ICANN for Beginners

ICANN for Beginners
العربية
中文
English
Français
Pусский
Español
Logo
en
Search
Search
Search
Filtered Search
Log In
Sign Up
Are you sure you want to sign out from
https://www.icann.org
?
Yes
Cancel
If you want to sign out from both
https://www.icann.org
and ICANN Account,
click here
.
ICANN
Get Started
News and Media
Policy
Public Comment
Resources
Community
Quicklinks
Get Started
News and Media
Policy
Public Comment
Resources
Community
Quicklinks
ICANN For Beginners
New 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.
Subscribe
Beginners Home
Courses and Learning
Find Your Group
Attend an Event
Programs for Professionals and Students
ICANN for Beginners
Welcome 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.
What Role Does ICANN Play in How the Internet Works?
ICANN'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.
Want to learn more about ICANN's role? Check out the video, course, and infographic below. You will need to create an
ICANN Account
to use ICANN Learn.
WATCH
ICANN History Video
LEARN
Introduction to ICANN Interactive Course
Show Text Version
GETTING TO KNOW THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN)
With our technical partners, we help make the Internet work.
Anything connected to the Internet – including computers, mobile phones, and other devices – has a unique number called its IP address. IP stands for Internet Protocol.
This 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.
IP 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.
What Does ICANN Do?
ICANN’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.
ICANN is made up of three parts:
ICANN Community
The 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.
ICANN Board
The ICANN Board is selected by the ICANN community. The Board provides the ICANN organization's strategic oversight.
ICANN Organization
The ICANN organization provides staff and resources to support the ICANN community and Board, and implements policies developed by the community.
EXPLORE
What Does ICANN Do Infographic
WATCH
ICANN History Video
LEARN
Introduction to ICANN Interactive Course
Show Text Version
GETTING TO KNOW THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN)
With our technical partners, we help make the Internet work.
Anything connected to the Internet – including computers, mobile phones, and other devices – has a unique number called its IP address. IP stands for Internet Protocol.
This 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.
IP 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.
What Does ICANN Do?
ICANN’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.
ICANN is made up of three parts:
ICANN Community
The 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.
ICANN Board
The ICANN Board is selected by the ICANN community. The Board provides the ICANN organization's strategic oversight.
ICANN Organization
The ICANN organization provides staff and resources to support the ICANN community and Board, and implements policies developed by the community.
EXPLORE
What Does ICANN Do Infographic
What Are Some of the Initiatives ICANN Is Working On?
ICANN 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.
Domain Name Security Threats
Courses and Learning
Building a Multilingual Internet
Domain Name Security Threats
Courses and Learning
Building a Multilingual Internet
Why You Should Get Involved
Looking 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.
Use your skills to make an impact.
You 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.
Develop personal and professional skills
. 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.
Grow your network and expand your world view.
Many 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.
How Do You Get Involved?
Begin 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.
Expand All
|
Collapse All
Learn the Basics
ICANN Learn Online Courses
Whether 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!
Explore Courses
ICANN History
Uncover ICANN’s past and explore the events the spurred our creation in 1998, the evolution of our unique multistakeholder model, and our major accomplishments.
Learn More
ICANN Acronyms and Terms
ICANN 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.
View All
Connect With Your Regional Team
ICANN’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.
Connect Now
Find Your ICANN Group
What 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.
Find Groups
Attend an Event
Find an ICANN Event Near You
Exchange 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.
See All Events
Apply to Programs for Professionals and Students
NextGen@ICANN and Fellowship Programs
Whether 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.
Find Out How
Connect with us
X
Instagram
Facebook
Youtube
LinkedIn
Flickr
Soundcloud
Explore Our Social Media Hub and Follow Us on ICANN's Official Accounts
Who We Are
ICANN For Beginners
ICANN Learn
Participate
Groups
Board Members
CEO Corner
Staff
Careers
Public Responsibility
Contact Us
Locations
Report Security Issues
Certificate Authority
Registry Liaison
Ombuds
Complaints Office
Media Resources
Accountability and Transparency
Accountability Mechanisms
Document Disclosure
Independent Review Process
Requests for Reconsideration
Empowered Community
Employee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures
Governance
Governance Documents
Agreements
Organizational Reviews
Specific Reviews
Annual Report
Financials
Planning
RFPs
Litigation
Correspondence
Help
I Need Help
Dispute Resolution
Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Name Collision
ICANN Lookup
Registration Data Request Service (RDRS)
Data Protection
Data Privacy Practices
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Cookies Policy
© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Cookies Policy
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Cookies Policy


About - American Registry for Internet Numbers
Skip to main content
Your IP
address is
Log in
Log in
User
Dashboard
Settings
Profile and security information
Log Out
Search
all requests subject to
terms of use
Search
IP Addresses & ASNs
Get Started
ARIN Account Management
Requesting IP Addresses or ASNs
IPv6 Information
IPv4 Addressing Options
Autonomous System Numbers
Legacy Resources at ARIN
Fee & Billing Information
Fee Schedule
Premier Support Plan (PSP)
Make a Payment
How Billing Works
Resource Revocation, Returns, and Reinstatement
IP & ASN Registry Services
Managing Resource Records
Automating Record Management with Reg-RWS
Transferring IP Addresses & ASNs
Reporting Reassignments
Using Whois
Routing Security
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Internet Routing Registry (IRR)
Securing DNS (DNSSEC)
Reverse DNS
Routing Security Eligibility FAQs
Policy & Participation
Policy
Number Resource Policy Manual
Policy Development Process (PDP)
Draft and Recommended Draft Policies
Policy Proposals
Meetings & Events
Public Policy and Members Meetings
Outreach Events
ARIN Fellowship Program
Sponsorship
Past Meetings
Membership & Elections
Membership
Elections
Community Interaction
ARIN Community Satisfaction Surveys
Mailing Lists
Consultations & Suggestions
Reference & Tools
Tools
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) Environment
CIDR Calculator
Community Software Repository
Internet Number Resource Fraud Reporting
Reference
Spam & Network Abuse Reporting
Registry Data Description
Data Accuracy
Information Security at ARIN
ARIN Software Releases
Research
Statistics & Reporting
Historical Whois Data (WhoWas)
Bulk Whois Data
Training & Education
ARIN Leadership Development Program
Instructional Webinars
Resource Materials
ARIN Online Help Videos
About
Welcome to ARIN
Organization Structure & Staff
Our Region
ARIN Board of Trustees
Advisory Council
NRO Number Council
Careers
Corporate Documentation
Corporate Documents
Annual Reports
Strategic Planning & Budgeting
Agreements
History of ARIN
Third-Party Vendors and IPv6
Community Grants
ARIN Community Grant Program
Community Grant Program Recipients
External Relations
Internet Governance
Memberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs
ARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety
Technical Community
Blog
Pay Now
Feedback
Home
About
Home
About
Established 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.
ARIN 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.
Welcome to ARIN
Organization Structure & Staff
Our Region
ARIN Board of Trustees
Advisory Council
NRO Number Council
Careers
Corporate Documentation
Corporate Documents
Annual Reports
Strategic Planning & Budgeting
Agreements
History of ARIN
Third-Party Vendors and IPv6
Community Grants
ARIN Community Grant Program
Community Grant Program Recipients
External Relations
Internet Governance
Memberships, Sponsorships, and MOUs
ARIN, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety
Technical Community
Back to top
Back
to top
Terms of Service
Site Map
Privacy Policy
Network Abuse
Accessibility
Standards of Behavior
© Copyright 1997
– 2026
, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.
A member of the Number Resource Organization
Service Status
Contact Us
Registration Services:
+1.703.227.0660
Financial Services:
+1.703.227.9886
Main:
+1.703.227.9840
Visit ARIN on LinkedIn
Visit ARIN on Instagram
Visit ARIN on Facebook
Visit ARIN on X
Visit ARIN on YouTube
Media


