When: 23 July 2025, 11:30 - 13:00 Local Time (Madrid)
Chairs: Tommy Pauly & Jason Livingood
Slides: Chair Slides
Environmental Impacts of Internet Technology (E-IMPACT)
e-impact@ietf.org
The Architectural Considerations document has been updated and
restructured
Short update to be presented at SUSTAINRG to gather further
feedback
Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability (EDM) edm@iab.org
7-9 October 2025, In-person workshop
Submit papers by 8 August 2025 to age-workshop-pc@iab.org
Ted Hardie: I will note that the IETF has some history of work on this
as much as 30 years ago when there was a bad proposal called "Kid Code"
to encode the age appropriateness in URIs. In fact, that's how I started
getting involved 30 years ago was to pose that age-based content
restriction. At the time, I was head of NASA's web master's Working
Group. And it was judged by NASA to be a stupid thing to do. I did not
work for NASA. A mere contractor, I came to carry the water. What you
put here explore technical environments and compare architectures is
fine, but I think it should be an explicit goal of the workshop to
identify harms.
Tommy Pauly: Yes.
Ted Hardie: And if that's not clear when you talk about this, I think
you're doing a disservice to the community. Because many of these
approaches have very, very definite harms, not just to the content
providers but to the community and for the ability of the Internet to
serve its purpose. So I would suggest that when you think about what you
might come out with as a workshop result, instead of picking a single
solution, it might be identifying the common set of harms. Because that
common set of harms may be something you can take back to the
communities that think they want age-based restrictions and explain to
them what they're losing for what they're gaining. And that would be a
valuable output from the IAB. Thank you.
Mark Nottingham: As one of the workshop co-chairs, that is a remarkably
good description of the intent of the workshop. That is exactly why we
are doing this. If you read the description and feel it doesn't capture
that, please come and talk to us.
Vittorio Bertola: I wanted to make sure the blueprint for age
verification is going to be implemented soon because it's a legal
requirement now in Europe to have age verification for a number of
services if. The workshop, who is going to submit papers, but if
workshop comes up for analysis of that, it will be useful for discussing
at the policy level. After hearing the previous, I have another
observation. In the call for papers, you say that you don't want
anything related to policy or what regulators could or should do. And
now you want to identify harms which I guess is a policy discussion.
I've been thinking what I should submit something or not and I want to
understand to which extent the implications or the consequences of, to
extend or not.
Mark Nottingham: The intent behind that is that we don't want to have
the purely policy discussion in the room. This community is not making
policy in that sense. But we want to talk about is the effect of
policies on the technical architecture. So if certain choices are made,
they can have effects on other architectural principles that we're
concerned about regarding privacy, security, extensibility, evolution,
so forth and so on. So it's a delicate line that we're walking where we
don't want to be actually talking about or seen as talking about making
decisions that policymakers should be making. And I'll add, if folks are
aware of different parties that they think should be involved in the
workshop, some of the policymakers because part of the intent is they
hear these concerns and potential harms to the architecture, please flag
to it them.
Eliot Lear: I think you hit the key point there. Like who is the target
audience for this? If it's policymakers, you know, what's the output
going to be such that it's consumable by them and are we hitting the
concerns that they have? And do they get to hear the concerns that we
have? So I think I have two suggestions. The first is now brought to you
by Dr. Obvious which please try to have some of the policymakers in the
room. And the second is to make sure that your output is focused in a
way that it's consumable, in a way that you want to be actioned. Because
I think a lot of times, and I think there was the review in the last
year and Tommy could correct me if I'm wrong, about the results of
workshops and their impact. I would like this one to is impact. Thank
you.
Andrew Campling: So I guess two things really. On the harms thing, I
think that's entirely useful to capture, providing we also capture the
harms currently being caused by some of the technical choices that have
been previously made. So I think we need balance in what harms might be
captured by the workshop. And then second, I just think it's a really
good topic, so it's positive to see the IAB and W3C are exploring it. So
thank you.
Jim Reid: A couple questions. Will it be open in the sense that anybody
can follow? And will it be based in some kind of mechanism, so all the
participants can speak? What's going to be the basis of the workshop
itself?
Tommy Pauly: As described in the call, it is going to be a Chatham House
rule workshop.
Martin Thomson: There may be particular sessions where remote attendance
will be possible by invitation. We haven't identified any particular
parties that can't attend physically that would like to. Unfortunately,
because of the nature of the discussion and the sensitivity, after a
bunch of discussion with sort of concluded that the best way to ensure
that some of the key actors and some of those Eliot identified,
regulators in particular, are unable to participate in more open forums
so. In order to facilitate their participation, we've chosen to use a
less open format. But that's reluctant, I think.
Week of 1 December 2025, Virtual workshop over three days
Submit papers by 3 October 2025 to age-workshop-pc@iab.org
Oliver Gasser: Thing is a really good initiative. So thanks for
organizing it. The call for papers is vague in terms of the paper
structure, number of pages, double column, single column, I guess free
to choose?
Jason Livingood: It's whatever format. One to three pages. The key is to
identify who you are, what the relevance is. And it will be immediately
apparent that the relevance.
