Received: from lists.internic.net (lists.internic.net [198.41.0.15]) by adrift.harbornet.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA07391 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:08:22 GMT Received: from lists (lists.internic.net [198.41.0.15]) by lists.internic.net (8.7.4/LISTS-1) with SMTP id GAA20156; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 06:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LISTS.INTERNIC.NET by LISTS.INTERNIC.NET (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 2684808 for NEWSLETTER@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 06:07:12 -0400 Received: from ops.internic.net (ops.internic.net [198.41.0.67]) by lists.internic.net (8.7.4/LISTS-1) with ESMTP id QAA00455 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists.internic.net (lists.internic.net [198.41.0.15]) by ops.internic.net (8.7.5/InterNIC-RS) with ESMTP id QAA02333 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (tomn@localhost) by lists.internic.net (8.7.4/LISTS-1) id QAA00449 for newsletter@internic.net; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:34:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <199609042034.QAA00449@lists.internic.net> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:34:19 -0400 Reply-To: Tom Newell Sender: Owner-Newsletter From: Tom Newell Subject: InterNIC News, Vol 1 Issue 6 X-To: newsletter@internic.net To: Multiple recipients of list NEWSLETTER InterNIC News September 1996 Volume 1, Issue 6 editor@internic.net In this issue: * From the Editor * Librarians in a Box: CU-SeeMe at the University of Michigan's Shapiro Undergraduate Library * An Interview with Eric Lease Morgan Director of the "See You See a Librarian" Project at NCSU * End User's Corner: Searching the Internet Part I: Some Basic Considerations and Automated Search Indexes * What's in a Name? A Graphical Look at Registration Information * 15 Minute Series InterNIC's Training Modules Now Available * Roadmap '96 Patrick Crispen's Popular Workshop on the Web * Trinity College's POLS: A Virtual Political Science Reference Desk * Performance Measures: InterNIC Statistics for July 1996 * User Feedback Tell us what you'd like to see in the InterNIC News * Get the InterNIC News * Using This Material ------------------------------------------------- >From the Editor By Tom Newell, Manager, InterNIC Information and Education Services ------------------------------------------------- Lelani Bluner writes: I am working with an entertainment forum called the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim. I performed a search and found that both arrowheadpond.com and thepond.com were registered to the Arrowhead Pond address but with an out of area code in the phone number. I realize that anyone can register a domain name. My only question is that there is no server attached to the name thepond.com and arrowheadpond.com. What is the length of time that someone can hold a name without having the product up? Also, if that company puts up a Web site with Arrowhead Pond information without permission what are the legal implications? I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this project. Lelani Bluner The Orange County Register Lelanib@link.freedom.com Editor's response: Domain name dispute procedures are discussed in the Domain Name Dispute Policy which is available at the URL: ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/internic.domain.policy which recognizes that a third party may have certain legal rights to a domain name but that the determination of such is not appropriately vested with the InterNIC. In the case where the name appears to be unused, the definition of "use" may only be defined as having authoritative name service. The domain name holders need not offer any other services. In the event a name has no authoritative name service, it is considered to be "lame delegated" and will fall under the provisions of the Lame Delegation Policy effective October 1, 1996. The policy describes a procedure whereby names are periodically screened for authoritative name service which if lacking, will result in the name being removed from the Domain Name System. The final draft of this policy is available at the URL: ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/internic/internic-domain-5.txt A list of all policies may be found at the URL: http://rs.internic.net/policy/ ------------------------------------------------- Send questions and comments to editor@internic.net. We look forward to hearing from you! ------------------------------------------------- Librarians in a Box: CU-SeeMe at the University of Michigan's Shapiro Undergraduate Library By Robin Murphy, InterNIC Support Services ------------------------------------------------- The marriage of collaboration and technology is an ideal union. The development of networking technologies enhances the process of sharing information and, in turn, collaborative endeavours allow greater technological advance at a faster pace. For the most part, however, this world of collaboration and technology has been a faceless realm. Files are transferred, email is exchanged, but the nuances of face-to-face communication have eluded the majority of networked communication. All that is changing. Imagine, if you can, combining your email account with your television set... Having a face to face interview with the author of an article you are referencing in your dissertation...or being able to smile at an undergraduate and put them at ease so they can ask, "This may seem like a stupid question, but..." Videoconferencing technology has made great strides toward making these possibilities a reality, and one of the leaders in this area has been Cornell University (http://www.cornell.edu) through their desktop videoconferencing package CU-SeeMe. What is CU-SeeMe? CU-SeeMe was the first (may still be the only) free desktop videoconferencing software for personal computers. Using your Macintosh or a PC running Windows, CU-SeeMe software, and a digital camera, you can connect to another computer equipped with CU-SeeMe and a camera and conduct a real-time, face-to-face conversation. The idea for CU-SeeMe came out of a desire to bring videoconferencing technology to a greater number of network users by developing a project that could be used on a desktop computer. The premise was simple: expand access to the technology and you will expand communication about the technology, which can in turn stimulate development. The development of CU-SeeMe began in 1992, and in 1993 was spread to a broader base of Internet users through the New York State Educational Research Network (NYSERNet). Current versions of CU-SeeMe include audio capabilities, and the latest versions for the Macintosh also offer the ability to exchange text and slides. For more information on CU-SeeMe, including technical tips, training info, and highlights of innovative uses and projects, as well as copies of the software, consult the CU-SeeMe home page (http://cu-seeme.cornell.edu/). Smile! You're at the University of Michigan's Shapiro Undergraduate Library! The University of Michigan's Shapiro Undergraduate Library (http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/UGL/uglib.html) recently undertook a project that put the potential of CU-SeeMe technology at the fingertips of their library patrons. During the 1995/96 academic year, three Residence Hall Libraries were connected to the Shapiro Undergraduate Library via CU-SeeMe. Students in the Residence Hall Libraries were able to sit down in front of a computer, look a librarian in the eye, and ask a reference question by speaking into a microphone. Where did the idea for the project - Interactive Reference Assistance (IRA) - come from? According to Kathleen Folger, Reference and Instruction Librarian at the Shapiro Undergraduate Library, the inspiration came from several different directions. In July of 1995, the Shapiro Undergraduate Library, in conjuction with the Residence Hall Libraries, was developing a program as part of the University of Michigan's Welcome Week to outline the Undergraduate Library's services for new students. Reference staff at the Undergraduate Library were aware of CU-SeeMe technology through exchanges with colleagues at professional