doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 731 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1192.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1192.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3da359d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1192.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,731 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Working Group                           B. Kahin, Editor
+Request for Comments: 1192                                       Harvard
+                                                           November 1990
+
+
+                   Commercialization of the Internet
+                            Summary Report
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo is based on a workshop held by the Science, Technology and
+   Public Policy Program of the John F. Kennedy School of Government,
+   Harvard University, March 1-3, 1990.
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify any standard.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Introduction
+
+   "The networks of Stages 2 and 3 will be implemented and operated so
+   that they can become commercialized; industry will then be able to
+   supplant the government in supplying these network services."  --
+   Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee, Program Plan for
+   the National Research and Education Network, May 23, 1989, pp. 4-5.
+
+   "The NREN should be the prototype of a new national information
+   infrastructure which could be available to every home, office and
+   factory.  Wherever information is used, from manufacturing to high-
+   definition home video entertainment, and most particularly in
+   education, the country will benefit from deployment of this
+   technology....  The corresponding ease of inter-computer
+   communication will then provide the benefits associated with the NREN
+   to the entire nation, improving the productivity of all information-
+   handling activities.  To achieve this end, the deployment of the
+   Stage 3 NREN will include a specific, structured process resulting in
+   transition of the network from a government operation a commercial
+   service."  -- Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal
+   High Performance Computing Program, September 8, 1989, pp. 32, 35.
+
+   "The National Science Foundation shall, in cooperation with the
+   Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of
+   Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and
+   other appropriate agencies, provide for the establishment of a
+   national multi-gigabit-per-second research and education computer
+   network by 1996, to be known as the National Research and Education
+   Network, which shall:
+
+        (1) link government, industry, and the education
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+        community;
+             ....
+             (6) be established in a manner which fosters and
+        maintains competition and private sector investment in high
+        speed data networking within the telecommunications
+        industry;
+             ....
+             (8) be phased out when commercial networks can meet the
+        networking needs of American researchers."
+
+   -- S. 1067, 101st Congress, 2nd Session, as marked up April 3, 1990
+   ["High-Performance Computing Act of 1990"], Title II, Section 201.
+
+Background
+
+   This report is based on a workshop held at the John F. Kennedy School
+   of Government, Harvard University March 1-3, 1990, by the Harvard
+   Science, Technology and Public Policy Program.  Sponsored by the
+   National Science Foundation and the U.S.  Congress Office of
+   Technology Assessment, the workshop was designed to explore the
+   issues involved in the commercialization of the Internet, including
+   the envisioned National Research and Education Network (NREN).
+   Rather than recapitulate the discussion at the workshop, this report
+   attempts to synthesize the issues for the benefit of those not
+   present at the workshop.  It is intended for readers familiar with
+   the general landscape of the Internet, the NSFNET, and proposals and
+   plans for the NREN.
+
+   At the workshop, Stephen Wolff, Director of the NSF Division of
+   Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure,
+   distinguished "commercialization" and "privatization" on the basis of
+   his experience developing policy for the NSFNET.  He defined
+   commercialization as permitting commercial users and providers to
+   access and use Internet facilities and services and privatization as
+   the elimination of the federal role in providing or subsidizing
+   network services.  In principle, privatization could be achieved by
+   shifting the federal subsidy from network providers to users, thus
+   spurring private sector investment in network services.  Creation of
+   a market for private vendors would in turn defuse concerns about
+   acceptable use and commercialization.
+
+Commercialization and Privatization
+
+   Commercialization.  In the past, many companies were connected to the
+   old ARPANET when it was entirely underwritten by the federal
+   government.  Now, corporate R&D facilities are already connected to,
+   and are sometimes voting members of, mid-level networks.  There are
+   mail connections from the Internet to commercial services such as
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   MCIMAIL, SprintMail, and Compuserve.  DASnet provides a commercial
+   mail gateway to and from the Internet and commercial mail services.
