FARNET's Washington Update 6/8/98

[Jeff Ogden]

FYI

  -Jeff

>Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 22:58:25 -0400
>To: legup@farnet.org
>From: Garret Sern <garret@farnet.org>
>Subject: FARNET's Washington Update 6/8/98
>
> FARNET'S WASHINGTON UPDATE --- JUNE 8, 1998
>
>FARNET (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:
>
>THE E-RATE IN PERIL
>
>CLINTON ADMINISTRATION RELEASES DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM POLICY STATEMENT; LEAVES
>DECISIONS TO NEW NON-PROFIT BOARD
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>
>THE E-RATE IN PERIL
>
>The schools and libraries universal service program (known as the e-rate)
>has suffered various sorts of criticism for some time, but a bipartisan
>congressional attack last week may pose the most serious threat yet.
>
>The root of the threat is a recent announcement by AT&T and MCI that their
>residential customers would soon see an additional surcharge of between 4
>and 5% on their bills, reportedly to cover the telcos' universal  service
>obligations. (see FARNET's June 2, 1998 Washington Update:
>http://www.farnet.org/contents/update/1998/19980602.html) (The FCC has
>stated that only about one quarter of the planned 4-5% surcharge is
>attributable to the schools and libraries program, with the rest of the
>charge caused by older, traditional USF programs such as the rural/high
>cost fund.)
>
>The residential surcharges have caused additional furor in a Congress that
>has been increasingly critical of the FCC's implementation of the program,
>particularly the administrative costs associated with the newly created
>Schools and Libraries Corporation (SLC). In a bipartisan letter sent to the
>FCC last week, the leadership of the House and Senate Commerce committees -
>Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI), Rep. Thomas J. Bliley (R-VA), Sen. John McCain
>(R-AZ), and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.)-levied harsh criticism on the
>agency. Their letter calls for the FCC to suspend the program and start
>over, asserting that the FCC has ignored Congress's priority to keep local
>telephone rates low.
>
>Chairman William Kennard issued a statement in response reaffirming his
>commitment to the e-rate: "Ending this effort is not in the best interest
>of the American public. We need to find a way to ensure that this  effort
>continues. I am committed to this." President Clinton also expressed  his
>ongoing support at a recent commencement address at MIT.
>
>Specifically, the FCC countered that the long-distance carriers are to
>blame; the agency has long argued that long-distance carriers have no
>financial need to pass their USF contribution costs on to the American
>consumer and that the savings they glean from reduced access charges offset
>their universal service contributions.
>
>The FCC is not without some congressional supporters. Sen. Bob Kerrey
>(D-NE) has joined the FCC in openly criticizing AT&T and MCI. Sen. Kerrey
>is also considering introducing legislation that would require the
>companies to post their profits on customers' bills.
>
>Some alternative methods of funding the schools and libraries program may
>be forthcoming from the FCC and Congress. The FCC is reportedly considering
>an approach that would allow local exchange carriers to collect USF funds
>directly through line-item charges on local bills, rather than through
>access charges on long-distance carriers. Another FCC proposal would raise
>rates for businesses and second phone lines for residential customers.
>Both Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), chair of the House Commerce
>Telecommunications subcommittee and his counterpart in the Senate Sen.
>Conrad Burns (R-MT) have recommended funneling money from the telephone
>excise tax to the schools and libraries program.
>
>As Congress and the FCC harangue over the future of the e-rate program,
>over 30,000 schools and libraries across the country are waiting for  the
>disbursement of over $2 billion worth of subsidies.  Many of them have
>expended significant resources during the application process over the past
>several months, and they are justifiably concerned.
>
>CLINTON ADMINISTRATION RELEASES DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM POLICY STATEMENT; LEAVES
>DECISIONS TO NEW NON-PROFIT BOARD
>
>On Friday the Clinton Administration finally released its long-awaited
>White Paper policy statement on the future of the Internet domain name
>system. The policy statement is much more hands-off than the previous Green
>Paper, leaving most significant decisions concerning the future of the
>domain name system to a non-profit international corporate board to be
>formed entirely by the private sector. The Administration hopes the board
>will be in place by October, 1998, and expects the transfer of all DNS
>management functions to be complete by October, 2000.
>
>According to Becky Burr, Associate Administrator for the National
>Telecommunications and Information Administration, the policy statement
>from the Administration "is really about the process by which this new
>entity would make decisions on DNS management, rather than the ultimate
>decisions to be made."
>
>Among the decisions handed to the new board:
>
>Creating new generic Top-Level Domain Names (gTLDs): Under the Green Paper
>released last January, the Administration endorsed the creation of five new
>gTLDs during the transition process. This task was to be undertaken by the
>U.S. government in conjunction with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
>(IANA), the organization that allocates actual numerical Internet
>addresses. The Administration changed its stance with the White Paper,
>stating that the stability of the Internet demands that the expansion  of
>gTLDs occur at a "deliberate and controlled pace." The Administration
>stated that "the new corporation would be the most appropriate body to make
>these decisions based on global input."
>
>Trademark Dispute Resolution: The Green Paper recognized the concerns of
>trademark holders that domain name registrants in other nations could
>infringe trademarks with little concern of legal recourse. In the White
>Paper, the Administration relies upon the World Intellectual Property
>Organization (WIPO) to recommend a dispute resolution system for trademarks
>and Internet domain names. The dispute resolution system would primarily be
>concerned with settling cybersquatting and cyberpiracy disputes, not
>trademark disputes between "two parties with legitimate competing interests
>in a particular mark." The Administration recommends that such pure
>trademark cases be decided by the appropriate court where the registry
>database is maintained.
>
>Promotion of DNS registration competition: The Green Paper expressed
>concern that the continued administration of gTLDs by Network  Solutions,
>Inc. (NSI) would give it an unfair advantage in a competitive registration
>marketplace. The original plan allowed NSI to continue administering  the
>gTLDs ".com", ".org", and ".net", but required NSI to provide the technical
>capacity for potential competitors to share this registration function.
>
>The White Paper calls upon NSI to recognize the authority of the new
>corporation and reiterates principles in the Green Paper by requiring NSI
>to make available the appropriate databases for shared registration of
>domain names.
>
>To view the Clinton Administration's White Paper on the Management of
>Internet Names and Addresses:
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>
>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 garret@farnet.org.
>