IMC

Welcome to the 2016 ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) in Santa Monica, California. It has been our pleasure to oversee the tremendous efforts volunteered by our technical program committee and other individuals in shaping this year's technical program. We hope that you will find the papers selected for the technical program stimulating and thought-provoking, and that you enjoy the conference!

IMC 2016 received 184 submissions, and we accepted 46 papers, for an acceptance ratio of 25%. This year, we explicitly encouraged TPC members to evaluate short papers and full papers as separate submission categories, resulting in roughly 25% acceptance rates in both categories (21/80 and 25/104, respectively), a marked departure from previous IMC programs. We hope that additional short papers enliven the program by adding more visibility into promising work at an earlier stage.

The IMC 2016 TPC comprised 39 members from academia and industry, reflecting the diversity of our community, and spanning the wide range of topics present in this year's submissions and accepted papers. The members of the TPC wrote three first-round reviews for all submissions, as well as three or more second-round reviews for the top 108 papers. Thus, we had at least 6 reviews for each of the 73 papers that we discussed in the TPC meeting, 9 of which were "quick-accepted" without discussion. Most second-round papers received significant online discussion between PC members prior to the TPC meeting.

Almost all of the TPC members attended the TPC meeting in Boston in person, for a long day of energetic discussion. Those who did not attend in person participated via Skype. We strove, as TPC chairs, to ensure that all 73 papers received full and fair discussion, and we encouraged the TPC to advocate for papers containing interesting ideas, even if imperfectly executed. Each of the 46 accepted papers was shepherded by a member of the TPC to help the authors improve their final versions.

A new focus of this year's TPC deliberations was ethical considerations. Papers which, for example, had conducted experiments with end-users, had sought approval from an IRB, or which had performed measurements in an ethical gray area, as judged by TPC members, were reviewed by an ethics subcommittee drawn from the TPC. This subcommittee review, which was complementary to the technical review, sought to determine whether the work complied with our community's (unwritten) ethical standards. No papers were rejected on ethical grounds, but several received guidance in shepherding.