+   UUNET, a nonprofit corporation, markets TCP/IP services (Alternet)
+   with access to the Internet as well as mail services.  Performance
+   Systems International (PSI), a startup company which now operates
+   NYSERNET (the New York State regional network, partially funded by
+   NSF) is aggressively marketing Internet-connected TCP/IP services on
+   the East and West Coasts.  RLG is selling access to its RLIN database
+   over the Internet directly to end users.  Other fee-based services
+   include Clarinet, a private news filtering service, and FAST, a non-
+   profit parts brokering service.  However, in all these cases, any use
+   of the NSFNET backbone must, in principle, support the "purpose of
+   the NSFNET."
+
+   Under the draft acceptable use policy in effect from 1988 to mid-
+   1990, use of the NSFNET backbone had to support the purpose of
+   "scientific research and other scholarly activities."  The interim
+   policy promulgated in June 1990 is the same, except that the purpose
+   of the NSFNET is now "to support research and education in and among
+   academic institutions in the U.S. by access to unique resources and
+   the opportunity for collaborative work."  Despite this limitation,
+   use of the NSFNET backbone has been growing at 15-20% per month or
+   more, and there are regular requests for access by commercial
+   services.  Even though such services may, directly or indirectly,
+   support the purposes of the NSFNET, they raise prospects of
+   overburdening network resources and unfair competition with private
+   providers of network services (notably the public X.25 packet-
+   switched networks, such as SprintNet and Tymnet).
+
+   Privatization.  In some respects, the Internet is already
+   substantially privatized.  The physical circuits are owned by the
+   private sector, and the logical networks are usually managed and
+   operated by the private sector.  The nonprofit regional networks of
+   the NSFNET increasingly contract out routine operations, including
+   network information centers, while retaining control of policy and
+   planning functions.  This helps develop expertise, resources, and
+   competition in the private sector and so facilitates the development
+   of similar commercial services.
+
+   In the case of NSFNET, the annual federal investment covers only a
+   minor part of the backbone and the regional networks.  Although the
+   NSFNET backbone is operated as a cooperative agreement between NSF
+   and Merit, the Michigan higher education network, NSF contributes
+   less than $3 million of approximately $10 million in annual costs.
+   The State of Michigan Strategic Fund contributes $1 million and the
+   balance is covered by contributed services from the subcontractors to
+   Merit, IBM and MCI.
+
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   At the regional level, NSF provides approximately 40% of the
+   operating costs of the mid-level networks it funds -- with the
+   remainder covered by membership and connection fees, funding from
+   state governments, and in-kind contributions.  This calculation does
+   not include a number of authorized networks (e.g., PREPnet, and,
+   until recently, NEARnet and CERFnet) that receive no NSF funding.
+   However, NSF also funds institutional connections to the NSFNET,
+   which includes payments by the institution to the regional network.
+   Other agencies (DOD, NASA, and DOE) have also funded some connections
+   to NSFNET networks for the benefit of their respective research
+   communities -- and have occasionally funded the networks directly.
+
+   Finally, the campus-level networks at academic institutions probably
+   represent a perhaps 7-10 times larger annual investment than the
+   mid-level networks and the backbone together, yet there is no federal
+   funding program at this level.  Furthermore, since these local
+   networks must ordinarily be built by the institution rather than
+   leased, there is an additional capitalization cost incurred by the
+   institutions, which, annualized and aggregated, is perhaps another
+   20-50 times the annual costs of the mid-level and backbone networks.
+   (These figures are the roughest of estimates, intended only for
+   illustration.)
+
+The NSFNET Backbone as a Free Good
+
+   Whereas the NSF funding of mid-level networks varies greatly -- from
+   0% to 75% -- the backbone is available as a free good to the NSF-
+   funded mid-level networks.  It is also used free of charge by other
+   authorized networks, including networks not considered part of
+   NSFNET: CSNET, BITNET, UUNET, and PSI, as well as the research
+   networks of other federal agencies.  As noted, their use of the
+   backbone is in principle limited to the support of academic research
+   and education.
