Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                         B. ManningRequest for Comments: 1746                                           ISICategory: Informational                                       D. Perkins                                                             Houston ISD                                                           December 1994Ways to Define User ExpectationsStatus 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 termsManning & 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:        - privacy                       - morals & ethics        - freedom of expression         - legal constraints        - safety                        - harassment        - plagiarism                    - resource utilization        - indemnification               - targeted areas of interest        - 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 19944. 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.eduManning & Perkins                                               [Page 3]

RFC 1746            Ways to Define User Expectations       December 1994Example   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 PolicyNorthwestern UniversityNote:   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 theirManning & 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 usedManning & 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 advancedManning & 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 1994APPENDIX: THE COVIS NETWORK USE POLICYA.  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 systemManning & 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 1994D.  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 officiallyManning & 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 orManning & 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]