GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1746

Network Working Group B. Manning Request for Comments: 1746 ISI Category: Informational D. Perkins

                                                           Houston ISD
                                                         December 1994
                  Ways to Define User Expectations

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
 does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
 this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

 This paper covers basic fundamentals that must be understood when one
 defines, interprets, or implements methods to control user
 expectations on or over the Internet.

1. Background

 User agreements are a form of acceptable use policy (AUP) are an
 implicit part of internetworking since they place parameters on user
 expectation.  They define the desired and expected behaviour of those
 who participate.  Everyone has one, whether published or not.  This
 applies to networks that provide transit paths for other networks as
 well as end sites and the individual users that use systems.  A
 better understanding of an AUP, and how to formulate one seems to be
 increasingly important as the global net encompases new  environments
 as varied as K12 schools and real-time systems.  AUP's are used to
 determine pricing, customer base, type and quality of service
 metrics, and a host of other provider services.

2. Components of an Agreement

 In defining your particular agreement there are three areas that must
 be addressed.  They are where you get service from, who your peers
 are, and whom you provide service to.  A good understanding of these
 concepts will make or break the policies you formulate.

2.1 Where you get service from

 Each entity gets its service from one or more other providers,
 either a level three service, such as IP transit, or a level two
 service, such as circuits.  The provider of such services usually has
 an policy in the form of an agreement or contract specifying terms

Manning & Perkins [Page 1] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 and conditions of use. This forms the basis for the type of service
 offerings that you as an entity can provide.  If you get service from
 several providers,  all of them need to be considered in the
 formation of policy.

2.2 Who your peers are

 Are your policies consistent with those offered by your peers?  In
 many cases, the formation of policy will define who your peers are.
 It is important to clearly identify which areas you intend to reach
 and the community you wish to be a contributing, productive part of.
 Once this is clear, formulate polices along those lines.

2.3 Who you provide service to

 It is required that you inform those who use your services just what
 your policies are.  Without this information, it will be almost
 impossible for them to distinguish what to expect from your service
 offering. Without a clear policy it is possible that litigation may
 ensue. It is important to reflect community standards in the creation
 of policy.

3. Some Issues to consider

 IP provided services can be complex.  They comprise both information
 and communication.  In the formulation of policy it is critical that
 the policy provide for security and access to information and
 communication while ensuring that the resource use does not
 overburden the system's capabilities. These conflicting demands must
 be analyzed and a synthesis arrived at.  This hints a fourth
 component of an AUP, that it has a method to extract compliance.
 This is so site specific that further analysis will not be attempted
 here.
 Some items that should be considered in the formation of policy are:
  1. privacy - morals & ethics
  2. freedom of expression - legal constraints
  3. safety - harassment
  4. plagiarism - resource utilization
  5. indemnification - targeted areas of interest
  6. expected behaviours - remedies and recourse
 This should not be considered as an exhaustive list but as pointers
 for those types of things to be considered when policy is formed.

Manning & Perkins [Page 2] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

4. Security Considerations

 Security and Liability issues are not discussed in this memo.

5. Summary

 User Agreements are here to stay. As the Interconnected mesh of
 networks grows, the choices presented to end-users mandate that
 provider/user expectations are clearly presented. Use of these
 guidelines will help create a clearer, better defined environment for
 everyone.

Authors' Addresses

 Bill Manning
 USC/Information Sciences Institute
 4676 Admiralty Way
 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
 Phone: 822-1511
 EMail: bmanning@isi.edu
 Don Perkins
 Instructional Media Services
 Houston Independent School District
 3830 Richmond
 Houston, TX 77027
 EMail: dperkins@tenet.edu

Manning & Perkins [Page 3] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

Example

 For further reference on some acceptable use policies, see the
 following materials archived in Armadillo--The Texas Studies Gopher:
 Name=Acceptable and Unacceptable Use of Net Resources (K12)
 Type=1
 Host=chico.rice.edu
 Port=1170
 Path=1/More/Acceptable
 or:
 http://chico.rice.edu/armadillo
 If these resources are not available to you, you may want to review
 the attached policy and justification that is in use by an NSF
 sponsored project on K12 networking. It provides a view on the
 thinking process and actual Agreement that was worked out for this
 project.

