Patricia M. Cuocco Senior Director Information Tech. Policy & Analysis IRT 1:19 PM 3/28/97 The following white paper is submitted for consideration for the Workshop on Research Directions for the Next Generation Internet by, Dr. James M. Rosser President, California State University, Los Angeles 5151 State University Drive Los Angeles, CA 90032 213-343-3030 213-343-3039 jrosser@cslanet.calstatela.edu "To prepare America for the 21st century, we must harness the powerful forces of science and technology to benefit all Americans.....We must build the second generation of the Internet so that our leading universities and national laboratories can communicate in speeds a thousand times faster than today to develop new medical treatments, new sources of energy, new ways of working together." President Clinton, State of the Union Address, February 5th,1997 Emphasis Added Internet 2 is inherently exclusionary, based on: #183# Clinton's emphasis on "leading universities and national laboratories," suggesting that those who are "leading" (read: R1/R2) will be supported by the government in this effort. The remaining 3,500+ higher education institutions, much less K-12, are not mentioned and thus, it can be inferred, excluded. The proposed funding model directly bears this out. The proposal, as defined, states that academic research is being compromised and/or interfered with as a result of Internet congestion. This directly implies that Internet 2 is for academic researching purposes (although, as architected, all internet-style traffic for participating institutions will use the faster gigapop model). #183# There is a specific exclusionary rule built into Internet 2: "Can an I2 gigapop also provide similar services to non-I2 members, and perhaps even commercially? We have discussed this point at some length. Our conclusion is that the entity that provides connectivity among I2 members is a gigapop if and only if it meets the functional and operational conditions we specify below -- and does so without intentionally or accidentally providing I2 services -- especially inter-gigapop routing and transport -- to non-I2 applications or users." (emphasis added) #183# Internet 2 may obviate or interfere with existing standards: In attempting to provide a Quality of Service (QoS) standard, the discussion in the proposal (see 3.C.2) does not attempt to work with International or even National standards boards to define the QoS protocol and publication. It appears that the I2 participants will define the standard, irrespective of the effect on extant standards, and then expect the rest of higher education, and the world, to follow. #183# Internet 2 will establish a Quality of Service threshold wherein those who can afford it get the high quality and thus, as architected, reduces the quality of those below this threshold. "The more extreme the QoS requested, the more demanding it is of network resources, and the more disruptive a request is to other users. These costs of providing service must be clear enough to users so they are encouraged not to request any higher level of service than they need." (emphasis added) The National Information Infrastructure, which predates Internet 2 and established the overall direction of the U.S. Government vis a vis education was inclusionary and dealt with all institutions - K-12, Community College, State and Private Colleges and Universities and Graduate and Research Institutions. Nowhere within the Internet 2 proposal is there even reference to The NII, much less a strategy to integrate Internet 2 into all of education. The net result of Internet 2 will be the emergence of 2 networks: The R1/R2 institutions which can afford the massive capital expenditures to participate in Internet 2, and the rest of education, which will continue to operate on the "normal public" Internet. One of the stated purposes of Internet 2 is development of applications that can take advantage of the new speed and bandwidth. Once these applications are the basis for collegial and collaborative academic endeavors, only Internet 2 institutional researchers will be able to collaborate (The Internet was originally developed as a collaborative tool). This effect will go well beyond collaborative efforts. Those applications that are developed on Internet 2 will be unavailable to institutions in other countries and even to the very corporations who are sponsoring the research. The Government's role in the implementation of Internet 2 as drafted is to assist in the development without placing that development in a larger context. Rather than use tax dollars on the implementation of a technological structure that would create a clear line between the "have" and the "have-not" institutions, the Presidential Initiative should emphasize the development of the Internet 2 as an enabling technology for all education and ensure that Internet 2 is inclusionary and integrates with the NII. Not just to protect each segment's interest, but to perform a legitimate role in preserving the technological balance of power and to ensure there will not be the emergence of an information underclass. Specific policy recommendations include: Redirect Internet 2 to integrate into the NII #183# Restate Internet 2 mission to be inclusive and embrace NII #183# Establish concurrent activities in ensuring that the technology can be deployed throughout education #183# Prepare funding models for widespread post-implementation participation. Define educational policy framework for Internet 2 #183# Specify specific strategies to ensure that the future is not built on inequity #183# Broaden Internet 2 strategy to ensure that technology is broadly available. #183# Establish specific strategies to make Internet 2 technology available to all individuals in all aspects of education. Without this provision, individuals attending non-R1/R2 institutions will not have the appropriate education necessary to compete and work in today's ever- increasingly technology-based market. #183# Provide specific provisions to ensure that high participation and entry costs are relieved for all educational segments. Define public policy framework for Internet 2 #183# Develop a specific strategy to ensure that Internet-based applications can work with Internet 2 and vice versa. #183# Allow the marketplace to drive development of technical standards