EPIC logo
CDA Trial Transcript 3/21/96 (morning)

                              - - -
   UNION, et al                  :
                     Plaintiffs  :
                v.               :  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                                 :  March 21, 1996
   JANET RENO, in her official   :  
   capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL  :
   OF THE UNITED STATES,         :
                      Defendant  :
   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                         HEARING BEFORE:
                     FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                              - - -
   For the Plaintiffs:  CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN, ESQUIRE
                        MARJORIE HEINS, ESQUIRE
                        ANN BEESON, ESQUIRE
                        American Civil Liberties Union
                        132 West 43rd Street
                        New York, NY  10036
                        STEFAN PRESSER, ESQUIRE
                        American Civil Liberties Union
                        123 S. 9th Street, Suite 701
                        Philadelphia, PA  19107
   For the ALA          BRUCE J. ENNIS, JR., ESQUIRE
   Plaintiffs:          ANN M. KAPPLER, ESQUIRE
                        JOHN B. MORRIS, JR., ESQUIRE
                        Jenner and Block
                        601 13th Street, N.W.
                        Washington, DC  20005
                              - - -
   APPEARANCES:  (Continued)
   For the Defendant:   ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO, ESQUIRE
                        PATRICIA RUSSOTTO, ESQUIRE
                        JASON R. BARON, ESQUIRE
                        THEODORE C. HIRT
                        Department of Justice
                        901 E. Street, N.W.
                        Washington, DC  20530
                        MARK KMETZ, ESQUIRE
                        U.S. Attorney's Office
                        615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
                        Philadelphia, PA  19106
                              - - -
   Also Present:        MICHAEL KUNZ
                        Clerk of the Court for the
                        Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                              - - -
   Deputy Clerks:       Thomas Clewley
                        Matthew J. Higgins
   Audio Operator:      Andrea L. Mack
   Transcribed by:      Geraldine C. Laws
                        Grace Williams
                        Tracey Williams
                        Laws Transcription Service
   (Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript 
   provided by computer-aided transcription service.)
        (Whereupon the following occurred in open court at 9:32 
   o'clock a.m.:)
        CLERK OF COURT KUNZ:  Oyez, oyez, oyez, all manner of persons 
   having any matter to present before the Honorable Dolores K. 
   Sloviter, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for 
   the Third Circuit and the Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter and the 
   Honorable Stewart Dalzell, Judges of the United States District 
   Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania may at present 
   appear and they shall be heard. God save the United States and 
   this Honorable Court.  Court is now in session, please be seated.
        COUNSEL:  Good morning, your Honor.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Good morning.  This is the hearing before 
   the statutory Three-Judge Court on the request for a preliminary 
   injunction in the consolidated action of American Civil Liberties 
   Union and its co-plaintiffs versus Reno, No. 96-963, and American 
   Library Association and its co-plaintiffs versus Department of 
   Justice, No. 96-1458.
        Judge Buckwalter and I want to thank Judge Dalzell for his 
   case management of all preliminary matters and all three Judges 
   want to thank the parties for their concerted efforts to expedite 
   the proceedings by entering into stipulations and we want to thank 
   the plaintiffs for presenting their testimony in chief by 
   affidavits which are available for public and press view.
        We -- now, there have been various requests for photographing 
   the proceedings and I thought it might be, we thought it might be 
   appropriate to make a statement at the inception.
        In September 1994 the Judicial Conference of the United 
   States voted not to permit the taking of photographs and radio and 
   television coverage of proceedings in the United States District 
   Courts, whether those proceedings are civil or criminal.
        When the Judicial Conference voted last week to permit each 
   Court of Appeals to decide whether and under what circumstances to 
   permit the taking of photographs and radio and television 
   arguments of appellate arguments it reiterated its prior policy 
   with respect to the District Courts.
        This proceeding is a three-judge District Court proceeding.  
   I am a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States and 
   Chief Judge Cahn of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a 
   member of the Judicial Conference.
        Whatever the views of individual members of the Eastern 
   District on the issue of cameras in the Federal courtroom or the 
   collective views on that issue of that District Court which was 
   one of the pilot courts during the project and whatever the 
   personal views of the Judges on this panel on that issue, we will 
   abide by the vote of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 
   whether binding or hortatory.
        We are privileged to be part of the great institution that is 
   the Federal Judiciary of the United States.
        Okay, we will proceed with cross-examination of the 
   plaintiff's witness by the Government and we ask the Government at 
   the inception is there any -- we understand that the first witness 
   is -- and we'll ask the Government, whom are you calling?  The 
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  The Court of Appeals, go ahead.
        MR. COPPOLINO:  I'm sorry, your Honor, your question?
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Your first witness?
        MR. COPPOLINO:  Would be Scott Bradner, I believe, your 
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay.  And do you accept Mr. Bradner as an 
        MR. COPPOLINO:  Yes, we do, your Honor.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay, thank you.  Then proceed.
        JUDGE DALZELL:   Oh, yes, Mr. Coppolino, just one 
   housekeeping, important housekeeping matter.  We were most 
   grateful to the parties for the extensive stipulations that were 
   submitted that will probably save us a week of testimony but there 
   was -- and I don't criticize you for this -- there was a 
   qualification at the beginning of the stipulating having to do 
   with the fact that discovery of the plaintiff's case was not 
   concluded and therefore it says that no party waives its right to 
   submit information inconsistent with its terms should it learn 
   thereof through discovery, disclosure or other investigation.
        Now, I take it that by April 1st, that is to say when the 
   plaintiffs complete their case, that the Government will be in a 
   position to tell us yea or nay whether it indeed accepts every 
   paragraph of those stipulations.
        MR. COPPOLINO:  Your Honor, I believe I can represent that 
   the purpose of the stipulation on the part of both parties was to 
   indicate that it was applicable to the entire PI hearing.  And I 
   believe that the specific purpose being addressed here is that as 
   the case proceeds beyond the PI stage of the merits and discovery 
   is taken at that time which indicates that some of the statements 
   in here are incorrect or inaccurate upon further testing that at 
   that point these particular stipulations would not apply.
        That's my understanding.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  All right.  So therefore you can represent to 
   us now that for purposes of this preliminary injunction hearing 
   that we may take the stipulation without qualification.
        MR. COPPOLINO:  Yes.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Okay, fine, that's very helpful. Thank you.
        Okay, do you want to -- it's Mr. Bradner, is it?
        MR. MORRIS:  Yes, your Honor, my name is John Morris, co-
   counsel for the ALA plaintiffs and plaintiffs call as their first 
   witness Scott O. Bradner.
        MR. KMETZ:  Your Honor, Mr. Jason Baron will be handling the 
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  And it's our understanding that there will 
   be only one lawyer per witness.
        MR. KMETZ:  That would be our understanding as well.
        MR. MORRIS:  That's certainly our understanding.  If the 
   Court would indulge at the conclusion of any redirect we might 
   have, I will confer just momentarily among ourselves to make sure 
   that we're all on the same page.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  We don't mind your conferring as long as you 
   don't mind our conferring --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  -- because a three-judge court is something 
   new for all of us, three-judge District Court.
        THE COURT CLERK:  Sir, will you state and spell your full 
   name for the record?
        THE WITNESS:  Scott Bradner, S-c-o-t-t 
        THE COURT CLERK:  Will you place your left hand on the Bible 
   and raise your right hand?
        SCOTT BRADNER, Plaintiffs' Witness, Affirmed.
        MR. MORRIS:  And at this point the plaintiffs would move into 
   admission the evidence of the previously filed declaration of Mr. 
   Bradner as sworn to on the 19th of this month as his trial 
        And Mr. Bradner is available for examination by the 
   Government and certainly any questions the Court may have, I'm 
   sure he'd be happy to respond to.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Thank you.  Is there any objection to-- 
        MR. BARON:  No objection, your Honor.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  -- accepting that as evidence, fine.  
        MR. BARON:  Good morning, your Honors.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Good morning.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Good morning.
        JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Good morning.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Good morning, Mr. Bradner.  You state in your decla--
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Excuse me.  In the Court of Appeals we 
   always identify ourselves, we ask the counsel to identify 
   themselves for the record.  Maybe that would be a good idea.
        MR. BARON:  My apologies, your Honor.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  That's all right.
        MR. BARON:  I'm Jason R. Baron, B-a-r-o-n, counsel to the 
   U.S. Department of Justice.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Thank you.
        MR. BARON:  Thank you, your Honor.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Mr. Bradner, you state in your declaration that you are co-
   area director of something called the IETF.  Could you, in a 
   nutshell, tell us what the IETF is and what does it do?
   A   The Internet Engineering Task Force is a self-organizing group 
   which developed out of some U.S. Federal Government networking 
   initiatives many years ago and it is the group which now is 
   primarily responsible for developing standards for use in the 
   Internet protocol which is the basis upon which the Internet runs.
   Q   The IETF has been in existence for about ten years, correct?
   A   That is correct.  I'd be clear that it predates my involvement 
   so I'm taking that from what others have said.
   Q   Okay.  Would it be fair to say that the IETF defines standards 
   for the Internet Protocol suite?
   A   That is -- yes, it would be fair to say that.
   Q   Could you explain for the Court what is the Internet Protocol, 
   otherwise known as IP?
   A   The Internet itself consists of many networks connected 
   together by other networks.  The Internet Protocol is that part of 
   the protocol suite, that part of the language which is used on the 
   network which allows a piece of information called a packet on one 
   network to find its way to identify a separate network and find 
   its way to that separate network. So the IP is the Internet 
   Protocol that allows movement of data between networks.
   Q   Different protocols make up IP suite, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Can you name a few for the Court?
   A   Well, the underlying protocol is the Internet Protocol or IP.  
   Riding on top of that are protocols such as TCP, the Transmission 
   Control Protocol, UDP, the Unreliable Datagram Protocol, ICMP, the 
   Internet Control Message Protocol. Riding on top of TCP are 
   protocols such as Telnet on the World Wide Web, HTTP Protocols.  
   It's a layer cake of various different concoctions.
   Q   Well, we'll get into some of those in a few minutes.  Who 
   comprises the IETF?
   A   As I said, the IETF is a self-organized group, we have 
   meetings three times a year.  The membership is those who attend 
   the meetings and those who are on the mailing lists. There are 
   some 80 or so working groups, each of the working groups maintains 
   a mailing list and anybody who joins any of those mailing lists is 
   de facto part of the IETF. 
        There is an organizational structure within the IETF which 
   divides the working groups up into areas and then the area, each 
   area is managed by one or more, one or two area directors.
   Q   We're going to get into that as well.  People doing the, 
   quote, "standards work," unquote, on the IETF, are they normally 
   paid by corporations and businesses?
   A   Or they are paid by corporations or businesses or universities 
   or their private consultants.
   Q   Okay.  Could you explain to the Court what an RFC is?
   A   RFC came from the original process of asking for comments, it 
   stood for request for comments, asking for comments on thoughts on 
   how to do some proposal.  It is progressed past that point now and 
   RFC stands for RFC.  It no longer is a vehicle for comments.  
   There is a new vehicle for the comments which are called Internet 
   drafts and they pre--precede RFC's, but RFC's are the basic 
   standardization document series for the IETF.
   Q   RFC's exist that define a standards process for the Internet, 
   A   There are a series of RFC's which have progressively defined 
   the standards process.
   Q   And some of the RFC's establishing a standards process for the 
   Internet are well established, correct?
   A   There is -- the original standards process was defined in RFC-
   1310, that has been superseded by RFC-1602 which has been in 
   effect for a few years, I don't remember exactly what. And within 
   one of the working groups within the IETF is called the Poise 
   Working Group -- and don't ask me what that stands for cause I 
   don't know -- and that is in the process of refining a third 
   revision of the standards process.  It's now known as 1602 BIS 
   because it has not gotten its own RFC number yet.  That should 
   happen within a few weeks.
   Q   You're editing at least one RFC at the present time having to 
   do with Internet standards, correct?
   A   I am editing two of them; co-editing one and editing another 
   Q   Now, you mentioned an area within IETF, what is an area within 
   the IETF?
   A   An area is a grouping of working groups, normally trying to 
   make the -- it's normally tried to be done in a way which is 
   logical so that the working groups which are working on security-
   related matters are grouped in the security area. Working groups 
   that are working on network management related efforts are in the 
   network management area.
   Q   Would it be fair to say that the area of operational 
   requirements that you are co-area director of has to do with 
   developing standards for the next generation of software for the 
   A   No, it would not be.  The operational requirements area is a 
   little bit of a confusion point on the IETF in that one of the 
   things that we feel we must have is some kind of feedback from the 
   operation of a protocol to the protocol developers and the 
   operational requirements area does two things: one, tries to make 
   sure that when standards are developed they can be done so, the 
   resultant standards can actually be operated in the real world 
   rather than just in the theoretical world.  And then, second of 
   all, if indeed when these standards are deployed that there is any 
   lessons to be learned which should go back to the standards 
   developers that they are fed back.
