The Science Subcommittee began its oversight of the implementation of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 by focusing on the establishment of the National Research and Education Network (NREN), which will evolve out of the current internet, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) NSFNET. The policy issues under discussion were: providing a level playing field for network services providers; ensuring that the network is responsive to user needs; providing for effective network management; determining the level of consultation that has occurred between the NSF, the network user, and provider communities during the course of developing the policies for governance and operation of the NSFNET backbone; and moving toward the long-term vision for the NREN, including the appropriate roles of the public and private sectors. Included in the hearing report are statements from Bob Traxler and Jerry F. Costello of the House Subcommittee on Science and testimony from the following witnesses: Eric Hood, Federation of American Research Networks and Northwestnet, Inc.; Douglas E. Van Houweling, Merit Network, Inc. and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Mitchell Kapor, Commercial Internet Exchange Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael M. Roberts, Educom; William L. Schrader, Performance Systems International, Inc. Also included are a statement by A. Nico Habermann and Stephen S. Wolff, National Science Foundation; the Subcommittee and Full Committee markups of H.R. 5344, Amendment to the NSF Act of 1950; and an additional statement submitted for the record by E. Michael Staman, CICNet. (ALF)

There remains a widespread perception among both the public and elements of academia that the Internet is “ungovernable”. However, this idea, as well as the notion that the Internet has become some type of cyber-libertarian utopia, is wholly inaccurate. Governments may certainly encounter tremendous difficulty in attempting to regulate the Internet, but numerous types of authority have nevertheless become pervasive. So who, then, governs the Internet? This book will contend that the Internet is, in fact, being governed, that it is being governed by specific and identifiable networks of policy actors, and that an argument can be made as to how it is being governed. This book will present a new conceptual framework for analysis that deconstructs the Internet into four policy “layers” with the aim of formulating a new political architecture that accurately maps out and depicts authority on the Internet today. Foremost, it will seek to draw a distinction between those actors who have a demonstrable policymaking authority versus those who merely wield influence. The book will then apply this four-layer model to an analysis of U.S. national cybersecurity policy, post-9/11. Ultimately, it will seek to determine the consequences of these political arrangements and governance policies.

The Science Subcommittee began its oversight of the implementation of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 by focusing on the establishment of the National Research and Education Network (NREN), which will evolve out of the current internet, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) NSFNET. The policy issues under discussion were: providing a level playing field for network services providers; ensuring that the network is responsive to user needs; providing for effective network management; determining the level of consultation that has occurred between the NSF, the network user, and provider communities during the course of developing the policies for governance and operation of the NSFNET backbone; and moving toward the long-term vision for the NREN, including the appropriate roles of the public and private sectors. Included in the hearing report are statements from Bob Traxler and Jerry F. Costello of the House Subcommittee on Science and testimony from the following witnesses: Eric Hood, Federation of American Research Networks and Northwestnet, Inc.; Douglas E. Van Houweling, Merit Network, Inc. and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Mitchell Kapor, Commercial Internet Exchange Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael M. Roberts, Educom; William L. Schrader, Performance Systems International, Inc. Also included are a statement by A. Nico Habermann and Stephen S. Wolff, National Science Foundation; the Subcommittee and Full Committee markups of H.R. 5344, Amendment to the NSF Act of 1950; and an additional statement submitted for the record by E. Michael Staman, CICNet. (ALF)

The purpose of the hearing transcribed in this document was to obtain the views of representatives of network user and provider communities regarding the path the National Science Foundation (NSF) is taking for recompetition of the NSFNET computer network. In particular the committee was interested in the consistency of the evolution of NSFNET with the goals and characteristics of the National Research and Education Network specified in the High Performance Computing Act. Another purpose of the hearing was to explore possible legislation that would expand the program into additional applications for broad public benefit, including education, teacher training, manufacturing technologies, medical imaging, and the creation of standards for the storage of data in digital libraries. Persons who offered testimony and prepared statements were: (1) Robert C. Heterick, Jr., EDUCOM; (2) Thomas J. Tauke, NYNEX; (3) Kenneth J. Klingenstein, University of Colorado at Boulder and Federation of American Research Networks; (4) Mitchell Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation; (5) Kenneth R. Kay, Computer Systems Policy Project; (6) Michael McDonald, Communications and Computer Applications in Public Health; (7) Sara A. Parker, Pennsylvania State libraries and representing the American Library Association; and (8) Charlie Bender, Coalition of Academic Supercomputer Centers. (KRN)