a.Motivate/define the problem addressed (1-2 sentences)
b.Outline the results obtained or expected (1-2 sentences)
c.Explain why the work/results are significant (1-2 sentences)
d.Describe the work sufficiently for the Program Committee reviewer to have confidence that it was done well and that the result will be of interest to conference attendees (half to one page)

Here is a sample abstract from a previous INET:

"Internet Governance In Crisis: The Political Economy of Top-Level Domains"

This paper connects the debate over content regulation of the Internet with the controversy over the creation of new
top-level domains (TLDs). It attempts to explore the question of whether domain naming will become a way of
classifying content, and, if so, whether such an approach would make it easier for system administrators, users, or
governments to block access to unwanted content. The paper is not concerned with the political or moral case for
or against censorship. Instead, it focuses on the inherent practical problems facing attempts by any user or
government to take a more selective approach to accessing Internet content.

The paper begins by assessing the inherent limitations and problems associated with the two existing methods of
content control:

1.User-defined software blocking filters; and 
2.Government-imposed censorship laws, licensing regulations, and proxy servers.

The first method is represented by the Platform for  Internet Content Selection (PICS) and RSAC standards. The main problems with this method are that they are difficult for ordinary users to implement and most sites are likely to be unrated. If unrated sites are not blocked the filter will be ineffective; if they are all indiscriminately blocked the value of the Internet as a site of innovation and free flow of information will be greatly diminished. The second method is being used by various governments. Government attempts to categorize and regulate content at the source are ineffective because of the transjurisdictional nature of Internet communication. Attempts to block content via proxy servers are problematic because they impose a uniform set of standards on all users; moreover they face the same problem as unrated sites.

The paper then considers the Postel draft and other proposals for TLDs. The Postel draft proposes to create many new TLDs. The issue here is not the merits of that specific proposal, but the more general idea of associating TLDs with certain types of content. The possibility of an ".XXX" or ".PORN" TLD is one obvious example. This raises the intriguing possibility that TLDs could -- perhaps -- simplify problems of content classification and rating.

The rest of the paper is devoted to exploring and modeling the feasibility of this idea. We can assume that content providers would have a strong incentive to cluster into TLDs that would offer fairly clear signals or reputations to potential users. On the other hand, there would be borderline cases or disputes about the appropriateness of content for certain audiences. In these cases one domain that some users found objectionable might lead to widespread blocking of the entire TLD by users or governments -- a negative externality. The administrator of this TLD might have an incentive to expel the objectionable subdomain holder to protect the interests of others within the TLD. There is also the problem of domains that straddle several categories of Internet content.

To what extent will a natural, voluntary "invisible hand" process lead to coherent, useful categorization of Internet
content, a categorization that could then be used by parents, sysops, and others to guide their access to the  Internet content? That is the question the paper seeks to answer.

The official language of the conference is English. All abstracts must be submitted in English.

Abstracts of papers must be submitted via the Web form by 11 November 1998 Midnight EST.

You will be asked to provide the following information:

a.A title for your Paper.
b.A comma-separated listing of keywords or special terms or phrases that relate to the topic of your Paper.
c.A program track that you feel is the most appropriate.
d.First and surname/family name(s) of all authors/presenters.
e.Organizational affiliation(s).
f.Full mailing address(es), telephone and fax number(s) for each author/presenter.
g.E-mail address(es) for each author/presenter. Note: All correspondence is via e-mail. It is imperative that e-mail addresses are viable and that the Internet Society be informed of any changes to e-mail addresses.

Each abstract should be between one and two pages long (approximately 250 words). An abstract should be a brief summary of a paper and should not be divided into subsections or include tables, footnotes, or reference lists.

The Exhibition Hall will provide the exclusive medium for product advertising. Papers should be directed at substantive issues and not focus upon marketing or sales issues.

Accepted abstract submissions will be invited to contribute full papers. Final selection will be based on full papers.

II. PANEL PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS
The Internet Society is pleased to invite submissions for Proposals for Panels. Panels are scheduled for presentation Wednesday through Friday of the INET'99 Conference, 23-25 June 1999.

The official language of the conference is English. All proposals must be submitted in English.

Panel Proposals must be submitted via the Web form by 11 November 1998 Midnight EST.

You will be asked to provide the following information: