| Internet-Draft | AIPREF Vocabulary Exclusions | April 2026 |
| Zehta | Expires 8 October 2026 | [Page] |
This document proposes an update to the AI preferences vocabulary [VOCAB] in order to establish protected uses (exclusions).¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://TimidRobot.github.io/ietf-aipref-exclusions/draft-zehta-aipref-exclusions.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zehta-aipref-exclusions/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the AI Preferences Working Group mailing list (mailto:ai-control@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ai-control/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ai-control/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/TimidRobot/ietf-aipref-exclusions.¶
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 8 October 2026.¶
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.¶
This proposal establishes exclusions within the AI preferences to protect public interest activities. These exclusions help balance content holder agency, end user priority, and public interest activities that remain essential for the open web. Creating explicit exclusions from AI preferences for public interest activities will create certainty and, therefore, strengthen their position.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
Regardless of the preferences expressed, the following public interest uses are excluded:¶
Anyone can use the assets for malicious content detection¶
For example: A website that permits user uploads may use the assets to develop or use tools that detect harmful content according to established terms of use.¶
Any end user can use the assets for internationalization and localization, and for accessibility tools to aid individuals with accessibility needs¶
For example: Individuals with accessibility needs may utilize software that uses the assets to access automated captions or generate accessible formats.¶
Organizations that preserve expressed preferences can use the assets for public archiving¶
For example: An archive that preserves preferences may use the assets to improve the metadata associated with assets or help with discoverability.¶
Cultural heritage institutions and not-for-profit research and/or educational organizations can use the assets for analysis and research¶
For example: A cultural heritage organization may use the assets to provide more useful, reliable, or discoverable access to historical web collections.¶
This specification provides a set of definitions for different categories of use, plus a system for associating simple preferences to each (allow, disallow, or unknown; see Section 3).¶
This specification does not provide any enforcement mechanism for those preferences, and conformance to it does not encompass whether preferences are actually respected during data processing.¶
Preferences do not themselves create rights or prohibitions, either in the positive or the negative. Other mechanisms—technical, legal, contractual, or otherwise—might enforce stated preferences and thereby determine the consequences of following or not following a stated preference.¶
An entity that receives usage preferences MAY choose to respect those preferences it has discovered, according to an understanding of how the asset is used, how that usage corresponds to the usage categories where preferences have been stated, and the applicable legal context.¶
Usage preferences can be ignored due to express agreements between relevant parties, explicit provisions of law, or the exercise of discretion in situations where widely recognized priorities justify doing so. Priorities that could justify ignoring preferences include—but are not limited to—free expression, safety, education, scholarship, research, preservation, interoperability, and accessibility.¶
Because enforcement is not provided by this specification, the consequences of ignoring preferences could vary depending upon how a given legal jurisdiction recognizes preferences.¶
This document has no IANA actions.¶
The following individuals made significant contributions to this document:¶