The IETF is for Everyone: Toward Inclusive and Equitable Participation in Internet Governance

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 August 2026.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has long promoted principles of openness, inclusivity, and technical excellence. As the global Internet landscape evolves, so too must our mechanisms for ensuring equitable participation.¶

This document responds to growing calls for reflection on how the IETF addresses systemic and structural barriers that affect contributors from underrepresented regions and communities. Building on existing frameworks and policies, this draft outlines community-driven proposals to foster greater inclusion in practice.¶

In particular, it highlights three underexplored dimensions: (1) the lack of academic recognition and incentives for contributors; (2) the recurring concerns around meeting venue accessibility, safety, and equity; and (3) the need for targeted grassroots engagement — especially in Africa and other underserved regions — to build long-term pipelines for contribution.¶

Through collaborative strategies such as mentorship, multilingual onboarding, university engagement, and periodic community consultations (e.g., Africa IGF 2025), this draft invites discussion on how the IETF can better align its practices with its foundational commitments to openness and global reach.¶

Importantly, this document also emphasizes that inclusion is a shared responsibility. While the IETF must lower barriers and facilitate access, communities in underrepresented regions must also proactively mobilize youth, academia, policymakers, and local technical communities to engage with and contribute to the IETF's work.¶

2. Current Participation Metrics and Gaps

Despite ongoing efforts, participation in IETF activities remains uneven across global regions. Analysis of recent IETF meeting data reveals significant disparities:¶

• Less than 5% of attendees from African countries (IETF 115-119 statistics)¶

• Zero IETF meetings held in Africa since inception (vs. 45+ in North America)¶

• Under 2% of RFC authors from African academic or research institutions¶

• Visa denial rates exceeding 30% for participants from certain Global South regions¶

• Only 15% of IETF leadership positions (WG chairs, ADs) held by participants from outside North America and Europe¶

These metrics highlight structural imbalances that require targeted interventions to ensure the IETF's technical standards reflect truly global perspectives and use cases.¶

3. Motivations and Context

This draft was inspired by feedback from various IETF participants and observations across recent meetings. It acknowledges that while RFCs 7704, 8718, and 9712 lay a strong foundation, practical issues of access, safety, and diversity persist. Community insights were also gathered during Africa IGF 2025 consultations, where similar challenges were voiced by participants across the continent.¶

A recurring theme is the need to rebalance efforts: while the IETF should continue improving its processes, regions with lower participation must also develop local strategies to identify, mentor, and sponsor new contributors, and advocate for the relevance of IETF work within their own governance and academic ecosystems.¶

4. Alignment with Global Digital Governance Frameworks

Promoting inclusive participation in Internet standards development is not merely an ethical imperative but aligns with multiple global digital governance frameworks and commitments:¶

• UN Sustainable Development Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization¶

• ITU's Connect 2030 Agenda: Leave no one offline, with specific focus on bridging digital divides¶

• African Union Digital Transformation Strategy 2020-2030: Calls for meaningful African participation in global Internet governance¶

• Internet Society's 2025 Action Plan: Explicitly commits to an Internet for Everyone through inclusive governance¶

• UN Secretary-General's Roadmap for Digital Cooperation: Emphasizes inclusive multistakeholder participation in technical standards¶

By addressing participation gaps, the IETF contributes to these broader global development objectives while strengthening the legitimacy and relevance of its technical standards.¶

5. Voices from the Community (Synthesis of Regional Discussions)

This section reflects recurring themes and concerns raised during community discussions held in various regional and global forums, including Africa IGF sessions, Internet Society chapter meetings, and informal technical community exchanges. While not exhaustive, these perspectives illustrate structural barriers to participation and highlight opportunities for reform.¶

Participants from academic and technical communities across Africa consistently emphasized that sustained participation in the IETF remains constrained by a combination of structural factors. These include visa-related uncertainties, high travel and accommodation costs, and time-zone misalignment, all of which disproportionately affect contributors based in the Global South. As a result, individuals with relevant technical expertise often lack viable pathways to maintain long-term engagement in standards development processes.¶