The Internetworked School: A Policy for the Future*

Barry J. Fishman and Roy D. Pea School of Education and Social Policy Northwestern University

Note:

 The CoVis Network Use Policy itself appears as an appendix to this
 article.

Introduction

 The next five years will radically change the ways that schools
 relate to the world around them as global computer networks--long the
 exclusive domain of higher education and private industry--link up to
 primary and secondary schools. The Internet, a network made up of
 many smaller contributing networks, represents a powerful educational
 resource unlike anything that precedes it. Its potential for
 education grows with the establishment of each new connection.
 For the first time, schoolchildren have the means for simple, direct
 contact with millions of adults in a forum that masks their physical
 youth and presents them as virtual equals. However, just as the new
 kid in school has to learn new social codes and rituals to fit in,
 schools must learn some of the practices and etiquette of the
 Internet. Of course, the established denizens of the Internet will
 soon have some adjusting to do as well, with thousands (or millions)

Manning & Perkins [Page 4] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 of new kids knocking electronically at their doors. Since the
 Internet was not designed with children in mind, many potentially
 difficult issues must be discussed by both the education and the
 Internet communities.
 This article presents a framework for thinking about some of the
 issues that are essential to making the initial encounter between
 schools and the Internet successful. It also presents an excerpt of a
 policy that embodies our approach to resolving those issues.

Expanding Access, Expanding Horizons

 For roughly the past decade, schools increasingly have participated
 in specialized computer networks such as the NGS/TERC Kidsnetwork,
 the Intercultural Learning Network, and FidoNet, as well as for-
 profit services such as CompuServe, America Online, and Prodigy. The
 majority of these projects were conducted on networks, where
 teachers' or students' messages could not be read by anyone beyond a
 predetermined audience composed of other students and teachers. These
 projects made it possible for students and teachers to communicate
 with their peers in faraway places and pioneered some pedagogical
 uses of networks for computer-mediated communication and
 collaborative project work that will carry over to the Internet.
 Internetworking, however, goes beyond proprietary systems by joining
 a vast number of distinct networks into one large network, the
 Internet.  As individual schools and bulletin boards are connected to
 the Internet, the number of people and services within easy reach
 increases exponentially. By one estimate, there are currently 19
 million users of the Internet, with an annual growth rate approaching
 80 percent. Furthermore, some of the Internet's most powerful
 communication tools are specifically designed so that any of these
 millions of people could join any conversation. The network's true
 power comes from the synergy of many dispersed minds working together
 to solve problems and discuss issues, and there is little in the way
 of hierarchy or control of the discourse.
 The schools' shift to internetworking systems involves critical
 technological, as well as pedagogical, issues. It requires a change
 in the school computing paradigm from centralized computing to
 distributed client-server systems, thus bringing about an
 administrative change in the nature of school computing. Many schools
 that currently have some kind of network access provide accounts only
 to teachers or administrators. Internetworking is fundamentally
 different--giving accounts, access, and therefore control directly to
 students.

Manning & Perkins [Page 5] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 There are numerous arguments for the pedagogical benefits of school
 internetworking. But what of the risks? What safety, liability, and,
 above all, educational concerns must be addressed before schools are
 ready to tap into the Internet? This policy is not intended as a
 document that sets limitations or restrictions. Rather, it is
 designed to facilitate and set guidelines for exploring and using the
 Internet as a tool for learning. The policy was written with the
 purpose and goals of the Internet as a background: support for open
 research and education in and among research and instructional
 institutions. The context for the policy was provided by the specific
 needs of a growing community of learners composed of students,
 teachers, scientists, and researchers. The networked environment must
 support collaboration and cooperation. Proper frameworks to support
 network navigation and information searching must be established. And
 because networks will continue to be a scarce educational resource
 for the foreseeable future, the policy also provides guidelines for
 maximizing the educational cost-benefit ratio for teachers and
 students.