+
+   Through their use of the NSFNET backbone, these networks appear to be
+   enjoying a subsidy from NSF -- and from IBM, MCI, and the State of
+   Michigan.  BITNET and some agency networks even use the backbone for
+   their internal traffic.  Nonetheless, these other networks generally
+   add value to NSFNET for NSFNET users and regional networks insofar as
+   all networks benefit from access to each other's users and resources.
+
+   However, small or startup networks generally bring in fewer network-
+   based resources, so one side may benefit more than the other.  To the
+   extent that the mail traffic is predominantly mailing lists (or other
+   information resources) originating on one network, questions of
+   imbalance and implicit subsidy arise.  For example, because of the
+   mailing lists available without charge on the Internet, three times
+   as much traffic runs over the mail gateway from the Internet to
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   MCIMAIL as from MCIMAIL to the Internet.  This pattern is reinforced
+   by the sender-pays fee structure of MCIMAIL, which discourages
+   mailing list distribution from within MCIMAIL.
+
+   The impact of such imbalances is not clear.  For now, the capacity of
+   the NSFNET backbone is staying ahead of demand: It jumped from 56
+   Kbps to 1.544 Mbps (T-1) in 1988 and will go to 45 Mbps over the next
+   year.  But NSF is concerned about a possible recurrence of the
+   congestion which drove users off the NSFNET prior to the 1988
+   upgrade.  Given the tripling of campus-level connections over the
+   past year, continued growth in users at each site, the parade of new
+   resources available over the network, and, especially, the
+   development of high-bandwidth uses, there is reason to fear that
+   demand may again overwhelm capacity.
+
+   Offering the NSFNET backbone at no cost to authorized networks both
+   encourages undisciplined use of the backbone and inhibits private
+   investment in backbone networks.  It constrains the development of a
+   market for commercial TCP/IP services by diverting an established and
+   rapidly growing user base to a subsidized resource.  Charging NSFNET
+   regionals and other mid-level networks for the use of the NSFNET
+   backbone would resolve this problem, but this would impose a
+   substantial cost burden on the mid-level networks, which would in
+   turn have to raise membership and connection fees dramatically.  To
+   compensate, the NSF subsidy that now underwrites the backbone could
+   be moved down the distribution chain to the users of the backbone --
+   i.e., to the regional networks, to the campuses, or even to
+   researchers themselves.
+
+   Each option poses unique opportunities and problems.  In theory, the
+   further down the chain the subsidy is pushed, the more accountable
+   providers will be to end-user needs.  Funding in hands of researchers
+   would make universities more responsive to researchers' networking
+   needs.  Funding in the hands of universities would in turn make
+   regional networks more responsive and competitive.  And funds for
+   regional networks would spur a general market for backbone services.
+   But the mechanisms for expressing user demand upward through these
+   tiers are imperfect.  And, from an administrative standpoint, it is
+   easier for NSF to simply provide one free backbone to all comers --
+   rather than deal with 25 mid-level networks, or 500 universities, or
+   perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of individual researchers.
+
+Option: Funding Researchers
+
+   It would be possible to earmark funds for network services in agency
+   research grants as a matter of course, so that no new administrative
+   process would be required.  But since network costs are presently not
+   usage based, such funding will not readily translate into
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   identifiable services and may simply end up in local overhead
+   accounts since few institutions allocate out costs of access to the
+   Internet.  The use of vouchers rather than cash add-ons might help
+   ensure that federal resources are in fact applied to qualifying wide
+   area network services -- and possibly avoid the imposition of
+   standard institutional overhead on direct funding.  However, if
+   vouchers can be sold to other institutions, as economists would
+   advocate in the interests of market efficiency, these advantages may
+   be compromised.  Even non-transferable vouchers may create a unique
+   set of accounting problems for both funding agencies and
+   institutional recipients.
