I. ATTENDEES
Attending FNCAC Members:
Sidney Karin, San Diego Supercomputercenter (Chairperson, FNCAC); Alan Blatecky, MCNC; George Brandenburg,Harvard University; Susan Estrada, Aldea Communications; Ken Flamm,Brookings Institution; John Gage, Sun Microsystems; Carol Henderson,American Library Association; Ken Klingenstein, University of Colorado; Richard Liebhaber, MCI Communications-Retired; StuLoken, LBL; Bob Moskowitz, Chrysler Corporation; Ike Nassi, Consultant;Ed Oliver, ORNL; Stewart Personick, Bellcore; Mike Roberts, EDUCOM;Connie Stout, TENET; Harold Thompson, ICN; and Stephen Wolff,CISCO
Attending Members of the FNC andFNC Working Groups:
Javad Boroumand, NASA/ISI; BruceBottomley, NSA; Doug Gatchell, NSF; Dan Hitchcock, Dept. of Energy;Jim Hott, USGS; Hilarie Orman, DARPA; ; Mike Pierce, DISA; AlexPoliakoff, Dept of Education; George Seweryniak, Dept. of Energy;Stephen L. Squires, DARPA; George Strawn, Co-Chair FNC/NSF; DennisSteinauer, NIST; Walter Wiebe, FNC, Tice DeYoung, NASA
Invited Speakers:
Guy Almes, Internet2; Charles Brownstein,XIWT; Randy Bush, Verio; Glee Cady, Netcom; Vint Cerf, AC forHPCC/IT/NGI; George Clapp, Bellcore; Patricia Edfors, Dept. ofTreasury; Sherrilynne Fuller, AC for HPCC/IT/NGI; Don Heath, IAHC;Anita Jones, CCIC/DOD; Elliot Maxwell, FCC; Jim McConaughey, NTIA;Mike Nelson, FCC; Robert Pepper, FCC; Linda Roberts, Dept. ofEducation; Glenn Schlarmann, OMB; Tim Stevens, Bell Atlantic;Don Telage, NSI; John Toole, NCO; Kevin Webach, FCC
General Public:
Scott Anderson, CISCO; Gabe Battista,NSI; Kim Bayliss, NSI; William H. Baumer, PSI Net; Dan Van Belleghan,SURN; W. Black, NSI; Don Blake, NEA; Heather Boyles, Internet2;Carole Gomez Braere, NSF; Christopher Clough, NSI; David Conrad,APNIC; Mike Daniels, SAIC/NSI; Alan Davidson, CDT; Sean Donelan,DRA; Barbara Dooley, CIX; Angela Drolte, Bureau of National Affairs;Dan Dutko, NSI; D.W. Engebretson, DISA; Anders Fernstedt, AT&T;Ken Fockler, CA Net; R.J. Francis, NSI; James Gallegos, SterlingSoftware; Dave Graves, NSI; Kim Hubbard, NSI; Jeffrey Kaufman,INTA; Ron Kawchuk, CAIP; James Keller, Harvard; Jennifer Lucas,BNA; Eric Lee, CIX; David Maher, IAHC; Declan McCullagh, TIME; Cathy McDonald,NCO Contractor; Phil Melling, FDC; Ellen Messmer, Network World;Ann Miller, DOD; Tracie Monk, UCSD/NLANR; Chris Oneto, Treasury/DynCorp,Ray Plzak, DOD NIC; David Jemmett, GoodNet; Craig Johnson, TDRS;Robert Shaw, ITU; Graham Shumway, CIX; Margaret Simmons, NCO;G. Sisson, NSI; P. Startan, NSI; David Staudt, NSF; Mike Stephens,USTT; Albert Tramposch, IAHC/WIPO; Elizabeth Wasseman, San JoseMecury News; Darin Wayrynen, GoodNet; Lynn Wheeler, FDC; AnneWheeler, FDC; Greg Wood, Internet2
FNC Support Personnel:
Julio Andrade, DynCorp; SuzanneBurgess, DynCorp; Debra Summers, DynCorp;
Bonnie Wilson, DynCorp
A recommendation related to cryptographictechnology was passed during the FNCAC meeting:
The FNCAC endorses the IAB and IESG"Statement on Cryptographic technology and the Internet"of July 24, 1996, published as RFC 1984, with the exception ofthe language on complete and unlimited export of all cryptographictechnology. This exception is a complex issue which brings intoplay multiple social objectives and which requires further consideration.
While it may be appropriate for nationalpolicy to limit the deployment of Federal production systems orexported private systems, it is inappropriate to constrain researchor experimentation on security or privacy technologies.
Additional recommendations discussedat the meeting will be debated via e-mail.
b. Action Items
Transitions and Scalability:
Education and Training:
General:
1. Opening and Overview
Sid Karin, FNCAC Chair, called themeeting to order, welcoming the returning members of the FNCAC,and members of the FNC. The workplan for the 1997 year was reviewedand approved as written, with a note that all members may joinany working group they wish. The action items from the October1996 meeting were reviewed.
2. FNC Initiatives and IssuesDuring 1997
George Strawn, FNC Co-Chair/NSF,apprised the committee of the FNC goals and activities for FY1997. The work of the FNC can be described as falling into threeareas: Network Engineering and Operations, Transitional Issues,and Education and Training. In the first area, Network Engineeringand Operations, the FNC is working with a variety of groups suchas the Coordinating Committee for Intercontinental Research Networking(CCIRN) to collaborate on international connections and research.Much of the inter-agency coordination today is in the area ofAuthorized Usage Policies and interconnections. (Historically,collaboration among agencies was most often seen through "pipesharing." However, since most agencies today are utilizingtheir own pipes to capacity, many no longer share pipes.). Currently,the Federal networks are working to create a tightly integratedresearch network of Federal agencies and universities, and thenwill extend to research partners overseas. One point that shouldbe made clear is that Federal research networks are not transitnetworks; rather, to accomplish research, they are peering witheach other. All Federal networks also maintain commercial connectionsfor non-research activities.
Other Network Engineering and Operationsactivities pursued by the FNC agencies include formulating anATM addressing scheme, refining the FedNet architecture, and exploringvarious statistics and metrics tools.
Under the auspices of Transitionalissues, the FNC is refining the .GOV policy, continuing to workon the Collaborations in Internet Security (CIS) project, andcollaborating with other Internet networking groups (e.g., Internet2)in the area of Next Generation Internet technologies and statistics/metricsmonitoring and analysis. To better inform people on policiesfor a .GOV top-level domain, the FNC is revising the governingRFC and working with Federal agencies on the numerous requestsfor special consideration. The CIS project has held two workshopssince the last AC meeting and is beginning to include industryin the security testbed activities. Plans are underway for FedNetcooperation with NGI and Internet2 communities to develop operationalrelationships. Lastly, in the area of statistics and metrics, several FedNets agencies are exploring more simplified ways ofsharing trouble tickets. The statistics/metrics work of CNRIand ISPs is also being closely monitored with regard to a possibleFedNet role in the discussions.
