: Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)\n[\nRFC6605\n]\nand Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)\n[\nRFC8080\n]\n.\nECDSA and EdDSA have become very popular signing algorithms in recent years.\nThe GOST signing algorithm\n[\nGOST-SIGN\n]\nwas also adopted but has seen very limited use, likely\nbecause it is a national algorithm specific to a very small number of countries.\n¶\nImplementation developers who want to know which algorithms to implement in DNSSEC software\nshould refer to\n[\nRFC8624\n]\n.\nNote that\nthis specification is only about what algorithms should and should\nnot be included in implementations\n, i.e., it is not advice about which\nalgorithms zone operators should or should not use for signing, nor\nwhich algorithms recursive resolver operators should or should not use\nfor validation.\n¶\n4.\nExtensions to DNSSEC\nThe DNSSEC community has extended the DNSSEC core and the cryptographic algorithms, both\nin terms of describing good operational practices and in new protocols. Some of the\nRFCs that describe these extensions include the following:\n¶\n[\nRFC5011\n]\ndescribes a method to help resolvers update their DNSSEC trust anchors in an\nautomated fashion. This method was used in 2018 to update the DNS root trust anchor.\n¶\n[\nRFC6781\n]\nis a compendium of operational practices that may not be obvious from reading\njust the core specifications.\n¶\n[\nRFC7344\n]\ndescribes using the CDS and CDNSKEY resource records to help automate the maintenance\nof DS records in the parents of signed zones.\n¶\n[\nRFC8078\n]\nextends\n[\nRFC7344\n]\nby showing how to do initial setup of trusted relationships\nbetween signed parent and child zones.\n¶\n[\nRFC8198\n]\ndescribes how a validating resolver can emit fewer queries in signed zones that\nuse NSEC and NSEC3 for negative caching.\n¶\n[\nRFC9077\n]\nupdates\n[\nRFC8198\n]\nwith respect to the TTL fields in signed records.\n¶\n5.\nAdditional Documents of Interest\nThe documents listed above constitute the core of DNSSEC, the additional cryptographic algorithms,\nand the major extensions to DNSSEC.\nThis section lists some additional documents that someone interested in implementing or operating\nDNSSEC might find of value:\n¶\n[\nRFC4470\n]\n\"describes how to construct DNSSEC NSEC resource records that cover a smaller range of\nnames than called for by\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n. By generating and signing these records on demand, authoritative name\nservers can effectively stop the disclosure of zone contents otherwise made possible by walking the chain of NSEC records in a\nsigned zone\".\n¶\n[\nRFC6975\n]\n\"specifies a way for validating end-system resolvers to signal to a server which digital signature\nand hash algorithms they support\".\n¶\n[\nRFC7129\n]\n\"provides additional background commentary and some context for the NSEC and NSEC3\nmechanisms used by DNSSEC to provide authenticated denial\n-of\n-existence responses\".\nThis background is particularly important for understanding NSEC and NSEC3 usage.\n¶\n[\nRFC7583\n]\n\"describes the issues surrounding the timing of events in the rolling of a key in a DNSSEC-secured zone\".\n¶\n[\nRFC7646\n]\n\"defines Negative Trust Anchors (NTAs), which can be used to mitigate DNSSEC validation failures by disabling\nDNSSEC validation at specified domains\".\n¶\n[\nRFC7958\n]\n\"describes the format and publication mechanisms IANA has used to distribute the DNSSEC trust anchors\".\n¶\n[\nRFC8027\n]\n\"describes problems that a Validating DNS resolver, stub-resolver, or application might run into within\na non-compliant infrastructure\"\n.\n¶\n[\nRFC8145\n]\n\"specifies two different ways for validating resolvers to signal to a server which keys are\nreferenced in their chain of trust\".\n¶\n[\nRFC8499\n]\ncontains lists of terminology used when talking about DNS; Sections\n10\nand\n11\ncover DNSSEC.\n¶\n[\nRFC8509\n]\n\"specifies a mechanism that will allow an end user and third parties to determine the trusted key\nstate for the root key of the resolvers that handle that user's DNS queries\".\n¶\n[\nRFC8901\n]\n\"presents deployment models that accommodate this scenario [when each DNS\nprovider independently signs zone data with their own keys] and describes these key-management requirements\".\n¶\n[\nRFC9276\n]\n\"provides guidance on setting NSEC3 parameters based on recent operational\ndeployment experience\".\n¶\nThere will certainly be other RFCs related to DNSSEC that are published after this one.\n¶\n6.\nIANA Considerations\nIANA already has three registry groups that relate to DNSSEC:\n¶\nDNSSEC algorithm numbers\n¶\nDNSSEC NSEC3 parameters\n¶\nDNSSEC DS RRtype digest algorithms\n¶\nThe rules for the DNSSEC algorithm registry were set in the core RFCs and\nupdated by\n[\nRFC6014\n]\n,\n[\nRFC6725\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC9157\n]\n.\n¶\nThis document does not update or create any registry groups or registries.\n¶\n7.\nSecurity Considerations\nAll of the security considerations from all of the RFCs referenced in this document\napply here.\n¶\n8.\nReferences\n8.1.\nNormative References\n[RFC3110]\nEastlake 3rd, D.\n,\n\"RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)\"\n,\nRFC 3110\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3110\n,\nMay 2001\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3110\n>\n.\n[RFC4033]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements\"\n,\nRFC 4033\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4033\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4033\n>\n.\n[RFC4034]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 4034\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4034\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4034\n>\n.\n[RFC4035]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 4035\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4035\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4035\n>\n.\n[RFC4509]\nHardaker, W.\n,\n\"Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs)\"\n,\nRFC 4509\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4509\n,\nMay 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4509\n>\n.\n[RFC5155]\nLaurie, B.\n,\nSisson, G.\n,\nArends, R.\n, and\nD. Blacka\n,\n\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence\"\n,\nRFC 5155\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5155\n,\nMarch 2008\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5155\n>\n.\n[RFC5702]\nJansen, J.\n,\n\"Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 5702\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5702\n,\nOctober 2009\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5702\n>\n.\n[RFC6840]\nWeiler, S., Ed.\nand\nD. Blacka, Ed.\n,\n\"Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)\"\n,\nRFC 6840\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6840\n,\nFebruary 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6840\n>\n.\n8.2.\nInformative References\n[GOST-SIGN]\nBelyavsky, D.\n,\nDolmatov, V., Ed.\n, and\nB. Makarenko, Ed.\n,\n\"Use of GOST 2012 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC\"\n,\nWork in Progress\n,\nInternet-Draft, draft\n-ietf\n-dnsop\n-rfc5933\n-bis\n-13\n,\n30 November 2022\n,\n<\nhttps://\ndatatracker\n.ietf\n.org\n/doc\n/html\n/draft\n-ietf\n-dnsop\n-rfc5933\n-bis\n-13\n>\n.\n[RFC2065]\nEastlake 3rd, D.\nand\nC. Kaufman\n,\n\"Domain Name System Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 2065\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2065\n,\nJanuary 1997\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2065\n>\n.\n[RFC2535]\nEastlake 3rd, D.\n,\n\"Domain Name System Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 2535\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2535\n,\nMarch 1999\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2535\n>\n.\n[RFC2536]\nEastlake 3rd, D.\n,\n\"DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)\"\n,\nRFC 2536\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2536\n,\nMarch 1999\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2536\n>\n.\n[RFC4470]\nWeiler, S.\nand\nJ. Ihren\n,\n\"Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing\"\n,\nRFC 4470\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4470\n,\nApril 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4470\n>\n.\n[RFC5011]\nStJohns, M.\n,\n\"Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC) Trust Anchors\"\n,\nSTD 74\n,\nRFC 5011\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5011\n,\nSeptember 2007\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5011\n>\n.\n[RFC6014]\nHoffman, P.\n,\n\"Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 6014\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6014\n,\nNovember 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6014\n>\n.\n[RFC6605]\nHoffman, P.\nand\nW.C.A. Wijngaards\n,\n\"Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 6605\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6605\n,\nApril 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6605\n>\n.\n[RFC6698]\nHoffman, P.\nand\nJ. Schlyter\n,\n\"The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA\"\n,\nRFC 6698\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6698\n,\nAugust 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6698\n>\n.\n[RFC6725]\nRose, S.\n,\n\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry Updates\"\n,\nRFC 6725\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6725\n,\nAugust 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6725\n>\n.\n[RFC6781]\nKolkman, O.\n,\nMekking, W.\n, and\nR. Gieben\n,\n\"DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2\"\n,\nRFC 6781\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6781\n,\nDecember 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6781\n>\n.\n[RFC6975]\nCrocker, S.\nand\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Signaling Cryptographic Algorithm Understanding in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\"\n,\nRFC 6975\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6975\n,\nJuly 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6975\n>\n.\n[RFC7129]\nGieben, R.\nand\nW. Mekking\n,\n\"Authenticated Denial of Existence in the DNS\"\n,\nRFC 7129\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7129\n,\nFebruary 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7129\n>\n.\n[RFC7344]\nKumari, W.\n,\nGudmundsson, O.\n, and\nG. Barwood\n,\n\"Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance\"\n,\nRFC 7344\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7344\n,\nSeptember 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7344\n>\n.\n[RFC7583]\nMorris, S.\n,\nIhren, J.\n,\nDickinson, J.\n, and\nW. Mekking\n,\n\"DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations\"\n,\nRFC 7583\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7583\n,\nOctober 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7583\n>\n.\n[RFC7646]\nEbersman, P.\n,\nKumari, W.\n,\nGriffiths, C.\n,\nLivingood, J.\n, and\nR. Weber\n,\n\"Definition and Use of DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors\"\n,\nRFC 7646\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7646\n,\nSeptember 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7646\n>\n.\n[RFC7958]\nAbley, J.\n,\nSchlyter, J.\n,\nBailey, G.\n, and\nP. Hoffman\n,\n\"DNSSEC Trust Anchor Publication for the Root Zone\"\n,\nRFC 7958\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7958\n,\nAugust 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7958\n>\n.\n[RFC8027]\nHardaker, W.\n,\nGudmundsson, O.\n, and\nS. Krishnaswamy\n,\n\"DNSSEC Roadblock Avoidance\"\n,\nBCP 207\n,\nRFC 8027\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8027\n,\nNovember 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8027\n>\n.\n[RFC8078]\nGudmundsson, O.\nand\nP. Wouters\n,\n\"Managing DS Records from the Parent via CDS/CDNSKEY\"\n,\nRFC 8078\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8078\n,\nMarch 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8078\n>\n.\n[RFC8080]\nSury, O.\nand\nR. Edmonds\n,\n\"Edwards-Curve Digital Security Algorithm (EdDSA) for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 8080\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8080\n,\nFebruary 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8080\n>\n.\n[RFC8145]\nWessels, D.\n,\nKumari, W.\n, and\nP. Hoffman\n,\n\"Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\"\n,\nRFC 8145\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8145\n,\nApril 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8145\n>\n.\n[RFC8198]\nFujiwara, K.\n,\nKato, A.\n, and\nW. Kumari\n,\n\"Aggressive Use of DNSSEC\n-Validated Cache\"\n,\nRFC 8198\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8198\n,\nJuly 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8198\n>\n.\n[RFC8499]\nHoffman, P.\n,\nSullivan, A.\n, and\nK. Fujiwara\n,\n\"DNS Terminology\"\n,\nBCP 219\n,\nRFC 8499\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8499\n,\nJanuary 2019\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8499\n>\n.\n[RFC8509]\nHuston, G.\n,\nDamas, J.\n, and\nW. Kumari\n,\n\"A Root Key Trust Anchor Sentinel for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 8509\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8509\n,\nDecember 2018\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8509\n>\n.\n[RFC8624]\nWouters, P.\nand\nO. Sury\n,\n\"Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 8624\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8624\n,\nJune 2019\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8624\n>\n.\n[RFC8901]\nHuque, S.\n,\nAras, P.\n,\nDickinson, J.\n,\nVcelak, J.\n, and\nD. Blacka\n,\n\"Multi-Signer DNSSEC Models\"\n,\nRFC 8901\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8901\n,\nSeptember 2020\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8901\n>\n.\n[RFC9077]\nvan Dijk, P.\n,\n\"NSEC and NSEC3: TTLs and Aggressive Use\"\n,\nRFC 9077\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9077\n,\nJuly 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9077\n>\n.\n[RFC9157]\nHoffman, P.\n,\n\"Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 9157\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9157\n,\nDecember 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9157\n>\n.\n[RFC9276]\nHardaker, W.\nand\nV. Dukhovni\n,\n\"Guidance for NSEC3 Parameter Settings\"\n,\nBCP 236\n,\nRFC 9276\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9276\n,\nAugust 2022\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9276\n>\n.\nAcknowledgements\nThe DNS world owes a depth of gratitude to the authors and other contributors\nto the core DNSSEC documents and to the notable DNSSEC extensions.\n¶\nIn addition, the following people made significant contributions to early draft versions\nof this document:\nBen Schwartz\nand\nDuane Wessels\n.\n¶\nAuthor's Address\nPaul Hoffman\nICANN\nEmail:\npaul\n.hoffman\n@icann\n.org\nRFC\n9364\n: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1 Introduction\n1.1 DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice\n1.2 Implementing DNSSEC\n2 DNSSEC Core Documents\n2.1 Addition to the DNSSEC Core\n3 Additional Cryptographic Algorithms and DNSSEC\n4 Extensions to DNSSEC\n5 Additional Documents of Interest\n6 IANA Considerations\n7 Security Considerations\n8 References\n8.1 Normative References\n8.2 Informative References\nAcknowledgements\nAuthor's Address\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "0c2fde97-c014-4367-9eac-c9dc64ffa61b", "document_id": "e8219cc6-9012-4a9a-99d2-41fbe0fe24d4", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 9364: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 9364\nInfo\nRFC\n9364\n:\nBCP\n237\n:\nDNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\nP. Hoffman\nBest Current Practice\nAbstract\nThis document describes the DNS Security Extensions (commonly called \"DNSSEC\") that are\nspecified in RFCs 4033, 4034, and 4035, as well as a handful of others. One purpose is to introduce\nall of the RFCs in one place so that the reader can understand the many aspects of DNSSEC.\nThis document does not update any of those RFCs.\nA second purpose is to state that using DNSSEC for origin authentication of DNS data is the best current practice.\nA third purpose is to provide a single reference for other documents that want to refer to DNSSEC.\n¶\nStatus of This Memo\nThis memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.\n¶\nThis document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force\n(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has\nreceived public review and has been approved for publication by\nthe Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information\non BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.\n¶\nInformation about the current status of this document, any\nerrata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9364\n.\n¶\nCopyright Notice\nCopyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n¶\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttps://\ntrustee\n.ietf\n.org\n/license\n-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with\nrespect to this document. Code Components extracted from this\ndocument must include Revised BSD License text as described in\nSection 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without\nwarranty as described in the Revised BSD License.\n¶\n1.\nIntroduction\nThe core specification for what we know as DNSSEC (the combination of\n[\nRFC4033\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n) describes a set of protocols that provide origin\nauthentication of DNS data.\n[\nRFC6840\n]\nupdates and extends those core RFCs\nbut does not fundamentally change the way that DNSSEC works.\n¶\nThis document lists RFCs that should be considered by someone\ncreating an implementation of, or someone deploying, DNSSEC as it is currently standardized.\nAlthough an effort was made to be thorough, the reader should not assume this list is comprehensive.\nIt uses terminology from those documents without defining that terminology.\nIt also points to the relevant IANA registry groups that relate to DNSSEC.\nIt does not, however, point to standards that rely on zones needing to be signed by DNSSEC,\nsuch as DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)\n[\nRFC6698\n]\n.\n¶\n1.1.\nDNSSEC as a Best Current Practice\nUsing the DNSSEC set of protocols is the best current practice for adding\norigin authentication of DNS data. To date, no Standards Track RFCs offer any other\nmethod for such origin authentication of data in the DNS.\n¶\nMore than 15 years after the DNSSEC specification was published,\nit is still not widely deployed. Recent estimates are that fewer than 10% of the domain names\nused for websites are signed, and only around a third of queries to recursive resolvers\nare validated. However, this low level of deployment does not affect whether using DNSSEC\nis a best current practice; it just indicates that the value of deploying DNSSEC is often\nconsidered lower than the cost.\nNonetheless, the significant deployment of DNSSEC beneath some top-level domains (TLDs)\nand the near-universal deployment of DNSSEC for the TLDs in the DNS root zone\ndemonstrate that DNSSEC is applicable for implementation by both ordinary and highly sophisticated domain owners.\n¶\n1.2.\nImplementing DNSSEC\nDevelopers of validating resolvers and authoritative servers,\nas well as operators of validating resolvers and authoritative servers,\nneed to know the parts of the DNSSEC protocol that would affect them.\nThey should read the DNSSEC core documents and probably at least be familiar\nwith the extensions.\nDevelopers will probably need to be very familiar with the algorithm documents as well.\n¶\nAs a side note, some of the DNSSEC-related RFCs have significant errata, so reading the\nRFCs should also include looking for the related errata.\n¶\n2.\nDNSSEC Core Documents\nWhat we refer to as \"DNSSEC\" is the third iteration of the DNSSEC specification;\n[\nRFC2065\n]\nwas the first, and\n[\nRFC2535\n]\nwas the second.\nEarlier iterations have not been deployed on a significant scale.\nThroughout this document, \"DNSSEC\" means the protocol initially defined in\n[\nRFC4033\n]\n,\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC4035\n]\n.\n¶\nThe three initial core documents generally cover different topics:\n¶\n[\nRFC4033\n]\nis an overview of DNSSEC, including how it might change the resolution of DNS queries.\n¶\n[\nRFC4034\n]\nspecifies the DNS resource records used in DNSSEC.\nIt obsoletes many RFCs about earlier versions of DNSSEC.\n¶\n[\nRFC4035\n]\ncovers the modifications to the DNS protocol incurred by DNSSEC.\nThese include signing zones, serving signed zones, resolving in light of\nDNSSEC, and authenticating DNSSEC-signed data.\n¶\nAt the time this set of core documents was published, someone could create a DNSSEC\nimplementation of signing software, of a DNSSEC-aware authoritative server, and/or of\na DNSSEC-aware recursive resolver from the three core documents, plus a few older\nRFCs specifying the cryptography used. Those two older documents are the following:\n¶\n[\nRFC2536\n]\ndefines how to use the DSA signature algorithm (although it refers to other\ndocuments for the details).\nDSA was thinly implemented and can safely be ignored by DNSSEC implementations\n.\n¶\n[\nRFC3110\n]\ndefines how to use the RSA signature algorithm (although refers to other\ndocuments for the details).\nRSA is still among the most popular signing algorithms for DNSSEC.\n¶\nIt is important to note that later RFCs update the core documents. As just one example,\n[\nRFC9077\n]\nchanges how TTL values are calculated in DNSSEC processing.\n¶\n2.1.\nAddition to the DNSSEC Core\nAs with any major protocol, developers and operators discovered issues with the original\ncore documents over the years.\n[\nRFC6840\n]\nis an omnibus update to the original core documents and thus itself has\nbecome a core document.\nIn addition to covering new requirements from new DNSSEC RFCs, it describes many important\nsecurity and interoperabilit\ny issues that arose during the deployment of the initial\nspecifications, particularly after the DNS root was signed in 2010.\nIt also lists some errors in the examples of the core specifications.\n¶\n[\nRFC6840\n]\nbrings a few additions into the core of DNSSEC.\nIt makes NSEC3\n[\nRFC5155\n]\nas much a part of DNSSEC as NSEC is.\nIt also makes the SHA-256 and SHA-512 hash functions defined in\n[\nRFC4509\n]\nand\n[\nRFC5702\n]\npart of the core.\n¶\n3.\nAdditional Cryptographic Algorithms and DNSSEC\nCurrent cryptographic algorithms typically weaken over time as computing power improves and new cryptoanalysis emerges.\nTwo new signing algorithms have been adopted by the DNSSEC community: Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)\n[\nRFC6605\n]\nand Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)\n[\nRFC8080\n]\n.\nECDSA and EdDSA have become very popular signing algorithms in recent years.\nThe GOST signing algorithm\n[\nGOST-SIGN\n]\nwas also adopted but has seen very limited use, likely\nbecause it is a national algorithm specific to a very small number of countries.\n¶\nImplementation developers who want to know which algorithms to implement in DNSSEC software\nshould refer to\n[\nRFC8624\n]\n.\nNote that\nthis specification is only about what algorithms should and should\nnot be included in implementations\n, i.e., it is not advice about which\nalgorithms zone operators should or should not use for signing, nor\nwhich algorithms recursive resolver operators should or should not use\nfor validation.\n¶\n4.\nExtensions to DNSSEC\nThe DNSSEC community has extended the DNSSEC core and the cryptographic algorithms, both\nin terms of describing good operational practices and in new protocols. Some of the\nRFCs that describe these extensions include the following:\n¶\n[\nRFC5011\n]\ndescribes a method to help resolvers update their DNSSEC trust anchors in an\nautomated fashion. This method was used in 2018 to update the DNS root trust anchor.\n¶\n[\nRFC6781\n]\nis a compendium of operational practices that may not be obvious from reading\njust the core specifications.\n¶\n[\nRFC7344\n]\ndescribes using the CDS and CDNSKEY resource records to help automate the maintenance\nof DS records in the parents of signed zones.\n¶\n[\nRFC8078\n]\nextends\n[\nRFC7344\n]\nby showing how to do initial setup of trusted relationships\nbetween signed parent and child zones.\n¶\n[\nRFC8198\n]\ndescribes how a validating resolver can emit fewer queries in signed zones that\nuse NSEC and NSEC3 for negative caching.\n¶\n[\nRFC9077\n]\nupdates\n[\nRFC8198\n]\nwith respect to the TTL fields in signed records.\n¶\n5.\nAdditional Documents of Interest\nThe documents listed above constitute the core of DNSSEC, the additional cryptographic algorithms,\nand the major extensions to DNSSEC.\nThis section lists some additional documents that someone interested in implementing or operating\nDNSSEC might find of value:\n¶\n[\nRFC4470\n]\n\"describes how to construct DNSSEC NSEC resource records that cover a smaller range of\nnames than called for by\n[\nRFC4034\n]\n. By generating and signing these records on demand, authoritative name\nservers can effectively stop the disclosure of zone contents otherwise made possible by walking the chain of NSEC records in a\nsigned zone\".\n¶\n[\nRFC6975\n]\n\"specifies a way for validating end-system resolvers to signal to a server which digital signature\nand hash algorithms they support\".\n¶\n[\nRFC7129\n]\n\"provides additional background commentary and some context for the NSEC and NSEC3\nmechanisms used by DNSSEC to provide authenticated denial\n-of\n-existence responses\".\nThis background is particularly important for understanding NSEC and NSEC3 usage.\n¶\n[\nRFC7583\n]\n\"describes the issues surrounding the timing of events in the rolling of a key in a DNSSEC-secured zone\".\n¶\n[\nRFC7646\n]\n\"defines Negative Trust Anchors (NTAs), which can be used to mitigate DNSSEC validation failures by disabling\nDNSSEC validation at specified domains\".\n¶\n[\nRFC7958\n]\n\"describes the format and publication mechanisms IANA has used to distribute the DNSSEC trust anchors\".\n¶\n[\nRFC8027\n]\n\"describes problems that a Validating DNS resolver, stub-resolver, or application might run into within\na non-compliant infrastructure\"\n.\n¶\n[\nRFC8145\n]\n\"specifies two different ways for validating resolvers to signal to a server which keys are\nreferenced in their chain of trust\".\n¶\n[\nRFC8499\n]\ncontains lists of terminology used when talking about DNS; Sections\n10\nand\n11\ncover DNSSEC.\n¶\n[\nRFC8509\n]\n\"specifies a mechanism that will allow an end user and third parties to determine the trusted key\nstate for the root key of the resolvers that handle that user's DNS queries\".\n¶\n[\nRFC8901\n]\n\"presents deployment models that accommodate this scenario [when each DNS\nprovider independently signs zone data with their own keys] and describes these key-management requirements\".\n¶\n[\nRFC9276\n]\n\"provides guidance on setting NSEC3 parameters based on recent operational\ndeployment experience\".\n¶\nThere will certainly be other RFCs related to DNSSEC that are published after this one.\n¶\n6.\nIANA Considerations\nIANA already has three registry groups that relate to DNSSEC:\n¶\nDNSSEC algorithm numbers\n¶\nDNSSEC NSEC3 parameters\n¶\nDNSSEC DS RRtype digest algorithms\n¶\nThe rules for the DNSSEC algorithm registry were set in the core RFCs and\nupdated by\n[\nRFC6014\n]\n,\n[\nRFC6725\n]\n, and\n[\nRFC9157\n]\n.\n¶\nThis document does not update or create any registry groups or registries.\n¶\n7.\nSecurity Considerations\nAll of the security considerations from all of the RFCs referenced in this document\napply here.\n¶\n8.\nReferences\n8.1.\nNormative References\n[RFC3110]\nEastlake 3rd, D.\n,\n\"RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)\"\n,\nRFC 3110\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3110\n,\nMay 2001\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3110\n>\n.\n[RFC4033]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements\"\n,\nRFC 4033\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4033\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4033\n>\n.\n[RFC4034]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 4034\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4034\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4034\n>\n.\n[RFC4035]\nArends, R.\n,\nAustein, R.\n,\nLarson, M.\n,\nMassey, D.\n, and\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 4035\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4035\n,\nMarch 2005\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4035\n>\n.\n[RFC4509]\nHardaker, W.\n,\n\"Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs)\"\n,\nRFC 4509\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4509\n,\nMay 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4509\n>\n.\n[RFC5155]\nLaurie, B.\n,\nSisson, G.\n,\nArends, R.\n, and\nD. Blacka\n,\n\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence\"\n,\nRFC 5155\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5155\n,\nMarch 2008\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5155\n>\n.\n[RFC5702]\nJansen, J.\n,\n\"Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 5702\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5702\n,\nOctober 2009\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5702\n>\n.\n[RFC6840]\nWeiler, S., Ed.\nand\nD. Blacka, Ed.\n,\n\"Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)\"\n,\nRFC 6840\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6840\n,\nFebruary 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6840\n>\n.\n8.2.\nInformative References\n[GOST-SIGN]\nBelyavsky, D.\n,\nDolmatov, V., Ed.\n, and\nB. Makarenko, Ed.\n,\n\"Use of GOST 2012 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC\"\n,\nWork in Progress\n,\nInternet-Draft, draft\n-ietf\n-dnsop\n-rfc5933\n-bis\n-13\n,\n30 November 2022\n,\n<\nhttps://\ndatatracker\n.ietf\n.org\n/doc\n/html\n/draft\n-ietf\n-dnsop\n-rfc5933\n-bis\n-13\n>\n.\n[RFC2065]\nEastlake 3rd, D.\nand\nC. Kaufman\n,\n\"Domain Name System Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 2065\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2065\n,\nJanuary 1997\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2065\n>\n.\n[RFC2535]\nEastlake 3rd, D.\n,\n\"Domain Name System Security Extensions\"\n,\nRFC 2535\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2535\n,\nMarch 1999\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2535\n>\n.\n[RFC2536]\nEastlake 3rd, D.\n,\n\"DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)\"\n,\nRFC 2536\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC2536\n,\nMarch 1999\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc2536\n>\n.\n[RFC4470]\nWeiler, S.\nand\nJ. Ihren\n,\n\"Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing\"\n,\nRFC 4470\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC4470\n,\nApril 2006\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc4470\n>\n.\n[RFC5011]\nStJohns, M.\n,\n\"Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC) Trust Anchors\"\n,\nSTD 74\n,\nRFC 5011\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC5011\n,\nSeptember 2007\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc5011\n>\n.\n[RFC6014]\nHoffman, P.\n,\n\"Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 6014\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6014\n,\nNovember 2010\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6014\n>\n.\n[RFC6605]\nHoffman, P.\nand\nW.C.A. Wijngaards\n,\n\"Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 6605\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6605\n,\nApril 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6605\n>\n.\n[RFC6698]\nHoffman, P.\nand\nJ. Schlyter\n,\n\"The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA\"\n,\nRFC 6698\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6698\n,\nAugust 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6698\n>\n.\n[RFC6725]\nRose, S.\n,\n\"DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry Updates\"\n,\nRFC 6725\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6725\n,\nAugust 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6725\n>\n.\n[RFC6781]\nKolkman, O.\n,\nMekking, W.\n, and\nR. Gieben\n,\n\"DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2\"\n,\nRFC 6781\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6781\n,\nDecember 2012\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6781\n>\n.\n[RFC6975]\nCrocker, S.\nand\nS. Rose\n,\n\"Signaling Cryptographic Algorithm Understanding in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\"\n,\nRFC 6975\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6975\n,\nJuly 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6975\n>\n.\n[RFC7129]\nGieben, R.\nand\nW. Mekking\n,\n\"Authenticated Denial of Existence in the DNS\"\n,\nRFC 7129\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7129\n,\nFebruary 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7129\n>\n.\n[RFC7344]\nKumari, W.\n,\nGudmundsson, O.\n, and\nG. Barwood\n,\n\"Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance\"\n,\nRFC 7344\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7344\n,\nSeptember 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7344\n>\n.\n[RFC7583]\nMorris, S.\n,\nIhren, J.\n,\nDickinson, J.\n, and\nW. Mekking\n,\n\"DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations\"\n,\nRFC 7583\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7583\n,\nOctober 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7583\n>\n.\n[RFC7646]\nEbersman, P.\n,\nKumari, W.\n,\nGriffiths, C.\n,\nLivingood, J.\n, and\nR. Weber\n,\n\"Definition and Use of DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors\"\n,\nRFC 7646\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7646\n,\nSeptember 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7646\n>\n.\n[RFC7958]\nAbley, J.\n,\nSchlyter, J.\n,\nBailey, G.\n, and\nP. Hoffman\n,\n\"DNSSEC Trust Anchor Publication for the Root Zone\"\n,\nRFC 7958\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7958\n,\nAugust 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7958\n>\n.\n[RFC8027]\nHardaker, W.\n,\nGudmundsson, O.\n, and\nS. Krishnaswamy\n,\n\"DNSSEC Roadblock Avoidance\"\n,\nBCP 207\n,\nRFC 8027\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8027\n,\nNovember 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8027\n>\n.\n[RFC8078]\nGudmundsson, O.\nand\nP. Wouters\n,\n\"Managing DS Records from the Parent via CDS/CDNSKEY\"\n,\nRFC 8078\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8078\n,\nMarch 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8078\n>\n.\n[RFC8080]\nSury, O.\nand\nR. Edmonds\n,\n\"Edwards-Curve Digital Security Algorithm (EdDSA) for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 8080\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8080\n,\nFebruary 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8080\n>\n.\n[RFC8145]\nWessels, D.\n,\nKumari, W.\n, and\nP. Hoffman\n,\n\"Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\"\n,\nRFC 8145\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8145\n,\nApril 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8145\n>\n.\n[RFC8198]\nFujiwara, K.\n,\nKato, A.\n, and\nW. Kumari\n,\n\"Aggressive Use of DNSSEC\n-Validated Cache\"\n,\nRFC 8198\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8198\n,\nJuly 2017\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8198\n>\n.\n[RFC8499]\nHoffman, P.\n,\nSullivan, A.\n, and\nK. Fujiwara\n,\n\"DNS Terminology\"\n,\nBCP 219\n,\nRFC 8499\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8499\n,\nJanuary 2019\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8499\n>\n.\n[RFC8509]\nHuston, G.\n,\nDamas, J.\n, and\nW. Kumari\n,\n\"A Root Key Trust Anchor Sentinel for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 8509\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8509\n,\nDecember 2018\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8509\n>\n.\n[RFC8624]\nWouters, P.\nand\nO. Sury\n,\n\"Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 8624\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8624\n,\nJune 2019\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8624\n>\n.\n[RFC8901]\nHuque, S.\n,\nAras, P.\n,\nDickinson, J.\n,\nVcelak, J.\n, and\nD. Blacka\n,\n\"Multi-Signer DNSSEC Models\"\n,\nRFC 8901\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8901\n,\nSeptember 2020\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8901\n>\n.\n[RFC9077]\nvan Dijk, P.\n,\n\"NSEC and NSEC3: TTLs and Aggressive Use\"\n,\nRFC 9077\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9077\n,\nJuly 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9077\n>\n.\n[RFC9157]\nHoffman, P.\n,\n\"Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC\"\n,\nRFC 9157\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9157\n,\nDecember 2021\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9157\n>\n.\n[RFC9276]\nHardaker, W.\nand\nV. Dukhovni\n,\n\"Guidance for NSEC3 Parameter Settings\"\n,\nBCP 236\n,\nRFC 9276\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC9276\n,\nAugust 2022\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc9276\n>\n.\nAcknowledgements\nThe DNS world owes a depth of gratitude to the authors and other contributors\nto the core DNSSEC documents and to the notable DNSSEC extensions.\n¶\nIn addition, the following people made significant contributions to early draft versions\nof this document:\nBen Schwartz\nand\nDuane Wessels\n.\n¶\nAuthor's Address\nPaul Hoffman\nICANN\nEmail:\npaul\n.hoffman\n@icann\n.org\nRFC\n9364\n: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)\nBest Current Practice\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\nIn this section\n1 Introduction\n1.1 DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice\n1.2 Implementing DNSSEC\n2 DNSSEC Core Documents\n2.1 Addition to the DNSSEC Core\n3 Additional Cryptographic Algorithms and DNSSEC\n4 Extensions to DNSSEC\n5 Additional Documents of Interest\n6 IANA Considerations\n7 Security Considerations\n8 References\n8.1 Normative References\n8.2 Informative References\nAcknowledgements\nAuthor's Address\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 21067, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 19, "word_count": 3637}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "e91b9739-66de-4f07-af5a-d6825a7e74b8", "source_id": "47192fe138cff0ffb6f7b36c", "source": "ARIN", "source_url": "https://www.arin.net//contact/", "final_url": "https://www.arin.net//contact/", "artifact_sha256": "4dee002b90bfec21f5fe471be2230b7e1198677409637051a7312e834ed774d7", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 35316, "title": "Contact Us - American Registry for Internet Numbers", "language": "en-us", "text_length": 9660, "characters": 9660, "text": "Contact Us - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nHome\nContact Us\nHome\nContact Us\nOn this page\nSkip to main text\nScroll for more\nAsk ARIN\nEmail Contacts\nFinancial Services\nCommunications Department\nLegal Department\nEngineering Department\nWeb Forms\nOperating Hours\nHolidays\nInclement Weather\nCareers\nJump to related content\nNotice\nTo protect our systems, ARIN may block traffic from IP address ranges known to be associated with malicious activity, which may impact your ability to reach our website and customer portal. If you are unable to reach\nhttps://www.arin.net\nor\nhttps://account.arin.net/public/login\n, please contact our Customer Service Desk by calling +1.703.227.0660 between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM ET.\nReport Service Issues\nService issues and outages can be reported directly to Registration Services during our regular\noperating hours\n. Outside operating hours, issues can be reported through the Feedback button found on every page of the website or via the “\nReport a Service Issue\n” form found on the\nService Status page\n.\nNeed Help? Ask ARIN!\nARIN Online Users can take advantage of\nAsk ARIN to answer most questions.\nHelp Desks\nRegistration Services\nHours: 7 AM-7 PM ET, Monday-Friday\nPhone: +1.703.227.0660\nFax: +1.703.997.8844\nTips for Calling the Registration Services Help Desk\nBilling\nHours: 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday\nEmail:\nbilling@arin.net\nPhone: +1.703.227.9886\nFax: +1.703.997.8708\nPhysical Addresses\nMailing Address\nP.O. Box 232290\nCentreville, VA 20120 USA\nPhone: +1.703.227.9840\nFax: +1.703.263.0417\nRemittance Address\n(For Payment Only)\nAmerican Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd\nP.O. Box 719477\nPhiladelphia, PA 19171-9477\nAsk ARIN\nARIN Online users who are logged in may submit questions through the\nAsk ARIN\nfeature. Questions may be about anything ARIN-related: policy process, meetings, elections, billing, help with ARIN Online, etc., and will be routed to the appropriate department for response. All ARIN Online correspondence is tracked using web messaging.\nEmail Contacts\nPlease review the relevant portions of this website before sending email, as most answers can be found online. Be sure to visit our\nsite map\nor take advantage of our site search engine, available through a link in the footer of every page. If you cannot find the information you are seeking, review the list below for the appropriate email address.\nFinancial Services\n(Open 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday)\nUse\nbilling@arin.net\nfor help with:\nInvoices\nPayments status inquiries\nBilling Contact changes\nService fees\nAgreement Inquiries\nCommunications Department\n(Open 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday)\nUse\ninfo@arin.net\nfor help with:\nSuggestions and general questions about ARIN\nMailing lists\nUse\nmedia@arin.net\nfor help with:\nMedia inquiries, including interview requests and story information\nRequest a speaker from ARIN for your event\nUse\nmeetings@arin.net\nfor help with:\nMeeting registration questions\nMeeting invitation letter requests\nSponsorship opportunities\nGeneral meeting-related questions or comments\nUse\nmembers@arin.net\nfor help with:\nARIN Membership\nVoting Contact updates\nElections\nUse\ntraining@arin.net\nfor help with:\nTraining and education inquiries\nSuggestions for training events and webinars\nUse\nwebmaster@arin.net\nfor help with:\nARIN’s web servers\nForms at ARIN\nUse\nblog@arin.net\nfor help with:\nWriting a guest blog post\nContributing an IPv6 case study\nLegal Department\n(Open 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday)\nUse\ncompliance@arin.net\nfor help with:\nReporting Whois discrepancies\nPrivacy Policy\ninquiries\nUse our\nReport a Violation page\nto let us know of any violations of the ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior. Please review the\nARIN Mission Statement\nand the\nStandards of Behavior\nbefore submitting reports.\nEngineering Department\n(Open 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday)\nUse\nprojects@arin.net\nfor help with:\nPosting tools to the Community Projects Software Repository (\nhttp://projects.arin.net\n)\nWeb Forms\nEach of the forms below is associated with a described process, and details for each process are linked to within the “Description” below each form link. Please be sure to review the detailed processes and requirements before submitting information via the online forms.\nSuggestions\nThis form is for the suggestion portion of the\nARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP)\n. The suggestion process provides the members of ARIN or the broader community in the ARIN region a formal means to suggest changes or additions to ARIN services and practices. Any person in the ARIN community is welcome to make a suggestion regarding an existing or potential ARIN service or practice.\nWhois Inaccuracy Reporting\nThis service is to be used to notify ARIN of inaccurate Whois records, including Point of Contact records (POCs), Organization Identifiers (Org IDs)/Org Handles, Network records (NETs), and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) with outdated or erroneous organization or contact information.\nNumber Resource Fraud Reporting\nThis form is part of the\nFraud Reporting Process\nand is to be used to notify ARIN of suspected Internet number resource fraud including the submission of falsified utilization or organization information, unauthorized changes to data in ARIN’s WHOIS, hijacking of number resources in ARIN’s database, or fraudulent transfers.\nOperating Hours\nThe ARIN office is open from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET, Monday through Friday, except for\ncertain holidays\n. Outside operating hours, messages may be left for the ARIN Registration Services Help Desk (703.227.0660), ARIN’s Billing Help Desk (703.227.9886), or on ARIN’s main number (703.227.9840).\nEmail to ARIN will continue to be processed when the office is closed; however in the event of holidays or closings due to inclement weather, responses or the processing of resource requests may be delayed.\nHolidays\nARIN closes its office for the following holidays and notes these closings at\nhttps://www.arin.net\n.\n2026 Holiday Schedule\nHoliday\nDay of the Week\nDate\nNew Year’s Day\nThursday\n1 January 2026\nMartin Luther King Jr. Day\nMonday\n19 January 2026\nPresidents’ Day\nMonday\n16 February 2026\nMemorial Day\nMonday\n25 May 2026\nJuneteenth\nFriday\n19 June 2026\nIndependence Day\nFriday\n3 July 2026\nLabor Day\nMonday\n7 September 2026\nVeterans Day\nWednesday\n11 November 2026\nThanksgiving\nThursday - Friday\n26-27 November 2026\nDecember Holiday\nThursday - Friday\n24-25 December 2026\nNew Year’s Day\nFriday\n1 January 2027\nThe ARIN office also closes early on 22 May, 4 September, and 25 November 2026. On these days, the main office, Financial Services Help Desk, and Registration Services Help Desk close beginning at 3:00 PM ET.\nInclement Weather\nShould the ARIN office close due to inclement weather or other extreme circumstance, such closings are noted at\nhttps://www.arin.net/.\nCareers\nFor information about current job openings and specific email addresses to contact regarding them, please see the\nCareers page\n.