Overview of Policy Networks | Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
Skip to main content
Welcome to the United Nations
|
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
English
English
Menu
Quick links
I am new to the IGF
Subscribe to our mailing list
Register for an IGF activity
Donate to the IGF
Find/Become a Resource Person
Search
Feed me
Log in
Header Menu
About
About
About IGF
FAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025
Get Started
Team
IGF Donors
Work With Us
IGF Mailing Lists
Contact Us
IGF Leadership Panel
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group
MAG Terms of Reference
MAG Chair Terms of Reference
MAG Chair's Blog
MAG Members
MAG Members
Previous MAG Members
MAG Working Groups
MAG Meeting Records
MAG Activities
MAG Member Dashboard
IGF 2026 MAG Renewal
UN Global Advocate
IGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)
IGF Expert Group Meeting 2026
EGM Report
The IGF and UN Processes
Code of Conduct
Newsletter
Press
Support the IGF
Donate
IGF Trust Fund
Donors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund
Global South Contributions
Host the IGF
Share Your Experience - "Voices of the IGF"
IGF 2026
IGF 2026 Entry Page
IGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals
IGF 2026 Call for Village Booths
IGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs
IGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting
IGF 2026 Timeline
IGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals
IGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs
IGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements
IGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations
IGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants
IGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement
IGF 2026 Parliamentary Track
IGF 2026 Youth Track
IGF 2026 Business Engagement
Intersessional Work
Thematic Intersessional Work
Dynamic Coalitions
Dynamic Coalitions
DC Coordination Activities
Terms of Reference
Best Practice Forums
Policy Networks
Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence
Policy Network on Cybersecurity
Policy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure
Policy Network on Digital Inclusion
Previous Work
Capacity Development
Intersessional News
National and Regional IGFs
Overview
NRIs FAQs
NRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?
Youth Initiatives
Regional IGF Initiatives
National IGF Initiatives
All National Initiatives
Africa
Asia Pacific
Eastern Europe
GRULAC
WEOG
NRI Dashboard
NRIs Library
NRIs Collaborative Work
IGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process
Brochures about NRIs
IGF NRIs Call for Grants
NRIs Meetings - overview
Publications and Reports
IGF Brochures and Select Publications
Publications and Reports
IGF Annual Meeting Proceedings
IGF Intersessional Work
CSTD Reports
UN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD
Calendar
Breadcrumb
Home
Overview of Policy Networks
While the
IGF
2026 policy networks are under implementation, during 2015-2025, the following policy networks were implemented. Please click on each to learn more.
IGF
2026
Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)
Policy Network on Cybersecurity (PNC)
Policy Network on Digital Inclusion (PNDI)
Policy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure (PNODI)
IGF
2025
Policy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)
Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)
Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)
IGF
2024
Policy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)
Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)
Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)
IGF
2023
Policy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)
Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)
Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI)
IGF
2022
Policy Network on Meaningful Access
Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF)
IGF
2021
Policy Network on Environment (PNE)
Policy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)
IGF
2015-2018
Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)
UNITED NATIONS
Contact information
United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411
Additional Information
Donate to the IGF
Participant Funding
Vacancies
Multilingualism
Accessibility Statement
Resources
Publications
Press
Glossary
CONNECT WITH US
Donate
Footer menu
Copyright
Privacy Notice
Terms of Use
Accessibility menu
Contrast settings
Font size
Letter spacing
Line height
Images
Font
Reset the settings


About Public Comment

About Public Comment
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
Public Comment
Public 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.
Subscribe to Public Comment Alerts
Public Comment Home
Upcoming Proceedings
Open Proceedings
Closed Proceedings
Other Public Consultations
About Public Comment
What is Public Comment?
Public 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.
Explore the Public Comment Process Infographic
Show Text Version
Public Comment at ICANN
What is Public Comment?
Public Comment gives the ICANN community, Internet stakeholders, and the 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.
How Does It Work?
Proceeding Opens
A proceeding is the process for gathering input on topics like policy and review recommendations, governance documents, and registry agreements.
The ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, or ICANN organization (org) can open proceedings.
Proceedings are open for a minimum of 40 days with exceptions.
Stakeholders Give Input
Read the proposal and determine whether you are impacted.
Relevant resources are available on the proceeding webpage.
Anyone can make a submission including: ICANN community groups, governments, civil society, corporations, the technical community, and individual end users.
Submissions may agree or disagree with the proposal or suggest improvements.
All submissions are public.
Proceeding Closes
ICANN org has at least 14 days to review submissions.
Summary Report
ICANN org summarizes submissions and identifies themes into a published report.
Your Impact
The group that opened the proceeding reviews the submissions and summary report, addresses the input, and proposes next steps.
Get Involved!
Read more about ICANN’s Public Comment, and the open and upcoming proceedings by visiting:
https://icann.org/en/public-comment
.
Have a question? Email us at:
[email protected]
.
Click to open the full PDF.
How does Public Comment work?
The 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.
ICANN may seek Public Comment on a variety of topics, including but not limited to:
ICANN org or community governance documents such as the ICANN Bylaws; strategic, operating, and financial plans; budgets; and community charters.
Policy recommendations including reports of potential, ongoing, and completed policy development processes.
Recommendations from Organizational and Specific Reviews.
Implementation plans for approved Consensus Policy recommendations.
Cross-community working group recommendations.
ICANN base agreements with registry operators and registrars.
How do I make a Public Comment submission?
Your participation is important. Learn more about how to make a Public Comment submission and track your previous submissions by reading this
helpful guide
.
Public Comment Transparency
All Public Comment submissions, including the name and contact information of the submitter, are public and archived. All submissions must adhere to the ICANN
Expected Standards of Behavior
and are subject to the ICANN
Terms of Service
.
What are benefits of Public Comment?
The 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.
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