Testbed for Change–The CoVis Project

 Our framework for considering internetworking issues is a project
 currently being conducted at the School of Education and Social
 Policy at Northwestern University. The Learning Through Collaborative
 Visualization Project, CoVis, is designed to reconceptualize and
 reconfigure high school science education. CoVis is a networking
 testbed funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Its goal is
 to enable project-based approaches to science by using low- and
 medium-bandwidth networks to put students in direct contact with
 practicing scientists and scientific tools. In CoVis, we are working
 with the types of network connections we believe will be common in
 schools in the near future.
 In the first phase of our project we are working with two Chicago-
 area schools, Evanston Township High School in Evanston and New Trier
 High School in Winnetka. CoVis is deployed in 12 classes at the two
 high schools, involving three teachers at each school. Approximately
 300 students are involved in the project: 100 freshmen, 100
 sophomores and juniors, and 100 seniors, all enrolled in either earth
 science or environmental science classes. Each classroom contains six
 Macintosh Quadra computers with audio/video conferencing units linked
 to an internal ethernet, which is linked to Northwestern's ethernet
 by a primary-rate Integrated Services Digital Network bridge for
 telecommunications using the public-switched network. Additional
 computers are available for Internet use in computer labs at each
 school.

Manning & Perkins [Page 6] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 The CoVis Network Community consists of students and teachers in
 CoVis classes, scientists who wish to collaborate on CoVis student
 projects, the researchers conducting the CoVis project, and other
 interested parties who are granted special accounts. In the CoVis
 classroom, each student is given an account that makes him or her a
 "full" member of the Internet community. This means two things: Each
 student has access to all Internet services with minimal mediation by
 teachers or other adults, and anybody with an Internet account can
 contact the students directly, again without mediation.
 In addition to the standard Internet resources, which include
 electronic mail, listservs, Usenet news discussion groups, Telnet,
 gopher, and file transfer, CoVis makes it possible for students to
 communicate with peers and scientists via video and audio conference
 tools and remote screen-sharing technology for synchronous
 collaborative work. Therefore, the CoVis Network Use Policy goes
 beyond the needs of the typical low-bandwidth internetworked school.
 As an NSF testbed, CoVis has the job of developing new frameworks for
 the use of internetworking. In seeking to understand problematic
 issues of networking, we turn both to other projects--Bolt Beranek
 and Newman's work with the Ralph Bunche computer-minischool in New
 York; AT&T's Learning Circles; and TERC's LabNet project--and to
 analogous situations extant in schools. Our attention thus is placed
 on the development of a policy to establish ground rules for the
 students who will be introduced to the Internet.

The Need for a Proactive Policy

 Exciting or revolutionary educational programs too often are
 derailed.  In the 1970s, Jerome Bruner's curriculum Man: A Course of
 Study (MACOS) was at the center of a political and ideological
 firestorm that prevented its implementation in many schools. The
 experience of the MACOS developers taught us that it makes sense to
 spend time in the initial stages of a project trying to determine
 what challenges might arise to an educational innovation in order to
 avoid, preempt, or co-opt them.
 In March 1993, the Communications Policy Forum, a nonpartisan group
 of telecommunications stakeholders convened by the Electronic
 Frontier Foundation, met on the issues of Internet services for the
 K-12 educational community. The forum concluded that services should
 be provided only to schools that would indemnify the service
 providers.  It also recommended that a warning statement be developed
 to advise schools of the presence of materials on the Internet that
 may be deemed inappropriate for minors.

Manning & Perkins [Page 7] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 We believe that it is not enough to devise a policy designed to
 protect schools and service providers, although our policy also
 speaks to those roles. In this policy designed to guide students
 through some of the social complexity presented by the Internet, we
 created guidelines to alert novice users of established expectations
 and practices. Because the Internet is somewhat anarchic in its daily
 commerce, it is necessary to define a safe local space, or identity,
 for a school network where students can feel like members of a
 supportive community. The goal of establishing the boundaries of our
 own community forms the framework of our policy.