Strawn also provided a brief updateon the Intellectual Property study proposed by the National ResearchCouncil (NRC). FNC agencies continue to seek funding for thestudy, and currently, the proposal is under review by NSF's Information,Robotics, and Intelligent Systems Division.
3. FNC/FNCAC Roles & Relationships
Anita Jones, Co-Chair of the Committeeon Computing, Information, and Communications (CCIC), briefedthe AC on the status, structure, and current activities of thatcommittee's working groups. To enhance interagency cooperationon a range of topics from broader communications issues to newapplications, a new structure was introduced three years ago. In the last nine to ten months, that focus has led to the creationof five working groups under the CCIC Computing, Information,and Communications R&D Subcommittee. One of those subcommittees,the Large Scale Networking (LSN) group, is focused on the NGIinitiative.
The NGI initiative was describedas a new paradigm for network communications as a managed resource.This initiative is a high priority for DoD, and Jones requestedthat the AC members lend their support to the effort and providefeedback on its initiatives. The NGI Draft Concept Paper, whichcan be found at http://www.ccic.gov/ngi-concept-08Apr97, detailsthese initiatives. A Presidential Advisory Committee for HighPerformance Computing and Communications, Information Technology,and the Next Generation Internet (HPCC/IT/NGI) was establishedin February and has been actively advising the LSN group withconcern to their work on the NGI.
The existence of this newly appointedAdvisory Committee led to discussion of the roles of and the relationbetween the Advisory Committees for the FNC and the HPCC/IT/NGI.In general, the work of the FNCAC is closer to practical and fundamentalinternetworking issues, in particular research and engineeringnetworks, while the new Presidential AC will focus more on overarchingR&D and programmatic issues. The FNC and its AC continueto work on pressing issues related to the transition of the Internetfrom the U.S. government to the commercial sector.
Action Item:
4. Internet of the Future
NGI Initiative
George Strawn provided an updateon the work of the Large Scale Networking (LSN) group on the NextGeneration Internet (NGI) Initiative. On October 10, 1996, PresidentClinton and Vice President Gore announced their commitment tothe Next Generation Internet (NGI) Initiative, based upon strongresearch and development programs across Federal agencies. TheNGI initiative has as its vision a look toward long-range researchto develop and test advanced network technology. It also strivesto develop testbeds of sufficient scale to support technologyscaling issues and provide critical mass for applications. Theinitiative will seek partners to cost-share the development andto facilitate technology transfer for the future commercial Internet.The NGI has as its goals to:
The LSN has drafted a paper thatoutlines the concepts and goals of the NGI Initiative as partof the process for building the strongest possible program amongacademia, industry, and the government. This draft has been releasedfor public comments and discussion and is available at http://www.hpcc.gov/ngi-concept-08Apr97.Comments received by 15 May 1997 will be used in preparing a finalversion of the document shortly thereafter.
The initiative is planned to lastfive years. The Administration has made an initial three-year$300 million funding commitment of $100million per year, and will seek bipartisan Congressionalsupport in its budget submissions.Built on the base of current Federally-funded research anddevelopment, the initiative willalso call on substantial matching funds from private sector partners,as well as seek commitments frommajor applications developers.
Currently, five funded agencies areworking together to make the NGI a reality: DARPA, DOE, NASA,NSF, and NIST. NIH/NLM may join the group as well. Each participatingagency brings specific skills and experience to the initiative.These skills and experience provide an essential base upon whichthe initiative is built. Specific agency strengths include:
DARPA: long-term, general expertisein networking research, general skill in high-end network technologyand testbeds, experience in managing networks.
DOE: long-term experience in managingproduction and research networks, specialized skills in networkingtechnology, great strength in mission-driven applications andin system integration.
NASA: experience in network managementand in specialized network testbeds, strength in mission-drivenapplications involving high data rates, great strength in systemengineering and integration.
NSF: special relationships with theacademic community, experience in network research and in managingnetworks, great strength in scientific applications.
NIST: long experience in standardsdevelopment, networking research, and in testbeds involving manyindustrial partners.
The strategic approach is to buildon existing high-end networks, and each of the agencies aboveis expected to bring a high-performance application to fruition.
A workshop entitled Research Directionsfor the Next Generation Internet is planned for May 13 and 14to bring researchers together to discuss the research agenda neededto accomplish the goals of the NGI.
Internet2
Guy Almes representing Internet2(I2) reviewed the status of this university-based project. Atthis time, the preliminary work of both the NGI and I2 initiativesare very similar and will overlap in the support of research andeducation. The work of I2 is based on six fundamental principles:
I2 can be described as a collaborativeeffort joining over 100 U.S. universities, with the primary goalto develop the next generation of computer network applicationsto facilitate the research and education missions of universities. At each of the member universities a team of developers and engineersis working to develop and enable I2 applications. At the sametime, each team coordinates its efforts with similar teams atother I2 universities. I2 is also working with computer networkingcorporations and non-profit organizations to ensure that the developmentsof I2 are used to improve all computer networks, including theexisting Internet.
I2 has seen rapid membership growth,which is currently at 106 members. Their 1997 budget is $2.5M,and the project supports a full time staff of 10. 1998 is thetarget year for many of I2's aspirations to be realized. Currentpriorities of the I2 are to create an Applications & Engineeringteam, adopt a phase 1 technical architecture, confirm the GigaPoPsites and partners, establish industry partnerships, build workingrelationships with NGI agencies, and recommend a permanent organization.
I2 has developed a list of StrategicObjectives:
When speaking of "advanced"engineering, Almes voiced these thoughts: The purpose of "advanced"engineering is to support "advanced" applications, whichin turn motivates the development of advanced engineering. Advancedapplications transform high-speed plumbing into value, and advancedplumbing enables advanced applications. A common misunderstandingis that an application that uses large amounts of bandwidth isthought of as "advanced", when in actuality it may notbe. The same applies for "advanced" plumbing; it isnot "advanced" solely because of its high capacity.
There are currently efforts underwayfor establishing a global procurement process that would providebroad band connectivity to all users. Due to their teaching mission,researchers are scattered all over the country, and every academicresearch plan is in need of a large capacity network. Therefore,faculty and students have a disproportionate need to be able tocollaborate at a distance. Currently, there is little end to endsupport for their networks or for all applications.