Developing Policy at ICANN - ICANN

Developing Policy at ICANN - ICANN
Skip to main content
Search ICANN.org
Log In
Sign Up
Get Started
About ICANN
ICANN for Beginners
Fellowship Program
NextGen@ICANN Program
History
News and Media
Announcements
Blog
Media Resources
Press Releases
Global Newsletters
ICANN News Subscriptions
Regional Reports
Policy
Develop Policy
Operational Design Phase (ODP)
Implement Policy
Community Participation Guidelines
Public Comment
Public Comment Home
Upcoming Proceedings
Open Proceedings
Closed Proceedings
About Public Comment
Other Public Consultations
Resources
Board Activities and Meetings
Accountability Mechanisms
Contracted Parties (Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars)
Domain Name Registrants
Contractual Compliance
Domain Name Security Threats
Privacy and Proxy Services
Government Engagement
Careers
Complaints Office
I Need Help
ICANN 25th Anniversary Photo Mosaic
Community
Engagement Calendar
Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)
Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
Quicklinks
Board Activities and Meetings
Data Protection and Privacy
Domain Name Registrants
Engagement Calendar
IANA Services
ICANN Acronyms and Terms
ICANN Grant Program
New gTLD Program
Public Technical Identifiers (PTI)
Open Data
Question About A Domain Name?
Technology @ ICANN
WSIS+20 Outreach Network
Developing Policy
at ICANN
A fundamental part of
ICANN's Mission
is coordinating policy development related to the Internet's system of unique identifiers.
ICANN 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.
To 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
ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct
,
ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior
, and the
ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy
.
Click
here
to learn more about how to participate and what is expected of participants.
What is DNS Policy?
ICANN develops and applies several types of policies:
DNS Policies are developed by the multistakeholder community through formal
policy development processes (PDPs), as set forth by the
Bylaws.
Learn more about ICANN’s Mission, Commitments, and Core Values, and how policy is
developed in the ICANN Bylaws.
Examples of DNS Policy:
New gTLD Program
Inter Registrar Transfer Policy
Expired Registration Recovery Policy
View all ICANN DNS Policy
How is DNS Policy Developed?
The 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.
“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.”
Russ Weinstein
Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support
Learn more about ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
English
PDF
العربية
PDF
Español
PDF
Français
PDF
Pусский
PDF
中文
PDF
English
Video
|
PDF
(327 KB)
العربية
Video
|
PDF
(411 KB)
Español
Video
|
PDF
(335 KB)
Français
Video
|
PDF
(338 KB)
Português
PDF
(336 KB)
Pусский
Video
|
PDF
(431 KB)
Türkçe
PDF
(310 KB)
中文
Video
|
PDF
(395 KB)
English
PDF
(317 KB)
العربية
PDF
(406 KB)
Español
PDF
(320 KB)
Français
PDF
(320 KB)
Português
PDF
(343 KB)
Pусский
PDF
(330 KB)
Türkçe
PDF
(320 KB)
中文
PDF
(609 KB)
ICANN Supporting Organizations (SOs)
- Develop and Refine ICANN Policy
GNSO
gnso.icann.org
The Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
Learn more about
how to get involved
with the GNSO.
ccNSO
ccnso.icann.org
The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains.
ASO
aso.icann.org
The 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 into the ASO is available only to Regional Internet Registries, but you can learn
more about their work
on their website.
ICANN Advisory Committees (ACs)
- Advise the Board
ALAC
atlarge.icann.org
The 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.
Join ALAC! Learn about their
application process
.
SSAC
ssac.icann.org
The 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.
SSAC is an invite-only organization.
RSSAC
rssac.icann.org
The 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.
GAC
gac.icann.org
The 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.
You need to be a formally acknowledged representative of a government or international organization to become a member. You can
email GAC’s secretariat
for more info.
Accountability and Transparency
Learn more about ICANN community groups by reviewing their
charters and operating documents.
Pre-Conference Presentations & Monthly Updates
Policy Updates
Each 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.
Complex 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.
Policy 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.
View All Policy Updates
Presentations
To 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.
View All Presentations
Questions? Comments?
Please send your inquiry to:
[email protected]
.
For more information on Registration Data, please visit our
Registration Data at ICANN page.
Participate in Policy-Making
ICANN 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.
View All Opportunities for Participation
ICANN is not responsible for profile content or verification of user details.
YouTube
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Facebook
Newsletters
Community Wiki
ICANN Blog
Who We Are
ICANN For Beginners
ICANN Learn
Participate
Groups
Board Members
CEO Corner
Staff
Careers
Public Responsibility
Contact Us
Locations
Report Security Issues
Certificate Authority
Registry Liaison
Ombuds
Complaints Office
Media Resources
Accountability And Transparency
Accountability Mechanisms
Document Disclosure
Independent Review Process
Request for Reconsideration
Empowered Community
Employee Anonymous Hotline Policy and Procedures
Governance
Governance Documents
Agreements
Organizational Reviews
Specific Reviews
Annual Report
Financials
Planning
RFPs
Litigation
Correspondence
Help
I Need Help
Dispute Resolution
Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Name Collision
ICANN Lookup
Registration Data Request Service (RDRS)
Data Protection
Data Privacy Practices
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Cookies Policy
© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Cookies Policy
Domain Name System
Internationalized 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."