Issues and Analogies

 The kinds of issues posed by internetworking are not new. Similar
 issues have been debated by schools many times before, from creation
 science to dress codes. These concerns resurface in the availability
 of networked material that some parents, teachers, or students might
 find objectionable, pornographic, or otherwise inappropriate.
 Although the actual percentage of materials in this category is
 small, their mere presence draws plenty of media attention. Consider
 this lead-in to a story about graphic material that can be retrieved
 through the Internet, published in the Houston Chronicle in 1990:
    "Westbury High School student Jeff Noxon's homework was rudely
    interrupted recently when he stumbled across the world's most
    sophisticated pornography ring....It was supported by taxes and
    brought into town by the brightest lights of higher education."
 While some are shocked, an alternative interpretation might point out
 that in using a valuable resource provided by the local university, a
 high school student chose to view material that many (including
 regular Internet users) find objectionable. Educators must understand
 that, as a byproduct of introducing internetworking, schools likely
 will have to justify student use of network resources to a public
 that does not understand the medium or its utility to education. By
 seeking out analogous situations and applying them to the development
 of our network use policy, we believe it is possible to establish
 frameworks for responding to these challenges. We found several
 significant analogies.
  • American Library Association (ALA). In considering information

access issues, the most striking and informative analogy is to a

 remarkable set of documents built around the ALA's Library Bill of
 Rights of 1980. It is not farfetched to consider the Internet, at
 least in part, as a vast digital library. After all, the electronic
 database and information search tools it employs are rapidly becoming
 part of new school media centers, and many public and school
 libraries are beginning to offer some type of network access to their

Manning & Perkins [Page 8] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 patrons.
 The ALA documents state, "Attempts to restrict access to library
 materials violate the basic tenets of the Library Bill of Rights."
 However, they add, what goes into the library collection should be
 chosen thoughtfully and with an eye toward instructional goals.
 School librarians are bound to devise collections that "are
 consistent with the philosophy, goals, and objectives of the school
 district," and they must "resist efforts by individuals to define
 what is appropriate for all students or teachers to read, view, or
 hear." Similarly, tools used to access the network must be designed
 to direct access to materials that support curricular concerns. Thus,
 the interface to the network embodies the notion of a library
 collection. In a school network policy, the "intent of the
 collection" should be clearly reflected in a statement of purpose for
 the network.
 Directly addressing the information access needs of children, the ALA
 opposes attempts to limit access based on the age of a library user.
 "Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents--and
 only parents--have the right and the responsibility to restrict the
 access of their children--and only their children--to library
 resources," it states.
 While we in the CoVis Project have some ability technologically to
 restrict what is in our Internet "collection," it is virtually
 impossible to prevent students from accessing materials whose
 presence we never anticipated while preserving the students' status
 as full members of the Internet community. In this way, the Internet
 is fundamentally different from a relatively static library
 collection.  Following the lead of the ALA, however, we believe that
 the precise limits placed upon students' access cannot be formalized
 by the school policy. Instead, it is the students' responsibility to
 adhere to the standards set by their parents.
  • American Society for Information Science (ASIS). The code of ethics

of ASIS provides another informative analogy, this one speaking to

 issues of professionals' responsibilities to both individuals and
 society. Where individuals are concerned, information professionals-
 -a designation we believe should be applied to teachers--must strive
 both to "protect each information user's and provider's right to
 privacy and confidentiality" and "respect an information provider's
 proprietary rights." With respect to society, information
 professionals should "serve the legitimate information needs of a
 large and complex society while at the same time being mindful of
 [the] individual's rights." They also should "resist efforts to
 censor publications."

Manning & Perkins [Page 9] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 The ASIS code speaks directly to issues of electronic mail privacy.
 We believe that students and teachers must feel certain that their
 communications are private. In many electronic mail systems currently
 used in schools, the teacher must act as an intermediary between the
 school and the outside world. When students are "full" members of the
 Internet, mail is sent directly to the outside world with no human
 mediation. As a rule, such communications should be private, and the
 network policy must make explicit any reasons for teachers or
 researchers to have access to message content. Users must be made
 aware of times and circumstances under which private mail may be
 monitored.
  • Prodigy. Privacy in electronic mail communications seems like a