I2 hopes to further the employmentof three key advanced concepts: Quality of Service, Advanced MulticastSupport, and IPv6. Achieving Quality of Service (QoS) is oneof I2's primary advanced technical objectives, and is currentlythe subject of an initiative designed to more deeply explore theconcept. QoS will be a key enabler for advanced applications and,in particular, for real-time applications. The concern now iswhether QoS should be looked at from the perspective of applicationsneeds, or from the perspective of issues surrounding practicalityof engineering. Though several solutions/approaches have beensubmitted, each has complexities that will slow the process. Applicationneeds that should be taken into consideration include items suchas bandwidth requirements, packet loss, delay, and jitter. Furthermore,how near is the network to end-to-end support? Concern remainson how to evenly support all applications over the network. Asuggestion was to implement a mechanism to reserve capacity foradvanced applications between certain gigaPoPs. This will allowfor the support of a certain number of advanced applications,with capacity and packet loss being assured, and delay improvedwith "weighted queuing". There are also QoS issuesof admission control, usage measurement (billing), and markingpackets.
Because many advanced applicationsare naturally multicast, Advanced Multicast Support will facilitatethe broadcasting of information as easily from a single sourceto a large group (one-to-many), as it will from a small groupto a secondary small group (few-to-few). The issue of scalingis quite relevant to Multicast, and raises questions such as whetherthe network should be optimized for transmission lines or forpacket forwarding.
Finally, implementing IPv6 over thenetwork will be essential for enabling growth and for other advancedfeatures. IPv6 products are expected to become available beginningin 1997.
Efforts towards establishing gigaPoPsas effective service points are also well under way at this time.There is great diversity among the gigaPoPs, both geographically(campus, metro area, or state) and technologically (ATM, SONET,or IP). Despite this diversity, some standardization is neededin order to maintain stability. For instance, required itemsinclude a common Inter-gigaPoP routing policy and design, measurementpolicies, designs, and implementation along with admission controlsfor QoS. Security will also need to be coordinated, and Inter-NOCtrouble tickets monitored. Admissions controls will be the mostdifficult due to differences in university financial structures.
On April 29th and 30th,gigaPoP technical and business planners will be meeting in SanDiego to discuss the importance of the measurement of utilization,performance, and flow properties. The majority of given examplesof emerging gigaPoPs are beginning to be realized, and will beoffering access to a variety of services. Also, the number ofgigaPoPs is expected to grow along with the number of institutionsconnected to I2. These gigaPoPs will be using diverse approachesto providing service, such as using IP over ATM, SONET ADM, andLAN over fiber. In order to gain high-speed uncongested connectivity,I2 will be using T3 and OC3 rates, with some sites using up toOC12 rates. Approximately 12 vBNS connect points are expected. Demand for the gigaPoPs is going to be concentrated in localuniversities, while attracting supply from competitive InternetService Providers. The plan for 1997 is to have 45 universitiesconnected.
The initial interconnect will takeplace on the vBNS. The core of this network will be in the wayof Vector ATM switches in 8 MCI PoPs, with OC12 provisioned amongthem. Access to the network will be through FORE ATM switchesin 10 sites, with a full PVP mesh among the FORE switches. Throughoutthis network, UBR ATM will be used in conjunction with Cisco andAscend Routers. Furthermore, Cisco routers will be used in engineeringnew connections.
Following the presentation, the ACmembers raised the issue that neither the NGI or the I2 presentationaddressed the issue of routing. In particular, there is a significantconcern that routing tables are full and not being monitored,which will slow paths from end to end. They also expressed concernfor who is going to fund the initial development. In response,Almes commented that the challenge is to start this in a sufficientlycontrolled environment. Universities involved in this programneed to realize that they must pay for this access out of theirown funds. Applications must also be monitored in order to makesure that they are useful to all participants.
5. Governance of the Internet
This topic item follows up from theOctober FNCAC meeting, at which Governance of the Internet wasa major discussion item. Please see http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_10_96_minutes.htmlfor background material. At the October FNCAC meeting, the ACmembers recommended that the FNC and the NSF
transition out of their DNS and addressingresponsibilities. They also passed a resolution "reiteratingand underscoring the urgency of transferring responsibility forsupporting U.S. commercial interests in ITLD administration fromthe NSF to an appropriate entity." George Strawn informedthe AC that NSF has not followed through on this recommendationdue to the wide breadth of the current discussion on the issue. To identify how to best accomplish this task, the FNC Co-Chairparticipated as a member of the IAHC and is participating in theFederal Interagency Working Group on Domain Names.
DNS issues have continued to attractsignificant attention from the Internet community at large, andcan now be characterized as a "multimillion dollar problem."
Federal Interagency Working Groupon Domain Names
Glenn Schlarman of OMB briefed thegroup on the recently established Federal Interagency WorkingGroup on Domain Names. At this time, there is no agreement overwhat the government should do, if anything, with regard to domainname space. A number of government agencies are interested inthis issue, because domain name issues cross numerous agency boundariesand disciplines. The Federal Interagency Working Group on DomainNames was established to generate input from multiple sourcesand government agencies. The working group is comprised of membersfrom the FCC, DoD, NTIA, NSF, FNC, DOE, NASA, PTO, OMB, NEC, andthe White House Science Advisor.
Brian Kahin will be brought in tothe White House Office of Science and Technology, which will overseethe Interagency group. This group is not only addressing the immediateconcerns of the IAHC proposal, but also is working towards theformulation of a US policy on Internet governance and domain nameissues. Towards that end, the group will thoroughly examine theissues and has many questions.
FCC's Role in Networking
Bob Pepper (FCC) reported that theFCC has no role in the DNS issue, but does have significant involvementin bandwidth and access issues. The FCC is concerned that sufficientbandwidth be available when needed, and at reasonable rates. Internetissues of concern for the FCC include such items as:
Kevin Werbach of the FCC has prepareda paper addressing these issues which can be viewed at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp29.pdf.As stated in the paper, a central theme of the FCC is that they,and other government agencies, should seek to limit regulationof Internet services. Werbach states that "Because it isnot tied to traditional models or regulatory environments, theInternet holds the potential to dramatically change the communicationslandscape. The Internet creates new forms of competition, valuableservices for end users, and benefits to the economy. Governmentpolicy approaches toward the Internet should therefore start fromtwo premises: avoid unnecessary regulation, and question the applicabilityof traditional rules."
Other questions looked at by theFCC include the role of government in bringing the right incentivesforward to increase bandwidth, what incentives might be availableto get local traffic off of the phone lines, and what productsare being developed to minimize the burden on the network.