\nRelated\nNew to ARIN\nAcronym Guide\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "segments": [{"segment_id": "19e69dab-8cc5-420f-870a-90e7ab1c01c2", "document_id": "e91b9739-66de-4f07-af5a-d6825a7e74b8", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Contact Us - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nHome\nContact Us\nHome\nContact Us\nOn this page\nSkip to main text\nScroll for more\nAsk ARIN\nEmail Contacts\nFinancial Services\nCommunications Department\nLegal Department\nEngineering Department\nWeb Forms\nOperating Hours\nHolidays\nInclement Weather\nCareers\nJump to related content\nNotice\nTo protect our systems, ARIN may block traffic from IP address ranges known to be associated with malicious activity, which may impact your ability to reach our website and customer portal. If you are unable to reach\nhttps://www.arin.net\nor\nhttps://account.arin.net/public/login\n, please contact our Customer Service Desk by calling +1.703.227.0660 between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM ET.\nReport Service Issues\nService issues and outages can be reported directly to Registration Services during our regular\noperating hours\n. Outside operating hours, issues can be reported through the Feedback button found on every page of the website or via the “\nReport a Service Issue\n” form found on the\nService Status page\n.\nNeed Help? Ask ARIN!\nARIN Online Users can take advantage of\nAsk ARIN to answer most questions.\nHelp Desks\nRegistration Services\nHours: 7 AM-7 PM ET, Monday-Friday\nPhone: +1.703.227.0660\nFax: +1.703.997.8844\nTips for Calling the Registration Services Help Desk\nBilling\nHours: 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday\nEmail:\nbilling@arin.net\nPhone: +1.703.227.9886\nFax: +1.703.997.8708\nPhysical Addresses\nMailing Address\nP.O. Box 232290\nCentreville, VA 20120 USA\nPhone: +1.703.227.9840\nFax: +1.703.263.0417\nRemittance Address\n(For Payment Only)\nAmerican Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd\nP.O. Box 719477\nPhiladelphia, PA 19171-9477\nAsk ARIN\nARIN Online users who are logged in may submit questions through the\nAsk ARIN\nfeature. Questions may be about anything ARIN-related: policy process, meetings, elections, billing, help with ARIN Online, etc., and will be routed to the appropriate department for response. All ARIN Online correspondence is tracked using web messaging.\nEmail Contacts\nPlease review the relevant portions of this website before sending email, as most answers can be found online. Be sure to visit our\nsite map\nor take advantage of our site search engine, available through a link in the footer of every page. If you cannot find the information you are seeking, review the list below for the appropriate email address.\nFinancial Services\n(Open 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday)\nUse\nbilling@arin.net\nfor help with:\nInvoices\nPayments status inquiries\nBilling Contact changes\nService fees\nAgreement Inquiries\nCommunications Department\n(Open 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday)\nUse\ninfo@arin.net\nfor help with:\nSuggestions and general questions about ARIN\nMailing lists\nUse\nmedia@arin.net\nfor help with:\nMedia inquiries, including interview requests and story information\nRequest a speaker from ARIN for your event\nUse\nmeetings@arin.net\nfor help with:\nMeeting registration questions\nMeeting invitation letter requests\nSponsorship opportunities\nGeneral meeting-related questions or comments\nUse\nmembers@arin.net\nfor help with:\nARIN Membership\nVoting Contact updates\nElections\nUse\ntraining@arin.net\nfor help with:\nTraining and education inquiries\nSuggestions for training events and webinars\nUse\nwebmaster@arin.net\nfor help with:\nARIN’s web servers\nForms at ARIN\nUse\nblog@arin.net\nfor help with:\nWriting a guest blog post\nContributing an IPv6 case study\nLegal Department\n(Open 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday)\nUse\ncompliance@arin.net\nfor help with:\nReporting Whois discrepancies\nPrivacy Policy\ninquiries\nUse our\nReport a Violation page\nto let us know of any violations of the ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior. Please review the\nARIN Mission Statement\nand the\nStandards of Behavior\nbefore submitting reports.\nEngineering Department\n(Open 9 AM-5 PM ET, Monday-Friday)\nUse\nprojects@arin.net\nfor help with:\nPosting tools to the Community Projects Software Repository (\nhttp://projects.arin.net\n)\nWeb Forms\nEach of the forms below is associated with a described process, and details for each process are linked to within the “Description” below each form link. Please be sure to review the detailed processes and requirements before submitting information via the online forms.\nSuggestions\nThis form is for the suggestion portion of the\nARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP)\n. The suggestion process provides the members of ARIN or the broader community in the ARIN region a formal means to suggest changes or additions to ARIN services and practices. Any person in the ARIN community is welcome to make a suggestion regarding an existing or potential ARIN service or practice.\nWhois Inaccuracy Reporting\nThis service is to be used to notify ARIN of inaccurate Whois records, including Point of Contact records (POCs), Organization Identifiers (Org IDs)/Org Handles, Network records (NETs), and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) with outdated or erroneous organization or contact information.\nNumber Resource Fraud Reporting\nThis form is part of the\nFraud Reporting Process\nand is to be used to notify ARIN of suspected Internet number resource fraud including the submission of falsified utilization or organization information, unauthorized changes to data in ARIN’s WHOIS, hijacking of number resources in ARIN’s database, or fraudulent transfers.\nOperating Hours\nThe ARIN office is open from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET, Monday through Friday, except for\ncertain holidays\n. Outside operating hours, messages may be left for the ARIN Registration Services Help Desk (703.227.0660), ARIN’s Billing Help Desk (703.227.9886), or on ARIN’s main number (703.227.9840).\nEmail to ARIN will continue to be processed when the office is closed; however in the event of holidays or closings due to inclement weather, responses or the processing of resource requests may be delayed.\nHolidays\nARIN closes its office for the following holidays and notes these closings at\nhttps://www.arin.net\n.\n2026 Holiday Schedule\nHoliday\nDay of the Week\nDate\nNew Year’s Day\nThursday\n1 January 2026\nMartin Luther King Jr. Day\nMonday\n19 January 2026\nPresidents’ Day\nMonday\n16 February 2026\nMemorial Day\nMonday\n25 May 2026\nJuneteenth\nFriday\n19 June 2026\nIndependence Day\nFriday\n3 July 2026\nLabor Day\nMonday\n7 September 2026\nVeterans Day\nWednesday\n11 November 2026\nThanksgiving\nThursday - Friday\n26-27 November 2026\nDecember Holiday\nThursday - Friday\n24-25 December 2026\nNew Year’s Day\nFriday\n1 January 2027\nThe ARIN office also closes early on 22 May, 4 September, and 25 November 2026. On these days, the main office, Financial Services Help Desk, and Registration Services Help Desk close beginning at 3:00 PM ET.\nInclement Weather\nShould the ARIN office close due to inclement weather or other extreme circumstance, such closings are noted at\nhttps://www.arin.net/.\nCareers\nFor information about current job openings and specific email addresses to contact regarding them, please see the\nCareers page\n.\nRelated\nNew to ARIN\nAcronym Guide\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 9660, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1421}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "e9523749-f376-4f05-a94c-7a2821e7bc63", "source_id": "cb6c0e2e73b4b88cccaf31d9", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources", "artifact_sha256": "490f4e9b5dd0e7838da2a45d319bafa9903d273ba5498562329f9056eeb9b772", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 72764, "title": "Resources - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 12232, "characters": 12232, "text": "Resources - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nExplore Our Resources\nTake a course, connect with peers for support, or explore multimedia resources including guides, podcasts, videos, and webinars. Many resources are provided in multiple languages.\nResources by Department\nccTLDs\nReferences useful to country code managers and operators, including: letters of agreement between each ccTLD and ICANN; documents related to ccTLDs from entities such as ICANN Board, Staff, IANA, and the GAC; the full text of ICP-1; and more.\nComplaints Office\nIf you have a complaint about the ICANN Organization, this is where you’ll find an overview of the Complaints Office, information on how to submit a complaint, and other relevant resources.\nContractual Compliance\nEvery ICANN-accredited registrar and registry has a contract with ICANN. Here’s where you can learn about all facets of ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Program, which helps both ICANN and the contracted parties each fulfill their end of the agreement.\nInternationalized Domain Names\nYou’ll find the lengthy, detailed history of IDNs here, along with technical implementation guidelines, publications and presentations about IDNs, an IDN glossary, ICANN blog entries about IDN updates, and more.\nPolicy\nLinks here present background, updates, and announcements about important areas of Internet policy currently being addressed by the ICANN community’s bottom-up, consensus based, policy development process.\nRegistrars\nInformation found here related to Registrars ranges widely, including a list of all accredited registrars, how to become a registrar, the registrar data escrow program, how dispute resolution works, and updates on domain-related policies.\nRegistries\nRegistry personnel can find a variety of help here, such as: agreements, consensus policies, key ICANN contacts for registries, a list of valid top-level domains, a list of all accredited registries, and much more.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f0bbdcc6-a8a7-4091-9dbf-38673db5171e", "document_id": "e9523749-f376-4f05-a94c-7a2821e7bc63", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Resources - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nExplore Our Resources\nTake a course, connect with peers for support, or explore multimedia resources including guides, podcasts, videos, and webinars. Many resources are provided in multiple languages.\nResources by Department\nccTLDs\nReferences useful to country code managers and operators, including: letters of agreement between each ccTLD and ICANN; documents related to ccTLDs from entities such as ICANN Board, Staff, IANA, and the GAC; the full text of ICP-1; and more.\nComplaints Office\nIf you have a complaint about the ICANN Organization, this is where you’ll find an overview of the Complaints Office, information on how to submit a complaint, and other relevant resources.\nContractual Compliance\nEvery ICANN-accredited registrar and registry has a contract with ICANN. Here’s where you can learn about all facets of ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Program, which helps both ICANN and the contracted parties each fulfill their end of the agreement.\nInternationalized Domain Names\nYou’ll find the lengthy, detailed history of IDNs here, along with technical implementation guidelines, publications and presentations about IDNs, an IDN glossary, ICANN blog entries about IDN updates, and more.\nPolicy\nLinks here present background, updates, and announcements about important areas of Internet policy currently being addressed by the ICANN community’s bottom-up, consensus based, policy development process.\nRegistrars\nInformation found here related to Registrars ranges widely, including a list of all accredited registrars, how to become a registrar, the registrar data escrow program, how dispute resolution works, and updates on domain-related policies.\nRegistries\nRegistry personnel can find a variety of help here, such as: agreements, consensus policies, key ICANN contacts for registries, a list of valid top-level domains, a list of all accredited registries, and much more.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12232, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1645}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "ea233b00-284b-437f-a301-6ad14f548f68", "source_id": "46f5a96f2b19d575ca33f0da", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/beginners", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/beginners", "artifact_sha256": "79cc3aef3be34f46ad38c00c1d53bc2c687e389e266e409c8f5e4997b094ad91", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 362296, "title": "ICANN for Beginners", "language": "en", "text_length": 11483, "characters": 11483, "text": "ICANN for Beginners\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN For Beginners\nNew to ICANN? Here you'll find valuable information to help you get started on your ICANN journey. Explore our learning courses, infographics, videos, and other resources.\nSubscribe\nBeginners Home\nCourses and Learning\nFind Your Group\nAttend an Event\nPrograms for Professionals and Students\nICANN for Beginners\nWelcome to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Learn more about what we do, how we work, and how your talents, expertise, and enthusiasm can help advance ICANN's mission in your region and globally.\nWhat Role Does ICANN Play in How the Internet Works?\nICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other.\nICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a nonprofit public benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nWant to learn more about ICANN's role? Check out the video, course, and infographic below. You will need to create an\nICANN Account\nto use ICANN Learn.\nWATCH\nICANN History Video\nLEARN\nIntroduction to ICANN Interactive Course\nShow Text Version\nGETTING TO KNOW THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN)\nWith our technical partners, we help make the Internet work.\nAnything connected to the Internet – including computers, mobile phones, and other devices – has a unique number called its IP address. IP stands for Internet Protocol.\nThis address is like a postal address. It allows messages, videos, and other packets of data to be sent from anywhere on the Internet to the device that has been uniquely identified by its IP address.\nIP addresses can be difficult to remember, so instead of numbers, the Internet’s Domain Name System uses letters, numbers, and hyphens to form a name that is easier to remember.\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nICANN’s mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nICANN is made up of three parts:\nICANN Community\nThe ICANN community is a volunteer-based group of diverse stakeholders from across the world. They work together to give advice and develop policy within ICANN’s mission.\nICANN Board\nThe ICANN Board is selected by the ICANN community. The Board provides the ICANN organization's strategic oversight.\nICANN Organization\nThe ICANN organization provides staff and resources to support the ICANN community and Board, and implements policies developed by the community.\nEXPLORE\nWhat Does ICANN Do Infographic\nWATCH\nICANN History Video\nLEARN\nIntroduction to ICANN Interactive Course\nShow Text Version\nGETTING TO KNOW THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN)\nWith our technical partners, we help make the Internet work.\nAnything connected to the Internet – including computers, mobile phones, and other devices – has a unique number called its IP address. IP stands for Internet Protocol.\nThis address is like a postal address. It allows messages, videos, and other packets of data to be sent from anywhere on the Internet to the device that has been uniquely identified by its IP address.\nIP addresses can be difficult to remember, so instead of numbers, the Internet’s Domain Name System uses letters, numbers, and hyphens to form a name that is easier to remember.\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nICANN’s mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nICANN is made up of three parts:\nICANN Community\nThe ICANN community is a volunteer-based group of diverse stakeholders from across the world. They work together to give advice and develop policy within ICANN’s mission.\nICANN Board\nThe ICANN Board is selected by the ICANN community. The Board provides the ICANN organization's strategic oversight.\nICANN Organization\nThe ICANN organization provides staff and resources to support the ICANN community and Board, and implements policies developed by the community.\nEXPLORE\nWhat Does ICANN Do Infographic\nWhat Are Some of the Initiatives ICANN Is Working On?\nICANN works on many initiatives to advance its mission. Learn more about how ICANN initiatives in domain name security threats, capacity-building, and the expansion of the Internet are shaping the future of the Internet.\nDomain Name Security Threats\nCourses and Learning\nBuilding a Multilingual Internet\nDomain Name Security Threats\nCourses and Learning\nBuilding a Multilingual Internet\nWhy You Should Get Involved\nLooking to make real lasting impact on a global scale? When you participate at ICANN, you are part of a global community helping ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. You'll also gain valuable skills through professional development and connect with new people.\nUse your skills to make an impact.\nYou can help shape the future of the Internet. Whether you have expertise in technology, business, law, governance, or the creative sector, or are simply a concerned citizen, your skills and perspective help ICANN develop and implement policies that are in the public interest.\nDevelop personal and professional skills\n. Participating in ICANN is a great way to stay informed of emerging Internet technologies and the policies that govern them. Community members learn to sharpen their listening, critical thinking, and communications skills, while working to build consensus among stakeholders representing many different interests and regions.\nGrow your network and expand your world view.\nMany of the world’s largest and most innovative companies, as well as governments, and individual experts make their voices heard through ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance. Becoming a community member enables you to meet and discuss the future of the Internet with people from all over the globe, representing many sectors, including business, government, intergovernmental organizations, technology, and civil society.\nHow Do You Get Involved?\nBegin your ICANN journey where you feel most comfortable. You can start by learning the basics through our online interactive courses and resources or reading about the initiatives we support. If you would rather meet people face-to-face or virtually, connect with your regional ICANN team or find an event to attend. Unsure of which ICANN community group best suits your interests? Use our helpful Find Your Group feature to help you with your search. Consider immersing yourself in the ICANN community by applying to our NextGen@ICANN or Fellowship Program and attending an ICANN Public Meeting.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nLearn the Basics\nICANN Learn Online Courses\nWhether you are new to ICANN or attending your 10th ICANN Public Meeting, our free, interactive online courses can help you build knowledge and skills. Learn at your own pace and schedule!\nExplore Courses\nICANN History\nUncover ICANN’s past and explore the events the spurred our creation in 1998, the evolution of our unique multistakeholder model, and our major accomplishments.\nLearn More\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN has many acronyms and terms that may be unfamiliar to those outside the community. Our multilingual glossary will help you understand what these terms mean so you can participate more fully in discussions.\nView All\nConnect With Your Regional Team\nICANN’s regional teams offer you opportunities to connect with others in your region who care about the Internet’s stability, security, and interoperability and want to make a difference. Share your ideas with ICANN team members about how ICANN can meet its mission and attract more regional participation. When you get involved in your region, you’ll make connections, develop new skills, and expand your region’s voice.\nConnect Now\nFind Your ICANN Group\nWhat do you care about? Domain Name System security threats, Internet security, Internationalized Domain Names, or Domain Name System Security Extensions? Joining one of ICANN’s multistakeholder groups is a great way for you to increase your knowledge of ICANN and participate in policy development, while partnering with others who have similar backgrounds and interests as you. Use our helpful tool to match your skills to the groups that best align with your interests.\nFind Groups\nAttend an Event\nFind an ICANN Event Near You\nExchange ideas and meet new people at ICANN events, held virtually and in-person, all over the globe. You’ll learn more about ICANN, its role in the broader Internet community, and how you can bring your expertise and perspectives to its global policy development process.\nSee All Events\nApply to Programs for Professionals and Students\nNextGen@ICANN and Fellowship Programs\nWhether you’re a student or a professional who is new to ICANN, discover how you can tap into programs designed to support and prepare you to attend ICANN Public Meetings. ICANN’s NextGen@ICANN and Fellowship Programs allow students and professionals to participate in ICANN’s policy development process and ICANN Public Meetings around the globe.\nFind Out How\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "f91c3e9e-f119-4c5c-b720-0def952bdca0", "document_id": "ea233b00-284b-437f-a301-6ad14f548f68", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ICANN for Beginners\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nICANN For Beginners\nNew to ICANN? Here you'll find valuable information to help you get started on your ICANN journey. Explore our learning courses, infographics, videos, and other resources.\nSubscribe\nBeginners Home\nCourses and Learning\nFind Your Group\nAttend an Event\nPrograms for Professionals and Students\nICANN for Beginners\nWelcome to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Learn more about what we do, how we work, and how your talents, expertise, and enthusiasm can help advance ICANN's mission in your region and globally.\nWhat Role Does ICANN Play in How the Internet Works?\nICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other.\nICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a nonprofit public benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nWant to learn more about ICANN's role? Check out the video, course, and infographic below. You will need to create an\nICANN Account\nto use ICANN Learn.\nWATCH\nICANN History Video\nLEARN\nIntroduction to ICANN Interactive Course\nShow Text Version\nGETTING TO KNOW THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN)\nWith our technical partners, we help make the Internet work.\nAnything connected to the Internet – including computers, mobile phones, and other devices – has a unique number called its IP address. IP stands for Internet Protocol.\nThis address is like a postal address. It allows messages, videos, and other packets of data to be sent from anywhere on the Internet to the device that has been uniquely identified by its IP address.\nIP addresses can be difficult to remember, so instead of numbers, the Internet’s Domain Name System uses letters, numbers, and hyphens to form a name that is easier to remember.\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nICANN’s mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nICANN is made up of three parts:\nICANN Community\nThe ICANN community is a volunteer-based group of diverse stakeholders from across the world. They work together to give advice and develop policy within ICANN’s mission.\nICANN Board\nThe ICANN Board is selected by the ICANN community. The Board provides the ICANN organization's strategic oversight.\nICANN Organization\nThe ICANN organization provides staff and resources to support the ICANN community and Board, and implements policies developed by the community.\nEXPLORE\nWhat Does ICANN Do Infographic\nWATCH\nICANN History Video\nLEARN\nIntroduction to ICANN Interactive Course\nShow Text Version\nGETTING TO KNOW THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN)\nWith our technical partners, we help make the Internet work.\nAnything connected to the Internet – including computers, mobile phones, and other devices – has a unique number called its IP address. IP stands for Internet Protocol.\nThis address is like a postal address. It allows messages, videos, and other packets of data to be sent from anywhere on the Internet to the device that has been uniquely identified by its IP address.\nIP addresses can be difficult to remember, so instead of numbers, the Internet’s Domain Name System uses letters, numbers, and hyphens to form a name that is easier to remember.\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nICANN’s mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.\nICANN is made up of three parts:\nICANN Community\nThe ICANN community is a volunteer-based group of diverse stakeholders from across the world. They work together to give advice and develop policy within ICANN’s mission.\nICANN Board\nThe ICANN Board is selected by the ICANN community. The Board provides the ICANN organization's strategic oversight.\nICANN Organization\nThe ICANN organization provides staff and resources to support the ICANN community and Board, and implements policies developed by the community.\nEXPLORE\nWhat Does ICANN Do Infographic\nWhat Are Some of the Initiatives ICANN Is Working On?\nICANN works on many initiatives to advance its mission. Learn more about how ICANN initiatives in domain name security threats, capacity-building, and the expansion of the Internet are shaping the future of the Internet.\nDomain Name Security Threats\nCourses and Learning\nBuilding a Multilingual Internet\nDomain Name Security Threats\nCourses and Learning\nBuilding a Multilingual Internet\nWhy You Should Get Involved\nLooking to make real lasting impact on a global scale? When you participate at ICANN, you are part of a global community helping ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. You'll also gain valuable skills through professional development and connect with new people.\nUse your skills to make an impact.\nYou can help shape the future of the Internet. Whether you have expertise in technology, business, law, governance, or the creative sector, or are simply a concerned citizen, your skills and perspective help ICANN develop and implement policies that are in the public interest.\nDevelop personal and professional skills\n. Participating in ICANN is a great way to stay informed of emerging Internet technologies and the policies that govern them. Community members learn to sharpen their listening, critical thinking, and communications skills, while working to build consensus among stakeholders representing many different interests and regions.\nGrow your network and expand your world view.\nMany of the world’s largest and most innovative companies, as well as governments, and individual experts make their voices heard through ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance. Becoming a community member enables you to meet and discuss the future of the Internet with people from all over the globe, representing many sectors, including business, government, intergovernmental organizations, technology, and civil society.\nHow Do You Get Involved?\nBegin your ICANN journey where you feel most comfortable. You can start by learning the basics through our online interactive courses and resources or reading about the initiatives we support. If you would rather meet people face-to-face or virtually, connect with your regional ICANN team or find an event to attend. Unsure of which ICANN community group best suits your interests? Use our helpful Find Your Group feature to help you with your search. Consider immersing yourself in the ICANN community by applying to our NextGen@ICANN or Fellowship Program and attending an ICANN Public Meeting.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nLearn the Basics\nICANN Learn Online Courses\nWhether you are new to ICANN or attending your 10th ICANN Public Meeting, our free, interactive online courses can help you build knowledge and skills. Learn at your own pace and schedule!\nExplore Courses\nICANN History\nUncover ICANN’s past and explore the events the spurred our creation in 1998, the evolution of our unique multistakeholder model, and our major accomplishments.\nLearn More\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN has many acronyms and terms that may be unfamiliar to those outside the community. Our multilingual glossary will help you understand what these terms mean so you can participate more fully in discussions.\nView All\nConnect With Your Regional Team\nICANN’s regional teams offer you opportunities to connect with others in your region who care about the Internet’s stability, security, and interoperability and want to make a difference. Share your ideas with ICANN team members about how ICANN can meet its mission and attract more regional participation. When you get involved in your region, you’ll make connections, develop new skills, and expand your region’s voice.\nConnect Now\nFind Your ICANN Group\nWhat do you care about? Domain Name System security threats, Internet security, Internationalized Domain Names, or Domain Name System Security Extensions? Joining one of ICANN’s multistakeholder groups is a great way for you to increase your knowledge of ICANN and participate in policy development, while partnering with others who have similar backgrounds and interests as you. Use our helpful tool to match your skills to the groups that best align with your interests.\nFind Groups\nAttend an Event\nFind an ICANN Event Near You\nExchange ideas and meet new people at ICANN events, held virtually and in-person, all over the globe. You’ll learn more about ICANN, its role in the broader Internet community, and how you can bring your expertise and perspectives to its global policy development process.\nSee All Events\nApply to Programs for Professionals and Students\nNextGen@ICANN and Fellowship Programs\nWhether you’re a student or a professional who is new to ICANN, discover how you can tap into programs designed to support and prepare you to attend ICANN Public Meetings. ICANN’s NextGen@ICANN and Fellowship Programs allow students and professionals to participate in ICANN’s policy development process and ICANN Public Meetings around the globe.\nFind Out How\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11483, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1791}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "ebb2688e-f4f8-4b68-9e2c-a36452ef3755", "source_id": "85288aa92c6841e6e9ea9ad7", "source": "ARIN", "source_url": "https://www.arin.net/about/", "final_url": "https://www.arin.net/about/", "artifact_sha256": "f21a576d1ab508f040323bfbba44672cb8368ad71bbb18ffeb952e908ef2772f", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 24292, "title": "About - American Registry for Internet Numbers", "language": "en-us", "text_length": 3921, "characters": 3921, "text": "About - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nHome\nAbout\nHome\nAbout\nEstablished in December 1997, the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is a nonprofit, member-based organization that supports the operation and growth of the Internet.\nARIN accomplishes this by carrying out its core service, which is the management and distribution of Internet number resources such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs). ARIN manages these resources within its service region, which is comprised of Canada, the United States, and many Caribbean and North Atlantic countries. ARIN also coordinates policy development by the community and advances the Internet through informational outreach.\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "segments": [{"segment_id": "13d717ed-7678-4108-9f3a-c9301a046e91", "document_id": "ebb2688e-f4f8-4b68-9e2c-a36452ef3755", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About - American Registry for Internet Numbers\nSkip to main content\nYour IP\naddress is\nLog in\nLog in\nUser\nDashboard\nSettings\nProfile and security information\nLog Out\nSearch\nall requests subject to\nterms of use\nSearch\nIP Addresses & ASNs\nGet Started\nARIN Account Management\nRequesting IP Addresses or ASNs\nIPv6 Information\nIPv4 Addressing Options\nAutonomous System Numbers\nLegacy Resources at ARIN\nFee & Billing Information\nFee Schedule\nPremier Support Plan (PSP)\nMake a Payment\nHow Billing Works\nResource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement\nIP & ASN Registry Services\nManaging Resource Records\nAutomating Record Management with Reg-RWS\nTransferring IP Addresses & ASNs\nReporting Reassignments\nUsing Whois\nRouting Security\nResource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)\nInternet Routing Registry (IRR)\nSecuring DNS (DNSSEC)\nReverse DNS\nRouting Security Eligibility FAQs\nPolicy & Participation\nPolicy\nNumber Resource Policy Manual\nPolicy Development Process (PDP)\nDraft and Recommended Draft Policies\nPolicy Proposals\nMeetings & Events\nPublic Policy and Members Meetings\nOutreach Events\nARIN Fellowship Program\nSponsorship\nPast Meetings\nMembership & Elections\nMembership\nElections\nCommunity Interaction\nARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys\nMailing Lists\nConsultations & Suggestions\nReference & Tools\nTools\nOperational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment\nCIDR Calculator\nCommunity Software Repository\nInternet Number Resource Fraud Reporting\nReference\nSpam & Network Abuse Reporting\nRegistry Data Description\nData Accuracy\nInformation Security at ARIN\nARIN Software Releases\nResearch\nStatistics & Reporting\nHistorical Whois Data (WhoWas)\nBulk Whois Data\nTraining & Education\nARIN Leadership Development Program\nInstructional Webinars\nResource Materials\nARIN Online Help Videos\nAbout\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBlog\nPay Now\nFeedback\nHome\nAbout\nHome\nAbout\nEstablished in December 1997, the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is a nonprofit, member-based organization that supports the operation and growth of the Internet.\nARIN accomplishes this by carrying out its core service, which is the management and distribution of Internet number resources such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs). ARIN manages these resources within its service region, which is comprised of Canada, the United States, and many Caribbean and North Atlantic countries. ARIN also coordinates policy development by the community and advances the Internet through informational outreach.\nWelcome to ARIN\nOrganization Structure & Staff\nOur Region\nARIN Board of Trustees\nAdvisory Council\nNRO Number Council\nCareers\nCorporate Documentation\nCorporate Documents\nAnnual Reports\nStrategic Planning & Budgeting\nAgreements\nHistory of ARIN\nThird-Party Vendors and IPv6\nCommunity Grants\nARIN Community Grant Program\nCommunity Grant Program Recipients\nExternal Relations\nInternet Governance\nMemberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs\nARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety\nTechnical Community\nBack to top\nBack\nto top\nTerms of Service\nSite Map\nPrivacy Policy\nNetwork Abuse\nAccessibility\nStandards of Behavior\n© Copyright 1997\n– 2026\n, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.\nA member of the Number Resource Organization\nService Status\nContact Us\nRegistration Services:\n+1.703.227.0660\nFinancial Services:\n+1.703.227.9886\nMain:\n+1.703.227.9840\nVisit ARIN on LinkedIn\nVisit ARIN on Instagram\nVisit ARIN on Facebook\nVisit ARIN on X\nVisit ARIN on YouTube\nMedia", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3921, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 540}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "ee6f1a53-b8f0-4a93-9e3e-66b49a854c75", "source_id": "93de8b0f3602e3c5d0386295", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/policy", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/policy", "artifact_sha256": "cc4f352d332d45c9f7d1b421ce8c579cc3f8482578d6d5473e3a102a74ba9011", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 36458, "title": "Developing Policy at ICANN - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 12029, "characters": 12029, "text": "Developing Policy at ICANN - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nDeveloping Policy\nat ICANN\nA fundamental part of\nICANN's Mission\nis coordinating policy development related to the Internet's system of unique identifiers.\nICANN uses open and transparent policy development processes that enable well-informed decisions based on expert advice and collaboration among entities most affected by those policies. The multistakeholder community thrives on the diversity of perspectives and interests that shape its deliberations. Participants in ICANN's community processes benefit from understanding the wide range of viewpoints represented across the community.\nTo foster a culture of trust, transparency, and mutual respect, all participants are expected to follow the policies and procedures that make up the ICANN Community Ethics Policy, including the\nICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct\n,\nICANN Expected Standards of Behavior\n, and the\nICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy\n.\nClick\nhere\nto learn more about how to participate and what is expected of participants.\nWhat is DNS Policy?\nICANN develops and applies several types of policies:\nDNS Policies are developed by the multistakeholder community through formal\npolicy development processes (PDPs), as set forth by the\nBylaws.\nLearn more about ICANN’s Mission, Commitments, and Core Values, and how policy is\ndeveloped in the ICANN Bylaws.\nExamples of DNS Policy:\nNew gTLD Program\nInter Registrar Transfer Policy\nExpired Registration Recovery Policy\nView all ICANN DNS Policy\nHow is DNS Policy Developed?\nThe ICANN community develops and refines policy recommendations through its Supporting Organizations (SOs) and influenced by Advisory Committees (ACs). These groups – are made up of volunteers from around the world – work through a bottom-up, open and transparent process. Each Supporting Organization follows its own specific policy development process. Learn more about this work in the “Multistakeholder Policy Development” infographic below.\n“At ICANN we believe every voice deserves a chance to be heard. I am inspired by how the ICANN community continues to refine is consensus-based policy development processes to make participation more accessible and to ensure that policy is developed for the benefit of the global public interest.”\nRuss Weinstein\nSenior Vice President, Policy Development Support\nLearn more about ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees\nEnglish\nPDF\nالعربية\nPDF\nEspañol\nPDF\nFrançais\nPDF\nPусский\nPDF\n中文\nPDF\nEnglish\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(327 KB)\nالعربية\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(411 KB)\nEspañol\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(335 KB)\nFrançais\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(338 KB)\nPortuguês\nPDF\n(336 KB)\nPусский\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(431 KB)\nTürkçe\nPDF\n(310 KB)\n中文\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(395 KB)\nEnglish\nPDF\n(317 KB)\nالعربية\nPDF\n(406 KB)\nEspañol\nPDF\n(320 KB)\nFrançais\nPDF\n(320 KB)\nPortuguês\nPDF\n(343 KB)\nPусский\nPDF\n(330 KB)\nTürkçe\nPDF\n(320 KB)\n中文\nPDF\n(609 KB)\nICANN Supporting Organizations (SOs)\n- Develop and Refine ICANN Policy\nGNSO\ngnso.icann.org\nThe Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.\nLearn more about\nhow to get involved\nwith the GNSO.\nccNSO\nccnso.icann.org\nThe Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains.\nASO\naso.icann.org\nThe Address Supporting Organization (ASO) is responsible for advising the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses.\nMembership into the ASO is available only to Regional Internet Registries, but you can learn\nmore about their work\non their website.\nICANN Advisory Committees (ACs)\n- Advise the Board\nALAC\natlarge.icann.org\nThe At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.\nJoin ALAC! Learn about their\napplication process\n.\nSSAC\nssac.icann.org\nThe Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) is responsible for advising the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems.\nSSAC is an invite-only organization.\nRSSAC\nrssac.icann.org\nThe Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) is responsible for advising the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System.\nGAC\ngac.icann.org\nThe Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) is responsible for providing advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.\nYou need to be a formally acknowledged representative of a government or international organization to become a member. You can\nemail GAC’s secretariat\nfor more info.\nAccountability and Transparency\nLearn more about ICANN community groups by reviewing their\ncharters and operating documents.\nPre-Conference Presentations & Monthly Updates\nPolicy Updates\nEach monthly issue of the Policy Update provides the latest status on policy issues working their way through the bottom-up, consensus-based policy development processes within ICANN. This newsletter accommodates ICANN newcomers and veterans by providing high-level explanations of a broad range of ICANN policy development activities, detailed updates on specific issues, and links to more information.\nComplex policy matters require much study; and controversial issues stimulate much discussion within ICANN’s multistakeholder community. The result: not every policy topic passes a significant milestone every month. Where there are new developments to report, Policy Update runs an article. If a matter is still progressing, but has not hit a newsworthy milestone since last month’s issue of Policy Update, we provide a link to the most recent past article. This approach makes it easy for you to scan new developments, while still providing background information with one-click convenience.\nPolicy Update increases your access to ICANN policy information, and you can get it delivered through a free online subscription. To receive Policy Update via e-mail every month, simply visit the ICANN Subscription page, enter your e-mail address, and then select ICANN Policy Update to subscribe.\nView All Policy Updates\nPresentations\nTo help the community prepare for upcoming Public Meetings, the Policy Development Support Staff conducts community webinars a week or two before each meeting. During each webinar, the team identifies critical up-coming issues and provides general overviews of other policy development activities that are likely to be discussed at each Public Meeting. This page is an archive of those most recent presentations.\nView All Presentations\nQuestions? Comments?\nPlease send your inquiry to:\n[email protected]\n.\nFor more information on Registration Data, please visit our\nRegistration Data at ICANN page.\nParticipate in Policy-Making\nICANN policy is developed by the community in a bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion. There are multiple ways in which you can participate, from attending a meeting in person, joining a working group or webinar to contributing to the Public Comment process.\nView All Opportunities for Participation\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "78cdbb83-28fa-4c05-be2f-1a2f4275dfce", "document_id": "ee6f1a53-b8f0-4a93-9e3e-66b49a854c75", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Developing Policy at ICANN - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nDeveloping Policy\nat ICANN\nA fundamental part of\nICANN's Mission\nis coordinating policy development related to the Internet's system of unique identifiers.\nICANN uses open and transparent policy development processes that enable well-informed decisions based on expert advice and collaboration among entities most affected by those policies. The multistakeholder community thrives on the diversity of perspectives and interests that shape its deliberations. Participants in ICANN's community processes benefit from understanding the wide range of viewpoints represented across the community.\nTo foster a culture of trust, transparency, and mutual respect, all participants are expected to follow the policies and procedures that make up the ICANN Community Ethics Policy, including the\nICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct\n,\nICANN Expected Standards of Behavior\n, and the\nICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy\n.\nClick\nhere\nto learn more about how to participate and what is expected of participants.\nWhat is DNS Policy?\nICANN develops and applies several types of policies:\nDNS Policies are developed by the multistakeholder community through formal\npolicy development processes (PDPs), as set forth by the\nBylaws.\nLearn more about ICANN’s Mission, Commitments, and Core Values, and how policy is\ndeveloped in the ICANN Bylaws.\nExamples of DNS Policy:\nNew gTLD Program\nInter Registrar Transfer Policy\nExpired Registration Recovery Policy\nView all ICANN DNS Policy\nHow is DNS Policy Developed?\nThe ICANN community develops and refines policy recommendations through its Supporting Organizations (SOs) and influenced by Advisory Committees (ACs). These groups – are made up of volunteers from around the world – work through a bottom-up, open and transparent process. Each Supporting Organization follows its own specific policy development process. Learn more about this work in the “Multistakeholder Policy Development” infographic below.\n“At ICANN we believe every voice deserves a chance to be heard. I am inspired by how the ICANN community continues to refine is consensus-based policy development processes to make participation more accessible and to ensure that policy is developed for the benefit of the global public interest.”\nRuss Weinstein\nSenior Vice President, Policy Development Support\nLearn more about ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees\nEnglish\nPDF\nالعربية\nPDF\nEspañol\nPDF\nFrançais\nPDF\nPусский\nPDF\n中文\nPDF\nEnglish\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(327 KB)\nالعربية\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(411 KB)\nEspañol\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(335 KB)\nFrançais\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(338 KB)\nPortuguês\nPDF\n(336 KB)\nPусский\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(431 KB)\nTürkçe\nPDF\n(310 KB)\n中文\nVideo\n|\nPDF\n(395 KB)\nEnglish\nPDF\n(317 KB)\nالعربية\nPDF\n(406 KB)\nEspañol\nPDF\n(320 KB)\nFrançais\nPDF\n(320 KB)\nPortuguês\nPDF\n(343 KB)\nPусский\nPDF\n(330 KB)\nTürkçe\nPDF\n(320 KB)\n中文\nPDF\n(609 KB)\nICANN Supporting Organizations (SOs)\n- Develop and Refine ICANN Policy\nGNSO\ngnso.icann.org\nThe Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.\nLearn more about\nhow to get involved\nwith the GNSO.\nccNSO\nccnso.icann.org\nThe Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains.\nASO\naso.icann.org\nThe Address Supporting Organization (ASO) is responsible for advising the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses.\nMembership into the ASO is available only to Regional Internet Registries, but you can learn\nmore about their work\non their website.\nICANN Advisory Committees (ACs)\n- Advise the Board\nALAC\natlarge.icann.org\nThe At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.\nJoin ALAC! Learn about their\napplication process\n.\nSSAC\nssac.icann.org\nThe Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) is responsible for advising the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems.\nSSAC is an invite-only organization.\nRSSAC\nrssac.icann.org\nThe Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) is responsible for advising the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System.\nGAC\ngac.icann.org\nThe Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) is responsible for providing advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.\nYou need to be a formally acknowledged representative of a government or international organization to become a member. You can\nemail GAC’s secretariat\nfor more info.\nAccountability and Transparency\nLearn more about ICANN community groups by reviewing their\ncharters and operating documents.\nPre-Conference Presentations & Monthly Updates\nPolicy Updates\nEach monthly issue of the Policy Update provides the latest status on policy issues working their way through the bottom-up, consensus-based policy development processes within ICANN. This newsletter accommodates ICANN newcomers and veterans by providing high-level explanations of a broad range of ICANN policy development activities, detailed updates on specific issues, and links to more information.\nComplex policy matters require much study; and controversial issues stimulate much discussion within ICANN’s multistakeholder community. The result: not every policy topic passes a significant milestone every month. Where there are new developments to report, Policy Update runs an article. If a matter is still progressing, but has not hit a newsworthy milestone since last month’s issue of Policy Update, we provide a link to the most recent past article. This approach makes it easy for you to scan new developments, while still providing background information with one-click convenience.\nPolicy Update increases your access to ICANN policy information, and you can get it delivered through a free online subscription. To receive Policy Update via e-mail every month, simply visit the ICANN Subscription page, enter your e-mail address, and then select ICANN Policy Update to subscribe.\nView All Policy Updates\nPresentations\nTo help the community prepare for upcoming Public Meetings, the Policy Development Support Staff conducts community webinars a week or two before each meeting. During each webinar, the team identifies critical up-coming issues and provides general overviews of other policy development activities that are likely to be discussed at each Public Meeting. This page is an archive of those most recent presentations.\nView All Presentations\nQuestions? Comments?\nPlease send your inquiry to:\n[email protected]\n.\nFor more information on Registration Data, please visit our\nRegistration Data at ICANN page.\nParticipate in Policy-Making\nICANN policy is developed by the community in a bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion. There are multiple ways in which you can participate, from attending a meeting in person, joining a working group or webinar to contributing to the Public Comment process.\nView All Opportunities for Participation\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12029, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 9, "word_count": 1742}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "ee7ec640-7f3e-4784-b75e-3c7fadcbb0f8", "source_id": "49b1802a23536267bc947f03", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf", "artifact_sha256": "49b1802a23536267bc947f03dcfe1f2763996d12d4f5722597ceb6b2ddfa4307", "content_type": "application/pdf", "extraction_method": "pypdf", "byte_size": 4044771, "title": "ITU ICT Facts and Figures 2017", "language": "en", "text_length": 14985, "characters": 14985, "text": "FACTS AND \nFIGURES\nICT \n2017\n70% OF THE WORLD’S YOUTH ARE ONLINE\n Proportion of youth (15-24) using the Internet, 2017*\n“This year marks the 25th anniversary of \nthe ITU Telecommunication Development \nSector. Over the past two and a half dec-\nades, ITU has contributed to the unprec-\nedented development of ICTs worldwide \nand the wider transformation they have \nbrought to society. Our new data show \nthat young people are at the forefront \nof today’s digital economy with 70 per \ncent of the world’s youth being online. \nToday’s ICT development is driven by the \nspread of mobile-broadband services. The \ngrowth of mobile broadband has largely \noutpaced that of fixed broadband, while \nmobile-broadband prices have dropped \nby 50 per cent on average over the last \nthree years. These factors have resulted in \nabout half of the world’s population get-\nting online and broadband services being \navailable at much higher speeds. \nAs ICTs continue to be a key enabler of economic and social \ndevelopment, ITU has a pivotal role in the global efforts to bridge \nthe digital divide and in fostering an inclusive digital economy. I am \nconfident that the discussions at the World Telecommunication De-\nvelopment Conference 2017, to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina \nfrom 9 to 20 October 2017, under the theme of “ICT for Sustainable \nDevelopment Goals” , will contribute to the mapping of results-ori-\nented strategies aimed at hastening the pace of countries towards \nthe timely attainment of the SDGs and their related targets.” \nSource: ITU.  \nNote: * Estimates.\nBrahima Sanou, \nDirector of the ITU \nTelecommunication \nDevelopment Bureau\nIn 104 countries, more than 80% \nof the youth population are \nonline. \nIn developed countries, 94% of \nyoung people aged 15-24 use \nthe Internet compared with 67% \nin developing countries and \nonly 30% in Least Developed \nCountries (LDCs). \nOut of the 830 million young \npeople who are online, 320 \nmillion (39%) are in China and \nIndia.  \nNearly 9 out of 10 young \nindividuals not using the Internet \nlive in Africa or Asia and the \nPacific.  \n\nYOUTH ARE AT THE FOREFRONT \nOF INTERNET ADOPTION\nProportion of individuals using the Internet, by age, 2017*\nProportion of youth (15-24) Internet users and youth in the population, 2017*\nProportion of households with Internet access, 2017*\n79.6\n67.7 65.9\n43.9 43.7\n21.8\n48.0\n17.5\n41.3\n81.0\n95.7 \n89.6 88.4 \n72.3 \n64.2 \n40.3 \n70.6 \n30.3 \n67.3 \n94.3 \nEurope CIS The\nAmericas\nAsia &\nPacific\nArab States Africa World LDCs Developing Developed\nTotal population Ages 15-24\nSource: ITU. Note: * Estimates. CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States. Proportions in this chart refer to the number \nof people using the Internet, as a percentage of the total population, and the number of people aged 15-24 using the Internet, as a \npercentage of the total population aged 15-24, respectively. \nSource: ITU. Note: * Estimates. CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States. Proportions in this chart refer to the \nnumber of people aged 15-24 using the Internet, as a percentage of the total population using the Internet, and the number of \npeople aged 15-24, as a percentage of the total population, respectively.\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: * Estimates. CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States. \n37.3 \n26.3 25.8 \n21.0 \n15.8 13.8 \n23.4 \n13.0 \n27.6 \n35.1 \n20.1 17.9 15.7 15.7 \n11.9 11.5 \n15.9 \n11.2 \n16.8 \n20.3 \nAfrica Arab States Asia &\nPacific\nThe\nAmericas\nCIS Europe World Developed Developing LDCs\nProportion of youth (15-24) Internet users Proportion of youth (15-24) in the population\n84.2 \n70.4 \n65.3 \n48.1 47.2 \n18.0 \n53.6 \n14.7 \n42.9 \n84.4 \nEurope CIS The\nAmericas\nAsia &\nPacific\nArab States Africa World LDCs Developing Developed\nThe proportion of young people \naged 15-24 using the Internet \n(71%) is significantly higher \nthan the proportion of the total \npopulation using the Internet \n(48%). \nYoung people represent almost \none-fourth of the total number \nof individuals using the Internet \nworldwide. \nIn LDCs, 35% of the individuals \nusing the Internet are young \npeople aged 15-24, compared with \n13% in developed countries and \n23% globally.\nIn developed countries, the \nproportion of households with \nInternet access at home is \ntwice as high as in developing \ncountries.\nOnly 15% of households in \nLDCs have Internet access at \nhome. In these countries, many \nInternet users are accessing the \nInternet from work, schools and \nuniversities or from other shared \npublic connections outside the \nhome.\n\nProportion of individuals using the Internet, by gender, 2017*\nThe proportion of women using the Internet is \n12% lower than the proportion of men using the \nInternet worldwide. \nWhile the gender gap has narrowed in most \nregions since 2013, it has widened in Africa. \nIn Africa, the proportion of women using the \nInternet is 25% lower than the proportion of men \nusing the Internet. \nIn LDCs, only one out of seven women is using the \nInternet compared with one out of five men.\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: * Estimates. Penetration rates in this chart refer to the number of women/men using \nthe Internet, as a percentage of the respective total female/male population. CIS refers to \nthe Commonwealth of Independent States.\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: * Estimates. The gender gap represents the difference between the Internet user \npenetration rates for males and females relative to the Internet user penetration rate for \nmales, expressed as a percentage. CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States. \n14.1 \n37.5 \n79.9 \n44.9 \n76.3 \n65.8 \n66.7 \n39.7 \n39.4 \n18.6 \n21.0 \n44.7 \n82.2 \n50.9 \n82.9 \n69.8 \n65.1 \n47.9 \n47.7 \n24.9 \nLDCs\nDeveloping\nDeveloped\nWorld\nEurope\nCIS\nThe Americas\nAsia & Pacific\nArab States\nAfrica\nMale Female\n20.7\n19.2\n17.4\n9.4\n7.5\n- 0.4\n11.0\n5.8\n15.8\n29.9\n25.3\n17.3\n17.1\n7.9\n5.8\n-2.6\n11.6\n2.8\n16.1\n32.9\nAfrica Arab\nStates\nAsia &\nPacific\nEurope CIS TheAmericas World Developed Developing LDCs\n2013 2017\nTHE DIGITAL GENDER GAP \nPERSISTS\nThe proportion of men using \nthe Internet is higher than the \nproportion of women using \nthe Internet in two-thirds of \ncountries worldwide. \nThere is a strong link between \ngender parity in the enrollment \nratio in tertiary education and \ngender parity in Internet use. \nThe only region where a higher \npercentage of women than \nmen are using the Internet is the \nAmericas, where countries also \nscore highly on gender parity in \ntertiary education.\nInternet penetration rate for men \nand women, 2017*\nInternet user gender gap (%), \n2013 and 2017*\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: * Estimates. Proportions in this chart refer to the number of women/men using the \nInternet, as a percentage of the respective total female/male population. \n\nBROADBAND IS INCREASINGLY \nMOBILE\n0 15 30 45 60\nWorld\nDeveloped\nDeveloping\nLDCs\n%\n0 20 40 60 80 100\nPer 100 inhabitants\nWorld\nDeveloped\nDeveloping\nLDCs\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: *Estimates. CAGR refers to the compound annual growth rate. \nSource: ITU.  \nNote: *Estimates. CAGR refers to the compound annual growth rate.\n0 15 30 45 60\nWorld\nDeveloped\nDeveloping\nLDCs\n%\n0 10 20 30 40\nPer 100 inhabitants\nWorld\nDeveloped\nDeveloping\nLDCs\nFixed-broadband subscriptions, 2017*Growth of fixed-broadband subscriptions, \nCAGR, 2012-2017*\nGrowth of mobile-broadband subscriptions, \nCAGR, 2012-2017*\nMobile-broadband subscriptions, 2017*\nMobile-broadband subscriptions have grown more than 20% annually in the last five years and are expected to \nreach 4.3 billion globally by end 2017.\nDespite the high growth rates in developing countries and in LDCs, there are twice as many mobile-broadband \nsubscriptions per 100 inhabitants in developed countries as in developing countries, and four times as many in \ndeveloped countries as in LDCs.\nThe global number of fixed-broadband subscriptions has increased by 9% annually in the last five years and 330 \nmillion new fixed-broadband subscriptions have been added. \nHigher growth will be needed to bridge the divide between developed and developing countries: there are 31 \nfixed broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in developed countries against 9 in developing countries.\nFixed-broadband uptake remains very limited in LDCs, with only one subscription per 100 inhabitants. \n\nMOBILE BROADBAND IS MORE \nAFFORDABLE THAN FIXED BROADBAND\nMobile broadband prices as a percentage of GNI per capita, 2016\nBroadband prices as a percentage of GNI per capita, 2016\nBroadband prices in PPP$, 2016\n1.0 0.7\n11.6\n6.0\n32.4\n14.1\n8.3\n4.3\n0\n5\n10\n15\n20\n25\n30\n35\n2013 2014 2015 2016\nAs a % of GNI p.c.\nDeveloped Developing LDCs World\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: Based on simple averages including data for 136 countries. Prices are based on entry-level  \ncomputer-based mobile-broadband plans with a minimum data allowance of 1 GB per month.\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: Based on simple averages including data for 167 \ncountries. Prices are based on entry-level plans with a \nminimum data allowance of 1 GB per month. PPP$ refers to \nprices in international dollars, calculated using purchasing \npower parity (PPP) conversion factors instead of market \nexchange rates.\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: Based on data available for 169 countries. Prices are based on entry-level plans with a minimum data \nallowance of 1 GB per month. \n44 43\n1\n73 61\n15 27\n3\n2\n34\n35\n0\n20\n40\n60\n80\n100\n120\nMobile broadband Fixed broadband Mobile broadband Fixed broadband\nBelow 5% Above 5%\nNumber of countries\nDeveloped Developing (excl. LDCs) LDCs\nBroadband Commission target\n5% GNI p.c. \n107.9\n41.1\n61.3\n33.4\n30.5\n15.4\n53.2\n28.6\n0 20 40 60 80 100\nFixed broadband\nMobile broadband\nWorld\nDeveloped\nDeveloping\nLDCs\nMobile broadband is more \naffordable than fixed-broadband \nservices in most developing \ncountries. However, mobile-\nbroadband prices represent \nmore than 5% of GNI per capita \nin most LDCs and are therefore \nunaffordable for the large \nmajority of the population. \nIn LDCs, on average, an entry-level \nfixed-broadband subscription is \n2.6 times more expensive than \nan entry-level mobile-broadband \nsubscription.\nMobile-broadband prices as a \npercentage of GNI per capita \nhalved between 2013 and 2016 \nworldwide.\nThe steepest decrease ocurred in \nLDCs, where prices fell from 32.4 \nto 14.1% of GNI p.c.\nLDCs\nDeveloping\nWorld\nDeveloped\nDeveloped\nDeveloping \n(excl. LDCs)\nLDCs\n\nFIBRE DEPLOYMENT IS INCREASING \nFIXED BROADBAND SPEEDS IN  \nDEVELOPING COUNTRIES\nFixed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed\nFixed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by technology, 2016\nSource: ITU.\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: Data refer to early 2016.  CIS refers to the Commonwealth of \nIndependent States.\n18.8 \n7.0\n5.5 \n3.6\n2.6 \n0.15 \n5.7 \n9.4 \n0.6 \n0.2\n0.5 \n0.02 \n3.8\n1.6\n8.8 \n0.6 \n6.1\n0.04 \n1.0 \n0.9 \n1.0 \n0.3 \n0.9\n0.05 \nEurope The Americas CIS Arab States Asia & Pacific Africa\nDSL Internet subscriptions per 100 inhabitants\nCable modem Internet subscriptions  per 100 inhabitants\nFTTH/B subscriptions per 100 inhabitants\nOther fixed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants\n4.7\n0.07 \n2.8 \n12.7\n2.3\n0.03 \n0.7 \n8.8\n4.5\n0.6 \n3.9\n6.7\n0.8 \n0.2 \n0.7 1.1\nWorld LDCs Developing Developed\nDSL Internet subscriptions per 100 inhabitants\nCable modem Internet subscriptions  per 100 inhabitants\nFTTH/B subscriptions per 100 inhabitants\nOther fixed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants\nDespite the worldwide increase in high-speed fixed-broadband subscriptions, there remains a lack of high-\nspeed connections in the developing world, with a penetration rate of 6% (1.6% excluding China) compared \nwith 24% in developed countries.\nMost of the increase in high-speed fixed-broadband subscriptions in developing countries can be attributed \nto China, which accounts for 80% of all fixed-broadband subscriptions at 10 Mbit/s or above in developing \ncountries.\nDeveloping countries and LDCs are deploying \nfibre infrastructure directly, leapfrogging cable \nand DSL. \nHowever, the proportion of fibre broadband \nsubscriptions per 100 inhabitants in developed \ncountries is twice as high as in developing \ncountries, and ten times higher than in LDCs.\nThe share of fibre in total fixed-broadband \nsubscriptions is highest in the CIS and Asia and \nthe Pacific.\n0.9 0.8\n6.0\n21.4\n1.7 0.5\n4.5\n24.0\n0\n5\n10\n15\n20\nBreakdown by speed\nNA\n≥256 kbit/s to <2 \nMbit/s\n≥2 to <10 Mbit/s ≥10 Mbit/s\nDeveloped countries\n2015 2016\nPer 100 inhabitants\nDeveloped countries\n0.9 0.6\n2.0\n4.1\n0.9 0.6 1.2\n6.1\n0\n5\n10\n15\n20\nBreakdown by speed\nNA\n≥256 kbit/s to <2 \nMbit/s\n≥2 to <10 Mbit/s ≥10 Mbit/s\nDeveloping countries\n2015 2016\nPer 100 inhabitants\nDeveloping countries\n\nINTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH UP \nTELECOMMUNICATION REVENUES DOWN\nTelecommunication revenues, world and by level of development\n0\n50,000\n100,000\n150,000\n200,000\n250,000\n2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016\nGbit/s\nEurope Asia & Pacific The Americas CIS Arab States Africa\n6\n53\n140\n39\n48\n51\n59\n91\n178\n0 50 100 150 200\nLDCs\nDeveloped\nArab States\nAfrica\nCIS\nThe Americas\nAsia & Pacific\nDeveloping\nEurope\nkbit/s per Internet user\nSource: ITU.  \nNote: CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States.\n   0\n   500\n  1 000\n  1 500\n  2 000\n  2 500\n2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015\nBillion USD\nWorld\nDeveloped\nDeveloping\nSource: ITU.\nInternational Internet bandwidth in \nGbit/s, per region, 2008-2016\nInternational Internet bandwidth per \nInternet user in kbit/s, 2016\nInternational Internet \nbandwidth grew worldwide by \n32% between 2015 and 2016. \nAfrica experienced an increase \nof 72% during this period, the \nhighest of all regions.\nGlobal telecommunication \nrevenues declined by 4% \nbetween 2014 and 2015, falling \nback to USD 1.9 trillion. \nDeveloping countries saw a \ncompound annual growth rate \nin telecommunication revenue \nof 6.6% in the period 2007-2015, \nwhereas developed countries \nexperienced a contraction of \n-0.8% during the same period.\nDeveloping countries are home \nto 83% of the global population \nbut generate only 39% of the \nworld’s telecommunication \nrevenues.\nEurope\nAsia & Pacific\nCIS\nArab States\nThe Americas\nAfrica\nWorld\nDeveloped\nDeveloping\n\nFor more information:\nICT Data and Statistics Division\nTelecommunication Development Bureau\nInternational Telecommunication Union\nPlace des Nations\n1211 Geneva 20 - Switzerland\nindicators@itu.int\nwww.itu.int/ict\nPrinted in Switzerland \nGeneva, July 2017\n© International Telecommunication Union\nITU 15th World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Symposium (WTIS), \n14-16 November 2017, Tunisia  \nwww.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/events/wtis2017/default.aspx \nITU Measuring the Information Society Report 2016 \nwww.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2016.aspx  \nITU Yearbook of Statistics 2016 \nwww.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/yb2016.aspx \nITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database \nwww.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/wtid.aspx \n• Results of the ICT \nDevelopment Index, ITU’s \nkey benchmarking tool\n•Key ICT indicators\n• Global, regional and \nnational comparisons\nITU DATA \nVISUALISATION \nTOOL\nwww.itu.int/IDI2016\n", "segments": [], "published_at": "2017-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2017-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "2017-07-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:34:24.715674+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "efd23641-0ee5-4a43-925a-19fa5fa8c8b3", "source_id": "3629daee90adaefc61c6b7de", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1181", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1181/", "artifact_sha256": "3629daee90adaefc61c6b7def186ecd6b7bdb557ce81ac2eb2afaa4e3589009a", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 72303, "title": "RFC 1181: RIPE Terms of Reference", "language": "en", "text_length": 2518, "characters": 2518, "text": "RFC 1181: RIPE Terms of Reference | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1181\n:\nRIPE Terms of Reference\nR. Blokzijl\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                        R. Blokzijl\nRequest for Comments: 1181                                   RIPE/NIKHEF\n                                                          September 1990\nRIPE Terms of Reference\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This RFC describes the Terms of Reference of RIPE (Reseaux IP\n   Europeens), the cooperation of European IP networks.  This memo\n   provides information for the Internet community.  It does not specify\n   any standard.\n\n   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n1\n. Terms of Reference of RIPE\nRecognising that IP networks are growing beyond the LAN's in Europe,\n   and are extending over national and international WAN's in Europe,\n   the RIPE coordinating body has been created.  RIPE stands for the\n   \"Reseaux IP Europeens\".\n\n   The objective of RIPE is to ensure the necessary administrative and\n   technical coordination to allow the operation and expansion of a\n   pan-European IP network.\n\n      o RIPE acts as a forum for the exchange of technical information\n        and the creation of expertise on IP networking.\n\n      o The area of relevance for RIPE is Europe.\n\n      o All parties operating wide area IP networks are encouraged to\n        participate.\n\n      o RIPE promotes and coordinates interconnection of IP networks\n        within Europe and to other continents.\n\n      o RIPE establishes agreement on common network management\n        practices and the operational management of the interconnected\n        networks.\n\n      o RIPE serves as a focal point for other common activities of the\n        participants related to IP networking.\n\n      o All documents produced by RIPE will be publicly available.\n\n      o RIPE is not a network service provider.  IP networks\nBlokzijl                                                        [Page 1]\nRFC 1181\nRIPE Terms of Reference           September 1990\ncollaborating in RIPE remain under the executive authority of\n        their respective organisations.\n\nSecurity Considerations\n\n   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.\n\nAuthor's Address\n\n   Rob Blokzijl\n   RIPE\n   c/o NIKHEF\n   P.O.B. 41882\n   NL-1009 DB  Amsterdam\n   the Netherlands\n\n   Phone:  +31 20 5920413\n\n   EMail:  k13@nikhef.nl\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBlokzijl                                                        [Page 2]\nRFC\n1181\n: RIPE Terms of Reference\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1990-09-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1990-09-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1990-09-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:49.304867+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "efffc388-64db-49ca-908f-f944e070f1bc", "source_id": "d8d619e73e5d60b656d4e392", "source": "ITU", "source_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/Pages/default.aspx", "final_url": "https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2025-2028/Pages/default.aspx", "artifact_sha256": "e65250ec4ad5ab03d2b34de7541bc924126ed23e5e6bc59ff9836bbe26941ef2", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 102220, "title": "ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 2281, "characters": 2281, "text": "ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)\nConnecting the world and beyond\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nAbout ITU-T\nEvents\nAll Groups\nStandards\nResources\nBSG\nStudy Groups\nCooperation\nJoin Us\nMyWorkspace\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)\nRollup Image\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nITU-T\n>\nStudy Groups\n>\nStudy Period 2025 - 2028\nShare\nPage Content 10\n​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Standardization work is carried out by the technical Study Groups (SGs) in which representatives of the\nITU-T membership\ndevelop\nRecommendations\n(standards) for the various fields of international telecommunications.\n​\n​​ ​​\nSG2 - Operational aspects\nAbout SG2\nSG3 - Economic & policy issues\nAbout SG3\nSG5 - Environment, EMF, climate action & circular economy​\nAbout SG5\nSG11 - Protocols, testing & combating counterfeiting\n​\nAbout SG11\nSG12 - Performance, QoS & QoE\nAbout SG12\nSG13 - Future networks​\nAbout SG13\nSG15​ - Transport, access & home\nAbout SG15\nSG17 - Security\nAbout SG17\nSG20 - IoT, digital twins & smart cities\nAbout SG20​\n​​​​\nSG21 - Multimedia, content delivery & cable TV\nAbout SG21\n​\nSave language (?)\nDisclaimer & Feedback\nPage Content 2\nPage Content 3\nPage Content 4\nPage Content 5\nPage Content 17\nPage Content 18\nPage Content 19\nPage Content 20\nRelated Groups\nTerminated Study Groups\nNews\nPage Content 11\nTelecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG)\nRegional Groups\nStandardization Committee for Vocabulary (SCV)\nTSB Director's IPR Ad hoc Group​\n​\nExternal Cooperation\n​\nPage Content 12\n​​​​\nStudy Group 4\nStudy Group 6\nStudy Group 7\nStudy Group 8\n​​\nStudy Group 9\n​​\nStudy Group 10\nStudy Group 16​\n​​\nStudy Group 19\nSSG\n​​​​\nPage Content 13\nPrevious Study Periods\nPage Content 15\n​​\nStudy Period 2022-2024​​\n​​\nStudy Period 2017-2021​​\n​​\nStudy Period 2013-2016\n​​\nStudy Period 2009-2012\n​​\nStudy Period 2005-2008\nStudy Period 2001-2004\nStudy Period 1997-2000\n​​​\nPage Content 6\nPage Content 7\nPage Content 8\nPage Content 14\nPage Content 16\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "segments": [{"segment_id": "2841d755-1acd-47f5-a790-3b2a8a8dd722", "document_id": "efffc388-64db-49ca-908f-f944e070f1bc", "ordinal": 0, "text": "ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)\nConnecting the world and beyond\nAdvanced Search\nITU\nGeneral Secretariat\nRadiocommunication\nStandardization\nAbout ITU-T\nEvents\nAll Groups\nStandards\nResources\nBSG\nStudy Groups\nCooperation\nJoin Us\nMyWorkspace\nDevelopment\nNews\nMembers' Zone\nJoin ITU\nITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)\nRollup Image\nYou are here\nITU\n>\nHomepage\n>\nITU-T\n>\nStudy Groups\n>\nStudy Period 2025 - 2028\nShare\nPage Content 10\n​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Standardization work is carried out by the technical Study Groups (SGs) in which representatives of the\nITU-T membership\ndevelop\nRecommendations\n(standards) for the various fields of international telecommunications.\n​\n​​ ​​\nSG2 - Operational aspects\nAbout SG2\nSG3 - Economic & policy issues\nAbout SG3\nSG5 - Environment, EMF, climate action & circular economy​\nAbout SG5\nSG11 - Protocols, testing & combating counterfeiting\n​\nAbout SG11\nSG12 - Performance, QoS & QoE\nAbout SG12\nSG13 - Future networks​\nAbout SG13\nSG15​ - Transport, access & home\nAbout SG15\nSG17 - Security\nAbout SG17\nSG20 - IoT, digital twins & smart cities\nAbout SG20​\n​​​​\nSG21 - Multimedia, content delivery & cable TV\nAbout SG21\n​\nSave language (?)\nDisclaimer & Feedback\nPage Content 2\nPage Content 3\nPage Content 4\nPage Content 5\nPage Content 17\nPage Content 18\nPage Content 19\nPage Content 20\nRelated Groups\nTerminated Study Groups\nNews\nPage Content 11\nTelecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG)\nRegional Groups\nStandardization Committee for Vocabulary (SCV)\nTSB Director's IPR Ad hoc Group​\n​\nExternal Cooperation\n​\nPage Content 12\n​​​​\nStudy Group 4\nStudy Group 6\nStudy Group 7\nStudy Group 8\n​​\nStudy Group 9\n​​\nStudy Group 10\nStudy Group 16​\n​​\nStudy Group 19\nSSG\n​​​​\nPage Content 13\nPrevious Study Periods\nPage Content 15\n​​\nStudy Period 2022-2024​​\n​​\nStudy Period 2017-2021​​\n​​\nStudy Period 2013-2016\n​​\nStudy Period 2009-2012\n​​\nStudy Period 2005-2008\nStudy Period 2001-2004\nStudy Period 1997-2000\n​​​\nPage Content 6\nPage Content 7\nPage Content 8\nPage Content 14\nPage Content 16\nFollow us\nTwitter\nFacebook\nYouTube\nFlickr\nLinkedin\nInstagram\nSoundcloud\nPodcasts\nSpotify\nSpreaker\nTikTok\n© ITU\nAll Rights Reserved\nContact us\nTerms of Use\nPrivacy notice\nAccessibility\nReport misconduct\nBack to top", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 2281, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 2, "word_count": 362}}], "published_at": "2025-07-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "medium", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2025-07-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "medium", "raw_text": "ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)", "notes": "Year found in title: 'ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)'"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "f09e61fd-0fb5-4a72-8c2c-4ea2f93f69e6", "source_id": "692c1aeff90195e4e2899e7c", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8890", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8890/", "artifact_sha256": "efa84f3e75e00bd15ecdbd871fc319e35b1bf219a528706ee81202482c592562", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 232573, "title": "RFC 8890: The Internet is for End Users | RFC Editor", "language": "en", "text_length": 21582, "characters": 21582, "text": "RFC 8890: The Internet is for End Users | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 8890\nInfo\nRFC\n8890\n:\nThe Internet is for End Users\nM. Nottingham\nInformational\nAbstract\nThis document explains why the IAB believes that, when there is a\nconflict between the interests of end users of the Internet and other\nparties, IETF decisions should favor end users. It also explores how\nthe IETF can more effectively achieve this.\n¶\nStatus of This Memo\nThis document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is\npublished for informational purposes.\n¶\nThis document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board\n(IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable\nto provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet\nArchitecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication\nby the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see\nSection 2 of RFC 7841.\n¶\nInformation about the current status of this document, any\nerrata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8890\n.\n¶\nCopyright Notice\nCopyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n¶\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttps://\ntrustee\n.ietf\n.org\n/license\n-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with\nrespect to this document.\n¶\n1.\nIntroduction\nMany who participate in the IETF are most comfortable making what we\nbelieve to be purely technical decisions; our process\nfavors technical merit through our well-known mantra of \"rough consensus\nand running code.\"\n¶\nNevertheless, the running code that results from our process (when\nthings work well) inevitably has an impact beyond technical\nconsiderations, because the underlying decisions afford some uses while\ndiscouraging others. While we believe we are making only technical\ndecisions, in reality, we are defining (in some degree) what is possible\non the Internet itself.\n¶\nThis impact has become significant. As the Internet increasingly\nmediates essential functions in societies, it has unavoidably become\nprofoundly political; it has helped people overthrow governments,\nrevolutionize social orders, swing elections, control populations,\ncollect data about individuals, and reveal secrets. It has created\nwealth for some individuals and companies while destroying that of others.\n¶\nAll of this raises the question: For whom do we go through the pain\nof gathering rough consensus and writing running code?\n¶\nAfter all, there are a variety of parties that standards can benefit,\nsuch as (but not limited to) end users, network operators, schools,\nequipment vendors, specification authors, specification implementers,\ncontent owners, governments, nongovernmental organizations, social\nmovements, employers, and parents.\n¶\nSuccessful specifications will provide some benefit to all the\nrelevant parties because standards do not represent a zero-sum\ngame. However, there are sometimes situations where there is a conflict\nbetween the needs of two (or more) parties.\n¶\nIn these situations, when one of those parties is an \"end user\" of\nthe Internet -- for example, a person using a web browser, mail client,\nor another agent that connects to the Internet -- the Internet\nArchitecture Board argues that the IETF should favor their interests\nover those of other parties.\n¶\nSection 2\nexplains what is meant by \"end\nusers\",\nSection 3\noutlines why IETF work\nshould prioritize them, and\nSection 4\ndescribes how we can do that.\n¶\n2.\nWho Are \"End Users\"?\nIn this document, \"end users\" means human users whose activities\nIETF standards support, sometimes\nindirectly. Thus, the end user of a protocol to manage routers is not a\nrouter administrator; it is the people using the network that the router\noperates within.\n¶\nEnd users are not necessarily a homogenous group; they might have\ndifferent views of how the Internet should work and might occupy\nseveral roles, such as a seller, buyer, publisher, reader, service\nprovider, and consumer. An end user might browse the Web, monitor\nremote equipment, play a game, videoconference with colleagues,\nsend messages to friends, or perform an operation in a remote\nsurgery theater. They might be \"at the keyboard\" or represented by\nsoftware indirectly (e.g., as a daemon).\n¶\nLikewise, an individual end user might have many interests (e.g.,\nprivacy, security, flexibility, reachability) that are sometimes in\ntension.\n¶\nA person whose interests we need to consider might not directly be\nusing a specific system connected to the Internet. For example, if a\nchild is using a browser, the interests of that child's parents or\nguardians may be relevant. A person pictured in a photograph may have an\ninterest in systems that process that photograph; a person entering a\nroom with sensors that send data to the Internet may have interests that may\nbe involved in our deliberations about how those sensor readings are\nhandled.\n¶\nWhile such less-direct interactions between people and the Internet\nmay be harder to evaluate, this document's concept of \"end user\"\nnonetheless includes such people.\n¶\n3.\nWhy the IETF Should Prioritize End Users\nEven before the IETF was established, the Internet technical\ncommunity has focused on user needs since at least\n[\nRFC0001\n]\n, which stated that \"One of our goals\nmust be to stimulate the immediate and easy use by a wide class of\nusers.\"\n¶\nAnd, while we specialize in technical matters, the IETF is not\nneutral about the purpose of its work in developing the Internet; in \"A\nMission Statement for the IETF\"\n[\nRFC3935\n]\n, the definitions include:\n¶\nThe IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we\nbelieve that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on economics,\ncommunication, and education, will help us to build a better human\nsociety.\n¶\nLater, in \"The Scope of the Internet\" (\nSection 4.1\nof [\nRFC3935\n]\n),\nit says:\n¶\nThe Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want\nthe Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to\nopenness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized\ncontrol, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those\nconcepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts\nhave little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the\ntechnology that we choose to create.\n¶\nIn other words, the IETF develops and maintains\nthe Internet to promote the social good. The society that the IETF\nis attempting to enhance is composed of end users, along with groups of\nthem forming businesses, governments, clubs, civil society\norganizations, and other institutions.\n¶\nMerely advancing the measurable success of the Internet (e.g.,\ndeployment size, bandwidth, latency, number of users) is not an adequate\ngoal; doing so ignores how technology is so often used as a lever to\nassert power over users, rather than empower them.\n¶\nBeyond fulfilling the IETF's mission, prioritizing end users can also\nhelp to ensure the long-term health of the Internet and the IETF's\nrelevance to it. Perceptions of capture by vendors or other providers\nharm both; the IETF's work will (deservedly) lose end users' trust if it\nprioritizes (or is perceived to prioritize) others' interests over\nthem.\n¶\nUltimately, the Internet will succeed or fail based upon the actions\nof its end users, because they are the driving force behind its growth\nto date. Not prioritizing them jeopardizes the network effect that the\nInternet relies upon to provide so much value.\n¶\n4.\nHow the IETF Can Prioritize End Users\nThere are a few ways that the IAB believes the IETF community can\nprioritize end users, based upon our observations. This\nis not a complete list.\n¶\n4.1.\nEngaging the Internet Community\nThe IETF community does not have any unique insight into what is\n\"good for end users\", and it is not uncommon for us to be at a further\ndisadvantage because of our close understanding of some -- but not all\n-- aspects of the Internet.\n¶\nAt the same time, we have a culture of considerable deference to\na broader \"Internet community\" -- roughly what this document calls end\nusers -- in our decision-making processes. Mere deference, however, is\nnot adequate; even with the best intentions, we cannot assume that our\nexperiences of the Internet are those of all of its end users or that\nour decisions have a positive impact upon them.\n¶\nTherefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyze and\nconsider the impacts of the IETF's work, but also a responsibility to\nconsult with that greater Internet community. In particular, we should\ndo so when one of our decisions has a potential impact upon end\nusers.\n¶\nThe IETF community faces significant hurdles in doing so. Our work\nis specialized and often esoteric, and processes for developing\nstandards often involve very long timescales. Affected parties are\nrarely technical experts, and they often base their understanding of the Internet\nupon incomplete (and sometimes inaccurate) models. Often,\neven when we try to engage a broader audience, their participation is\nminimal -- until a change affects someone in a way they don't\nlike. Surprising the Internet community is rarely a good outcome.\n¶\nGovernment\n-sponsored individuals sometimes participate in the IETF\ncommunity. While this is welcome, it should not be taken as\nautomatically representative of end users elsewhere, or even all end\nusers in the relevant jurisdiction. Furthermore, what is desirable in\none jurisdiction (or at least to its administrators) might be\ndetrimental in others (see\nSection 4.4\n).\n¶\nWhile some civil society organizations specialize in technology and\nInternet policy, they rarely can\nparticipate broadly, nor are they necessarily representative of the\nlarger Internet community. Nevertheless, their understanding of\nend-user needs is often profound, and they are in many ways the\nbest-informed advocates for end-user concerns; they should be\nconsidered a primary channel for engaging the broader Internet\ncommunity.\n¶\nA promising approach to help fill these gaps is to identify and\nengage with specifically affected communities when making decisions\nthat might affect them, for example, one or more industry\nassociations, user groups, or a set of individuals, though we can't\nformally ensure that they are appropriately representative.\n¶\nIn doing so, we should not require them to \"come to us\"; unless a\nstakeholder community is already engaged in the IETF process\neffectively, the IETF community should explore how to meet with them\non their terms -- take the initiative to contact them, explain our\nwork, and solicit their feedback.\n¶\nIn particular, while IAB workshops, BOFs, and Bar BOFs can be an\neffective mechanism to gather input within our community, they rarely\nhave the visibility into other communities that is required to\nsolicit input, much less effective participation.\n¶\nInstead, an event like a workshop may be more effective if\nco-located with -- and ideally hosted or co-hosted by -- a forum that's\nfamiliar to that stakeholder community. We should also\nraise the visibility of IETF work (or potential IETF\nwork) in such fora through conference talks, panels, newsletter\narticles, etc.\n¶\nFor example, the IAB ESCAPE workshop\n[\nRFC8752\n]\nsolicited input from Internet\npublishers and advertisers about a proposal that might affect them.\nWhile the workshop was considered successful,\nparticipation might have been improved by identifying an appropriate\nindustry forum and working with them to host the event.\n¶\nWhen we engage with the Internet community, we should also clearly\nidentify tailored feedback mechanisms (e.g., subscribing to a mailing\nlist may not be appropriate) and assure that they are well known in\nthose communities.\n¶\nThe Internet Society can be an invaluable partner in these efforts;\ntheir focus on the Internet community, policy expertise, and resources\ncan help to facilitate discussions with the appropriate parties.\n¶\nFinally, we should remember that the RFC Series contains Requests For\nComments; if there are serious implications of our work, we should\ndocument them and ask for feedback from the Internet community.\n¶\n4.2.\nCreating User-Focused Systems\nWe should pay particular attention to the kinds of architectures we\ncreate and whether they encourage or discourage an Internet that\nworks for end users.\n¶\nFor example, one of the most successful Internet applications is\nthe Web, which uses the HTTP application protocol. One of HTTP's key\nimplementation roles is that of the web browser -- called the \"user\nagent\" in\n[\nRFC7230\n]\nand other\nspecifications.\n¶\nUser agents act as intermediaries between a service and the end\nuser; rather than downloading an executable program from a service\nthat has arbitrary access into the users' system, the user agent only\nallows limited access to display content and run code in a sandboxed\nenvironment. End users are diverse and the ability of a few user\nagents to represent individual interests properly is imperfect, but\nthis arrangement is an improvement over the alternative -- the need to\ntrust a website completely with all information on your system to\nbrowse it.\n¶\nDefining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous\ncycle; it allows multiple implementations\n, allowing end users\nto switch between them with relatively low costs (although there are\nconcerns about the complexity of the Web creating barriers to entry\nfor new implementations\n). This creates an incentive for implementers\nto consider the users' needs carefully, which are often reflected into\nthe defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has many\nremaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an\nopportunity to improve it.\n¶\nIn contrast, the Internet of Things (IoT) has not yet seen the\nbroad adoption of a similar role; many current systems require opaque,\nvendor-specific software or hardware for the user-facing\ncomponent. Perhaps as a result of this, that ecosystem and its end\nusers face serious challenges.\n¶\n4.3.\nIdentifying Negative End-User Impact\nAt its best, our work will unambiguously build a better human\nsociety. Sometimes, we will consciously be neutral and\nopen-ended, allowing the \"tussle\" among stakeholders to produce a\nrange of results (see\n[\nTUSSLE\n]\nfor\nfurther discussion).\n¶\nAt the very least, however, we must examine our work for negative\nimpact on end users and take steps to mitigate it where\nencountered. In particular, when we've identified a conflict between\nthe interests of end users and other stakeholders, we should err on\nthe side of protecting end users.\n¶\nNote that \"negative impact on end users\" is not defined in this\ndocument; that is something that the relevant body (e.g., working\ngroup) needs to discuss and come to consensus on. Merely asserting\nthat something is harmful is not adequate. The converse is also true,\nthough; it's not good practice to avoid identifying harms, nor is it\nacceptable to ignore them when brought to our attention.\n¶\nThe IAB and IETF have already established a body of guidance for\nsituations where this conflict is common, including (but not\nlimited to)\n[\nRFC7754\n]\non filtering,\n[\nRFC7258\n]\nand\n[\nRFC7624\n]\non pervasive surveillance,\n[\nRFC7288\n]\non host firewalls, and\n[\nRFC6973\n]\nregarding privacy considerations.\n¶\nMuch of that advice has focused on maintaining the end-to-end\nproperties of a connection\n[\nRFC3724\n]\n. This does not mean that our responsibility to end\nusers stops there; decisions might affect them in other ways. For\nexample, data collection by various applications even inside otherwise\nsecure connections is a major problem on the Internet today. Also,\ninappropriate concentration of power on the Internet has become a\nconcerning phenomenon -- one that protocol design might have some\ninfluence upon.\n¶\n4.4.