Several discussions highlighted the catalytic effect that hosting IETF meetings in underrepresented regions could have on local academic and technical ecosystems. Beyond immediate participation gains, such events were described as having the potential to create visible role models, strengthen institutional engagement, and inspire future generations of engineers and policymakers to engage in Internet standards work.¶

Community members also repeatedly underscored the importance of informal, in-person interactions—often referred to as the "hallway track"—in building trust, collaboration, and consensus within the IETF. The inability to attend meetings physically, whether due to financial constraints or mobility restrictions, was widely perceived as limiting access to these critical aspects of participation, even when remote tools are available.¶

Finally, academic participants noted a systemic disconnect between Internet standards contributions and university incentive structures. In several discussions, it was observed that the absence of formal recognition of standards work (such as RFC authorship) in academic promotion and evaluation systems significantly reduces incentives for faculty members in developing regions to contribute to IETF processes.¶

6. Community Feedback and Observations

This section summarizes the key community feedback received through consultations, surveys, and direct engagement:¶

• The challenge of travel barriers (visas, safety, cost).¶

• Limited regional rotation (e.g., no IETF meetings in Africa).¶

• Importance of hallway track and in-person connections.¶

• Barriers to mentorship and project engagement beyond venue issues.¶

• The need for local communities to take ownership of IETF outreach and capacity-building, rather than waiting for invitations or funding from the Global North.¶

• Lack of academic recognition disincentivizes participation from university researchers.¶

• Timezone challenges for real-time participation in working groups.¶

• Limited awareness of IETF processes and opportunities in underrepresented regions.¶

7. Addressing Common Concerns

When discussing greater inclusion, several objections are frequently raised. This section addresses these concerns with evidence and practical responses:¶

• "Logistical challenges are too great for hosting meetings in new regions": Partner with local Internet Societies and leverage existing regional conference infrastructure (e.g., AFRINIC, AIS, SANOG events). Many African cities now have world-class conference facilities that host major international events.¶

• "Quality of contributions may decline with broader participation": Evidence from other standards bodies (W3C, IEEE) demonstrates that diversity improves technical robustness by incorporating more edge cases and real-world deployment scenarios. Inclusion strengthens standards quality.¶

• "Cost is prohibitive for expanded participation programs": Reallocate 5% of current IETF meeting budget to an inclusion fund; leverage hybrid participation tools to reduce travel needs; seek partnerships with regional development banks and foundations focused on digital inclusion.¶

• "We already have remote participation options": While remote tools exist, they don't replicate the serendipitous collaboration of hallway tracks, informal mentoring, and relationship building that drives IETF work. A blended approach is needed.¶

• "Standards are technical, not political": While technical excellence remains paramount, the selection of which problems to solve, which use cases to prioritize, and whose perspectives shape solutions inevitably involves considerations of representation and equity.¶

8. Communicating the Value Proposition

Framing inclusion as a strategic advantage rather than a compliance requirement can build broader support within the IETF community:¶

• Technical Robustness: More diverse perspectives catch more edge cases and deployment challenges, leading to more resilient standards.¶

• Market Relevance: Standards that work effectively in Global South contexts (with bandwidth constraints, intermittent connectivity, diverse regulatory environments) will work better everywhere.¶

• Legitimacy and Adoption: Truly global standards developed with meaningful input from all regions enjoy broader adoption and implementation.¶

• Innovation Catalyst: Unique constraints in emerging markets (limited bandwidth, high latency, intermittent power) drive creative solutions that benefit all Internet users.¶

• Future-Proofing: The next billion Internet users will primarily come from currently underrepresented regions; their needs and contexts should shape today's standards.¶

• Risk Mitigation: Homogeneous standards development risks creating technical monocultures vulnerable to systemic failures; diversity builds resilience.¶

9. Proposed Directions

10. Immediate Next Steps

This document calls for concrete actions from various stakeholders within the IETF ecosystem:¶