ITU ICT Facts and Figures 2017

FACTS AND
FIGURES
ICT
2017
70% OF THE WORLD’S YOUTH ARE ONLINE
 Proportion of youth (15-24) using the Internet, 2017*
“This year marks the 25th anniversary of
the ITU Telecommunication Development
Sector. Over the past two and a half dec-
ades, ITU has contributed to the unprec-
edented development of ICTs worldwide
and the wider transformation they have
brought to society. Our new data show
that young people are at the forefront
of today’s digital economy with 70 per
cent of the world’s youth being online.
Today’s ICT development is driven by the
spread of mobile-broadband services. The
growth of mobile broadband has largely
outpaced that of fixed broadband, while
mobile-broadband prices have dropped
by 50 per cent on average over the last
three years. These factors have resulted in
about half of the world’s population get-
ting online and broadband services being
available at much higher speeds.
As ICTs continue to be a key enabler of economic and social
development, ITU has a pivotal role in the global efforts to bridge
the digital divide and in fostering an inclusive digital economy. I am
confident that the discussions at the World Telecommunication De-
velopment Conference 2017, to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina
from 9 to 20 October 2017, under the theme of “ICT for Sustainable
Development Goals” , will contribute to the mapping of results-ori-
ented strategies aimed at hastening the pace of countries towards
the timely attainment of the SDGs and their related targets.”
Source: ITU.
Note: * Estimates.
Brahima Sanou,
Director of the ITU
Telecommunication
Development Bureau
In 104 countries, more than 80%
of the youth population are
online.
In developed countries, 94% of
young people aged 15-24 use
the Internet compared with 67%
in developing countries and
only 30% in Least Developed
Countries (LDCs).
Out of the 830 million young
people who are online, 320
million (39%) are in China and
India.
Nearly 9 out of 10 young
individuals not using the Internet
live in Africa or Asia and the
Pacific.

YOUTH ARE AT THE FOREFRONT
OF INTERNET ADOPTION
Proportion of individuals using the Internet, by age, 2017*
Proportion of youth (15-24) Internet users and youth in the population, 2017*
Proportion of households with Internet access, 2017*
79.6
67.7 65.9
43.9 43.7
21.8
48.0
17.5
41.3
81.0
95.7
89.6 88.4
72.3
64.2
40.3
70.6
30.3
67.3
94.3
Europe CIS The
Americas
Asia &
Pacific
Arab States Africa World LDCs Developing Developed
Total population Ages 15-24
Source: ITU. Note: * Estimates. CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States. Proportions in this chart refer to the number
of people using the Internet, as a percentage of the total population, and the number of people aged 15-24 using the Internet, as a
percentage of the total population aged 15-24, respectively.
Source: ITU. Note: * Estimates. CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States. Proportions in this chart refer to the
number of people aged 15-24 using the Internet, as a percentage of the total population using the Internet, and the number of
people aged 15-24, as a percentage of the total population, respectively.
Source: ITU.
Note: * Estimates. CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States.
37.3
26.3 25.8
21.0
15.8 13.8
23.4
13.0
27.6
35.1
20.1 17.9 15.7 15.7
11.9 11.5
15.9
11.2
16.8
20.3
Africa Arab States Asia &
Pacific
The
Americas
CIS Europe World Developed Developing LDCs
Proportion of youth (15-24) Internet users Proportion of youth (15-24) in the population
84.2
70.4
65.3
48.1 47.2
18.0
53.6
14.7
42.9
84.4
Europe CIS The
Americas
Asia &
Pacific
Arab States Africa World LDCs Developing Developed
The proportion of young people
aged 15-24 using the Internet
(71%) is significantly higher
than the proportion of the total
population using the Internet
(48%).
Young people represent almost
one-fourth of the total number
of individuals using the Internet
worldwide.
In LDCs, 35% of the individuals
using the Internet are young
people aged 15-24, compared with
13% in developed countries and
23% globally.
In developed countries, the
proportion of households with
Internet access at home is
twice as high as in developing
countries.
Only 15% of households in
LDCs have Internet access at
home. In these countries, many
Internet users are accessing the
Internet from work, schools and
universities or from other shared
public connections outside the
home.

Proportion of individuals using the Internet, by gender, 2017*
The proportion of women using the Internet is
12% lower than the proportion of men using the
Internet worldwide.
While the gender gap has narrowed in most
regions since 2013, it has widened in Africa.
In Africa, the proportion of women using the
Internet is 25% lower than the proportion of men
using the Internet.
In LDCs, only one out of seven women is using the
Internet compared with one out of five men.
Source: ITU.
Note: * Estimates. Penetration rates in this chart refer to the number of women/men using
the Internet, as a percentage of the respective total female/male population. CIS refers to
the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Source: ITU.
Note: * Estimates. The gender gap represents the difference between the Internet user
penetration rates for males and females relative to the Internet user penetration rate for
males, expressed as a percentage. CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States.
14.1
37.5
79.9
44.9
76.3
65.8
66.7
39.7
39.4
18.6
21.0
44.7
82.2
50.9
82.9
69.8
65.1
47.9
47.7
24.9
LDCs
Developing
Developed
World
Europe
CIS
The Americas
Asia & Pacific
Arab States
Africa
Male Female
20.7
19.2
17.4
9.4
7.5
- 0.4
11.0
5.8
15.8
29.9
25.3
17.3
17.1
7.9
5.8
-2.6
11.6
2.8
16.1
32.9
Africa Arab
States
Asia &
Pacific
Europe CIS TheAmericas World Developed Developing LDCs
2013 2017
THE DIGITAL GENDER GAP
PERSISTS
The proportion of men using
the Internet is higher than the
proportion of women using
the Internet in two-thirds of
countries worldwide.
There is a strong link between
gender parity in the enrollment
ratio in tertiary education and
gender parity in Internet use.
The only region where a higher
percentage of women than
men are using the Internet is the
Americas, where countries also
score highly on gender parity in
tertiary education.
Internet penetration rate for men
and women, 2017*
Internet user gender gap (%),
2013 and 2017*
Source: ITU.
Note: * Estimates. Proportions in this chart refer to the number of women/men using the
Internet, as a percentage of the respective total female/male population.