\nHandling Conflicting End-User Needs\nWhen the needs of different end users conflict (for example, two\nsets of end users both have reasonable desires), we again should try to\nminimize negative impact.\n¶\nFor example, when a decision improves the Internet for end users in\none jurisdiction, but at the cost of potential harm to others\nelsewhere, that is not a good trade-off. As such, we design\nthe Internet for the pessimal environment; if a user can be harmed,\nthey probably will be, somewhere.\n¶\nThere may be cases where genuine technical need requires\ncompromise. However, such trade-offs are carefully examined and avoided\nwhen there are alternate means of achieving the desired goals. If they\ncannot be, these choices and reasoning ought to be thoroughly\ndocumented.\n¶\n4.5.\nDeprioritizing Internal Needs\nThere are several needs that are very visible to us as\nspecification authors but should explicitly not be prioritized over\nthe needs of end users.\n¶\nThese include convenience for document editors, IETF process\nmatters, and \"architectural purity\" for its own sake.\n¶\n5.\nIANA Considerations\nThis document has no IANA actions.\n¶\n6.\nSecurity Considerations\nThis document does not have any direct security impact; however,\nfailing to prioritize end users might well affect their security\nnegatively in the long term.\n¶\n7.\nInformative References\n[RFC0001]\nCrocker, S.\n,\n\"Host Software\"\n,\nRFC 1\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0001\n,\nApril 1969\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1\n>\n.\n[RFC3724]\nKempf, J., Ed.\n, Austein, R., Ed.\n, and IAB\n,\n\"The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture\"\n,\nRFC 3724\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3724\n,\nMarch 2004\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3724\n>\n.\n[RFC3935]\nAlvestrand, H.\n,\n\"A Mission Statement for the IETF\"\n,\nBCP 95\n,\nRFC 3935\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3935\n,\nOctober 2004\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3935\n>\n.\n[RFC6973]\nCooper, A.\n, Tschofenig, H.\n, Aboba, B.\n, Peterson, J.\n, Morris, J.\n, Hansen, M.\n, and R. Smith\n,\n\"Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\"\n,\nRFC 6973\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6973\n,\nJuly 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6973\n>\n.\n[RFC7230]\nFielding, R., Ed.\nand J. Reschke, Ed.\n,\n\"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing\"\n,\nRFC 7230\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7230\n,\nJune 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7230\n>\n.\n[RFC7258]\nFarrell, S.\nand H. Tschofenig\n,\n\"Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\"\n,\nBCP 188\n,\nRFC 7258\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7258\n,\nMay 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7258\n>\n.\n[RFC7288]\nThaler, D.\n,\n\"Reflections on Host Firewalls\"\n,\nRFC 7288\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7288\n,\nJune 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7288\n>\n.\n[RFC7624]\nBarnes, R.\n, Schneier, B.\n, Jennings, C.\n, Hardie, T.\n, Trammell, B.\n, Huitema, C.\n, and D. Borkmann\n,\n\"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A Threat Model and Problem Statement\"\n,\nRFC 7624\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7624\n,\nAugust 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7624\n>\n.\n[RFC7754]\nBarnes, R.\n, Cooper, A.\n, Kolkman, O.\n, Thaler, D.\n, and E. Nordmark\n,\n\"Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering\"\n,\nRFC 7754\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7754\n,\nMarch 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7754\n>\n.\n[RFC8752]\nThomson, M.\nand M. Nottingham\n,\n\"Report from the IAB Workshop on Exploring Synergy between Content Aggregation and the Publisher Ecosystem (ESCAPE)\"\n,\nRFC 8752\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8752\n,\nMarch 2020\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8752\n>\n.\n[TUSSLE]\nClark, D.\n, Sollins, K.\n, Wroclawski, J.\n, and R. Braden\n,\n\"Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet\"\n,\nDOI 10\n.1145\n/633025\n.633059\n,\nAugust 2002\n,\n<\nhttps://\ngroups\n.csail\n.mit\n.edu\n/ana\n/Publications\n/Pub\nPDFs\n/Tussle2002\n.pdf\n>\n.\nIAB Members at the Time of Approval\nInternet Architecture Board members at the time this document was approved\nfor publication were:\n¶\nJari Arkko\n¶\nAlissa Cooper\n¶\nStephen Farrell\n¶\nWes Hardaker\n¶\nTed Hardie\n¶\nChristian Huitema\n¶\nZhenbin Li\n¶\nErik Nordmark\n¶\nMark Nottingham\n¶\nMelinda Shore\n¶\nJeff Tantsura\n¶\nMartin Thomson\n¶\nBrian Trammell\n¶\nAcknowledgements\nMany discussions influenced this document, both inside and\noutside of the IETF and IAB. In particular,\nEdward Snowden\n's comments regarding the priority of end users at IETF 93 and\nthe HTML5 Priority of Constituencies were both influential.\n¶\nMany people gave feedback and input, including\nHarald Alvestrand\n,\nMohamed Boucadair\n,\nJoe Hildebrand\n,\nLee Howard\n,\nRuss Housley\n,\nNiels ten Oever\n,\nMando Rachovitsa\n,\nJohn Klensin\n, and\nEliot Lear\n.\n¶\nAuthor's Address\nMark Nottingham\nPrahran\nVIC\nAustralia\nEmail:\nmnot@mnot.net\nURI:\nhttps://\nwww\n.mnot\n.net\n/\nRFC\n8890\n: The Internet is for End Users\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n1\nIn this section\n1 Introduction\n2 Who Are \"End Users\"?\n3 Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users\n4 How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users\n4.1 Engaging the Internet Community\n4.2 Creating User-Focused Systems\n4.3 Identifying Negative End-User Impact\n4.4 Handling Conflicting End-User Needs\n4.5 Deprioritizing Internal Needs\n5 IANA Considerations\n6 Security Considerations\n7 Informative References\nIAB Members at the Time of Approval\nAcknowledgements\nAuthor's Address\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "segments": [{"segment_id": "b66ad84c-f5a6-468b-a668-31578979a580", "document_id": "f09e61fd-0fb5-4a72-8c2c-4ea2f93f69e6", "ordinal": 0, "text": "RFC 8890: The Internet is for End Users | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nPrimary navigation\nThe RFC Series\nFor Authors\nAbout Us\nHome\nRFC 8890\nInfo\nRFC\n8890\n:\nThe Internet is for End Users\nM. Nottingham\nInformational\nAbstract\nThis document explains why the IAB believes that, when there is a\nconflict between the interests of end users of the Internet and other\nparties, IETF decisions should favor end users. It also explores how\nthe IETF can more effectively achieve this.\n¶\nStatus of This Memo\nThis document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is\npublished for informational purposes.\n¶\nThis document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board\n(IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable\nto provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet\nArchitecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication\nby the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see\nSection 2 of RFC 7841.\n¶\nInformation about the current status of this document, any\nerrata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8890\n.\n¶\nCopyright Notice\nCopyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the\ndocument authors. All rights reserved.\n¶\nThis document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal\nProvisions Relating to IETF Documents\n(\nhttps://\ntrustee\n.ietf\n.org\n/license\n-info\n) in effect on the date of\npublication of this document. Please review these documents\ncarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with\nrespect to this document.\n¶\n1.\nIntroduction\nMany who participate in the IETF are most comfortable making what we\nbelieve to be purely technical decisions; our process\nfavors technical merit through our well-known mantra of \"rough consensus\nand running code.\"\n¶\nNevertheless, the running code that results from our process (when\nthings work well) inevitably has an impact beyond technical\nconsiderations, because the underlying decisions afford some uses while\ndiscouraging others. While we believe we are making only technical\ndecisions, in reality, we are defining (in some degree) what is possible\non the Internet itself.\n¶\nThis impact has become significant. As the Internet increasingly\nmediates essential functions in societies, it has unavoidably become\nprofoundly political; it has helped people overthrow governments,\nrevolutionize social orders, swing elections, control populations,\ncollect data about individuals, and reveal secrets. It has created\nwealth for some individuals and companies while destroying that of others.\n¶\nAll of this raises the question: For whom do we go through the pain\nof gathering rough consensus and writing running code?\n¶\nAfter all, there are a variety of parties that standards can benefit,\nsuch as (but not limited to) end users, network operators, schools,\nequipment vendors, specification authors, specification implementers,\ncontent owners, governments, nongovernmental organizations, social\nmovements, employers, and parents.\n¶\nSuccessful specifications will provide some benefit to all the\nrelevant parties because standards do not represent a zero-sum\ngame. However, there are sometimes situations where there is a conflict\nbetween the needs of two (or more) parties.\n¶\nIn these situations, when one of those parties is an \"end user\" of\nthe Internet -- for example, a person using a web browser, mail client,\nor another agent that connects to the Internet -- the Internet\nArchitecture Board argues that the IETF should favor their interests\nover those of other parties.\n¶\nSection 2\nexplains what is meant by \"end\nusers\",\nSection 3\noutlines why IETF work\nshould prioritize them, and\nSection 4\ndescribes how we can do that.\n¶\n2.\nWho Are \"End Users\"?\nIn this document, \"end users\" means human users whose activities\nIETF standards support, sometimes\nindirectly. Thus, the end user of a protocol to manage routers is not a\nrouter administrator; it is the people using the network that the router\noperates within.\n¶\nEnd users are not necessarily a homogenous group; they might have\ndifferent views of how the Internet should work and might occupy\nseveral roles, such as a seller, buyer, publisher, reader, service\nprovider, and consumer. An end user might browse the Web, monitor\nremote equipment, play a game, videoconference with colleagues,\nsend messages to friends, or perform an operation in a remote\nsurgery theater. They might be \"at the keyboard\" or represented by\nsoftware indirectly (e.g., as a daemon).\n¶\nLikewise, an individual end user might have many interests (e.g.,\nprivacy, security, flexibility, reachability) that are sometimes in\ntension.\n¶\nA person whose interests we need to consider might not directly be\nusing a specific system connected to the Internet. For example, if a\nchild is using a browser, the interests of that child's parents or\nguardians may be relevant. A person pictured in a photograph may have an\ninterest in systems that process that photograph; a person entering a\nroom with sensors that send data to the Internet may have interests that may\nbe involved in our deliberations about how those sensor readings are\nhandled.\n¶\nWhile such less-direct interactions between people and the Internet\nmay be harder to evaluate, this document's concept of \"end user\"\nnonetheless includes such people.\n¶\n3.\nWhy the IETF Should Prioritize End Users\nEven before the IETF was established, the Internet technical\ncommunity has focused on user needs since at least\n[\nRFC0001\n]\n, which stated that \"One of our goals\nmust be to stimulate the immediate and easy use by a wide class of\nusers.\"\n¶\nAnd, while we specialize in technical matters, the IETF is not\nneutral about the purpose of its work in developing the Internet; in \"A\nMission Statement for the IETF\"\n[\nRFC3935\n]\n, the definitions include:\n¶\nThe IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we\nbelieve that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on economics,\ncommunication, and education, will help us to build a better human\nsociety.\n¶\nLater, in \"The Scope of the Internet\" (\nSection 4.1\nof [\nRFC3935\n]\n),\nit says:\n¶\nThe Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want\nthe Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to\nopenness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized\ncontrol, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those\nconcepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts\nhave little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the\ntechnology that we choose to create.\n¶\nIn other words, the IETF develops and maintains\nthe Internet to promote the social good. The society that the IETF\nis attempting to enhance is composed of end users, along with groups of\nthem forming businesses, governments, clubs, civil society\norganizations, and other institutions.\n¶\nMerely advancing the measurable success of the Internet (e.g.,\ndeployment size, bandwidth, latency, number of users) is not an adequate\ngoal; doing so ignores how technology is so often used as a lever to\nassert power over users, rather than empower them.\n¶\nBeyond fulfilling the IETF's mission, prioritizing end users can also\nhelp to ensure the long-term health of the Internet and the IETF's\nrelevance to it. Perceptions of capture by vendors or other providers\nharm both; the IETF's work will (deservedly) lose end users' trust if it\nprioritizes (or is perceived to prioritize) others' interests over\nthem.\n¶\nUltimately, the Internet will succeed or fail based upon the actions\nof its end users, because they are the driving force behind its growth\nto date. Not prioritizing them jeopardizes the network effect that the\nInternet relies upon to provide so much value.\n¶\n4.\nHow the IETF Can Prioritize End Users\nThere are a few ways that the IAB believes the IETF community can\nprioritize end users, based upon our observations. This\nis not a complete list.\n¶\n4.1.\nEngaging the Internet Community\nThe IETF community does not have any unique insight into what is\n\"good for end users\", and it is not uncommon for us to be at a further\ndisadvantage because of our close understanding of some -- but not all\n-- aspects of the Internet.\n¶\nAt the same time, we have a culture of considerable deference to\na broader \"Internet community\" -- roughly what this document calls end\nusers -- in our decision-making processes. Mere deference, however, is\nnot adequate; even with the best intentions, we cannot assume that our\nexperiences of the Internet are those of all of its end users or that\nour decisions have a positive impact upon them.\n¶\nTherefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyze and\nconsider the impacts of the IETF's work, but also a responsibility to\nconsult with that greater Internet community. In particular, we should\ndo so when one of our decisions has a potential impact upon end\nusers.\n¶\nThe IETF community faces significant hurdles in doing so. Our work\nis specialized and often esoteric, and processes for developing\nstandards often involve very long timescales. Affected parties are\nrarely technical experts, and they often base their understanding of the Internet\nupon incomplete (and sometimes inaccurate) models. Often,\neven when we try to engage a broader audience, their participation is\nminimal -- until a change affects someone in a way they don't\nlike. Surprising the Internet community is rarely a good outcome.\n¶\nGovernment\n-sponsored individuals sometimes participate in the IETF\ncommunity. While this is welcome, it should not be taken as\nautomatically representative of end users elsewhere, or even all end\nusers in the relevant jurisdiction. Furthermore, what is desirable in\none jurisdiction (or at least to its administrators) might be\ndetrimental in others (see\nSection 4.4\n).\n¶\nWhile some civil society organizations specialize in technology and\nInternet policy, they rarely can\nparticipate broadly, nor are they necessarily representative of the\nlarger Internet community. Nevertheless, their understanding of\nend-user needs is often profound, and they are in many ways the\nbest-informed advocates for end-user concerns; they should be\nconsidered a primary channel for engaging the broader Internet\ncommunity.\n¶\nA promising approach to help fill these gaps is to identify and\nengage with specifically affected communities when making decisions\nthat might affect them, for example, one or more industry\nassociations, user groups, or a set of individuals, though we can't\nformally ensure that they are appropriately representative.\n¶\nIn doing so, we should not require them to \"come to us\"; unless a\nstakeholder community is already engaged in the IETF process\neffectively, the IETF community should explore how to meet with them\non their terms -- take the initiative to contact them, explain our\nwork, and solicit their feedback.\n¶\nIn particular, while IAB workshops, BOFs, and Bar BOFs can be an\neffective mechanism to gather input within our community, they rarely\nhave the visibility into other communities that is required to\nsolicit input, much less effective participation.\n¶\nInstead, an event like a workshop may be more effective if\nco-located with -- and ideally hosted or co-hosted by -- a forum that's\nfamiliar to that stakeholder community. We should also\nraise the visibility of IETF work (or potential IETF\nwork) in such fora through conference talks, panels, newsletter\narticles, etc.\n¶\nFor example, the IAB ESCAPE workshop\n[\nRFC8752\n]\nsolicited input from Internet\npublishers and advertisers about a proposal that might affect them.\nWhile the workshop was considered successful,\nparticipation might have been improved by identifying an appropriate\nindustry forum and working with them to host the event.\n¶\nWhen we engage with the Internet community, we should also clearly\nidentify tailored feedback mechanisms (e.g., subscribing to a mailing\nlist may not be appropriate) and assure that they are well known in\nthose communities.\n¶\nThe Internet Society can be an invaluable partner in these efforts;\ntheir focus on the Internet community, policy expertise, and resources\ncan help to facilitate discussions with the appropriate parties.\n¶\nFinally, we should remember that the RFC Series contains Requests For\nComments; if there are serious implications of our work, we should\ndocument them and ask for feedback from the Internet community.\n¶\n4.2.\nCreating User-Focused Systems\nWe should pay particular attention to the kinds of architectures we\ncreate and whether they encourage or discourage an Internet that\nworks for end users.\n¶\nFor example, one of the most successful Internet applications is\nthe Web, which uses the HTTP application protocol. One of HTTP's key\nimplementation roles is that of the web browser -- called the \"user\nagent\" in\n[\nRFC7230\n]\nand other\nspecifications.\n¶\nUser agents act as intermediaries between a service and the end\nuser; rather than downloading an executable program from a service\nthat has arbitrary access into the users' system, the user agent only\nallows limited access to display content and run code in a sandboxed\nenvironment. End users are diverse and the ability of a few user\nagents to represent individual interests properly is imperfect, but\nthis arrangement is an improvement over the alternative -- the need to\ntrust a website completely with all information on your system to\nbrowse it.\n¶\nDefining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous\ncycle; it allows multiple implementations\n, allowing end users\nto switch between them with relatively low costs (although there are\nconcerns about the complexity of the Web creating barriers to entry\nfor new implementations\n). This creates an incentive for implementers\nto consider the users' needs carefully, which are often reflected into\nthe defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has many\nremaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an\nopportunity to improve it.\n¶\nIn contrast, the Internet of Things (IoT) has not yet seen the\nbroad adoption of a similar role; many current systems require opaque,\nvendor-specific software or hardware for the user-facing\ncomponent. Perhaps as a result of this, that ecosystem and its end\nusers face serious challenges.\n¶\n4.3.\nIdentifying Negative End-User Impact\nAt its best, our work will unambiguously build a better human\nsociety. Sometimes, we will consciously be neutral and\nopen-ended, allowing the \"tussle\" among stakeholders to produce a\nrange of results (see\n[\nTUSSLE\n]\nfor\nfurther discussion).\n¶\nAt the very least, however, we must examine our work for negative\nimpact on end users and take steps to mitigate it where\nencountered. In particular, when we've identified a conflict between\nthe interests of end users and other stakeholders, we should err on\nthe side of protecting end users.\n¶\nNote that \"negative impact on end users\" is not defined in this\ndocument; that is something that the relevant body (e.g., working\ngroup) needs to discuss and come to consensus on. Merely asserting\nthat something is harmful is not adequate. The converse is also true,\nthough; it's not good practice to avoid identifying harms, nor is it\nacceptable to ignore them when brought to our attention.\n¶\nThe IAB and IETF have already established a body of guidance for\nsituations where this conflict is common, including (but not\nlimited to)\n[\nRFC7754\n]\non filtering,\n[\nRFC7258\n]\nand\n[\nRFC7624\n]\non pervasive surveillance,\n[\nRFC7288\n]\non host firewalls, and\n[\nRFC6973\n]\nregarding privacy considerations.\n¶\nMuch of that advice has focused on maintaining the end-to-end\nproperties of a connection\n[\nRFC3724\n]\n. This does not mean that our responsibility to end\nusers stops there; decisions might affect them in other ways. For\nexample, data collection by various applications even inside otherwise\nsecure connections is a major problem on the Internet today. Also,\ninappropriate concentration of power on the Internet has become a\nconcerning phenomenon -- one that protocol design might have some\ninfluence upon.\n¶\n4.4.\nHandling Conflicting End-User Needs\nWhen the needs of different end users conflict (for example, two\nsets of end users both have reasonable desires), we again should try to\nminimize negative impact.\n¶\nFor example, when a decision improves the Internet for end users in\none jurisdiction, but at the cost of potential harm to others\nelsewhere, that is not a good trade-off. As such, we design\nthe Internet for the pessimal environment; if a user can be harmed,\nthey probably will be, somewhere.\n¶\nThere may be cases where genuine technical need requires\ncompromise. However, such trade-offs are carefully examined and avoided\nwhen there are alternate means of achieving the desired goals. If they\ncannot be, these choices and reasoning ought to be thoroughly\ndocumented.\n¶\n4.5.\nDeprioritizing Internal Needs\nThere are several needs that are very visible to us as\nspecification authors but should explicitly not be prioritized over\nthe needs of end users.\n¶\nThese include convenience for document editors, IETF process\nmatters, and \"architectural purity\" for its own sake.\n¶\n5.\nIANA Considerations\nThis document has no IANA actions.\n¶\n6.\nSecurity Considerations\nThis document does not have any direct security impact; however,\nfailing to prioritize end users might well affect their security\nnegatively in the long term.\n¶\n7.\nInformative References\n[RFC0001]\nCrocker, S.\n,\n\"Host Software\"\n,\nRFC 1\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC0001\n,\nApril 1969\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc1\n>\n.\n[RFC3724]\nKempf, J., Ed.\n, Austein, R., Ed.\n, and IAB\n,\n\"The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture\"\n,\nRFC 3724\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3724\n,\nMarch 2004\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3724\n>\n.\n[RFC3935]\nAlvestrand, H.\n,\n\"A Mission Statement for the IETF\"\n,\nBCP 95\n,\nRFC 3935\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC3935\n,\nOctober 2004\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc3935\n>\n.\n[RFC6973]\nCooper, A.\n, Tschofenig, H.\n, Aboba, B.\n, Peterson, J.\n, Morris, J.\n, Hansen, M.\n, and R. Smith\n,\n\"Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols\"\n,\nRFC 6973\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC6973\n,\nJuly 2013\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc6973\n>\n.\n[RFC7230]\nFielding, R., Ed.\nand J. Reschke, Ed.\n,\n\"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing\"\n,\nRFC 7230\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7230\n,\nJune 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7230\n>\n.\n[RFC7258]\nFarrell, S.\nand H. Tschofenig\n,\n\"Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack\"\n,\nBCP 188\n,\nRFC 7258\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7258\n,\nMay 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7258\n>\n.\n[RFC7288]\nThaler, D.\n,\n\"Reflections on Host Firewalls\"\n,\nRFC 7288\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7288\n,\nJune 2014\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7288\n>\n.\n[RFC7624]\nBarnes, R.\n, Schneier, B.\n, Jennings, C.\n, Hardie, T.\n, Trammell, B.\n, Huitema, C.\n, and D. Borkmann\n,\n\"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A Threat Model and Problem Statement\"\n,\nRFC 7624\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7624\n,\nAugust 2015\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7624\n>\n.\n[RFC7754]\nBarnes, R.\n, Cooper, A.\n, Kolkman, O.\n, Thaler, D.\n, and E. Nordmark\n,\n\"Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering\"\n,\nRFC 7754\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC7754\n,\nMarch 2016\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc7754\n>\n.\n[RFC8752]\nThomson, M.\nand M. Nottingham\n,\n\"Report from the IAB Workshop on Exploring Synergy between Content Aggregation and the Publisher Ecosystem (ESCAPE)\"\n,\nRFC 8752\n,\nDOI 10\n.17487\n/RFC8752\n,\nMarch 2020\n,\n<\nhttps://\nwww\n.rfc\n-editor\n.org\n/info\n/rfc8752\n>\n.\n[TUSSLE]\nClark, D.\n, Sollins, K.\n, Wroclawski, J.\n, and R. Braden\n,\n\"Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet\"\n,\nDOI 10\n.1145\n/633025\n.633059\n,\nAugust 2002\n,\n<\nhttps://\ngroups\n.csail\n.mit\n.edu\n/ana\n/Publications\n/Pub\nPDFs\n/Tussle2002\n.pdf\n>\n.\nIAB Members at the Time of Approval\nInternet Architecture Board members at the time this document was approved\nfor publication were:\n¶\nJari Arkko\n¶\nAlissa Cooper\n¶\nStephen Farrell\n¶\nWes Hardaker\n¶\nTed Hardie\n¶\nChristian Huitema\n¶\nZhenbin Li\n¶\nErik Nordmark\n¶\nMark Nottingham\n¶\nMelinda Shore\n¶\nJeff Tantsura\n¶\nMartin Thomson\n¶\nBrian Trammell\n¶\nAcknowledgements\nMany discussions influenced this document, both inside and\noutside of the IETF and IAB. In particular,\nEdward Snowden\n's comments regarding the priority of end users at IETF 93 and\nthe HTML5 Priority of Constituencies were both influential.\n¶\nMany people gave feedback and input, including\nHarald Alvestrand\n,\nMohamed Boucadair\n,\nJoe Hildebrand\n,\nLee Howard\n,\nRuss Housley\n,\nNiels ten Oever\n,\nMando Rachovitsa\n,\nJohn Klensin\n, and\nEliot Lear\n.\n¶\nAuthor's Address\nMark Nottingham\nPrahran\nVIC\nAustralia\nEmail:\nmnot@mnot.net\nURI:\nhttps://\nwww\n.mnot\n.net\n/\nRFC\n8890\n: The Internet is for End Users\nInformational\nContents\nAbout this RFC\nErrata\n1\nIn this section\n1 Introduction\n2 Who Are \"End Users\"?\n3 Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users\n4 How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users\n4.1 Engaging the Internet Community\n4.2 Creating User-Focused Systems\n4.3 Identifying Negative End-User Impact\n4.4 Handling Conflicting End-User Needs\n4.5 Deprioritizing Internal Needs\n5 IANA Considerations\n6 Security Considerations\n7 Informative References\nIAB Members at the Time of Approval\nAcknowledgements\nAuthor's Address\nFooter\nrfc-editor.org is maintained by the\nInternet Engineering Task Force\nSystem Status\n·\nReport a Bug\n·\nVersion 1.76.1\nUseful links\nIETF.org\nIRTF.org\nIAB.org\nDatatracker\nAuthor Resources\nContact Us\nRFC Editor\nrfc-dist Info Page\nrfc-interest Info Page\nExpand sidebar", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 21582, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 18, "word_count": 3553}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "f0d315e3-816c-46f8-8b79-53edcf9829f0", "source_id": "9e093aacb0deae5481b8c428", "source": "ISOC", "source_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/", "final_url": "https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/", "artifact_sha256": "5ac97191bb867df3dbb65244dcc01c3e01c47fe8a92ebb44bcd663d3ecc1b03b", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 257409, "title": "About the Internet Society - Internet Society", "language": "en-US", "text_length": 3804, "characters": 3804, "text": "About the Internet Society - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nThe Internet Is\nfor Everyone.\nThis vision drives everything we do.\nInternet Is for Everyone.\nThis vision drives everything we do.\nWe are a global, community-driven nonprofit.\nTogether with our\nFoundation\n, we provide technical and policy expertise, infrastructure, funds, and skills training–key components of an accessible, reliable, and safe Internet.\nRooted in the origins of the Internet, we’re passionate about preserving the foundations on which it was built and developing its full potential.\nRead about our history\n.\nOur Work\nOur Work\nThe Internet is a transformative force. But not everyone benefits from it equally. 2.2 billion people still lack connectivity.\nAnd, increasingly, our online safety is threatened by the inability to trust that our personal information is in our control.\nThe stakes have never been higher.\nLearn About Our Work\nA Global Society\nA Global Society\nOur community is made up of people and organizations from around the world. Guided by\nour shared mission\n, together, we are shaping the future of the Internet.\nMembers\nSupporters who share our vision for an open and trusted Internet.\nChapters and SIGs\nConnectors who bring members together to make change at the local and global level.\nOrganization Members\nDoers who partner with us to achieve greater impact.\nStaff\nAdvocates who apply their talent, knowledge, and experience for an Internet for everyone.\nBoard of Trustees\nChampions who value our mission above all else, steering us in the right direction.\nInternet Ecosystem\nOrganizations such as PIR, IETF, and the Internet Society Foundation, which make our impact possible.\nWe can all help build an Internet for everyone.\nWe can all help build an Internet for everyone.\nAnyone can help protect, defend, and grow the Internet. Explore opportunities to help us advance our vision and make positive change.\nGet Involved\nWe can all help build an Internet for everyone.\nAnyone can help protect, defend, and grow the Internet. Explore opportunities to help us advance our vision and make positive change.\nGet Involved\nImage copyright:\n© Ed Mukoma/Internet Society Foundation, © Yurian Quintanas Nobel, © Chris Gregory, © Internet Society Niger Chapter, © DE-CIX, © Aubrey Attuquaye Korley, © Irene van Kessel, © Fundación PLAN © Nyani Quarmyne\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nX/Twitter\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "segments": [{"segment_id": "59e533d6-df8a-4004-9f8d-910e6f46de70", "document_id": "f0d315e3-816c-46f8-8b79-53edcf9829f0", "ordinal": 0, "text": "About the Internet Society - Internet Society\nSkip to content\nAbout Us\nMission\nBoard of Trustees\nCommunity\nTeam\nTransparency\n2026 Action Plan\nOur Work\nConnectivity\nHow the Internet Works\nInternet Governance\nInternet Policy\nPrivacy\nSecurity\nNews and Insights\nBlog\nNews\nImpact Stories\nResources\nGet Involved\nBecome an individual member\nBecome an organization member\nJoin a fellowship program\nTake a free online course\nAttend an event\nMember login\nen\nen\nfr\nes\nMore languages\nSearch\n×\n♥ Donate\nThe Internet Is\nfor Everyone.\nThis vision drives everything we do.\nInternet Is for Everyone.\nThis vision drives everything we do.\nWe are a global, community-driven nonprofit.\nTogether with our\nFoundation\n, we provide technical and policy expertise, infrastructure, funds, and skills training–key components of an accessible, reliable, and safe Internet.\nRooted in the origins of the Internet, we’re passionate about preserving the foundations on which it was built and developing its full potential.\nRead about our history\n.\nOur Work\nOur Work\nThe Internet is a transformative force. But not everyone benefits from it equally. 2.2 billion people still lack connectivity.\nAnd, increasingly, our online safety is threatened by the inability to trust that our personal information is in our control.\nThe stakes have never been higher.\nLearn About Our Work\nA Global Society\nA Global Society\nOur community is made up of people and organizations from around the world. Guided by\nour shared mission\n, together, we are shaping the future of the Internet.\nMembers\nSupporters who share our vision for an open and trusted Internet.\nChapters and SIGs\nConnectors who bring members together to make change at the local and global level.\nOrganization Members\nDoers who partner with us to achieve greater impact.\nStaff\nAdvocates who apply their talent, knowledge, and experience for an Internet for everyone.\nBoard of Trustees\nChampions who value our mission above all else, steering us in the right direction.\nInternet Ecosystem\nOrganizations such as PIR, IETF, and the Internet Society Foundation, which make our impact possible.\nWe can all help build an Internet for everyone.\nWe can all help build an Internet for everyone.\nAnyone can help protect, defend, and grow the Internet. Explore opportunities to help us advance our vision and make positive change.\nGet Involved\nWe can all help build an Internet for everyone.\nAnyone can help protect, defend, and grow the Internet. Explore opportunities to help us advance our vision and make positive change.\nGet Involved\nImage copyright:\n© Ed Mukoma/Internet Society Foundation, © Yurian Quintanas Nobel, © Chris Gregory, © Internet Society Niger Chapter, © DE-CIX, © Aubrey Attuquaye Korley, © Irene van Kessel, © Fundación PLAN © Nyani Quarmyne\nStay connected.\nGet news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.\nX/Twitter\nThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.\nEmail\n(Required)\nYou may opt out at any time.\nTerms and Conditions\nand\nPrivacy Policy\n.\nSecondary navigation\nOur Community\nMember sign-in\nIndividual members\nChapters\nSpecial interest groups (SIGs)\nOrganization members\nOur Ecosystem\nInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\nPublic Interest Registry (PIR)\nInternet Society Foundation\nInternet Society Pulse\nInternet Hall of Fame\nNDSS Symposium\nOur Resources\nAbout the Internet\nARPANET & the history of the Internet\nImpact stories\nResource library\nNewsroom\nBlog\nFollow Internet Society on LinkedIn\nFollow Internet Society on Facebook\nFollow Internet Society on Instagram\nFollow Internet Society on YouTube\nInternet Society RSS Feed\nCorporate links navigation\n© 2026 Internet Society |\nPrivacy Notice\n|\nTerms of Use\n|\nLegal\n|\nAnnual Reports and Financials\n|\nContact Us\n|\nCareers\n|\nFollow Us\n|\nAffiliated Sites", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 3804, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 3, "word_count": 596}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "f410ef7b-b69c-4521-9745-6bde1cb4e5a2", "source_id": "79ac7fc8ffddf93904cf6c5f", "source": "IETF", "source_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1211", "final_url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1211/", "artifact_sha256": "79ac7fc8ffddf93904cf6c5f73cd2c6d390f3a3dcd6bf284bd238f28a5b2df4e", "content_type": "text/html;charset=utf-8", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 384858, "title": "RFC 1211: Problems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists", "language": "en", "text_length": 91470, "characters": 91470, "text": "RFC 1211: Problems with the maintenance of large mailing lists | RFC Editor\nSkip to content\nInfo\nRFC\n1211\n:\nProblems with the maintenance of large mailing lists\nA. Westine\n,\nJ. Postel\nInformational\nNetwork Working Group                                         A. Westine\nRequest for Comments:  1211                                    J. Postel\n                                                                     ISI\n                                                              March 1991\nProblems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists\nStatus of this Memo\n\n   This RFC discusses problems with maintaining large mailing lists,\n   especially the processing of error reports.  This memo provides\n   information for the Internet community.  It does not specify an\n   Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.\n\nTable of Contents\n1\n.   Introduction..............................................\n1\n2\n.   Discussion................................................\n1\n3\n.   Typical Problems..........................................\n3\n3.1\n. Misdirected Error Reports.................................\n3\n3.2\n. Sublists..................................................\n3\n3.3\n. Misdirected Requests......................................\n5\n3.4\n. Misdirected Messages......................................\n5\n4\n.   Summary...................................................\n5\nAPPENDIX A - I used to be on the List..........................\n6\nAPPENDIX B - Changing Addresses and Sublists...................\n8\nAPPENDIX C - Sublists and Other Protocol Worlds................\n9\nAPPENDIX D - Errors from Hidden Hosts..........................\n10\nAPPENDIX E - No Postmaster.....................................\n12\nAPPENDIX F - Examples of Error Messages........................\n14\n5\n.   Security Considerations...................................\n53\n6\n.   Authors' Addresses........................................\n54\n1\n.  Introduction\nMaintaining large mailing lists, especially the processing of error\n   reports, poses many problems.  Most of the examples come from the\n   experience of managing the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)\n   mailing list.  Many examples are presented in this memo.  Most of the\n   specific problems shown have already been corrected.\n2\n. Discussion\nAt USC - Information Sciences Institute (ISI) we maintain mailing\n   lists for the Internet Research Groups, the IETF, and other Internet\n   groups; about 25 lists altogether.  We receive about 400 messages a\n   month requesting additions or deletions to these lists.  There are\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 1]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nabout 20 messages a day requesting changes to the lists.\n\n   We also receive about 300 error messages a month due to mail delivery\n   problems.  Many of these are duplicates, but the net result is that\n   about 10 cases per day need to be investigated.\n\n   Many of the error reports are for \"soft errors\", primarily delayed\n   delivery notices, such as \"not delivered for 2 days, will try for 3\n   more days\".  These just waste the list maintainer's time and are\n   otherwise ignored.  This is especially wasteful when such messages\n   are repeated every day.  However, if the same host is a cause of such\n   messages for many days in a row, the list maintainer may investigate.\n\n   Please note that ignoring the soft errors is not always easy, since\n   error messages often contain error reports on several mailboxes,\n   requiring the error message to be read carefully to pick out the hard\n   errors.\n\n   The error reports that indicate hard errors, such as \"no such user\"\n   require the list maintainer to take action.  In many cases the\n   appropriate action is to simply delete the user mailbox from the\n   list.  However, if the mailbox in question is someone known to be\n   active as a working group chair, or such, further investigation is\n   necessary.  The more general case of \"no such host\" may be a\n   temporary condition, but if it continues for several days it must be\n   investigated.\n\n   Since the error conditions do not have standardized names (for\n   example, \"no such user\" vs. \"user unknown\") it is sometimes difficult\n   to understand whether a soft or hard error is being reported, and\n   what one should do about it.  For example, what does \"Can't Find Mail\n   Center!\" mean, or what should one do about \"mailll:%MAIL-E-OPENOUT,\n   error opening SYS$USER2:[STGEORGE.LONGMAIL]MAIL$00040093BE236612.MAI;\n   as outputI)\"?\n\n   The first step in investigating a problem with a user mailbox is to\n   see if it is on the list.  If so, the next step is to see if there\n   really is a problem with it.  This is done by using the SMTP VRFY and\n   EXPN features, Finger, or Whois.  This often develops information\n   suggesting that the user has recently changed his address.  This has\n   to be confirmed through an exchange of messages (with the postmaster)\n   and then the mailing list must be updated.\n\n   If the user is not on the list, then it is likely the mail is sent\n   via an exploder or sublist.  So the investigation focuses on finding\n   which exploder may be involved, usually this is found by looking at\n   the path (from the received lines) of the error report.  The exploder\n   that is the source of the error can sometimes be checked using the\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 2]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nSMTP EXPN feature.  Then the postmaster is notified.\n\n   If the error report is about a host being unknown, the programs\n   \"whathost\", \"dig\", \"ping\", and \"traceroute\" may be used to find the\n   problem.  However, getting the problem fixed may require\n   communication with host and domain administrators.\n\n   What to do if problems can't be resolved: Delete the offending entry\n   from the list that may eventually cause the following response: \"I\n   used to be on the ietf list, how come I am not getting the messages\n   any more?\" (See\nAppendix A\n.)\n3\n.  Typical Problems\nIn this section we discuss typical and frequent problems that occur\n   with large mailing lists.\n3.1\nMisdirected Error Reports\nThe most frequent problem is that error reports are sent to the\n   author of the message rather than the list owner.  One way this can\n   happen is when there is trouble with the author's host not connecting\n   to another host along the route before it reaches ISI where the\n   mailing list is.\n\n   At ISI the SMTP \"from\" information is added when the message is\n   distributed to the list so that hosts following the SMTP protocol\n   will send their error reports to the list owner.  However, not all\n   hosts do this properly.\n\n   Another problem is that some machines do not pay attention to the\n   SMTP information about where to send error reports.\n3.2\nSublists\nWhat is a sublist?  It is a mailbox with an alias-name that expands\n   to a mailing-list or group of recipients.  There are many sublists on\n   our mailing lists.\n\n   When a user requests that a mailbox be added to a list that looks\n   like an exploder, the following message is sent:\n\n      We ask that all list maintainters of exploder mailboxes (an\n      alias-name that expands to a mailing-list or group of recipients)\n      set up some sort of ownership at their site, for their list.  What\n      this means is, is any mailbox on your list is invalid, the error\n      message will go to you (the list owner), and you can delete that\n      mailbox from your list.\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 3]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nAn example of an entry in your aliases file would be:\n\n         owner-ietf-local:  stev@vax.ftp.com,\n\n            (or your list maintainer/postmaster)\n\n   It appears that few people understand the concept of list ownership,\n   or they do not set it up correctly.  There is ample evidence of\n   problems in this area.\n\n   When investigating \"user unknown\" messages it is often the case that\n   the user is not individually listed on our list.  The next step is to\n   check received lines and hunt for an exploder list with a host\n   similar to the one that the error came from or points to.  At that\n   point we attempt to use SMTP EXPN or VRFY to check that the user is\n   on a sublist.  Since many hosts do not implement EXPN or VRFY, the\n   result of our check is inconclusive.  We then contact the list\n   maintainer and ask him to delete the invalid mailbox if it is on his\n   sublist.\n\n   Another problem occurs when someone on a sublist wants to change the\n   name of his mailbox.  We look through the main list to make the\n   correction and if that mailbox is not on the list we check the\n   received lines and look for clues to determine which host this user\n   may be on.  More than likely it is a sublist.  (See\nAppendix B\n.)\n\n   When the mailbox is in another protocol world (like UUCP or BITNET)\n   there are often problems with the handling and direction of error\n   reports. (See\nAppendix C\n.)\n\n   Sometimes we are unable to find the addresses reported in the error\n   message on the mailing list in question.  In such a case we check the\n   mailing list for a host name also named in the received lines of a\n   message in error.  If we find a match then we look for an exploder on\n   that host and expand the sublist there to see if the mailbox in\n   question is on that sublist.  (See\nAppendix D\n.)\n\n   At the time a sublist is entered into our list we record the name of\n   the requestor and consider him the sublist owner.  As people change\n   roles or companies this contact sometimes fails, in that case we fall\n   back to contacting the postmaster.  However, not every site has a\n   \"postmaster\" mailbox. (See\nAppendix E\n.)\n\n   Most users send their requests and changes to the IETF-Request\n   mailbox, when they are on, in fact, a sublist, usually at their own\n   company.  This creates a problem for us trying to determine which\n   exploder they're on.