Internet Governance - Internet Society

Internet Governance - 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
Internet Governance
The Internet works best when it is governed by many.
The Internet works best when it is governed by many.
Simply 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.
The 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.
Internet Governance
The Internet works best when it is governed by many.
Simply 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.
The 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.
Key Internet Governance Links
Key Internet Governance Links
Who Runs the Internet
The Internet is a global resource, so who actually runs it? Dive into the different groups that play key roles in Internet governance.
Internet Governance and WSIS
Learn more about Internet governance, the multistakeholder approach, and how they’re practiced.
Why the Multistakeholder Approach Works
The multistakeholder approach to Internet governance has grown from the Internet’s own DNA and is what allows it to thrive.
Internet Governance Processes and Events
Explore key local, regional, and global events and processes, where stakeholders debate Internet policy issues.
Footprints of 20 Years of the Internet Governance Forum
Learn more about how the Internet Governance Forum has enabled open, inclusive, and informed discussions that influence global Internet policy.
A Pivotal Moment for Global Digital Cooperation
This 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.
How to Create an Impact Brief
Use our Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit to analyze legislative proposals, business decisions, or technological developments and their impact on the Internet.
Internet Governance Online Course
Expand your knowledge of Internet governance, the multistakeholder model, Internet policy, and more.
A Once-Overlooked Tool: How Community Networks Connected Haiti and the World
A Once-Overlooked Tool: How Community Networks Connected Haiti and the World
Community 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.
Their 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.
Learn 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.
Read the Full Story
Latest Updates
Latest Updates
Content
Blog
(274)
Campaigns
(4)
Events
(75)
News
(89)
Press Releases
(43)
Statements
(39)
Open Letters
(2)
Resources
(82)
Policy Briefs
(2)
Speeches
(53)
Stories
(8)
Region
Africa
(39)
Asia-Pacific
(53)
Europe
(36)
Global
(381)
Latin America & Caribbean
(31)
Middle East
(14)
North America
(28)
Blog
7 August 2026
How One Alum Helped Build a Community of Internet Leaders
Amged B. Shwedhy, an Internet Society alumnus, has helped bring Internet governance discussions to Libya ...
News
21 July 2026
Internet Society’s Contribution to Malaysia Regulator’s Public Consultation
The Internet Society has submitted comments to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) in response to its public consultation ...
News
20 July 2026
Internet Society at WSIS Forum
The Internet Society participated in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026 in Geneva, which took place ...
Blog
14 July 2026
The Need to Reimagine the WSIS Forum
The 2026 WSIS Forum demonstrated the strength of a committed WSIS community, but it also exposed clear challenges. The task ...
Events
3 July 2026
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026
Internet Society will attend the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, ...
Resources
3 July 2026
Non-Paper on WSIS+20 Implementation
When executed well, the WSIS framework has the potential to effectively extend connectivity, close digital divides, and enhance online safety ...
Events
12 June 2026
ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2026
We are actively engaged in the lead-up to PP-26 to ensure that outcomes protect the open, globally interoperable Internet, and ...
Blog
13 May 2026
How RightsCon Is an Unexpected Stress Test for the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
The cancellation of RightsCon 2026 is a stark reminder that when opportunities for civic engagement are neutralized, so are stakeholders’ ...
Blog
13 April 2026
From Commitments to Practice: Internet Society’s Priorities for WSIS+20 Implementation
Drawing on our strategic priorities, this blog post outlines where we will focus our efforts in supporting the implementation of ...
1
2
3
...
65
›
Internet Governance FAQs
Internet Governance FAQs
Why is multistakeholder Internet governance important?
Different 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.
The 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.
What are the main issues of Internet governance?
One 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.
While 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.
What is WSIS+20?
The World Summit on the Information Society 20-Year Review (
WSIS+20
) 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.
The 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.
What is the Global Digital Compact?
The
Global Digital Compact
is 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.
This 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
our decision
not to endorse the compact.
What is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)?
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
serves 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.
We 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).
Image copyright:
© 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
Stay connected.
Get news, updates, and information about ways we can all grow and protect the Internet.
Instagram
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


The New gTLD Program | New gTLD Program

The New gTLD Program | New gTLD Program
Skip to main content
English
العربية
中文
Français
Pусский
Español
Portuguese
Deutsch
Japanese
Dutch
Swedish
Search
Search
Main navigation
About the Program
Program News and Announcements
Application Rounds
2012 Round
2026 Round
Resources
Champions Toolkit
Program Resources
Correspondence
Engagement Calendar
Next Round In YOUR Language
Reports
Sourcing Timeline
Use Cases
Webinars and Presentations
Media Coverage
https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-adjusts-evaluation-fee-payment-timeline-for-2026-round-applicants-07-08-2026-en
/en/application-rounds/round2/applicant-journey/application-submission
/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp
/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp/rsp-applications
/en/application-rounds/round2/rsp
The New gTLD Program
The New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Program:
2026
Round is
an ICANN initiative
to enable the expansion of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) through the introduction of new top-level domains.
Applicant Support Program (ASP)
The Applicant Support Program (ASP) is an initiative intended to provide financial and non-financial support for eligible entities that demonstrate financial need.
Registry Service Provider (RSP)
The 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
here
.
2026 Round Information
The 2026 Round new gTLD application window opens 30 April through 12 August 2026. Find more information here.
Interested in applying for a new gTLD?
Find out how your organization can participate and the steps you can take to prepare to apply for a new gTLD.
Apply for a new gTLD.
Review the application submission processes and apply through the TLD Application Management System (TAMS).
Quicklinks
Applicant Guidebook
Frequently Asked Questions
2026 Round Resources
Applicant Journey
© 2026 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers
ICANN.org
ICANN Privacy Policy
New gTLD Program Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Cookie Policy
Help


RFC 1310: The Internet Standards Process | RFC Editor
Skip to content
Info
RFC
1310
:
The Internet Standards Process
L. Chapin
Informational
This RFC is now obsolete
, see
RFC
1602
.
Network Working Group                          Internet Activities Board
Request for Comments: 1310                           Lyman Chapin, Chair
                                                              March 1992
The Internet Standards Process
Status of this Memo

   This informational memo presents the current procedures for creating
   and documenting Internet Standards.  Distribution of this memo is
   unlimited.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
.  INTRODUCTION .................................................
2
1.1
. Internet Standards .......................................
2
1.2
. Organization .............................................
3
2
.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS ...............................
4
2.1
. Introduction .............................................
4
2.2
. The Internet Standards Track .............................
5
2.3
. Requests for Comments (RFCs) .............................
5
2.4
. Internet Drafts ..........................................
6
2.5
. Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) ................
7
2.6
. Review and Approval ......................................
8
2.7
. Entering the Standards Track .............................
9
2.8
. Advancing in the Standards Track .........................
9
2.9
. Revising a Standard ......................................
10
3
.  NOMENCLATURE .................................................
10
3.1
Types of Specifications ..................................
10
3.2
Standards Track Maturity Levels ..........................
12
3.3
Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels ......................
13
3.4
Requirement Levels .......................................
14
4
.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................
15
5
.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS .................................
17
6
.  PATENT POLICY ................................................
17
6.1
Statement from Patent Holder .............................
18
6.2
Record of Statement ......................................
18
6.3
Notice ...................................................
18
6.4
Identifying Patents ......................................
19
7
.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES ...............................
19
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY .............................................
20
APPENDIX B: UNRESOLVED ISSUES ....................................
21
Security Considerations ..........................................
23
Author's Address .................................................
23
IAB                                                             [Page 1]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
1
.  INTRODUCTION
1.1  Internet Standards

      This memo documents the process currently used for the
      standardization of Internet protocols and procedures.

      The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of
      autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host
      communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and
      procedures defined by Internet Standards.  There are also many
      isolated internets, i.e., sets of interconnected networks, that
      are not connected to the Internet but use the Internet Standards.
      The architecture and technical specifications of the Internet are
      the result of numerous research and development activities
      conducted over a period of two decades, performed by the network
      R&D community, by service and equipment vendors, and by government
      agencies around the world.