+
+   A federal subsidy channeled automatically to research grants could
+   substantially limit or segregate the user community.  It would tend
+   to divide the academic community by exacerbating obvious divisions
+   between the resource-rich and resource-poor -- between federally
+   funded researchers and other researchers, between scientists and
+   faculty in other disciplines, and between research and education.
+   Within the academic community, there is considerable sentiment for
+   providing basic network services out of institutional overhead to
+   faculty and researchers in all disciplines, at least as long as basic
+   services remain unmetered and relatively low at the institutional
+   level.  Of course, special costing and funding may well make sense
+   for high-bandwidth usage-sensitive network services (such as remote
+   imaging) as they become available in the future.
+
+Option: Funding Institutions
+
+   Alternatively, funding for external network services, whether in the
+   form of cash or vouchers, could be provided directly to institutions
+   without linking it directly to federal research funding.  As it is,
+   institutions may apply for one-time grants to connect to regional
+   networks, and these are awarded based on peer assessment of a number
+   of different factors, not just the quality of the institution's
+   research.  But redirecting the subsidy of the backbone could provide
+   regular support at the institutional level in ways that need not
+   involve peer review.  For example, annual funding might be tied to
+   the number of PhD candidates within specific disciplines -- or to all
+   degrees awarded in science.  Geographic location could be factored in
+   -- as could financial need.  This, of course, would amount to an
+   entitlement program, a rarity for NSF.  Nonetheless, it would allow
+   institutions to make decisions based on their own needs -- without
+   putting NSF in the position of judging among competing networks,
+   nonprofit and for-profit.
+
+   There are, however, questions about what sort of services the
+   earmarked funding or vouchers could be used for.  Could they be used
+   to pay the institution's BITNET fee?  Or a SprintNet bill?  Or to
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   acquire modems?  For information services?  And, if so, what sort?
+   Such questions force the funding agency to assume a kind of
+   regulatory in an environment where competing equities, demonstrated
+   need, technological foresight, and politics must be constantly
+   weighed and juggled.
+
+Option: Funding Regional Networks
+
+   Shifting the subsidy to the regional networks is appealing in that it
+   appears to be the least radical alternative and would only require
+   allocating funds among some two dozen contenders.  Since most of the
+   regional networks are already receiving federal funding, it would be
+   relatively simple to tack on funds for the purchase of backbone
+   services.  However, providing additional funding at this level
+   highlights the problem of competition among mid-level networks.
+
+   Although most regional networks are to some degree creatures of NSF,
+   funded to ensure the national reach of NSFNET, they do not hold
+   exclusive geographic franchises, and in some areas, there is
+   competition between regionals for members/customers.  NSF grants to
+   regional networks, by their very size, have an effect of unleveling
+   the playing field among regionals and distorting competitive
+   strengths and weaknesses.
+
+   Alternet and PSI further complicate the picture, since there is no
+   clear basis for NSF or other agencies to discriminate against them.
+   The presence of these privately funded providers (and the possibility
+   of others) raises difficult questions about what network services the
+   government should be funding: What needs is the market now capable of
+   meeting?  And where will it continue to fail?
+
+   Experience with regulation of the voice network shows that it is
+   inefficient to subsidize local residential service for everybody.  If
+   one is concerned about people dropping off the voice network -- or
+   institutions not getting on the Internet -- the answer is to identify
+   and subsidize those who really need help.  The market-driven
+   suppliers of TCP/IP-based Internet connectivity are naturally going
+   after those markets which can be wired at a low cost per institution,
+   i.e., large metropolitan areas, especially those with a high
+   concentration of R&D facilities, such as Boston, San Francisco, and
+   Washington, DC.  In the voice environment, this kind of targeted
+   marketing by unregulated companies is widely recognized as cream-
+   skimming.