straightforward issue–it is analogous to the U.S. mail. But what

 about network bulletin boards or Internet newsgroups? Posting a
 message in one of these public information exchanges may raise
 questions of freedom of expression among students and other network
 users, but no more than in any other public forum.
 One approach to dealing with this issue was described in the Wall
 Street Journal's technology supplement of November 15, 1993. Prodigy,
 a dial-up bulletin-board service jointly owned by IBM and Sears, has
 a strict editorial policy for both its public forums and its members'
 private email exchanges. Prodigy employs editors who screen every
 message before it is posted, sometimes delaying posting by up to 40
 hours. It also uses special software to screen messages for what it
 deems objectionable language. The result is a lowest-common-
 denominator approach to what is acceptable or unacceptable material.
 This approach undervalues the maturity of Prodigy's users. In the
 CoVis classroom, we want to strive to develop students' maturity, and
 in order to learn these lessons, they must feel that their message
 content is under their own control. To let students know what level
 of behavior is expected of them, we are very clear about the use of
 offensive, obscene, or inflammatory language on the network. These
 guidelines are not unfamiliar to the students in CoVis, as their
 local school codes of conduct include the same admonitions. Offensive
 messages posted by students are not ejected from the network.
 However, students can lose their privileges on the network if they
 post such messages (a significant disincentive for CoVis students),
 and they are encouraged to post a retraction or apology once they
 understand why their message was problematic. These interventions are
 only initiated upon the complaint of another user, not as part of an
 explicit editorial policy.
  • School Conduct Codes. Every school has a code of conduct for its

students that details appropriate school behavior, outlines rights,

 and sets expectations for students. Because the CoVis Network is used

Manning & Perkins [Page 10] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 as part of a school activity, the school's code of conduct applies to
 network activities. Thus, we believe the network use policy should be
 an extension of the school's policies. An important part of the
 development of the CoVis Network use policy was a close reading of
 the participating high schools' codes of conduct. For example, at one
 of our high schools, special rules against vandalism of computer
 equipment and unauthorized access to information exist. These rules
 cover such important concepts as computer piracy, hacking, and other
 tampering with hardware or software. Both CoVis schools have codes
 warning students that use of harassing or abusive language is
 unacceptable, as is obscenity. At the same time, both high schools
 place a high value on students' right to freedom of expression and
 outline the dimensions of that right in some detail.
  • Field Trips. All of the rules that apply to student conduct in

school also apply when the students are off campus on field trips.

 The Internet offers many opportunities for virtual field trips to
 distant locations, and CoVis adds a new twist to this genre with the
 addition of full audio and video connections to remote locations.
 Students in the CoVis community will be able to "visit" the
 Exploratorium in San Francisco, directing a remote camera around the
 exhibit floor and engaging in conversations with guides and other
 museum visitors. It is important that students realize they act as
 ambassadors for their school in such encounters, and our policy
 states this explicitly.  Currently, parental permission slips are
 required before students may take field trips. At one of our
 participating high schools, such slips are required even for "trips"
 within the school building. Is there a precedent for extending the
 concept of permission slips to the virtual field trip? We do not
 believe so, but we do recognize the importance of written information
 alerting parents to interesting or innovative school activities.

Beyond the Barriers

 Barriers to internetworking in schools are being lowered every day,
 and soon electronic bulletin boards may be as familiar to the
 American classroom as blackboards. Educators are encouraged by
 continuing developments that make the Internet accessible to schools.
 This is accomplished in part through commercial networks such as
 America Online and Delphi and by the decreasing costs of modems and
 communications software. With the cooperation of nearby universities,
 dial-up Internet connections can now be obtained for an investment of
 under $100 per existing computer.
 Schools will find tremendous new opportunities for enhancing,
 extending, and rethinking the learning process with the advent of
 internetworking. But will they be ready to face the challenges? To
 date, schools have had little experience with advanced