        I think what you may be referring to is the ad hoc or the 
   temporary IP Next Generation or IPNG area which is, was working on 
   and is currently working on extending for the new generation of 
   the IP protocol itself.
   Q   Well, you have also been the co-area director of the IP Next 
   Generation area, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   It sounds a little bit like Star Trek; what does that area 
   consist of?
   A   It was purposely it sounds a little like Star Trek, actually.
   A   It consists of the -- Allison Menkin and I were asked by the 
   -- by Phil Gross, the chair of the IETF, to put together a 
   temporary area to -- to group together all of the activities 
   involved, all of the proposals for a successor protocol to IP to 
   deal with scaling issues and the like and to resolve the question 
   of what should be "The Proposal" out of the IETF-4 and IP Next 
   Generation.  There were a number of proposals on the books when we 
   were assigned the task of forming this temporary area, we have 
   made a recommendation on what the next generation should be, that 
   recommendation has been accepted and the area right now is closing 
   down because it's very close to have finished publishing the 
   initial set of RFC's, the initial set of standards for IP Next 
   Q   Would it be fair to say, to summarize what you've just said, 
   that the IP Next Generation group is working on a new generation 
   of the IP Protocol itself?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Does it have -- does the IP Next Generation group have 
   recommendations regarding a specific architecture of the packet 
   traffic on the Internet, including the format of the packet?
   A   It has a recommendation on the format of the packet itself 
   that's actually the basic recommendation is the format of the 
   packet traffic itself.  You used the word "architecture" in your 
   question and that's potentially confusing because architecture 
   could mean the way the networks are put together, it could mean 
   the concept of how the packets are flowed through the network, it 
   could mean a number of different things, so I would prefer to say 
   that we've defined the packet format itself and we have looked at 
   architecture in various areas but not come to a specific 
   recommendation on architecture.
            JUDGE DALZELL:  Sir, when you -- excuse me.  When you use 
   the word "architecture" and it's in all -- a number of the 
   declarations, there's no -- that's not a term of art that means 
   one thing in this area?
        THE WITNESS:  It means -- it means one thing for each of the 
   areas that it's in.  And it's as a security architecture which 
   ties together a unified view of how one should do security.
        There is a routing architecture which ties together a unified 
   view of how one should do routing which is the keeping track of 
   where networks are.  So there are a number of architectures 
   depending on what particular topic we're on. There isn't an 
   overall architecture because at the moment it's too complex a 
   network with too many functions going on. You have to look at the 
   individual functions and do an architecture on those.
        We have done some work in that area, there is an architecture 
   for security, an IP Next Generation Security which is now the 
   general IP Security architecture and we have looked at 
   architecture in other areas, but it's difficult to do to unify all 
   of the thoughts together.
        One of our recommendations in the -- in our recommendation 
   for IP Next Generation was to appoint an individual to be an 
   architect for IP Next Generation. Unfortunately, there aren't many 
   people who could do that task and fewer of them with enough time 
   to do it.  So we in the -- as Allison and I have acted as 
   architects to make sure that there's a consistent view of what 
   IPNG, IP Next Generation looks like across the various activities 
   creating protocols for it, the TCP Next Generation, the ICNP Next 
   Generation, the routing, security, all of these different working 
   groups working on different aspects of it, we're trying to keep 
   their view of what IP Next Generation looks like as consistent.
        So we in that context are acting as architects, but it's 
   architects is one of those words which depends on the beholder.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Depends on?
        THE WITNESS:  On the beholder.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Okay.  But you consider yourself one?
        THE WITNESS:  In a real sense, no, I do not. Architects tend 
   to be more visionary than I tend to be in this environment, intend 
   to be more on intuitive feeling of how the incredibly complicated 
   world of the networking fits together and what the implications 
   are of making a change some place. 
        I think that I can understand architecture, but I would not 
   go so far as to say that I am an architect in the context of, for 
   example, Dave Clark of MIT, Dr. Dave Clark, who is -- who was the 
   original IP architect and the one who--and the person that 
   unfortunately didn't have enough time to be the IP Next Generation 
        JUDGE DALZELL:  But, for example, in the stipulation and we 
   hear a lot about the packet switching, for example. Now, would 
   that be like, to continue the metaphor, a brick that is commonly 
   used in all forms of architecture?
        THE WITNESS:  It's -- maybe it's more of a fact of life of 
   the forms of architecture, but --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Because that's unchanging, the packet 
   switching concept, that's not going to change?
        THE WITNESS:  One of the areas that we specifically addressed 
   in working on IP Next Generation was what are the paradigms which 
   we want to follow in IP Next Generation and one of them was we 
   wanted to preserve what is called the Datagram mode which is the 
   packet mode.
        The alternative to that is circuit switching like a telephone 
   where you do a call setup, you do initialization and all of the 
   traffic flows down a particular path.
        The original IP that designed when it was originally designed 
   was designed to deal with adverse events.  The colloquial story is 
   it was designed to deal with atomic war which is an adverse event.  
   And --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  I think we can agree on that.
        THE WITNESS:  And so the ability for IP to survive that kind 
   of environment, the kind of hostile environment we felt was very 
   important to maintain, Datagram mode means that the individual 
   units of the data that move over the network which are packets 
   have full identify-- source identifiers and destination 
   identifiers in each packet and are separately routed, separately 
   handled by the computers which comprise the network, therefore 
   being resilient to individual failure.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  And that is -- but that is not subject to 
   change right now, that's not in the NG, the IPNG?
        THE WITNESS:  We specifically, specifically chose to require 
   the support for Datagram mode in IPNG.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Thank you.  Sorry to interrupt.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Mr. Bradner, are all IETF documents public?
   A   It is a -- it is a matter of pride and honor in the IETF that 
   all documents are public documents available for free over the 
   net.  We used the paradigm to develop the paradigm.
   Q   And that includes all RFC drafts or proposals for standards, 
   A   That is correct, they are called Internet Drafts and they are 
   publicly available.
   Q   And they're put up on web sites and are available to the world 
   at large, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Can we pause here and define what a URL is for the Court?
   A   URL is a term which means Uniform Resource Locator, a pointer.  
   It's the best -- the best way to identi-- to consider it is it's 
   sort of like a combination of all of the things you might have in 
   a phone directory listing, somebody's name and address, and it is 
   where something is on the Net, not relative to you but in an 
   absolute sense.
        You don't go three buildings over to the left and two stores 
   down, it is here is the absolute location of something ir-- 
   independent of where you happen to be sitting in the network.
   Q   For the IETF itself, am I correct that the URL is something 
   known as HTTP://WWW.EFF.ORG?
   A   That is incorrect.
   Q   Oh.
   A   Now, I'm sure that --
   Q   Please correct me.
   A   -- you -- you meant that to be incorrect.
   Q   Oh, I see, yes, no, I'm sorry, I -- I did not have the right 
   URL.  Why don't you give the right URL?
        MR. BARON:  Yes, your Honors, I think I've been reading the 
   EFF site on the Web too much.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Okay.  Could you explain what these domains in that URL 
   represent for the IETF URL?
   A   The -- the part which is relative to the IETF is the 
   WWW.IETF.ORD.  The part which precedes that, HTTP, is the 
   protocol, the function in which one should retrieve, should access 
   this site.  Different options there are, for example, FTP for File 
   Transfer Protocol or Gofer, are different kinds of concepts, 
   different kinds of application programs to use to access this 
        In this particular case where you can access that particular 
   site with FTP with anonymous FTP or with the Web, WWW, the URL you 
   specified is one which is using the Web to access this site.
   Q   What's the difference between the current IP Version Four and 
   the Next Generation Version Six of the protocol?
   A   How much detail would you like that answer in?
   Q   Oh, just -- just sort of a summary for the Court.
   A   The reason to undertake the effort, and it was some 
   significant effort to develop a new generation for IP revolved 
   around three basic issues:
        The first issue was that the IP address itself which is the 
   field, I mentioned in the packets themselves there is this source 
   identifier and a destination identifier, a source address and a 
   destination address.  In IP Version Four which is the current 
   version, those fields are 32 bits long, each of which could in 
   theory identify four billion individual posts or computers on the 
   Network, but because of address assignment inefficiency we're 
   beginning to run out of those and we're beginning to run out at a 
   rate which caused a great deal of consternation, particularly in 
   the press back in the early 90's, '92 and '93, that investment in 
   IP was probably not a good idea because we were running out of 
   addresses. It's like going to the phone company and saying I'd 
   like a phone and they say they don't have a number.
        So the first thing was to try and fix the problem of running 
   out of addresses.  The second thing was to try and fix the problem 
   of that there was too much routing information, this is the 
   information within the computers that tie the Internet together, 
   they're called routers, they're special purpose computers.  And in 
   each one of those computers in the backbone, in the more central 
   locations within the network must keep track of where every 
   network in the world is, every -- the network which is the one 
   which connects this computer here has to be kept track of by those 
   computers and the routers in the backbone.
        The size of the routing table, the size of that information 
   was growing faster than memory technology, doubling every nine to 
   ten months and memory technology was doubling every 11 to 24 
   months and in the long run those two lines will never intersect.  
   And so we had to do something.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Excuse me, it's doubling every nine to twelve 
        THE WITNESS:  In nine --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  It's doubling every nine to --
        THE WITNESS:  The size of the Internet, yes.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Nine to twelve months?
        THE WITNESS:  Yes.  It's been tending towards the nine month 
   area of doubling.
        And then the third area was want to be able to deal with 
   improving some aspects of the current Internet, security aspects, 
   real time or flow control or quality of service metrics and things 
   like that, so those were the three areas which we were focusing 
        In the first area the IP Version Four address, as I said, is 
   32 bits long.  The IP Version Six which is what IP Next Generation 
   is, is 128 bits long.  Now, that's four times the number of bits, 
   but that's actually four billion times four billion times four 
   billion times the number of hosts. That turns out to be a very 
   large number, yet somebody estimated that even under the absolute 
   worst efficiency, the least efficient method of allocating them it 
   still works out to 1500 computers per square meter of the earth's 
   surface, including the oceans.
        THE WITNESS:  We think that we have -- we think that we have 
   aimed for the future in the expandability of this.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Sounds like a pervasive number of bits.
   A   Okay.  The second, the second area was dealing with the 
   routing table space and we've made the addresses aggregatable so 
   that instead of having to articulate and list every individual 
   network, you can list a group of networks together as one entry 
   and this allows us to summarize the information so that we don't 
   have as many entries.
        And then the third one, which was the other aspects, we've 
   identified some strong security mechanisms and we have a field in 
   the packet header which will allow future use for flow control, 
   quality of service and metrics of that type.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Could I ask a lay question, very basic?  If 
   you go to this four times as many bits is it going to increase 
   four times everybody's address?
        THE WITNESS:  The -- that's a very good question and actually 
   that's something that a lot of people get confused. There are two 
   ways that you look at addresses on the Internet.  One is that bit 
   pattern, currently the 32 bits, so the address of the computer 
   sitting on my desk at Harvard is  Now, I don't 
   expect you to remember that, I'm surprised that I do most of the 
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  And I don't intend to write to you that way 
   cause I wouldn't know how.
        THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  It's now in the record so you could 
   look it up, but that's not the way that you should know about my 
   computer.  You should know about my computer by using its what is 
   called domain name, which is a people friendly name, and that name 
   is NEWDEV, as in the New Development Machine, dot Harvard dot EDU.  
   As long as you're using that what is called the domain name, the 
   size of the actual address, the number of bits in the address is 
   not reflected back to something that the user has to deal with. I 
   would not want to try to remember the 128 bit version of what my 
   -- my computer's address is, but the domain name, 
   NEWDEV.Harvard.EDU will remain the same.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Thank you.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Mr. Bradner, you also said on something called the IESG, the 
   Internet Engineering Steering Group, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   You've -- this is the Standards Approval Board of the IETF, 
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Take us through, very briefly, if you would, the standards 
   track in terms of the three stages of standards, proposed, draft 
   and full?
   A   Actually, I would like to start a little bit before that. All 
   documents which are going to be proposed for consideration for 
   standardization within the IETF must first appear as one of the 
   Internet drafts that you mentioned earlier that are publicly 
   available ideas.  And so somebody who wishes to, somebody or some 
   working group or some group of individuals who wish to make a 
   standard or have a document considered to be a -- for 
   standardization creates a Internet draft.  Usually that is the 
   product of a working group or is that, you know, a working group 
   is formed to look at that proposal, but not always.
        After working group consideration, the working group chair 
   would propose to the area director within the area that this 
   document be considered by the IESG for the standards process, for 
   the standards track.
        The first step, the IESG then reviews that and does an 
   internal vote and approves or does not approve of the document 
   based on its technical quality, its clarity and all of the other 
   things that one should consider when approving a standard. 