BROADBAND IS INCREASINGLY
MOBILE
0 15 30 45 60
World
Developed
Developing
LDCs
%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Per 100 inhabitants
World
Developed
Developing
LDCs
Source: ITU.
Note: *Estimates. CAGR refers to the compound annual growth rate.
Source: ITU.
Note: *Estimates. CAGR refers to the compound annual growth rate.
0 15 30 45 60
World
Developed
Developing
LDCs
%
0 10 20 30 40
Per 100 inhabitants
World
Developed
Developing
LDCs
Fixed-broadband subscriptions, 2017*Growth of fixed-broadband subscriptions,
CAGR, 2012-2017*
Growth of mobile-broadband subscriptions,
CAGR, 2012-2017*
Mobile-broadband subscriptions, 2017*
Mobile-broadband subscriptions have grown more than 20% annually in the last five years and are expected to
reach 4.3 billion globally by end 2017.
Despite the high growth rates in developing countries and in LDCs, there are twice as many mobile-broadband
subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in developed countries as in developing countries, and four times as many in
developed countries as in LDCs.
The global number of fixed-broadband subscriptions has increased by 9% annually in the last five years and 330
million new fixed-broadband subscriptions have been added.
Higher growth will be needed to bridge the divide between developed and developing countries: there are 31
fixed broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in developed countries against 9 in developing countries.
Fixed-broadband uptake remains very limited in LDCs, with only one subscription per 100 inhabitants.

MOBILE BROADBAND IS MORE
AFFORDABLE THAN FIXED BROADBAND
Mobile broadband prices as a percentage of GNI per capita, 2016
Broadband prices as a percentage of GNI per capita, 2016
Broadband prices in PPP$, 2016
1.0 0.7
11.6
6.0
32.4
14.1
8.3
4.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2013 2014 2015 2016
As a % of GNI p.c.
Developed Developing LDCs World
Source: ITU.
Note: Based on simple averages including data for 136 countries. Prices are based on entry-level
computer-based mobile-broadband plans with a minimum data allowance of 1 GB per month.
Source: ITU.
Note: Based on simple averages including data for 167
countries. Prices are based on entry-level plans with a
minimum data allowance of 1 GB per month. PPP$ refers to
prices in international dollars, calculated using purchasing
power parity (PPP) conversion factors instead of market
exchange rates.
Source: ITU.
Note: Based on data available for 169 countries. Prices are based on entry-level plans with a minimum data
allowance of 1 GB per month.
44 43
1
73 61
15 27
3
2
34
35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mobile broadband Fixed broadband Mobile broadband Fixed broadband
Below 5% Above 5%
Number of countries
Developed Developing (excl. LDCs) LDCs
Broadband Commission target
5% GNI p.c.
107.9
41.1
61.3
33.4
30.5
15.4
53.2
28.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fixed broadband
Mobile broadband
World
Developed
Developing
LDCs
Mobile broadband is more
affordable than fixed-broadband
services in most developing
countries. However, mobile-
broadband prices represent
more than 5% of GNI per capita
in most LDCs and are therefore
unaffordable for the large
majority of the population.
In LDCs, on average, an entry-level
fixed-broadband subscription is
2.6 times more expensive than
an entry-level mobile-broadband
subscription.
Mobile-broadband prices as a
percentage of GNI per capita
halved between 2013 and 2016
worldwide.
The steepest decrease ocurred in
LDCs, where prices fell from 32.4
to 14.1% of GNI p.c.
LDCs
Developing
World
Developed
Developed
Developing
(excl. LDCs)
LDCs

FIBRE DEPLOYMENT IS INCREASING
FIXED BROADBAND SPEEDS IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Fixed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed
Fixed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by technology, 2016
Source: ITU.
Source: ITU.
Note: Data refer to early 2016.  CIS refers to the Commonwealth of
Independent States.
18.8
7.0
5.5
3.6
2.6
0.15
5.7
9.4
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.02
3.8
1.6
8.8
0.6
6.1
0.04
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.3
0.9
0.05
Europe The Americas CIS Arab States Asia & Pacific Africa
DSL Internet subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
Cable modem Internet subscriptions  per 100 inhabitants
FTTH/B subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
Other ﬁxed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
4.7
0.07
2.8
12.7
2.3
0.03
0.7
8.8
4.5
0.6
3.9
6.7
0.8
0.2
0.7 1.1
World LDCs Developing Developed
DSL Internet subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
Cable modem Internet subscriptions  per 100 inhabitants
FTTH/B subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
Other ﬁxed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
Despite the worldwide increase in high-speed fixed-broadband subscriptions, there remains a lack of high-
speed connections in the developing world, with a penetration rate of 6% (1.6% excluding China) compared
with 24% in developed countries.
Most of the increase in high-speed fixed-broadband subscriptions in developing countries can be attributed
to China, which accounts for 80% of all fixed-broadband subscriptions at 10 Mbit/s or above in developing
countries.
Developing countries and LDCs are deploying
fibre infrastructure directly, leapfrogging cable
and DSL.
However, the proportion of fibre broadband
subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in developed
countries is twice as high as in developing
countries, and ten times higher than in LDCs.
The share of fibre in total fixed-broadband
subscriptions is highest in the CIS and Asia and
the Pacific.
0.9 0.8
6.0
21.4
1.7 0.5
4.5
24.0
0
5
10
15
20
Breakdown by speed
NA
≥256 kbit/s to <2
Mbit/s
≥2 to <10 Mbit/s ≥10 Mbit/s
Developed countries
2015 2016
Per 100 inhabitants
Developed countries
0.9 0.6
2.0
4.1
0.9 0.6 1.2
6.1
0
5
10
15
20
Breakdown by speed
NA
≥256 kbit/s to <2
Mbit/s
≥2 to <10 Mbit/s ≥10 Mbit/s
Developing countries
2015 2016
Per 100 inhabitants
Developing countries

INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH UP
TELECOMMUNICATION REVENUES DOWN
Telecommunication revenues, world and by level of development
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Gbit/s
Europe Asia & Pacific The Americas CIS Arab States Africa
6
53
140
39
48
51
59
91
178
0 50 100 150 200
LDCs
Developed
Arab States
Africa
CIS
The Americas
Asia & Pacific
Developing
Europe
kbit/s per Internet user
Source: ITU.
Note: CIS refers to the Commonwealth of Independent States.
   0
   500
  1 000
  1 500
  2 000
  2 500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Billion USD
World
Developed
Developing
Source: ITU.
International Internet bandwidth in
Gbit/s, per region, 2008-2016
International Internet bandwidth per
Internet user in kbit/s, 2016
International Internet
bandwidth grew worldwide by
32% between 2015 and 2016.
Africa experienced an increase
of 72% during this period, the
highest of all regions.
Global telecommunication
revenues declined by 4%
between 2014 and 2015, falling
back to USD 1.9 trillion.
Developing countries saw a
compound annual growth rate
in telecommunication revenue
of 6.6% in the period 2007-2015,
whereas developed countries
experienced a contraction of
-0.8% during the same period.
Developing countries are home
to 83% of the global population
but generate only 39% of the
world’s telecommunication
revenues.
Europe
Asia & Pacific
CIS
Arab States
The Americas
Africa
World
Developed
Developing

For more information:
ICT Data and Statistics Division
Telecommunication Development Bureau
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
1211 Geneva 20 - Switzerland
indicators@itu.int
www.itu.int/ict
Printed in Switzerland
Geneva, July 2017
© International Telecommunication Union
ITU 15th World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Symposium (WTIS),
14-16 November 2017, Tunisia
www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/events/wtis2017/default.aspx
ITU Measuring the Information Society Report 2016
www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2016.aspx
ITU Yearbook of Statistics 2016
www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/yb2016.aspx
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database
www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/wtid.aspx
• Results of the ICT
Development Index, ITU’s
key benchmarking tool
•Key ICT indicators
• Global, regional and
national comparisons
ITU DATA
VISUALISATION
TOOL
www.itu.int/IDI2016


RFC 1181: RIPE Terms of Reference

RFC 1181: RIPE Terms of Reference | RFC Editor
Skip to content
Info
RFC
1181
:
RIPE Terms of Reference
R. Blokzijl
Informational
Network Working Group                                        R. Blokzijl
Request for Comments: 1181                                   RIPE/NIKHEF
                                                          September 1990
RIPE Terms of Reference
Status of this Memo

   This RFC describes the Terms of Reference of RIPE (Reseaux IP
   Europeens), the cooperation of European IP networks.  This memo
   provides information for the Internet community.  It does not specify
   any standard.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1
. Terms of Reference of RIPE
Recognising that IP networks are growing beyond the LAN's in Europe,
   and are extending over national and international WAN's in Europe,
   the RIPE coordinating body has been created.  RIPE stands for the
   "Reseaux IP Europeens".

   The objective of RIPE is to ensure the necessary administrative and
   technical coordination to allow the operation and expansion of a
   pan-European IP network.

      o RIPE acts as a forum for the exchange of technical information
        and the creation of expertise on IP networking.

      o The area of relevance for RIPE is Europe.

      o All parties operating wide area IP networks are encouraged to
        participate.

      o RIPE promotes and coordinates interconnection of IP networks
        within Europe and to other continents.

      o RIPE establishes agreement on common network management
        practices and the operational management of the interconnected
        networks.

      o RIPE serves as a focal point for other common activities of the
        participants related to IP networking.

      o All documents produced by RIPE will be publicly available.

      o RIPE is not a network service provider.  IP networks
Blokzijl                                                        [Page 1]
RFC 1181
RIPE Terms of Reference           September 1990
collaborating in RIPE remain under the executive authority of
        their respective organisations.

Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

Author's Address

   Rob Blokzijl
   RIPE
   c/o NIKHEF
   P.O.B. 41882
   NL-1009 DB  Amsterdam
   the Netherlands

   Phone:  +31 20 5920413

   EMail:  k13@nikhef.nl

Blokzijl                                                        [Page 2]
RFC
1181
: RIPE Terms of Reference
Informational


ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)
Connecting the world and beyond
Advanced Search
ITU
General Secretariat
Radiocommunication
Standardization
About ITU-T
Events
All Groups
Standards
Resources
BSG
Study Groups
Cooperation
Join Us
MyWorkspace
Development
News
Members' Zone
Join ITU
ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)
Rollup Image
You are here
ITU
>
Homepage
>
ITU-T
>
Study Groups
>
Study Period 2025 - 2028
Share
Page Content 10
Standardization work is carried out by the technical Study Groups (SGs) in which representatives of the
ITU-T membership
develop
Recommendations
(standards) for the various fields of international telecommunications.

SG2 - Operational aspects
About SG2
SG3 - Economic & policy issues
About SG3
SG5 - Environment, EMF, climate action & circular economy
About SG5
SG11 - Protocols, testing & combating counterfeiting

About SG11
SG12 - Performance, QoS & QoE
About SG12
SG13 - Future networks
About SG13
SG15 - Transport, access & home
About SG15
SG17 - Security
About SG17
SG20 - IoT, digital twins & smart cities
About SG20

SG21 - Multimedia, content delivery & cable TV
About SG21

Save language (?)
Disclaimer & Feedback
Page Content 2
Page Content 3
Page Content 4
Page Content 5
Page Content 17
Page Content 18
Page Content 19
Page Content 20
Related Groups
Terminated Study Groups
News
Page Content 11
Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG)
Regional Groups
Standardization Committee for Vocabulary (SCV)
TSB Director's IPR Ad hoc Group

External Cooperation

Page Content 12

Study Group 4
Study Group 6
Study Group 7
Study Group 8

Study Group 9

Study Group 10
Study Group 16

Study Group 19
SSG

Page Content 13
Previous Study Periods
Page Content 15

Study Period 2022-2024

Study Period 2017-2021

Study Period 2013-2016

Study Period 2009-2012

Study Period 2005-2008
Study Period 2001-2004
Study Period 1997-2000

Page Content 6
Page Content 7
Page Content 8
Page Content 14
Page Content 16
Follow us
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Flickr
Linkedin
Instagram
Soundcloud
Podcasts
Spotify
Spreaker
TikTok
© ITU
All Rights Reserved
Contact us
Terms of Use
Privacy notice
Accessibility
Report misconduct
Back to top

Year found in title: 'ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2025 - 2028)'