+
+   Like fully regulated voice common carriers (i.e., the local exchange
+   carriers), the non-profit NSF-funded regional networks are expected
+   to serve all institutions within a large geographic area.  In areas
+   with few R&D facilities, this will normally result in a
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   disproportionately large investment in leased lines.  Either remote
+   institutions must pay for the leased line to the nearest network
+   point of presence -- or the network must include the leased line as
+   part of common costs.  If the regional network assumes such costs, it
+   will not be price-competitive with other more compact networks.
+
+   Accordingly, a subsidy redirected to the regional networks could be
+   keyed to the density of the network.  This might be calculated by
+   number of circuit miles per member institution or some form of
+   aggregate institutional size, figured for either the network as a
+   whole or for a defined subregion.  This subsidy could be available to
+   both for-profit and non-profit networks, but only certain non-profit
+   networks would meet the density requirement, presumably those most in
+   need of help.
+
+Increasing the Value of the Connection
+
+   The principal advantage in underwriting the backbone is that it
+   provides a evenhanded, universal benefit that does not involve NSF in
+   choosing among competing networks.  By increasing the value of
+   belonging to a regional network, the backbone offers all attached
+   networks a continuing annual subsidy commensurate with their size.
+
+   Increased value can also derived from access to complementary
+   resources -- supercomputer cycles, databases, electronic newsletters,
+   special instruments, etc. -- over the network.  Like direct funding
+   of backbone, funding these resources would induce more institutions
+   to join regional networks and to upgrade their connections.  For
+   example, where a database already exists, mounting it on the network
+   can be a very cost-effective investment, increasing the value of the
+   network as well as directly benefiting the users of the database.
+
+   Commercial information services (e.g., Dialog, Orbit, Lexis) may
+   serve this function well since they represents resources already
+   available without any public investment.  Marketing commercial
+   services to universities over the Internet is permissible in that it
+   supports academic research and education (although the guidelines
+   state that such commercial uses "should be reviewed on a case-by-case
+   basis" by NSF).
+
+   But to date there has been remarkably little use of the regional
+   networks, let alone the NSFNET backbone, to deliver commercial
+   information services.  In part, this is because the commercial
+   services are unaware of the opportunities or unsure how to market in
+   this environment and are concerned about losing control of their
+   product.  It is also due to uneasiness within the regional networks
+   about usage policies and reluctance to compete directly with public
+   packet-switched networks.  However, for weak regional networks, it
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   may be necessary to involve commercial services in order to attract
+   and hold sufficient membership -- at least if NSF subsidies are
+   withdrawn.  Without a critical mass of users, commercialization may
+   need to precede privatization.
+
+Impact of Removing NSF Subsidy from the Backbone
+
+   Any shift to a less direct form of subsidy may cause some disocation
+   and distress at the regional network level -- until the benefits
+   begin to be felt.  No regional network has yet folded, and no
+   institution has permanently dropped its connection to a regional
+   network as a consequence of higher prices, but concerns about the
+   viability of some regionals would suggest that any withdrawal of
+   subsidy proceed in phases.
+
+   Moreover, as the NSF subsidy vanishes, the operation of the backbone
+   becomes a private concern of Merit, the Michigan Strategic Fund, IBM,
+   and MCI.  While Merit and the Michigan Strategic Fund are more or
+   less public enterprises within the state, they are essentially
+   private entrepreneurs in the national operation of a backbone
+   network.  Without NSF's imprimatur and the leveraging federal funds,
+   the remaining parties are much less likely to treat the backbone as a
+   charity offering and may well look to recovering costs and using
+   revenues to expand service.
+
+   The backbone operation could conceivably become either a nonprofit or
+   for-profit utility.  While nonprofit status might be more appealing
+   to the academic networking community now served by the backbone, it
+   is not readily apparent how a broadly representative nonprofit
+   corporation, or even a cooperative, could be constituted in a form
+   its many heterogeneous users would embrace.  A non-profit
+   organization may also have difficulty financing rapid expansion of
+   services.  At the same time, the fact that it will compete with
+   private suppliers may preclude recognition as a tax-exempt
+   organization -- and so its ability to reinvest retained earnings.