Manning & Perkins [Page 11] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 telecommunications technologies. Many classrooms still lack even such
 basic tools as telephones. Given the general lack of communication
 even between classrooms in the same school, it will not be easy for
 schools to join in the fast-paced discourse of the Internet. The
 CoVis Project has taken a proactive stance toward the issues that
 internetworking raises for schools with the development of a
 network-use policy based upon the best lessons available. We invite
 feedback on our policy and offer it as a contribution to this
 exciting and rapidly developing area of educational technology.
 Barry J. Fishman is a Ph.D. student in the Learning Sciences program
 of the Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy.
 Roy D. Pea is Dean of the School and John Evans Professor of the
 Learning Sciences at Northwestern. They acknowledge the assistance of
 Laura D'Amico, Larry Friedman, Paul Reese, and Dick Ruopp in the
 preparation of this article. Their research is supported in part by
 National Science Foundation Grant MDR-9253462.
 Margin Notes: Electronic versions of the original texts of American
 Library Association, American Society for Information Science, and
 Houston Chronicle documents can be found at FTP (file transfer
 protocol) address ftp.eff.org, in the pub/academic/library/directory.
 The Communications Policy Forum meeting is reported on by Andrew Blau
 in the EFFector 5(4), also available from ftp.eff.org in the
 /pub/EFF/newsletters directory. Statistics about the Internet are
 available from ftp.nisc.sri.com, in the /pub/zone directory. Both of
 these FTP sites can also be reached via gopher.

For further reading:

 Roy Pea, "Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments: The
 Collaborative Visualization Project," Communications of the ACM (May
 1993).
 Denis Newman, Susan Bernstein, and Paul A. Reese, "Local
 Infrastructures for School Networking: Current Models and Prospects,"
 Bolt Beranek and Newman Tech Report No. 7726 (1992).
 Richard Ruopp, Shahaf Gal, Brian Drayton, and Meghan Pfister, LabNet:
 Toward a Community of Practice (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1993).

Manning & Perkins [Page 12] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

APPENDIX: THE COVIS NETWORK USE POLICY

A. Mission Statement

 The Learning Through Collaborative Visualization Project (CoVis) was
 established to explore project-enhanced science learning supported by
 advanced computing applications in a secondary school environment.
 As such, the computer network environment supported by the project
 (the CoVis Network) is designed to enhance the learning and teaching
 activities of the participating science classrooms at New Trier and
 Evanston Township High Schools.  The term "network" in this document
 refers to a number of computers and other electronic tools that are
 connected to each other for the purpose of communication and data
 sharing.  CoVis is a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded
 research project, and use of the network is therefore provided to
 allow the study of its impact on learning and teaching.
 1.  Purpose of the Internet
    The Internet (a global network made up of many smaller
    contributing networks) and its services are intended 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, e.g., for-profit activity or extensive
    personal business, is not acceptable.
 2.  Purpose of the CoVis Network
    The purpose of the CoVis Network is to facilitate communications
    and collaboration between members of the CoVis community.  Network
    use is primarily intended for the support of project work
    conducted for participating CoVis classes, and far less
    significantly for other purposes that students and teachers
    determine to be of educational value.  The CoVis Network has
    limited resources, and CoVis classrooms have limited time
    available for network- supported teaching and learning activities.
    Any use of the network which adversely affects its operation in
    pursuit of teaching and learning or jeopardizes its use or
    performance for other community members is prohibited, and may
    result in the loss of network privileges.

B. Services Available on the CoVis Network

 The CoVis Network consists of a variety of computing equipment,
 software, and network connections.  This section describes the
 primary tools and services approved for use in the CoVis Network.
 Other tools may be used, but may not be supported by the system

Manning & Perkins [Page 13] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

 administrators:
    1.  Cruiser Videoconferencing.  Cruiser is a tool designed to
    allow video and audio connections between two people, each of whom
    must have a Cruiser station and access to the CoVis network.
    Cruiser conversations are private;
    2.  Timbuktu Screen-Sharing.  Timbuktu is a commercial software
    product that allows a Macintosh user to view or control another
    Macintosh computer remotely (with the remote user's permission).
    This is designed to allow two or more people to work together over
    the CoVis Network. Timbuktu sessions are private;
    3.  Collaborative Notebook.  The Notebook is a personal or group
    workspace designed to support project work in CoVis classrooms.
    Work done using the notebook may be either private or public, as
    designated by the user.  Users should be careful to note whether
    they are working in a private or a public portion of the notebook.
    4.  General-Use Internet Tools.  These include, but are not
    limited to, the following:
       a) Electronic Mail, or email.  Email is just like regular mail,
       except instead of paper, you use the computer.  Email
       correspondence is considered private.  The CoVis Project uses a
       program called "Eudora" for sending and receiving mail.
       b) Listservs.  A listserv is a means to broadcast an email
       message to many users for the purpose of maintaining a
       discussion list.  Although listserv messages are transmitted
       via email, correspondence is public, so extra care should be
       used when participating.  The program called "Eudora" would be
       used for participating in a listserv.
       c) Network News.  Netnews is a communications tool for large
       group discussion.  Netnews is essentially similar to a
       listserv, except that it does not use email as the means of
       communication.  Instead, you use software called a "news
       reader" to read and post messages to the appropriate groups.
       Newsgroups are very public, and should be used thoughtfully.
       The CoVis project employs a program called "NewsWatcher" for
       reading and posting news.
       d) File Transfer Protocol, or FTP.  File Transfer Protocol is a
       means of moving files between computers on the Internet. The
       CoVis project employs a program called "Fetch" for doing this.