gatherings, such as the American Library Association's (http://www.ala.org/) Annual and Midwinter conferences, as well as through demonstrations provided by the University of Michigan's School of Information (http://www.sils.umich.edu/). In keeping with the theme of the Welcome Week program - "The Future Is Now" - the libraries decided to demonstrate use of CU-SeeMe. At the same time, the University of Michigan's Engineering Library was exploring the use of CU-SeeMe technology for delivering services and education outside the Engineering Library walls. "We put the two together," says Folger, "and decided to use the CU-SeeMe technology to provide reference service to students living in the residence halls." The project, Interactive Reference Assistance, moved from idea to implementation in four short months. Four black and white Connectix QuickCam digital cameras were purchased, and reference staff at the Shapiro Undergraduate Library downloaded a copy of the CU-SeeMe software from Cornell University (http://cu-seeme.cornell.edu/). Folger notes that, "as freeware, CU-SeeMe does not include an owner's manual or technical support," so the bulk of the library's skill with the videoconferencing software developed through experimentation, trial, and error. Folger and another member of the reference staff, Kristen Garlock, "played around" with the software and then shared their experiences with the rest of the Shapiro Undergraduate Library staff and the librarians in the Residence Hall Libraries. During Welcome Week, the first week of September, the librarians demonstrated the use of CU-SeeMe as part of their program "The Future Is Now." This event provided an opportunity to introduce the technology to the target audience as well as publicize the Interactive Reference Assistance project. Other avenues for publicity included mailbox stuffers for student mailboxes, flyers in the residence halls, an official library press release, signs on campus, and whiteboards outside the residence hall libraries on the nights the service was offered. In the early part of October, Folger and Valeda Dent, Director of the Residence Hall Libraries, began the process of identifying which libraries on campus would participate, recruiting and training staff for the project, and working out the final details. On the nights that the service was available from a Residence Hall Library, schedules were coordinated so that the Residence Hall Library's Head Librarian (a graduate student from the School of Information) would be available on site to coordinate the Cu-SeeMe service. The Shapiro Undergraduate Library hosted a training session for participating staff prior to initially launching the project. "Participants were shown how to set up CU-SeeMe and the QuickCam, how to connect with another computer, and how to adjust audio and picture quality" relates Folger. "The participants also received a handout outlining connection steps and troubleshooting methods to use as a reference during the semester." As for staff and students, CU-SeeMe proved so easy to use that "we didn't need to provide any special training or instructions for students using the service," Folger stated. "Staff at the Residence Hall Library would make the connection to the reference desk and then leave it open. The student could then walk up to the computer and speak into the microphone." For the most part, reference service provided via the CU-SeeMe connections consisted of quick "ready reference" requests, rather than in-depth research assistance. Folger notes that she liked the feature that allowed her to type in her comments when helping students with the online library catalog. If a student was struggling with a search and asked one of the Shapiro librarians for assistance, the librarian could type in an example search for the student, which would appear as text in the CU-SeeMe window on the student's screen. The Shapiro Undergraduate Library launched the Interactive Reference Assistance project on October 17th, 1995. Although Cu-SeeMe does support videoconferencing among multiple parties, the Interactive Reference Assistance project was able to support a connection to only one Residence Hall Library at a time. Conferencing multiple parties simultaneously requires the use of a reflector. The project staff's lack of experience with setting up, running, and maintaining a reflector site, coupled with concern over the privacy issues and network etiquette involved in using a public reflector site, led the project staff to opt for the simpler, Point-to-Point connections. A Point-to-Point connection was available between the Shapiro Undergraduate Library and one of the participating Residence Hall Libraries each night the service was offered, with a different Residence Hall Library connecting each night. The CU-SeeMe service was available from the Residence Hall Libraries for approximately two hours between 6pm and 9pm, depending on the schedule of the Residence Hall Library's Head Librarian. Did this impede the students' access to their virtual reference desk? Not really, according to Kathleen Folger. "The number who actually used the service to ask reference questions was low, less than 20. The response from the students who used the service for reference assistance was very positive. Each one indicated he or she would use the service again and many indicated they wished the service were available more hours." "There were some instances of camera shyness among both students and library staff. More than one student commented on their appearance with many of the females expressing dismay at how their hair looked." Aside from bad hair, what were the pitfalls of the project? "The free version of CU-SeeMe is beta software and doesn't always work right," reports Folger. "There were times when we couldn't get the sound to work or the quality wasn't very good and there was nobody to call to help us fix it...But, even with those problems, I still believe the project was worth it." For assistance with the software and troubleshooting, Folger and her colleagues turned to the Internet. She indicated that the CU-SeeMe homepage was particularly useful; in fact, most of the documentation was obtained via the web. Mailing lists, such as the one maintained by Cornell for CU-SeeMe, and the one recently started by Eric Lease Morgan at North Carolina State University (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/%7eemorgan/see-a-librarian/), have also been helpful, although Folger pointed out that many of the discussions on the mailing lists seemed to focus on the PC platform, which was not always useful given Shapiro's Macintosh environment. Another difficulty for the librarians at the Shapiro Undergraduate Library reference desk was keeping track of when a student was using the service. "The Reference desk is a busy place," commented Folger, "and [CU-SeeMe] is not like a phone; it doesn't ring to let you know someone is there, waiting with a question. We just had to keep an eye on it." When the reference desk was busy, the Shapiro staff used signs that read "Be Right Back!" "We just set them in front of the camera," Folger laughed. The overall investment in the project was low on direct costs, high on time and effort. Folger credits the University of Michigan's technological infrastructure with providing an ideal setting for the videoconferencing project. "The University of Michigan campus, fortunately, is well-endowed technologically. We had the computers and wiring necessary to make CU-SeeMe work at almost no cost. We used the campus ethernet and the computers that were already in place in the libraries (PowerMacs at the UGL and Engineering Library and a Centris Mac in each RHL). The CU-SeeMe software is free. So, the only cost incurred was for the purchase of black & white QuickCams, which cost about $99 each." No additional staffing was needed. Folger reports that the project received an enthusiastic response from both the Library Administration and the University Housing Administration, which oversees the Residence Hall Libraries. "We had a tremendous amount of support from the Library Administration. Wendy Lougee, Assistant Director for Digital Library Initiatives, saw the project as a natural service extension to the digital library concept