\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 4]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nIn this case, the request message is forwarded to the sublist owner\n   so he can make changes to his list.  However, sometimes hosts may be\n   somewhat similar in name (from the same organization, but in a\n   different department, in a different building, off campus, etc.) and\n   it's hard to know if this person should really be on that particular\n   sublist, or listed individually.  Occasionally, we examine the main\n   file to see if there are individual addresses that could be\n   incorporated in a sublist.\n3.3\nMisdirected Requests\nSome users don't know that mailing lists usually have a \"request\"\n   mailbox, so they mistakenly send their requests to the main list.\n   When this happens, several people will resend the request to the list\n   maintainer and then want to know if the request was completed.\n3.4\nMisdirected Messages\nThere are also messages that go to the request mailbox when they are\n   intended for the main list.  These messages get forwarded to the main\n   list and a message is sent to the user notifying him of the\n   correction and the proper way to address his message.\n4\n.  Summary\nRunning a mailing list should be easy, and with small lists it is.\n   The number of changes and errors are small and infrequent.  But when\n   lists get large and traffic gets heavy, the number of changes and\n   errors grow to many a day.  The level of effort to manage a mailing\n   list of substantial size and use becomes significant.\n\n   An additional problem is the creativity shown by mail program\n   developers in inventing numerous different error reports.  We present\n   a large sample of such messages in\nAppendix F\n.  We hope that these\n   examples will be of help to other mailing list maintainers.\n\n   Our experience with maintaining large lists suggests the following:\n\n   Users:  Please be considerate and try to work problems out locally.\n\n   Sublist owners:  Please do everything you can to get the error\n   messages related to your sublist to go to you.  Please try to get\n   users on your system to talk to you about additions and deletions.\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 5]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nAPPENDIX A\nA.1\n.  Inquiry Message From User Regarding His Mailbox\nDate: Tue, 6 Nov 90 03:02:09 PST\n   From: \"Stewart Bryant, RE02-G/H2, DTN: 830 4682\"\n         <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>\n   To: ietf-request@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: dist list\n\n   Please will you check that I have not been deleted from this\n   distribution list.\n\n   My email address is : bryant@janus.enet.dec.com\n\n   Thanks\n\n   Stewart\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nA.2\n.  Message To User - His Mailbox Was Re-added\nTo: \"Stewart Bryant, RE02-G/H2,\n       DTN: 830 4682\" <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>\n   cc: ietf-request@ISI.EDU\n   Reply-To: westine@isi.edu\n   Subject: Re: dist list\n   In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 06 Nov 90 03:02:09 -0800.\n                <9011061056.AA11777@decpa.pa.dec.com>\n   Date: Tue, 06 Nov 90 13:54:23 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi Stewart,\n\n   > Please will you check that I have not been deleted from this\n   > distribution. list.\n   >\n   > My email address is:  bryant@janus.enet.dec.com\n\n           I readded you to the list.\n\n   --Ann\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 6]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nA.3\n.  User Name Readded and It Bounced\nDate:    Tue, 06 Nov 90 17:25:15 -0800\n   From:    MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   To:      westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n\n       ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"janus\",\n            during mail delivery to <JANUS::BRYANT>.\n            Remote error code is 0x7e81d2, message is:\n   %MAIL-E-ERRACTRNS, error activating transport NM\n            (can't decypher error code)\n   550 <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>... User unknown\n\n      ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n   <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com> (bounced)\n\n      ----- Unsent message follows -----\n   Received: by decpa.pa.dec.com; id AA21747; Tue, 6 Nov 90 13:54:38\n   Received: from LOCALHOST by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n            id <AA24660>; Tue, 6 Nov 90 13:54:25 -0800\n   To: \"Stewart Bryant, RE02-G/H2,\n        DTN: 830 4682\" <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>\n   Cc: ietf-request@venera.isi.edu\n   Reply-To: westine@venera.isi.edu\n   Subject: Re: dist list\n   In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 06 Nov 90 03:02:09 -0800.\n         <9011061056.AA11777@decpa.pa.dec.com>\n   Date: Tue, 06 Nov 90 13:54:23 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi Stewart,\n\n   > Please will you check that I have not been deleted from this\n   > distribution list.\n   >\n   > My email address is\n   >\n   > bryant@janus.enet.dec.com\n\n   I readded you to the list.\n\n   --Ann\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 7]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nAPPENDIX B\n\nIn this example, the old mailbox \"kent@ssbell.IMD.Sterling.COM\" was to\nbe deleted and the new mailbox \"kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM\" was to\nbe added.  However, when checking the mailing list the old address was\nnot found.  Further checking for anything that resembled the hostname\nstill did not turn up anything.  Then checking the full header\ninformation of the sender's message showed that the message came\nthrough UUNET.UU.NET.  There is a sublist on UUNET called\n\"post-ietf@UUNET.UU.NET\".  By using the SMTP feature EXPN on the\nsublist the mailbox was found in the form \"ssbell!kent\".  Finally, a\nmessage was sent to the postmaster at UUNET and asked him to delete\nthe mailbox.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nB.1\n.  Error Report\nDate:    Mon, 22 Oct 90 14:05:38 -0500\n   From:    kent@ssbell.IMD.Sterling.COM (Kent Landfield)\n   To:      ietf-request@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: E-mail address change\n\n   Hello,\n\n   I am currently receiving ietf related email at\n   kent@ssbell.IMD.Sterling.COM.  I am moving to sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM\n   as the ssbell system is going away.  Could you please change my\n   address to kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM so that I can stay on the\n   list ? Thanks.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nB.2\n.  Message Sent to Postmaster\nTo: postmaster@uunet.uu.net\n   Subject: Address -  <ssbell!kent>\n   Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 13:44:24 PDT\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi,\n\n   Please delete the mailbox ssbell!kent from the \"post-ietf\" list.  I\n   will add his new address \"kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM\" directly to\n   the ietf list.  Thanks. Ann\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 8]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nAPPENDIX C\n\nAnother problem comes up when a sublist happens to be located in another\nprotocol world such as BITNET or UUCP and that mail is forwarded through\na mail relay.  Experience shows that proper implementation of the list\nownership concept is even less likely.\n\nSIGNET is a host in the UUCP world receiving mail forwarded through\nthe mail relay THINK.COM.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nC.1\n.  Error Report\nTo: owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu\n   Date:    Fri, 05 Oct 90 23:45:26 -0400\n   From:    uucp@Think.COM\n   Subject: Warning From uucp\n\n   We have been unable to contact machine 'signet' since you\n   queued your job.\n\n           mail signet!ietf-interest    (Date 10/04)\n\n   Attempts will continue for a few more days.\n\n           Sincerely,\n           early-bird!uucp\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nC.2\n.  Message Sent to Postmaster\nTo: postmaster@think.com\n   Subject: unable to contact machine 'signet'\n   Reply-To: westine@isi.edu\n   Date: Mon, 08 Oct 90 09:42:54 PDT\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi,\n\n   We have a mailbox on the ietf list that gets relayed through your\n   host THINK.COM. We will have to delete this mailbox if a connection\n   cannot be corrected.   Thanks, Ann\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                                [Page 9]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nAPPENDIX D\n\nSometimes, the addresses reported in error can't be found on the IETF\nlist.  In this example, \"GATORCORP\" is not on the IETF list.  In\nchecking the received lines there is a host called VITALINK.COM.  We\nhave an exploder on our list at VITALINK called \"ietf-\ninterest@vitalink.com\".  The program DIG shows that VITALINK.COM MXs to\nUUNET.UU.NET.  Since VITALINK is not directly on the Internet the EXPN\nand VRFY features of SMTP don't apply, the sublist on VITALINK can't be\nchecked.  However, there are enough clues to make an educated guess that\nthe mailboxes on the host GATORCORP are on the exploder sublist at\nVITALINK.  In this situation a message was sent to the Postmaster of\nVITALINK.COM to ask him to delete the invalid addresses from his\nsublist.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nD.1\n.  Error Report\nReturn-Path: vitam6!MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET\n   Received-Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 14:34:51 PST\n   Received: from venera.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (4.1/4.0.3-4)\n           id <AA16502>; Wed, 7 Nov 90 14:34:51 PST\n   Posted-Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 13:54:08 -0800\n   Received: from UUNET.UU.NET by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n           id <AA27149>; Wed, 7 Nov 90 14:34:34 -0800\n   Received: from vitam6.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP\n           id AA12926; Wed, 7 Nov 90 17:34:28 -0500\n   Received: by vitam6.ENG.Vitalink.COM (5.61/1.35)\n           id AC03235; Wed, 7 Nov 90 13:54:08 -0800\n   Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 13:54:08 -0800\n   From: vitam6!MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: uunet!venera.isi.edu!owner-ietf@uunet.UU.NET\n   To: uunet!venera.isi.edu!owner-ietf@uunet.UU.NET\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n\n   550 andrew_greenfield.safari@gatorcorp,\n       melinda_le_baron.safari@gatorcorp...Host unknown\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 10]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nD.2\n.  Message Sent to Postmaster\nTo: postmaster@vitalink.com\n   Cc: westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: andrew_greenfield.safari@gatorcorp,\n            melinda_le_baron.safari@gatorcorp... Host unknown\n   Reply-To: westine@ISI.EDU\n   Date: Thu, 08 Nov 90 15:30:24 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n   Hi,\n\n   We have an exploder mailbox on the IETF list called\n   \"ietf-interest@vitalink.com\".  I'm not sure, but I think the\n   following addresses may be on that list.  Please look into this\n   \"host unknown\" problem.  If these addresses need to be deleted,\n   please do so.\n\n   Thanks,\n   Ann\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 11]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nAPPENDIX E\n\nEvery host on the Internet that processes mail is required to have a\n\"postmaster\" mailbox to receive error reports and trouble inquiries.\nIn this case, the \"postmaster\" mailbox was not recognized.\nE.1\n.  Message Sent to IETF-Request\nTo:       (ietf-request@venera.isi.edu)\n   From:     Caralyn Brown (CBROWN@ENR)\n   Date:     10 Jan 91  8:24 AM\n   Subject:  please remove me from this list\n\n   Please remove me from this list.  I'm changing companies and I'd like\n   to keep the mailbox from getting out of hand.  If it's not too much\n   trouble, could you just send me a confirmation that I was deleted?\n   Thanks.\n\n   caralyn\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nE.2\n.  Message Sent to Postmaster\nTo: postmaster@list.prime.com\n   Cc: CBROWN@enr.prime.com, ietf-request@venera.isi.edu\n   Subject: Please delete from \"ietf@list.prime.com\" - Carolyn Brown\n   Reply-To: westine@venera.isi.edu\n   Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 09:50:15 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi,\n\n   Please delete Carolyn from your sublist.   We do not have her address\n   listed individually on the main IETF list.\n\n   Thanks, Ann\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 12]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nE.3\n.  Error Report\nFrom: postmaster-request@List.Prime.COM (List Service version\n         1.0.x463)\n   Subject: returned mail\n   Message-Type: Return\n   To: <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n   Your mail addressed to \"postmaster\" could not be processed: There is\n   no mailing list named \"postmaster\" at this site.\n\n   For help, send to help@List.Prime.COM; to receive an index of\n   available lists, send to index@List.Prime.COM; to reach a List\n   Administrator, send to admin@List.Prime.COM.\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 13]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nAPPENDIX F - Examples of Error Messages\nF.1\n. Delayed Delivery Notices\nFrom: MAILER-DAEMON@ISI.EDU (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n            open with uiucdcsm-uiuc-dcs-net.cs.uiuc.edu\n   Posted-Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 12:46:51 -0800\n   Received: by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n           id <AA08435>; Fri, 4 Jan 91 12:46:51 -0800\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   >>> RCPT To:<laird@BBN.COM>\n   <<< 550 (USER) Unknown user name in \"laird@BBN.COM\"\n   550 laird@BBN.COM... User unknown\n   451 avri@CLEARPOINT.COM... reply: read error\n   avri@CLEARPOINT.COM... reply: read error\n   421 dockmaster.ncsc.mil.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during\n       user open with DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL\n   421 va.nkw.ac.uk.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during\n       user open with nsfnet-relay.ac.uk\n   421 nsl.dec.com.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with jove.pa.dec.com\n   451 drawson@HOBBES.TYMNET.COM... timeout waiting for input\n       drawson@HOBBES.TYMNET.COM... timeout waiting for input\n   451 drawson@HOBBES.TYMNET.COM... reply: read error\n       drawson@HOBBES.TYMNET.COM... reply: read error\n   421 sccgate.scc.com.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during\n       user open with sccgate.scc.com\n   421 a.isi.edu.tcp... Deferred: Connection refused by a.ISI.EDU\n   421 cs.ucl.ac.uk.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with nsfnet-relay.ac.uk\n   421 oasys.dt.navy.mil.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during\n       user open with oasys.dt.navy.mil\n   421 peocu1.navy.mil.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with PEOCU1.NAVY.MIL\n   421 enh.nist.gov.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with enh.nist.gov\n   421 mickey.imsd.contel.com.tcp... Deferred: Connection refused by\n       MICKEY.IMSD.CONTEL.COM\n   421 uv4.eglin.af.mil.tcp..Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with uv6.eglin.af.mil\n   421 ima.isc.com.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with ima.ima.isc.com\n   421 huachuca-emh8.army.mil.tcp... Deferred: Connection refused by\n       HUACHUCA-EMH8.ARMY.MIL\n   421 vaxa.nerc-keyworth.ac.uk.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 14]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nduring user open with nsfnet-relay.ac.uk\n   421 gdr.bath.ac.uk.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with nsfnet-relay.ac.uk\n   421 ccint1.rsre.mod.uk.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during\n       user open with ccint1.rsre.mod.uk\n   550 m_ellison@TOOK.LKG.DEC.COM... Host unknown\n   421 hqafsc-vax.af.mil.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during\n       user open with HQAFSC-VAX.AF.MIL\n   421 nic.nordu.net.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with nic.nordu.net\n   421 aedc-vax.af.mil.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with AEDC-VAX.AF.MIL\n   421 letterkenn-emh1.army.mil.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out\n       during user open with LETTERKENN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL\n   421 dumle.kommhuset.se.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during\n       user open with sunic.sunet.se\n   421 cis.uab.edu.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with cisa.CIS.UAB.EDU\n   421 server.af.mil.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with server.af.mil\n   421 issun3.stc.nl.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with issun3.stc.nl\n   421 cs.uiuc.edu.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n       open with uiucdcsm-uiuc-dcs-net.cs.uiuc.edu\n\n              -------------\n************************************************************************\nF.2\n. Failed Mail\nDate:     Tue, 30 Oct 90 5:00:40 EST\n   From: BBN Mail System (MMDF) <mmdf@BBN.COM>\n   Sender: mmdf@BBN.COM\n   Subject:  Failed mail  (msg.aa09055)\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n   After 12 days (276 hours), your message could not be fully delivered.\n\n   It failed to be received by the following address(es):\n\n       mfidelma@cc5.bbn.com (host: cc5.bbn.com) (queue: smtp)\n\n   Problems usually are due to service interruptions at the receiving\n   machine.  Less often, they are caused by the communication system.\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 15]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.3\n.  Waiting Mail\nTo: RELAY Mail System (MMDF) <mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET>\n   Cc: owner-ietf <@RELAY.CS.NET:owner-ietf@VENERA.ISI.EDU>\n   Reply-To: westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Re: Waiting mail (msg.aa00720)\n   In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 02 Oct 90 07:45:14 -0400.\n                <9010021201.AA06288@venera.isi.edu>\n   Date: Mon, 08 Oct 90 10:11:03 PDT\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n   > After 5 days (105 hours), your message has not yet been\n   > fully delivered.  Attempts to deliver the message will continue\n   > for 2 more days.  No further action is required by you.\n   >\n   > Delivery attempts are still pending for the following address(es):\n   >\n   >       @zix.gmd.dbp.de:weidenhammer@vax.hmi.dbp.de\n   >       (host: zix.gmd.dbp.de)(queue: dfn)\n   >\n   > Problems usually are due to service interruptions at the receiving\n   > machine.  Less often, they are caused by the communication system.\n\n************************************************************************\nF.4\n.  What Started Out as a Sublist with No Active Users\na.  Error Report\n\n   Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 22:13:12 +0200\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@inria.inria.fr (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n   To: owner-ietf\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   While talking to mailhost.Gipsi.FR:\n   >>> RCPT To:<ietf@GIPSI.FR>\n   <<< 550 <ietf@GIPSI.FR>... User unknown\n   550 <ietf@GIPSI.FR>... User unknown\n\n              ----------\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 16]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nb.  Message Sent to Postmaster\n\n   TO:  Postmaster@gisi.gipsi.fr\n   Subject: 550 <ietf@GIPSI.FR>... User unknown\n   Reply-To: westine@isi.edu\n   Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 09:56:20 PDT\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi,\n\n   I have received numerous error messages like this for over a week.\n   There appears to be a mailbox on your exploder that is invalid,\n   please delete it.\n\n   Thanks, --Ann\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   c.  Reply From Postmaster\n\n   From: edmonde@ubu.gipsi.fr (Edmonde Duteurtre)\n   To: westine\n   In-Reply-To: Ann Westine's message of Tue,\n                11 Sep 90 09:56:20 PDT\n   <9009111656.AA19730@venera.isi.edu>\n   Subject: 550 <ietf@GIPSI.FR>... User unknown\n\n   Hello\n\n   On our site, the bind@gipsi.fr, snmp@gipsi.fr, ietf@gipsi.fr and the\n   nameddroppers@gipsi.fr mailed only one person: prindevi@gipsi.fr but\n   this person has leaved our company, and you should cancel this\n   addresses.\n\n   I think we get enough informations through the news.  I think you\n   should cancel us (ietf@Gipsi.FR) on the mailing list ietf.\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 17]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.5\n.  Sublists without local ownership\nIn this error message there was not much to go on except the\n   words IETF and the name of the host from where the mailer-daemon\n   sent the error.  Using that clue the mailing list was searched for\n   that host name (SATURN).  It was a sublist. It appears that there is\n   something internally wrong with the sublist and this error should\n   have gone to the postmaster or owner of the IETF@SATURN.ACC.COM list\n   instead of the IETF owner.  A message was sent to the postmaster.  No\n   reply was received, but the condition was fixed.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   a.  Error Report\n\n   Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 14:42:57 EDT\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON%saturn.ACC.COM@salt.acc.com (Mail Delivery\n                                                    Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 13\n   To: <owner-ietf@ISI.EDU>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   /p/news/ietf/21770: Permission denied\n554\n\"| /usr/local/news -s ietf\"... unknown mailer error 13\n\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   b. Message Sent to Postmaster\n\n   To: Postmaster@saturn.acc.com\n   cc: ietf-request\n   Reply-To: westine@isi.edu\n   Subject: 554 \"| /usr/local/news -s ietf\"\n       ... unknown mailer error 13\n   In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 03 Oct 90 14:42:57 -0400.\n         <9010031842.AA01601@saturn.acc.com>\n   Date: Mon, 08 Oct 90 10:53:02 PDT\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi,\n\n   Please fix the problem with the following mailbox\n   \"ietf@SATURN.ACC.COM\".\n\n   Thanks, Ann\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 18]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.6\n.  Repetitive Error Every Couple of Months from Same Host\na.  Message Dated August 90\n\n   Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 09:21:26 -0700\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: <@decpa.pa.dec.com:owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail11: connect: Connect failed, Unrecognized object\n   (permanent failure)\n\n   554 <netrix::gillin>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative\n     answer from name server)\n\n      ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n   <erlang::chiu> (sent)\n   <netrix::gillin> (bounced)\n   <erlang::rama> (sent)\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   b.  Message Dated October 90\n\n   Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 05:02:53 -0800\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: <@decpa.pa.dec.com:owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"erlang\",\n           during mail delivery to <ERLANG::CHIU>.\n           Remote error code is 0x7e803a, message is:\n   %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node CHIU\n   -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHNODE, remote node is unknown\n   554 <erlang::chiu>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative\n     answer from name server)\n\n      ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n   <erlang::chiu> (bounced)\n   <netrix::gillin> (sent)\n   <erlang::rama> (sent)\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 19]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nc.  Message Dated December 90\n\n   Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 21:40:47 -0800\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail11: connect: Connect failed, Unrecognized object\n   (permanent failure)\n\n   554 <bansal@NETRIX.ENET.DEC.COM>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative\n   answer from name server)\n\n      ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n\n   <bansal@NETRIX.ENET.DEC.COM> (bounced)\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   d.  Message Dated December 90\n\n   Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 23:01:21 -0800\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail11: connect: Connect failed, Unrecognized object\n   (permanent failure)\n\n   554 <gillin%netrix.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM>... 550 Host unknown\n   (Authoritative answer from name server)\n\n      ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n\n   <mogul@DECWRL.DEC.COM> (sent)\n   mogul@acetes (sent)\n   <gillin%netrix.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM> (bounced)\n   <chiu%erlang.dec@DECWRL.DEC.COM> (sent)\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 20]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\ne.  Message Dated January 91\n\n   Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 17:05:53 -0800\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"bigfut\",\n     during mail delivery to <BIGFUT::CALLON>.\n     Remote error code is 0x7e81fa, message is:(can't decypher error\n     code)\n   550 <Callon@BIGFUT.ENET.DEC.COM>... User unknown\n\n************************************************************************\nF.7\n.  Host Unknown or Sublist\nThe address \"lucb-ml@OPUS\" is not an Internet style domain name. The\n   exploder ietf@CS.McGILL.CA has this address on its sublist, and\n   CSA.McGILL.CA does not recognize this host.  (This error should have\n   gone to the sublist owner at CS.MCGILL.CA).\n\n   Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 19:45:14 -0400\n   From: Mail Delivery Subsystem  <MAILER-DAEMON@oliver.cs.mcgill.ca>\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: <owner-ietf@ISI.EDU>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   550 \"Luc Boulianne\"     <lucb-ml@opus>... Host unknown\n\n************************************************************************\nF.8\n.  \"HOST UNKNOWN\" and the Host Really Is Known\nUsually a \"host unknown\" report is not acted on unless it is repeated\n   over a period of several days.  In many cases the hosts really do\n   exist, but they're just down for a couple of days, or there are\n   network problems reaching it (or it's name serrver).\n\n   Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 08:45:56 -0800\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@ISI.EDU (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: owner-los-nettos@ISI.EDU\n\n           ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n     550 nrc.com.tcp... 550 Host unknown\n     550 IHM@NRC.COM... Host unknown\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 21]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   WHATHOST CHECK\n\n           westine 28%  whathost nrc.com\n           Host: nrc.com  ==>  129.216.200.51\n\n           westine 82% whathost 129.216.200.51\n           Host: aztec.NRC.COM  ==>  129.216.200.51\n\n************************************************************************\nF.9\n.  Host Unknown and MXed to Another Host.\nDNS says AMES will forward mail for ADAPT, but mailer at AMES says\n   ADAPT is unknown.  Should ask postmaster at AMES to fix either mailer\n   or DNS data.\n\n   Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 09:39:35 PST\n   From: unet!Mailer-Daemon@ames.arc.nasa.gov\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   bad system name: ADAPT\n   uux failed ( 68 )\n   550 george@ADAPT.NET.COM... Host unknown\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   westine 86% dig adapt.net.com any\n\n   ; <<>> DiG <<>> adapt.net.com any\n   ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY , status: NOERROR, id: 6\n   ;; flags: qr aa rd ra  Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 0, Addit: 2\n\n   ;; QUESTIONS:\n   ;;      adapt.net.com, type = ANY, class = IN\n\n   ;; ANSWERS:\n   adapt.net.com   IN  MX  10 ames.arc.nasa.gov   ; 84029\n   adapt.net.com   IN  MX  20 tymix.tymnet.com    ; 84029\n\n   ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS:\n   ames.arc.nasa.gov       IN  A   128.102.18.3   ; 158777\n   tymix.tymnet.com        IN  A   131.146.2.1    ; 86400\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 22]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.10\n.  User Unknown\nMost \"User Unknown\" error messages listed individually on the main\n   list get deleted.  Those on a sublist, require a message to the\n   postmaster or list maintainer.  They are asked to delete the\n   invalid user mailbox from their local list.\n\n************************************************************************\nF.10.1\n.  Add User but Address Fails\nThis is a case where the recipient was checking to see if his mailbox\n   was already on the list and if not to readd him.  He was readded to\n   the list.  A \"user unknown\" error message was received on the\n   confirming message that was sent notifying recipient that he had been\n   added.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   a.  Message Sent to User And Postmaster\n\n   To: postmaster@janus.enet.decl.com, postmaster@decwrl.dec.com\n   Cc: westine, bryant@janus.enet.dec.com\n   Subject: RE: <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>\n   Date: Wed, 07 Nov 90 10:15:40 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi Stewart and Postmaster,\n\n   I readded your name to the IETF list but there seems to be problems\n   with connections to DECnet hosts right now.  I have seen lots of\n   errors like this lately.  Postmaster, please check into this.  JANUS\n   is not the only host with an error, there are other hosts like this\n   in trouble.\n\n   For example.\n\n       From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n       Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n       To: <@decpa.pa.dec.com:owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu>\n\n           ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n       mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"erlang\",\n                during mail delivery to <ERLANG::CHIU>.\n                Remote error code is 0x7e803a, message is:\n       %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node CHIU\n       -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHNODE, remote node is unknown\n       554 <erlang::chiu>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative answer\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 23]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nfrom name server)\n\n           ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n        <erlang::chiu> (bounced)\n        <netrix::gillin> (sent)\n        <erlang::rama> (sent)\n                -------\n       Thank you, Ann\n\n            To: \"Stewart Bryant, RE02-G/H2,\n                DTN: 830 4682\" <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>\n            Cc: ietf-request@ISI.EDU\n            Subject: Re: dist list\n            In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 06 Nov 90 03:02:09 0800.\n                       <9011061056.AA11777@decpa.pa.dec.com>\n            Date: Tue, 06 Nov 90 13:54:23 PST\n            From: Ann Westine <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n            Hi Stewart,\n\n            > Please will you check that I have not been deleted\n            > from this distribution list.\n            >\n            > My email address is > bryant@janus.enet.dec.com\n\n         I readded you to the list.  Thanks, Ann\n\n            ------- Forwarded Message\n\n            Date:    Tue, 06 Nov 90 17:25:15 -0800\n            From:    MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com\n            To:      westine@ISI.EDU\n            Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n\n               ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n\n            mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"janus\",\n                    during mail delivery to <JANUS::BRYANT>.\n                    Remote error code is 0x7e81d2, message is:\n            %MAIL-E-ERRACTRNS, error activating transport NM\n                    (can't decypher error code)\n               550 <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>... User unknown\n\n                ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n            <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com> (bounced)\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 24]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nb.  Message From Postmaster\n\n   Return-path: vixie@wrl.dec.com\n   Date:    Wed, 07 Nov 90 16:24:37 PST\n   To:      westine@ISI.EDU\n   cc:      postmaster@janus.enet.dec.com, postmaster@wrl.dec.com,\n            bryant@janus.enet.dec.com\n   Subject: Re: <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>\n   From:    Paul A Vixie <vixie@wrl.dec.com>\n\n   Anne,\n\n   This was a transient.  Please let me know if any other .enet.dec.com\n   nodes are still unreachable.\n\n   Paul\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nc.  Another Message to Postmaster\n\n   To: Paul A Vixie <vixie@wrl.dec.com>\n   cc: postmaster@janus.enet.dec.com, postmaster@wrl.dec.com,\n       bryant@janus.enet.dec.com\n   Reply-To: westine@isi.edu\n   Subject: Re: <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>\n   In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 07 Nov 90 16:24:37 -0800.\n       <9011080024.AA28353@volition.pa.dec.com>\n   Date: Thu, 08 Nov 90 11:23:39 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi Paul,\n\n   There are a few other error message that I received last week and\n   they seem to reoccur every couple of months.  Here is an example.\n   What does this error mean?\n\n   Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 05:02:53 -0800\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: <@decpa.pa.dec.com:owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"erlang\",\n           during mail delivery to <ERLANG::CHIU>.\n           Remote error code is 0x7e803a, message is:\n   %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node CHIU\n   -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHNODE, remote node is unknown\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 25]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\n554 <erlang::chiu>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative\n     answer from name server)\n\n      ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n   <erlang::chiu> (bounced)\n   <netrix::gillin> (sent)\n   <erlang::rama> (sent)\n   <netrix::gillin> (sent)\n   <erlang::rama> (sent)\n\n              ----------\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nd.  Message From Postmaster\n\nDate:    Thu, 08 Nov 90 17:10:02 PST\nTo:      westine@ISI.EDU\nSubject: Re: <bryant@janus.enet.dec.com>\nFrom:    Paul A Vixie <vixie@wrl.dec.com>\n\nAnne,\n\nThis error:\n           ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n        mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"erlang\",\n                during mail delivery to <ERLANG::CHIU>.\n                Remote error code is 0x7e803a, message is:\n        %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node CHIU\n        -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHNODE, remote node is unknown\n        554 <erlang::chiu>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative\n                          answer from name server)\n\n ...means that the person on ERLANG:: has forwarded their mail to a\nsystem that ERLANG does not know about.  Decnet mail is not store-and-\nforward, so decwrl (as smtp-to-decnet gateway) sees the end-system\nerror.  Trying to be helpful, it sends it back to you.\n\nMy advice is to delete any addresses you have trouble with, if they are\nin the .enet.dec.com subdomain.\n\npaul\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 26]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.10.2\n.  No Such User\nDate: Wed, 10 Oct 90 18:05 CDT\n   From: PMDF Mail Server <Postmaster@crcvms.unl.edu>\n   Subject: Undeliverable mail\n   To: westine@ISI.EDU\n\n   The message could not be delivered to:\n\n   Addressee: gale\n   Reason:\n     %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user GALE at node CRCVMS\n\n************************************************************************\nF.11\n.  No Transcript\nDate: Wed, 8 Aug 90 13:21:03 -0700\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Deferred: Host Name Lookup Failure\n   To: owner-ietf\n   To: owner-ietf\n   To: westine\n\n                           --------------\n   <text deleted>\n\n************************************************************************\nF.12\n.  Looping - Too Many Hops\nDate: Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:59 PDT\n   From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@jessica.stanford.edu>\n   Subject: Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail\n   To:<@jessica.stanford.edu,@jessica.stanford.edu,@jessica.stanford.edu,\n     @jessica.stanford.edu,@jessica.stanford.edu,@jessica.stanford.edu,\n     @jessica.stanford.edu:owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   554 sendall: too many hops (17 max)\n\n   Received: from Jessica.Stanford.EDU by Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU\n      (5.59/inc-1.0) id AA09128; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:36 PDT\n   Received: from Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU by jessica.stanford.edu\n      (5.59/25-eef) id AA17687; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:31 PDT\n   Received: from Jessica.Stanford.EDU by Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU\n      (5.59/inc-1.0)id AA09124; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:28 PDT\n   Received: from Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU by jessica.stanford.edu\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 27]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\n(5.59/25-eef) id AA17674; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:22 PDT\n   Received: from Jessica.Stanford.EDU by Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU\n      (5.59/inc-1.0) id AA09120; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:19 PDT\n   Received: from Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU by jessica.stanford.edu\n      (5.59/25-eef) id AA17658; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:13 PDT\n\n\n   Received: from Jessica.Stanford.EDU by Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU\n      (5.59/inc-1.0) id AA09116; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:11 PDT\n   Received: from Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU by jessica.stanford.edu\n      (5.59/25-eef) id AA17645; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:05 PDT\n   Received: from Jessica.Stanford.EDU by Ahwahnee.Stanford.EDU\n      (5.59/inc-1.0) id AA09112; Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:08:03 PDT\n   Received: from VENERA.ISI.EDU by jessica.stanford.edu\n      (5.59/25-eef) id AA17625;\n\n   Wed, 7 Nov 90 18:07:50 PDT\n   Received: by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n           id <AA29996>; Wed, 7 Nov 90 15:45:49 -0800\n   Received-Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 15:45:45 -0800\n   Received: from NRI.RESTON.VA.US by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n           id <AA29992>; Wed, 7 Nov 90 15:45:45 -0800\n   Received: from nri by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13139;7 Nov 90 18:26\n   To: Frank Kastenholz <kasten%europa.interlan.com@relay.cs.net>\n   Cc: ietf@venera.isi.edu\n   Subject: Re: IETF mailing list\n   Date: Wed, 07 Nov 90 18:26:53 -0500\n   From: vcerf@NRI.Reston.VA.US\n\n************************************************************************\nF.13\n.  No Postmaster\na.  Error Message\n\n   Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 18:40:58 EST\n   From: Mailer-Daemon@osi.ncsl.nist.gov\n   Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n\n   421 osi3: Host osi3 is down\n   550 Postmaster... User unknown\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 28]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nb.  Checking Hostname and Address\n\n   westine 37% dig osi3.ncsl.nist.gov any\n\n   ;; QUESTIONS:\n   ;;      osi3.ncsl.nist.gov, type = ANY, class = IN\n\n   ;; ANSWERS:\n   osi3.ncsl.nist.gov      IN      A       129.6.48.108    ; 86400\n   osi3.ncsl.nist.gov      IN      A       129.6.51.1      ; 86400\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   c.  Checking For Users\n\n   westine 49% mconnect OSI3.NCSL.NIST.GOV\n   connecting to host OSI3.NCSL.NIST.GOV (0x6c300681), port 0x1900\n   connection open\n   220 osi3.ncsl.nist.gov sendmail 4.0/NIST(rbj/dougm) ready at\n     Thu, 8 Nov 90 13:58:49 EST\n   expn ietf\n   250-Dale Walters <walters>\n   250-Richard Colella <colella@emu.ncsl.nist.gov>\n   250 Doug Montgomery <dougm@warthog.ncsl.nist.gov>\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   d.  Checking For Administrators\n\n   westine 44% whois osi3.ncsl.nist.gov\n   National Bureau of Standards (ICST-OSI3)\n\n      Hostname: OSI3.NCSL.NIST.GOV\n      Nicknames: OSI3.ICST.NBS.GOV,ICST-OSI3.ARPA\n      Address: 129.6.48.108\n      System: SUN-3/160 running UNIX\n\n      Coordinator:\n         Montgomery, Douglas C.  (DCM5)  dougm@OSI.NCSL.NIST.GOV\n         (301) 975-3630\n\n      Record last updated on 17-May-89.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 29]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\ne.  Message Sent to Coordinator\n\n   From westine@venera.isi.edu Thu Nov  8 13:58:40 1990\n   Posted-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 90 10:59:30 PST\n   To: dougm@osi.ncsl.nist.gov\n   Cc: westine@venera.isi.edu\n   Subject: RE:  421 osi3: Host osi3 is down\n       550 Postmaster... User unknown\n   Reply-To: westine@venera.isi.edu\n   Date: Thu, 08 Nov 90 10:59:30 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi Doug,\n\n   If the Postmaster is \"unknown\" please delete him from your exploder\n   list \"ietf@osi3.ncsl.nist.gov\".  I have been receiving error messages\n   like this one for several days now.  If I don't hear from you, I will\n   have to delete the above mailbox.\n\n   Ann\n\n   >    ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   > 421 osi3: Host osi3 is down\n   > 550 Postmaster... User unknown\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   f.  Message From Coordinator\n\n   Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 15:34:02 EST\n   From: Doug Montgomery <dougm@warthog.ncsl.nist.gov>\n   Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)\n   Sub-Organization: National Computer Systems Laboratory\n   To: westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: RE:  421 osi3: Host osi3 is down\n            550 Postmaster... User unknown\n   Cc: staff@osi3.ncsl.nist.gov\n\n   I think I have found out what is wrong.  For some reason (we can\n   discuss this below)  your exploder is sending IETF mail to our\n   exploder (ietf@osi3.ncsl.nist.gov) through the machine\n   osi.ncsl.nist.gov.  Now due to a recent subnet reconfiguration and\n   subsequent lack of update to our DNS servers, the DNS was returning\n   an incorrect address for osi3. Thus IETF mail would be sent to OSI,\n   which would try to forward it to OSI3 (using the wrong address).\n   OSI would think that OSI3 was down and dump the message, trying to\n    send a notice to Postmaster.  OSI doesn't have an aliase for\n   Postmaster and thus the second error message that you saw.\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 30]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nThese two problems have been fixed on OSI.  Now the question is what\n   address you have in your distribution list that would cause this\n   mail to go through OSI in the first place.  I guess you might have\n   something like \"ietf%osi3@osi.ncsl.nist.gov.\" The other interesting\n   point about your list is that we receive IETF mail to our exploder\n    directly from venera.\n\n    Thus I suspect that there are two entries for OSI3 on your\n   distribution list.  One that gets relayed through OSI and one that\n   points directly to OSI3.  If this is the case  please deleted\n    everything except the \"ietf@osi3.ncsl.nist.gov.\" address.\n\n    If this is not the case or if there are other problems let me know.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   g.  My Reply Back\n\n   Here are all the addresses I have on the IETF list under NIST.GOV.\n\n   ietf@OSI3.NCSL.NIST.GOV,\n   mills@OSI.NCSL.NIST.GOV\n\n   I'll deleted \"mills@osi.ncsl.nist.gov\".\n\n   Here are two others at NIST\n\n   hunt@ENH.NIST.GOV,\n   sting@CAM.NIST.GOV\n\n   By the way, on the following message, it looks like the Mailer-Daemon\n   message went from OSI.ncsl.nist.gov to enh.nist.gov to venera.isi.edu.\n\n   --Ann\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 31]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nReturn-Path: Mailer-Daemon@osi.ncsl.nist.gov\n       Received-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 12:44:11 PST\n       Received: from venera.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (4.1/4.0.3-4)\n               id <AA19131>; Thu, 8 Nov 90 12:44:11 PST\n       Posted-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 15:39:54 EST\n       Received: from enh.nist.gov by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n               id <AA03448>; Thu, 8 Nov 90 12:44:01 -0800\n       Received: from OSI.NCSL.NIST.GOV by ENH.NIST.GOV;\n               Thu, 8 Nov 90 15:43 EDT\n       Received: by osi.ncsl.nist.