Non-Federal Activities
International Ad-Hoc Committee(IAHC)
Don Heath of the Internet Societyand Chair of the IAHC provided a presentation describing the IAHCproposal on Internet Domain Name Service (DNS). Heath began bystating that if the Internet is to achieve what is hoped, thanit must have self governance, and control by no single nation. The Internet transcends nations, and must be self-governing. He stated that the IAHC achieves these principles by definingthe generic top level domains (gTLDs) such as .COM, .ORG, .NETas international resources and proposed a set of competing systemswith oversight and a centralized database to store the new gTLDs.
He briefly described the processand some of the thinking that led to the IAHC plan and the gTLDMOU, which calls for the creation of seven additional top levelnames and a structure that allows competing companies to registerInternet domain names. (More information on the IAHC can be foundon its webpage http://www.iahc.org.) Heath stated that it wasfelt that this effort should be international and should examineintellectual property issues. To meet the first, those who servedon the IAHC were brought in from all over the world; to addressthe latter concern, the World Intellectual Property Organization(WIPO) was included in the process. Heath stated that since telecoswill be involved in the future of the Internet, the IAHC alsoincluded the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
To draft the IAHC proposal and relateddocuments, the Committee relied on a variety of methods to gatherinformation and input. Heath stated that it was not possibleto hold public hearings, so the IAHC relied on the tools availablethrough the Internet - mail lists and web sites. In addition,the IAHC members met with a variety of groups to brief them onthe IAHC plan and to gather input. The feedback from those groupsand the comments submitted via the mail list led to modificationsof the plan. The IAHC is moving ahead with the implementationof the gTLD-MOU; however, the process will need continual feedbackand evolution. The more buy-in there is to the gTLD-MOU, themore dynamic it will be. Heath stated that while governmentswere welcome to join the process, they must not take over theprocess.
Robert Shaw of ITU who also servedon the IAHC provided a brief overview of the gTLD Memorandum ofUnderstanding, which is designed to set up a structure and establishpolicies and procedures for responsible administration of theInternet domain name space. Under the term of the MoU, registrarswill compete directly, covering the same range of Top Level Domainnames, with a Council of Registrars (CORE) running a neutral,shared database repository. Initially, 28 new registrars fromaround the world (four from each of seven world regions) willbe set up. Daily activities are expected to be handled by theregistrars themselves and by CORE. Public interest concerns willbe handled by a small Policy Oversight Committee, assisted bya much larger Policy Advisory Body, made up of signatories ofthe MoU. Both the public and private sectors are invited to signthe MoU, which can be viewed at http://www.gTLD-MoU.org. It ishoped that this structure would ensure efficient management ofdaily operations, and that policy concerns and issues surroundingthe future evolution of the Internet Domain Name System wouldreceive sufficient and diverse public review and input.
Critical Administrative Servicesand Enhanced Competition for Internet Domain Name Services
Don Telage, President of NSI, presentedan alternative to the IAHC and other proposals regarding DNS andInternet governance. Telage stated that the debate needs to bebroadened, and he proposed a non-competitive approach for secureadministration of key Internet services. (A copy of his proposalis available at http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html) Telageidentified those key administrative services that would benefitfrom enhanced competition and then proposed a structure for transitionof Internet management.
As background, Telage reviewed thecurrent structure of Internet DNS and the relationships betweenNSI, the InterNIC, the IANA and NSF. When the Internet was justbeginning and the volume of registrations were small, the relationshipbetween these groups was well-defined and worked well. Telagestated that for years, the IANA has been the single point ofauthority for DNS, IP and network identifiers. By the end of1994, real growth in the commercial Internet began, with the numberof new second-level domains growing and companies being chargedfees to register those domains. Telage stated that NSI's experiencein meeting this increased demand and in domain name registrationthrough the cooperative agreement with NSF is being replicatedin other parts of the world.
With that background, Telage pointedout five areas where he feels the IAHC proposal is lacking:
NSI proposed five principles to puttogether a proposal on the future Internet:
Telage summarized the proposal bydefining the steps that would transition the Internet to a newgovernance structure while protecting critical Internet functions. The first step would be to move Internet governance functionsnow performed by the IANA to a Federal authority, preferably theFCC, for a transition period of two years. Telage favors theFCC, with advise from an advisory committee, because that agencyis familiar with using committees to manage resources. He statedthat in order for the governance functions of the Internet tobe institutionalized, the U.S. government must stay involved. To separate out the functions currently performed by InterNIC/NSI,the IP address functions should be moved to its own registry.A contractor would be selected to perform the day-to-day functionsof managing the "dot" and the root servers, and thecompetition for this contract would be open.
Telage closed his remarks by statingthat Internet registries are for-profit ventures and therefore,must have incentives to remain in business.
American Registry of InternetNumbers (ARIN)
Randy Bush, member of the proposedBoard of Trustees of ARIN, began his presentation by describingDNS as a technology that maps domain names to IP numbers. He emphasizedthat IP addresses are not names, and should be viewed separatelyfrom the name controversy. Names are commercial and are not limited,while IP number addresses are a public trust of a finite resource.IP addresses and names are two separate groups at the InterNIC,and are already separate in similar organizations in Europe andAsia.
Bush then described ARIN as a proposed,non-profit organization (501(c)6) designed to manage and conservean Internet resource, and to educate Internet users on how toefficiently utilize the resource as a service to the entire Internetcommunity. ARIN is meant to provide a North American counterpartto the other international IP registries (APNIC and RIPE) in orderto ensure adequate representation of North American interests.It would also ensure continuity of Internet address stewardshipand administration after NSF withdraws itself, and would providea clear forum for all stakeholders (end-user, industry, government)to determine Internet address allocation policy. Finally, it wouldprovide the IP registration function on a self-funded basis toeliminate DNS cross-subsidy.
NSI would offer start-up supportto ARIN, such as financial, operational, logistical, transferringpersonnel, database and software. ARIN would have a 7-member volunteerBoard of Trustees, a 15 member Advisory Council, membership, andan operational staff. ARIN would be funded through registrationservices, annual maintenance fees for individual assignments,and annual membership fees. Three types of registration serviceswould be available:
Bush believes that there is consensusfor ARIN, with support coming from the IANA, NSF, both large andsmall ISPs, and the international community.
6. Network Transitions & Scalability
a. Internet QoS
XIWT Status on Uniting ISP's
Charles Brownstein of the Cross IndustryWorking Team (XIWT) reported on the development of an organizationfor commercial Internet service providers (ISPs) dedicated toimproving Internet operations and performance. The mission ofthis solely private organization will be to promote engineeringefforts required to maintain and enhance an operational globalInternet, with some initial areas of interest being measurementand trouble tickets. The XIWT is very close to announcing theformation of group, pending completion of some legal arrangements.Currently, eight very large ISPs, each serving over 500,000 customers,make up the initial charter membership. Membership is open onlyto National Providers, with the results and data available tothe general public.