Manning & Perkins [Page 14] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

       e) Telnet.  Telnet allows you to connect to other computers on
       the Internet, provided you know the machine's Internet address
       and appropriate password.  All provisions of this document
       apply to members of the CoVis community while using remote
       computers via Telnet.  The CoVis Project uses a program called
       "NCSA Telnet" for telnetting operations.
       f) Gopher.  Gopher is a means of navigating the Internet via a
       menu-driven or point-and-click interface to the computer.
       Gopher is a very convenient way to retrieve files and
       information from sources all around the globe. For most
       purposes, it may be considered an easier form of FTP and can be
       used to initiate Telnet sessions.  The CoVis Project uses a
       program called "TurboGopher" for gopher searching.

C. Who is a member of the CoVis community?

 All account holders on the CoVis Network will be granted access to
 all services the network offers.  The following people may hold
 accounts on the CoVis Network:
    1.  Students.  Students who are currently enrolled in a CoVis
    class will automatically be granted a network account upon
    agreement to the terms stated in this policy;
    2.  Teachers.  Teachers of CoVis classes may hold accounts on the
    CoVis Network.  Other teachers may apply for accounts;
    3.  Scientists.  Scientists who wish to collaborate on student
    projects will be granted CoVis Network accounts.  The exact nature
    of the account (i.e., which services are available) will depend on
    individual circumstances;
    4.  Researchers.  The researchers conducting the CoVis project
    will hold accounts on the CoVis network;
    5.  Others.  Anyone may request a special account on the CoVis
    network.  These requests will be granted on a case-by-case basis,
    depending on need and resource availability.
    Note: Except in special cases listed above, people from the larger
    Internet community are not part of the local CoVis community, and
    will probably be unaware of the existence of this policy.
    However, you should always treat people you "meet" on the network
    with respect, as if they were a part of your community.

Manning & Perkins [Page 15] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

D. Privileges and Rights of CoVis Network Community Members

 Members of the CoVis community have certain network privileges and
 rights.  These include:
    1.  Privacy.  All members of the CoVis community have the right to
    privacy in their email, Cruiser, Timbuktu, and notebook
    communications when so designated by the user. However, if a user
    is believed to be in violation of the guidelines stated in this
    policy, a system administrator or teacher may need to gain access
    to private correspondence or files.  An attempt will be made to
    notify the user of such inspections whenever possible.  As CoVis
    is primarily a research project, researchers may periodically make
    requests to study or view correspondence and files, but
    confidentiality is ensured in such circumstances.  Also, it is
    important that users recognize the fundamental differences between
    public (e.g., news) and private (e.g., email) forms of
    communication, and shape their content accordingly;
    2.  Equal Access.  All members of the CoVis community will be
    granted free and equal access to as many network services as their
    technology allows.  Exploration of the Internet is encouraged
    relative to the purposes of the CoVis Network;
    3.  Safety.  To the greatest extent possible, members of the CoVis
    community will be protected from harassment or unwanted or
    unsolicited contact.  Any community member who receives
    threatening or unwelcome communications should bring them to the
    attention of a system administrator or teacher.  Users must,
    however, be aware that there are many services available on the
    Internet that could potentially be offensive to certain groups of
    users.  The designers of the CoVis Network cannot eliminate access
    to all such services, nor could they even begin to identify them.
    Thus individual users must take responsibility for their own
    actions in navigating the network;
    4.  Intellectual Freedom.  The CoVis Network must be a free and
    open forum for expression, including viewpoints that are strange,
    unorthodox, or unpopular.  The network administrators will place
    no official sanctions upon the expression of personal opinion on
    the network.  However, the poster of an opinion should be aware
    that other community members may be openly critical of such
    opinions.   Occasionally, a message that you post may be met from
    outside the CoVis community with especially harsh criticism (a
    practice known as "flaming").  It is best not to respond to such
    attacks, unless you believe you are capable of a measured,
    rational reply.  Personal attacks are not an acceptable use of the
    CoVis Network at any time. The CoVis Project does not officially