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AB14654;\n               Thu, 8 Nov 90 15:39:54 EST\n       Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 15:39:54 EST\n       From: Mailer-Daemon@osi.ncsl.nist.gov\n       Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n       To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n       Message-Id: <9011082039.AB14654@osi.ncsl.nist.gov>\n       X-Envelope-To: owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu\n\n          ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n       421 osi3: Host osi3 is down\n       550 Postmaster... User unknown\n\n          ----- Unsent message follows -----\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   h. Another Problem  .Forward\n\n   From: Doug Montgomery <dougm@warthog.ncsl.nist.gov>\n   Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)\n   To: westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Re: 421 osi3:Host osi3 is down 550 Postmaster.. User unknown\n\n   Deleting the mills@osi.ncsl.nist.gov entry should fix your problems.\n   Mills has a .forward to osi3, thus explaining why IETF mail was going\n   ---> OSI ---> OSI3.\n\n   I checked OSI's sendmail.cf and it is relaying through enh.  This,\n   though has nothing to do with the previous problem.\n\n   I flushed the queue of IETF mail on OSI waiting to go to OSI3.  I\n   don't think you should see anymore bounced messages.\n\n   Sorry that our local problems were causing you grief .... let me know\n   if it happens again.\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 32]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.14\n.  File Over Allocation\nDate: Tue, 4 Sep 90 10:35:49 -0700\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Deferred: Connection timed out during user\n            open with ames.arc.nasa.gov\n   Posted-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 10:35:49 -0700\n   To: owner-ietf\n\n       ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   >>> QUIT\n   <<< 421 sage.acc.com SMTP Service not available:\n       insufficient disk space.\n   451 bboard.ietf@SAGE.ACC.COM... reply: read error\n        bboard.ietf@SAGE.ACC.COM... reply: read error\n\n************************************************************************\nF.15\n.  File Deleted\nDate: Fri, 10 Aug 90 14:21:57 EDT\n   From: Daemon <daemon@ccj.bbn.com>\n   Subject: Undeliverable mail\n   To: westine\n\n   Mail could not be delivered to the following address(es):\n\n   /usr/databases/bugs/vaxmail@ccj.bbn.com: No such file\n        or directory\n\n************************************************************************\nF.16\n.  Strange Postmaster\na.  Message Forwarded to IETF-Request\n\n   Forwarded: Thu, 21 Feb 91 14:31:09 PST\n   Forwarded: westine\n   Forwarded: postmaster@mbunix.mitre.org\n   Forwarded: galvin@TIS.COM\n   Return-Path: galvin@TIS.COM\n   Received-Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 17:48:07 PST\n   Received: from venera.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (4.1/4.0.3-4)\n           id <AA03679>; Sun, 17 Feb 91 17:48:07 PST\n   Posted-Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 20:48:12 -0500\n   Received: from TIS.COM by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n           id <AA26292>; Sun, 17 Feb 91 17:48:01 -0800\n   Received: from TIS.COM by TIS.COM (4.1/SUN-5.64DB)\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 33]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nid AA04098; Sun, 17 Feb 91 20:48:13 EST\n   Reply-To: James M Galvin <galvin@TIS.COM>\n   To: ietf-request@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Failed Mail to IETF\n   Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 20:48:12 -0500\n   From: James M Galvin <galvin@TIS.COM>\n\n   ------- Forwarded Message\n   Message-ID: <9102160528.AA27189@mbunix.mitre.org>\n   From:       galvin@tis.com <galvin@TIS.COM>\n   To:         Bill_Anderson.G113_MAIL@qmgate.mitre.org\n   Date:       15 Feb 91 21:28:28\n   Subject:    Can't Find MailCenter!\n\n                   <text deleted>\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   b.  Problem Reported to MITRE\n\n   To: postmaster@mbunix.mitre.org\n   Cc: westine, galvin@TIS.COM\n   Subject: RE:    Can't Find MailCenter!\n   Reply-To: westine@isi.edu\n   Date: Thu, 21 Feb 91 14:31:01 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi,\n\n   We're getting this problem again.  Please fix.\n\n   Thank you.\n   Ann\n\n   ------- Forwarded Message\n\n   Date:    Sun, 17 Feb 91 20:48:12 -0500\n   From:    James M Galvin <galvin@TIS.COM>\n   To:      ietf-request@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Failed Mail to IETF\n\n      ------- Forwarded Message\n\n      Message-ID: <9102160528.AA27189@mbunix.mitre.org>\n      From:       galvin@tis.com <galvin@TIS.COM>\n      To:         Bill_Anderson.G113_MAIL@qmgate.mitre.org\n      Date:       15 Feb 91 21:28:28\n      Subject:    Can't Find MailCenter!\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 34]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nGatorMail-Q                   Re: 1st PRELIMINARY AGENDA/\n      Received: by qmgate; 15 Feb 91 21:28:25\n      Received: by mbunix.mitre.org (5.57/4.7)\n              id AA25128; Fri, 15 Feb 91 21:26:46 EST\n      Received: by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n              id <AA17839>; Fri, 15 Feb 91 08:45:12 -0800\n      Posted-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 11:45:16 -0500\n      Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 08:45:09 -0800\n      Received: from TIS.COM by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n              id <AA17833>; Fri, 15 Feb 91 08:45:09 -0800\n      Message-Id: <9102151645.AA26445@TIS.COM>\n      Reply-To: James M Galvin <galvin@tis.com>\n      To: Megan Davies <mdavies@nri.reston.va.us>\n      Cc: ietf@venera.isi.edu\n      Subject: Re: 1st PRELIMINARY AGENDA/ST. LOUIS\n      In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 14 Feb 91 17:44:13 EST.\n                   <9102141744.aa15663@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US>\n      Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 11:45:16 -0500\n      From: James M Galvin <galvin@tis.com>\n\n                      <text deleted>\n\n************************************************************************\nF.17\n.  Message Too Large\nDate: Wed, 10 Oct 90 17:50:10 MDT\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable\n   To: <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554\n   olear@niwot.scd.ucar.edu... Message is too large; 50000 bytes max 554\n   olear@niwot.scd.ucar.edu... Service unavailable\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 35]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.18\n.  Vacation Messages\na.  Case 1\n\n   Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 15:28:30 PDT\n   From: David Wasley <dlw@violet.berkeley.edu>\n   Subject: I am away from e-mail\n   This_Message_Brought_To_You_By: the vacation program\n   Apparently-To: owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu\n\n   I am away from e-mail until October 13. If your message requires\n   immediate attention, please contact one of the people below:\n\n   Network problems:     Austin Shelton <austins@violet.Berkeley.EDU>\n\n   Network information:  Bill Wells <netinfo@violet.Berkeley.EDU>\n     Network installation: Jim Allison <jca@violet.Berkeley.EDU> If\n   you're really desparate, leave me voice-mail at (415) 642-3478.\n   Thanks for your patience! David Wasley, U C Berkeley\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   b.  Case 2\n\n   Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 18:17:12 EST\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@dsl.cis.upenn.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 1\n   To: <mmm-people-request@ISI.EDU>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   sh: vacation: not found\n554\n\"|vacation farber\"... unknown mailer error 1\n\n************************************************************************\nF.19\n.  LocaL Configuration Errors\nDate: Tue, 14 Aug 90 00:36:51 -0400\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@nyu.edu\n   Subject: Returned mail: Local configuration error\n   To: <owner-ietf>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   554 <russell@NYU.EDU>,<ittai@NYU.EDU>...\n       Local configuration error\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 36]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.20\n.  Service Unavailable\nDate: Wed, 8 Aug 90 13:00:39 EDT\n   From: Mailer-Daemon@omni.eng.clemson.edu\n   Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable\n   To: <owner-ietf>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   Connected to eng.clemson.edu:\n   >>> HELO omni\n   <<< 553 omni host name configuration error\n   554 <gkrishn@ENG.CLEMSON.EDU>... Service unavailable\n\n      ----- Unsent message follows -----\n\n************************************************************************\nF.21\n.  \"Bad File Number\"\nTo: <owner-ietf>\n   From: The UTCS Post Office <postmaster@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>\n   Subject: Delivery problems with your mail\n\n   Your message has been received by the University of Toronto Computing\n   Services Postal System. A copy of it has been returned to you because\n   of difficulties encountered while attempting to deliver your mail.\n\n   The following errors occurred while attempting delivery:\n\n   <smtp madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca oattes@madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca 1609>:\n    128.100.102.10: 550 <nsr@madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca>... User unknown:\n    Bad file number\n\n************************************************************************\nF.22\n.   Cannot Append\nDate: Sat, 11 Aug 90 14:51:57 PDT\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.uu.net (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable\n   To: uunet!venera.isi.edu!owner-ietf@uunet.UU.NET\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail: /var/spool/mail/cslater: cannot append\n   Mail saved in dead.letter\n   554 cslater... Service unavailable\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 37]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.23\n.   Error Creating Network Link\n\"erlang::chang... Host unknown\"\n\n   Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 12:34:20 -0800\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Deferred\n   To: <@decpa.pa.dec.com:owner-ietf@venera.isi.edu>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"erlang\",\n           during mail delivery to <ERLANG::CHIU>.\n           Remote error code is 0x7e803a, message is:\n   %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node CHIU\n   -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHNODE, remote node is unknown\n   554 <erlang::chiu>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative answer from\n       name server)\n   mail11: connect: Connect failed, Node unreachable\n   (temporary failure)\n\n      ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n   <erlang::chiu> (bounced)\n   <netrix::gillin> (queued, will retry)\n   <erlang::rama> (sent)\n\n      ----- Unsent message follows -----\n\n************************************************************************\nF.24\n.  Not a Typewriter\nDate: Wed, 8 Aug 90 19:36:47 -0700\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: owner-ietf\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   get_status: Not a typewriter\n   (mail11 operating system error)\n\n   451 <gray@netrix.enet.dec.com>... Operating system error\n   mail11: connect: Connect failed, Unrecognized object\n   (permanent failure)\n\n   554 <bansal@NETRIX.ENET.DEC.COM>... 550 Host unknown\n      (Authoritative answer from name server)\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 38]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\n----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n   <gray@netrix.enet.dec.com> (bounced)\n   <bansal@NETRIX.ENET.DEC.COM> (bounced)\n\n      ----- Unsent message follows -----\n\n************************************************************************\nF.25\n.  \"MTA Congestion\"\nDate: Tue, 7 Aug 90 22:37:48 -0700\n   To: ietf-request\n   From: DFN Gateway <postmaster%zix.gmd.dbp.de@RELAY.CS.NET>\n   Subject: DFN Mail Network -- failed mail\n\n   Mail Failure Diagnostics:\n\n   Message Recipients:\n      weidenhammer@vax.hmi.dbp.de: MTA congestion\n\n************************************************************************\nF.26\n.  Local Forwarding Not Working\nTo: postmaster@ALLSPICE.LCS.MIT.EDU\n   Subject: dukach@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU... User unknown\n   Date: Thu, 01 Nov 90 13:20:53 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n   Hi,\n\n   Would you mind checking into this error message before I delete this\n   person from our list.  I think it may be an internal forwarding\n   problem at MIT.  If not let me know if there is a new address or if I\n   should delete this one.\n\n   --Ann\n\n      ------- Forwarded Message\n\n      Date:    Thu, 01 Nov 90 12:34:01 -0800\n      From:    MAILER-DAEMON@ISI.EDU (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n      To:      owner-dartnet@ISI.EDU\n      Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 39]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\n----- Transcript of session follows -----\n      >>> RCPT To:<dukach@ALLSPICE.LCS.MIT.EDU>\n      <<< 550 /u/dukach/.forward:\n          line 0: tabasco.lcs.mit.edu... User unknown\n      550 dukach@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU... User unknown\n\n         ----- Unsent message follows -----\n\n      To: westine@ISI.EDU\n      Cc: postmaster@ALLSPICE.LCS.MIT.EDU\n      Subject: Re: dukach@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU... User unknown\n      In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 01 Nov 90 13:20:53 -0800.\n                   <9011012120.AA19211@venera.isi.edu>\n      Date: Thu, 01 Nov 90 17:16:44 -0500\n      From: jrd@ALLSPICE.LCS.MIT.EDU\n\n      Ann,\n\n      Please don't delete Semyon. I'll get him to fix his\n      configuration.\n\n      Thanks,\n      Chuck\n\n************************************************************************\nF.27\n. No Such File or Directory\nDate: Tue, 11 Dec 90 17:57:08 -0800\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@quake.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2\n   To: <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   <<< RCPT To:<phil@quake.stanford.edu>\n   <<< RCPT To:<rick@quake.stanford.edu>\n   <<< DATA\n   mail: Creating /usr/spool/mail/phil -: No such file or directory\n   mail: Creating /usr/spool/mail/rick -: No such file or directory\n   Mail saved in dead.letter\n   554 <phil@quake.stanford.edu>,<rick@quake.stanford.edu>... unknown\n   mailer error\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 40]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.28\n.  User Account Terminated\nDate: Wed, 10 Oct 90 18:21:23 EDT\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@theory.TN.CORNELL.EDU\n   Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n   To: <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   Connected to DEVVAX.TN.CORNELL.EDU:\n   >>> RCPT To:<alison@devvax.tn.cornell.edu>\n   <<< 550 <alison@devvax.tn.cornell.edu>... User unknown\n   550 alison@devvax.tn.cornell.edu... User unknown\n\n************************************************************************\nF.29\n.  Machine Terminated\nDate: Wed, 10 Oct 90 19:33:26 EDT\n   From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@edn-vax.dca.mil>\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n   To: <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   550 edn-unix.dca.mil.tcp... 550 Host unknown\n   550 jsl@edn-unix.dca.mil... Host unknown\n\n      ----- Unsent message follows -----\n\n************************************************************************\nF.30\n.  Couldn't Make Final Delivery.\na.  Case 1\n\n   Date: 29 Aug 90 13:17:34 EST\n   From: \"SMTP MAILER\" <postmaster@ecf.ncsl.nist.gov>\n   Subject: Mail Delivery Problem\n   To: \"owner-ietf\" <owner-ietf>\n\n    ----Reason for mail failure follows----\n   Sending mail to recipient(s) Nakassis :\n     Couldn't make final delivery.\n\n   %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening USER2:[000000]NAKASSIS.DIR as output\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 41]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nb.  Case 2\n\n   Date:  8 Oct 90 20:24:32 EDT\n   From: \"SMTP MAILER\" <postmaster@imo-uvax.dca.mil>\n   Subject: Mail Delivery Problem\n   To: \"owner-ietf\" <owner-ietf@ISI.EDU>\n\n    ----Reason for mail failure follows----\n   Sending mail to recipient(s) morrisd :\n     Couldn't make final delivery.\n\n   %MRGATE-E-MRFROMVMS, Error transferring message to Message Router\n\n************************************************************************\nF.31\n.  Unknown \".ARPA\" Hosts Without Updated Hostname\nWHATHOST and DIG show nothing for DCA-EMS.ARPA.  There is no referral\n   to the new hostname.  \"WHOIS\" DCA-EMS came up with the new hostname.\n\n   From: MAILER-DAEMON@ISI.EDU (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n   Subject: Returned mail: Deferred: Host Name Lookup Failure\n   Posted-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 15:59:34 -0800\n   To: owner-internet-research-group@ISI.EDU\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   Coviello@DCA-EMS.ARPA,Elliott@DCA-EMS.ARPA,\n     Hingorani@DCA-EMS.ARPA... Host unknown\n\n   westine 45% whathost dca-ems.arpa\n   Unknown Host: dca-ems.arpa, errno 0, h_errno 1 : Unknown host\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 42]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nwestine 44% whois dca-ems\n   Defense Communications Agency (DCA) (DCA-EMS)\n      Office Automation Division\n      Code H610\n      Washington, DC 20305-2000\n\n      Hostname: DCA-EMS.DCA.MIL\n      Address: 26.1.0.76\n      System: BBN-C/70 running UNIX\n\n      Host Administrator:\n         Wilkinson, Avis D.  (ADW)  AWilkins@DDN-CONUS.DDN.MIL\n         (703) 848-4867\n\n      DCA-EMS.DCA.MIL users send E-Mail to AWilkins@DCA-EMS.DCA.MIL\n\n      Record last updated on 10-Sep-90.\n\n************************************************************************\nF.32\n.  Messages From an Internet Relay to Commercial Mail Systems\na.  Message Too Large\n\n   Date: 13 Feb 91 04:15:22 EST\n   From: Electronic Postmaster <POSTMASTER@CompuServe.COM>\n   To: Ann Westine <westine@ISI.EDU>\n   Subject: Undeliverable message\n\n\n   Re: ? EMDITB - Mail Delivery Failure. Message too large.\n        >EPX [74360,3202]\n\n   Internet Monthly Report\n\n   Your message could not be delivered as addressed.\n\n   --- Returned message ---\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 43]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nb.  Invalid Parameters\n\n   Date: 13 Feb 91 05:34 UT\n   From: \"X.400 Gateway\" <MAILER-DAEMON@sprint.com>\n   Subject: MHS NonDelivery Report\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n   Report from domain /PRMD=/ADMD=telemail/C=us/:\n\n   FAILED delivery to:\n\n  1 Recipient ORName:\n/PN=tony.y.mazraani/DD.TS=SM55/O=SPRINTINTL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/\n    Translates to:\n/PN=tony.y.mazraani/DD.TS=SM55/O=SPRINTINTL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US\n                                                         /@sprint.com\n    Reason: unable to transfer\n    Diagnostic: invalid parameters\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   c.  Looping\n\n   From: Allan.Cargille@pilot.cs.wisc.edu\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Delivery Report (failure) for\n            Allan.Cargille@pilot.cs.wisc.edu\n   Message-Type: Delivery Report\n   Date: Wed, 12 Dec 1990 15:34:41 +0000\n   Content-Identifier: Why WAN multi...\n\n   This report relates to your message: Why WAN multi...\n           of Wed, 12 Dec 1990 15:22:56 +0000\n\n   Your message was not delivered to\n           Allan.Cargille@pilot.cs.wisc.edu for the following reason:\n           Message looping detected (please contact local administrator)\n\n   *** The following information is directed towards the local\n   *** administrator and is not intended for the end user\n   *\n   * DR generated by mta pilot.cs.wisc.edu\n   *         in /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/\n   *         at Wed, 12 Dec 1990 15:34:35 +0000\n   *\n   * Converted to\nRFC 822\nat pilot.cs.wisc.edu\n   *         at Wed, 12 Dec 1990 15:34:41 +0000\n   *\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 44]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\n* Delivery Report Contents:\n   *\n   * Subject-Submission-Identifier: [/PRMD=xnren/ADMD=\n   /C=us/;<9012121704.AA08993@decpa.pa.dec]\n   * Content-Identifier: Why WAN multi...\n   * Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:  /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;\n   *          arrival Wed, 12 Dec 1990 15:22:56 +0000 action Relayed\n   * Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:  /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;\n   *          arrival Wed, 12 Dec 1990 15:22:47 +0000 action Relayed\n   * Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:  /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;\n   *          arrival Wed, 12 Dec 1990 15:21:48 +0000 action Relayed\n   * Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:  /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;\n   *          arrival Wed, 12 Dec 1990 11:05:55 +0000 action Relayed\n   * Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:  /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;\n   *          arrival Wed, 12 Dec 1990 11:05:46 +0000 action Relayed\n   * Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:  /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;\n   *          arrival Wed, 12 Dec 1990 15:22:57 +0000 action Relayed\n   * Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information:  /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;\n   *          arrival Wed, 12 Dec 1990 11:04:50 +0000 action Relayed\n   * Recipient-Info: Allan.Cargille@pilot.cs.wisc.edu,\n   *         /G=Allan/S=Cargille/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/ADMD=\n   *         /C=us/;\n   *         FAILURE reason Unable-To-Transfer (1);\n   *         diagnostic Loop-Detected (3);\n   *         last trace () Wed, 12 Dec 1990 11:04:50 +0000;\n\n   ****** End of administration information\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 45]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.33\n.  Incomplete DNS Data on Host\nDate: Fri, 14 Dec 90 19:37:51 -0500\n   From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@shark.cs.fau.edu>\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown\n\n      ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n   550 megasys.com (TCP)... 550 Host unknown\n   550 <pax@MEGASYS.COM>... Host unknown (Valid name but no data\n       [address])\n\n\n   westine 27% dig megasys.com any\n\n   ; <<>> DiG <<>> megasys.com any\n   ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY , status: NOERROR, id: 6\n   ;; flags: qr rd ra  Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 2, Addit: 3\n\n   ;; QUESTIONS:\n   ;;      megasys.com, type = ANY, class = IN\n\n   ;; ANSWERS:\n   megasys.com     IN      NS      UUNET.UU.NET    ; 172786\n   megasys.com     IN      NS      seismo.CSS.GOV  ; 172786\n\n   ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:\n   MEGASYS.COM     IN      NS      UUNET.UU.NET    ; 172786\n   MEGASYS.COM     IN      NS      seismo.CSS.GOV  ; 172786\n\n   ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS:\n   UUNET.UU.NET    IN      A       192.48.96.2     ; 447968\n   UUNET.UU.NET    IN      A       137.39.1.2      ; 170920\n   seismo.CSS.GOV  IN      A       192.12.141.25   ; 172786\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 46]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.34\n.  Sublist Problem\nFrom: fischer@math.ufl.edu\n   Posted-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 12:28:23 EST\n   Received: from gimme.math.ufl.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n           id <AA15131>; Mon, 17 Dec 90 09:28:24 -0800\n   Received:  by gimme.math.ufl.edu (4.1/4.03)\n           id AA05948; Mon, 17 Dec 90 12:28:23 EST\n   Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 12:28:23 EST\n   To: ietf-request@ISI.EDU, postmaster@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: here we go again: please release me, let me go...\n\n\n   Fifth time now(?) I try this every couple of months now,\n   figuring you may be hoplesslly backed up.\n\n   Can you remove me from the ietf list?  I may be there as\n   either:\n\n           fischer@math.ufl.edu\n   or\n           netadm@math.ufl.edu\n\n   I would appreciate a confirmation message: I'm ready to use\n   crontab for these mailings.\n\n   Many Thanks,\n\n   Randy Fischer\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   To: fischer@math.ufl.edu\n   cc: ietf-request@ISI.EDU, postmaster@ISI.EDU\n   Reply-To: westine@isi.edu\n   Subject: Re: here we go again: please release me, let me go...\n   In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 17 Dec 90 12:28:23 -0500.\n                <9012171728.AA05948@gimme.math.ufl.edu>\n   Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 10:15:36 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi Randy,\n\n   I remember your request, and I also remember telling you that you are\n   not on our list (at least individually).  There is an exploder\n   \"netadm@MATH.UFL.EDU\" maintained at UFL.EDU.  You need to check with\n   the postmaster to see if you are on their list.  If this is not the\n   case, here are the only other addresses I have from UFL.EDU\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 47]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nceben@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU,\n   esj@UFL.EDU,\n   FCLA@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU,\n   netadm@MATH.UFL.EDU,\n   POKE@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU,\n\n   There is another possibility, perhaps you have a pointer to a mailbox\n   somewhere else?\n\n   Regards,\n   Ann\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   From: Operator <root@math.ufl.edu>\n   To: ietf-request@ISI.EDU, westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: re: done at last: please release me, let me go...\n\n   Many, many thanks for the reply: I did not, somehow, see your\n   previous reply -- perhaps you forwarded it to someone at UFL.EDU\n   instead of MATH.UFL.EDU?  Or I missed it in the flow of mail I am\n   trying to abate.\n   No matter.\n\n   At any rate \"netadm@math.ufl.edu\" is indeed a local exploder, aliased\n   at the moment to myself and one of my assistants.  It is local to the\n   \"math.ufl.edu\" subdomain, and not to \"ufl.edu\" as your records\n   indicate.  I am the postmaster of the \"math.ufl.edu\", and you should\n   be able to verify \"math.ufl.edu\" has an MX record pointing to\n   \"mathlab.math.ufl.edu\".  I am therefore mailing to you as root from\n   that machine.\n\n   Please remove \"netadm@math.ufl.edu\" from your list.  I have quite\n   enjoyed the discussions,  but the volume been overwhelming.\n\n   Thanks very much for your prompt reply,\n   Appreciatively,\n\n   -Randy Fischer <root@math.ufl.edu> <fischer@math.ufl.edu>\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 48]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.35\n.  File Protection Problem\nFrom: \"Raj Jain, LKG1-2/A19, DTN: 226-7642, 508-486-7642\n          09-Feb-1991 0904\"\n   <jain@erlang.enet.dec.com>\n   To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Request to add to IETF\n\n   I seem to have suddenly dropped off the IETF distribution list. I\n   have not received any IETF mail since 9-Jan-91. Could you please\n   ensure that I am still in the distribution list.\n\n   -Raj Jain\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   To: \"Raj Jain, LKG1-2/A19, DTN: 226-7642,\n       508-486-7642 09-Feb-1991 0904\" <jain@erlang.enet.dec.com>\n   cc: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU, ietf-request\n   Reply-To: westine@isi.edu\n   Subject: Re: Request to add to IETF\n   In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 09 Feb 91 06:07:15 -0800.\n                <9102091407.AA06473@decpa.pa.dec.com>\n   Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 11:17:41 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@rwa.isi.edu>\n\n   Hi Raj,\n\n   I will readd you to the IETF list.  However, if I receive more error\n   messages like this, then I must take your name off the list again.\n   I've sent messages to the postmaster at DEC but the problem isn't\n   corrected.  Your address isn't the only one, there's CALLON and a few\n   others.\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 49]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nMaybe you can check into this.  Here's the header from one of the\n   many error messages I received.\n\n   Regards, --Ann\n\n      Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 17:04:41 -0800\n      From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n      Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n      To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n\n         ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n      mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"erlang\",\n              during mail delivery to <ERLANG::JAIN>.\n              Remote error code is 0x7e81fa, message is:\n      %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output\n      -RMS-E-PRV, insufficient privilege or file protection violation\n              (can't decypher error code)\n      550 <jain@ERLANG.DEC.COM>... User unknown\n\n         ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n      <jain@ERLANG.DEC.COM> (bounced)\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 17:54:20 EST\n   From: \"Raj Jain, LKG1-2/A19, DTN: 226-7642, 508-486-7642\n          12-Feb-1991 1751\"\n   <jain@erlang.enet.dec.com>\n   To: westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Re: Request to add to IETF\n\n   The error message that you sent is unfortunately my mistake and has\n   nothing to do with DECWRL. One day I reset protection on all my files\n   and directories and didn't realize that even the system did not have\n   the privilege to write mail messages on my disk. I discovered it only\n   after several people sent phone messages to me. Thanks for adding my\n   name again. I will try to be careful.  -Raj\n\n************************************************************************\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 50]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nF.36\n.  User Unknown\na.  Request to be Readded to IETF List\n\n   Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 10:03:54 PST\n   From: \"Paul Ciarfella DTN 227-3548 Outside 508 952-3548\n         11-Feb-1991 1301\"\n   <ciarfella@levers.enet.dec.com>\n   To: ietf-request@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: add me to the ietf list (again)\n\n   Hi -\n\n   Could I be added to the ietf distribution list (again). I must have\n   been dropped from the list somehow.  This happened to me before the\n   last ietf - I had to get my name reregistered then, too.\n\n   Thanks,\n\n   Paul Ciarfella ciarfella@levers.enet.dec.com\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n   b.  Message to User Regarding Readd and Previous Problems\n\n   To: \"Paul Ciarfella DTN 227-3548 Outside 508 952-3548  11-Feb-1991\n       1301\" <ciarfella@levers.enet.dec.com>\n   Cc: ietf-request@ISI.EDU\n   Reply-To: westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: Re: add me to the ietf list (again)\n   In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 11 Feb 91 10:03:54 -0800.\n                <9102111803.AA11116@decpa.pa.dec.com>\n   Date: Wed, 13 Feb 91 11:05:46 PST\n   From: Ann Westine <westine@ISI.EDU>\n\n   Hi Paul,\n\n   Every couple of months I have lots of error messags from several\n   individual mailboxes on ENET.DEC.COM.  Here is a typical one.  Since\n   I cannot reach you I am forced to delete your mailbox.\n\n   I have sent several messages to the postmaster at DEC but nothing has\n   been corrected.  Perhaps you can look into this.\n\n   --Ann\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 51]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nReturn-Path: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com\n      Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 19:53:19 PST\n      Received: from venera.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (4.1/4.0.3-4)\n              id <AA11360>; Tue, 11 Dec 90 19:53:19 PST\n      Posted-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 19:42:03 -0800\n      Received: from decpa.pa.dec.com by venera.isi.edu\n              (5.61/5.61+local)\n              id <AA08309>; Tue, 11 Dec 90 19:53:17 -0800\n      Received: by decpa.pa.dec.com; id AA12106; Tue, 11 Dec 90 19:42:03\n      Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 19:42:03 -0800\n      From: MAILER-DAEMON@decwrl.dec.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)\n      Subject: Returned mail: User unknown\n      Message-Id: <9012120342.AA12106@decpa.pa.dec.com>\n      To: owner-ietf@ISI.EDU\n\n         ----- Transcript of session follows -----\n      mail11: input timeout reading remote object\n      get_status: Connection timed out\n      (temporary failure)\n\n      mail11: Error from DECnet MAIL object on node \"levers\",\n              during mail delivery to <LEVERS::CIARFELLA>.\n              Remote error code is 0x7e81fa, message is:\n      %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output\n      -RMS-E-CRE, ACP file create failed\n      -SYSTEM-W-DIRALLOC, allocation failure on directory file\n              (can't decypher error code)\n      550 <ciarfella@LEVERS.ENET.DEC.COM>... User unknown\n\n         ----- Recipients of this delivery -----\n      <hayden@LEVERS.ENET.DEC.COM> (queued, will retry)\n      <ciarfella@LEVERS.ENET.DEC.COM> (bounced)\n      <anil@LEVERS.ENET.DEC.COM> (sent)\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 52]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\nc.  Response from User Regarding Problem\n\n   Return-Path: ciarfella@levers.enet.dec.com\n   Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 91 13:51:25 PST\n   Received: from venera.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (4.1/4.0.3-4)\n           id <AA26215>; Wed, 13 Feb 91 13:51:25 PST\n   Posted-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 91 13:51:02 PST\n   Received: from decpa.pa.dec.com by venera.isi.edu (5.61/5.61+local)\n           id <AA04585>; Wed, 13 Feb 91 13:51:22 -0800\n   Received: by decpa.pa.dec.com; id AA14420; Wed, 13\n             Feb 91 13:51:00 -0800\n   Received: from levers.enet; by decwrl.enet; Wed, 13 Feb 91 13:51:02 PST\n   Date: Wed, 13 Feb 91 13:51:02 PST\n   From: \"I'll die for my country but I won't kill for Texaco\n   13-Feb-1991 1641\"\n   <ciarfella@levers.enet.dec.com>\n   To: westine@ISI.EDU\n   Subject: re: add me to the ietf list (again)\n\n   Hi Ann,\n\n   Could we try another address for me?  The old address has been\n   plagued by disk problems which might explain why the mail is not\n   getting delivered.\n\n   The new address to register is:\n\n      ciarfella@quiver.enet.dec.com\n\n   I will check into the problem on this end.  Sorry about the tone of\n   my first message but this has been a never-ending problem for over 8\n   months.\n\n   Thank you,\n\n   Paul C\n\n************************************************************************\n5\n.  Security Considerations\nSecurity issues are not discussed in this memo.\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 53]\nRFC 1211\nProblems with Mailing Lists             March 1991\n6\n.  Authors' Addresses\nAnn Westine\n   USC - Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695\n\n   Phone: 213-822-1511\n\n   EMail: Westine@ISI.EDU\n\n\n   Jon Postel\n   USC - Information Sciences Institute\n   4676 Admiralty Way\n   Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695\n\n   Phone: 213-822-1511\n\n   EMail: Postel@ISI.EDU\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWestine & Postel                                               [Page 54]\nRFC\n1211\n: Problems with the maintenance of large mailing lists\nInformational", "segments": [], "published_at": "1991-03-01", "date_source": "document_metadata", "date_confidence": "high", "date_type": "published_at", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "1991-03-01", "date_type": "published_at", "source": "document_metadata", "confidence": "high", "raw_text": "1991-03-01", "notes": ""}], "retrieved_at": "2026-08-10T11:32:54.556194+00:00", "http_status": 200, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": ["internet-governance", "technical-standards"], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "f4121e79-a821-4357-85a2-8a1ea5952284", "source_id": "c1320fb93fac1326b5b8e28e", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/public-responsibility-support/nextgen", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/public-responsibility-support/nextgen", "artifact_sha256": "ffd4d9cce0bbc3d2adcf17420447c025d761fbc757b8eeb2521b37bd8a41b241", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 80195, "title": "NextGen - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 16468, "characters": 16468, "text": "NextGen - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nEligibility\n|\nApply\n|\nFAQs\n|\nDates & Deadlines\n|\nSelection Criteria\n|\nSelection Committee\n|\nNextGen Presentations\n|\nImportant Links\nAbout\nAt ICANN,\nwe recognize the importance of expanding accessibility to both ICANN and the broader Internet governance ecosystem. A key part of this commitment is raising awareness and encouraging participation among young people who are not yet engaged.\nThe NextGen@ICANN youth program plays a vital role in identifying and supporting potential future community members, with the aim of fostering long-term involvement once participants have completed their studies.\nNextGen@ICANN invites you to explore key areas that will help you better understand ICANN’s mission and the bottom-up, multistakeholder model that guides its work. You will also learn how to begin contributing to discussions and decisions that shape the Internet at the regional and global levels.\nThe ICANN organization is looking for the next generation of individuals who are interested in engaging with their regional communities and helping shape the future of the global Internet. Important work takes place every day across the ICANN community, and new perspectives are essential to its continued success.\nIf you are ready to begin your journey, attending an ICANN Meeting as a NextGen@ICANN participant is an ideal first step!\nThrough the NextGen@ICANN Program, we will provide selected students from the ICANN meeting region with coaching, guidance, and travel support, enabling them to meaningfully engage and begin a structured, step-by-step pathway into the ICANN ecosystem.\nEligibility\nParticipants in the NextGen@ICANN program must be:\nEnrolled as an undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral student.\nBetween the ages of 18 and 30 at the time of the ICANN meeting.\nIf you do not meet the NextGen eligibility criteria, please explore the\nICANN Fellowship program\n.\nCurrently living and studying in the region of the respective ICANN meeting.\nICANN's meetings rotate through five geographic regions: Africa, Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia Pacific. Find out your ICANN region\nhere\n.\nSee the calendar and regional rotation for future meetings\n.\nIn the event that applications are being accepted from regions other than the one in which the ICANN meeting is taking place, ICANN will make this information publicly available online in advance of the application process for that specific meeting.\nInterested in Internet Governance, the future of the Internet, and other topics covered at ICANN meetings.\nIf selected, participant must be able to attend the ICANN meeting and required events.\nNextGen participants are expected to actively participate at the meeting.\nIf selected, participant must be willing to present a 5 -10 minute project at the meeting.\nThe presentation can cover topics including: research you are working on or completed, an activity related to ICANN's work, an ICANN related website you are affiliated with, a thesis project, etc.\nNextGen participants come from a variety of backgrounds. Check out\nprevious participants\nand\nprogram statistics\nfor more information.\nApply\nNextGen@ICANN applications are currently closed.\nStay tuned for ICANN88 applications opening soon!\nPlease note that you need an\nICANN\nAccount in order to apply for the NextGen@ICANN Program.\nBy applying, applicants are agreeing to attend the ICANN meeting with the NextGen@ICANN group as well as all required events. Each individual is provided a grant of support that covers the cost of economy class airfare, hotel and a stipend. NextGen participants are required to secure their own visas for travel at their own expense. If an applicant wants to obtain travel or health insurance this will be at their own expense. NextGen applicants must provide personal information; however, it is voluntary to apply. For more information, see\nProgram Terms and Conditions\n.\nFor more information, please see the program's\nFrequently Asked Questions\n.\nApplication Dates & Deadlines\nICANN Meeting\nICANN Region\nMeeting Dates\nOpening of Application Round\nClosing of Application Round\nAnnouncement of Selected NextGen\nICANN86 Policy Forum in Seville, Spain\nEurope\n8-11 June 2026\nClosed\nClosed\n17 February 2026\nICANN87 Annual General Meeting in Bali, Indonesia\nAsia Pacific\n17-22 October 2026\nClosed\nClosed\n8 July 2026\nICANN88 Community Forum in Lisbon, Portugal\nEurope\n13-18 March 2027\n31 August 2026\n9 October 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n17 December 2026\nNextGen@ICANN Selection Criteria\nApplicants are evaluated based on the following criteria:\nApplicant exhibits interest in ICANN and the Internet ecosystem through examples of current work, activities, public dialogue through their studies, and/or research on the web.\nApplicant expresses how participation in the NextGen@ICANN program would be valuable to them as an individual, and as part of a greater community (e.g., university, country, region).\nApplicant's quality in expressing their view on an Internet topic within their application.\nApplicant demonstrates a desire to become a part of the ICANN community.\nApplicant demonstrates long-standing interest in topics related to ICANN's work.\nApplicant expresses a desire to engage and improve their understanding of ICANN's work in their region.\nImportant Links\nApply to NextGen@ICANN\nSubmit an application during open rounds\nNextGen@ICANN Mentors\nLearn more about the prorgram's mentoring process.\nNextGen@ICANN Presentations\nCheck out previous and upcoming NextGen presentations and recordings of the sessions\nFAQs\nCheck out frequently asked questions and answers\nabout the NextGen@ICANN Program\nProgram Terms and Conditions\nMore information on the NextGen@ICANN Program\nProgram Statistics\nCheck out statistics on NextGen participants\nPrevious NextGen Participants\nSee the participants from past NextGen Programs\nNextGen@ICANN Five-Year Survey Report\nCheck out the results of the Five-Year NextGen@ICANN Survey with program alumni (13 June 2019)\nNextGen@ICANN Program Mentoring Guidlines\nFellowship Program\nLearn about the ICANN Fellowship Program.\nFor more information, please contact\n[email protected]\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "cd737504-5967-44bd-89bf-af121fc79496", "document_id": "f4121e79-a821-4357-85a2-8a1ea5952284", "ordinal": 0, "text": "NextGen - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nEligibility\n|\nApply\n|\nFAQs\n|\nDates & Deadlines\n|\nSelection Criteria\n|\nSelection Committee\n|\nNextGen Presentations\n|\nImportant Links\nAbout\nAt ICANN,\nwe recognize the importance of expanding accessibility to both ICANN and the broader Internet governance ecosystem. A key part of this commitment is raising awareness and encouraging participation among young people who are not yet engaged.\nThe NextGen@ICANN youth program plays a vital role in identifying and supporting potential future community members, with the aim of fostering long-term involvement once participants have completed their studies.\nNextGen@ICANN invites you to explore key areas that will help you better understand ICANN’s mission and the bottom-up, multistakeholder model that guides its work. You will also learn how to begin contributing to discussions and decisions that shape the Internet at the regional and global levels.\nThe ICANN organization is looking for the next generation of individuals who are interested in engaging with their regional communities and helping shape the future of the global Internet. Important work takes place every day across the ICANN community, and new perspectives are essential to its continued success.\nIf you are ready to begin your journey, attending an ICANN Meeting as a NextGen@ICANN participant is an ideal first step!\nThrough the NextGen@ICANN Program, we will provide selected students from the ICANN meeting region with coaching, guidance, and travel support, enabling them to meaningfully engage and begin a structured, step-by-step pathway into the ICANN ecosystem.\nEligibility\nParticipants in the NextGen@ICANN program must be:\nEnrolled as an undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral student.\nBetween the ages of 18 and 30 at the time of the ICANN meeting.\nIf you do not meet the NextGen eligibility criteria, please explore the\nICANN Fellowship program\n.\nCurrently living and studying in the region of the respective ICANN meeting.\nICANN's meetings rotate through five geographic regions: Africa, Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia Pacific. Find out your ICANN region\nhere\n.\nSee the calendar and regional rotation for future meetings\n.\nIn the event that applications are being accepted from regions other than the one in which the ICANN meeting is taking place, ICANN will make this information publicly available online in advance of the application process for that specific meeting.\nInterested in Internet Governance, the future of the Internet, and other topics covered at ICANN meetings.\nIf selected, participant must be able to attend the ICANN meeting and required events.\nNextGen participants are expected to actively participate at the meeting.\nIf selected, participant must be willing to present a 5 -10 minute project at the meeting.