        The first step in the standards process is, as you mentioned, 
   the proposed standard status.  A proposed standard is a document 
   which is felt to be useful, i.e. has a constituency usually within 
   a working group and within the IETF itself, and that constituency 
   believes that this is of value to the community and that it has no 
   known errors, no known flaws.  If something is discovered in the 
   process of evaluation by the IESG or the working group which is a 
   flaw, then it should be returned to the working group and 
        Six months after a document has been approved as a proposed 
   standard it can then be considered for being a draft standard.  To 
   achieve draft standard status, a document, a specification must 
   have multiple interoperable implementations, you know, it's got to 
   be proven to work, and it's got to -- all of the individual 
   aspects of it have to be proven to work, all of the individual 
   functions have to have been shown to be implemented and 
        This is unlike some other standards bodies which just say 
   this is a good idea and it's a better idea now than it used to be 
   because we've thought about it longer.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Could you give us an example? Bring us down 
   to earth, give us an example of a standard like a proposed 
   standard.  What are we talking about?
        THE WITNESS:  A proposed standard, for example --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Yes.
        THE WITNESS:  -- an example of one is in the IE --in the 
   Inter-- in the IET -- IP Next Generation there is a proposed 
   standard which is the basic packet format and how that packet is 
   handled by routers as it goes through the network.  It defines the 
   fields in the packet, the 128-bit addresses, what routers do when 
   they encounter this packet, how they process it, all of that kind 
   of aspect, all of those aspects surrounding defining a packet of 
   IP Version Six IP Next Generation and how to move it through the 
   network are part of a proposed standard.
        Another proposed standard would be -- well, a full standard 
   is Telnet which is a, Telnet is the remote access protocol where 
   you -- I can sit at this machine here and log into as if I were 
   local to my computer sitting back on my desk at Harvard and that's 
   a standard.
        So a proposed standard is: we think this is a good idea, we 
   don't see any problems with it; draft standard is people have 
   implemented it and it works and we don't see any problems with it 
   still and more than one is implemented and they interoperate.  And 
   then four months after a document has been approved as a proposed 
   standard, it can then be considered for full standard and full 
   standard has to have the same implementation rules but it also has 
   to be proven that people want to use it so that there is 
   significant deployment.  So we don't make something a full 
   standard unless people are going to use it.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   It is true, is it not, that apart from the IETF and the IESG, 
   that there are other standards for the Internet that come from 
   submissions by outside individuals or groups, correct?
   A   There are, there are a number of bodies who make 
   specifications, most of them call them specifications for some 
   minutiae of legal ease that I don't quite understand, rather than 
   standards.  A number of --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Now you know how people feel if they don't 
   quite understand when somebody says something.  Go ahead.
        THE WITNESS:  I fully do understand, actually.  I am a fish 
   out of water here, so...
        There are many bodies who purport to make standards or 
   specifications that are for use on the Internet.  The IETF is the 
   longest established of these and the one which has the most 
   international flavor and the one which is the, well, I think 
   anyway, since I'm a member of it, has the most credibility as an 
   open forum for development of standards. We allow literally 
   anybody who wants to participate.
        Many of the other groups have a membership mechanism where 
   somebody purchases a membership or pays a membership fee and at 
   the access to the standards either during development or when 
   they're done are restricted, you have to pay for them.  But there 
   are a dozen or more different groups developing specifications for 
   protocols to be used over the Internet, those groups are open, 
   large consortia such as the W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium, or 
   very focused ones such as the Master Card and Visa just announced 
   a payments protocol to encrypt credit cards over the Net, and that 
   is a small consortium and they have come up with a standard.
        And so there's a wide range of standards.  Things in the 
   Internet as in things in real life are standards only in the 
   extent that people actually use what you've done.  We can create 
   something we say is a standard and if nobody uses it, well, we're 
   whistling in the wind but it's not really a standard unless people 
   use it.
        So the Web itself is something which did not develop out of 
   the IETF standards process, it developed out of scientists wanting 
   to avail the technology for use in over the Internet and this was 
   -- this was developed outside the IETF, though now there's an 
   activity within the IETF to codify and clarify the Web standards, 
   the HTTP Standards. But, yes, there are many standards processes.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   There are 53 or so full standards that have made it through 
   this process?
   A   Over the years, yes.
   Q   These are common protocols -- 
   A   Something around that number.
   Q   These are common protocols in widespread use on the Internet, 
   A   They were at the time they were adopted.  Not all of them are 
   still in widespread use, some of them are quite historic.
   Q   And there are some two dozen draft standards in the works, 
   A   Somewhere around that number, yes.
   Q   And about two or three more dozen proposed standards, correct?
   A   That is correct.
        MR. BARON:  Your Honors, I'm going to, with the Court's 
   indulgence, approach the witness and provide him with an exhibit.  
   We have provided --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  It's in our binder?
        MR. BARON:  They're in black binders.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  In the black binder.
        MR. BARON:  In the Defendant's Exhibits 1 through 45, for the 
   Court.  I will hand the witness a volume as well.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  And this is going to illustrate everything 
   he just said in black and white?
        THE WITNESS:  In a little bit more detail, I think.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Which exhibit is this again?
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   I wanted to turn to Exhibit 6, Mr. Bradner, I wanted to give a 
   concrete example of something that the IETF is working on.  You're 
   familiar with this document, Mr. Bradner?
   A   Make sure we're on the same page.  This is --
   Q   It's --
   A   -- the charter for the address auto configuration working 
   Q   That's correct, marked as Defendant's Exhibit 6?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Your name appears on the first page of the document, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Could you explain how this document which is with title 
   "Address Auto Configuration" will help unsophisticated computer 
   purchases -- purchasers like myself to essentially plug and play 
   when they buy computers?
   A   The document itself won't help you a great deal.
   Q   Okay.
   A   But the -- this is, the document is a charter for a working 
   group within the IETF, within the IP Next Generation area which is 
   designed for to allow computers when they're taken out of a 
   shipping carton and plugged into the wall to come up with that 
   globally unique 128-bit address so that you don't have to type it 
   in.  You thought that remembering was bad, defining the right one 
   and typing it was going to be awful.  So this is a mechanism by 
   which the computer can figure out a globally useful unique address 
   and work with other technologies, particularly what is called 
   Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol which is a way where a central 
   administrator can control what address some particular computer 
   gets.  This is one of the activities of the IP Next Generation 
   Q   If I could re-formulate that, in other words, an individual 
   does not have to obtain an IP address from some central source 
   like Internet but an auto configuration will assign a globally 
   unique address, correct?
   A   It will assign a globally unique address but within 
   constraints of and a range of addresses which has been provided 
   from some central source, either directly or indirectly.  It 
   doesn't just go pick a number out of the air, it says that this 
   network, this physical wire can have addresses 1 through 99 within 
   this sub, sub-grouping of addresses and it will pick the one 
   within that sub-group which uniquely identifies this machine but 
   it does not affect what is called the high order bits or the more 
   -- the more general part of the address which is supplied to it 
   from a router on the local network, a computer on the local 
   Q   Am I correct in saying that each IP address is unique on 
   A   That is incorrect.
   Q   Let me, maybe I misphrased something from your deposition in 
   the last week, let me quote from Page 55, Line 18.  I'd be happy 
   to supply the witness with a copy of the deposition transcript.
   A   You can read it and --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Would you like the written deposition?
        THE WITNESS:  Well, why doesn't he read it, if I'm still 
   confused then I'll ask for a copy.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   I asked a question that went:  Question:  "In lay person's 
   terms it would mean that a person such as myself who may have 
   difficulty loading in software or loading in whatever is required 
   to put a computer -- to get it to go would have an easier time."
        You answered at some length, but at one paragraph you said 
   "It will negotiate over the network for an address automatically 
   and" -- here's the key section -- "assign an address which is 
   globally unique and will uniquely locate this computer on the 
   global Internet."
        Did I misstate the point?
   A   Your question was whether every IP address in the world is 
   unique and the answer is no.  The -- the answer to the question on 
   the address auto configuration is if the address auto, the node 
   which is being configured is part of a network, part of a network 
   which is directly connected on the Internet, then, yes, it will 
   come up with a globally unique address.  But there are very many, 
   thousands and thousands of networks which are not connected to the 
   global Internet and they are using addresses which may be the same 
   as somebody else on the global Internet but it doesn't make any 
   difference because they're not part of the same picture.
        And then there's a whole 'nother class which is getting 
   increasingly common where an organization such as a university or 
   a corporation, more likely a corporation, picks addresses which 
   are convenient to it and then has what is called a fire wall 
   between itself and the rest of the Internet and that fire wall 
   translates the addresses which are local within its own 
   corporation to addresses which are unique on the internet, but it 
   does so not one address per node within the corporation but one 
   address per speaker.
        So if I am -- want to just talk within the corporation, I 
   never get an address which is unique on the Internet.  If I want 
   to go out and make a connection out on the Internet then I will be 
   assigned the next address in the row of the ones available that 
   are unique on the Internet. Normally there are very much fewer 
   addresses on the window of the Internet than there are inside the 
   corporation and the addresses on the window are reassigned by 
   dynamically every time somebody connects and disconnects, makes a 
   section through this fire wall and disconnects.  This is because 
   of the pressure of addresses on the Internet, we are still in a 
   situation where the 32 bit IP Version Four address is under some 
   stress in terms of availability, so in order to make it easier on 
   corporations which may have very large internal networks but may 
   not be able to obtain an address, a globally unique address, 
   routable, globally unique address for every one of their internal 
   nodes, they get a small subsection, maybe 500, maybe a thousand 
   addresses which are reachable all over the Internet to deal with 
   the 100,000 internal computers.  It just means they can only have 
   a thousand communications going on at once.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Let me ask, could I follow that through?  I 
   had a question on that as I read his original affidavit.  Let me 
   give you an example and see if it has any relevance to this.
        The Federal Courts, the whole Federal Court system is in this 
   circuit interconnected on what we call CC Mail and is in the 
   process of becoming interconnected with Federal Courts throughout 
   the country.  But it's not currently on the Internet for various 
   reasons, although there may be, I believe, several Internet 
   addresses or -- I'm not sure that's the right technical way to put 
   it -- that Courts or libraries within the Federal Court system are 
   getting so that they can get the information available generally 
   without compromising the security of the Federal Court 
        Now, is there a fire wall between -- is fire wall the right 
   term that insulates the Federal Courts from the rest of the 
        THE WITNESS:  It could be and isn't necessarily, it could be 
   simply that you have E-mail gateways such that Electronic Mail, 
   and CC Mail is a product name, by the way.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Mm-hmm.
        THE WITNESS:  That Electronic Mail and CC Mail goes to a 
   computer which then reconverts it from the CC Mail format into the 
   Internet format so it can be forwarded out on the Internet.  And 
   then E-mail from the outside world can be reformatted and 
   forwarded inside, without having the ability, for example, as I 
   said Telnet, I could Telnet from here to my desk at Harvard.  
   Without have-- the E-mail gateway would not permit the passage of 
   Telnet packets so that somebody from outside couldn't try and 
   connect up and use one of the internal court machines.
        So there are different ways to get that isolation. Fire Walls 
   is one of them, Application Gateways is another one.  The modern 
   Fire Walls tend to be Application Gateways built into a single 
   box, a number of different application gateways, a Telnet Gateway, 
   an FDP Gateway, a Web Gateway, and an E-mail Gateway all built 
   into the same box and many of them do this address translation.
        In your case it's more likely, speaking just as a general 
   indication, that the addresses inside are not even translated to 
   addresses outside, that the message is received by the Gateway and 
   retransmitted as if it were an entirely new message using the 
   address of the Gateway when it's going out on the Internet, 
   nothing related to the individual source node where the message 
   came from.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  And there would be then, is it correct that 
   if you use such a gateway or whatever the communication process 
   is, there would be no way outside to know what's really -- what's 
   coming in inside or where it's going inside?
        THE WITNESS:  That -- that actually is a key point. We don't 
   -- the Fire-- one of the aspects of Fire Walls is to try and 
   protect the knowledge of the structure of the inside network from 
   the outside, it's to hide the inside structure. So from the 
   outside, if I have an -- if I had your E-mail address, I could 
   send you E-mail but I wouldn't know how that would get to you once 
   it got past this gateway.  I wouldn't know, wouldn't be able to 
   determine from the outside anything to do with the structure of 
   the Court network nor what computers were there, where you read 
   your E-mail or anything. It's one of the functions of Gateways is 
   to protect the internal structure from visibility.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  So then it has at least two objects.  One is 
   because there are a multiplying number of addresses and there are 
   just or may not be enough addresses and the other or many others 
   are for other purposes?
        THE WITNESS:  Yes.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay. 
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Just a couple more questions on standards.  You would agree 
   that a number of organizations are responsible for the development 
   of communications and operational standards and protocols used on 
   the Internet, correct?
   A   A number of organizations believe they are, yes. 
   Q   The Internet wouldn't exist today as we know it without some 
   standards or some rules of the road, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And you recall saying in your deposition to me that we are in 
   a, quote, "standards development rich environment," unquote, on 
   the Internet and you stand by that?
   A   Yes, or sit by it or whatever.
   Q   You stated in your supplemental declaration that you have, 
   quote, "A complete understanding of how communications are 
   accomplished on the Internet today, including communications such 
   as E-mail use, Net and World Wide Web," correct?  Why don't we 
   break down the Internet and start with World Wide Web since most 
   of the plaintiffs in this case in the lawsuit have Web pages.
        Mr. Bradner, can you describe for the Court what the World 
   Wide Web is?
   A   The World Wide Web is basically two things:  it's the URL that 
   you mentioned earlier which is a pointer, a way to -- a way to 
   identify a particular location and piece of information within 
   that location on the Net and software that interprets those 
   pointers and goes off and retrieves the documents that's been 
   referenced by the URL.
   Q   You testified at your deposition last Friday and I'm 
   paraphrasing this, but correct me if I misstate something, that 
   the World Wide Web is a concept more than anything else, it is 
   comprised of a number of servers which can provide information 
   about requests in the same general concept as other servers, new 
   servers, FTP servers and the like and a descriptive language which 
   allows you to embed in a piece of text locators defined to point 
   to other documents.
        Is that a good statement?
   A   The World Wide Web uses a --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  You have to say yes or no so they can get 
        THE WITNESS:  Oh, yes, sorry.  Yes.
        MR. BARON:  Thank you.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   The World Wide Web uses a graphical user interface, correct?
   A   The -- the World Wide Web client applications that I have seen 
   use a graphical user interface.
   Q   Why don't you describe for the Court what a graphical user 
   interface is?
   A   The early computer interfaces tended to be character lined, 
   lined character type interfaces where you typed words and commands 
   like if you've used DOS, it's a DOS interface, it's where your 
   view of the Net or your view of the command into the computer is 
   one which is a character stream, you type in words with varying 
   degrees of meaningfulness and asking it to do something.
        A graphical user interface tends to be a full screen 
   application where you have a -- an ability to, with a mouse or 
   with cursor, those little arrow keys on the keyboard, locate 
   something on the screen and tell it to activate a program or to 
   fetch a file or do something because you're selecting something on 
   the keyboard -- something on the screen, rather than typing the 
   name of something in on the keyboard.
   Q   The graphical user interface was designed to be user friendly, 
   A   The hope of the designers of graphical user interfaces is that 
   they're user friendly.  The definition of "user" and "friendly" 
   are to the mind of the beholder.
   Q   In fact, the Web's user interface was designed to allow people 
   with a wide variety of computer skills, indeed even with some -- 
   some with minimal computer skills to access vast quantities of 
   information, correct?
   A   That is correct. 
   Q   And the language for creating Web pages on the World Wide Web 
   was designed in a way that makes pages easy to write, makes it 
   easy to put up pages on servers and makes it easy to distribute 
   information around the world, correct?
   A   That is -- that was the statement of the people who designed 
   the language but I do notice that many of the books on HTTP which 
   is this language tend to be in the one to two-inch or three-inch 
   thick variety.  So again this might, it somewhat depends on one's 
   interpretation of the word "easy."
   Q   HTTP or HTML?
   A   Oh, HTML, sorry.  Right.  I get those --
   Q   You stated last week in your deposition --
        MR. BARON:  That was going to be my next question, your 
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Why don't you state for the Court what HTML is?
   A   Hypertext Markup Language or something of that general ilk.  
   There's -- 
   Q   Were --
   A   There's too many acronyms in this business.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  May I be the first to agree with you?
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  And I'll be the second.
        MR. BARON:  We're going to get to HTML, Judge Dalzell.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   You stated last week in your deposition that you've looked at 
   thousands of Web pages and that there are probably tens of 
   thousands of Web pages in existence.  That's correct, right?
   A   Well, the tens of thousands would be a -- what I meant in when 
   we're speaking of that is there are tens of thousands of locations 
   where Web pages exist.  The actual number of Web pages in the 
   sense of a screen image that you could retrieve is certainly in 
   the millions.  I know I have on my own site which is one server, 
   one Web server with one home page, there are thousands of screens 
   that you can retrieve.  So if you're talking about Web pages in 
   terms of images on a screen, then there are millions of them.
   Q   Okay.  Now, apart from individuals --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Excuse me, you say you have a Web page?
        THE WITNESS:  I have a Web server.  One of the things that I 
   do at Harvard is to run a test lab which examines the performance 
   of routers and things like, network devices like that.  And I put 
   all of the information that I've gotten from this examination up 
   on line for anybody to take a look at and there is thousands of 
   pages, mostly of numbers and some of pictures of performance 
   curves available from the Web server which is running on the 
   computer sitting on my desk.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Apart from individuals, Mr. Bradner, it would be a fair 
   statement to say that organizations including commercial 
   organizations such as companies selling potato chips or pencils or 
   cars use the Web as a way to provide information, correct?
   A   Correct.
   Q   And to sell their products, correct?
   A   At this point, more to provide information.  In the future, in 
   the near future I trust, more will be in the business of selling 
   their products over the Internet.  Right now because of concerns 
   of security and things of that nature, few, relatively few 
   companies are actually doing retail over the Net, going and buying 
   a bag of potato chips over the Net is not something that is 
   readily available today although you can order a pizza if you 
   happen to live in Santa Clara, California.  Delivery is a big 
   problem if you're doing it from here, but --
   A   -- that -- soon you'll be able to do that.  So I'm just 
   nuancing on the word you use of selling because right at the 
   moment it's more providing information than it is selling.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Because you can't close the sale?
        THE WITNESS:  Actually you can and you can by putting your 
   credit card number in and actually the credit card transaction 
   over the Internet today is more secure than giving your credit 
   card to the waitress at the local restaurant, but there is a 
   feeling that it is not as secure. And so there aren't many --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  I thought there was a problem of 
        THE WITNESS:  The -- it's the same --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Or so we're told.
        THE WITNESS:  Well, it's the same level of problem of 
   verification as what happens when someone calls up and orders 
   something from L.L. Bean over the telephone. L.L. Bean has to go 
   through a process with which they call up the credit card company 
   and say is this a valid credit card.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  And is it not true that you still have to go 
   outside the Internet to do that process?
        THE WITNESS:  Today that is true.  I would hope that in the 
   relatively near future --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Defined as?
        THE WITNESS:  Well, Master Card and Visa did define a 
   language for moving of information about credit cards over the 
   Net, they said it would be, that this definition would be 
   available I think this month or next month.  So in the next six to 
   nine months the function set to be able to send a secure credit 
   card to Master Card to ask whether it's a valid card and whether 
   the person has enough money to pay two dollars or whatever your 
   fee is going to be should be there, but this is a projection 
   rather than a statement from knowledge of who is developing these.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  How could phoning tell or assure that it's a 
   valid card?  It might show or how can phoning assure that X, that 
   Judge Dalzell who gives the card number is in fact Judge Dalzell 
   rather than Judge Buckwalter?
        THE WITNESS:  Actually, it does not.  And that's --it does 
   not now when you call up for one of these mail order houses.  They 
   do it on a basis generally of two things.  One is that in general 
   when you order something you order it, particularly if it's going 
   to be shipped to you, you order it shipped to you so that in some 
   cases like American Express, if it's a valuable shipment, will 
   verify it's being shipped to the billing address.  And if it's not 
   being shipped to the billing address, you have to call them up and 
   tell them no, this is a special case and I want it to go someplace 
   else.  I know because I had to do that.
        Other credit card just ship -- know because they have the 
   shipping address of where it's going to, they have an audit trail 
   so in case somebody protests that this wasn't, it wasn't me who 
   placed this order, they can then do some kind of tracking to try 
   and figure out who it was who placed the order.  And the same 
   thing would be true over the Internet.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  But would that be time consuming or now that 
   we have computers could that be easy and instantaneous?
        THE WITNESS:  Well, in a real way ordering something over the 
   Internet over ordering something from a mail order house over the 
   telephone isn't going to change any of the mechanisms involved 
   other than how do you do it.  You sit there with a Web page and do 
   some clicking on with your mouse versus you call up on the 
   telephone and tell the nice person who answers the phone that you 
   want an item on Page 67.
        The rest of this, what happens behind the scenes, works the 
   same way today.  There will be an increase in efficiency when the 
   verification process for verifying the card, instead of requiring 
   a separate communication normally by a phone line with Master Card 
   or Visa or American Express could be done with electronic 
   communication over the Internet.
        That will be a change in efficiency, but it doesn't change 
   the basic functionality which is they're depending on you or your 
   knowledge of the credit card number as your identifier to identify 
   yourself and the fact that they can trace where the order was sent 
   to as sort of a second guess to figure out what happened when 
   something goes awry.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Putting aside actually ordering merchandise by use of a 
   verified credit card via the Internet, it's certainly true, isn't 
   it the case that both individuals and companies can have Web pages 
   and that have a phone number on them or an 800 number or a toll 
   free number for people to call to buy things that they see 
   advertised on the Net, isn't that correct?
   A   Yes, that is true.
   Q   Okay.  Before we get into what individuals and nonprofit 
   organizations other than corporations can or cannot do, let's talk 
   about some technical matters including some --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  You mean we haven't been?
        MR. BARON:  Some more technical matters.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Including some descriptive language used for the World Wide 
   Web.  Mr. Bradner, could you tell the Court what a Web server is?
   A   A Web server, a server in general in computer jargon is 
   software which is running on a computer which is waiting patiently 
   for a command to be sent to it over a network and that command, if 
   it's an FTP server, it would be an FTP command, FTP stands for 
   File Transfer Protocol.  If it's a server which returns phone 
   numbers it's going to be a phone number query.  If it's a database 
   server, so lots of different servers, they have the same basic 
   function which is just software running in the computer waiting 
   for a query.
        A Web server is one which is waiting for a query which is in 
   -- over the Net which is formed in Webese, in the right format for 
   a Web query.
   Q   You told me last week that the World Wide Web is sewn together 
   with URL's, is that a fair statement?
   A   Yes.  Sorry.
   Q   Now, on a particular Web page there can be pointers to other 
   pages on the Web, correct?
   A   Those are the URL's of which we were just speaking.
   Q   And the pointers -- all right, they can be pointers to other 
   URL's.  And Web pages can also have --
   A   The pointers are the URL's.
   Q   Oh, the pointers are the URL's, okay, I stand corrected. Web 
   pages can also have pointers to files which contain audio or 
   sound, correct?
   A   That is correct. 
   Q   In fact, Web pages can contain pointers to files in any one of 
   a number of forms containing any one of a number of things such as 
   text, sounds, still graphics or motion graphics, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   One can take a home movie on a Camcorder and digitize it and 
   transpose it in a way that would be viewable by clicking on a 
   pointer on a Web page, correct?
   A   Assuming that the person who had the client who had the Web 
   browser had the right software installed which allowed them to 
   download and then view motion graphics and assuming that the 
   motion graphics were stored in a format compatible with the 
   browser that the individual had.  Both of those are not 
   assumptions you can make a hundred percent, but still given that 
   qualification, yes.
   Q   Could you tell the Court what a browser is?
   A   A browser is the jargon term for a Web client.  The client is 
   the software running on a user's computer to access some server 
   and a Web browser is the software running on the user's computer 
   to access a Web server.
   Q   And what is a search engine?
   A   A search engine in this -- in the context of the Web is a 
   piece of software which, when given a query, it's a database query 
   responder, it's a server for database queries, it --you give it 
   some information about something that you wish to find and it goes 
   to its database and tries to find it in that database.
        Search engines have fine degrees of sophistication of ability 
   to take just single words or words in context or concepts in the 
   sense of you can give some search engines a piece of text, a 
   newspaper article, and say this is interesting to me, find other 
   things that look like this. And it's quite -- some of them are 
   very sophisticated.  They look at their internal database to try 
   and find other things, other references in that database which are 
   compatible with the query that you gave it. 
   Q   Let's get to the heart of things, Mr. Bradner, by discussing 
   something called HTML.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Before we do that maybe we should let the 
   witness have a break and we should all have a break. Okay?
        JUDGE DALZELL:  I agree.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Ten minutes, I'm told.
        THE COURT CLERK:  Please rise.
        (Court in recess; 10:40 to 10:55 o'clock a.m.)
        JUDGE DALZELL:  All right, Mr. Baron.
        MR. BARON:  Excuse me, your Honor, we were just taking care 
   of some housekeeping functions.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Mr. Bradner, we were about to discuss HTML, could you tell the 
   Court what HTML is?
   A   It's a language, a descriptor language which is used to define 
   within a Web server how a document should appear on the screen of 
   the Web client, the browser.
   Q   Perhaps an example of HTML code would be helpful here. Could 
   you turn to Defendant's Exhibit that's marked 14 in the black 
   Q   Do you have that?
   A   Yes, I do.
   Q   Mr. Bradner, does this appear to you as the same exhibit that 
   I showed you at your deposition last Friday?
   A   Yes.
   Q   This represents the Worldwide Web home page of an organization 
   entitled Stop Prisoner Rape, which is one of the plaintiffs in 
   this lawsuit.  And you will note -- and you would agree, would you 
   not, Mr. Bradner, that the first four pages represent Web pages in 
   their usual format and behind those four pages is a series of 
   pages which represent the same text but in HTML code format, is 
   that correct?