Oliver Gasser: And second point regarding the chosen date. So there is
exactly during that week the ACM conference which you might you want to
reach out to researchers as well, I know there has been work published
previously at that venue specific slow that might be something to take
into consideration.
Tommy Pauly: We can adjust as necessary.
Slides: Liaison Coordination Update
Liaison statements are posted in the Datatracker.
Recent Updates
Upcoming
Colin Whorlow: Looking at the stats, and then looking at the list of
liaison coordinators and comments, I'll mention again that ETSI is on
the list of someone who sends and receives liaison statements and I've
suggested in the past that you might like to set up a liaison
relationship with ETSI. And I would be happy to assist with. That but
the there always seems to be resistance. But looking at the new ones you
set up, I can say it again.
Mirja Kühlewind: Thank you for bringing up ETSI. I looked at the numbers
and thought it's nice to see we have good communication going forth and
back. I think the resistance isn't really on our side because also ETSI
said that we have like an informal collaboration, that's their status as
well. And I agree with ETSI, I think having these exchanges and making
sure we talk to each other is the important part here. But what I would
like to propose is we take maybe ETSI next time at IAB open and we give
overview about what we have so the community is informed about this. I
think that would be really useful.
Arnaud Taddei: Just to simply thank the effort here because we have been
a long way under these. I want to recognize the effort that are being
done by the IAB to progress the liaison. It's not easy because different
countries working together and for us, we must be formal, but at the
same time, we can be smart regarding our strategy on statements. Yes, we
are flooding you with a lot of liaisons, sometimes for good and bad and
other reasons. But I think we can be smart and understand that in the
Venn diagram, we can reduce to what matters, and in fact, a good call
between players, this one please help us because on the outside, it will
help us. So I see good progress. I like the attitude at the moment.
Please continue. We try to help you the best we can. Thank you very
much.
Suresh Krishnan: Yeah, thanks. And one important thing we've done is set
the expectations on it. You know, it's good have a lot of liaison
statements. What requires action and what doesn't, with the tooling and
everything, I think we'll have a better handle on things that require a
response on our end. That is the thing we are not set, but I think we
are going to get there.
Slides: WSIS+20 and IGF Updates
Our participation:
Parallel event: AI for Good Global Summit
Warren Kumari: I don't usually do this sort of thing because snarking is
more fun, but Roman and Dhruv did wonderfully great jobs with this. If
people have time, it is well watching Roman's networking thing and
Dhruv's closing.
The IAB provided written inputs to the Elements Paper as a
key stakeholder from the technical community. The key themes were:
Caroline Caeiro: Congratulations, I think the people clapping in the
room shows the community supports you engaging in these processes. It is
incredibly important. Thank you for doing that.Roman, that last slide
was great to see. I think up to that slide, you were speaking about sort
of engagement, activities you did. I was wondering a bit more about the
positions from the IETF and the IAB towards the WSIS process. I think it
would be great if you could elaborate what concerns made you prioritize
engagement in these spaces and what coordination you're engaging in. It
is great to see you collaborating with the Internet society and ICANN
and RIRs, other members of the community. The CccTLDs have been active
in this the process. Hearing more about that would be great. On the
IETF, I noticed IETF attending before and this time it felt like you
came a lot more coordinated. It felt like a presence on the ground,
which was really great to see. I was wondering if this is a one-off
because WSIS+20 is happening or whether you are seeing the engagement of
IETF and IAB as a permanent thing going forward in the way we saw it. I
think there are opportunities for the presence to evolve. I guess it is
a bit like the IETF where you get what you give to the space. So we have
seen even more presence of IETFers across workshops, speaking in the
audience would be really great and helpful for that space.
Roman Danyliw: I will respond to some of those comments. I'm not sure I
can do justice to all of them. I think the observation you make is
correct. We are at a critical inflection point. We are at a [twenty]
year review process. We participated in the IGF. We rally to meet the
significance of where we are in the ten-year review and we wanted to
make sure our presence was known. You were asking about coordination.
Absolutely prepping and entering both of those meetings. We worked with
the other stakeholders in the technical community, but I think the other
piece that may not have come out in the slides is we also did a
significant number of bilateral meetings with other -- other
participants in the community, especially amongst policymakers, so our
position was clear that we also understood the concerns they may have
and really try to have a bilateral understanding of what we are thinking
and what their concerns are and making sure our message is tailored to
reach those kind of communities. Thanks.
Ali Rezaki: As SUSTAIN RG Chair, thanks so much for your engagement with
WSIS and IGF. My question is, have you received any questions during
these events about Internet sustainability considerations. Now that we
have a Sustainability Working Group in IETF and the Research Group in
IRTF, I think this should be on the table with IETF and WSIS, not
already done.
Roman Danyliw: Absolutely. The sustainability community isdefined in a
couple different ways. Helping implement the UN Sustainability Goals is
a topic that came up many times in many meetings with many stakeholders
and talking about how the IETF contributes as its part as the technical
community in meeting these goals was top of mind and a topic as you
mentioned in the research group we have and the Green Working Group.