This group does not want to overlapwith the Internet Society but rather are focused on working withlarge companies. They will also not deal with standards issuesor perform as a lobbying organization. At this time the XIWT islooking to hire a director. Ira Richter will be the interim directorand CNRI will provide the initial money for the organization. They intend to have a small staff with most work being done collaborativelyby company members. Non-ISP persons will also be invited to participatein meetings. This group can be characterized as vendors workingto make the "general network" better.
[Note: The group was announced shortlyafter the FNCAC meeting and its name is IOPS.ORG. For more informationon this effort, please see http://www.iops.org/.]
Measuring QoS
George Clapp of Bellcore reportedon the issue of Quality of Service (QoS) , and in particular,Bellcore's vision of QoS as it works to design the AutomotiveNetwork Exchange (ANX) for the Automotive Industry Action Group(AIAG). The AIAG is determined to include QoS in the design ofANX based on past experience with inconsistent or non-functionalend-to-end service quality in a multi-service provider environment,for example in the areas of trouble resolution and security. To solve this problem, the AIAG chose to adopt an "overseer"model as opposed to a shared industry practice, which is foundin organizations like NANOG and the XIWT.
In the overseer model, AIAG and Bellcorehave developed a certification process. The process begins withan assessment based on public criteria of the application, whichif it passes, leads to a monitoring period. The monitoring periodmay lead to a probation period and then to re-certification, ifevents determine that further work is required on the application. Through this learning process, AIGA and Bellcore are exploringdifferent QoS issues, especially security. Millions of dollarsare involved for multiple entities, therefore, network securitymust be tight with no backdoors or spoofing.
In looking at Quality of Serviceissues, Clapp finds that QoS is often determined and defined bythe applications under use, and hence the definition varies accordingto the community of interest, for it is more than throughput,delay, and loss. It also involves characteristics such as servicedefinition, performance, interoperability, reliability, disasterrecovery/business continuity, security, and customer care. QoSalso differs depending on the point of view of the group examiningthe issue (i.e., the customer often views QoS differently thanthe service provider). For instance, in terms of routing, thecustomer sees reachability as a QoS factor; the service providersees number of destinations reachable via a route as definingQoS. While in terms of performance, the customer sees throughputas a QoS issue, while the service provider measures QoS by packetloss.
Clapp broadly characterized QoS ashaving 5 dimensions: metric, criteria, measurement technique,tool set, and measurer. The metrics of QoS, or what can be measured,include a service definition, performance and reliability criteria,interoperability specifications, disaster recovery/business continuityplans, security guidelines, and customer care. Both the userand the service provider must also determine who will monitorthese metrics and whether the monitoring will be intrusive orpassive. Once the metric criteria and collection methods areestablished constant assessment and ongoing monitoring is required.Both groups are also planning to work with IPPM to ensure consistentmeasurements.
He ended his talk by discussing theneed to combine the business model with the technical requirementsof QoS. Both are equally important because distribution of technicalfunctionality impacts business investment and risk. QoS is abroad topic and issues and expectations of both the customer andthe ISP must be resolved before the QoS model is implemented. Currently, both AIAG and Bellcore are discussing business issuessuch as payment responsibilities, and technical issues concerninginteroperable trouble tickets, and security.
Automotive Industry Action Group(AIAG) efforts in Internet QoS
Bob Moskowitz, Chrysler Corporation,presented an update on the progress of the Automotive NetworkExchange (ANX). The ANX plans to control QoS by certification,monitoring, and management of Service Providers. Through thisplan, each participating service provider will be a CertifiedService Provider (CSP). Security is the responsibility of thetrading partners, with Ipsec (ISAKMP/Oakley and X.509 certs) chosenas the standard.
Design of the ANX was awarded toBellcore, which is currently in Phase 1 of design. Phase 1 completionis targeted by the end of April 1997, with build-out of the pilotby mid July 1997 and running through October 1997. The pilot willinclude 30 trading partners and 5 service providers. Controlledrollout will follow in October 1997. The ANX Design Phase willthen follow with development of Certification Requirements andProcess. Following this will be development of metrics to trackadherence to the Certification, and finally development of a PrivateKey Infrastructure.
QoS in this effort will be brokeninto 3 categories:
QoS will be monitored by using measurementdevices at Trading Partner sites, and within CSP's, all of whichwill be reporting to the ANX Overseer. The detailed informationwill only be available to network subscribers, but overall information,similar in nature to the FAA "on-time arrival" statisticswill be publicly disseminated.
Since the size of this network precludethe use of just one ISP, concerns were raised about the ISP certificationprocess, differentiated class of service, and security. To preventde-certification of a participating ISP, there will be considerablepressure on the ISP to conform and a public probationary periodis considered. A major goal for the ANX is to produce differentclasses of service through participating ISPs, therefore bringingthis choice of services to the public at large. "ANX"is trademarked in 20 countries, and will be used to identify thisservice. Finally security is still being discussed and plannedby all participants worldwide.
b. Dial-up Internet usage on thepublic switched networks
Tim Stevens, Bell Atlantic, addressedthe FNCAC about the congestion and strain on Bell Atlantic's networkby the growing number of dial-up users. His concerns begin withthe fact that ISPs are considered "enhanced service providers"under the FCC, therefore exempting them from usage charges. ISPshave taken advantage of this position with the FCC and growthhas been phenomenal. Responding to this overwhelming growth,Bell Atlantic is asking the FCC to reconsider their decision andbegin charging ISPs for their networks.
Bell Atlantic has two primary goals:
In reference to the first goal, BellAtlantic does not expect to be the ultimate choice in ISPs, butrather the premium choice among all ISPs. Their main reason forthis thought is their belief that their network is creating theInternet for everyone. Therefore, they feel that as the foundationof the Internet they should be the nation's leading provider.The second goal follows naturally from the first by wanting toearn a fair return on their investment.
Bell Atlantic networks were optimizedfor voice at 3khz per call, with 3 calls per hour during peakusage hours. The Internet, however, exceeds this structural design,with customers demanding longer connection times and more callsper hour. Such Internet usage has resulted in a change in thepeak usage hours, making peak time between 7 and 11 in the evening. Due to the overwhelming growth of Internet users, local phonecompanies are forced to constantly make modifications and upgradesto their networks. The question of whether these costs can becovered by the additional lines being ordered by customers forInternet services was raised. Mr. Stevens responded that theseadditional lines are not being ordered in the mass quantitiesonce predicted. Sales of second telephone lines, specificallyfor Internet use, applies only a third of the time for familiesand business. At the Internet's current growth rate it will soonequal the amount of long distance traffic on the network.