and willingly funded the purchase of the Connectix cameras to get us started. Margo Crist, Assistant Director for Public Services was equally enthusiastic and urged other public service units to experiment with the technology." For the Residence Hall Libraries, the timing could not have been more perfect. The Housing Division, operating on the premise that a student's education should extend beyond the walls of the classroom and into their residential surroundings, had recently launched an initiative to turn the residence halls into "living, learning communities." The CU-SeeMe project, which proposed bringing the reference interview to the residence hall desktop, embodied this concept and received a warm reception from the University Housing Administration. In fact, the reaction to the project by both administration and students has been so positive that the Shapiro Undergraduate Library has decided to continue the service with the Residence Hall Libraries this coming school year. The project is being upgraded to include a commercial videoconferencing package, Connectix VideoPhone (about $59.00), which will support more than one connection at a time without a reflector and will also notify the staff that a student has appeared onscreen and is waiting for assistance. The staff have also opted to switch to Connectix color QuickCams (about $199.00/ea). To promote the project as a viable avenue for traditional reference service and overcome technostress in students, the staff have demonstrated videoconferencing to over 5,000 students during summer orientation sessions. For the future, the Shapiro Undergraduate Library also hopes to expand the project into the computer centers on campus, and is discussing this avenue with the University of Michigan's Instructional Technology Division, which oversees the labs. This step would provide real assistance to students, Folger predicts, as it would allow the students immediate access to a librarian in the settings where they are likely to pursue their most serious academic work. The Residence Hall Libraries, notes Folger, are not always the quietest spots on campus and students tend to turn to the Shapiro Library or the computer centers when they really need to concentrate. CU-SeeMe in the computer centers would mean that students could immediately ask questions while in the midst of writing a paper - without leaving the computer center or having to wait for a response to email. Folger indicated that the library is also investigating several ISDN products and screen sharing programs, such as TIMBUKTU, which could allow the Shapiro librarians to "take over" for example, an online catalog search session for a student in a remote location. Perhaps one of the most important benefits derived from the project, however, was the experience gained by the librarians. Kathleen Folger reflects thats "In the next few years, videoconferencing technology won't be such a novelty. The Intel corporation recently announced it will be incorporating videonconferencing technology in its next line of mainstream home PC's. I believe this project allowed us to gain valuable experience in providing a service that our patrons are soon going to be demanding. The future really is now." ------------------------------------------------- An Interview with Eric Lease Morgan Director of the "See You See a Librarian" project at NCSU By Robin Murphy, InterNIC Support Services ------------------------------------------------- See You See A Librarian is an experiment, directed by Eric Lease Morgan at North Carolina State University, to examine the use of CU-SeeMe technology in librarianship and information seeking. We conducted a brief interview with Eric to ask him about his project, what role he sees for videoconferencing in libraries, whether the library community is "ready" for videoconferencing. We also asked what advice he has for libraries considering adopting the technology. Eric can be reached directly for more information at eric_morgan@ncsu.edu. InterNIC: Can you provide a brief outline of your project? What gave you the idea for See You See A Librarian, and how did you go about implementing the project? ELM: Around Memorial Day I started asking myself how effective would the CU-SeeMe technology be in enhancing library services. Now-a-days, more and more real library work can be done by patrons without every coming to the library. Yet, there are times when a librarian's help is still needed to truely satisfy a patron's information need. It is a well known fact that communication is accomplished in many ways. Telephone communications offer immediacy but lack essential non-verbal aspects. Email mandates concise descriptions of problems. Face-to-face communication, even at a distance, could reduce the limitations of the email and telephone mediums. I began wondering whether or not face-to-face communications using some thing like CU-SeeMe would improve the ways librarians and their patrons could solve this problem - namely the problem of assisting patrons from remote distances. In an effort to learn more about CU-SeeMe, I used my desktop computer and started trying to connect to remote CU-SeeMe reflectors. To my dismay, most times, when connecting to these reflectors, I found nobody there. "How am I suppose to explore this technology, if I can't see anybody." Consequently, I decided to set up my own reflector(s) and formulate a plan. The plan, as described at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/~emorgan/see-a-librarian/, has three parts: 1. Feasibility - this part is/was intended to see how many librarians have the necessary hardware and software to use CU-SeeMe. 2. Librarians on Librarianship - this part intends to focus discussions, using CU-SeeMe technology, on the issues of librarianship. 3. Librarians Fostering Knowledge - this part was intended to explore the feasility of providing reference services to Internet patrons using CU-SeeMe. Finally, I gave my project a cute name, "See You See A Librarian," and sent an announcement to library-related mailing lists describing the project. InterNIC: What type of support do you have for the project (i.e. funding, resources, etc.) and where did/does it come from? How many people are involved on the management and operation of the project - from your institution or from other institutions? ELM: The project has the support of both the administration at the NCSU Libraries where I am employed and people who administer the Sunsite computer at the University of California-Berkeley (Roy Tenent). Thus, there are only a small handful of people involved in the management of the project, maybe five. The CU-SeeMe technology supports three types of communication: one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many. To facilitate one-to-many and many-to-many communication, there needs to be an intermediary piece of software called a "reflector." This program "reflects" CU-SeeMe connections to other people who are connected to the reflector(s). Furthermore, reflectors can be "connected" to each other, so that people connected to one reflector can see the people reflected to the other reflectors. There are two reflectors used in this project. One is located at the NCSU Libraries (vega.lib.ncsu.edu) and the other is at UC-Berkeley (sunsite.berkeley.edu). InterNIC: Can you provide a brief statistical snapshot - number of institutions participating, number of individuals participating, demography of participants (i.e. trends relating to geography, size or type of institution, etc.)