   A   That appears -- that is what it appears to be, yes.
   Q   Looking at the immediate page behind the usual format Web 
   pages, the top of the page says --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  These aren't paginated, are they?
        MR. BARON:  No, they are not, your Honor.
        (Discussion held off the record.)
        JUDGE DALZELL:  You're talking about the first page following 
   the conventional --
        MR. BARON:  That's correct, the --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  -- conventionally arranged text?
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  So, the one that says --
        MR. BARON:  That's correct and the --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  That's right, okay.
        MR. BARON:  That's correct, your Honor.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   You see the bracket HTML and bracket Head, correct, Mr. 
   A   Yes.
   Q   The designation Head represents the head of this HTML 
   document, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And you see the term Meta in the third and the fifth line?
   A   Yes.
   Q   What does the Meta represent?
   A   As I said in my deposition and when we talked last Friday, I 
   did not and do not represent myself as an expert in HTML.  So, I 
   would suggest that if you want to investigate the details of HTML 
   it would probably be better to ask somebody who is.
   Q   But looking at it you're certainly more expert than I, that 
   the key words here are words that are in a field in a Meta tag in 
   the header, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Okay.  And there's a body to an HTML document, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And down at the bottom of this page there is a reference to a 
   URL.  The HTML source code includes references to particular URL's 
   as a usual course, correct?
   A   Most of them do, yes.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Oh --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  The very bottom, the very bottom.
        MR. BARON:  The very bottom of the page, your Honor, it says 
   "Bracket A-HREF equals," and then A-URL, which represents another 
   Web site.
        THE WITNESS:  Actually all you can tell about that, URL, is 
   that it represents a particular document someplace which may or 
   may not be on another site.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Where does it says URL?
        JUDGE DALZELL:  He said that is the URL.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Oh, okay.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Yes, that's a better description, Mr. Bradner.  Now, in your 
   deposition last week you indicated that the type of parental 
   control rating scheme you preferred would be one in which an 
   individual's browser could be configured to send a copy of a 
   particular URL, including a URL in a document, to a third-party 
   rating service with a query to the rating service, asking for 
   information about the contents of the URL, correct?
   A   Actually, to be very precise, about the contents of the file 
   or document pointed to by the URL.
   Q   Okay.  Now, this would be one of the methodologies suggested 
   by the PICS scheme, P-I-C-S, which is a parental control rating 
   scheme being worked on by the W-3 consortium located at MIT, 
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And that's the scheme that's embodied in Defendant's Exhibit 
   15, if you could turn to that, the document which says, "PICS:  
   Internet access controls without censorship"?
   A   Yes, this is a document you showed me last week.
   Q   It is true, is it not, Mr. Bradner, that a browser under this 
   model of parental controls could look to the specific header 
   information in HTML source code for a tag or a label that's put in 
   the header by the content provider as part of the overall rating 
   scheme, isn't that correct?
   A   To be clear, you had just asked me about my preference for a 
   third-party rating service, it appears that you're asking me now 
   about PICS as a general concept, I just want to be sure what it is 
   that you're asking me.
   Q   Well, I'm asking PICS as a general concept.
   A   Okay.  So, in PICS as a general concept you -- PICS defines 
   tags that you can place into a document, into the header of a 
   document, HTML document and other documents, which can be used to 
   convey information about the -- some content of this document, 
   that is correct.
   Q   And on Exhibit 15 at Page 6 of 9, at the bottom left-hand 
   corner, that's where the pages are identified, the second full 
   paragraph, if you would read along with me --
        JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Well, where are you?
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Page 6 of 9.
        MR. BARON:  It's Exhibit 15 and it's Page 6 of 9, you can see 
   at the bottom left hand of the document.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   I'm going to concentrate on the second full paragraph, 
   starting with "Since," the word, "Since."  And the second sentence 
   says, "The first is to" -- the first methodology of PICS, is that 
   correct, Mr. Bradner?
   A   That's actually a third sentence.
   Q   Well, it says, "The first is to embed labels in HTML 
   documents.  This method will be helpful for those who wish to 
   label content they have created."  That's one of the methodologies 
   embodied in the PICS parental control rating standard, correct?
   A   That's one of the -- that's one of the methods in their 
   proposal, yes.
   Q   Okay.  Indeed, you believe that as a technical matter one can 
   embed a character stream which could be interpreted by browsers or 
   other software if it is so desired, correct?
   A   In certain documents, certain types of files and documents 
   that is correct, in other types of files and documents it's 
   Q   Well, it's your view, is it not, Mr. Bradner, that as a 
   technical matter of ease or difficulty that it is trivial to embed 
   a tag or a label in HTML source code, correct?
   A   It's a matter of typing a few characters, so, yes, in concept; 
   in implementation, if you have thousands of pages of source code 
   then it might be a little difficult, but in concept it's easy, you 
   just type in the character string.
   Q   You told me last Friday in your deposition that for your own 
   Web site, your own Web pages, the home page it would be trivial to 
   embed a tag, you could do it in five minutes, correct?
   A   Well, actually it's a little more -- I said a little bit more 
   than that.  My current Web server I do not happen to have a 
   document which is a home page.  The Web server points to a part of 
   my -- the directory tree in my computer and it has automatically 
   created a home page, because I haven't gotten around to creating 
   one myself.  So, it would take more than five minutes, because I 
   would have to create the document in which to embed the string 
   before embedding the string and I couldn't tell how long that 
   would take, it would depend on how anal I got and how pretty a 
   picture I wanted on it.
   Q   Well, you said at Page 223 of your deposition -- 
        MR. BARON:  -- I'd be happy at any appropriate point to hand 
   the witness the deposition if it will be --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Whenever you want it, you just say so.
        MR. BARON:  -- helpful for the record.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   You said at Page 223, Line 8, "Certainly on my site it would 
   be trivial for me to do," correct?
   A   Once I created a home page it would be trivial for me to do 
   it, yes.
   Q   Could you turn to Defendant's Exhibit 16?  This exhibit is one 
   that I showed you last week, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   It's titled, "Safe Surf Internet Rating Standard," are you 
   familiar with Safe Surf?
   A   As to the extent that you showed it to me last week.
   Q   Okay.  On the second page of this exhibit at the top, the 
   first full sentence says, "If a majority of them spent five to ten 
   minutes to implement the system by marking their site then a 
   child-safe Internet could be realized in a matter of weeks."  Do 
   you see that statement?
   A   I see that statement.
   Q   And do you agree with it?
   A   No.
   Q   You could build PICS compatible software into existing 
   browsers, correct?
   A   One could, I wouldn't proclaim to be a good enough programmer 
   to in any particular case.
   Q   That's technically feasible, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   Back to Exhibit 15, looking at the bottom of the Page 5 of 9 
   in the document.  It's the page with blue Figure 4 at the top, but 
   I'm going to concentrate on the bottom of the page.  Do you see 
   the sentence that starts, "Anything"?
   A   Yes, I do.
   Q   Let me read it to the record:  "Anything that can be named by 
   a URL can be labeled, including resources that are accessed via 
   FTP, Gopher or Net News, as well as HTTP."  You agree, do you not, 
   Mr. Bradner, that you may extend URL's to provide labeling in some 
   form across these applications on the Internet, correct?
   A   To be very specific and concrete, you can extend the format of 
   URL's themselves to include additional information, which could be 
   used by a browser to decide on whether to implement -- to 
   instigate a particular application.  You would not actually do 
   anything in the application itself, for example FTP, you wouldn't 
   modify FTP, you would modify the browser to decide on whether or 
   not to start up FTP based on additional information in the URL.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  I want to get very concrete on this, because 
   it's an important issue.  The Carnegie Library, Mr. Croneberger is 
   here for the Carnegie Library, it's card catalogue is on line.  
   Now, I take it the card catalogue is a site, correct, it has a URL 
   -- if I want to get to it it has a URL, does it not?
        THE WITNESS:  The -- I can speak with knowledge about the 
   Harvard University College --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  All right, fine, take that.
        THE WITNESS:  -- Library.  The Harvard University College 
   Library, which is called Holis (ph.), is available as an 
   interactive program.  So that you would Telnet to a server at 
   Harvard and then it presents a screen wherein you can do an author 
   search or a title search or things like that.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Well, what I'm getting at is what I think Mr. 
   Barn is asking you, is the idea here that Harvard or the Carnegie 
   Library would rate its card catalogue?
        THE WITNESS:  In the context of Harvard's, Harvard's Holis 
   system, what would have to happen is any place where somebody 
   referenced Harvard's Holis system, a URL which referenced it, any 
   place where that any URL existed the reference Holis would have to 
   be extended to include a rating of Harvard's system.  
        JUDGE DALZELL:  That's what I mean.
        THE WITNESS:  This wouldn't be Harvard rating it, because 
   Harvard isn't creating the URL's that might be placed at Brown or 
   at the National Library Association or any place else, because 
   that is a pointer to Harvard and it's the pointer in this concept 
   which is modified, not the site itself.  In this particular case 
   you do not get to Harvard 
   -- the way you access Harvard doesn't give an interactive way for 
   a browser to ask Harvard what its PICS rating is.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Well, then I'm not understanding this at all.  
   The PICS rating -- assume that everybody adopts this PICS system, 
   okay?  Will the Harvard card catalogue that's on line, will it be 
   rated or will just subsets of it be rated?
        THE WITNESS:  There --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  And who has to do that rating?
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Exactly, and who has to do the rating?
        THE WITNESS:  All right.  I think using the Harvard catalogue 
   is exactly the kind of case where we can look at it.  The current 
   technology, the current way the Harvard catalogue is implemented 
   is that you interact with the Harvard catalogue with the same 
   program that I would use to interact with my computer sitting on 
   my desk, which is Telnet, it allows you to remotely be connected 
   to that computer and remotely interact with that computer as if 
   you were a local terminal; this is not a Web interface, it is a 
   local terminal interface.  In that context Harvard has no way of 
   rating -- have no way of handing back a rating to anybody, because 
   what would have to happen instead is -- it's like you would put 
   ratings in T.V. Guide of T.V. shows, it's not that the ratings are 
   embedded in the shows, it's every place where somebody pointed at 
   Holis you would have to have that place which did the pointing 
   have the rating in it.  So, Harvard wouldn't have control over 
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Yeah, but what I think Mr. Baron is getting 
   at is the feasibility of if you are going through a card catalogue 
   on line, which Mr. Croneberger describes in detail in his 
   declaration, would this marker be right next to "Rebecca of 
   Sullybrook Farm," and that's G rated, but then when it has an Ice 
   T lyric it would be NC-17?
        THE WITNESS:  Again --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  I'm not being facetious here.
        THE WITNESS:  No, no, I agree.  Under the current Harvard 
   system we wouldn't be able to implement this, I'm saying under the 
   current Harvard system that the pointers are outside of Harvard's 
   jurisdiction because they're pointers to Harvard, not pointers 
   within Harvard.  So, other people would rate Harvard.  Another 
   interface to this -- the same facility which does not currently 
   exist, but could be made to exist, would be a Web Browser-type of 
   interface to the Harvard College library system.  In that case the 
   browser could be able to see a rating and the rating would be 
   actually buried in the URL, when you said Ice T the URL, which 
   specified where the file was if you're going to retrieve it, then 
   that URL, you could embed in that URL the PICS parental warning 
        JUDGE DALZELL:  But my point, and it's a very important point 
   to this case, is since we know at least at the Carnegie Library, 
   and I would think that's in the Carnegie Library would be up at 
   Harvard, that they have the Ice T lyrics, is the whole card 
   catalogue NC-17, to take the MPAA rating --
        THE WITNESS:  In the --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  -- because there is some dirty words there, 
   in some people's view?
        THE WITNESS:  The question that I was asked a little while 
   ago, whether it was easy -- the statement in the exhibit here of 
   whether it was easy for everybody just to do this, assumes the 
   very assumption -- the question you just asked, which is that, 
   yes, Harvard would have to rate its entire catalogue as 
   questionable because of some references within that catalogue.  
   The effort to go through and rate every individual reference 
   within the catalogue -- Harvard's -- Carnegie Mellon's catalogue 
   is a subset of Harvard's, of course --
        THE WITNESS:  -- it's some six or seven million references in 
   the Harvard catalogue, though I think on line is three or four 
   million at the moment, this would take considerable effort to go 
   through and --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  And rate them.
        THE WITNESS:  -- rate every single one of them.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  If we started -- if nobody had ever put 
   Shakespeare into this -- ever at all put it into the system and 
   somebody, a third party or somebody else went through Shakespeare 
   before they did this and began to rate Shakespeare plays, is there 
   some feasible method where anybody, any library that then have 
   Shakespeare could absorb that rating?  Or if Judge Dalzell, who 
   has a younger person, unlike mine, who can read anything, but 
   would he be able to find some mechanism whether she or he, I don't 
   know, looked at Shakespeare, wherever it might be?