Ali Rezaki: I didn't see it in the IGF report or the WSIS information
you shared with us.
Roman Danyliw: The feedback you saw on the Elements Paper was being
responsive as the facilitators requested to the specific content that
was in the Elements Paper so we were hitting specific parts of that and
as we saw it, there was not a place exactly for us to engage based on
how the Elements Paper was structured. But we had numerous discussions
where parties wanted to understand how we are engaging and what is our
part. And again, the work we are doing in the research groups and
working groups was part of that engagement.
Vittorio Bertola: I was prompted by your last slide. Twenty years ago I
was a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance, which is
basically the group that came one the IETF that we are still using
today. At the time there were very few people from the technical
community. And we spent quite a lot of time to argue there should be a
technical community in this map because it was something that had never
been heard before and everything is about the private sector,
governments and society. It is sad it is coming up again after 20 years.
By now I thought this would be well-established. Is this a real
significant pressure? Is it motivated by the-to legitimatize -- because
some people want to go to UN agencies, or is it just ignorance. You get
people from the system and other stakeholders who have never been part
of it and they just don't know. I was wondering if we should be worried.
Olaf Kolkman: From my understanding, this is basically a copy and paste
error. So we expect -- it remains to be seen -- that in the Zero Draft,
technical community will be back in the wording. Just as it was in WSIS.
Basically, what we want to see is that wording that has been negotiated
and is fixed like the WSIS + 10 and the GDC language is reflected and we
were not walking it back.
Roman Danyliw: Just to reassure you, we verbally provided the need for
that in the open call with cofacilitators and met one-on-one as a
bilateral meeting twice, once at the IGF and one at WSIS with the
cofacilitators and they very much understood the issue and explained it
much like Olaf did.
Slides: Olympic Broadcasting Service Live Cloud
Olaf Kolkman: Excellent and inspiring talk, I want to say. I was
wondering -- going from 10% deployment to roughly 40% in four years,
that is a nice graph. What is the incentive? What is the incentive at
the consumer side of these streams. Is this push? Is this pull? What is
the economy behind this?
Guillermo Jimenez: Okay, you have to think this graph basically is
showing a B2B evolution, not B2C and the incentive, basically, what we
are saying is -- I was going to show you the figures of Paris, but just
to give you some ideas, in Paris we were distributing into the
broadcasters, 82 feeds that had all the competitions, had some other
press conferences, cameras and our native production format is UHD HDR.
Now, if we tried to pull that through the existing telecom lines,
through the existing satellite links, it will stress and it will be very
expensive. It is not very -- it is becoming more of a norm, but it is
not common to send 4K feeds. The finite distributions to the homes and
quantities we are talking about. Those 82 feeds will probably become
close to 100 in Los Angeles. What are we doing with that if we are not
going in somewhere like this? Even those 100 feet, our broadcaster might
not even be able to or might not need to take them all. What we are
doing is giving them the possibility to route what they need. They might
request from us, 10 feeds and we give them a solar panel where they can
choose which source goes to ten feeds. Through telecom lines they could
be doing it, but it is going to be more expensive. With a big
broadcaster, they are still using telephone lines and this is not going
anywhere any time soon. It is still very relevant, provides a very
robust way of reaching their homes and of course, allows them to send
many other controlled monitoring data not available in these form. The
incentive is pretty much get anything, anywhere in the world and with
different format that currently we cannot replicate in the satellite
fashion, for instance.
Jordi Palet Martinez: The IP feeds, are they IPv4 or IPv6?
(Laughter)
Guillermo Jimenez: Yeah, I saw something on the agenda about this.
(Laughter)
Guillermo Jimenez: We are using IPv4.
Jordi Palet Martinez: I'm located here in Madrid. Let's talk offline and
make sure we get IPv6 running on there.
Guillermo Jimenez: No problem. I wanted to leave you with these facts
and figures from Paris where you see the am of hours we produce, the
amount of trucks we have, feeds, cameras, just for a bit of factual
information.
Tommy Pauly: And thank you. In the last minute here, anything you'd like
from the IETF from New Standards perspective that would help you?
Guillermo Jimenez: Well, I mean, in the end, we know that we are very
small in such a huge industry. And our capacity to influence -- okay, we
know where we are. But what we always try to achieve is we need
resilience. We need bandwidth and we need -- I know the Internet is not
the best place for this, but we need to be -- to have certainty on some
sort of deterministic approach to what we are doing. For a live
television broadcast, every second that you lose, every frame you lose,
in the end on the other side, there is a broadcaster who has sponsors
and are paying money for this. They have paid for rights and they want
to monetize their rights. Any resilience towards availability, towards
redundancy, this for us is paramount. And of course the bandwidth --
there was a graph that was -- our industry switched and said we need to
move awe way from what we are doing and start going with these guys
because besides that, you know what you are doing. You are going very
fast physically in terms of bits per second and at some point, faster
than what we were doing. So we are open to talks. But it is speed,
availability, resilience, redundancy. That is what we need.
Jason Livingood: Thank you very much, we appreciate it.