\nThe presentation can cover topics including: research you are working on or completed, an activity related to ICANN's work, an ICANN related website you are affiliated with, a thesis project, etc.\nNextGen participants come from a variety of backgrounds. Check out\nprevious participants\nand\nprogram statistics\nfor more information.\nApply\nNextGen@ICANN applications are currently closed.\nStay tuned for ICANN88 applications opening soon!\nPlease note that you need an\nICANN\nAccount in order to apply for the NextGen@ICANN Program.\nBy applying, applicants are agreeing to attend the ICANN meeting with the NextGen@ICANN group as well as all required events. Each individual is provided a grant of support that covers the cost of economy class airfare, hotel and a stipend. NextGen participants are required to secure their own visas for travel at their own expense. If an applicant wants to obtain travel or health insurance this will be at their own expense. NextGen applicants must provide personal information; however, it is voluntary to apply. For more information, see\nProgram Terms and Conditions\n.\nFor more information, please see the program's\nFrequently Asked Questions\n.\nApplication Dates & Deadlines\nICANN Meeting\nICANN Region\nMeeting Dates\nOpening of Application Round\nClosing of Application Round\nAnnouncement of Selected NextGen\nICANN86 Policy Forum in Seville, Spain\nEurope\n8-11 June 2026\nClosed\nClosed\n17 February 2026\nICANN87 Annual General Meeting in Bali, Indonesia\nAsia Pacific\n17-22 October 2026\nClosed\nClosed\n8 July 2026\nICANN88 Community Forum in Lisbon, Portugal\nEurope\n13-18 March 2027\n31 August 2026\n9 October 2026 at 23:59 UTC\n17 December 2026\nNextGen@ICANN Selection Criteria\nApplicants are evaluated based on the following criteria:\nApplicant exhibits interest in ICANN and the Internet ecosystem through examples of current work, activities, public dialogue through their studies, and/or research on the web.\nApplicant expresses how participation in the NextGen@ICANN program would be valuable to them as an individual, and as part of a greater community (e.g., university, country, region).\nApplicant's quality in expressing their view on an Internet topic within their application.\nApplicant demonstrates a desire to become a part of the ICANN community.\nApplicant demonstrates long-standing interest in topics related to ICANN's work.\nApplicant expresses a desire to engage and improve their understanding of ICANN's work in their region.\nImportant Links\nApply to NextGen@ICANN\nSubmit an application during open rounds\nNextGen@ICANN Mentors\nLearn more about the prorgram's mentoring process.\nNextGen@ICANN Presentations\nCheck out previous and upcoming NextGen presentations and recordings of the sessions\nFAQs\nCheck out frequently asked questions and answers\nabout the NextGen@ICANN Program\nProgram Terms and Conditions\nMore information on the NextGen@ICANN Program\nProgram Statistics\nCheck out statistics on NextGen participants\nPrevious NextGen Participants\nSee the participants from past NextGen Programs\nNextGen@ICANN Five-Year Survey Report\nCheck out the results of the Five-Year NextGen@ICANN Survey with program alumni (13 June 2019)\nNextGen@ICANN Program Mentoring Guidlines\nFellowship Program\nLearn about the ICANN Fellowship Program.\nFor more information, please contact\n[email protected]\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 16468, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 12, "word_count": 2283}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "f5ec2d99-a80f-4b69-897a-8920c672c8cf", "source_id": "9aa9fa5de145099d996fce16", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/participate-2012-02-25-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/participate-2012-02-25-en", "artifact_sha256": "53efcf4808398c2570eabecc24b2050573ffd3cf0175637a026955a64248e053", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 71294, "title": "Participate in ICANN - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 11480, "characters": 11480, "text": "Participate in ICANN - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nParticipate in ICANN\nWhat does ICANN do?\nWhat's the effect on the Net?\nWhat is going on now?\nHow do I participate?\nTo reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number.\nThat address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other.\nICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world.\nWithout that coordination we wouldn't have a global Internet where we can find each other.\nThat makes ICANN unique.\nICANN was formed in 1998. We are a not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. We promote competition and develop policy on the Internet's unique identifiers.\nICANN doesn't control content on the Internet. We can't stop spam and we don't deal with access to the Internet.\nBut if you are interested in the names that can be used on the Internet; if you want to make sure there are enough numbers to allow the Internet to expand; if you care about how the Internet evolves and want to have a say, join ICANN.\nParticipation is free and your contribution will be unique.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "94651de7-48c8-467e-9a5a-c7353e010f7c", "document_id": "f5ec2d99-a80f-4b69-897a-8920c672c8cf", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Participate in ICANN - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nParticipate in ICANN\nWhat does ICANN do?\nWhat's the effect on the Net?\nWhat is going on now?\nHow do I participate?\nTo reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number.\nThat address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other.\nICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world.\nWithout that coordination we wouldn't have a global Internet where we can find each other.\nThat makes ICANN unique.\nICANN was formed in 1998. We are a not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. We promote competition and develop policy on the Internet's unique identifiers.\nICANN doesn't control content on the Internet. We can't stop spam and we don't deal with access to the Internet.\nBut if you are interested in the names that can be used on the Internet; if you want to make sure there are enough numbers to allow the Internet to expand; if you care about how the Internet evolves and want to have a say, join ICANN.\nParticipation is free and your contribution will be unique.\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 11480, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1571}}], "published_at": "2012-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2012-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2012-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "f8462384-3a80-4606-8ca5-b4eab9f2bd2e", "source_id": "8eed280da490a9457c367a2a", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/what-2012-02-25-en", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/what-2012-02-25-en", "artifact_sha256": "174a2850e95bb1795cebdcbb7cb4b67ad8e27e329249e57d59367d4c128cd5c3", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 81747, "title": "What Does ICANN Do? - ICANN", "language": "en", "text_length": 20370, "characters": 20370, "text": "What Does ICANN Do? - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nItaliano\n日本語\n한국어\nPortuguês\nPусский\n中文\nTo reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet.\nICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet's unique identifiers.\nICANN doesn't control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet.\nWhat is the domain name system?\nThe domain name system, or DNS, is a system designed to make the Internet accessible to human beings. The main way computers that make up the Internet find one another is through a series of numbers, with each number (called an \"IP address\") correlating to a different device. However it is difficult for the human mind to remember long lists of numbers so the DNS uses letters rather than numbers, and then links a precise series of letters with a precise series of numbers.\nThe end result is that ICANN's website can be found at \"icann.org\" rather than \"192.0.32.7\" – which is how computers on the network know it. One advantage to this system – apart from making the network much easier to use for people – is that a particular domain name does not have to be tied to one particular computer because the link between a particular domain and a particular IP address can be changed quickly and easily. This change will then be recognised by the entire Internet within 48 hours thanks to the constantly updating DNS infrastructure. The result is an extremely flexible system.\nA domain name itself comprises two elements: before and after \"the dot\". The part to the right of the dot, such as \"com\", \"net\", \"org\" and so on, is known as a \"top-level domain\" or TLD. One company in each case (called a registry), is in charge of all domains ending with that particular TLD and has access to a full list of domains directly under that name, as well as the IP addresses with which those names are associated. The part before the dot is the domain name that you register and which is then used to provide online systems such as websites, email and so on. These domains are sold by a large number of \"registrars\", free to charge whatever they wish, although in each case they pay a set per-domain fee to the particular registry under whose name the domain is being registered.\nICANN draws up contracts with each\nregistry\n*\n. It also runs an accreditation system for registrars. It is these contracts that provide a consistent and stable environment for the domain name system, and hence the Internet.\nIn summary then, the DNS provides an addressing system for the Internet so people can find particular websites. It is also the basis for email and many other online uses.\nWhat does ICANN have to do with IP addresses?\nICANN plays a similar administrative role with the IP addresses used by computers as it does with the domain names used by humans. In the same way that you cannot have two domain names the same (otherwise you never know where you would end up), for the same reason it is also not possible for there to be two IP addresses the same.\nAgain, ICANN does not run the system, but it does help co-ordinate how IP addresses are supplied to avoid repetition or clashes. ICANN is also the central repository for IP addresses, from which ranges are supplied to regional registries who in turn distribute them to network providers.\nWhat about root servers?\nRoot servers are a different case again. There are 13 root servers – or, more accurately, there are 13 IP addresses on the Internet where root servers can be found (the servers that have one of the 13 IP addresses can be in dozens of different physical locations). These servers all store a copy of the same file which acts as the main index to the Internet's address books. It lists an address for each top-level domain (.com, .de, etc) where that registry's own address book can be found.\nIn reality, the root servers are consulted fairly infrequently (considering the size of the Internet) because once computers on the network know the address of a particular top-level domain they retain it, checking back only occasionally to make sure the address hasn't changed. Nonetheless, the root servers remain vital for the Internet's smooth functioning.\nThe operators of the root servers remain largely autonomous, but at the same time work with one another and with ICANN to make sure the system stays up-to-date with the Internet's advances and changes.\nWhat is ICANN's role?\nAs mentioned earlier, ICANN's role is to oversee the huge and complex interconnected network of unique identifiers that allow computers on the Internet to find one another.\nThis is commonly termed \"universal resolvability\" and means that wherever you are on the network – and hence the world – that you receive the same predictable results when you access the network. Without this, you could end up with an Internet that worked entirely differently depending on your location on the globe.\nHow is ICANN structured?\nICANN is made up of a number of different groups, each of which represent a different interest on the Internet and all of which contribute to any final decisions that ICANN's makes.\nThere are three \"supporting organisations\" that represent:\nThe organisations that deal with IP addresses\nThe organisations that deal with domain names\nThe managers of country code top-level domains (a special exception as explained at the bottom).\nThen there are four \"advisory committees\" that provide ICANN with advice and recommendations. These represent:\nGovernments and international treaty organisations\nRoot server operators\nThose concerned with the Internet's security\nThe \"at large\" community, meaning average Internet users.\nAnd finally, there is a Technical Liaison Group, which works with the organisations that devise the basic protocols for Internet technologies.\nICANN's final decisions are made by a Board of Directors. The Board is made up of 20 members: 16 of which are Board members and four of which are non-voting liaisons. The majority of the voting members (eight of them) are chosen by an independent Nominating Committee and the remainder are nominated members from supporting organisations.\nICANN then has a President and CEO who is also a Board member and who directs the work of ICANN staff, who are based across the globe and help co-ordinate, manage and finally implement all the different discussions and decisions made by the supporting organisations and advisory committees. An ICANN Ombudsman acts as an independent reviewer of the work of the ICANN staff and Board.\nHow does ICANN make decisions?\nWhen it comes to making technical changes to the Internet, here is a simplified rundown of the process:\nAny issue of concern or suggested changes to the existing network is typically raised within one of the supporting organisations (often following a report by one of the advisory committees), where it is discussed and a report produced which is then put out for public review. If the suggested changes impact on any other group within ICANN's system, that group also reviews the suggested changes and makes its views known. The result is then put out for public review a second time.\nAt the end of that process, the ICANN Board is provided with a report outlining all the previous discussions and with a list of recommendations. The Board then discusses the matter and either approves the changes, approves some and rejects others, rejects all of them, or sends the issue back down to one of the supporting organisations to review, often with an explanation as to what the problems are that need to be resolved before it can be approved.\nThe process is then rerun until all the different parts of ICANN can agree a compromise or the Board of Directors make a decision on a report it is presented with.\nHow is ICANN held accountable?\nICANN has external as well as internal accountabilities.\nExternally, ICANN is an organisation incorporated under the law of the State of California in the United States. That means ICANN must abide by the laws of the United States and can be called to account by the judicial system i.e. ICANN can be taken to court.\nICANN is also a non-profit public benefit corporation and its directors are legally responsible for upholding their duties under corporation law.\nInternally, ICANN is accountable to the community through:\nIts bylaws\nThe representative composition of the ICANN Board from across the globe\nAn independent Nominating Committee that selects a majority of the voting Board members\nSenior staff who must be elected annually by the Board\nThree different dispute resolution procedures (Board reconsideration committee; Independent Review Panel; Ombudsman)\nThe full range of ICANN's\naccountability and transparency frameworks and principles\nare available online.\n*\nThere is an important exception to this in the form of \"country code top-level domains\" (ccTLDs) such as .de for Germany or .uk for the United Kingdom. There are over 250 ccTLDs, some of which have a contract with ICANN; others of which have signed working agreements with ICANN; and some of which have yet to enter any formal agreement with ICANN. ICANN however does carry out what is known as the \"IANA function\" in which every ccTLD's main address is listed so the rest of the Internet can find it. ICANN is also in the position where it can add new TLDs to the wider system, as it did in 2000 and 2004 when seven and six new TLDs respectively were \"added to the root\".\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "segments": [{"segment_id": "6b06a36e-fe81-4e00-aa05-806c5778f116", "document_id": "f8462384-3a80-4606-8ca5-b4eab9f2bd2e", "ordinal": 0, "text": "What Does ICANN Do? - ICANN\nSkip to main content\nSearch ICANN.org\nLog In\nSign Up\nGet Started\nAbout ICANN\nICANN for Beginners\nFellowship Program\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nHistory\nNews and Media\nAnnouncements\nBlog\nMedia Resources\nPress Releases\nGlobal Newsletters\nICANN News Subscriptions\nRegional Reports\nPolicy\nDevelop Policy\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplement Policy\nCommunity Participation Guidelines\nPublic Comment\nPublic Comment Home\nUpcoming Proceedings\nOpen Proceedings\nClosed Proceedings\nAbout Public Comment\nOther Public Consultations\nResources\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability Mechanisms\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nContractual Compliance\nDomain Name Security Threats\nPrivacy and Proxy Services\nGovernment Engagement\nCareers\nComplaints Office\nI Need Help\nICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic\nCommunity\nEngagement Calendar\nAddress Supporting Organization (ASO)\nCountry Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)\nGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)\nAt-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)\nGovernmental Advisory Committee (GAC)\nRoot Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nQuicklinks\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nData Protection and Privacy\nDomain Name Registrants\nEngagement Calendar\nIANA Services\nICANN Acronyms and Terms\nICANN Grant Program\nNew gTLD Program\nPublic Technical Identifiers (PTI)\nOpen Data\nQuestion About A Domain Name?\nTechnology @ ICANN\nWSIS+20 Outreach Network\nResources\nAbout ICANN\nAcademic Engagement\nAcronyms and Terms\nCourses and Learning\nICANN for Beginners\nParticipate\nWhat ICANN Does\nEffect on the Internet\nWhat's Going On Now\nHow to Participate\nFellowship Program\nCommittee\nTerms & Conditions\nNextGen@ICANN Program\nPresident's Corner\nICANN Management Organization Chart\nStaff\nCareers\nIn Focus\nICANN Response Planning Framework\nDNSSEC\nStandards\nIANA DNSSEC Root Information\nTLD DNSSEC Report\nRoot Deployment\nDeployment Graph\nTools\nTraining\nKey Ceremony\nNews\nBlog Posts\nPresentations\nRelated Sites\nGNSO Improvements\nTravel Support\nMedia Resources\nICANN News\nAbout ICANN\nSubscribe and Follow\nContacts\nBoard Activities and Meetings\nAccountability\nAccountability Mechanisms\nReconsideration\nIndependent Review Process\nUpdating the IRP\nOmbuds\nAbout the Ombuds Office\nContact the Ombuds Office\nOmbuds Office Services\nComplaints About Unfairness\nComplaints About Harassment\nCollaborative Conflict Resolution\nRequest for Reconsideration\nResources for Community Members\nOmbuds Office Accountability\nOmbud's Blogs\nEmpowered Community\nEmpowered Community Administration\nEmpowered Community Administration Mailing List\nEmpowered Community Correspondence\nDocument Disclosure\nReviews\nOrganizational Reviews\nALAC\nASO\nBoard\nccNSO\nGNSO\nNominating Committee\nRSSAC\nSSAC\nTechnical Liaison Group\nSpecific Reviews\nAccountability & Transparency\nRegistration Directory Service\nSecurity, Stability, and Resiliency\nCompetition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice\nCCT Metrics\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nEmployee Practices and Resources\nEnhancing ICANN Accountability – Work Stream 2 Implementation\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nEvolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model\nAgreements\nNTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition\nCall for Public Input: Draft Process to Develop the Proposal (8 April-8 May 2014\nProcess to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps\nRegistry\nArchive\nAffirmation of Commitments\nAOC Tracking\nccTLD\nPartnership Memorandums of Understanding\nRegistrar\nArchive\nAnnual Reports\nFinancials\nFinancial Reports\nPolicies, Guidelines and Procedures\nAnnual Disclosure of Payments to Suppliers\nLobbying Disclosures & Contribution Reports\nPlanning\nStrategic Plan\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY26-30\nICANN's Annual Strategy Review Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY21-25\nStrategic Outlook Trends Program\nICANN Strategic Plan for FY16-20\nOperating Plan\nPresentations\nRFPs\nLitigation\nNewsletter\nCorrespondence\n2026\n2025\n2024\n2023\n2022\n2021\n2020\n2019\n2018\n2017\n2016\n2015\n2014\n2013\n2012\n2011\n2010\n2009\n2008\n2007\n2006\n2005\n2004\n2003\n2002\n2001\n2000\n1999\n1998\nQuarterly Reports\nGroups\n2023 ICANN CEO Search Committee\nRSSAC\nCharter\nSSAC\nGAC\nAt-Large\nASO\nccNSO\nGNSO\nTechnical Liaison Group\nTechnical Experts Group (TEG)\nNomCom\nPast NomComs\nCustomer Standing Committee\nRoot Zone Evaluation Review Committee (RZERC)\nBusiness\nCivil Society\nComplaints Office\nComplaints Report\nDomain Name System Abuse\nContractual Compliance\nAbout\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Obligations\nFormal Enforcement Notices\nArchive\nContractual Compliance Metrics\nBlogs\nContractual Compliance Audit Program\nNotice of Bankruptcy, Convictions and Security Breaches\nContractual Compliance Reports\nAudit Reports\nEnforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements: Periodic Reviews\nContractual Compliance Monthly Reports\ngTLD Registry Compliance\nAccredited Registrar Compliance\nGeneral Questions\nOutreach\nContracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)\nDomain Name Registrants\nAbout Domain Names\nICANN Policies\nRegistration Data Policies\nWHOIS and Registration Data Directory Services\nThe Domain Name Registration Process\nUsing Domain Name Registration Data\nKeeping Registration Data Accurate\nAccess and the Evolution of the WHOIS System\nDomain Name Industry\nRegistering Domain Names\nManaging Domain Names\nContact Information and WDRP\nSecurely Managing Your Domain Name\nTransferring Domain Names\nRenewing Domain Names\nRights and Responsibilities\nSpam, Phishing, and Website Content\nTrademark Infringement\nGDS Metrics\nIdentifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (OCTO-SSR)\nccTLDs\nBackground Materials\nAgreements\nDelegation\nRoot Zone Database\nModel MOU\nWorkshops\nICANN and ISO\nInternationalized Domain Names\nRoot Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)\nGeneration Panel Update\nMaximal Starting Repertoire\nProposals for Root Zone Label Generation Ruleset\nIDN Variant TLD Implementation\nLGR Toolset\nIDN ccTLD Fast Track\nIDN Implementation Guidelines\nSecond-Level LGR Reference\nResources\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nNew gTLD Program\nUniversal Acceptance Initiative\nMake your systems UA-ready\nUA Training\nUA Day\nUA Readiness Evaluations\nUA Initiatives\nAnnouncements and Blogs Posts\nPolicy\nPolicy Mission\nPolicy Staff Goals\nPresentations\nGlobal Addressing\nIPv6 Allocation\nASN Allocation\nPost Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation\nNew RIRs Criteria\nReview Procedures\nPolicy Updates\nOperational Design Phase (ODP)\nImplementation\nPublic Comment\nOpen\nUpcoming\nArchive\nRoot Zone KSK Rollover\nTechnical Functions\nTech Day Archive\nICANN Locations\nReport Security Issues\nPGP Keys\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbudsman\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nCharter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nEligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nIntellectual Property Defensive Registration Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nQualification Challenge Policy\nProviders\nRules\nRestrictions Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nRules\nTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy\nProviders\nUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy\nPolicy Document\nProviders\nProvider Approval Process\nRules\nPrincipal Documents\nProceedings\nHistorical Documents\nTimeline\nName Collision\nRegistrar Problems\nWhois Data Correction\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nDocument\nWhat Does ICANN Do?\nThis page is available in:\nEnglish\nالعربية\nDeutsch\nEspañol\nFrançais\nItaliano\n日本語\n한국어\nPortuguês\nPусский\n中文\nTo reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet.\nICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet's unique identifiers.\nICANN doesn't control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet.\nWhat is the domain name system?\nThe domain name system, or DNS, is a system designed to make the Internet accessible to human beings. The main way computers that make up the Internet find one another is through a series of numbers, with each number (called an \"IP address\") correlating to a different device. However it is difficult for the human mind to remember long lists of numbers so the DNS uses letters rather than numbers, and then links a precise series of letters with a precise series of numbers.\nThe end result is that ICANN's website can be found at \"icann.org\" rather than \"192.0.32.7\" – which is how computers on the network know it. One advantage to this system – apart from making the network much easier to use for people – is that a particular domain name does not have to be tied to one particular computer because the link between a particular domain and a particular IP address can be changed quickly and easily. This change will then be recognised by the entire Internet within 48 hours thanks to the constantly updating DNS infrastructure. The result is an extremely flexible system.\nA domain name itself comprises two elements: before and after \"the dot\". The part to the right of the dot, such as \"com\", \"net\", \"org\" and so on, is known as a \"top-level domain\" or TLD. One company in each case (called a registry), is in charge of all domains ending with that particular TLD and has access to a full list of domains directly under that name, as well as the IP addresses with which those names are associated. The part before the dot is the domain name that you register and which is then used to provide online systems such as websites, email and so on. These domains are sold by a large number of \"registrars\", free to charge whatever they wish, although in each case they pay a set per-domain fee to the particular registry under whose name the domain is being registered.\nICANN draws up contracts with each\nregistry\n*\n. It also runs an accreditation system for registrars. It is these contracts that provide a consistent and stable environment for the domain name system, and hence the Internet.\nIn summary then, the DNS provides an addressing system for the Internet so people can find particular websites. It is also the basis for email and many other online uses.\nWhat does ICANN have to do with IP addresses?\nICANN plays a similar administrative role with the IP addresses used by computers as it does with the domain names used by humans. In the same way that you cannot have two domain names the same (otherwise you never know where you would end up), for the same reason it is also not possible for there to be two IP addresses the same.\nAgain, ICANN does not run the system, but it does help co-ordinate how IP addresses are supplied to avoid repetition or clashes. ICANN is also the central repository for IP addresses, from which ranges are supplied to regional registries who in turn distribute them to network providers.\nWhat about root servers?\nRoot servers are a different case again. There are 13 root servers – or, more accurately, there are 13 IP addresses on the Internet where root servers can be found (the servers that have one of the 13 IP addresses can be in dozens of different physical locations). These servers all store a copy of the same file which acts as the main index to the Internet's address books. It lists an address for each top-level domain (.com, .de, etc) where that registry's own address book can be found.\nIn reality, the root servers are consulted fairly infrequently (considering the size of the Internet) because once computers on the network know the address of a particular top-level domain they retain it, checking back only occasionally to make sure the address hasn't changed. Nonetheless, the root servers remain vital for the Internet's smooth functioning.\nThe operators of the root servers remain largely autonomous, but at the same time work with one another and with ICANN to make sure the system stays up-to-date with the Internet's advances and changes.\nWhat is ICANN's role?\nAs mentioned earlier, ICANN's role is to oversee the huge and complex interconnected network of unique identifiers that allow computers on the Internet to find one another.\nThis is commonly termed \"universal resolvability\" and means that wherever you are on the network – and hence the world – that you receive the same predictable results when you access the network. Without this, you could end up with an Internet that worked entirely differently depending on your location on the globe.\nHow is ICANN structured?\nICANN is made up of a number of different groups, each of which represent a different interest on the Internet and all of which contribute to any final decisions that ICANN's makes.\nThere are three \"supporting organisations\" that represent:\nThe organisations that deal with IP addresses\nThe organisations that deal with domain names\nThe managers of country code top-level domains (a special exception as explained at the bottom).\nThen there are four \"advisory committees\" that provide ICANN with advice and recommendations. These represent:\nGovernments and international treaty organisations\nRoot server operators\nThose concerned with the Internet's security\nThe \"at large\" community, meaning average Internet users.\nAnd finally, there is a Technical Liaison Group, which works with the organisations that devise the basic protocols for Internet technologies.\nICANN's final decisions are made by a Board of Directors. The Board is made up of 20 members: 16 of which are Board members and four of which are non-voting liaisons. The majority of the voting members (eight of them) are chosen by an independent Nominating Committee and the remainder are nominated members from supporting organisations.\nICANN then has a President and CEO who is also a Board member and who directs the work of ICANN staff, who are based across the globe and help co-ordinate, manage and finally implement all the different discussions and decisions made by the supporting organisations and advisory committees. An ICANN Ombudsman acts as an independent reviewer of the work of the ICANN staff and Board.\nHow does ICANN make decisions?\nWhen it comes to making technical changes to the Internet, here is a simplified rundown of the process:\nAny issue of concern or suggested changes to the existing network is typically raised within one of the supporting organisations (often following a report by one of the advisory committees), where it is discussed and a report produced which is then put out for public review. If the suggested changes impact on any other group within ICANN's system, that group also reviews the suggested changes and makes its views known. The result is then put out for public review a second time.\nAt the end of that process, the ICANN Board is provided with a report outlining all the previous discussions and with a list of recommendations. The Board then discusses the matter and either approves the changes, approves some and rejects others, rejects all of them, or sends the issue back down to one of the supporting organisations to review, often with an explanation as to what the problems are that need to be resolved before it can be approved.\nThe process is then rerun until all the different parts of ICANN can agree a compromise or the Board of Directors make a decision on a report it is presented with.\nHow is ICANN held accountable?\nICANN has external as well as internal accountabilities.\nExternally, ICANN is an organisation incorporated under the law of the State of California in the United States. That means ICANN must abide by the laws of the United States and can be called to account by the judicial system i.e. ICANN can be taken to court.\nICANN is also a non-profit public benefit corporation and its directors are legally responsible for upholding their duties under corporation law.\nInternally, ICANN is accountable to the community through:\nIts bylaws\nThe representative composition of the ICANN Board from across the globe\nAn independent Nominating Committee that selects a majority of the voting Board members\nSenior staff who must be elected annually by the Board\nThree different dispute resolution procedures (Board reconsideration committee; Independent Review Panel; Ombudsman)\nThe full range of ICANN's\naccountability and transparency frameworks and principles\nare available online.\n*\nThere is an important exception to this in the form of \"country code top-level domains\" (ccTLDs) such as .de for Germany or .uk for the United Kingdom. There are over 250 ccTLDs, some of which have a contract with ICANN; others of which have signed working agreements with ICANN; and some of which have yet to enter any formal agreement with ICANN. ICANN however does carry out what is known as the \"IANA function\" in which every ccTLD's main address is listed so the rest of the Internet can find it. ICANN is also in the position where it can add new TLDs to the wider system, as it did in 2000 and 2004 when seven and six new TLDs respectively were \"added to the root\".\nICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.\nYouTube\nTwitter\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nFacebook\nNewsletters\nCommunity Wiki\nICANN Blog\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability And Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequest for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nDomain Name System\nInternationalized Domain Name ,IDN,\"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet \"\"a-z\"\". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European \"\"0-9\"\". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed \"\"ASCII characters\"\" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of \"\"Unicode characters\"\" that provides the basis for IDNs. The \"\"hostname rule\"\" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen \"\"-\"\". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of \"\"labels\"\" (separated by \"\"dots\"\"). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an \"\"A-label\"\". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a \"\"U-label\"\". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for \"\"test\"\" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of \"\"ASCII compatible encoding\"\" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an \"\"LDH label\"\". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as\"\"icann.org\"\" is not an IDN.\"", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 20370, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 16, "word_count": 3063}}], "published_at": "2012-07-01", "date_source": "url_year_only", "date_confidence": "low", "date_type": "url_year", "no_date_reason": "", "date_evidence": [{"date_value": "2012-07-01", "date_type": "url_year", "source": "url_year_only", "confidence": "low", "raw_text": "-2012-", "notes": "Year pattern in URL — weak evidence, not a verified publication date"}], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "fb9140a3-2ffd-4229-a0e3-49e9439cb3e4", "source_id": "1102501c88207df3a7276308", "source": "EU", "source_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence", "final_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence", "artifact_sha256": "6478c9f962863a28a3297378b9270d16f5d6fe98eec1fe7fddc447d787b54de0", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 94142, "title": "European approach to artificial intelligence | Shaping Europe’s digital future", "language": "en", "text_length": 12532, "characters": 12532, "text": "European approach to artificial intelligence | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\n...\nPolicies\nArtificial Intelligence\nEuropean approach to artificial intelligence\nEuropean approach to artificial intelligence\nPage Contents\nPage Contents\nAI Continent Action Plan\nApply AI Strategy\nAI Act\nAI innovation package and GenAI4EU initiative\nImportant milestones\nThe EU’s approach to artificial intelligence promotes excellence and trust, by boosting research and industrial capacity while ensuring safety and fundamental rights.\nThese 2 ambitions are inseparable. To unlock the full potential of AI, Europe must build an\necosystem of excellence\nthat leverages its strengths in\nresearch\n, industrial know-how and regulatory capacity across the AI value chain. At the same time, developing an ecosystem of trust is essential to promote confidence in AI and provide legal certainty for businesses to innovate.\nTo achieve this, Europe’s AI policy approach has been evolving for nearly a decade, resulting in the development of a comprehensive\ngovernance framework\nfor AI and a set of concrete instruments covering regulation, capability-building and adoption. Together, these elements guide EU responses to emerging and disruptive innovations.\nAI Continent Action Plan\nThe\nAI Continent Action Plan\nis turning Europe into a global leader in AI by accelerating the development, deployment and uptake of the technology across key sectors like healthcare, education, industry, and environmental sustainability.\nThe plan is to build large-scale AI data and computing infrastructures, increase access to high-quality data, foster AI adoption in strategic sectors, strengthen AI skills and talent and facilitate the implementation of the\nAI Act\n. Key components include:\nThe reinforcement of\nAI Factories and Gigafactories\nThe\nInvestAI Facility\nto stimulate private investment\nAI Act Service Desk\n, to support a smooth and effective implementation of the AI Act across the EU\nThe future launch of the AI Skills Academy\nThe\nCloud and AI Development Act (CADA)\naims to reduce strategic dependencies and advance the AI Continent Action Plan’s goal of more sovereign, resilient and competitive European AI solutions. CADA will create better conditions for businesses, researchers, and public administrations to innovate and invest in AI and cloud technologies.\nApply AI Strategy\nThe\nApply AI Strategy\ncomplements the AI Continent Action Plan. It aims to harness AI’s transformative potential by increasing AI adoption and integration across key industrial and public sectors, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and support their specific needs.\nThis strategy is boosting EU capabilities to unlock societal benefits, from enabling more accurate medical diagnoses to increasing the accessibility and efficiency of public services. It encourages an AI-first policy, so more companies consider AI as a part of the solution to tackle challenges, while taking into careful consideration the benefits and the risks of the technology.\nTo coordinate AI-related policies and continue the dialogue on EU strategic sectors, the European Commission also launched the\nApply AI Alliance\n. This is a forum made up of AI providers, industry, public sector, academia, social partners and civil society organisations. Closely connected to this forum, the upcoming AI Observatory will track AI trends and assess the impact of AI in specific sectors.\nAI Act\nThe\nAI Act\nintroduces a clear, easy-to-understand approach based on 4 different levels of risk - giving AI developers, deployers, and users clarity about how to address risks generated by specific AI uses. The law strikes a balance between promoting AI research and innovation while ensuring Europeans can benefit from safe and trustworthy AI. From 2 August 2026, the AI Office and national authorities started to\nenforce the AI Act\n.\nThe Commission is committed to a clear, simple and innovation-friendly implementation of the AI Act. In November 2025, we proposed targeted amendments to the AI Act (the 'AI omnibus') as part of the\ndigital simplification package\n. The amendments were adopted in June 2026 and\nentered into force in 27 July 2026\n.\nThese efforts complement actions already underway to provide clarity for businesses and national authorities. Find an overview of the\nupcoming guidelines supporting the implementation of the AI Act\n.\nAI innovation package and GenAI4EU initiative\nThe 2024\nInnovation Package to support AI startups and SMEs\nwas designed to create the conditions to give smaller companies greater access to key ingredients for developing AI: data, computing, algorithms and talent. This also includes access to supercomputing.\nOne key element of this package is the\nCommunication on boosting startups and innovation in trustworthy AI\nthat sets out a strategic investment framework in trustworthy AI. This will enable the EU to capitalise on its assets, in particular its world-leading supercomputing infrastructure, and to foster an innovative European AI ecosystem.\nPart of the Communication, the\nGenAI4EU\ninitiative aims to stimulate the uptake of generative AI across the EU’s key strategic industrial ecosystems. In turn, that will encourage the development of large open innovation ecosystems that will boost collaboration between AI startups and deployers of AI in both industrial and public sectors.\nImportant milestones\n31 July 2026\nEntry into force of AI Act\n27 July 2026\nEntry into force AI Omnibus\n20 July 2026\nPublication of the guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems\n10 June 2026\nPublication of the Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content\n03 June 2026\nTech Sovereignty Package\n- proposal for\nCloud and AI Development Act\n01 June 2026\nLaunch of AI Act Advisory Forum & Scientific Panel\n07 May 2026\nPolitical agreement on AI Omnibus\n24 November 2025\nLaunch of AI Act Whistleblower tool\n19 November 2025\nDigital Omnibus proposal, including AI Act simplification\n05 November 2025\nBeginning of the drawing-up process of the Code of Practice on Code of Practice on marking and labelling of AI-generated content\n08 October 2025\nCommission adopts Apply AI Strategy\nLaunch of AI Act Service Desk\n02 August 2025\nAI Act obligations for providers of GPAI models enter into application\n18 July 2025\nCommission publishes guidelines for providers of General-Purpose AI\n10 July 2025\nCommission receives General-Purpose AI Code of Practice\n9 April 2025\nAI Continent Action Plan\n12 March 2025\nSix additional consortia selected to establish AI factories\n11 February 2025\nLaunch InvestAI at the AI Action Summit in Paris\n6 February 2025\nGuidelines on AI system definition\n4 February 2025\nGuidelines on prohibited AI practices\n10 December 2025\nSeven consortia selected to establish AI factories which will boost AI innovation in the EU\nSeptember 2024\nBeginning of the drawing-up process of the Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI\nCompanies sign EU AI Pact pledges (Pillar II)\n1 August 2024\nAI Act enters into force\nJune 2024\nEstablishment of the European AI Office\nJanuary 2024\nAI innovation package to support Artificial Intelligence startups and SMEs\nDecember 2023\nPolitical agreement on the AI Act reached by the co-legislators\nApril 2021\nCommunication on Fostering a European approach to AI\nProposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on AI\nUpdated coordinated plan on AI\nImpact assessment of an AI regulation\nFebruary 2020\nWhite paper on AI: a European approach to excellence and trust\nApril 2019\nCommunication: Building trust in human-centric artificial intelligence\nDecember 2018\nCoordinated plan on AI\nCommunication: AI made in Europe\nJune 2018\nLaunch of the European AI alliance\nSet up of the high-level expert group on AI\nApril 2018\nCommunication: Artificial intelligence for Europe\nDeclaration of cooperation on artificial intelligence\nQuick links\nArtificial Intelligence – Questions and Answers\nAI Act\nSupport ecosystem for AI innovation in Europe\nAI Innovation Package\nStrategy on artificial intelligence\nWhite paper on artificial intelligence\nCommunication on boosting startups and innovation in trustworthy AI\nLatest News\nPress release\n31 July 2026\nCommission starts enforcing AI Act rules and new transparency requirements on 2 August\nFrom 2 August 2026, the European Commission’s AI Office, together with national authorities, will begin enforcing the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act.\nPress release\n30 July 2026\nEU launches AI Gigafactories call to boost Europe's computing capacity and unlock more than €30 billion in investment\nThe EU has launched a call for tenders to establish up to seven AI Gigafactories across Europe, as part of its latest major push to accelerate Europe's technological sovereignty and ambition of becoming the AI Continent.\nPress release\n20 July 2026\nCommission publishes guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems\nThe European Commission has published guidelines to assist providers and deployers of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in meeting the AI Act's transparency obligations, which start to apply on 2 August 2026.\nPress release\n07 July 2026\nCommission presents EU Action Plan on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence\nThe European Commission has presented an Action Plan for a structured response to address the risks and harness the opportunities of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models for cybersecurity.\nBrowse Artificial intelligence\nRelated Content\nBig Picture\nArtificial Intelligence\nEurope is transforming into the AI continent by fostering the development and uptake of new AI applications while ensuring that AI remains safe and respect EU values.\nDig deeper\nAI Act\nThe AI Act is the first-ever legal framework on AI, which addresses the risks of AI and positions...\nAI Pact\nThe AI Pact encourages and supports organisations to plan ahead for the implementation of AI Act...