      In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
      and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
      independent, and interoperable implementations with operational
      experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably
      useful in some or all parts of the Internet.

      The principal set of Internet Standards is commonly known as the
      "TCP/IP protocol suite".  As the Internet evolves, new protocols
      and services, in particular those for Open Systems Interconnection
      (OSI), have been and will be deployed in traditional TCP/IP
      environments, leading to an Internet that supports multiple
      protocol suites.  This document concerns all protocols,
      procedures, and conventions used in the Internet, not just the
      TCP/IP protocols.

      In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is
      straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development
      and several iterations of review by the Internet community and
      perhaps revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard
      by the appropriate body (see below), and is published.

      In practice, the process is somewhat more complicated, due to (1)
      the number and type of possible sources for specifications; (2)
      the need to prepare and revise a specification in a manner that
      preserves the interests of all of the affected parties;  (3) the
      importance of establishing widespread community agreement on its
      technical content; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating the
      utility of a particular specification for the Internet community.
IAB                                                             [Page 2]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
Some specifications that are candidates for Internet
      standardization are the result of organized efforts directly
      within the Internet community; others are the result of work that
      was not originally organized as an Internet effort, but which was
      later adopted by the Internet community.

      From its inception, the Internet has been, and is expected to
      remain, an evolving system whose participants regularly factor new
      requirements and technology into the design and implementation of
      the global Internet.  Users of the Internet and providers of the
      equipment, software, and services that support it should
      anticipate and embrace this adaptability as a major tenet of
      Internet philosophy.

      The procedures described in this document are the result of three
      years of evolution, driven both by the needs of the growing and
      increasingly diverse Internet community, and by experience.
      Comments and suggestions are invited for improvement in these
      procedures.

   1.2  Organization

      The Internet Activities Board (IAB) is the primary coordinating
      committee for Internet design, engineering, and management [
1
].
      The IAB has delegated to its Internet Engineering Task Force
      (IETF) the primary responsibility for the development and review
      of potential Internet Standards from all sources.  The IETF forms
      Working Groups to pursue specific technical issues, frequently
      resulting in the development of one or more specifications that
      are proposed for adoption as Internet Standards.

      Final decisions on Internet standardization are made by the IAB,
      based upon recommendations from the Internet Engineering Steering
      Group (IESG), the leadership body of the IETF.  IETF Working
      Groups are organized into areas, and each area is coordinated by
      an Area Director.  The Area Directors and the IETF Chairman are
      included in the IESG.

      Any member of the Internet community with the time and interest is
      urged to attend IETF meetings and to participate actively in one
      or more IETF Working Groups.  Participation is by individual
      technical contributors, rather than formal representatives of
      organizations.  The process works because the IETF Working Groups
      display a spirit of cooperation as well as a high degree of
      technical maturity; most IETF members agree that the greatest
      benefit for all members of the Internet community results from
      cooperative development of technically superior protocols and
      services.
IAB                                                             [Page 3]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
A second body under the IAB, the Internet Research Task Force
      (IRTF), investigates topics considered to be too uncertain, too
      advanced, or insufficiently well-understood to be the subject of
      Internet standardization.  When an IRTF activity generates a
      specification that is sufficiently stable to be considered for
      Internet standardization, it is processed through the IETF.
Section 2
of this document describes the process and rules for
      Internet standardization.
Section 3
presents the nomenclature for
      different kinds and levels of Internet standard technical
      specifications and their applicability.
Section 4
defines how
      relevant externally-sponsored specifications and practices that
      are developed and controlled by other bodies or by vendors are
      handled in the Internet standardization process.
Section 5
presents the requirement for prior disclosure of the existence of
      intellectual property rights.
Section 6
describes the rules for
      Internet Standards that involve patents.
2
.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS PROCESS
2.1. Introduction

      The procedures described in this document are intended to provide
      a clear, open, and objective basis for developing, evaluating, and
      adopting Internet Standards for protocols and services.  The
      procedures provide ample opportunity for participation and comment
      by all interested parties.  Before an Internet Standard is
      adopted, it is repeatedly discussed (and perhaps debated) in open
      open meetings and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is
      available for review via world-wide on-line directories.

      These procedures are explicitly aimed at developing and adopting
      generally-accepted practices.  Thus, a candidate for Internet
      standardization is implemented and tested for correct operation
      and interoperability by multiple, independent parties, and
      utilized in increasingly demanding environments, before it can be
      adopted as an Internet Standard.

      The procedures that are described here provide a great deal of
      flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances that
      occur in the Internet standardization process.  Experience has
      shown this flexibility to be vital in achieving the following
      goals for Internet standardization:
IAB                                                             [Page 4]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
*    high quality,

      *    prior implementation and testing,

      *    openness and fairness, and

      *    timeliness.

   2.2.  The Internet Standards Track

      Specifications that are destined to become Internet Standards
      evolve through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards
      track".  These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft
      Standard", and "Standard" -- are defined and discussed below in
Section 3.2
.

      Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet
      Standard, further evolution often occurs based on experience and
      the recognition of new requirements.  The nomenclature and
      procedures of Internet standardization provide for the replacement
      of old Internet Standards with new ones, and the assignment of
      descriptive labels to indicate the status of "retired" Internet
      Standards.  A set of maturity levels is defined in
Section 3.3
to
      cover these and other "off-track" specifications.

   2.3.  Requests for Comments (RFCs)

      Each distinct version of a specification is published as part of
      the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series.

      RFCs form a series of publications of networking technical
      documents, begun in 1969 as part of the original DARPA wide-area
      networking (ARPANET) project (see
Appendix A
for glossary of
      acronyms).  RFCs cover a wide range of topics, from early
      discussion of new research concepts to status memos about the
      Internet.  The IAB views the RFC publication process to be
      sufficiently important to warrant including the RFC Editor in the
      IAB membership.

      The status of specifications on the Internet standards track is
      summarized periodically in a summary RFC entitled "IAB Official
      Protocol Standards" [
2
].  This RFC shows the level of maturity and
      other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
      specification.
IAB                                                             [Page 5]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
********************************************************
             *   The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC is the   *
             *   authoritative statement of the status of any       *
             *   particular Internet specification,                 *
             ********************************************************

      and it is the "Publication of Record" with respect to Internet
      standardization.

      The STD documents form a subseries of the RFC series.  When a
      specification has been adopted as a Standard, its RFC is labeled
      with a STDxxx number [
9
] in addition to its RFC number.

      Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
      should or will become Internet Standards.  Such non-standards
      track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
      standardization; generally, they will be published directly as
      RFCs at the discretion of the RFC editor.  These RFCs will be
      marked as "Experimental" or "Informational" (see
section 3.3
).

             ********************************************************
             *   It is important to remember that not all RFCs      *
             *   are standards track documents, and that not all    *
             *   standards track documents reach the level of       *
             *   Standard.                                          *
             ********************************************************

   2.4.  Internet Drafts

      During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
      document are made available for informal review and comment by
      placing them in the IETF's "Internet Drafts" directory, which is
      replicated on a number of Internet hosts.  This makes an evolving
      working document readily available to a wide audience,
      facilitating the process of review and revision.