? Are any of the participants not libraries or librarians? ELM: Once the project got started in July, anybody with the necessary hardware and software was encouraged to participate. During the first month of the project more than at least 300 connections were made, either to the reflector at sunsite.berkeley.edu or to the one at vega.lib.ncsu.edu. There were certainly more connections than this, but I was unable to consistently extract the number of users from the sunsite reflector.log file. Of the connections made, everybody, with the exception of one person, made more than one connection to the reflectors. One person connected more than 115 times. The most popular connection days were July 8th - 15th, and very few connections were made later in the month. Generally speaking, more connections were made in the afternoon (Eastern Time) than other times of the day. Some of the people connecting were from the United Kingdom and Mexico, but the majority of people were from the United States. Based on my observations all the participants were librarians, people who worked in libraries, or people who worked for the library community (consultants). Of the librarians, the mix was evenly divided between academic, special, and state-supported libraries. The sizes of the institutions represented by the participants is not known. InterNIC: Can you offer an analytical look at the use of the technology in the library field? What do you see as potential areas of use for the technology in the library field? What do you perceive to be the major drawbacks to using the technology - for the library field? What do you perceive as major advantages? ELM: The advantages and disadvantages of interactive video conferencing (CU-SeeMe) in the library field are pretty much the same advantages and disadvantages when applied to other communication endeavours. For example, CU-SeeMe requires special hardware and software in order to work, specifically video technology (a video camera) and audio technology (a microphone) as well as a high-speed Internet connection. While the Internet connection is becoming less and less of a barrier, it seems that the video/audio is the major stumbling block. Many library administrations do not support librarians with this sort of hardware. At the same time, this is understandable since no real uses of this technology have been readily demonstrated. There are a couple of other problems with the technology. For example, CU-SeeMe makes people conscious of their appearence to others. This sometimes makes people shy and not want to participate. In the other extreme, there exist on the Internet exhibitionists who intrude into CU-SeeMe reflectors and detract from the reflectors' intended use. Additionally, it is quite possible to impersonate somebody else using CU-SeeMe and commit slanderous acts. On the other hand, if the necessary hardware were universally available, then video conferencing could be used in numerous ways in Library Land. The most obvious example from the patron's perspective is for reference queries. There are many times when it would be helpful to speak to a librarian. While telephone communications are useful, video conferencing would transmit the non-verbal aspects of the reference interview process and quite possibly improve the service. Since telephones are not available throughout libraries, video conferencing could extend reference services to the patrons in the "stacks" if a wireless network were available. Unfortunately, the few patrons I have talked to concering these sorts of ideas have not been impressed. The common response is, "I don't need CU-SeeMe to ask a reference question. I have a telephone for that." These people do not understand the subtleties of the reference interview. >From a library-only point of view, CU-SeeMe could be used to facilitate the training of library staff in places where travel is difficult. For example the state library system of Florida is trying the use of CU-SeeMe for just this purpose. Since the state is so extensively rural, the state librarians are finding the use of CU-SeeMe as a way to provide in-services to remote librarians. Another alternative is to use CU-SeeMe as a medium for live debates. For example, about a month ago there was a raging debate on a popular library-related mailing list. The topic of the debate was whether or not to catalog Internet resources. Some advocated the idea and others did not. I invited four people to express their opinions concerning the topic in a formal debate. While the debate takes place, others can "lurk" to watch the debate. This concept would have worked for many, many people, even if they did not have a video camera. Unfortunately, again, the people I contacted to debate the issue did not have the necessary equipment to use CU-SeeMe. InterNIC: Can you comment on the library field's "readiness" for CU-SeeMe and other videoconferencing and collaboration technologies? For example, where is the library profession now? Where do the profession need to be to be, in terms of both the technology and the skills, to really employ this technology to their advantage? What needs to happen to get the library profession to that point? ELM: I believe the library community is ready for this sort of technology. I believe all librarians would see the inherent possibilities of CU-SeeMe. At the same time, libraries are notoriously under-funded; libraries are not money-making organizations. Consequently, the budgets of libraries are limited and currently do not allow for very many experiments. Similarly, like everybody else, libraries feel under- staffed and to bring on new services, like the use of CU-SeeMe, will mean the elimination of other services. "What services do we stop doing in order to provide this new one?" In order to make the use of CU-SeeMe a reality in any institution I believe a number of things need to happen. First, there must be a commitment on the part of the library administration to purchase the necessary hardware. Second, the administration of the institution the library must commit to making the necessary hardware available to their constituencies. For example, video cameras could be made standard equipment in college computing labs. Next, either more staff are needed to provide the newer services or other services have to be eliminated. Once this happens, libraries could regularly staff the "CU-SeeMe Stations," just as they staff the reference desk, and field remote reference queries. InterNIC: It appears that your project is initially aimed at providing an interactive platform for professional collaboration in the library field. How receptive have librarians been to the idea of using the technology for this purpose? Have you found that the interactive nature of the technology enhanced the collaboration process over, say, simple email exchanges? ELM: In general, librarians have been positive regarding the use of this technology, but the vast majority of them do not have the necessary hardware to participate. Additionally, even when given the opportunity to borrow the necessary hardware they are sometimes reluctant to participate since they have little time for experimentation. At this time, there is not enough experience from the project to know whether or not the "technology enhanced the collaboration process over, say, simple email exchanges." InterNIC: There can be little doubt that the Internet, particularly tools such as electronic mail and distributed information systems such as the World Wide Web, have had tremendous import for the nature of library work - how libraries conduct their business and carry out their missions, what that business and that mission is, and what is consequently required of the professionals in the field. Do you see CU-SeeMe and videoconferencing in general as having the same type of impact? Why or why not? ELM: While desktop video conferencing has the potential of enhancing library services quite a bit, I do not see desktop video significantly transforming library services. Libraries are about collecting, organizing, archiving, disseminating, and sometimes evaluating information. The use of CU-SeeMe or some other video conferencing technology only effects one aspect of those services (the dissemination process). Furthermore, I would personally like to see the realm of library services move from information mediation to knowledge mediation. The computer has enabled more and more people to acquire their own information without the use of a library. The real skill librarians posses is the ability to evaluate information. This evaluation process facilitates knowledge and I would like to see librarianship move in a more aggressive manner towards these goals. InterNIC: What advice or suggestions would you give a library considering the use of CU-SeeMe or other videoconferencing technology to deliver traditional library services? ELM: If I were to implement a full scale plan to incorporate something like CU-SeeMe into library services, I would: 1. Equip a goodly number of librarians with the necessary hardware and software. 