+
+   Operation of the backbone on a for-profit basis would attract private
+   investment and could be conducted with relative efficiency.  However,
+   given the dominant position of the backbone, a for-profit operation
+   could conceivably get entangled in complex antitrust, regulatory, and
+   political struggles.  A nonprofit organization is not immune from
+   such risks, but to the extent its users are represented in policy-
+   making, tensions are more likely to get expressed and resolved
+   internally.
+
+   The status of backbone or regional networks within the Internet is
+   entirely separate from the question of whether network services are
+   metered and charged on a usage basis.  Confusion in this regard stems
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                           [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   from the fact that the low-speed public data networks (SprintNet,
+   TymNet), which are sometimes seen as competitive to Internet
+   services, do bill on a connect-time basis.  However, these commercial
+   services use X.25 connection-based packet-switching -- rather than
+   the connectionless (datagram) TCP/IP packet-switching used on the
+   Internet.  Internet services could conceivably be billed on per-
+   packet basis, but the accounting overhead would be high and packets
+   do not contain information about individual users.  At bottom, this
+   is a marketing issue, and there is no evidence of any market for
+   metered services -- except possibly among very small users.  The
+   private suppliers, Alternet and PSI, both sell "pipes" not packets.
+
+Privatization by Function
+
+   As an alternative approach to encouraging privatization, Dr.  Wolff
+   suggested barring mature services such as electronic mail from the
+   subsidized network.  In particular, NSF could bar the mail and news
+   protocols, SMTP and NNTP, from the backbone and thereby encourage
+   private providers to offer a national mail backbone connecting the
+   regional networks.  Implementation would not be trivial, but it would
+   arguably help move the academic and research community toward the
+   improved functionality of X.400 standards.  It would also reduce
+   traffic over the backbone by about 30% -- although given continued
+   growth in traffic, this would only buy two months of time.
+
+   If mail were moved off the regional networks as well as off the
+   NSFNET backbone, this would relieve the more critical congestion
+   problem within certain regions.  But logistically, it would be more
+   complicated since it would require diverting mail at perhaps a
+   thousand institutional nodes rather than at one or two dozen regional
+   nodes.  Politically, it would be difficult because NSF has
+   traditionally recognized the autonomy of the regional networks it has
+   funded, and the networks have been free to adopt their own usage
+   guidelines.  And it would hurt the regional networks financially,
+   especially the marginal networks most in need of NSF subsidies.
+   Economies of scale are critical at the regional level, and the loss
+   of mail would cause the networks to lose present and potential
+   members.
+
+The National Research and Education Network
+
+   The initiative for a National Research and Education Network (NREN)
+   raises a broader set of policy issues because of the potentially much
+   larger set of users and diverse expectations concerning the scope and
+   purpose of the NREN.  The decision to restyle what was originally
+   described as a National Research Network to include education was an
+   important political and strategic step.  However, this move to a
+   broader purpose and constituency has made it all the more difficult
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                          [Page 10]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   to limit the community of potential users -- and, by extension, the
+   market for commercial services.  At the regional, and especially the
+   state level, public networking initiatives may already encompass
+   economic development, education at all levels, medical and public
+   health services, and public libraries.
+
+   The high bandwidth envisioned for the NREN suggests a growing
+   distance between resource-intensive high-end uses and wide use of
+   low-bandwidth services at low fixed prices.  The different demands
+   placed on network resources by different kinds of services will
+   likely lead to more sophisticated pricing structures, including
+   usage-based pricing for production-quality high-bandwidth services.