Bell Atlantic has recently introduceda packet switch network specifically designed to handle data traffic. However, ISP's continue to purchase circuit switched lines toprovide their services. Mr. Stevens suggested the creation ofa set of standardized prices that will determine the quality ofservice delivered.
In closing, Stevens emphasized thatBell Atlantic fully supports the growth of the Internet, and doesnot wish to slow it down in anyway.
Glee Cady of Netcom provided an ISP'sperspective of the growing usage of the public switched networks. Netcom is the first of many providers to use tiered pricing topair the right set of services with the right customers. Netcomis implementing a "fair use" policy in areas where localcongestion is high. This policy allows Netcom to "bump"customers who have been logged on for the longest period of time. One of Netcom's primary concerns is that they are not able tobuy the service they would like from local carriers. This isdue largely to lack of equipment from local carriers in areaswhere demand is high for faster Internet services. Using thenew packet switched network being offered by Bell Atlantic isnot an option because Netcom would incur tariff pricing.
Another option being offered by localcarriers is the Digital Access Gateway Product. This is essentiallyan outsourcing of support for modem racks. The modems are suppliedand supported by the local carrier and the ISP is charged forthis service. This solution is not cost effective for Netcom andthreatens their bottom line. This additional cost will take awayfrom Netcom's expansion of their network. Moreover, the reliabilityof this Gateway cannot be measured because it lacks a call failmechanism.
Following the presentations was abrief discussion by the AC members. A major topic was the packagingof services and incentives for changing fees. This shows progressbeing made on the part of both the ISPs and local carriers tobringing quality service to their customers. Another highlightin this discussion was that the local carriers are using qualityas well as price to provide QoS. The AC commented that in orderto remedy the system, more that just ISPs need to make changesto provide a solution. There were suggestions that the FCC shouldconsider QoS when dealing with local carriers. It was pointedout that the concept of QoS is so broad that metrics and othermeasurement devices for QoS need to be developed.
Action Item: The working group onTransitions & Scalability has been asked to work on determininga position for the FNCAC on the topic of QoS.
7. Internet Security & Privacy
Administration's Position on Encryption
Bruce McConnell of the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) summarized the Administration's positionon the encryption issue. The administration has determined threegoals for Encryption:
As stated by McConnell, in orderfor electronic commerce to be successful, a trusted environmentin which to do business is required. The Administration recognizesthe need for advanced encryption technology to stay competitiveas well as secure. Required is the ability to send signed documentsand confidential information securely, without questioning theidentity of the recipient and the possibility of interception.
The Administration feels that securityis a large market that has yet to be penetrated by the U.S., especiallyin the area of key recovery systems. They would like to see theU.S. be a strong player in this new industry, but want to proceedwith caution. Currently, the Administration does not support theexport of encryption technology. The Administration has draftedlegislation (http://www.cdt.org/crypto/970312_admin.html) to controlthe domestic use of encryption technologies and compel participationin key recovery systems open to the government. The bill would:
The introduction of this legislationelicited several comments from the AC members. Questions aroseabout the "mandatory" use of key recovery. Will theuse of key recovery be necessary to do work with the federal government? McConnell stressed that the participation in key recovery isvoluntary.
The Administration also recognizesthe need to support law enforcement. Concerns over the use ofencryption by criminals is growing at an alarming rate. Thisis causing a significant obstacle to law enforcement as it triesto counter criminal activity, especially in terrorism where manymaterials ceased are not negotiable. In addition, with such rapidadvancements in encryption, law enforcement officials need thelatest tools to assist them in their struggle against this newarena of crime. Another concern raised was the possibility ofthe type of security being used on the Internet's internal structurebeing comprised.
AC members also raised the issueof privacy, in terms of the individual person and that of a freesociety, which seems to have been left out of the Administration'sthree goals. The Administration is requested to give heavy considerationto the issue of privacy for the individual citizen.
Emergency Access Project
Patricia Edfors, chair for InteragencyWorking Group on Cryptography (IWG), summarized their currentexploration of different encryption possibilities. This grouphas been asked to demonstrate the reliability of key recoveryas a security service for federal business applications, and todemonstrate the practicability of key recovery as an element ofa key management infrastructure/public key infrastructure (KMI/PKI).The Task Group is formed jointly of representatives from the GovernmentInformation Technology Services Board (GITS) and the IWG. TheTask Group is chaired by a representative from the Departmentof the Treasury, who also serves as the Champion for Securityand Privacy for the GITS Board with participation from NIST, FBI,NSA, and GSA and each agency with a pilot selected from this demonstration.
Ten Federal agency pilots will testthe elements of the vision laid out in the white paper, "EnablingPrivacy,
Commerce, Security and Public Safetyin the Global Information Infrastructure." In addition, thepilots have been selected based on their ability to:
At this time all the pilots are workingon establishing an implementation plan. There is also going tobe a final evaluation on costs versus benefits, and a look intothe impacts of these activities.
In order to further the growth ofthis project, the agency has reached out for industry participation. Some of the participating companies are VISA, MasterCard, Novell,ATT, General Electric, and Microsoft. Source File is offeringa key recovery system starting in source code storage. SourceFile does not want to prescribe a key recovery solution but ratherworks to develop individual solutions for their clients. Keyrecovery in the business industry is growing; Netscape, for instance,is one of the first companies that expressed interest in beinga partner in these key recovery efforts.
Edfors noted that they have identifiedthree key recovery agents at this time, and requested that suggestionsfor additional agents in key recovery be forwarded to her at patricia.edfors@cio.treas.gov. At this time, certifying authorities in key recovery will betested using the Trusted Information Systems (TIS) model. Theirgoal is to meet the need for public safety. These agents willnot be recovering signatures or creating a key management infrastructure. If the business applications work well then the foundation ofkey management infrastructure will be available for review. Everypilot is currently using key recovery data, with a database thathas the key encrypted. The end users will always have accessto their key. Efforts are also in place to provide a means toaccess an individual's information while absent. Privacy andsecurity issues need to be considered when providing this solution.
Concerns from the AC members revolvedaround where the keys were going to be kept and how secure theywould be. Also raised was how limits will be put on those whodo have access to keys and how to keep them from entering othersecure portions of the network. There was a recommendation thatan audit trail be used to monitor activity while using these keys. Another concern was for the view of forcing key encryption onthe private sector. Finally, measurements of quality was raisedby the committee. There are no devices in place yet to determinethe satisfaction of users of the key recovery system.