1. IETF Leadership: Establish an Inclusion Task Force by Q2 2026 with representation from all regions and stakeholder groups.¶

2. IESG/IAB: Issue a joint statement of commitment to regional rotation and equitable participation, and allocate agenda time for regular inclusion progress reviews.¶

3. IAOC: Allocate a dedicated budget line (minimum 5% of meeting budget) for Global South participation support in the 2027 budget cycle.¶

4. IETF Secretariat: Develop the proposed assessment tools for venue selection and begin piloting in the 2027 meeting planning cycle.¶

5. Working Group Chairs: Commit to mentoring at least one new contributor from an underrepresented region within their working groups.¶

6. Regional Stakeholders: Form national IETF contact groups within 6 months to coordinate local engagement and advocacy efforts.¶

7. Internet Society Chapters: Launch local IETF awareness campaigns and identify at least 3 potential contributors per chapter for mentorship.¶

8. Academic Partners: Begin curriculum integration pilots in at least 2 universities per region within 12 months.¶

9. Corporate Participants: Sponsor at least one fellowship participant from an underrepresented region per meeting.¶

10. Community at Large: Participate in the proposed community dialogues on venue inclusivity and provide feedback on implementation proposals.¶

11. Conclusion

This document does not propose immediate policy changes but instead seeks to foster thoughtful community reflection and encourage collaborative exploration of solutions that support the IETF's inclusivity goals. The proposals presented represent a comprehensive approach to addressing participation gaps through structural changes, targeted programs, and shared responsibility.¶

Through proposals on academic recognition, grassroots engagement, venue selection dialogue, multilingual participation, impact metrics, and shared responsibility, this draft aims to offer constructive directions grounded in community input and practical experience. The included pilot program, working group proposal, and success metrics provide a pathway from discussion to implementation.¶

By broadening participation and addressing structural imbalances, the IETF can continue to evolve as a truly global, open, and equitable standards body. The technical robustness, market relevance, and legitimacy of IETF standards will be strengthened through more diverse participation, ultimately benefiting all Internet users worldwide.¶

Community feedback is warmly invited to refine, challenge, or build upon these directions. This document should serve as a starting point for constructive dialogue and decisive action toward a more inclusive IETF.¶

Appendix A. Acknowledgments

The author thanks Martin Vigoureux, Peng Shuping, Michael Richardson, Laurence Lundblade, and Vint Cerf for their thoughtful feedback, which helped shape this version of the document. Additional thanks to participants in the Africa IGF 2025 consultations and members of the Internet Society African Chapters who provided invaluable insights and perspectives.¶

This document has benefited from discussions within the IETF Diversity and Inclusion working sessions, and from the pioneering work of earlier documents addressing participation challenges in standards development organizations.¶

Appendix B. Appendix A: Draft Implementation Roadmap

This appendix outlines a proposed timeline for implementing the proposals in this document:¶

1. Q2 2026: Community consultation period on this draft; formation of Inclusion Task Force; initial translation of key onboarding materials into 3 languages.¶

2. Q3 2026: Inclusion Task Force begins work; development of venue assessment tools; launch of academic recognition advocacy campaign.¶

3. Q4 2026: Pilot fellowship program announced; first regional deep-dive workshop held; initial partnerships with 3 African universities established.¶

4. Q1 2027: First cohort of fellowship participants selected; academic recognition guidelines published; updated venue selection criteria implemented.¶

5. Q2 2027: First venue selection using new inclusion criteria; initial progress metrics published; first local mirror events supported.¶

6. Q3 2027: Mid-point evaluation of pilot programs; adjustments based on lessons learned; expansion to additional regions begins.¶

7. Q4 2027: Comprehensive evaluation of Year 1; planning for Year 2 expansion; preparation of first IETF meeting bid from African region.¶

8. 2028: Full implementation of successful pilot elements; scaling of programs to additional regions; ongoing metric tracking and reporting.¶

Author's Address