2. Mandate the librarians experiment with the hardware and software for a limited period of time knowing that new services were going to be implemented on a specific date in the future. 3. Advertise, advertise, and then advertise the service to the intended beneficiaries of the service. 4. Get the University's administration or computing center to equip computing labs with the necessary hardware and software to use CU-SeeMe. 5. Bring up the service on the predefined date. In summary, I believe video conferencing can be used effectively in library settings. Unfortunately, even though librarians work in learning/teaching/academic/exploration settings, it is difficult for librarians to act in learning/teaching/academic/exploration modes. It is difficult not because librarians don't have the necessary skills, but rather there seems too little time for these sorts of activities. It may seem oxymoronic, but change is the norm. All institutions must think about change and how to cope with it. Until this happens, innovations will not be explored with very much rigor unless they are thrust upon us by outside forces. Hopefully we, as well as other professions, can learn to adjust. ------------------------------------------------- Searching the Internet Part I: Some Basic Considerations and Automated Search Indexes By Jack Solock, Special Librarian, InterNIC Net Scout ------------------------------------------------- Whenever librarians or information professionals have to think about searching the Web using search indexes like Alta Vista, HotBot, WebCrawler, or Lycos, they must cringe just a little bit. They are accustomed to using the extraordinarily powerful proprietary indexes that drive such services as Dialog, Lexis/Nexis, or H.W. Wilson's bank of bibliographic search databases. These engines are extremely powerful, allowing the user to effectively search through terabytes of data. These powerful search capabilities are necessary in order to retrieve just the requested items. The learning curve for these tools can be steep. Since users must pay for the use of these indexes, the librarian cannot just sit down at the terminal and "play around" with different searches. He or she must rigorously construct a search strategy before ever going online. Inefficiency is far too costly when using these services. Web searching is becoming similar to proprietary data retrieval services in that users are trying to filter through terabytes of data in order to find just what they want. However, because Internet search indexes are free, users tend to take a fairly cavalier attitude about using them, seldom taking the time to learn their features. This kind of searching may return useful results, but it may also return a frustrating mass of irrelevant information. In this article we will define the components of automatic search indexes, discuss procedures for making the most effective use of them, explain some basic search features that all search indexes should (but do not) explicitly contain, and identify which indexes are the best from the point of view of those search features. These features are summarized in a table at the end of this column. As we discussed in an earlier column (June 1996), automated search indexes aren't necessarily the most effective way to find useful information. Someone who has already sifted through that information can offer the most precise searching pointers. But search indexes are among the most popular sites on the net, indicating that users have a need to seek out information on their own. So let's try to make some sense of how users might best use these indexes. First, it's important to make the distinction between an automated search index and a web directory. Automated search indexes consist of three components: a "robot" of some sort that automatically collects links, titles, and text from Internet sites; a database where the resource information is stored; and a search engine which allows the user to query the database for sites. Most search indexes have added a browsable subject directory of some sort, but these sites are still primarily used to search, not browse, the net. All of the indexes collect large numbers of links, and this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage is that everything on the Web is waiting for you to find it. The disadvantage is that you have to know how to find it. Subject directories like Yahoo, Magellan, Galaxy, or Point, although they can be searched, are primarily categorizations of Internet resources. They are meant to be browsed through, just as you would browse the shelves of a library. Subject directories will be the focus of next month's column. Here we will discuss basic search index features. Eight of the more popular and powerful search indexes will be compared in terms of their support of these features. Seven have been in existence for some time, and the eighth is a new product that is in beta testing (that is, it is available to the public but is not yet in final form). They are: Alta Vista: http://altavista.digital.com/ Advanced search help: http://altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=ah&what=web Open Text: http://index.opentext.net/ Search help: http://index.opentext.net/main/help.html WebCrawler: http://www.webcrawler.com/ Search help: http://www.webcrawler.com/WebCrawler/Help/Help.html Advanced searching: http://www.webcrawler.com/WebCrawler/Help/Advanced.html excite: http://www.excite.com/ Search help: http://www.excite.com/Info/search_intro.html Advanced searching: http://www.excite.com/Info/advanced.html Infoseek Guide: http://guide.infoseek.com/ Search help: http://guide.infoseek.com/Help?pg=HomeHelp.html&sv=IS&lk=frames Advanced Searching and syntax guide: http://guide.infoseek.com/Help?pg=SearchHelp.html&sv=IS&lk=frames Lycos: http://www.lycos.com/ Search help: http://www.lycos.com/reference/search-help.html HotBot: http://www.hotbot.com/ Search help: http://www.hotwired.com/help/hotbot/f-help.html Infoseek Ultra (currently in beta release): http://ultra.infoseek.com/ Search help: http://ultra.infoseek.com/Help?pg=help.html&sv=US&lk=1 Each of these indexes has advantages and disadvantages, and while certain ones are recommended (see "The Best" in Table 1), users should find one or two that they are comfortable with, spend some time learning the searching systems, and then practice, practice, practice. Creating a Search Strategy First a searcher should step away from the computer. This recommendation is a throwback to the days when searching cost money and "playing on the computer" was unheard of, but it is still valid because your search will be much more efficient if you think about what you want to search for, and write it down before you start. Proprietary search engine workbooks suggest making a worksheet that connects the concepts you want to use before you start. For example, for information on teenage alcoholism, the two concepts to examine are: teenage AND alcoholism However, there are more than just two terms for these concepts. Think about what they might be. teenage AND alcoholism OR adolescents AND alcohol abuse OR secondary school AND alcoholic students beverages OR youth AND drinking Then combine the queries: (teenage or adolescents or secondary school students or youth) AND (alcoholism or alcohol abuse or alcoholic beverages or drinking) This (or a variation of it) allows you to use as many terms as possible to search for your concepts. Once you have done this, return to the computer. Now you'll want to know which search indexes can handle your query most effectively. Since automated search indexes cover so many sites, they must contain query features that allow you to retrieve exactly the information you need. If an index contains 100 items about teenage alcoholism, ideally your query should retrieve those 100 items. You would then have everything in the database that relates to your query. A query's effectiveness in this regard is its "recall." While you want a search to deliver high recall, you also want all retrieved items to be specifically about teenage alcoholism; you don't want 100 retrievals, of which only 15 are about teenage alcoholism. A query's success in this sense it its "precision." Ideally, a query should return high recall and high precision. However, it is less frustrating to achieve high precision with less recall than to receive hundreds (or thousands) of sites, many of which may be only loosely (or not at all) connected to your query. Here is where the syntactical tools of the trade, the search features that each index allows you to use, become crucial. There are several of these features, of which we will discuss only a few. Judging the indexes by their provision of these features is one of the most important ways to analyze which index is the best for you. Remember, whether there are 250,000, 30 million, or 50 million items behind the curtain of the search index, you need to be able to retrieve just the items of use to you. The Basic Features Here are some of the basic syntactical features, along with very brief explanations of how they work. Boolean searching: This allows terms to be put into logical groups by the use of connective terms. The basic connective terms are AND, OR, and NOT. Searching "cats OR dogs" will retrieve items containing either term. Searching "cats AND dogs" will retrieve only items containing both terms, narrowing the search. Searching "Mexico NOT New" will retrieve items about Mexico but not about New Mexico, narrowing the search in another way. Phrase searching: This allows searching words as phrases and can be very useful in narrowing a search. If you can find sites with the words "teenage alcoholism" as a phrase, rather than just the two words mentioned anywhere in the site, you're on your way to higher precision. Proximity searching: When available, proximity operators allow you to specify how many words one word is from another. The closer the words teenage and alcoholism are, the more likely they are to be pertinent to your query. The most common proximity operator is NEAR. Truncation: This allows you to add a wild card symbol (usually a *) at the end of a root term, in order to retrieve different variants of the term. Many search indexes do this implicitly, but you have another tool in your arsenal if you can do it explicitly. A search on "historic*" should return historic, historical, historically, etc. Field searching: This is probably the most important feature available for searching indexes, and it is what really separates the great ones from the good ones. A web page is a data record which can be divided into fields. Title, URL, text, summary, and heading are just a few of the fields. The more fields that can be searched, the better, because in combination, field searches increase precision dramatically. If you can search on the phrase "teenage alcohol*" in the title of web pages, and combine that with "treatment method*" in the text of the page, you can narrow the search significantly. Analysis The above features offer the user flexibility and power. Based on the number of features offered, Alta Vista, Open Text, and WebCrawler are the most powerful. (See Table 1--a simple comparison across the board of the search features explicitly available in each index--taken from the search index help pages.) These three indexes are the best not because they contain the most sites or return retrieved sites the fastest, but because they allow you to hone your search the most, increasing precision. Infoseek's Ultra is not listed as one of the best at this time, because it is currently in beta release, but a look at its capabilities shows that it has much promise to join this list. What really sets Alta Vista, Open Text, and possibly Ultra apart are their field search capabilities. The producers of these indexes realize that it is crucially important to not only provide millions of web pages, but also to provide the end user with the tools to achieve precise retrieval. Of course, you might not agree with these "best" picks; no one search index is right for every user. The point is to find an index that is comfortable for you and that provides you with the best results. Hopefully, Table 1 will help you do that. There are inherent problems with all these search indexes. Because they cannot discriminate between pages that are at the same site, they can become the equivalent of searching a card catalog for "George Washington," and retrieving citations for every page of every book that name is listed on. Sites are often mirrored, and the index can return numerous duplicates. There is also the ever-present problem of quality. Even when you have found the indexes of choice for you, spent time learning their syntax, and have sent queries that return a manageable amount of retrieval that appears to be relevant to your query, how do you know if the sites retrieved are good sites? Information quality in the Internet environment will be discussed in a later column. For more information on automated search indexes, along with other ways to search the Internet, see the Scout Toolkit. http://rs.internic.net/scout/toolkit/search.html http://www.cs.wisc.edu/scout/toolkit/search.html ------------------------------------------------- Table 1. A Summary of basic search features of eight major automated Internet search indexes. (Note that exact syntax of your query using these operators is given. For more information on operator usage, along with examples, see the search index help pages.) Always replace "term" or "terms" with your query terms. For the purposes of this column, "must" is treated as "AND." "Must not" is treated as "NOT." Key: Form Based: The feature is present but only through menu picks on a form-based interface. For field searches that are form based, the searchable fields are listed below the words "Form Based." "...": Type terms between double quotation marks. NEAR/N: This is a proximity operator where the user specifies the range of the number of words one word should be from another. NEAR/10 would mean within 10 words. NA: Not available at this time. --------------------------- The Best Alta Vista OpenText WebCrawler Boolean AND: AND or & Form Based AND OR: OR or | Form Based OR NOT: AND NOT or ! Form Based NOT Phrase: "..." Form Based "..." Proximity: NEAR Form Based ADJ (10 words) Near/N (User specifies N) Truncation: * * NA Field Search: anchor:terms Form Based NA applet:terms Summary host:terms Title image:terms 1st Heading link:terms URL text:terms title:terms url:terms ------------------------------------------------- The Rest (in no particular order) Infoseek Excite Lycos HotBot Boolean + AND Form Based Form Based AND OR Type terms OR Form Based Form Based NOT - AND NOT Form Based Form Based Phrase "..." NA NA Form Based Proximity term-term NA NA NA (adjacent) [term-term] (100 words) Truncation NA NA NA NA Field NA NA NA Form Based Search Media Type Location URL ------------------------------------------------- And a new one that shows promise. Infoseek Ultra Boolean AND + OR Type terms NOT - Phrase "..." Proximity NA Truncation NA Field Search l ink:terms site:terms url:terms title:terms ------------------------------------------------- What's in a Name? By Tom Newell, Manager, InterNIC Information and Education Services ------------------------------------------------- The InterNIC is pleased to announce a new feature of the InterNIC News newsletter, "What's in a Name?" Each month the InterNIC intends to use this column to share interesting, and hopefully useful, demographic information related to the domain name system and the registration process. We will include here each month in both table and graphic format, indications of the size of the "name space" available for Internet trainers to use in curriculum development. If a particular demographic would be of interest, let us know and we will work to include such information in future columns. Suggestions for future material may be sent to meter@internic.net. ------------------------------------------------- Total Second Level Domains Information cut-off date: 8/29/96 .COM 498246 .ORG 33558 .NET 19428 .EDU 2867 .GOV 469 Graphic available at ftp://rs.internic.net/NIC-support/newsletter/ sep96/second-level-total.gif ------------------------------------------------- Registered Administrative Contacts Grouped by State Information cut-off date: 8/29/96 Grouped by Count by State: Total: 401268 US Totals: 329250 Non-US Totals: 72018 CA 78874 NY 23258 TX 19456 FL 16206 MA 15768 IL 10830 PA 10781 NJ 10724 WA 10445 VA 10436 CO 9542 OH 8790 MD 7888 GA 7462 MN 6853 MI 6509 AZ 6124 OR 5494 CT 5270 NC 4866 WI 4641 IN 3848 MO 3676 UT 3675 DC 3623 TN 3062 NH 2368 OK 2065 LA 2059 KS 2040 AL 2012 NV 1837 NM 1756 KY 1745 IA 1724 SC 1546 HI 1424 NE 1284 ME 1054 RI 1052 ID 1019 AR 959 DE 957 VT 821 MS 730 MT 591 AK 526 WV 402 SD 373 WY 266 ND 253 PR 183 VI 2 GU 1 ------------------------------------------------- Domain Name Length (x) as Frequency (y) Information cut-off date: 8/28/96 Length Number Notes (Chars) 1 1 . 