Edfors referenced a web site witha live target date of April 23 that shows the design of the testbeds. For more information, please see http://gits-sec.dyniet.com/krdpsum.htm.
CIS Update
Dennis Steinauer gave a brief updateon the Collaboration in Internet Security (CIS) project. Thiscollaboration works in support and implementation of multiagencySecurity Testbeds, and includes participation by the Dept. ofEnergy (multiple labs), the Department of Defense/Army ResearchLab, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Institutesof Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,the National Science Foundation, the National Security Agency,and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. OtherFederal entities will participate indirectly through FNC outreachefforts. Academic and Private Sectors are also invited to participatein this pilot.
A minimum of two agencies are assignedto focus on one given area of security. There are five majorareas of research:
Workshops have been held at MIT,Oak Ridge National Lab, and Argonne National Lab. More informationabout this effort, including status reports submitted to GITS,can be found at http://www.fnc.gov/cis_page.html.
ACTION ITEMS:
Resolutions:
The FNCAC endorses the IAB andIESG "Statement on Cryptographic technology and the Internet" of July 24,1996, as published as RFC 1984, with the exceptionof the language on complete and unlimited export of all cryptographictechnology, This exception is a complex issue which brings intoplay multiple social objectives and which requires further consideration. While it may be appropriate for national policy to limit thedeployment of Federal production systems or exported private systems,it is inappropriate to constrain research or experimentation onsecurity or privacy technologies.
8. Education & Training
a. Universal Service: E-rate
Linda Roberts, Department of Education
Linda Roberts of the Department ofEducation summarized their national plan which revolves aroundfour specific goals:
Thanks was extended to NSF for providingpowerful software to the educational community which has helpedin the rapid growth of new web sites.
Roberts reviewed the current initiativesin which the Dept. of Education is participating. Currently thereis a plan to secure 4.5 million dollars from the Technology LiteracyChallenge Fund to fund this year's activities, which would befacilitated by the submission of supporting agreements by all50 states. These agreements would be submitted within the nexttwo months. This year's funding will also come from the FCC inthe form of 2.25 billion dollars a year as part of their growingUniversal Service Fund. Technology Innovation Challenge Grantswill be increasing from 57 million dollars in 1997 to 75 milliondollars in 1998. There is also a third fund that supports theupgrading of the internal networks, electrical systems, and buildingof new schools with the latest technology in networks.
Roberts also reviewed the statusof the current educational situation within the United States'K-12 schools. There is growing concern about the high turnoverof teachers in this country. Within the next five years, 2 millionof a required 3 million teachers will be new.
An immediate need for all studentsis Internet access. Currently, only 65% of America's schools,mostly in rural areas or large cities, have Internet access. Alarge number of the schools in the Midwest do not have connectivity. There was also a question as to how many students have Internetaccess at home. Roberts indicated that this information was notavailable, but speculates that the number is low. According toa recent study, the value of this technology is high for all incomelevels and efforts are being made to make computers availableto all children.
One effort in particular is the computerdonation program, established to help companies donate their olddesktop computers and servers for school use. However, thesecomputers usually require significant repair and updated software. This requires technical support that is usually not availableto most schools. Without the availability of this added support,motivation to move forward is taken away. The computers are thennot used and those that were once willing to help have lost faithin getting any assistance in making the computers operational.
This brings to light a major concernthat there is no mechanism in place to implement the proliferationof computers in the world of education. In San Diego, a requestwas submitted to train teachers to install software and providetechnical support. The request was approved, but the money wasnot provisioned out to the schools. Moreover, when the computersand software are delivered to the schools, there is no followthrough with the installation of this new equipment.
The Technology Innovation ChallengeGrant Program is making significant progress. Roberts complementedthe work of the Program for developing and refining new applicationsof technology that make significant contributions to school improvement. This program runs testbeds that generate new learning applicationsand proven practices that may be successfully used in schoolsand communities. Since 1995, the Program has implemented 43 projectsin 26 states. The average grant is one million dollars per yearfor five years. This program has over 850 Partners includingschool districts, local business, universities, and governmentagencies, as well as other local institutions. This program receivedover 500 applications last year and 21 were awarded grants.
Anticipation of a final ruling fromthe FCC is expected in May for the Joint Board Decision. TheJoint Board Decision will be a very powerful tool for the worldof Education by providing significant discounts on a sliding scalefor all schools and libraries for telecommunications services,Internet access and internal connections.
Roberts reported that NetDay 96 (http://www.netday96.com)was a vast success. With the participation of 250,000 volunteers,over 25,000 schools were wired. All fifty states, including theDistrict of Columbia, participated in the event.
Roberts also mentioned that the Twenty-FirstCentury Teachers, a nationwide volunteer initiative encouraging100,000 teachers to work with their colleagues to develop newskills for using technology in their teaching and learning activities,is not working as planned. There seems to be lack of motivationon the part of the teachers to train 5 other colleagues.
Finally, Roberts reviewed goals forthe future of Education. She suggests school districts beginmaking political stands for education, as some have already begunto do. Furthermore, in the School Construction Bill, a recommendationfor a change in language has been suggested to include the descriptionof a specific type of wiring to be installed in schools and thata federal guideline for this be implemented.
Jim McConaughey, NTIA
Jim McConaughey of NTIA reviewedtheir current status in universal service and its focus on thepublic interest. In 1934, the Communications Act was passed statingthat "communications services are to be provided for everyperson in the United States….with adequate facilities atreasonable charges." At this time, the U.S. holds third placefor making telephone lines available to its population. In 1996,the average annual percentage of households with telephones was93.9%, which is up from the 1984 percentage of 91.6%. For thosewith incomes under $5,000, the percentage was only 75.6%.
McConaughey feels a redefinitionof the Universal Telecommunications Service (UTS) is needed. These changes are needed due to the vitality of information asan economic resource and a source of individual empowerment. As well, there is the ongoing technological changes with the convergenceof computers and communications, plus deployment of high capacity,digital transmission facilities.
The National Information Infrastructure(NII) initiative was mentioned and noted the significant progressit has made to include Universal Service. There is currentlya 50 billion dollar private investment annually in the telecommunicationsinfrastructure. This initiative is opening countless doors toa successful future through higher productivity and new productsand services. This will bring high-skilled and better payingjobs, economic growth, and an increase in the standard of living. Moreover, there will be new educational opportunities, expandedmedical applications, and community empowerment. The percentageof U.S. households with a computer is growing, but the question,as noted by AC members, is "what percentage of homes haveconnectivity?" This is the current focus of the NII.