      After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the
      cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter or
      advance in the Internet standardization process shall be made
      available as an Internet Draft.  It shall remain as an Internet
      Draft for a period of time that permits useful community review,
      at least two weeks, before submission to the IESG.

      An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the
      Internet Draft directory.  A document that has remained unchanged
      in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without
      being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC is simply
      removed from the Internet Draft directory.  At any time, an
IAB                                                             [Page 6]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
Internet Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same
      specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.

      An Internet Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
      specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described
      in the next section.  Internet Drafts have no formal status, and
      are not part of the permanent archival record of Internet
      activity, and they are subject to change or removal at any time.
      Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft be referenced by
      any paper, report, or Request for Proposal.

   2.5.  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)

      Many protocol specifications include numbers, keywords, and other
      parameters that must be uniquely assigned.  Examples include
      version numbers, protocol numbers, port numbers, and MIB numbers.
      The IAB has delegated to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
      (IANA) the task of assigning such protocol parameters for the
      Internet.  The IANA publishes tables of all currently assigned
      numbers and parameters in RFCs titled "Assigned Numbers" [
8
].

      Each category of assigned numbers typically arises from some
      protocol that is on the standards track or is an Internet
      Standard.  For example, TCP port numbers are assigned because TCP
      is a Standard.  A particular value within a category may be
      assigned in a variety of circumstances; the specification
      requiring the parameter may be in the standards track, it may be
      Experimental, or it may be private.

      Chaos could result from accidental conflicts of parameter values,
      so we urge that every protocol parameter, for either public or
      private usage, be explicitly assigned by the IANA.  Private
      protocols often become public.  Programmers are often tempted to
      choose a "random" value, or guess the next unassigned value of a
      parameter; both are hazardous.

      The IANA is tasked to avoid frivolous assignments and to
      distinguish different assignments uniquely.  The IANA accomplishes
      both goals by requiring a technical description of each protocol
      or service to which a value is to be assigned.  Judgment on the
      adequacy of the description resides with the IANA.  In the case of
      a standards track or Experimental protocol, the corresponding
      technical specifications provide the required documentation for
      IANA.  For a proprietary protocol, the IANA will keep confidential
      any writeup that is supplied, but at least a short (2 page)
      writeup is still required for an assignment.

      To contact the IANA for information or to request a number,
IAB                                                             [Page 7]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
keyword or parameter assignment send an email message to
      "iana@isi.edu".

   2.6.  Review and Approval

      A standards action -- entering a particular specification into, or
      advancing it within, the standards track -- shall be recommended
      to the appropriate IETF Area Director, or to the Chairman of the
      IETF, by the individual or group that is responsible for the
      specification.  Usually, the recommendation will come from an IETF
      Working Group.  The Area Director or IETF chairman, in
      consultation with the IESG, shall determine if an independent
      technical review of the specification is required, and shall
      commission one if necessary.

      When a specification is sufficiently important in terms of its
      potential impact on the Internet or on the suite of Internet
      protocols, the IESG shall form a special review and analysis
      committee to prepare an evaluation of the specification.  Such a
      committee is commissioned to provide an objective basis for
      agreement within the Internet community that the specification is
      ready for advancement.  Furthermore, when the criteria for
      advancement along the standards track for an important class of
      specifications (e.g., routing protocols [
6
]) are not universally
      recognized, the IESG shall commission the development and
      publication of category-specific acceptance criteria.

      The IESG shall determine whether a specification satisfies the
      applicable criteria for the recommended action (see Sections
3.2
and 3.3 of this document) and shall communicate its findings to
      the IETF to permit a final review by the general Internet
      community.  This IETF notification shall be via electronic mail to
      the IETF mailing list; in addition, there will often be a
      presentation or statement by the appropriate working group or Area
      Director during an IETF plenary meeting.  Any significant issues
      that have not been resolved satisfactorily during the development
      of the specification may be raised at this time for final
      resolution by the IESG.

      The IESG shall communicate to the IAB its recommendation for
      action, with a citation to the most current version of the
      document.  The IETF shall be notified by email of any such
      recommendation.  If the IAB finds a significant problem, or needs
      clarification on a particular point, it shall resolve the matter
      with the Working Group and its chairperson and/or the document
      author, with the assistance and concurrence of the IESG and the
      relevant IETF Area Director.
IAB                                                             [Page 8]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
Following IAB approval and any necessary editorial work, the RFC
      Editor shall publish the specification as an RFC.  The
      specification shall then be removed from the Internet Drafts
      directory.

   2.7.  Entering the Standards Track

      A specification that is potentially an Internet Standard may
      originate from:

      (a)  an IAB-sponsored effort (typically an IETF Working Group),

      (b)  independent activity by individuals, or

      (c)  an external organization.

      In cases (b) and (c), the work might be tightly integrated with
      the work of an existing IETF Working Group, or it might be offered
      for standardization without prior IETF involvement.  In most
      cases, a specification resulting from an effort that took place
      outside of an IETF Working Group context will be submitted to an
      appropriate Working Group for evaluation and refinement; if
      necessary, an appropriate Working Group will be created.

      For externally-developed specifications that are well-integrated
      with existing Working Group efforts, a Working Group is assumed to
      afford adequate community review of the accuracy and applicability
      of the specification.  If a Working Group is unable to resolve all
      technical and usage questions, additional independent review may
      be necessary.  Such reviews may be done within a Working Group
      context, or by an ad hoc review committee established specifically
      for that purpose.  It is the responsibility of the appropriate
      IETF Area Director to determine what, if any, review of an
      external specification is needed and how it shall be conducted.

   2.8.  Advancing in the Standards Track

      A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at
      least 6 months and at the Draft Standard level for at least 4
      months.

      A specification may be (indeed, is likely to be) revised as it
      advances through the standards track.  At each stage, the IESG
      shall determine the scope and significance of the revision to the
      specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the
      recommended action.  Minor revisions are expected, and they will
      not affect advancement through the standards track.  A significant
      revision may require that the specification accumulate more
IAB                                                             [Page 9]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
experience at its current maturity level before progressing.
      Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly,
      the IESG may decide to treat the revision as if it were a new
      document, re-entering the standards track at the beginning.

      A specification that has not reached the maturity level of
      Standard within twenty-four months of first becoming a Proposed
      Standard shall be reviewed for viability by the IESG, which shall
      recommend either termination or continuation of the development
      effort to the IAB.  Such a recommendation shall be communicated to
      the IETF via electronic mail to the IETF mailing list, to allow
      the Internet community an opportunity to comment.  This provision
      is not intended to threaten legitimate and active Working Group
      efforts, but rather to provide an administrative mechanism for
      terminating a moribund effort.