\nGuidelines for providers of general-purpose AI models\nThe Commission has issued guidelines to clarify the scope of the obligations for providers of...\nGuidelines for providers and deployers of AI high-risk systems\nThe guidelines clarify the classification of AI systems as high-risk under the AI Act and a list of...\nGuidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems\nThese guidelines help providers and deployers of AI systems and competent authorities in ensuring...\nThe General-Purpose AI Code of Practice\nThe code of practice helps industry comply with the AI Act legal obligations on safety, transparency...\nCode of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content\nThis code of practice supports compliance with the AI Act transparency obligations related to...\nHigh-level expert group on artificial intelligence\nThe European Commission appointed a group of experts to provide advice on its artificial...\nApply AI Alliance\nThe Apply AI Alliance is a coordination forum for AI stakeholders and policy makers, to advance the...\nEcosystem for AI innovation in Europe\nExplore the Commission's AI ecosystem, where through initiatives like European Digital Innovation...\nEuropean AI Innovation Month\nThe European AI Innovation Month brings together policymakers, industry, public sector, and...\nRelated Content\nEuropean Data Governance Act\nA European Data Governance Act, which is fully in line with EU values and principles, will bring...\nLast update\n31 July 2026\nPrint as PDF\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "segments": [{"segment_id": "d70ed0fe-f2ca-411d-9493-ae424809ea2e", "document_id": "fb9140a3-2ffd-4229-a0e3-49e9439cb3e4", "ordinal": 0, "text": "European approach to artificial intelligence | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\n...\nPolicies\nArtificial Intelligence\nEuropean approach to artificial intelligence\nEuropean approach to artificial intelligence\nPage Contents\nPage Contents\nAI Continent Action Plan\nApply AI Strategy\nAI Act\nAI innovation package and GenAI4EU initiative\nImportant milestones\nThe EU’s approach to artificial intelligence promotes excellence and trust, by boosting research and industrial capacity while ensuring safety and fundamental rights.\nThese 2 ambitions are inseparable. To unlock the full potential of AI, Europe must build an\necosystem of excellence\nthat leverages its strengths in\nresearch\n, industrial know-how and regulatory capacity across the AI value chain. At the same time, developing an ecosystem of trust is essential to promote confidence in AI and provide legal certainty for businesses to innovate.\nTo achieve this, Europe’s AI policy approach has been evolving for nearly a decade, resulting in the development of a comprehensive\ngovernance framework\nfor AI and a set of concrete instruments covering regulation, capability-building and adoption. Together, these elements guide EU responses to emerging and disruptive innovations.\nAI Continent Action Plan\nThe\nAI Continent Action Plan\nis turning Europe into a global leader in AI by accelerating the development, deployment and uptake of the technology across key sectors like healthcare, education, industry, and environmental sustainability.\nThe plan is to build large-scale AI data and computing infrastructures, increase access to high-quality data, foster AI adoption in strategic sectors, strengthen AI skills and talent and facilitate the implementation of the\nAI Act\n. Key components include:\nThe reinforcement of\nAI Factories and Gigafactories\nThe\nInvestAI Facility\nto stimulate private investment\nAI Act Service Desk\n, to support a smooth and effective implementation of the AI Act across the EU\nThe future launch of the AI Skills Academy\nThe\nCloud and AI Development Act (CADA)\naims to reduce strategic dependencies and advance the AI Continent Action Plan’s goal of more sovereign, resilient and competitive European AI solutions. CADA will create better conditions for businesses, researchers, and public administrations to innovate and invest in AI and cloud technologies.\nApply AI Strategy\nThe\nApply AI Strategy\ncomplements the AI Continent Action Plan. It aims to harness AI’s transformative potential by increasing AI adoption and integration across key industrial and public sectors, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and support their specific needs.\nThis strategy is boosting EU capabilities to unlock societal benefits, from enabling more accurate medical diagnoses to increasing the accessibility and efficiency of public services. It encourages an AI-first policy, so more companies consider AI as a part of the solution to tackle challenges, while taking into careful consideration the benefits and the risks of the technology.\nTo coordinate AI-related policies and continue the dialogue on EU strategic sectors, the European Commission also launched the\nApply AI Alliance\n. This is a forum made up of AI providers, industry, public sector, academia, social partners and civil society organisations. Closely connected to this forum, the upcoming AI Observatory will track AI trends and assess the impact of AI in specific sectors.\nAI Act\nThe\nAI Act\nintroduces a clear, easy-to-understand approach based on 4 different levels of risk - giving AI developers, deployers, and users clarity about how to address risks generated by specific AI uses. The law strikes a balance between promoting AI research and innovation while ensuring Europeans can benefit from safe and trustworthy AI. From 2 August 2026, the AI Office and national authorities started to\nenforce the AI Act\n.\nThe Commission is committed to a clear, simple and innovation-friendly implementation of the AI Act. In November 2025, we proposed targeted amendments to the AI Act (the 'AI omnibus') as part of the\ndigital simplification package\n. The amendments were adopted in June 2026 and\nentered into force in 27 July 2026\n.\nThese efforts complement actions already underway to provide clarity for businesses and national authorities. Find an overview of the\nupcoming guidelines supporting the implementation of the AI Act\n.\nAI innovation package and GenAI4EU initiative\nThe 2024\nInnovation Package to support AI startups and SMEs\nwas designed to create the conditions to give smaller companies greater access to key ingredients for developing AI: data, computing, algorithms and talent. This also includes access to supercomputing.\nOne key element of this package is the\nCommunication on boosting startups and innovation in trustworthy AI\nthat sets out a strategic investment framework in trustworthy AI. This will enable the EU to capitalise on its assets, in particular its world-leading supercomputing infrastructure, and to foster an innovative European AI ecosystem.\nPart of the Communication, the\nGenAI4EU\ninitiative aims to stimulate the uptake of generative AI across the EU’s key strategic industrial ecosystems. In turn, that will encourage the development of large open innovation ecosystems that will boost collaboration between AI startups and deployers of AI in both industrial and public sectors.\nImportant milestones\n31 July 2026\nEntry into force of AI Act\n27 July 2026\nEntry into force AI Omnibus\n20 July 2026\nPublication of the guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems\n10 June 2026\nPublication of the Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content\n03 June 2026\nTech Sovereignty Package\n- proposal for\nCloud and AI Development Act\n01 June 2026\nLaunch of AI Act Advisory Forum & Scientific Panel\n07 May 2026\nPolitical agreement on AI Omnibus\n24 November 2025\nLaunch of AI Act Whistleblower tool\n19 November 2025\nDigital Omnibus proposal, including AI Act simplification\n05 November 2025\nBeginning of the drawing-up process of the Code of Practice on Code of Practice on marking and labelling of AI-generated content\n08 October 2025\nCommission adopts Apply AI Strategy\nLaunch of AI Act Service Desk\n02 August 2025\nAI Act obligations for providers of GPAI models enter into application\n18 July 2025\nCommission publishes guidelines for providers of General-Purpose AI\n10 July 2025\nCommission receives General-Purpose AI Code of Practice\n9 April 2025\nAI Continent Action Plan\n12 March 2025\nSix additional consortia selected to establish AI factories\n11 February 2025\nLaunch InvestAI at the AI Action Summit in Paris\n6 February 2025\nGuidelines on AI system definition\n4 February 2025\nGuidelines on prohibited AI practices\n10 December 2025\nSeven consortia selected to establish AI factories which will boost AI innovation in the EU\nSeptember 2024\nBeginning of the drawing-up process of the Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI\nCompanies sign EU AI Pact pledges (Pillar II)\n1 August 2024\nAI Act enters into force\nJune 2024\nEstablishment of the European AI Office\nJanuary 2024\nAI innovation package to support Artificial Intelligence startups and SMEs\nDecember 2023\nPolitical agreement on the AI Act reached by the co-legislators\nApril 2021\nCommunication on Fostering a European approach to AI\nProposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on AI\nUpdated coordinated plan on AI\nImpact assessment of an AI regulation\nFebruary 2020\nWhite paper on AI: a European approach to excellence and trust\nApril 2019\nCommunication: Building trust in human-centric artificial intelligence\nDecember 2018\nCoordinated plan on AI\nCommunication: AI made in Europe\nJune 2018\nLaunch of the European AI alliance\nSet up of the high-level expert group on AI\nApril 2018\nCommunication: Artificial intelligence for Europe\nDeclaration of cooperation on artificial intelligence\nQuick links\nArtificial Intelligence – Questions and Answers\nAI Act\nSupport ecosystem for AI innovation in Europe\nAI Innovation Package\nStrategy on artificial intelligence\nWhite paper on artificial intelligence\nCommunication on boosting startups and innovation in trustworthy AI\nLatest News\nPress release\n31 July 2026\nCommission starts enforcing AI Act rules and new transparency requirements on 2 August\nFrom 2 August 2026, the European Commission’s AI Office, together with national authorities, will begin enforcing the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act.\nPress release\n30 July 2026\nEU launches AI Gigafactories call to boost Europe's computing capacity and unlock more than €30 billion in investment\nThe EU has launched a call for tenders to establish up to seven AI Gigafactories across Europe, as part of its latest major push to accelerate Europe's technological sovereignty and ambition of becoming the AI Continent.\nPress release\n20 July 2026\nCommission publishes guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems\nThe European Commission has published guidelines to assist providers and deployers of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in meeting the AI Act's transparency obligations, which start to apply on 2 August 2026.\nPress release\n07 July 2026\nCommission presents EU Action Plan on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence\nThe European Commission has presented an Action Plan for a structured response to address the risks and harness the opportunities of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models for cybersecurity.\nBrowse Artificial intelligence\nRelated Content\nBig Picture\nArtificial Intelligence\nEurope is transforming into the AI continent by fostering the development and uptake of new AI applications while ensuring that AI remains safe and respect EU values.\nDig deeper\nAI Act\nThe AI Act is the first-ever legal framework on AI, which addresses the risks of AI and positions...\nAI Pact\nThe AI Pact encourages and supports organisations to plan ahead for the implementation of AI Act...\nGuidelines for providers of general-purpose AI models\nThe Commission has issued guidelines to clarify the scope of the obligations for providers of...\nGuidelines for providers and deployers of AI high-risk systems\nThe guidelines clarify the classification of AI systems as high-risk under the AI Act and a list of...\nGuidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems\nThese guidelines help providers and deployers of AI systems and competent authorities in ensuring...\nThe General-Purpose AI Code of Practice\nThe code of practice helps industry comply with the AI Act legal obligations on safety, transparency...\nCode of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content\nThis code of practice supports compliance with the AI Act transparency obligations related to...\nHigh-level expert group on artificial intelligence\nThe European Commission appointed a group of experts to provide advice on its artificial...\nApply AI Alliance\nThe Apply AI Alliance is a coordination forum for AI stakeholders and policy makers, to advance the...\nEcosystem for AI innovation in Europe\nExplore the Commission's AI ecosystem, where through initiatives like European Digital Innovation...\nEuropean AI Innovation Month\nThe European AI Innovation Month brings together policymakers, industry, public sector, and...\nRelated Content\nEuropean Data Governance Act\nA European Data Governance Act, which is fully in line with EU values and principles, will bring...\nLast update\n31 July 2026\nPrint as PDF\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 12532, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 10, "word_count": 1898}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "fd9be20c-2bbd-450c-8309-50a7e821996e", "source_id": "6685d64da6c7b32b93452883", "source": "ICANN", "source_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/ssac", "final_url": "https://www.icann.org/en/ssac", "artifact_sha256": "1b1eeb8410e7477d18b5cc883fd0be8d60e747e46bf4c5df806aa3e900901e13", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 328732, "title": "Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)", "language": "en", "text_length": 10333, "characters": 10333, "text": "Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nThe SSAC is a volunteer group of specialists in the technical security field that provides advice and insight to the ICANN community and the Board.\nSubscribe\nSSAC Home\nSSAC Publications and Correspondence\nTechnology @ ICANN\nCommunity Home\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nAbout the SSAC\nThe SSAC advises the ICANN community and the ICANN Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the naming and address allocation systems of the Internet. These include operational matters such as those pertaining to the correct and reliable operation of the Root Server System; administrative matters such as those pertaining to address allocation and Internet number assignment; and registration matters such as those pertaining to registry and registrar services like WHOIS. The SSAC also engages in ongoing threat assessment and risk analysis of the Internet naming and address allocation services to assess where the principal threats to stability and security lie, and advises the ICANN community accordingly.\nSSAC members are technical security professionals who volunteer their time and expertise to improve the security and integrity of the Internet’s addressing system. The SSAC produces reports, correspondence, and comments on a range of topics for the ICANN Board, the ICANN community, and the broader Internet community. The SSAC documents how the SSAC carries out its own work and the accumulated rationale in the\nSSAC Operational Procedures\n.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nHow to Become Involved\nWe are actively seeking qualified individuals with a passion for internet security and stability.\nFor those interested in contributing to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), we encourage you to start with our foundational documents: the\nICANN Bylaws\nSection 12.2.b,\nOperational Procedures\nand the\nSSAC Publications\npage. These resources provide a comprehensive view of the SSAC’s mission, operational framework, and contributions to Internet security and stability. You can also attend open SSAC sessions during ICANN meetings to meet current members and gain insights into SSAC discussions.\n2026 Membership Cycle Timeline\nThe application deadline for consideration in the 2026 membership cycle is 30 June 2026, 23:59 UTC. Applications are reviewed collectively following this deadline; they are not considered on a rolling basis. Submissions received on or after 1 July 2026 will be held for the subsequent review cycle in 2027.\nApplication Materials\nTo submit your application for consideration in 2026, please complete the\nSSAC Application Form\n.\nThe Application Form will ask you to provide the following materials:\nYour resume or CV\nA concise statement of interest outlining your motivation for joining and how you can contribute\nLinks to relevant work, such as presentations or publications (optional)\nReview and Appointment Process\nAfter submitting your application, you will receive an invitation to complete a questionnaire and your Disclosure of Interest. The SSAC Membership Committee then carefully reviews each application, assessing the alignment of candidates' skills and experience with our needs, and conducts interviews with promising candidates. Successful applicants are recommended to the SSAC, and, upon approval, we forward the recommendation to the ICANN Board for formal appointment.\nHave questions? We're here to help!\nContact the SSAC support staff at\n[email protected]\nfor any inquiries or additional information.\nSSAC Core Principles\nWithin the context of the SSAC’s role as defined in Article 12, Section 12.2(b) of the\nICANN Bylaws\n, the SSAC commits to the following principles:\nSSAC provides advice to the ICANN Board and the broader internet community on Security Stability and Resiliency (SSR) topics based on evidence, facts, analysis, and considered opinion informed by experience and expertise.\nSSAC provides comments on ICANN Community issues that have the potential to impact the way in which the SSAC is structured and operates.\nSSAC participates in ICANN Community activities that are relevant to its SSR role or to the way in which the SSAC is structured and operates.\nSSAC members participate in the SSAC as individuals, not as representatives of their employers or other organizations, and as equals.\nSSAC members, when they participate in and beyond the ICANN Community, make it clear whether their statements are their own personal views, the views of their employer, or the agreed views of the SSAC when discussing issues relevant to the SSAC.\nSSAC members follow the ICANN\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nand interact with each other and with other members of the ICANN Community with respect, honesty and open-mindedness. They are sensitive to all cultures and receptive to new and alternative ideas.\nSSAC members work together collaboratively and diligently to deliver SSAC work that is clear, effective, well-timed and relevant to the ICANN Community\nSSAC work clearly speaks to its intended audience, is mindful of their interests, is cognizant of the political environment, and expresses advice and recommendations in a convincing way.\nImproving the SSAC\nThe SSAC has undergone two organizational reviews since it was established.\nThe first organizational review was conducted by JAS Communications whose\nFinal Report\nwas delivered in May 2009. In response, SSAC conducted a self‐review exercise, which resulted in a coherent and comprehensive SSAC report to the Working Group, delivered in June, 2009. Subsequently, SSAC Support staff and the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) produced an\nImprovements Implementation Plan\nto implement the 33 recommendations outlined in the January 2010 Final report of the ICANN Board SSAC Review Working Group. This plan conforms to all guidance contained in the ICANN Board's Resolution 2010.06.25.05 that the SIC will, in coordination with staff, provide the Board with final implementation plans to conform with the measures recommended by the SIC to address the conclusions and recommendations in the final report of the Board Security and Stability Advisory Committee review Working Group. All elements of the plan were completed as of 18 March 2011.\nThe second organizational review was conducted by Analysis Group whose\nFinal Report\nwas delivered in December 2018. The ICANN Board accepted the Final Report and the SSAC's\nFeasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan\nin June 2019 (Resolutions 2019.06.23.15 – 2019.06.23.20). All elements of the plan were completed as of\n25 March 2021\n.\nContacting the SSAC\nComments and other communications to the committee should be sent to\n[email protected]\n.\nHistory of the SSAC\nAt its\nNovember 2001 meeting\n, which focused on security issues, the ICANN Board\ndirected\nthe President \"to appoint a President's standing committee on the security and stability of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. The President is directed to develop a proposed charter, with at least a focus on risk analysis and auditing thereof, in consultation with the President's standing committee, and to submit it to the Board for its approval.\"\nAt its meeting on 14 March 2002, the ICANN Board\napproved\nthe\ncharter of the ICANN Committee on Security and Stability\n.\nOn 13 May 2002, the ICANN Board\nconverted\nthe President's Committee on Security and Stability to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee.\nCorrespondence\nView a searchable list of SSAC comments and responses on a range of topics to the ICANN Board, community, and broader Internet community.\nREAD MORE\nCurrent Members\nLearn more about the leaders and members of the SSAC. Read short descriptions of their technical expertise and experience.\nREAD MORE\nPublications\nBrowse a list of SSAC reports and publications on technical aspects of the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet’s addressing system.\nREAD MORE\nSSAC Activities\nGet an overview of the SSAC’s current projects, issues being studied, and upcoming meetings through this list of activity reports.\nREAD MORE\nCorrespondence\nView a searchable list of SSAC comments and responses on a range of topics to the ICANN Board, community, and broader Internet community.\nREAD MORE\nCurrent Members\nLearn more about the leaders and members of the SSAC. Read short descriptions of their technical expertise and experience.\nREAD MORE\nPublications\nBrowse a list of SSAC reports and publications on technical aspects of the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet’s addressing system.\nREAD MORE\nSSAC Activities\nGet an overview of the SSAC’s current projects, issues being studied, and upcoming meetings through this list of activity reports.\nREAD MORE\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "segments": [{"segment_id": "4e750de3-612e-463e-8374-56c43a49cdf4", "document_id": "fd9be20c-2bbd-450c-8309-50a7e821996e", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nالعربية\n中文\nEnglish\nFrançais\nPусский\nEspañol\nLogo\nen\nSearch\nSearch\nSearch\nFiltered Search\nLog In\nSign Up\nAre you sure you want to sign out from\nhttps://www.icann.org\n?\nYes\nCancel\nIf you want to sign out from both\nhttps://www.icann.org\nand ICANN Account,\nclick here\n.\nICANN\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nGet Started\nNews and Media\nPolicy\nPublic Comment\nResources\nCommunity\nQuicklinks\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nThe SSAC is a volunteer group of specialists in the technical security field that provides advice and insight to the ICANN community and the Board.\nSubscribe\nSSAC Home\nSSAC Publications and Correspondence\nTechnology @ ICANN\nCommunity Home\nSecurity and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)\nAbout the SSAC\nThe SSAC advises the ICANN community and the ICANN Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the naming and address allocation systems of the Internet. These include operational matters such as those pertaining to the correct and reliable operation of the Root Server System; administrative matters such as those pertaining to address allocation and Internet number assignment; and registration matters such as those pertaining to registry and registrar services like WHOIS. The SSAC also engages in ongoing threat assessment and risk analysis of the Internet naming and address allocation services to assess where the principal threats to stability and security lie, and advises the ICANN community accordingly.\nSSAC members are technical security professionals who volunteer their time and expertise to improve the security and integrity of the Internet’s addressing system. The SSAC produces reports, correspondence, and comments on a range of topics for the ICANN Board, the ICANN community, and the broader Internet community. The SSAC documents how the SSAC carries out its own work and the accumulated rationale in the\nSSAC Operational Procedures\n.\nExpand All\n|\nCollapse All\nHow to Become Involved\nWe are actively seeking qualified individuals with a passion for internet security and stability.\nFor those interested in contributing to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), we encourage you to start with our foundational documents: the\nICANN Bylaws\nSection 12.2.b,\nOperational Procedures\nand the\nSSAC Publications\npage. These resources provide a comprehensive view of the SSAC’s mission, operational framework, and contributions to Internet security and stability. You can also attend open SSAC sessions during ICANN meetings to meet current members and gain insights into SSAC discussions.\n2026 Membership Cycle Timeline\nThe application deadline for consideration in the 2026 membership cycle is 30 June 2026, 23:59 UTC. Applications are reviewed collectively following this deadline; they are not considered on a rolling basis. Submissions received on or after 1 July 2026 will be held for the subsequent review cycle in 2027.\nApplication Materials\nTo submit your application for consideration in 2026, please complete the\nSSAC Application Form\n.\nThe Application Form will ask you to provide the following materials:\nYour resume or CV\nA concise statement of interest outlining your motivation for joining and how you can contribute\nLinks to relevant work, such as presentations or publications (optional)\nReview and Appointment Process\nAfter submitting your application, you will receive an invitation to complete a questionnaire and your Disclosure of Interest. The SSAC Membership Committee then carefully reviews each application, assessing the alignment of candidates' skills and experience with our needs, and conducts interviews with promising candidates. Successful applicants are recommended to the SSAC, and, upon approval, we forward the recommendation to the ICANN Board for formal appointment.\nHave questions? We're here to help!\nContact the SSAC support staff at\n[email protected]\nfor any inquiries or additional information.\nSSAC Core Principles\nWithin the context of the SSAC’s role as defined in Article 12, Section 12.2(b) of the\nICANN Bylaws\n, the SSAC commits to the following principles:\nSSAC provides advice to the ICANN Board and the broader internet community on Security Stability and Resiliency (SSR) topics based on evidence, facts, analysis, and considered opinion informed by experience and expertise.\nSSAC provides comments on ICANN Community issues that have the potential to impact the way in which the SSAC is structured and operates.\nSSAC participates in ICANN Community activities that are relevant to its SSR role or to the way in which the SSAC is structured and operates.\nSSAC members participate in the SSAC as individuals, not as representatives of their employers or other organizations, and as equals.\nSSAC members, when they participate in and beyond the ICANN Community, make it clear whether their statements are their own personal views, the views of their employer, or the agreed views of the SSAC when discussing issues relevant to the SSAC.\nSSAC members follow the ICANN\nExpected Standards of Behavior\nand interact with each other and with other members of the ICANN Community with respect, honesty and open-mindedness. They are sensitive to all cultures and receptive to new and alternative ideas.\nSSAC members work together collaboratively and diligently to deliver SSAC work that is clear, effective, well-timed and relevant to the ICANN Community\nSSAC work clearly speaks to its intended audience, is mindful of their interests, is cognizant of the political environment, and expresses advice and recommendations in a convincing way.\nImproving the SSAC\nThe SSAC has undergone two organizational reviews since it was established.\nThe first organizational review was conducted by JAS Communications whose\nFinal Report\nwas delivered in May 2009. In response, SSAC conducted a self‐review exercise, which resulted in a coherent and comprehensive SSAC report to the Working Group, delivered in June, 2009. Subsequently, SSAC Support staff and the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) produced an\nImprovements Implementation Plan\nto implement the 33 recommendations outlined in the January 2010 Final report of the ICANN Board SSAC Review Working Group. This plan conforms to all guidance contained in the ICANN Board's Resolution 2010.06.25.05 that the SIC will, in coordination with staff, provide the Board with final implementation plans to conform with the measures recommended by the SIC to address the conclusions and recommendations in the final report of the Board Security and Stability Advisory Committee review Working Group. All elements of the plan were completed as of 18 March 2011.\nThe second organizational review was conducted by Analysis Group whose\nFinal Report\nwas delivered in December 2018. The ICANN Board accepted the Final Report and the SSAC's\nFeasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan\nin June 2019 (Resolutions 2019.06.23.15 – 2019.06.23.20). All elements of the plan were completed as of\n25 March 2021\n.\nContacting the SSAC\nComments and other communications to the committee should be sent to\n[email protected]\n.\nHistory of the SSAC\nAt its\nNovember 2001 meeting\n, which focused on security issues, the ICANN Board\ndirected\nthe President \"to appoint a President's standing committee on the security and stability of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. The President is directed to develop a proposed charter, with at least a focus on risk analysis and auditing thereof, in consultation with the President's standing committee, and to submit it to the Board for its approval.\"\nAt its meeting on 14 March 2002, the ICANN Board\napproved\nthe\ncharter of the ICANN Committee on Security and Stability\n.\nOn 13 May 2002, the ICANN Board\nconverted\nthe President's Committee on Security and Stability to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee.\nCorrespondence\nView a searchable list of SSAC comments and responses on a range of topics to the ICANN Board, community, and broader Internet community.\nREAD MORE\nCurrent Members\nLearn more about the leaders and members of the SSAC. Read short descriptions of their technical expertise and experience.\nREAD MORE\nPublications\nBrowse a list of SSAC reports and publications on technical aspects of the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet’s addressing system.\nREAD MORE\nSSAC Activities\nGet an overview of the SSAC’s current projects, issues being studied, and upcoming meetings through this list of activity reports.\nREAD MORE\nCorrespondence\nView a searchable list of SSAC comments and responses on a range of topics to the ICANN Board, community, and broader Internet community.\nREAD MORE\nCurrent Members\nLearn more about the leaders and members of the SSAC. Read short descriptions of their technical expertise and experience.\nREAD MORE\nPublications\nBrowse a list of SSAC reports and publications on technical aspects of the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet’s addressing system.\nREAD MORE\nSSAC Activities\nGet an overview of the SSAC’s current projects, issues being studied, and upcoming meetings through this list of activity reports.\nREAD MORE\nConnect with us\nX\nInstagram\nFacebook\nYoutube\nLinkedIn\nFlickr\nSoundcloud\nExplore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts\nWho We Are\nICANN For Beginners\nICANN Learn\nParticipate\nGroups\nBoard Members\nCEO Corner\nStaff\nCareers\nPublic Responsibility\nContact Us\nLocations\nReport Security Issues\nCertificate Authority\nRegistry Liaison\nOmbuds\nComplaints Office\nMedia Resources\nAccountability and Transparency\nAccountability Mechanisms\nDocument Disclosure\nIndependent Review Process\nRequests for Reconsideration\nEmpowered Community\nEmployee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures\nGovernance\nGovernance Documents\nAgreements\nOrganizational Reviews\nSpecific Reviews\nAnnual Report\nFinancials\nPlanning\nRFPs\nLitigation\nCorrespondence\nHelp\nI Need Help\nDispute Resolution\nDomain Name Dispute Resolution\nName Collision\nICANN Lookup\nRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)\nData Protection\nData Privacy Practices\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\n© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy\nPrivacy Policy\nTerms of Service\nCookies Policy", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 10333, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 8, "word_count": 1552}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}
{"document_id": "ff376d99-ca50-408e-aa5a-76d216ac5456", "source_id": "0cbf3fccfd8e62b315d50f6f", "source": "EU", "source_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity", "final_url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity", "artifact_sha256": "e7328ada6b5b054eb36f025590facc4428a6059cf0a88d135b365269fa6c5259", "content_type": "text/html", "extraction_method": "html_bs4", "byte_size": 63077, "title": "Cybersecurity | Shaping Europe’s digital future", "language": "en", "text_length": 6416, "characters": 6416, "text": "Cybersecurity | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\nPolicies\nCybersecurity\nCybersecurity\nThe EU has outlined a cybersecurity strategy to boost Europe’s ability to fight and recover from cyberattacks.\nWe carry out a lot of our lives online. Since the pandemic, this shift to the digital world has become even more apparent. We have relied on the Internet to keep in touch with loved ones, buy new products, and work from home.\nHowever, as well as new opportunities, the move to a more digital world has also brought new threats in the form of cyberattacks. Cyberattacks are used to steal data, spy on users, disable or manipulate computers and more. They not only target personal computers, but also entire networks, and can be carried out by individual hackers, groups of hackers or even countries.\nThe EU Cybersecurity Strategy\nIf the move to digital is to be successful, European citizens and businesses must be able to benefit from new technologies without compromising their cybersecurity. The EU’s Cybersecurity Strategy aims to strengthen our collective cybersecurity and our response to cyberattacks. It will build a stable and secure global Internet where the rule of law, human rights and democratic values are protected.\nThe strategy has three areas of action:\nresilience, technical sovereignty and leadership;\noperational capacity to prevent, deter and respond;\ncooperation to advance global and open cyberspace.\nMore on the EU Cybersecurity Strategy\nThe EU is working to improve cybersecurity skills and promote effective action to the public, so we can all help to keep the digital world safe. Cybersecurity is also a key area in the Digital Europe programme. The programme aims to strengthen cybersecurity coordination between EU countries, and to fund the resilience of EU countries to cyberattacks.\nOn 10 November 2020, the Commission and the High Representative presented a\nJoint Communication\non the new EU Policy for Cyber Defence. The main aim of the policy is to\nenhance cooperation and investments in cyber defence and provide better protection against an increase in cyberattacks. For now, both parties will keep track on the progress of the policy through an annual report, with Member States encouraged to contribute. An implementation plan could be set up in cooperation with Member States.\nEU Action Plan for strengthening cybersecurity in the health sector\nOn\n15 January 2025\n, the Commission launched a\nEuropean action plan\nto strengthen the cybersecurity of hospitals and healthcare providers. Part of the Political Guidelines of the 2024-2029 Commission mandate, the action plan focuses on\nimproving threat detection, preparedness, and crisis response in the healthcare sector\n. It aims to provide tailored guidance, tools, services, and training to hospitals and healthcare providers. Several specific actions will be rolled out progressively in 2025 and 2026, in collaboration with health providers, Member States, and the cybersecurity community. This initiative marks the first sector-specific initiative to deploy the full range of EU cybersecurity measures.\nEU Action Plan on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence\nOn\n7 July 2026\n, the Commission has presented an\naction plan\nto support the safe and responsible use of AI while strengthening Europe's cybersecurity. It complements the EU's existing legal framework for AI and cybersecurity, including the\nAI Act\n, the\nCyber Resilience Act\n, the\nNIS2 Directive\n, the\nDigital Operational Resilience Act (DORA)\nand the\nCyber Solidarity Act\n. By bringing together EU institutions, Member States, industry, researchers, open-source communities and international partners, it aims to ensure that Europe can harness the benefits of AI while remaining resilient against emerging cybersecurity threats.\nSubscribe to the latest news on this topic and more\nQuick Links\nCybersecurity: Fact page\nCybersecurity of hospitals and healthcare providers: Fact page\nFollow us\nCyberSec EU on X\nLatest News\nPRESS RELEASE\n|\n27 July 2026\nCommission publishes new guidance to support businesses' implementation of the Cyber Resilience Act\nNEWS ARTICLE\n|\n13 July 2026\nTeam Europe wins 1st ever International Cybersecurity Challenge for women\nNEWS ARTICLE\n|\n09 July 2026\nEU and Australia discuss shared priorities in third Digital Dialogue\nPRESS RELEASE\n|\n08 July 2026\nCommission refers Ireland, Spain, France and the Netherlands to the Court of Justice for failing to transpose the rules on cybersecurity\nPRESS RELEASE\n|\n07 July 2026\nCommission presents EU Action Plan on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence\nDIGIBYTE\n|\n30 June 2026\nCybersecurity Skills Coalition EDIC set to champion and support the EU Cybersecurity Skills Academy\nBrowse Cybersecurity\nRelated Content\nDig deeper\nEU Cybersecurity Strategy\nThe EU Cybersecurity Strategy aims to build resilience to cyber threats and ensure citizens and...\nEU cybersecurity policies\nThe European Union works on various fronts to promote cyber resilience, safeguarding our...\nAction Plan on Drone and Counter Drone Security\nDrones can play an important role in critical parts of the economy and society. They allow to reach...\nRelated Content\nEuropean Quantum Communication Infrastructure - EuroQCI\nThe EuroQCI is building a secure quantum communication infrastructure spanning the whole EU...\nLast update\n7 July 2026\nPrint as PDF\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "segments": [{"segment_id": "170138c4-42de-4508-a308-a2e11688287d", "document_id": "ff376d99-ca50-408e-aa5a-76d216ac5456", "ordinal": 0, "text": "Cybersecurity | Shaping Europe’s digital future\nSkip to main content\nen\nSelect your language\nClose\nbg\nбългарски\nes\nespañol\ncs\nčeština\nda\ndansk\nde\nDeutsch\net\neesti\nel\nελληνικά\nen\nEnglish\nfr\nfrançais\nga\nGaeilge\nhr\nhrvatski\nit\nitaliano\nlv\nlatviešu\nlt\nlietuvių\nhu\nmagyar\nmt\nMalti\nnl\nNederlands\npl\npolski\npt\nportuguês\nro\nromână\nsk\nslovenčina\nsl\nslovenščina\nfi\nsuomi\nsv\nsvenska\nSearch\nSearch\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nMenu\nClose\nMenu\nBack\nPrevious items\nNext items\nHome\nPolicies\nActivities\nNews\nLibrary\nFunding\nCalendar\nConsultations\nAI Office\nHome\nPolicies\nCybersecurity\nCybersecurity\nThe EU has outlined a cybersecurity strategy to boost Europe’s ability to fight and recover from cyberattacks.\nWe carry out a lot of our lives online. Since the pandemic, this shift to the digital world has become even more apparent. We have relied on the Internet to keep in touch with loved ones, buy new products, and work from home.\nHowever, as well as new opportunities, the move to a more digital world has also brought new threats in the form of cyberattacks. Cyberattacks are used to steal data, spy on users, disable or manipulate computers and more. They not only target personal computers, but also entire networks, and can be carried out by individual hackers, groups of hackers or even countries.\nThe EU Cybersecurity Strategy\nIf the move to digital is to be successful, European citizens and businesses must be able to benefit from new technologies without compromising their cybersecurity. The EU’s Cybersecurity Strategy aims to strengthen our collective cybersecurity and our response to cyberattacks. It will build a stable and secure global Internet where the rule of law, human rights and democratic values are protected.\nThe strategy has three areas of action:\nresilience, technical sovereignty and leadership;\noperational capacity to prevent, deter and respond;\ncooperation to advance global and open cyberspace.\nMore on the EU Cybersecurity Strategy\nThe EU is working to improve cybersecurity skills and promote effective action to the public, so we can all help to keep the digital world safe. Cybersecurity is also a key area in the Digital Europe programme. The programme aims to strengthen cybersecurity coordination between EU countries, and to fund the resilience of EU countries to cyberattacks.\nOn 10 November 2020, the Commission and the High Representative presented a\nJoint Communication\non the new EU Policy for Cyber Defence. The main aim of the policy is to\nenhance cooperation and investments in cyber defence and provide better protection against an increase in cyberattacks. For now, both parties will keep track on the progress of the policy through an annual report, with Member States encouraged to contribute. An implementation plan could be set up in cooperation with Member States.\nEU Action Plan for strengthening cybersecurity in the health sector\nOn\n15 January 2025\n, the Commission launched a\nEuropean action plan\nto strengthen the cybersecurity of hospitals and healthcare providers. Part of the Political Guidelines of the 2024-2029 Commission mandate, the action plan focuses on\nimproving threat detection, preparedness, and crisis response in the healthcare sector\n. It aims to provide tailored guidance, tools, services, and training to hospitals and healthcare providers. Several specific actions will be rolled out progressively in 2025 and 2026, in collaboration with health providers, Member States, and the cybersecurity community. This initiative marks the first sector-specific initiative to deploy the full range of EU cybersecurity measures.\nEU Action Plan on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence\nOn\n7 July 2026\n, the Commission has presented an\naction plan\nto support the safe and responsible use of AI while strengthening Europe's cybersecurity. It complements the EU's existing legal framework for AI and cybersecurity, including the\nAI Act\n, the\nCyber Resilience Act\n, the\nNIS2 Directive\n, the\nDigital Operational Resilience Act (DORA)\nand the\nCyber Solidarity Act\n. By bringing together EU institutions, Member States, industry, researchers, open-source communities and international partners, it aims to ensure that Europe can harness the benefits of AI while remaining resilient against emerging cybersecurity threats.\nSubscribe to the latest news on this topic and more\nQuick Links\nCybersecurity: Fact page\nCybersecurity of hospitals and healthcare providers: Fact page\nFollow us\nCyberSec EU on X\nLatest News\nPRESS RELEASE\n|\n27 July 2026\nCommission publishes new guidance to support businesses' implementation of the Cyber Resilience Act\nNEWS ARTICLE\n|\n13 July 2026\nTeam Europe wins 1st ever International Cybersecurity Challenge for women\nNEWS ARTICLE\n|\n09 July 2026\nEU and Australia discuss shared priorities in third Digital Dialogue\nPRESS RELEASE\n|\n08 July 2026\nCommission refers Ireland, Spain, France and the Netherlands to the Court of Justice for failing to transpose the rules on cybersecurity\nPRESS RELEASE\n|\n07 July 2026\nCommission presents EU Action Plan on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence\nDIGIBYTE\n|\n30 June 2026\nCybersecurity Skills Coalition EDIC set to champion and support the EU Cybersecurity Skills Academy\nBrowse Cybersecurity\nRelated Content\nDig deeper\nEU Cybersecurity Strategy\nThe EU Cybersecurity Strategy aims to build resilience to cyber threats and ensure citizens and...\nEU cybersecurity policies\nThe European Union works on various fronts to promote cyber resilience, safeguarding our...\nAction Plan on Drone and Counter Drone Security\nDrones can play an important role in critical parts of the economy and society. They allow to reach...\nRelated Content\nEuropean Quantum Communication Infrastructure - EuroQCI\nThe EuroQCI is building a secure quantum communication infrastructure spanning the whole EU...\nLast update\n7 July 2026\nPrint as PDF\nShaping Europe’s digital future\nThis site is managed by:\nDirectorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology\nDigital EU on Mastadon\nDigital EU on LinkedIn\nDigital EU on Facebook\nDigital EU on Youtube\nDigital EU on Instagram\nDigital EU on X\nAbout us\nPrivacy statement\nCopyright notice\nAbout Directorate-General CONNECT\nLanguage Policy\nAccessibility statement\nFollow the European Commission\nMastodon\nLinkedIn\nBluesky\nFacebook\nYoutube\nOther\nContact us\nReport an IT vulnerability\nLanguages on our websites\nCookies\nPrivacy policy\nLegal notice\nAccessibility", "char_start": 0, "char_end": 6416, "page_start": null, "page_end": null, "timestamp_start": null, "timestamp_end": null, "language": "und", "attributes": {"reading_time_minutes": 5, "word_count": 981}}], "published_at": null, "date_source": "unknown", "date_confidence": "none", "date_type": "unknown", "no_date_reason": "No reliable date evidence found.", "date_evidence": [], "retrieved_at": "", "http_status": null, "jurisdiction": null, "policy_topics": [], "license": null, "access_conditions": null}