RFC 8890: The Internet is for End Users | RFC Editor
Skip to content
Primary navigation
The RFC Series
For Authors
About Us
Home
RFC 8890
Info
RFC
8890
:
The Internet is for End Users
M. Nottingham
Informational
Abstract
This document explains why the IAB believes that, when there is a
conflict between the interests of end users of the Internet and other
parties, IETF decisions should favor end users. It also explores how
the IETF can more effectively achieve this.
¶
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
¶
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication
by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
Section 2 of RFC 7841.
¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc8890
.
¶
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(
https://
trustee
.ietf
.org
/license
-info
) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
¶
1.
Introduction
Many who participate in the IETF are most comfortable making what we
believe to be purely technical decisions; our process
favors technical merit through our well-known mantra of "rough consensus
and running code."
¶
Nevertheless, the running code that results from our process (when
things work well) inevitably has an impact beyond technical
considerations, because the underlying decisions afford some uses while
discouraging others. While we believe we are making only technical
decisions, in reality, we are defining (in some degree) what is possible
on the Internet itself.
¶
This impact has become significant. As the Internet increasingly
mediates essential functions in societies, it has unavoidably become
profoundly political; it has helped people overthrow governments,
revolutionize social orders, swing elections, control populations,
collect data about individuals, and reveal secrets. It has created
wealth for some individuals and companies while destroying that of others.
¶
All of this raises the question: For whom do we go through the pain
of gathering rough consensus and writing running code?
¶
After all, there are a variety of parties that standards can benefit,
such as (but not limited to) end users, network operators, schools,
equipment vendors, specification authors, specification implementers,
content owners, governments, nongovernmental organizations, social
movements, employers, and parents.
¶
Successful specifications will provide some benefit to all the
relevant parties because standards do not represent a zero-sum
game. However, there are sometimes situations where there is a conflict
between the needs of two (or more) parties.
¶
In these situations, when one of those parties is an "end user" of
the Internet -- for example, a person using a web browser, mail client,
or another agent that connects to the Internet -- the Internet
Architecture Board argues that the IETF should favor their interests
over those of other parties.
¶
Section 2
explains what is meant by "end
users",
Section 3
outlines why IETF work
should prioritize them, and
Section 4
describes how we can do that.
¶
2.
Who Are "End Users"?
In this document, "end users" means human users whose activities
IETF standards support, sometimes
indirectly. Thus, the end user of a protocol to manage routers is not a
router administrator; it is the people using the network that the router
operates within.
¶
End users are not necessarily a homogenous group; they might have
different views of how the Internet should work and might occupy
several roles, such as a seller, buyer, publisher, reader, service
provider, and consumer. An end user might browse the Web, monitor
remote equipment, play a game, videoconference with colleagues,
send messages to friends, or perform an operation in a remote
surgery theater. They might be "at the keyboard" or represented by
software indirectly (e.g., as a daemon).
¶
Likewise, an individual end user might have many interests (e.g.,
privacy, security, flexibility, reachability) that are sometimes in
tension.
¶
A person whose interests we need to consider might not directly be
using a specific system connected to the Internet. For example, if a
child is using a browser, the interests of that child's parents or
guardians may be relevant. A person pictured in a photograph may have an
interest in systems that process that photograph; a person entering a
room with sensors that send data to the Internet may have interests that may
be involved in our deliberations about how those sensor readings are
handled.
¶
While such less-direct interactions between people and the Internet
may be harder to evaluate, this document's concept of "end user"
nonetheless includes such people.
¶
3.
Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users
Even before the IETF was established, the Internet technical
community has focused on user needs since at least
[
RFC0001
]
, which stated that "One of our goals
must be to stimulate the immediate and easy use by a wide class of
users."
¶
And, while we specialize in technical matters, the IETF is not
neutral about the purpose of its work in developing the Internet; in "A
Mission Statement for the IETF"
[
RFC3935
]
, the definitions include:
¶
The IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we
believe that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on economics,
communication, and education, will help us to build a better human
society.
¶
Later, in "The Scope of the Internet" (
Section 4.1
of [
RFC3935
]
),
it says:
¶
The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want
the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to
openness and fairness. We embrace 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 we choose to create.
¶
In other words, the IETF develops and maintains
the Internet to promote the social good. The society that the IETF
is attempting to enhance is composed of end users, along with groups of
them forming businesses, governments, clubs, civil society
organizations, and other institutions.
¶
Merely advancing the measurable success of the Internet (e.g.,
deployment size, bandwidth, latency, number of users) is not an adequate
goal; doing so ignores how technology is so often used as a lever to
assert power over users, rather than empower them.
¶
Beyond fulfilling the IETF's mission, prioritizing end users can also
help to ensure the long-term health of the Internet and the IETF's
relevance to it. Perceptions of capture by vendors or other providers
harm both; the IETF's work will (deservedly) lose end users' trust if it
prioritizes (or is perceived to prioritize) others' interests over
them.
¶
Ultimately, the Internet will succeed or fail based upon the actions
of its end users, because they are the driving force behind its growth
to date. Not prioritizing them jeopardizes the network effect that the
Internet relies upon to provide so much value.
¶
4.
How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users
There are a few ways that the IAB believes the IETF community can
prioritize end users, based upon our observations. This
is not a complete list.
¶
4.1.
Engaging the Internet Community
The IETF community does not have any unique insight into what is
"good for end users", and it is not uncommon for us to be at a further
disadvantage because of our close understanding of some -- but not all
-- aspects of the Internet.
¶
At the same time, we have a culture of considerable deference to
a broader "Internet community" -- roughly what this document calls end
users -- in our decision-making processes. Mere deference, however, is
not adequate; even with the best intentions, we cannot assume that our
experiences of the Internet are those of all of its end users or that
our decisions have a positive impact upon them.
¶
Therefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyze and
consider the impacts of the IETF's work, but also a responsibility to
consult with that greater Internet community. In particular, we should
do so when one of our decisions has a potential impact upon end
users.
¶
The IETF community faces significant hurdles in doing so. Our work
is specialized and often esoteric, and processes for developing
standards often involve very long timescales. Affected parties are
rarely technical experts, and they often base their understanding of the Internet
upon incomplete (and sometimes inaccurate) models. Often,
even when we try to engage a broader audience, their participation is
minimal -- until a change affects someone in a way they don't
like. Surprising the Internet community is rarely a good outcome.
¶
Government
-sponsored individuals sometimes participate in the IETF
community. While this is welcome, it should not be taken as
automatically representative of end users elsewhere, or even all end
users in the relevant jurisdiction. Furthermore, what is desirable in
one jurisdiction (or at least to its administrators) might be
detrimental in others (see
Section 4.4
).
¶
While some civil society organizations specialize in technology and
Internet policy, they rarely can
participate broadly, nor are they necessarily representative of the
larger Internet community. Nevertheless, their understanding of
end-user needs is often profound, and they are in many ways the
best-informed advocates for end-user concerns; they should be
considered a primary channel for engaging the broader Internet
community.
¶
A promising approach to help fill these gaps is to identify and
engage with specifically affected communities when making decisions
that might affect them, for example, one or more industry
associations, user groups, or a set of individuals, though we can't
formally ensure that they are appropriately representative.
¶
In doing so, we should not require them to "come to us"; unless a
stakeholder community is already engaged in the IETF process
effectively, the IETF community should explore how to meet with them
on their terms -- take the initiative to contact them, explain our
work, and solicit their feedback.
¶
In particular, while IAB workshops, BOFs, and Bar BOFs can be an
effective mechanism to gather input within our community, they rarely
have the visibility into other communities that is required to
solicit input, much less effective participation.
¶
Instead, an event like a workshop may be more effective if
co-located with -- and ideally hosted or co-hosted by -- a forum that's
familiar to that stakeholder community. We should also
raise the visibility of IETF work (or potential IETF
work) in such fora through conference talks, panels, newsletter
articles, etc.
¶