   2.9.  Revising a Standard

      A recommendation to revise an established Internet Standard shall
      be evaluated by the IESG with respect to the operational impact of
      introducing a new version while the previous version is still in
      use.  If the IESG accepts the recommendation, the new version must
      progress through the full Internet standardization process as if
      it were a completely new specification.

      Once the new version has reached the Standard level, it may
      immediately replace the previous version.  In some cases, both
      versions may remain as Internet Standards to honor the
      requirements of an installed base; however, the relationship
      between the previous and the new versions must be explicitly
      stated in the text of the new version or in another appropriate
      document (e.g., an Applicability Statement; see
Section 3.1.2
).
3
.  NOMENCLATURE
3.1.  Types of Specifications

      The specifications subject to the Internet standardization process
      fall into two categories:  Technical Specifications (TS) and
      Applicability Statements (AS).

      3.1.1.  Technical Specification (TS)

         A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol,
         service, procedure, convention, or format.  It may completely
         describe all of the relevant aspects of its subject, or it may
         leave one or more parameters or options unspecified.  A TS may
         be completely self-contained, or it may incorporate material
IAB                                                            [Page 10]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
from other specifications by reference to other documents
         (which may or may not be Internet Standards).

         A TS shall include a statement of its scope and the general
         intent for its use (domain of applicability).  Thus, a TS that
         is inherently specific to a particular context shall contain a
         statement to that effect.  However, a TS does not specify
         requirements for its use within the Internet; these
         requirements, which depend on the particular context in which
         the TS is incorporated by different system configurations, is
         defined by an Applicability Statement.

      3.1.2.  Applicability Statement (AS)

         An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
         circumstances, one or more TSs are to be applied to support a
         particular Internet capability. An AS may specify uses for TSs
         that are not Internet Standards, as discussed in
Section 4
.

         An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which
         they are to be combined, and may also specify particular values
         or ranges of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol
         that must be implemented.  An AS also specifies the
         circumstances in which the use of a particular TS is required,
         recommended, or elective.

         An AS may describe particular methods of using a TS in a
         restricted "domain of applicability", such as Internet routers,
         terminal servers, Internet systems that interface to Ethernets,
         or datagram-based database servers.

         The broadest type of AS is a comprehensive conformance
         specification, commonly called a "requirements document", for a
         particular class of Internet systems [
3
,
4
,
5
], such as Internet
         routers or Internet hosts.

         An AS may not have a higher maturity level in the standards
         track than any TS to which the AS applies.  For example, a TS
         at Draft Standard level may be referenced by an AS at the
         Proposed Standard or Draft Standard level, but not an AS at the
         Standard level.  Like a TS, an AS does not come into effect
         until it reaches Standard level.

      Although TSs and ASs are conceptually separate, in practice an
      Internet Standard RFC may include elements of both an AS and one
      or more TSs in a single document.  For example, Technical
      Specifications that are developed specifically and exclusively for
      some particular domain of applicability, e.g., for mail server
IAB                                                            [Page 11]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
hosts, often contain within a single specification all of the
      relevant AS and TS information.  In such cases, no useful purpose
      would be served by deliberately distributing the information among
      several documents just to preserve the formal AS/TS distinction.
      However, a TS that is likely to apply to more than one domain of
      applicability should be developed in a modular fashion, to
      facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs.

   3.2.  Standards Track Maturity Levels

      ASs and TSs go through stages of development, testing, and
      acceptance.  Within the Internet standards process, these stages
      are formally labeled "maturity levels".

      This section describes the maturity levels and the expected
      characteristics of specifications at each level.  The general
      procedures for developing a specification and processing it
      through the maturity levels along the standards track were
      discussed in
Section 2
above.

      3.2.1. Proposed Standard

         The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
         Standard".  A Proposed Standard specification is generally
         stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be
         well-understood, has received significant community review, and
         appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered
         valuable.

         Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
         required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
         Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and
         will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed
         Standard designation.  Furthermore, the IAB may require
         implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting
         Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially
         affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies behavior
         that may have significant operational impact on the Internet.
         Typically, such a specification will be published initially in
         the Experimental state (see below), which is not part of the
         standards track, and moved to the standards track only after
         sufficient implementation or operational experience has been
         obtained.

         A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions
         with respect to the requirements placed upon it.  In some
         cases, the IESG may recommend that the requirements be
         explicitly reduced in order to allow a protocol to advance into
IAB                                                            [Page 12]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
the Proposed Standard state.  This can happen if the
         specification is considered to be useful and necessary (and
         timely), even absent the missing features.  For example, some
         protocols have been advanced by explicitly deciding to omit
         security features at the Proposed Standard level, since an
         overall security architecture was still under development.

      3.2.2. Draft Standard

         A specification from which at least two independent and
         interoperable implementations have been developed, and for
         which adequate operational experience has been obtained, may be
         elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.  This is a major
         advance in status, indicating a strong belief that the
         specification is mature and will be useful.

         A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite
         stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
         implementation.  A Draft Standard may still require additional
         or more widespread field experience, since it is possible for
         implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to
         demonstrate unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale
         use in production environments.

      3.2.3. Standard

         A specification for which significant implementation and
         operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
         Standard level.  A Standard is characterized by a high degree
         of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the
         specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to
         the Internet community.

   3.3. Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels

      Not every TS or AS is on the standards track.  A TS may not be
      intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended for
      eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
      track.  A TS or AS may have been superseded by more recent
      Internet Standards, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or
      disfavor.  Such specifications are labeled with one of three
      "non-standards track" maturity levels: "Historic", "Experimental",
      and "Informational".

      3.3.1. Historic

         A TS or AS that has been superseded by a more recent
         specification or is for any other reason considered to be
IAB                                                            [Page 13]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
obsolete is assigned to the "Historic" level.  (Purists have
         suggested that the word should be "Historical"; however, at
         this point the use of "Historic" is historical.)

      3.3.2. Experimental

         The "Experimental" designation on a TS permits widespread
         dissemination (through publication according to the procedures
         defined by this document) with explicit caveats:  it may
         specify behavior that has not been thoroughly analyzed or is
         poorly understood;  it may be subject to considerable change;
         it may never be a candidate for the formal standards track;
         and it may be discarded in favor of some other proposal.

         Any TS that is not an immediate candidate for Internet
         standardization is appropriate for publication as Experimental.
         Interested parties are thereby given the opportunity to gain
         experience with implementations and to report their findings to
         the community of interest, but the specification is explicitly
         not recommended for general production use.

      3.3.3. Informational

         An "Informational" specification is published for the general
         information of the Internet community, and does not represent
         an Internet community consensus or recommendation.

         Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
         community and are not incorporated into the Internet standards
         process by any of the provisions of
Section 4
may be published
         as Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner.  Such
         a document is not an Internet Standard in any sense.

   3.4.  Requirement Levels

      An AS may apply one of the following "requirement levels" to each
      of the TSs to which it refers:

      (a)  Required:  Implementation of the referenced TS, as specified
           by the AS, is required to achieve minimal conformance.  For
           example, IP and ICMP must be implemented by all Internet
           systems using the TCP/IP Protocol Suite.

