---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:28:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu 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 <david@lytel.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> 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 service­meaning 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) senatorlott@lott.senate.gov or fax 202-224-2262 Senator William Roth (R-DE) comments@roth.senate.gov Senator John McCain (R-AZ) senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) senator@dorgan.senate.gov Senator Alphonse D'Amato (R-NY) senator_al@damato.senate.gov Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) senator@dpm.senate.gov Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) senator@wyden.senate.gov 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 mdavies@mayerbrown.com 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 jwidder@nsf.gov 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 amr@ngi.org 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