There have now been new UniversalService criteria established with four major points. UniversalService is:
Also, there is another section whichentails "special services." This section says thatthe commission may designate additional support services for schools,libraries, and health care providers. These services will bemade available to:
Through this new service, the FCCshall establish competitive neutral rules to enhance technicallyfeasible and economically reasonable access to advanced telecommunicationsand information services for all public and non-profit K-12 classrooms,health care providers, and libraries. Elementary, secondary schools,and libraries will receive any "universal services"at rates less than the amounts charged for similar services toother parties from all telecom carriers. These carriers willreceive reimbursement or an offset to their universal serviceobligations. In addition to this, there are two other sectionsthat specify new "services." First, Sec 706 statesthat the FCC and each PSC will strive to keep their networks updatedwith the latest available technology in particular to all educationalfacilities. Secondly, in Sec 708, there is note of the "creationof the National Education Technology Funding Corporation to leverageresources and stimulate private investment in education technologyinfrastructure, such as interactive high capacity networks, andpromote innovative technology-based learning through loans, grants,and other assistance to States."
McConaughey gave a brief overviewof the Joint Board Decision in CC Docket 96-45, and its recommendationswith respect to schools and libraries to provide:
McConaughey went on to quote PresidentClinton in his various speeches to the public addressing the needfor connectivity for every classroom and home, and the value oftechnology to every American. There is an ever growing need fortechnology according to recent studies presented by McConaughey. By the year 2000, 6 out of 10 new jobs will require computerskills. There are also signs of a great deal of public support. 2/3 of Americans are willing to pay an extra $18/month to ensurethat K-12 students have access to a PC. This support is expressedagain through strong support of connecting libraries with onlineservices so that those without access at home may use these services.
Following this, McConaughey wenton to present findings from the NCES Survey of Advanced Telecommunicationsin U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1996. Thesefindings showed that 65% of public schools have access to theInternet - but only 14% of all instructional rooms. Out of this65% of schools, only 20% of the teachers use advanced telecommunicationsfor teaching. The barriers that are keeping these numbers loware funding, too few access points in the buildings, difficultaccess to telecommunication equipment, and a general lack of goodequipment overall.
A second survey was conducted bythe NCLIS's of U.S. Public Libraries and the Internet. This surveyfound that only 45% of public libraries have access to the Internet,with 28% allowing their users to directly access the Internetthrough public terminals. These libraries are only serving 45%of the U.S. population. The largest barriers for libraries havingaccess were found to be the cost of communication, state and federalfunding, and staff time.
McConaughey also provided a briefingon the general plans for the future. The Administration is goingto continue to promote Clinton's goals for technology in education,as outlined below:
Furthermore, McConaughey recommendsa long term national strategy that provides a means for electronicaccess for all Americans. This new strategy, at least for aninterim period, should also include educational and communitystructures providing access. Public-private partnerships willcontinue to play a vital role in advancing these goals as well.
In closing, McConaughey mentionedthat the telecommunications industry is being effected by tremendouseconomic, technological, and social forces in the U.S. and abroad. This can be seen by the evolving policy perspectives in the CommunicationsAct started almost 60 years ago. As well, policy makers believethat competition, global competitiveness, and universal serviceare not incompatible. With schools and libraries playing a criticalrole, they are the ones that are going to educate our studentsand create a more skilled labor force. This will make the U.S.a competitive player in the information industry, and effectivecompetition can drive down costs and prices and spur innovation.
b. Professional Internet/InformationEducation
John Cavallini of DynCorp discussedsome current efforts in Information Technology Education by the"Power Tools" partners, a group of federal agencies/labsand industry representatives working to improve US economic competitivenessthrough a better vocational training work force and to accelerateapplication of network information technology in public education. There are an estimated 15,000 high tech job openings in the WashingtonD.C. area alone, and few qualified candidates available to fillthese positions. ITAA studies indicate 190,000 current openingsnationwide and that IT employment will double to 5 million workersover the next 5 years. The education community appears leastable to compete for qualified IT candidates.
In order to fulfill these goals,a strategy has been implemented. Vocational schools will be askedto participate in order to help them achieve sustainability. Teachers and students alike will be engaged to generate enthusiasmby using mentors, lab partners, hosting apprenticeships, and summerCo-ops. Partnerships and alliances will be established to promoteintegration in Federal labs, state school systems, and specialindustries. There will also be efforts to implement trainingfor lab and vocational curricula and for using multimedia Internettechnology to evaluate and address the skill sets needed. Itis hoped that advanced information equipment will be deployedinto schools, but the concern there is that a mechanism is neededto maintain this equipment.
What the Power Tools Partners areasking of the FNCAC is an endorsement of both the need expressedabove and an endorsement of their concept of using higher technologies,not a specific project. The Power Tools partners will providean integrated national sustainable model, an evaluation of Internettools used in dozens of schools districts, and the developmentof skill sets and certifications.
Connie Stout (TENET) gave a short presentationto the group on the network training needs of educators, especiallyin the K12 arena. Currently, teachers cannot access a singlesource for their training needs and Federal assistance in thisarea has been random. For example, there are hundreds of studiesperformed on the issue of training K12 educators but this informationis not being disseminated to the community for their use. Whenstates provide greater overall training assistance, they findthat a higher percentage of K12 teachers and students have anduse network access. There was a request that the AC hold a workinggroup for the K-12 sector to determine what information technologyactivities and projects are being implemented to ensure that informationregarding these programs is reaching the appropriate audiences.
One example of K12 use of networktechnology Stout cited was in the area of intellectual propertyand textbooks on the Internet. Developing and using this resourceraises multiple questions, from how to charge for a "virtual"textbook, to protecting the intellectual property of the textbookauthors. Several groups and states are studying this issue, anda report on this subject will be distributed to the FNCAC whenit is completed.
9. Wrap-up and Action Plan
Update on Intellectual PropertyStudy
Carol Henderson reported on the progressof the Intellectual Property study proposed by the FNCAC and plannedby the National Research Council. Currently, NSF Information,Robotics, and Intelligent Systems (IRIS) group is taking the leadin securing funding for the study. Henderson reported that thepeer review of the NRC proposal is underway and further actionwith regard to funding was not required from the FNC AdvisoryCommittee. To hasten the project, though, the FNCAC can providenames of researchers to the NRC.
General Business
Sid Karin concluded the FNCAC meetingby stating that use of Internet resources for education and trainingwould be a focus of the next FNCAC meeting. This meeting wouldprovide an opportunityto work with current efforts/programin this area.
The next meeting of the FNCAC istentatively scheduled for October 14 and 15.
The meeting was adjourned.