      (b)  Recommended:  Implementation of the referenced TS is not
           required for minimal conformance, but experience and/or
           generally accepted technical wisdom suggest its desirability
           in the domain of applicability of the AS.  Vendors are
           strongly encouraged to include the functions, features, and
IAB                                                            [Page 14]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
protocols of Recommended TSs in their products, and should
           omit them only if the omission is justified by some special
           circumstance.

      (c)  Elective:  Implementation of the referenced TS is optional
           within the domain of applicability of the AS; that is, the AS
           creates no explicit necessity to apply the TS.  However, a
           particular vendor may decide to implement it, or a particular
           user may decide that it is a necessity in a specific
           environment.

      As noted in
Section 2.5
, there are TSs that are not in the
      standards track or that have been retired from the standards
      track, and are therefore not required, recommended, or elective.
      Two additional "requirement level" designations are available for
      such TSs:

      (d)  Limited Use:  The TS is considered appropriate for use only
           in limited or unique circumstances.  For example, the usage
           of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should
           generally be limited to those actively involved with the
           experiment.

      (e)  Not Recommended:  A TS that is considered to be inappropriate
           for general use is labeled "Not Recommended".  This may be
           because of its limited functionality, specialized nature, or
           historic status.

      The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC lists a general
      requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in
      this section.  In many cases, more detailed descriptions of the
      requirement levels of particular protocols and of individual
      features of the protocols will be found in appropriate ASs.
4
.  EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Many de facto and de jure standards groups other than the IAB/IETF
   create and publish standards documents for network protocols and
   services.  When these external specifications play an important role
   in the Internet, it is desirable to reach common agreements on their
   usage -- i.e., to establish Internet Standards relating to these
   external specifications.

   There are two categories of external specifications:

   (1)  Open Standards

        Accredited national and international standards bodies, such as
IAB                                                            [Page 15]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and CCITT, develop a variety of protocol and
        service specifications that are similar to Technical
        Specifications (see glossary in
Appendix A
).  These
        specifications are generally de jure standards.  Similarly,
        national and international groups publish "implementors'
        agreements" that are analogous to Applicability Statements,
        capturing a body of implementation-specific detail concerned
        with the practical application of their standards.

   (2)  Vendor Specifications

        A vendor-specific specification that has come to be widely used
        in the Internet may be treated by the Internet community as a de
        facto "standard".  Such a specification is not generally
        developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is
        controlled by the vendor or vendors that produced it.

   To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the
   Internet community will not standardize a TS or AS that is simply an
   "Internet version" of an existing external specification, unless an
   explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made.  There are,
   however, several ways in which an external specification that is
   important for the operation and/or evolution of the Internet may be
   adopted for Internet use:

   (a)  Incorporation of an Open Standard

        An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
        standard by reference.  The reference must be to a specific
        version of the external standard, e.g., by publication date or
        by edition number, according to the prevailing convention of the
        organization that is responsible for the specification.

        For example, many Internet Standards incorporate by reference
        the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [
7
].

   (b)  Incorporation of a Vendor Specification

        Vendor-proprietary specifications may also be incorporated, by
        reference to a specific version of the vendor standard.  If the
        vendor-proprietary specification is not widely and readily
        available, the IAB may request that it be published as an
        Informational RFC.

        In order for a vendor-proprietary specification to be
        incorporated within the Internet standards process, the
        proprietor must agree in writing to the IAB that "right to use"
        licenses will be available on a non-discriminatory basis and at
IAB                                                            [Page 16]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
a reasonable cost.  See also Sections
5
and
6
.

        In addition, the IAB/IETF will generally not favor a particular
        vendor's proprietary specification over the technically
        equivalent and competing specifications of other vendors by
        making it "required" or "recommended".

   (c)  Assumption

        An IETF Working Group may start with a vendor's (or other
        body's) voluntarily contributed specification, and independently
        evolve the specification into a TS or AS.  Here "independently"
        means that the IETF work is not constrained by conditions
        imposed by the owner of the original specification;  however,
        the continued participation of the original owner in the IETF
        work is likely to be valuable, and is encouraged.  The IAB must
        receive a formal delegation of responsibility from the original
        owner that gives the IAB/IETF responsibility for evolution of
        the specification.

   As provided by
section 3.1.2
, an AS that specifies how an external
   technical specification should be applied in the Internet,
   incorporating the external specification by reference, may become an
   Internet Standard.
5
.  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Prior to the approval of a specification as a Proposed Standard, all
   interested parties are required to disclose to the IAB the existence
   of any intellectual property right claims known to them that might
   apply to any aspect of the Proposed Standard.

   This requirement refers specifically to disclosure of the *existence*
   of a current or anticipated claim of an intellectual property right,
   not the details of the asserted right itself.
6
.  PATENT POLICY
This section is tentative, subject to legal review.

   There is no objection in principle to drafting an Internet Standard
   in terms that include an item or items subject to patent rights that
   may have been asserted in one or more countries, if it is considered
   that technical reasons justify this approach.  In such cases the
   procedure described in this section shall be followed.
IAB                                                            [Page 17]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
6.1 Statement from Patent Holder

      Prior to approval of the specification as a Proposed Standard, the
      IAB shall receive from the known patent holders, in a form
      acceptable to and approved by the IAB, either (a) assurance in the
      form of a general disclaimer to the effect that the patent holder
      does not hold and does not anticipate holding any right that would
      be violated as a consequence of conformance to the standard, or
      (b) assurance that

      (1)  a license will be made available without compensation to all
           applicants desiring to utilize the patented items for the
           purpose of implementing the standard, or

      (2)  a license will be made available to applicants under
           specified reasonable terms and conditions that are, to the
           satisfaction of the IAB, demonstrably free of any unfair
           discrimination.

      The terms and conditions of any license falling under (1) or (2)
      shall be submitted to the IAB for review, together with a
      statement of the number of independent licenses, if any, that have
      accepted or indicated their acceptance of the terms and conditions
      of the license.

      In addition, the letter to the IAB must contain (c) assurance that
      the patent holder does have the right to grant the license, and
      (d) a notification of any other patent licenses that are required,
      or else the assurance that no other licenses are required.

   6.2  Record of Statement

      A record of the patent holder's statement (and a statement from
      the IAB of the basis for considering such terms and conditions to
      be free of any unfair discrimination) shall be placed and retained
      in the files of the IAB.

   6.3  Notice

      When the IAB receives from a patent holder the assurance set forth
      in
section 5.1
(1) or 5.1(2), the corresponding Internet Standard
      shall include a note as follows:

      "NOTE:  The user's attention is called to the possibility that
      compliance with this standard may require the use of an invention
      or work covered by patent claims.

      "By publication of this standard, no position is taken with
IAB                                                            [Page 18]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
respect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in
      connection therewith.  The patent holder has, however, filed a
      statement of willingness to grant a license under these rights, on
      reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, to
      applicants desiring to obtain such a license.  Details may be
      obtained from the IAB."