Manning & Perkins [Page 16] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

    endorse any opinions stated on the network.  Any statement of
    personal belief is implicitly understood to be representative of
    the author's individual point of view, and not that of the CoVis
    Network, its administrators, or the participating high schools.

E. Responsibilities of CoVis Network Community Members

 With the rights and privileges of membership in the CoVis Network
 community come certain responsibilities.  Users need to familiarize
 themselves with these responsibilities.  Failure to follow them may
 result in the loss of network privileges.  These responsibilities
 include:
    1.  Using appropriate language.  Profanity or obscenity will not
    be tolerated on the CoVis Network.  All community members should
    use language appropriate for school situations as indicated by
    school codes of conduct;
    2.  Avoiding offensive or inflammatory speech.  Community members
    must respect the rights of others both in the local community and
    in the Internet at large.  Personal attacks are an unacceptable
    use of the network.  If you are the victim of a "flame," take time
    to respond rationally, and bring the incident to the attention of
    a teacher or system administrator;
    3.  Adhering to the rules of copyright.  CoVis community members
    must respect all copyright issues regarding software, information,
    and attributions of authorship.  The unauthorized copying or
    transfer of copyrighted materials may result in the loss of
    network privileges;
    4.  Re-posting personal communications without the original
    author's prior consent is prohibited.  To do this is a violation
    of the author's privacy.  However, all messages posted in a public
    forum such as newsgroups or listservs may be copied in subsequent
    communications, so long as proper attribution is given;
    5.  Use of the network for any illegal activities is prohibited.
    Illegal activities include tampering with computer hardware or
    software, unauthorized entry into computers, or knowledgeable
    vandalism or destruction of computer files. Such activity is
    considered a crime under state and federal law;
    6.  Avoid the knowing or inadvertent spread of computer viruses.
    "Computer viruses" are programs that have been developed as
    pranks, and can destroy valuable programs and data.  To reduce the
    risk of spreading a computer virus, do not import files from
    unknown or disreputable sources.  If you do obtain software or

Manning & Perkins [Page 17] RFC 1746 Ways to Define User Expectations December 1994

    files from remote sources, follow proper procedures to check for
    viruses before use. Deliberate attempts to degrade or disrupt
    system performance of the CoVis Network or any other computer
    system or network on the Internet by spreading computer viruses is
    considered criminal activity under state and federal law;
    7.  You have full responsibility for the use of your account.  All
    violations of this policy that can be traced to an individual
    account name will be treated as the sole responsibility of the
    owner of that account.  Under no conditions should you give your
    password to another user;
    8.  Impersonation is not permitted.  Real names must be used,
    pseudonyms are not allowed;
    9.  Anonymity is not allowed on the CoVis Network.  As an
    educational network, we believe that individuals must take
    responsibility for their actions and words;
    10.  Exemplary behavior is expected on 'virtual' field trips. When
    'visiting' locations on the Internet or using the Cruiser or
    Timbuktu communication tools, CoVis community members must conduct
    themselves as representatives of both their respective schools and
    the CoVis community as a whole.  Conduct that is in conflict with
    the responsibilities outlined in this document will be subject to
    loss of network privileges.

Note:

 This article is reprinted with the express permission of TECHNOS:
 Quarterly for Education and Technology.
 It originally appeared as: Fishman, B., and Pea, R.D. (1994). The
 internetworked school: A policy for the future. Technos: Quarterly of
 Education and Technology 3 (1), 22-26.

Manning & Perkins [Page 18]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1746.txt · Last modified: 1994/12/29 23:47 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki