IP: FARNET's Washington Update 6/17/98

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> FARNET'S WASHINGTON UPDATE --- JUNE 17, 1998 
>
> FARNET (<http://www.farnet.org>http://www.farnet.org) is a non-profit public
> interest
> Internetworking organization with a primary focus on the education,
> research and related communities.
>
> IN THIS ISSUE:
>
> HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARS TESTIMONY ON FUTURE OF DNS; IANA PLANS TO
> EVOLVE INTO NEW NON-PROFIT DNS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
>
> CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE FORCES FCC TO SLASH E-RATE
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARS TESTIMONY OF FUTURE OF DNS; IANA PLANS TO
> EVOLVE INTO NEW NON-PROFIT DNS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
>
> In the wake of the Commerce Department's release of the White Paper on
> the Management of Internet Names and Addresses, the House Commerce
> subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection heard
> testimony last week from an eclectic group of panelists who shared their
> views on the future management of the domain name system (DNS). In his
> opening remarks, Commerce Chair Tom Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) stated that the
> stability of the Internet is crucial during any transformation, and
> expressed concern about the formation of the new non-profit corporation
> proposed by the White Paper.
>
> The White Paper provides little instruction for how this new non-profit
> managerial body is to be formed, other than to say it is a job for the
> private sector. It emphasizes that neither national governments, nor
> international organizations representing governments, should participate
> in the management of the DNS. 
>
> The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)(see
> <http://www.iana.org>http://www.iana.org),
> the organization currently under contract with the U.S. federal
> government to coordinate the Internet's numerical address system,
> apparently has plans to evolve into the DNS oversight body called for in
> the Commerce Department White Paper. A somewhat vague statement on plans
> for "the new IANA" is available at
> <http://www.iana.org/faqs.html>http://www.iana.org/faqs.html.
> According to the IANA statement, the Board of Directors of the new IANA
> non-profit would be determined by regional address registries, domain
> name registry organizations, the Internet Architecture Board, and
> organizations representing industry and the Internet user community. The
> IANA proposal further suggests the creation of four councils: three to
> oversee the current functions of IANA, and a fourth council to represent
> "the end user and industry."
>
> Although the Internet Society and the Internet Council of Registrars
> (CORE) have stated that they support IANA involvement in the DNS
> transition process, others have expressed concern that future DNS
> decisions will be left to a very select group of people. At the recent
> Commerce subcommittee hearing, Jay Fenello of Iperdome, Inc. (a company
> seeking to enter the Internet registry business) expressed his concern
> that "there appears to be a secret and coordinated attempt to take over
> Internet governance."
>
> The Internet Society has scheduled an Internet domain name summit to
> discuss the structure of "the new IANA" in conjunction with their annual
> conference (in Geneva on July 24-25). (For more information:
>
> <http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/980616pr.shtml>http://www.isoc.or
> g/isoc/media/releases/980616pr.shtml)  Closer to home,
> a group calling itself "The Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop" is
> hosting a
> conference near Washington, D.C. on July 1-2 to solicit views from various
> industry, legal and public sector
> interests on creating a model for the new DNS management entity.
> (<http://www.giaw.org>http://www.giaw.org) 
>
> For a related Update article: 
>
> <http://www.farnet.org/contents/update/1998/19980608.html>http://www.farne
> t.org/contents/update/1998/19980608.html
>
>
>
> CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE FORCES FCC TO SLASH E-RATE PROGRAM
>
> In a 3-2 vote Friday the FCC Commission ordered major changes to the
> schools and libraries universal service program, also known as the
> e-rate. The order freezes e-rate fund collection at current rates and
> cuts overall program funding by 40 percent.
>
> Initial reaction from Congress has not been complimentary, even (perhaps
> especially) from those who were most critical of the e-rate. Senate
> Commerce Chair Senator John McCain (R-AZ), one of the most prominent
> e-rate critics, stated that the FCC's compromise order will create a
> program with inadequate funding, keep administrative costs high, cause
> consumers telephone rates to increase, and endanger traditional
> universal service (such as the rural access/high cost funds). McCain's
> counterpart in the House, Rep. Tom Bliley (R-VA) was more direct: "the
> FCC blew it. Thanks to that agency and Vice President Gore, the American
> people - including less fortunate Americans - are stuck with higher
> phone rates."  
>
> Congressional anti-e-rate arguments such as Rep. Bliley's were given a
> boost a few weeks ago when AT&T announced, purportedly because of the
> e-rate, that it would add a 5 percent "universal service" surcharge to
> residential phone bills.  MCI made a similar announcement.  The FCC and
> other sources, however, have reported that about three-quarters of such
> a 5 percent surcharge would be attributable not to the recent e-rate
> program, but to other traditional, long-standing universal service
> subsidy programs.
>
> The two legislators responsible for the expansion of universal service
> in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 took a subdued approach. Sens.
> Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) stated: "It is
> disappointing that the FCC cut back this important program because of
> pressure from the companies." The Senators noted that the program is
> still moving forward, albeit at a slower pace. (See Telecom AM, 6/16/98
> <http://www.telecommunications.com/am/>http://www.telecommunications.com/am/)
>
> This latest FCC universal service order freezes the collection of funds
> from long distance carriers for the next four quarters at the current
> rate ($325 million per quarter). It sets funding for the 1998 E-rate
> program at $1.925 billion over a new 18-month funding cycle ending June
> 30, 1999.  Funding for the schools and libraries program will be
> assessed at no more than three-quarters of 1 percent of the telecom
> provider's revenues.
>
> In order to adhere to the changes in the funding schedule, the first USF
> funding cycle has been extended by six months through June 1999. The FCC
> anticipates that all 30,000 applications received during the 75-day
> equal opportunity window and approved for funding will be eligible to
> receive some support for telecommunication and Internet services for the
> entire 18 months. However, funding for internal connections will be
> prioritized, with those schools and libraries eligible for 80-90%
> discounts most likely to receive full funding. 
>
> Some members of Congress and the FCC have expressed concern that e-rate
> funds may not be properly used.  In a press release relating to the
> recent FCC decision, FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth questioned
> whether "expensive hardware and software for sophisticated computer
> networks" used for internal connections should be eligible for funding.
> Both he and Commissioner Powell have called for the suspension of the
> USF program until such issues are resolved.
>
> The FCC now anticipates that initial funds for the USF program will be
> available to schools and libraries by July or August, with funds for
> rural health care providers available later this year. The SLC
> anticipates accepting applications for the 1999 e-rate funding cycle by
> late fall, not July as originally planned.
>
> For more information on the FCC decision:
>
> <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981130.ht
> ml>http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981130.
> html
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update" is
> a service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers. We
> gratefully acknowledge EDUCOM'S NTTF and the Coalition for Networked
> Information (CNI) for additional support. If you would like more
> information about the Update or would like to offer comments or
> suggestions, please contact Garret Sern at
> <mailto:garret () farnet org>garret () farnet org.  
>
> Please note: due to server problems you might receive two copies of this
> edition of the Washington Update. We apologize for any duplicate postings.