   6.4  Identifying Patents

      The IAB shall not be responsible for identifying all patents for
      which a license may be required by an Internet Standard, nor for
      conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those
      patents that are brought to its attention.
7
.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES
This document represents the combined output of the Internet
   Activities Board and the Internet Engineering Steering Group, the
   groups charged with managing the processes described in this
   document.  Major contributions to the text were made by Bob Braden,
   Vint Cerf, Lyman Chapin, Dave Crocker, and Barry Leiner.  Helpful
   comments and suggestions were made by a number of IETF members.

   [
1
]  Cerf, V., "The Internet Activities Board",
RFC 1160
, IAB, May
        1990.

   [
2
]  Postel, J., "IAB Official Protocol Standards",
RFC 1280
, IAB,
        March 1992.

   [
3
]  Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
        Communication Layers",
RFC 1122
, IETF, October 1989.

   [
4
]  Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
        Application and Support",
RFC 1123
, IETF, October 1989.

   [
5
]  Almquist, P., Editor, "Requirements for IP Routers", in
        preparation.

   [
6
]  Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing
        Protocol Standardization Criteria",
RFC 1264
, BBN, October 1991.

   [
7
]  ANSI, Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for
        Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.

   [
8
]  Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers",
RFC 1060
, ISI,
        March 1990.
IAB                                                            [Page 19]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
[
9
]  Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes",
RFC 1311
, ISI,
        March 1992.

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

   ANSI:  American National Standards Institute

   CCITT: Consultative Committee for International Telephone and
             Telegraphy.

             A part of the UN Treaty Organization: the International
             Telecommunications Union (ITU).

   DARPA: (U.S.) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

   ISO:   International Organization for Standardization
IAB                                                            [Page 20]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
APPENDIX B: FUTURE ISSUES

   This memo resulted from an effort to document the current standards
   procedures in the Internet community.  At the time of publication,
   Sections
5
and
6
are still undergoing legal review.  In addition,
   there are important issues under consideration of how to handle
   copyrights and other issues of intellectual property.  This memo is
   being published with these matters unresolved, due to its importance.

   Pre-publication review of this document resulted in a number of
   useful suggestions from members of the Internet community, and opened
   up several new issues.  The IAB and IESG will continue to consider
   these questions and attempt to resolve these issues; the results will
   be be incorporated in future versions of this memo.

   For future reference, this appendix records the outstanding
   suggestions and issues.

   It has been suggested that additional procedures in the following
   areas should be considered.

   o    Appeals Procedure

        Should there be some formal appeals procedure for correcting
        abuses or procedural failures, at each decision point in the
        process?

   o    Tracking Procedure

        Should there be a formal procedure for tracking problems and
        change requests, as a specification moves through the standards
        track?  Such a procedure might include written responses, which
        were cataloged and disseminated, or simply a database that
        listed changes between versions.

   o    Rationale Documentation

        Should the procedures require written documentation of the
        rationale for the design decisions behind each specification at
        the Draft Standard and Standard levels?

   o    Application-Layer Standards

        Should there be some way to "standardize" application-layer
        protocols that are not going to become Internet Standards?

   There were suggestions for fine-tuning of the existing procedures:
IAB                                                            [Page 21]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
o    Increase minimum time in Internet Draft directory from 2 weeks
        to 1 month.

   o    Place explicit time limit, on IESG and IAB action on suggested
        standards changes.  Limits suggested: three months.

        If it were necessary to extend the time for some reason, the
        IETF would have to be explicitly notified.

   o    Change minimum time at Draft Standard from 4 to 5 months, to
        ensure that an IETF meeting will intervene.

   o    There were differing suggestions on how to balance between early
        implementation of specifications available only as Internet
        Drafts, and ensuring that everyone is clear that such an
        Internet Draft has no official status and is subject to change
        at any time.  One suggestion was that vendors should not claim
        compliance with an Internet Draft.

   Finally, there were suggestions for improvements in the documentation
   of the standards procedures.

   o    Discuss the impact, if any, of export control laws on the
        Internet standardization process.

        It was observed that the Requirements RFCs contain "negative"
        requirement levels: MUST NOT and SHOULD NOT.  Such levels are
        not recognized in this Procedures document.

   o    Document needs to more clearly explain the criteria for choosing
        the Experimental vs. Informational category for an off-track
        specification.  Ref. sections
3.3.2
,
3.3.4
.

   o    Develop recommended wording for citations to Internet Drafts,
        which makes clear the provisional, unofficial nature of that
        document.

   o    Consider changing the name attached to a fully-adopted standard
        from "Standard" to some qualified term like "Full Standard".

   o    It has been suggested that the document should more strongly
        encourage the use of specifications from other standards bodies,
        with Internet-specific changes to be made only for compelling
        reasons.  Further, the justification of the compelling
        requirement would be subject to special review.
IAB                                                            [Page 22]
RFC 1310
Internet Standards Process             March 1992
Security Considerations

   Security issues are not substantially discussed in this memo.

Author's Address

   A. Lyman Chapin
   BBN Communications Corporation
   150 Cambridge Park Drive
   Cambridge, MA  02140

   Phone: 617-873-3133
   Fax:   617-873-4086

   Email: Lyman@BBN.COM

IAB                                                            [Page 23]
RFC
1310
: The Internet Standards Process
Informational
Obsoleted by
RFC
1602
The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2


RFC 3233: Defining the IETF | RFC Editor
Skip to content
Primary navigation
The RFC Series
For Authors
About Us
Home
RFC 3233
Info
RFC
3233
:
BCP
58
:
Defining the IETF
P. Hoffman
,
S. Bradner
Best Current Practice
Network Working Group P. Hoffman
Request for Comments: 3233 Internet Mail Consortium
BCP: 58 S. Bradner
Category: Best Current Practice Harvard University
February 2002
Defining the IETF
Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document gives a more concrete definition of "the IETF" as it
understood today. Many RFCs refer to "the IETF". Many important
IETF documents speak of the IETF as if it were an already-defined
entity. However, no IETF document correctly defines what the IETF
is.
1
. Introduction
Many RFCs refer to "the IETF". Many important IETF documents speak
of the IETF as if it were an already-defined entity. However, no
IETF document correctly defines what the IETF is. This document
gives a more concrete definition of "the IETF" as it understood
today.
2
. Defining the IETF
BCP 9
("The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3") [BCP 9], the
primary document that describes the Internet standards process, never
defines the IETF. As described in
BCP 11
("The Organizations
Involved in the IETF Standards Process") [BCP 11], the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) is an open global community of network
designers, operators, vendors, and researchers producing technical
specifications for the evolution of the Internet architecture and the
smooth operation of the Internet.
Hoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 3233
Defining the IETF February 2002
It is important to note that the IETF is not a corporation: it is an
unincorporated, freestanding organization. The IETF is partially
supported by the Internet Society (ISOC). ISOC is an international
non-profit organization incorporated in the US with thousands of
individual and corporate members throughout the world who pay
membership fees to join. The Internet Society provides many services
to the IETF, including insurance and some financial and logistical
support.