        THE WITNESS:  There's two aspects to that and actually 
   something I should clarify.  On the Harvard College Library this 
   is the library card catalogue, not the materials itself, there are 
   other libraries with materials itself on line.  For example, I was 
   researching for a column that I do and I was looking up Flatland, 
   which is a -- some of you may have read that, it's from the late 
   1800's, it's about a world of two dimensions --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  I read it in geometry.
        THE WITNESS:  Yes, well, you should read it at least there.  
   And I wanted to look at it, because I was going to do a column 
   which happened to be based on that.  So, I did a Web search and I 
   came up with a site where the text for that book was on line, and 
   I went on off and I read it.  And this was a library which 
   provided this, it's one of the university libraries, I forget 
   which one, where that material was on line.  And I think the 
   questions you were asking are more related to places where the 
   material is on line --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Exactly.
        THE WITNESS:  -- rather than the Harvard University 
   catalogue, which is just saying, well, the rap songs are available 
   by going to the stacks and looking in Bin 3.  So, in the areas 
   where the material is on line that's a much more complex issue, 
   that -- certainly the Harvard -- I don't think the Harvard 
   catalogue, the catalogue per se would be ever considered verboten, 
   but certainly some of the items within that the catalogue 
   references could be.  There is a mechanism where one in theory 
   could do this.  A lot of college libraries, a lot of libraries in 
   generally actually use external sources when they create their 
   card catalogue, they send a list of titles to a commercial firm 
   which has expanded information about titles.  So, you send -- you 
   say I've got Shakespeare's Hamlet and Edition 14, give a little 
   bit more information, they return to you the information block, 
   which includes the key words for use in searches and all of the 
   other information that you might want for your on-line reference 
   to this document, rather than you having to enter all of this -- 
   the individual university library having to enter all of this 
   information they go off to this third party.  And in theory that 
   third party, if the rating has --if a rating has been done that 
   third party could include that rating in that block of information 
   that they return when the university or other library says tell me 
   about Shakespeare's Hamlet, 1912 Edition from whatever.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Well, I'd like you to return, however, to the methodology that 
   I pointed you to in Defendant's Exhibit 15, which is that one of 
   the methodologies in PICS, is it not, to -- that the content 
   creator, the content provider embed the tag in their document 
   rather than a third-party rating organization, correct?
   A   As I said before, that is a feasible and reasonable thing to 
   do for some document, it is not possible for others; it is not 
   possible for binary files, for executables, for example, you can't 
   embed something in there because it would destroy the integrity of 
   the file itself --
   Q   All right, but for --
   A   -- it would make the file itself useless.
   Q   But for the Web pages that represent, for example, the Stop 
   Prisoner Rape Web page, that doesn't have a binary or an 
   executable file, so far as you know?
   A   As far as I know.  It could put at the top of the page -- 
   embed in the HTML a coding, that is correct.
   Q   It is also technically feasible to tag a portion of a Web 
   site, correct?
   A   There is no -- in the Web there is nothing which -- there is 
   no structure which says this is a portion of a site and this is 
   not.  Going back to your question earlier about the URL that was 
   at the bottom of the page, I made the point of saying that this 
   was a pointer to a file some place on some server, there is 
   nothing to say that this is structurally on this server or any 
   other server.  So that if you are -- if all of the access to some 
   subsection of your disk is through a particular home page and 
   there are no URL's that exist any place else in the world which 
   have a more explicit pointing down inside of a sub-subdirectory 
   then, yes, if you put some kind of labeling on the home page, on 
   the first page of this sub-tree you could imply something about 
   the rest of the tree.  But that would only be making, again, the 
   assumption that nobody had a URL which pointed further down into 
   that tree, if they did they would never even look at that page, 
   they would go directly to the more specific document.
   Q   Well, I'm at a point where I think it's reasonable to read a 
   portion of your deposition last Friday and see if we can seek 
   clarification here, I'm at Page 222.  Let me read into the record 
        MR. BARON:  -- and, with the Courts' indulgence, I think it 
   would be appropriate to show the witness the deposition.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   I'm at Page 222 and around Line 17.
        MR. BARON:  If the Court wishes, I have copies of some format 
   of the deposition, but I do intend to read a few sentences here.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   You're answering me and you say, the witness, this is at 222, 
   Line 17:  "I could make a label and I could see that most people 
   could make a label and what, for a lack of a better term, home 
   page for the site which in some way characterized the contents of 
   the site and do that quite economically, yes.  It gets a little 
   more complicated, the site is like a library site that are flat 
   laying on board, where the characterizations of the contents vary 
   on a per-file basis."
        Going down to Line 8:  "Certainly on my site it would be 
   trivial for me to do, once I got the software and got everything 
   else and got a sample page to put up it would probably take me 
   five minutes to do that after I got all of the crap in line, a 
   technical term." 
        Moving on to Line 14:  "And so, yes, it would be economically 
   feasible if indeed somebody" --
        MR. MORRIS:  Your Honor, I would just ask that Mr. Baron read 
   the entire page, he is leaving out some important points that -- 
   and place the --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Well, you can get that --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Well, you get cross-examination and the 
   witness has got the entire testimony in front of him.
        MR. MORRIS:  Okay, that's fine.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Continuing at Line 14:  "And so, yes, it would be economically 
   feasible if indeed somebody were to distribute a sample.  
   Everything below here is fine file, putting that into my 
   environment would be actually quite easy to do."  Is that still 
   your testimony, Mr. Bradner?
   A   Yes, and that -- and that's absolutely true and I think that's 
   what I just said.  But it makes one assumption, which I did not 
   state when we talked last week which I did just state, which is it 
   makes the assumption that anybody referencing my site would only 
   have a reference to my, quote, "home page," rather than a more 
   explicitly reference to some subsection point, which actually in 
   my particular case I know is not true.  In my particular case some 
   individual vendors of equipment provide URL's pointing to their 
   results, which point down inside of my site, bypassing my home 
   page and they are saying, go and look at this file, which is 
   underneath this directory, underneath this directory, underneath 
   this directory, and go look at the results there.  So, yes it is 
   true that I could modify a -- put in a home page, but that is only 
   effective if people look at -- are actually stopping at the home 
   page on the way to what they're looking for and that may or may 
   not be true.
   Q   The concept of coming up with some form of a standard way to 
   tag or label a warning sign is perfectly reasonable, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And it's technically possible, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Assuming that there was software or browsers in the 
   marketplace that could read the tag or label in HTML source code 
   that Web site would be blocked, correct?
   A   Again, it would be blocked if indeed that particular Web page 
   was one that the browser referenced on its way to the document 
   that it was seeking.  In my case, I included in my news column a 
   URL for Flatland and that URL specified the file which is 
   Flatland's home page, not the file which is the home page of the 
   library system itself.  So, if I -- if somebody used the URL that 
   I provided in the column they would bypass any home page of the 
   entire site and would go directly to the Flatland file and would 
   not see any tags that happen to a site-wide tag, because their 
   browser would never read that page.
   Q   You stated in your supplemental declaration filed on Tuesday 
   at Paragraph 79 that, quote, "To my knowledge no Internet access 
   software or Worldwide Web browsers are currently configurable to 
   block material with such tags."  Do you recall that statement?
   A   Yes, I do.
   Q   You stated in the deposition that, however, the Netscape owns 
   the lion's share of the browser market, around 80 percent of the 
   market, correct?
   A   I think I stated that Netscape has stated that they own 80 
   percent of the market.
   Q   Last Friday --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  And they're not under oath.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Last Friday at your deposition I asked you specifically how 
   difficult would it be for Netscape to tweak its browser to 
   understand a tag or a label embedded in a header in HTML that said 
   adult, was in fact a site that was adult, and you responded that, 
   quote, "I certainly don't think it would be an inordinate burden 
   to do something of that form."  You stand by that statement?
   A   Yes.
   Q   You also agreed as a matter of technical feasibility that 
   Microsoft could do the same, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And programs could be changed at AOL, Compuserve and Prodigy 
   to do the same, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And Surf Watch and Cyber Patrol and the world of that --of 
   parental control software, they could change their software 
   programs to pick up the tags or labels, correct?
   A   They can pick -- they can -- software can be changed to pick 
   up the labels whenever they examine a page that has labels in it.
   Q   Okay, we're going to leave tags and labels.  Let's turn to 
   directories and registers in cyberspace, particularly on the Web.  
   You recall at your deposition that I asked you whether you agreed 
   with the statement that many people believe there should be a 
   white pages directory for the Internet and you at least conceded 
   that many people do believe that, correct?
   A   Yes, that's correct, I conceded that.
   Q   Even if a comprehensive index to the net is impractical in 
   some sense you surely agree, do you not, Mr. Bradner, that a white 
   pages subset of cyberspace is technically feasible, correct?
   A   It's more than technically feasible, there are a number of 
   organizations claiming they are providing just such a thing.
   Q   In fact aren't there, as you said, many neutral places or 
   sites that exist where URL's can be picked up in a kind of index 
   or directory, correct?
   A   Neutral and non-neutral, yes.
   Q   Indeed, you told me last Friday that a URL is a URL is a URL 
   and that no technical issues are involved in creating pages which 
   list URL's, correct?
   A   That is correct.  That actually is the point I was making 
   earlier, that if there is a URL pointing to a -- pointing to the 
   Harvard College Library that -- and we're making the assumption 
   that we're controlling access by putting PICS-type tagging in the 
   URL's, it's wherever that URL exists, whether it's on Harvard-
   owned machines or anybody else's machine, which is where that 
   labeling would have to be done.  And if there is 10,000 places 
   around the world which have URL's pointing to Harvard, all of 
   those 10,000 places would have to rate -- would include the 
   ratings for Harvard in their URL's, it would not be under 
   Harvard's control to make them do such a thing.
   Q   Aside from indexes or directories, if you have content -- if 
   you are a content provider and you have content you wish to 
   restrict, for whatever reason, you could call Surf Watch or other 
   parental-control products to let them know about your site in 
   cyberspace, correct?
   A   We had a long discussion of this last Friday and the clear 
   statement is yes, of course, I could call Surf Watch and do so, 
   but Surf Watch would have very little way of knowing whether I had 
   the authority to make a statement about a particular site, they 
   would have to have some ability to resolve that this person had 
   some relationship to the site that was being spoken of.  So, if 
   I'm a do-gooder and wanted to talk about some other site I may or 
   may not have the authority or maybe I'm just trying to be mean to 
   somebody or they are a competitor of mine, Surf Watch would have 
   to go through some mechanism to insure that I had the right to 
   speak of that site.  So, in a true literal sense, sure, I could 
   call up Surf Watch and say the Reuter (ph.) vendors think that the 
   information about their products on my site is dirty because it 
   paints them in a bad light and you should block that, I could do 
   that, but I would suspect Surf Watch would be a little curious as 
   to why -- whether I had the right to do that.
   Q   Well, I'm concentrating on the good-faith actions of content 
   providers and you have conceded that they could certainly call 
   Surf Watch -- you can E-mail Surf Watch, right?
   A   I don't know their E-mail address, but I assume that they're 
   on the net --
   Q   You could fax --
   A   -- it would be silly if they were not.
   Q   You could fax Surf Watch?
   A   Again, I don't know their fax number, but I assume you can.
   Q   You could hyperlink Surf Watch from your site, correct?
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  What would this -- let's get back to the 
   question and what would it say, if you faxed Surf Watch what is 
   your question, so we can --
        MR. BARON:  The question is whether a content provider could 
   take an affirmative action if they had a site that they wished to 
   block because of whatever reason, for example, that it was not 
   appropriate for minors, and they wanted to inform the parental 
   control software companies that are out there, and Surf Watch is 
   my example, could they take an easy, simple action to E-mail, fax, 
   telephone or hyperlink that parental control software company to 
   let them know that the site in cyberspace exists, that's what 
   these questions are.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  And your answer is yes?
        THE WITNESS:  Except for the last one, hyperlink, I'm not 
   sure what he means by that.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   You can just put a click on a Web site and click it to the 
   Surf Watch and they would -- it would be a link to them.
   A   That would bring up Surf Watch's home page, I'm not sure what 
   that would gain us.
   Q   All right.  Well, putting that aside, wouldn't doing any of 
   these affirmative actions cure the reliability problems that you 
   yourself have stated with respect to Surf Watch?
   A   the reliability problems I believe that you're referring to 
   are where I said that there was a window of vulnerability, if a 
   primary method by which one of these blockers is working is that 
   you have a list of sites which is distributed at some periodicity 
   to update the local copy of the browser, there is a window between 
   the time that a site comes on line and the time the site is 
   discovered and the time that this update occurs, there's a window 
   of vulnerability wherein Surf Watch wouldn't block a site that it 
   otherwise would.  And if indeed there were some reliable 
   methodology for getting a message to Surf Watch indicating that 
   this site is a funny site, and I'm in control of this site and I 
   tell you it's a funny site and Surf Watch can verify that it's me 
   and all that kind of thing, then sure, this would allow the window 
   of vulnerability to be zero.