For example, the IAB ESCAPE workshop
[
RFC8752
]
solicited input from Internet
publishers and advertisers about a proposal that might affect them.
While the workshop was considered successful,
participation might have been improved by identifying an appropriate
industry forum and working with them to host the event.
¶
When we engage with the Internet community, we should also clearly
identify tailored feedback mechanisms (e.g., subscribing to a mailing
list may not be appropriate) and assure that they are well known in
those communities.
¶
The Internet Society can be an invaluable partner in these efforts;
their focus on the Internet community, policy expertise, and resources
can help to facilitate discussions with the appropriate parties.
¶
Finally, we should remember that the RFC Series contains Requests For
Comments; if there are serious implications of our work, we should
document them and ask for feedback from the Internet community.
¶
4.2.
Creating User-Focused Systems
We should pay particular attention to the kinds of architectures we
create and whether they encourage or discourage an Internet that
works for end users.
¶
For example, one of the most successful Internet applications is
the Web, which uses the HTTP application protocol. One of HTTP's key
implementation roles is that of the web browser -- called the "user
agent" in
[
RFC7230
]
and other
specifications.
¶
User agents act as intermediaries between a service and the end
user; rather than downloading an executable program from a service
that has arbitrary access into the users' system, the user agent only
allows limited access to display content and run code in a sandboxed
environment. End users are diverse and the ability of a few user
agents to represent individual interests properly is imperfect, but
this arrangement is an improvement over the alternative -- the need to
trust a website completely with all information on your system to
browse it.
¶
Defining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous
cycle; it allows multiple implementations
, allowing end users
to switch between them with relatively low costs (although there are
concerns about the complexity of the Web creating barriers to entry
for new implementations
). This creates an incentive for implementers
to consider the users' needs carefully, which are often reflected into
the defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has many
remaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an
opportunity to improve it.
¶
In contrast, the Internet of Things (IoT) has not yet seen the
broad adoption of a similar role; many current systems require opaque,
vendor-specific software or hardware for the user-facing
component. Perhaps as a result of this, that ecosystem and its end
users face serious challenges.
¶
4.3.
Identifying Negative End-User Impact
At its best, our work will unambiguously build a better human
society. Sometimes, we will consciously be neutral and
open-ended, allowing the "tussle" among stakeholders to produce a
range of results (see
[
TUSSLE
]
for
further discussion).
¶
At the very least, however, we must examine our work for negative
impact on end users and take steps to mitigate it where
encountered. In particular, when we've identified a conflict between
the interests of end users and other stakeholders, we should err on
the side of protecting end users.
¶
Note that "negative impact on end users" is not defined in this
document; that is something that the relevant body (e.g., working
group) needs to discuss and come to consensus on. Merely asserting
that something is harmful is not adequate. The converse is also true,
though; it's not good practice to avoid identifying harms, nor is it
acceptable to ignore them when brought to our attention.
¶
The IAB and IETF have already established a body of guidance for
situations where this conflict is common, including (but not
limited to)
[
RFC7754
]
on filtering,
[
RFC7258
]
and
[
RFC7624
]
on pervasive surveillance,
[
RFC7288
]
on host firewalls, and
[
RFC6973
]
regarding privacy considerations.
¶
Much of that advice has focused on maintaining the end-to-end
properties of a connection
[
RFC3724
]
. This does not mean that our responsibility to end
users stops there; decisions might affect them in other ways. For
example, data collection by various applications even inside otherwise
secure connections is a major problem on the Internet today. Also,
inappropriate concentration of power on the Internet has become a
concerning phenomenon -- one that protocol design might have some
influence upon.
¶
4.4.
Handling Conflicting End-User Needs
When the needs of different end users conflict (for example, two
sets of end users both have reasonable desires), we again should try to
minimize negative impact.
¶
For example, when a decision improves the Internet for end users in
one jurisdiction, but at the cost of potential harm to others
elsewhere, that is not a good trade-off. As such, we design
the Internet for the pessimal environment; if a user can be harmed,
they probably will be, somewhere.
¶
There may be cases where genuine technical need requires
compromise. However, such trade-offs are carefully examined and avoided
when there are alternate means of achieving the desired goals. If they
cannot be, these choices and reasoning ought to be thoroughly
documented.
¶
4.5.
Deprioritizing Internal Needs
There are several needs that are very visible to us as
specification authors but should explicitly not be prioritized over
the needs of end users.
¶
These include convenience for document editors, IETF process
matters, and "architectural purity" for its own sake.
¶
5.
IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
¶
6.
Security Considerations
This document does not have any direct security impact; however,
failing to prioritize end users might well affect their security
negatively in the long term.
¶
7.
Informative References
[RFC0001]
Crocker, S.
,
"Host Software"
,
RFC 1
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC0001
,
April 1969
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc1
>
.
[RFC3724]
Kempf, J., Ed.
, Austein, R., Ed.
, and IAB
,
"The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture"
,
RFC 3724
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC3724
,
March 2004
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc3724
>
.
[RFC3935]
Alvestrand, H.
,
"A Mission Statement for the IETF"
,
BCP 95
,
RFC 3935
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC3935
,
October 2004
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc3935
>
.
[RFC6973]
Cooper, A.
, Tschofenig, H.
, Aboba, B.
, Peterson, J.
, Morris, J.
, Hansen, M.
, and R. Smith
,
"Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols"
,
RFC 6973
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC6973
,
July 2013
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc6973
>
.
[RFC7230]
Fielding, R., Ed.
and J. Reschke, Ed.
,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing"
,
RFC 7230
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC7230
,
June 2014
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc7230
>
.
[RFC7258]
Farrell, S.
and H. Tschofenig
,
"Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack"
,
BCP 188
,
RFC 7258
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC7258
,
May 2014
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc7258
>
.
[RFC7288]
Thaler, D.
,
"Reflections on Host Firewalls"
,
RFC 7288
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC7288
,
June 2014
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc7288
>
.
[RFC7624]
Barnes, R.
, Schneier, B.
, Jennings, C.
, Hardie, T.
, Trammell, B.
, Huitema, C.
, and D. Borkmann
,
"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A Threat Model and Problem Statement"
,
RFC 7624
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC7624
,
August 2015
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc7624
>
.
[RFC7754]
Barnes, R.
, Cooper, A.
, Kolkman, O.
, Thaler, D.
, and E. Nordmark
,
"Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering"
,
RFC 7754
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC7754
,
March 2016
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc7754
>
.
[RFC8752]
Thomson, M.
and M. Nottingham
,
"Report from the IAB Workshop on Exploring Synergy between Content Aggregation and the Publisher Ecosystem (ESCAPE)"
,
RFC 8752
,
DOI 10
.17487
/RFC8752
,
March 2020
,
<
https://
www
.rfc
-editor
.org
/info
/rfc8752
>
.
[TUSSLE]
Clark, D.
, Sollins, K.
, Wroclawski, J.
, and R. Braden
,
"Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet"
,
DOI 10
.1145
/633025
.633059
,
August 2002
,
<
https://
groups
.csail
.mit
.edu
/ana
/Publications
/Pub
PDFs
/Tussle2002
.pdf
>
.
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was approved
for publication were:
¶
Jari Arkko
¶
Alissa Cooper
¶
Stephen Farrell
¶
Wes Hardaker
¶
Ted Hardie
¶
Christian Huitema
¶
Zhenbin Li
¶
Erik Nordmark
¶
Mark Nottingham
¶
Melinda Shore
¶
Jeff Tantsura
¶
Martin Thomson
¶
Brian Trammell
¶
Acknowledgements
Many discussions influenced this document, both inside and
outside of the IETF and IAB. In particular,
Edward Snowden
's comments regarding the priority of end users at IETF 93 and
the HTML5 Priority of Constituencies were both influential.
¶
Many people gave feedback and input, including
Harald Alvestrand
,
Mohamed Boucadair
,
Joe Hildebrand
,
Lee Howard
,
Russ Housley
,
Niels ten Oever
,
Mando Rachovitsa
,
John Klensin
, and
Eliot Lear
.
¶
Author's Address
Mark Nottingham
Prahran
VIC
Australia
Email:
mnot@mnot.net
URI:
https://
www
.mnot
.net
/
RFC
8890
: The Internet is for End Users
Informational
Contents
About this RFC
Errata
1
In this section
1 Introduction
2 Who Are "End Users"?
3 Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users
4 How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users
4.1 Engaging the Internet Community
4.2 Creating User-Focused Systems
4.3 Identifying Negative End-User Impact
4.4 Handling Conflicting End-User Needs
4.5 Deprioritizing Internal Needs
5 IANA Considerations
6 Security Considerations
7 Informative References
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Acknowledgements
Author's Address
Footer
rfc-editor.org is maintained by the
Internet Engineering Task Force
System Status
·
Report a Bug
·
Version 1.76.1
Useful links
IETF.org
IRTF.org
IAB.org
Datatracker
Author Resources
Contact Us
RFC Editor
rfc-dist Info Page
rfc-interest Info Page
Expand sidebar


