[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NSF grants to Internet at risk)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: NSF grants to Internet at risk
[Seems to me that this dispute involves two perils: class action suits and
government funding of technology that can be easily paid for by the
private sector. I mean, it's not like the world's corporations hasn't
figured out the Internet is important. Besides, government funding often
means greater control. Early on in public broadcasting, the government
barred TV stations from editorializing. Currently government grants to
community radio stations don't go to ones with eclectic and thus probably
more interesting programming -- which need the cash the most. And remember
that Senate encryption bill that basically said government-funded networks
must use key escrow? Obviously the details of the suit and the fund are
important here, but the broader point is worth keeping in mind. --Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:40:17 -0400
From: David Lytel <[email protected]>
To: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: URGENT breaking news: Internet funding crisis
[personal note snipped. --dbm]
Internet Funding Crisis: A Call to Action for CyberCitizens
For more information call David Lytel of Sherpa Consulting Group at
1-315-473-8996 or 1-888-GUIDING
Unknown to the rest of the world, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is
engaged in an effort to remove millions of dollars from the budget of the
National Science Foundation (NSF) that the Congress has previously made
available to invest in new Internet technologies. Lott is trying to repeal
action earlier this year that ratified the Internet Intellectual
Infrastructure Fund as a congressionally authorized tax on the registration
of Internet domain names. This was necessary because of a lawsuit brought
against Network Solutions, Inc., which has been acting as a domain
registration authority for the Internet under a cooperative agreement with
the NSF.
In Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1998 WL 191205, US District Court
Judge Hogan ruled that the domain name registration fee was an unauthorized
tax. Based on Congress's belated ratification of the fee (in the VA/HUD
Supplemental Appropriation bill earlier this year), Hogan ruled that it was
authorized. This issue is being appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the DC Circuit. Regardless of the outcome of the Lott
amendment, this means that the DC Circuit will consider the lawfulness of
the fund.
Lott's maneuver is to add the repeal of the ratification to the Internet
Tax Freedom Act, which has passed the House and may reach the floor as
early as this week. In the Senate, the Internet Tax Freedom Act has passed
both the Commerce and the Finance Committees without the change, but Lott
is circulating a draft managers amendment that would repeal the ratification.
What is at stake:
At stake is about $60 million that the NSF would no longer have available
to invest in research and development of high speed networks and
bandwidth-intensive applications. If this is settled in the courts, about
$15 million would go to the attorney for the plaintiffs and most of the
rest would be lost to administrative fees as Network Solutions finds ways
to make rebates people who have registered domain names. The payoff to
individual domain holders would be only a few dollars. The NSF would lose
funds that are supposed to be available to aid universities as they upgrade
their connections from today's commodity Internet connections to tomorrow's
Internet 2 level connections. For the commercial Internet, this means that
advanced research on different approaches relieve Internet congestion will
be slowed or stopped.
The NSF funds experimental networks that address the fundamental problem of
traffic congestion on today's Internet. The problem goes beyond the
limitations of access technologies such as today's modems or even access
technologies such as ISDN. There are segments of what are supposed to be
the Internet's high speed corridors that are significantly blocked during
periods of peak use. Part of the solution is building more and bigger
pipes to carry Internet traffic. But it is also quite likely that demand
is growing quickly enough to fill much of this capacity. The Internet
traffic problem is not unlike the automobile traffic problem in our major
cities in the 1960s, when no matter how many new bridges and highways we
built we never managed to get ourselves out of a traffic jam.
This is why a significant part of the Internet's original academic
pioneers are experimenting with new technologies to separate and prioritize
Internet traffic. The Internet's underlying technologies are designed to
implement what is called a "best effort" level of service�meaning that if
packets cannot be delivered the Internet keeps trying to send them for
three days before giving up. Just as HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes
have been part of the solution to the problem of highway traffic,
tomorrow's Internet will support quality-of-service or QoS distinctions so
that the bits containing an MRI moving between a primary care physician and
a specialist are given the priority they deserve over more playful uses of
the Internet. While industry is addressing the problem of congestion in
various ways, it is often the university research community that produces
the innovative solutions that no one has yet thought of.
This ability to prioritize packets, in conjunction with the ability to
reserve bandwidth in advance rather than just hoping for the best, may be
the foundation of tomorrow's multimedia Internet. With the right
underlying technologies, tomorrow's Internet will handle voice and video
services with greater ease than it handles email and Web pages today. Some
of the next generation of Internet success stories will once again come
from the networking laboratories of university-based researchers.
Who is behind this:
The driving force behind the lawsuit is Attorney William Bode in Washington
(202-862-4300) on behalf of a client called the American Internet
Registrants Association. If Lott is successful the ratification will be
repealed and the lawsuit will be settled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Although it is not yet possible to link Bode to Senator Lott's actions, a
search of the Federal Election Commission's campaign contributors on the
Center for Responsive Politics site (www.crp.org) reveals Bode as an active
financial supporter of the Republican National Committee, former Senator
Bob Dole, and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who is chair of the
Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.
What CyberCitizens can do:
The most important members of the Senate to contact are Lott, Senator
William Roth (R-DE, chair of the Finance Committee) and Senator John McCain
(R-AZ) chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and the bill's Republican
floor manager). It is also useful to contact the Democratic floor manager,
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). A staffer in the office of Senator Ron Wyden
(D-OR), who has sponsored the Internet Tax Freedom Act, says Wyden will not
make any effort to get the objectionable amendment removed, saying "we do
not have a dog in that fight." Others worth contacting are Finance
Committee members Senator Al D'Amato and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
from New York, the state with the highest number of 4 year, Ph.D.-granting
institutions and the highest number of students at 4 year schools, who
would benefit from the NSF funding. Their e-mail addresses:
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) [email protected] or fax 202-224-2262
Senator William Roth (R-DE) [email protected]
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) [email protected]
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) [email protected]
Senator Alphonse D'Amato (R-NY) [email protected]
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) [email protected]
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) [email protected]
In addition, universities, Internet industry associations and companies
should consider supporting Network Solutions in its legal battle over the
lawfulness of the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure fund. If any group
or individual is interested in filing an amicus brief in support of the
lawfulness of the registration fee, they should contact Mark Davies at
[email protected] for more details.
For more on the Internet domain name controversy see the Domain Name
Handbook at www.domainhandbook.com
Others who could be interviewed include:
Joel Widder, Deputy Director of the NSF's Office of Legislative and Public
Affairs at 703-306-1070 or [email protected]
Tony Rutkowski, formerly Executive Director of the Internet Society and now
head of the independent Center for the Next Generation Internet
(www.ngi.org) at 703-437-9236 or [email protected]
Howard Sartori (202-917-2935), president of the American Internet
Registrant's Association (www.aira.org or 202-862-4363)
Gabe Battista 703-742-4842) president of Network Solutions, Inc.
(www.netsol.com or 703-742-0400)
**version 1.2
**end
new address: 5 Brattle Road
Syracuse, NY 13203-2803
315-473-8996