   Q   Let me just, because this is such an important point, read you 
   what you said last Friday in your deposition and whether you would 
   still agree, it's on Page 165, Line 10:  "I feel that there is 
   some reliability problems in terms of using an exclusion list," 
   that's with respect to parental control software, "keeping that 
   exclusion list up to date is the biggest issue.  Until the 
   exclusion systems that I have seen are updated on a weekly or a 
   monthly basis for their exclusion lists, and new sites are being 
   generated all the time, and between the time when a new site is 
   generated and the time the exclusion list update comes in there is 
   a period of vulnerability," that's the period you're speaking to 
   today, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Okay.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  But the technical feasibility is there?
        THE WITNESS:  Yes.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  And the only question is, I gather, the --
        MR. BARON:  The lag time.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  -- comprehensiveness of it?
        MR. BARON:  That's correct, your Honor.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Well, and the desire.
        JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  And the what?
        JUDGE DALZELL:  And the desire.  I mean, many of the 
   plaintiffs in this case who some reasonable people might think are 
   purveying, we'll use the motion picture parlance, NC-17 say we're 
   not doing that at all, we're giving safe sex information, okay?  
   Now, in the questions you're asking should they advise Mrs. Duvall 
   we're NC-17 even though they don't think they should?
        MR. BARON:  I am establishing through this --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Is that what you're getting at?
        MR. BARON:  Your Honor, that's a different legal issue and it 
   is, I would submit, a legal issue.  I am asking questions to the 
   witness about a technical issue on the safe harbor provisions.
        THE COURT:  Okay, fine.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   Let's turn to another area of cyberspace and I regret that 
   there's a whole new terminology associated with it --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay, you'll go slow.
   BY MR. COGAN:  
   Q   UseNet, what is it?
   A   I won't go into the history that I did when we talked last 
   Friday, suffice it to say, it's a outgrowth of a distributed 
   bulletin board system that started with computers calling each 
   other up over the telephone and has migrated to providing the 
   communication over the Internet.  There's a few hundred thousand 
   UseNet servers, they're just computers around the world running 
   UseNet server software.  They receive news group articles, which 
   are just messages like E-mail messages, there's a characterization 
   of a news group at the top of the article.  News group articles 
   are hierarchically organized, so it's -- one that I happen to read 
   is rec.autos.sport.F1, because I happen to be a Formula One car 
   racing fan, and so this is articles about car racing, about 
   Formula One car racing, and it's put into a separate directory on 
   the server.  And then as I as a client can -- I as an observer can 
   fire up a news client, which would then go off and I could tell it 
   I want it to look at this subset, and it would show me the 
   articles in the Formula One subsection.
   Q   Okay, thank you.  And what is known as NNTP?
   A   Network News Transfer Protocol is the language which is used 
   for the UseNet servers to talk to each other over the network 
   itself, it's a handshaking mechanism by which a server tells 
   another server I've got Article Number 1234 from Site 7, do you 
   want it, and the other server can say yes or no.
   Q   And what are ISP's?
   A   Jumping around in technology a little bit here.  ISP is the 
   term that was actually coined by the National Science Foundation, 
   it refers to Internet Service Provider, it's a company or an 
   organization which is providing connectivity, Internet 
   connectivity.  It may or may not also include services such as 
   news services or time services or E-mail forwarding or things 
   that, but the fundamental service that it's offering is 
   connectivity, the ability for Internet protocol packets to get 
   from your local network to out into the Internet to -- 
   theoretically to some other local network some place else.
   Q   Are there approximately 15,000 global UseNet news groups?
   A   There are somewhere -- there is actually probably considerably 
   more than that news groups, as far as global news groups, it's a 
   very hard number to determine because it depends on one's 
   definition.  I ran the news server at Harvard for a long time and 
   I was getting Japanese news groups.  Now, I would have stopped 
   them except there were some people at Harvard who wanted to read 
   the Japanese news groups, they were in transcribed Japanese, which 
   I couldn't read at all, it looked like encrypted text to me.  So, 
   there -- it's hard to define.  I would say that because I was 
   getting those in Boston and they were being generated in Tokyo 
   those are global news groups.  If we're using that kind of 
   definition there are at least that and probably more, but I don't 
   know for sure.
   Q   Would you say there are approximately 100,000 articles posted 
   A   That's a reasonable estimate for the ones which go out on the 
   -- in that set of, quote, "global news groups."
   Q   Now, this is a simple question, but how do you post an article 
   on UseNet?
   A   You compose a message, textural message usually on your UseNet 
   client, which many of the browsers now include, and you say -- you 
   tell that client which list of news groups you wish to post it to.  
   The client then contacts the local server and says here is an 
   article for news group rec.sport.autos.F1, and then hands it off 
   to the server.
   Q   Is there any difference with moderated news groups in terms of 
   how an article is posted to UseNet?
   A   There is no difference on how it's posted, what happens after 
   it's posted is different.  In an unmoderated news group when I do 
   that posting to rec.autos -- rec.auto.sport.F1 my server would 
   then automatically distribute it to all other servers which it had 
   a communication with, which is at Harvard there may be a dozen 
   different servers that it interacts with, so there would be about 
   a dozen different computers it would send off this article to.  
   And they would then propagate across the world, servers talking to 
   their adjacent servers, just distributing it in an ad hoc 
   interconnection mode, nobody controls that.  In a moderated news 
   group the posting would then go to my local server and then on 
   that server it looks up and says, oh, this is a moderated news 
   group, there is a list of moderators which is maintained on a few 
   dozen sites which allow -- which would support the service of 
   providing this forwarding list.  My server doesn't maintain one 
   now, I used to but I'm no longer in charge of that server, so I 
   don't do this anymore.  But the server that I would deal with 
   would then look at it and say it's a moderated news group, I need 
   to send it off to a server which contains a list of moderators, so 
   it sends it off to one of these sites around the country -- around 
   the world which contain the list.  It would then go -- that site 
   would then go through the list, forward this posting, which is 
   really a textural message in my case, off to the moderator, which 
   would then do whatever the moderator wanted to, including just 
   automatically forward it into the news group or put it in their in 
   box and read it, doing whatever the moderator wants to do and that 
   would depend on the moderator, there is no set set of procedures 
   or rules or software to support moderator functions.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  When I read your direct testimony I wondered 
   about this, when you say a moderator you mean a two-legged, 
   regular person?
        THE WITNESS:  Anybody --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  To wit, a human.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Yes.
        THE WITNESS:  Anybody who is willing to sit through, in the 
   case of rec.autos.F1 it's now two or 300 messages a day, anybody 
   who is willing to sit through two or 300 messages a day to decide 
   whether they should be out I wouldn't necessarily call a regular 
   person, but --
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  I guess I asked for that.  Who pays these 
        THE WITNESS:  These are -- almost all of these are voluntary 
   efforts.  There may be -- there are moderated news groups which 
   are provided by corporations.  For example, a company building 
   some product may have a moderated news group which speaks -- talks 
   about that product as a subset of the news group hierarchy which 
   is specifically for business and it's a bus., dot, company name, 
   dot, product, and they --those companies may pay a moderator to 
   cut out redundancies or to answer the questions that show up in 
   the mailing, whatever they want to do.  But the vast majority of 
   the moderators are volunteers.  And there are quite a few 
   moderated news groups, but the busy ones tend not to be because 
   it's just too much of an effort for a volunteer to do.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   But to summarize here, the moderator's role is to decide what 
   messages are forwarded to the news group, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Could you describe the term hierarchy as it applies to the 
   UseNet groups?
   A   Hierarchy is just as the -- what I said, that the Formula One 
   news group is in rec.autos.sport.F1.  Rec. is a subsection of the 
   news groups which are for recreation, autos is a subgroup of the 
   recreational, which is dealing with autos; there's also sky diving 
   and things like that in that same recreational.  Within autos 
   there's people who want sports, which is what I'm interested in, 
   but there's also folks who do restorations of antique cars and 
   there's a subgroup for them.  And then within the sports category 
   there's half a dozen or so different categories and the one that I 
   happen to be interested in is Formula One.  So, the hierarchy is 
   that listing of -- it's the tree which winds up with a specific 
   pointer to a specific news group.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  And that's a vehicle by which you get to 
   precisely that which you're interested in?
        THE WITNESS:  That is in theory the case.  In practice people 
   are a little less discriminate in what they post to news groups 
   than perhaps they should be, but the aim is to make it so that the 
   subgroup -- the news group is as closely focused on the topic 
   you're interested in as possible.  When I first started out doing 
   this news group stuff it was -- rec.autos was the division and in 
   rec.autos there may be two dozen messages a day.  And then when 
   that built up so that the volume was high they broke it up into 
   -- under autos they put sport and restoration and et cetera to 
   further subdivide it, in order to try and make it more and more 
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  But the reliability is dependent upon 
   whoever is labeling it -- I'm not sure that's the right word in --
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Posting it.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Posting it, thank you.
        THE WITNESS:  Posting.  Whoever puts down on their browser, 
   when they say post it they write down what news group it should 
   group -- news group or news groups it should go into and it's 
   entirely dependent on that person making the correct choice, that 
   is correct.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   So, let me just try to recap that.  You said that some 
   individuals might post indiscriminately to news groups that are 
   sort of off-topic, but the point is that the individual poster 
   controls where he or she will post the article to whatever the 
   UseNet group is of the 15,000 --
   A   That's correct.
   Q   -- and all of the hierarchies therein?
        We discussed the K-12 hierarchy in our -- last Friday, could 
   you just tell the Court what a K-12 hierarchy is?
   A   I know about the K-12 hierarchy only because they started -- 
   they started it up at a time when I was running the Harvard news 
   server, it's a sub-hierarchy that's specifically designed for 
   people in the kindergarten through 12th grade with specific 
   classes or specific topics.  K-12, dot, one was for the first 
   grade and they had topics relevant either to teachers or to 
   students within first grade.
   Q   Could you describe for the Court what the difference between 
   the alt. hierarchy and the other hierarchy is?
   A   Alt. hierarchy is the one which is, let's say, more --more 
   traditional in the Internet sense of chaos.  The other 
   hierarchies, the rec. hierarchy, the science hierarchy, the -- 
   there's a few dozen, K-12 hierarchy, et cetera, are hierarchies 
   where there is an agreement amongst the people running the 
   servers, on the main servers that they will have a controlled 
   method for creating new news groups.  And the controlled method is 
   that somebody proposes a news group to a particular news group, 
   which is about discussing proposing new news groups, and it's 
   discussed on there and if there's enough support indicated by E-
   mail to the proposer that this particular news group should exist 
   then the proposer can put in a news group creation request, which 
   will then propagate across the net.  One of the things that 
   happens is there is a few places which maintain lists of, quote, 
   "legitimate news groups" within different hierarchies and these 
   lists are periodically posted to UseNet, to the UseNet as another 
   article.  The UseNet software can be configured to automatically 
   review that list of legitimate news groups and delete any non-
   legitimate news groups, any news groups which do not appear in 
   this list.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  What would be a non-legitimate news group 
   then, just because it doesn't appear?
        JUDGE DALZELL:  It's considered irrelevant?
        THE WITNESS:  It's -- the structure is that, let's say, I 
   wanted to create a news group on rec.auto.sport.F2, which is 
   Formula Two.  Well, there doesn't happen to be a lot of Formula 
   Two activity these days.  And after some discussion on the group 
   -- on the new group list it was determined there isn't much 
   support for that, and I go create it anyway, then the maintainer 
   of the official list would say, well, that didn't get enough 
   support, it didn't go through the right process to get that news 
   group created, so that's an illegitimate news group, so I won't 
   put it on the check list that goes out periodically.  So then 
   automatically when this check list goes out, some sites have set 
   it up to automatically delete those unapproved news groups, others 
   send mail to the news group operator or whatever.  Alt. news 
   groups do not have somebody who is maintaining that list of, 
   quote, "legitimate," which means that news group are created ad 
   hoc-ly by anybody, literally anybody in the hierarchy. So, there 
   is a news group that's alt., dot, Swedish, dot, f, dot, borg, dot, 
   borg, dot, borg, dot, borg, which I kept trying to remove, but it 
   kept coming back.  But there's nobody making any kind of check as 
   to what -- any kind of list of what is a legitimate one.  So, the 
   alt. hierarchy is the old chaos of the Internet, free-will kind of 
        MR. BARON:  It might be helpful to look at an exhibit, if you 
   would turn to Defendant's Exhibit 10 and see what we're talking 
   about in terms of the alt. hierarchy.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   I concentrate on the last two pages of this exhibit.  The 
   exhibit is from something called the Internet Yellow Pages, Second 
   Edition; you've seen that book, haven't you, Mr. Bradner?
   A   You showed me this same thing last week and I have seen 
   earlier editions of this publication.
   Q   Would it be fair to say that within the alt. hierarchy there's 
   an alt. binaries sub-hierarchy?
   A   That's one of many in the alt. hierarchy, yes.
   Q   And there's an alt. sex sub-hierarchy
   A   That's correct?
   Q   Any particular ISP can decide whether to include the alt. sex 
   hierarchy or the alt. binaries hierarchy, correct?