About the Internet Society - Internet Society
Skip to content
About Us
Mission
Board of Trustees
Community
Team
Transparency
2026 Action Plan
Our Work
Connectivity
How the Internet Works
Internet Governance
Internet Policy
Privacy
Security
News and Insights
Blog
News
Impact Stories
Resources
Get Involved
Become an individual member
Become an organization member
Join a fellowship program
Take a free online course
Attend an event
Member login
en
en
fr
es
More languages
Search
×
♥ Donate
The Internet Is
for Everyone.
This vision drives everything we do.
Internet Is for Everyone.
This vision drives everything we do.
We are a global, community-driven nonprofit.
Together with our
Foundation
, we provide technical and policy expertise, infrastructure, funds, and skills training–key components of an accessible, reliable, and safe Internet.
Rooted in the origins of the Internet, we’re passionate about preserving the foundations on which it was built and developing its full potential.
Read about our history
.
Our Work
Our Work
The Internet is a transformative force. But not everyone benefits from it equally. 2.2 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.
Learn About Our Work
A Global Society
A Global Society
Our community is made up of people and organizations from around the world. Guided by
our shared mission
, together, we are shaping the future of the Internet.
Members
Supporters who share our vision for an open and trusted Internet.
Chapters and SIGs
Connectors who bring members together to make change at the local and global level.
Organization Members
Doers who partner with us to achieve greater impact.
Staff
Advocates who apply their talent, knowledge, and experience for an Internet for everyone.
Board of Trustees
Champions who value our mission above all else, steering us in the right direction.
Internet Ecosystem
Organizations such as PIR, IETF, and the Internet Society Foundation, which make our impact possible.
We can all help build an Internet for everyone.
We can all help build an Internet for everyone.
Anyone can help protect, defend, and grow the Internet. Explore opportunities to help us advance our vision and make positive change.
Get Involved
We can all help build an Internet for everyone.
Anyone can help protect, defend, and grow the Internet. Explore opportunities to help us advance our vision and make positive change.
Get Involved
Image copyright:
© 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
Stay connected.
Get news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.
X/Twitter
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Email
(Required)
You may opt out at any time.
Terms and Conditions
and
Privacy Policy
.
Secondary navigation
Our Community
Member sign-in
Individual members
Chapters
Special interest groups (SIGs)
Organization members
Our Ecosystem
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Public Interest Registry (PIR)
Internet Society Foundation
Internet Society Pulse
Internet Hall of Fame
NDSS Symposium
Our Resources
About the Internet
ARPANET & the history of the Internet
Impact stories
Resource library
Newsroom
Blog
Follow Internet Society on LinkedIn
Follow Internet Society on Facebook
Follow Internet Society on Instagram
Follow Internet Society on YouTube
Internet Society RSS Feed
Corporate links navigation
© 2026 Internet Society |
Privacy Notice
|
Terms of Use
|
Legal
|
Annual Reports and Financials
|
Contact Us
|
Careers
|
Follow Us
|
Affiliated Sites