2 190 ISO-3166 3 7 COM, EDU, GOV, INT, MIL, NET, ORG 4 3 ARPA, NATO, TEST 5 217 6 2164 7 20123 8 38256 9 40942 10 60174 11 69679 12 71413 13 62975 14 55848 15 44858 16 35472 17 26291 18 19456 19 14618 20 10516 21 7244 22 5168 23 3574 24 2462 25 1377 26 788 Graphic available at ftp://rs.internic.net/NIC-support/newsletter/ sep96/name-length.gif ------------------------------------------------- 15 Minute Series Modules Now Available The InterNIC and LITA announce the 15 Minute Series! By Robin Murphy and Tom Newell, InterNIC Support Services ------------------------------------------------- The InterNIC and the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA), a division of the American Library Association, are pleased to announce the availability of the 15 Minute Series, a collection of free, modular, and extensible training materials for the research and education community. Available in both Microsoft PowerPoint and HTML, the training modules offer mini-slide presentations on specific Internet topics and use a question-and-answer approach to present the subject. Each module follows a consistent outline and style guide, which enables the modules to be used alone or in conjunction with other modules, depending on the training task at hand. Trainers are welcome to extend the modules to address specific local issues such as operating platforms, client software, and access methods; templates (in both HTML and PowerPoint) are provided for trainers who wish to do so. Twenty-one modules, prepared by the InterNIC staff, are currently available; they incorporate graphics, screen shots, and analogies. The collection is expected to grow in the coming months, and the InterNIC and LITA will be issuing a call for participation inviting members of the research and education community to contribute modules for inclusion in the 15 Minute Series. The 15 Minute Series website includes background and introductory information, technical tips and recommendations for use, and search and browse features. All modules are provided from the website in HTML and PowerPoint; the PowerPoint modules are also available via anonymous FTP. http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/15min/ ftp://rs.internic.net/NIC-support/15min/ Tom Newell Robin Murphy tomn@internic.net robinm@internic.net (703) 742-4796 (703) 736-0177 Information and Education Information and Education Services Services NIC Liaison Nic Liaison Assistant ------------------------------------------------- Roadmap '96: Patrick Crispen's Popular Workshop on the Web By Julie Robichaux, InterNIC Support Services ------------------------------------------------- The InterNIC is pleased to announce the premiere of Patrick Crispen's Internet Roadmap '96 on the World Wide Web! Since August, the InterNIC has hosted the popular e-mail based Internet tutorial originally developed by Crispen in 1994. Recently revised to reflect the ever-changing topography of the Internet, Roadmap '96 includes discussion of the World Wide Web, IRC/MUDs/MOOs and other "talkers," advanced Listserv commands, FTP, and less technical issues such as "netiquette" and urban legends. Each lesson, or map, is delivered daily via Listserv to the thousands of subscribers on the ROADMAP list at the InterNIC. This delivery method has allowed users to work at their own pace to explore and understand the Internet and the tools Crispen describes. Now that the lessons are available on the World Wide Web, users have even greater flexibility to progress through the lessons at a speed that's comfortable for them. And Crispen has made sure his users will be comfortable: the 27 lessons and several "Map-Extras" were written for beginners and are delivered in an easy-to-follow, entertaining style that will soothe even the most nervous "student driver" on the Information Superhighway. The Internet has changed greatly since the initial Roadmap workshop was delivered, back in the days before the World Wide Web became popular. Now the Web's simple point-and-click interface allows users who are unfamiliar with Listserv commands and the intricacies of e-mail to learn about the Internet tools and resources at their command. Users need only point their browsers to http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/roadmap/ to begin their exploration using Crispen's maps as their guide. The Washington Post endorsed Roadmap in 1995: "If you're looking for a free, easy way to learn a lot about the Internet, look no further." The workshop has been enormously successful but has only been available sporadically in the past. With new "classes" beginning every other week on the ROADMAP mailing list, and now with the Web-based version of Roadmap '96, the InterNIC is proud to facilitate the distribution of this popular tool, hailed by Internet World as "Best Stuff for Beginners." So pack up the family, fill up the gas tank, and join Patrick Crispen's jaunt across the Internet with Roadmap '96. And don't worry--the InterNIC's Web site is guaranteed to be squirrel-free! Visit the Roadmap Web site at http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/roadmap/ to join the expedition. You may also join in on the next Roadmap '96 workshop session via e-mail -- just send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET with the command SUBSCRIBE ROADMAP96 YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the body of your e-mail letter, replacing YOURFIRSTNAME and YOURLASTNAME with your first and last names. ------------------------------------------------- POLS: A Virtual Political Science Reference Desk By Rich Landers, InterNIC Support Services ------------------------------------------------- Collaboration on the Internet occurs at all levels, from chat rooms to virtual libraries, and no matter what your interests are you should be able to find a spot on the Internet to collaborate with your colleagues. Undergraduate students conducting research often overlook the value of online resources, choosing instead to cash in on the guaranteed payoff that their university library offers. But when students share their successes on a simple web page, the result can be instant success in researching available resources, and a passive collaboration that may generate new ideas in well-established disciplines. Nowadays, you don't have to be a computer whiz to participate in such collaboration, and information is being freely exchanged by regular students of the liberal arts, as well as the engineers and scientists. The Internet, as a medium for expressing and exchanging ideas and information, provides the perfect setting for home-made reference desks. This is how a student wishing to conduct quick and easy research can cash in on the World Wide Web, and then share the wealth with everyone on the Internet. The World Wide Web is ideal for exploring new areas of political arena during this election year, and one home page that is becoming a central meeting place for political science majors is the POLS Guide at http://www.trincoll.edu/pols/. Peter Adams has made this page a virtual political science reference desk with links to such items as The U.S. Constitution, the Boston Anarchist Drinkin' Brigade, and the Congressional Research Service publications. These references are standard fare for any political science student, and the word is spreading that these resources can be easily obtained off the World Wide Web. Peter Adams created this home page as a project during his senior year at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. At that time, a number of government agencies had just introduced their web sites, and Peter saw the need for a definitive guide to all of the political resources that were becoming available on-line. The emphasis was not on computer