As described in
BCP 11
, Internet standardization is an organized
activity of the ISOC, with the ISOC Board of Trustees being
responsible for ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet
standards process. However, the IETF is not a formal subset of ISOC;
for example, one does not have to join ISOC to be a member of the
IETF.

There is no board of directors for the IETF, no formally signed
bylaws, no treasurer, and so on. The structure of the IETF (its
leadership, its working groups, the definition of IETF membership,
and so on) are described in detail in
BCP 11
. Procedures for
choosing leadership are described in detail in
BCP 10
.

Thus, when RFCs say "the IETF", they are describing the group that
acts in accordance with
BCP 9
,
BCP 10
, and
BCP 11
.
3
. Security Considerations
All IETF protocols must describe the security aspects of the
environment in which they will be used. Also, the IETF has a
Security Area which discusses the security aspects of IETF protocols.
However, descriptive documents such as this one do not affect the
security of the Internet.
Hoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 3233
Defining the IETF February 2002
A
. References
[BCP 9] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9
,
RFC 2026
, October 1996.

[BCP 10] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees",
BCP 10
,
RFC 2727
, February 2000.

[BCP 11] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the
IETF Standards Process",
BCP 11
,
RFC 2028
, October 1996.
B
. Editors' Addresses
Paul Hoffman
Internet Mail Consortium
127 Segre Place
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA

EMail: phoffman@imc.org

Scott Bradner
Harvard University
29 Oxford St
Cambridge MA 02138

EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Hoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 3233
Defining the IETF February 2002
Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.

Hoffman & Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC
3233
: Defining the IETF
Best Current Practice
Contents
About this RFC
Errata
In this section
1. Introduction
2. Defining the IETF
3. Security Considerations
A. References
B. Editors' Addresses
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


ICANN History Project - ICANN

ICANN History Project - 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
ICANN History Project
This page is available in:
English
العربية
Español
Français
Pусский
中文
The History of ICANN
The history of ICANN traces back to the creation and the evolution of the Internet itself.
In 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).
ICANN 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.
To learn more about ICANN’s history, check out the interviews, interactive timelines, and other resources under the thematic tracks below.
Explore
ICANN Turns 25 (1998-2023)
ICANN's Historical Relationship with the U.S. Government
ICANN's Early Days
ICANN's Global Expansion
About the ICANN History Project
Other Resources
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."


IGF Remote Hubs | Internet Governance Forum
Skip to main content
Welcome to the United Nations
|
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
English
English
Menu
Quick links
I am new to the IGF
Subscribe to our mailing list
Register for an IGF activity
Donate to the IGF
Find/Become a Resource Person
Search
Feed me
Log in
Header Menu
About
About
About IGF
FAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025
Get Started
Team
IGF Donors
Work With Us
IGF Mailing Lists
Contact Us
IGF Leadership Panel
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group
MAG Terms of Reference
MAG Chair Terms of Reference
MAG Chair's Blog
MAG Members
MAG Members
Previous MAG Members
MAG Working Groups
MAG Meeting Records
MAG Activities
MAG Member Dashboard
IGF 2026 MAG Renewal
UN Global Advocate
IGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)
IGF Expert Group Meeting 2026
EGM Report
The IGF and UN Processes
Code of Conduct
Newsletter
Press
Support the IGF
Donate
IGF Trust Fund
Donors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund
Global South Contributions
Host the IGF
Share Your Experience - "Voices of the IGF"
IGF 2026
IGF 2026 Entry Page
IGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals
IGF 2026 Call for Village Booths
IGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs
IGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting
IGF 2026 Timeline
IGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals
IGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs
IGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements
IGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations
IGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants
IGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement
IGF 2026 Parliamentary Track
IGF 2026 Youth Track
IGF 2026 Business Engagement
Intersessional Work
Thematic Intersessional Work
Dynamic Coalitions
Dynamic Coalitions
DC Coordination Activities
Terms of Reference
Best Practice Forums
Policy Networks
Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence
Policy Network on Cybersecurity
Policy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure
Policy Network on Digital Inclusion
Previous Work
Capacity Development
Intersessional News
National and Regional IGFs
Overview
NRIs FAQs
NRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?
Youth Initiatives
Regional IGF Initiatives
National IGF Initiatives
All National Initiatives
Africa
Asia Pacific
Eastern Europe
GRULAC
WEOG
NRI Dashboard
NRIs Library
NRIs Collaborative Work
IGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process
Brochures about NRIs
IGF NRIs Call for Grants
NRIs Meetings - overview
Publications and Reports
IGF Brochures and Select Publications
Publications and Reports
IGF Annual Meeting Proceedings
IGF Intersessional Work
CSTD Reports
UN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD
Calendar
Breadcrumb
Home
IGF Remote Hubs
Call to all stakeholders to register remote hubs
Online 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
be
registered as an individual online participant. Or stakeholders can also expand the discussions and
organize an
IGF
HUB
in your city
!
Online 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.
Hubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the
IGF
. People can watch the webcast of
IGF
sessions together and send interventions (via text, audio or video) that can be answered by panelists in
IGF
. In addition, hub organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the
IGF
from their local perspective. Training sessions for Remote Hubs will be made available.
There are several advantages in creating a hub, such as:
helping to raise awareness about Internet Governance issues
fostering networking among participants and community building
encouraging follow-up activities
How to organize a hub?
The requirements to organize a hub are very simple:
Physical or virtual place.
Computer with a broadband Internet connection and a projector equipment, to enable the hub participants to watch the video.
Hub moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the local discussions as well as transmit the hub participants’ questions or comments to the
IGF
through the remote participation channels.
General call in lists, forums etc. to invite the interested local community.
Consult the
IGF Guidelines for Remote Hubs
developed in cooperation with national and regional
IGF
initiatives.
Register your hub for
IGF
2026
(until
31 July 2026, 23:59 UTC
)
Registration Form
Stakeholders interested in organizing a remote hub will be invited to register through a registration form that the
IGF
Secretariat publishes each year, containing the following information:
Country / City
Institution hosting the hub
Possible area(s) of interest
Number of expected participants within the hub
Planned pre-meeting activities
Type of expenditures and estimated costs
Hub Coordinator
Contact email
Hub Technical coordinator (IT)
Technical coordinator contact email
Please 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.
Subject 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.
The list of registered remote hubs is made available as submitted.
DISCLAIMER:
Remote 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.
UNITED NATIONS
Contact information
United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411
Additional Information
Donate to the IGF
Participant Funding
Vacancies
Multilingualism
Accessibility Statement
Resources
Publications
Press
Glossary
CONNECT WITH US
Donate
Footer menu
Copyright
Privacy Notice
Terms of Use
Accessibility menu
Contrast settings
Font size
Letter spacing
Line height
Images
Font
Reset the settings