Status of governance mechanisms for technical standards The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversees the technical and engineering development of the Internet. Most Internet technical standards are set by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in the form of Request for Comments (RFC). Both the IAB and the IETF have their institutional home within the Internet Society (ISOC). The IETF defines an Internet standard as ‘a specification that is stable and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognisably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.’7 The IETF makes decisions through an open and consensus-based process which is often described as ‘rough consensus and running code’. As the basis of the Internet infrastructure, Internet technical standards have an impact on other Internet public policy issues. For example, RFC 6409 sets a standard separating mail submission from the message relay. This standard has direct relevance for all operators of e-mail systems, including intermediaries who have, for example, flexibility to set their own rules in handling the security of e-mail communication. Internet technical standards on e-mail authentication can influence the level of anonymity on the Internet with a direct impact on cybersecurity and cybercrime (anonymity increases the complexity of identifying perpetuators of cyber attacks), freedom of expression (in some cases anonymity can ensure freedom of expression), and privacy protection. Internet standards are also related to the following Internet public policy issues: net neutrality, encryption, e-commerce, access, the digital divide, content policy, and the Internet as a global public good. Possible gaps in dealing with technical standards A possible policy gap relates to insufficient coverage of non-technical aspects (e.g. human rights, competition policy, and security) in the process of developing technical standards. There appears to be a gap as far as participation in the development of standards is concerned. Even though participation is open to all stakeholders, some submissions to the WGEC/correspondence group have noted the need for more involvement from the part of governments and for example from consumer representatives. 7 Available at https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt 8