technology or the Internet, but rather the use of the Internet to provide a guide to the resources using the terminology that is understandable to people within the political science field. He has been able to keep it running due to the quality of the material, the enthusiasm that it continues to receive, and the assistance of his fellow political scientists from around the world, who can submit new links through an HTML form interface. There is nothing ultra-high-tech or graphically dazzling about this page, it is simply information-sharing for the political science community, and a good example of how the Internet can be used effectively to share topic-specific information. Peter saw a need for information sharing, had the resources via his school-provided Internet access, and knew how to contribute to the information superhighway. The result is a low cost, low maintenance, but highly useful web page that exemplifies how the Internet can be used to conduct college-level research. The POLS Guide in Action The main menu of the POLS Guide is divided into five separate and distinct categories: Guide Services, U.S. Resources, Academic Resources, Issues and People, International Affairs, and Election 96. The Guide Services section simply explains what the guide is and how it can be used. Within the Guide Services section you may conduct searches or subscribe to POLS Week, the weekly newsletter serving the users of the POLS Guide home page. The U.S. Resources section provides links to the White House, Legislature, Judicuary, and State Governments' on-line resources. This information is multi-tiered and quite extensive, but it makes the task of chasing down specific political information much less laborious than it would normally be, even by Internet standards. Just as an example, if you were to follow the Legislative link you would be able to access the Thomas legislative site, which includes full text of all legislation created by both houses of Congress, plus the Congressional Record, and much more. Many political science students may be unaware of these massive archives that are readily available right from their desktop, and finding such resources can change a mediocre research effort into a superb in-depth topic analysis. The Academic Resources section is loaded with various political documents, on-line Research Libraries and Institutions, and University Political Science departments. Some of the documents include famous speeches, the Magna Carta, and text versions of recent legislation; the on-line research libraries section instructs the researcher through a Telnet session with any one of the ten libraries listed; and the University Departments link provides an extensive list of political science departments around the world, potentially saving a person from having to check the home pages of Universities and searching for the political science department from the top, in the vain hope of discovering something of value. The Issues and People section of the POLS Guide provides links to web pages that confront a wide spectrum of political issues, and includes dissertations and organizations. By following the Parties & People link you can peruse through a number of Politician's home pages, check out a large number of different political parties that are online, and visit the sites of some of the more prominent special interest groups. In the International Affairs section links are provided for researching statistical information, periodicals, international organizations, and various think tanks. One of the big advantages of the POLS Guide is that it permits anyone from the Internet community to enter a link for any given category. This gives the POLS Guide a dynamic quality, and keeps it up-to-date with the best information available -- coming from political scientists from all levels of Academia. Thanks to the efforts of dedicated students who wish to share their knowledge in a productive and organized fashion on the World Wide Web, students can reach beyond the scope of their local campus environment to see how students from other campuses have proceeded with research projects and other difficult assignments. ------------------------------------------------- This file last modified 9/03/96. [Button bar] Registration Services Performance Measures for July 1996 ------------------------------------------------- Purpose The following performance measures are provided in accordance with the requirements of Amendment 4 to Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-9218742, Network Information Services Manager(s) for NSFNET and the NREN: INTERNIC Registration Services. Performance Significant Events Network addresses assigned: 4,022 Top-level country domains assigned: GF - French Guiana Communication Received by InterNIC Registration Services Type Number of contacts E-mail to hostmaster@internic.net 13,075,861 Postal/fax 4,930 Phone 56,166 Information Server Performance Type Connections Retrievals Gopher 11,514 39,979 WAIS 57,972 34,246 FTP 61,098 129,768 Mailserv 4,128 Telnet 87,392 HTTP 3,626,502 WHOIS Queries Client Server 576,1706,183,846 Second-Level Domain Registration Summary These figures are cumulative from August 1993 through July 1996. Top-level domain Number COM 463,519 EDU 3,329 ORG 31,990 NET 21,199 GOV 741 US N/A Other country 178 Total 463,519 ------------------------------------------------- User Feedback ------------------------------------------------- What would you like to see in the InterNIC News? Our goal is to produce an interesting, informative publication that addresses the needs of the Internet's diverse population, both information providers and information seekers. Tell us what you'd like to see in future issues of the InterNIC News. How can we address your information needs? We also welcome any contributions you are willing to make to this newsletter. The InterNIC staff looks forward to working closely with you to inform the Internet community about your R&E projects, technological developments, and user services. In the future, we plan to publish and answer selected letters to the editor in this space. Write to us, and we'll do our best to address your concerns about this publication. You may contact the editor of the InterNIC News via e-mail at editor@internic.net. In addition to story ideas or contributions, we sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions on how we can make this newsletter a publication that satisfies the needs of the Internet community. Thank you for your input. Tom Newell InterNIC Support Services liaison@internic.net Julie Robichaux Internet Services Support Specialist editor@internic.net ------------------------------------------------- Get the InterNIC News ------------------------------------------------- The InterNIC News will be published monthly. You may visit the InterNIC Support Services Web site to see the latest issue and to peruse back issues (http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/). The newsletter will also be made available in a plain-text version, for access at the InterNIC's FTP site (ftp://rs.internic.net/NIC-support/newsletter/) and for distribution via an electronic mailing list. To subscribe to the newsletter distribution list, you may either use our Web-based interface at http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/lwgate/NEWSLETTER/, or simply send e-mail to listserv@internic.net with the command SUBSCRIBE NEWSLETTER [YOUR NAME] in the body of the mail message. ------------------------------------------------- Using This Material ------------------------------------------------- You are encouraged to use and redistribute the InterNIC News, provided the following conditions are met: Permission to copy or use material from the InterNIC News newsletter is hereby granted subject to inclusion of the following statement: "This article is reprinted with permission from the InterNIC News, published by the InterNIC." This newsletter and its contents may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without the written permission of the copyright holder. This material is based on work sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement #NCR-9218742. The Government has certain rights in this material. -------------------------------------------------