+   The need to relate such prices to costs incurred will in turn
+   facilitate comparison and interconnection with services provided by
+   commercial vendors.  This will happen first within and among
+   metropolitan areas where diverse user needs, such as
+   videoconferencing and medical imaging, combine to support the
+   development of such services.
+
+   As shown in Figures 1. and 2., the broadening of scope corresponds to
+   a similar generalization of structure.  The path begins with
+   mission-specific research activity organized within a single
+   computer.  It ends with the development of a national or
+   international infrastructure: a ubiquitous, orderly communications
+   system that reflects and addresses all social needs and market
+   demand, without being subject to artificial limitations on purpose or
+   connection.  There is naturally tension between retaining the
+   benefits of specialization and exclusivity and seeking the benefits
+   of resource-sharing and economies of scale and scope.  But the
+   development and growth of distributed computing and network
+   technologies encourage fundamental structures to multiply and evolve
+   as components of a generalized, heterogeneous infrastructure.  And
+   the vision driving the NREN is the aggregation and maturing of a
+   seamless market for specialized information and computing resources
+   in a common, negotiable environment.  These resources have costs
+   which are far greater than the NREN.  But the NREN can minimize the
+   costs of access and spread the costs of creation across the widest
+   universe of users.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                          [Page 11]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+Figure 1.  Generalization of Purpose:
+
+   Discipline-Specific Research            CSNET, HEPnet, MFEnet
+
+   General Research                        early NSFNET, "NRN"
+
+   Research and Education                  BITNET, present NSFNET,
+                                           early "NREN"
+
+   Quasi-Public                            many regional networks,
+                                           "NREN"
+
+   National Infrastructure                 "commercialized NREN"
+
+   _______________________________________________________________
+
+
+Figure 2. Generalization of Structure:
+
+   Computer                                time-sharing hosts
+
+   Network                                 early ARPANET
+
+   Internetwork                            ESNET, NSFNET (tiered)
+
+   Multiple Internetworks                  present Internet
+
+   Infrastructure                          "NREN"
+
+
+Workshop Participants
+
+   Rick Adams, UUNET
+   Eric Aupperle, Merit
+   Stanley Besen, RAND Corporation
+   Lewis Branscomb, Harvard University
+   Yale Braunstein, University of California, Berkeley
+   Charles Brownstein, National Science Foundation
+   Deborah Estrin, University of Southern California
+   David Farber, University of Pennsylvania
+   Darleen Fisher, National Science Foundation
+   Thomas Fletcher, Harvard University
+   Kenneth Flamm, Brookings Institution
+   Lisa Heinz, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment
+   Fred Howlett, AT&T
+   Brian Kahin, Harvard University
+   Robert Kahn, Corporation for National Research Initiatives
+   Kenneth King, EDUCOM
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                          [Page 12]
+
+RFC 1192           Commercialization of the Internet       November 1990
+
+
+   Kenneth Klingenstein, University of Colorado
+   Joel Maloff, CICNet
+   Bruce McConnell, Office of Management and Budget
+   Jerry Mechling, Harvard University
+   James Michalko, Research Libraries Group
+   Elizabeth Miller, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment
+   Eli Noam, New York State Public Service Commission
+   Eric Nussbaum, Bellcore
+   Peter O'Neil, Digital Equipment Corporation
+   Robert Powers, MCI
+   Charla Rath, National Telecommunications and Information
+                Administration, Department of Commerce
+   Ira Richer, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
+   William Schrader, Performance Systems International
+   Howard Webber, Digital Equipment Corporation
+   Allan Weis, IBM
+   Stephen Wolff, National Science Foundation
+
+Security Considerations
+
+   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Brian Kahin
+   Director, Information Infrastructure Project
+   Science, Technology & Public Program
+   John F. Kennedy School of Government
+   Harvard University
+
+   Phone:  617-495-8903
+
+   EMail:  kahin@hulaw.harvard.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kahin                                                          [Page 13]
+
\ No newline at end of file