[9311] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
what has NSF done to follow congressional AUP mandate?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Tue Dec 28 19:42:01 1993
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 00:41:06 GMT
To: com-priv@psi.com
A com-priv reader today said: We should get rid of the AUP because very few
people obey it ...
Steve Wolff Director of NSFnet replied:
We should get rid of the AUP when there is nothing left to which it applies,
OR when it's OK to use taxpayer money that's been given to the National
Science Foundation for the support of research and education, for other
purposes.
_________
As I told Steve Wolff in private mail last night I am really having difficulty
in understanding *where* his policy direction comes from. It would appear
that it doesn't come from Congress which is strange because Congress DOES
control NSF purse strings.
Lets talk about this sacred AUP Steve. Has the NSF updated it since June of
1992? I don't think so. I have a voice call into the InterNic (my first)
right now trying to find out. Should the NSF have updated it? YES.
Lets look at the appropriate paragraph from Mitch Kapor's Feb 2 1993
testimony before Boucher's Science Subcommitte.
Quote: "Eliminate AUP: Finish the job started last year
Chairman Boucher deserves special recognition for his leadership in drafting
House Resolution 5344, often referred to as the "AUP Bill " which passed into
law as part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act Fiscal Year 1993. [Pl 102-588] This measure will enable the National
Science Foundation to take
steps to allow the NSFNET, the Interim Interagency NREN) and the Internet as a
whole, to realize its full potential as an advanced information
infrastructure. As this Committee knows, a relaxed AUP is important to make
more information resources available on the network. Only through the
elimination of restrictive "Acceptable Use Policies" will the network services
supported by the National Science Foundation realize the goals outlined in
High Performance Computing Act of 1991. **Now, this Committee should ask why
the NSF has not yet acted to finally eliminate this rule.**"
Now Steve I'd say that's pretty direct language. The new legisaltion said
something like: *any* use that furthers the NSFnet's ability to support the
general goals of R&E is acceptable.
And yet, as far as I can determine, despite legal action from congress the NSF
has failed to change the AUP? You could have taken the exact language from
Boucher's ammendment to which Kapor refers above and substituted it for the
current AUP General Principle which says: "NSFnet Backbone Services are
provided to support open research and education in and among US research and
instructional institutions, plus research arms of for profit firms when
engaged in open scholarly communication and research. Use for other purposes
is not acceptable." May the readers of this list assume that if you had made
a major change to the AUP you would have told them so?
Let's see: Congress passes the Boucher Ammendment a year ago. Mitch Kapor
reminds Congress in February of this year that you had not yet acted and now
10 months later you still have apparently done nothing to follow Congressional
intent. Why?
Mitch Kapor called on the committee to ask you *why* you haven't gotten rid of
it. Did the committee call you? What did you tell them?
Why, after what certainly appears to be clear policy direction to the
contrary, are you still defending AUP this very afternoon to this mail list?
And since you have gotten this guidance from the Congress how about telling us
what you have done to follow it? For if not from Congress, which you have
cited as your reason for having to have an AUP in the first place, from where
do you get your policy direction?