   A   This was a question that you asked me last week and I 
   maintained that you were using the term ISP incorrectly in this 
   context.  Any operator of a news server can determine what news 
   groups that that news server will and will not maintain -- will 
   and will not accept, and will and will not maintain.  Some ISP's 
   run news servers, some ISP's do not run news servers.  So, to say 
   that an ISP does this is an incorrect characterization, a news 
   server operator can make that choice.
   Q   Okay.  Could you tell the Court what binary files are?
   A   Binary is the computer jargon for a bit pattern which is used 
   to represent any one of a number of things, for example an 
   executable program, if you want a new helper AP, a new thing which 
   draws pretty pictures on your screen when the screen is supposed 
   to be idle, a screen saver, there are binary programs available to 
   do that, you download them.  In actuality UseNet only transmits 
   printing characters, so in order to deal with the binary nature, 
   the nature of non-printing characters, because the actual 
   executables in the computer are stored in a eight-bit bit pattern 
   which turns into gibberish when you try and print it, they 
   actually translate each eight-bit character into two printing 
   characters and then retranslate it back into -- you can 
   retranslate it back into a printing -- into a binary pattern at 
   your local site, on your local client.
   Q   Just to be clear, can binary files include graphical image 
   files, and I'm using that in the lower-case sense of the term?
   A   Binary files can be, as you pointed out before when you were 
   talking about URL's, they can include graphics files, motion 
   pictures, sound, program -- pieces of program, sub-routines, but 
   it can be -- you can get your voice mail via E-mail by including 
   it in a binary file.
   Q   Individuals can post binary files to any UseNet news group, 
   A   In -- anybody can post --
   Q   Other than moderated groups, I don't mean it to be a trick 
   question, I'm sorry.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  You mean you'll let him know when you do?
        MR. BARON:  Right.
        THE WITNESS:  Well, I was going to catch you on that anyway.  
   Anybody can post any file to any news group; if it is moderated, 
   the moderator can control what goes in there. All files look the 
   same, because they -- as long as they have the formatted point at 
   the top, the formatted text at the top indicating a news group 
   name and an article I.D., then they're in the correct format and 
   the news servers know how to deal with them.  The contents after 
   that just look like printing characters, some of which are -- have 
   sense to them and some of them don't, the ones that are binary 
   tend not to. But so do the ones, for example, that are slightly 
   distorted in order to make them not easily -- not trivially 
   readable because it's, I don't know, a dirty joke or something, 
   they have a very simple encrypting mechanism called Rot 13 or 
   Rotate 13, it comes from one of the ciphers that Caesar used, as I 
   recall.  You just substitute its -- you take every letter in the 
   alphabet and take the 13th one in a round trip -- or further along 
   in the alphabet.  And, so, that looks like gibberish too, but in 
   actuality it's a one-character-per-one-character substitution.
   Q   But it's an encryption scheme?
   A   It's an encryption scheme.
   Q   Let me -- forgive me if I'm being redundant, but you can also 
   post graphical image files to any UseNet group, correct?
   A   I think I just said that.
   Q   Okay.  Therefore, one makes a conscious choice when you post 
   graphical image files or binary files whether you're going to post 
   them to the alt. sex hierarchy, the alt. binaries hierarchy or any 
   other place on UseNet, correct?
   A   Just as one makes a choice when posting any article.
   Q   Okay, thank you.  
        May we turn to Defendant's Exhibit 12?
   Q   Do you recall my showing you this exhibit on Friday?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Could you best characterize this, maybe you can do it better 
   than I as to what this sort of artificial construct represents in 
   terms of header information in UseNet?
   A   It represents the basic UseNet header, which is present on all 
   UseNet news messages -- articles, plus some things which are not 
   in the basic.  The ones labeled "mime version" and "content type" 
   and "content transferring coding" and "X mailer" are ones which 
   are not part of the basic set that's part of UseNet, it's the 
   UseNet format itself.  The others, the path is the sequence of 
   computers that this article went through, and that path can be 30 
   or 40 or 50 computers long; the from is the stated name and E-mail 
   address of the source of the message; the news groups is the list 
   of news groups that the message was for; the date is the date; 
   organization is the stated organization of the poster; the message 
   I.D. is an important thing, because it is what is used to 
   undifferentiate two messages which otherwise may look the same and 
   make sure that messages don't loop around in the network forever, 
   a data base is maintained of message I.D.'s which is relative to 
   -- the message I.D. includes the source post's name, so Message 13 
   from this host is not repetitively posted to the news group 
   accidentally.  And the NNTP posting host is also not part of the 
   original basic code, it's something that was added when NNTP came 
   into play.
   Q   Can we just hold that as a place holder here and explain for 
   the Court what a news reader is?
   A   A news reader is a piece of client software that -- in current 
   environment most of them go off and speak NNTP to a news server, a 
   UseNet server.
   Q   Am I correct that some news readers are embedded in browsers?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And some news readers have the ability to do what you term 
   threading, i.e. they follow articles based on the subject line of 
   the posting, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   Back to this exhibit, in theory an enhanced protocol for 
   UseNet could include an extra line which essentially embeds 
   content information, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Thank you.
        Let me turn more quickly to other applications on the 
   Internet.  You have described IRC, could you explain for the Court 
   what Internet Relay Chat is?
   A   Internet Relay Chat is a way by which if I type on my keyboard 
   it can appear on the screens of many people around the world 
   simultaneously, and when they type on their keyboards it appears 
   on my screen and other screens.
   Q   I just have one question for you, Mr. Bradner:  There are 
   moderators or channel operators on IRC, correct?
   A   In some cases there are, in other cases there are not.
   Q   And those are human moderators, human channel operators, 
   A   The only ones that I know of are.
   Q   Okay.
   A   Some I have question about, but...
   Q   All right, let's move to List Serves, could you explain 
   briefly for the Court what they are?
   A   List Serve is a -- actually a product name, it would be better 
   to refer to it as an E-mail exploder.  You send E-mail to a piece 
   of software which then re-sends this piece of E-mail to a list of 
   recipients, that list can be quite extensive.  The ones I run on 
   my local machine, I have an E-mail exploder for one of the IETF 
   working groups, it has two or 300 -- maybe it's 180 now, I pruned 
   it a little recently, different addresses that I have -- any 
   message sent to that address, BMWG at Harvard, dot, EDU will be in 
   turn forwarded to this list of addresses.  List Serve is a 
   particular product that implements this kind of E-mail exploder.  
   It has some fancy features because it can deal with -- it can talk 
   with other List Serves over the network and some con --regulation 
   of what's -- which -- who -- which exploder has which addresses to 
   forward to.  But basically what you really mean is an E-mail 
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  So, once again, it's a vehicle by which one 
   expands the recipients without the sender -- or the source 
   necessarily knowing where it's going?
        THE WITNESS:  Specifically that is the case.
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   I just have one question, Mr. Bradner:  There are moderators 
   on List Serves or E-mail exploders, correct?
   A   I would say on the majority of them there are not.
   Q   But there are some?
   A   There are some.  I actually currently, personally do not deal 
   with any E-mail exploders that do happen to have moderators, all 
   of the ones that I deal with are ones where I send mail to the 
   exploder itself and it just forwards it.  A moderator, I would 
   send the mail to the moderator and then the moderator would in 
   turn send it to the exploder list.  I don't happen to deal with 
   any, I know that some exist.  All of the ones in the IETF, for 
   example, for all of the working groups are unmoderated.
   Q   Let's turn to E-mail and I just have one question:  It's true, 
   is it not, that some E-mail user agents allow you to separate out 
   the mail based on the source of the message, the subject line of 
   the message or a combination of those, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Have you heard of Eudora?
   A   Yes, I have.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  What's that?
        MR. BARON:  Eudora.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  As in wealthy?
   BY MR. BARON:  
   Q   You have an extensive background in FTP, file transfer 
   protocol, correct?
   A   I'm not sure that it's an honor to say that, but, yes.
   Q   You told me that last Friday.  Conceptually, it is possible to 
   block access to an FTP site, is it not, on an a priori basis by 
   means of a password, correct?
   A   Yes, if FTP is a way that I can sit at a client and ask to 
   access to a server, an FTP server, and there are two ways to do 
   that:  One is what is called anonymous FTP, by which I give the 
   log name anonymous when asked for my log name, my user name, and 
   then I give my name as a password just to indicate for tracing 
   purposes who I am, but of course that depends on who I say I am.  
   This is the way that a huge percentage of the large data files, 
   including for example the version of Flatland that I referred to 
   earlier and all of the material on my machine are provided, 
   they're provided by FTP. There is an alternate way, which is if I 
   don't want to provide general access to some files then I can -- I 
   can restrict that access to a password -- a user name and password 
   protected, just as I restrict access to my local computer to 
   people with -- that I have given accounts on the local computer 
   Q   The FTP protocol was standardized through the IETF RFC 
   process, correct?
   A   It was standardized very, very early, I wouldn't say that it 
   was -- it was standardized early on, so I'm not sure that you 
   could characterize it as going -- it definitely didn't go through 
   the proposed and draft and full standard kind of process, it was 
   one of the very first protocols on the Internet a long time ago.  
   So, it way predates my involvement, so I couldn't speak with 
   expertise on exactly how it was standardized, but my guess is some 
   people got --sat down and said this is the way we're going to do 
   it and, bingo, that's the way it was going to get done.
   Q   Now, let me switch gears here.  You told me last Friday that 
   at Harvard there are many individuals who download to older 
   versions of Netscape browsers for free, correct?
   A   They download the version that is free.
   Q   Okay.  You stated last Friday in your deposition that the 
   Internet is, quote, "becoming pervasive," unquote, do you stand by 
   that statement?
   A   And by pervasive I mean omnipresent, it is available anyplace.  
   I can call from my hotel room, which I did this morning, and log 
   in to read my E-mail.  Soon I will be able to plug into a jack in 
   the wall and identify myself and have Internet connectivity in the 
   hotel room.  So, it is avail --it will be -- it's becoming 
   available wherever I want to go in and plug in and ask -- and 
   identify myself -- connect to my home computer and then identify 
   myself to the home computer with a log name password combination.  
   And in that con -- the context in which I said pervasive I meant 
   that it was becoming omnipresent, an ability for me to get it 
   wherever I am.
   Q   The Internet is also changing, correct?
   A   Oh, at least.
   Q   You recall that I asked you a visionary question last Friday, 
   A   You asked me to make a speech and I did.
   Q   And I asked you to discuss with me where you saw the Internet 
   going in the 21st Century, right?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And you expressed the view that there is not going to be an 
   Internet as we know it today in the year 2000, correct?
   A   The year 2000 or shortly thereafter, that's correct.
   Q   Let me quote you from the deposition and ask whether you stand 
   by this statement, you said, I'm quoting your speech, "Will there" 
   -- it's Page 312, Line 19 -- Line 18, you said that you were 
   giving a talk.  "Will there be an Internet in the year 2000?"
        Line 19:  "My conclusion is that in the year 2000 or shortly 
   thereafter there will not be an Internet and by that I mean the 
   Internet of today, that which people see and understand as the 
   Internet is a differentiable data service. It's something that you 
   see that is different than your television service, it's different 
   than your telephone service, it's different than your fax service, 
   it's a different thing than what you have, what you use for doing 
   other functions.  I believe that in the year 2000 or shortly 
   thereafter we will have a unified general data service.  In 
   certain parts of the country already we have had a crossover 
   between the amount of information carried as voice for the voice 
   telephone network and the amount of information carried as data."
        And skipping down to Line 20:  "This will become universal in 
   the U.S. within the next half dozen years and there won't be 
   something that you would say that's the Internet."
        Do you stand by those statements?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Thank you, Mr. Bradner.  
        MR. BARON:  I have no more questions.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  But this unified general data service would 
   act in similar ways that you have described both this morning and 
   in your declaration, would it not?
        THE WITNESS:  Yes.  And what I meant by saying what I did was 
   that right now you go and you go and buy telephone connection and 
   telephone service from this vendor, and you go and you buy your 
   cable service from that vendor, and you may go buy your electric 
   utility from some other vendor, I predict in the future that you 
   won't be able to differentiate between vendors, you will have a 
   pipe into the house or maybe competition for pipes into the house 
   and you plug this instrument onto it, onto this pipe and you get 
   telephone and you plug this instrument onto the pipe and you get 
   cable T.V. and you plug this instrument onto the pipe and you get 
   whatever is the successor to the Web.  And I believe there's a 
   successor to the Web, I don't know what it is, but I believe that 
   there will be some other way, some additional ways for a user to 
   find things and interact with services around the globe and, in 
   particular, doing that in a way which -- right now a great deal of 
   the Internet is dependent on the voluntary efforts of individuals 
   to provide material and I believe that in the long run that this 
   -- the facilitating of this global, global and ubiquitous data 
   service, one of the facilitating factors would be mechanisms for 
   making it economically reasonable for content providers to provide 
   content.  That -- it's a real mixed bag though, I mean, one of the 
   big things about a universal service like this is that it doesn't 
   get controlled very easily.  So, those environments where 
   governments would like to control content, for example Singapore 
   and China both have announced recently that they are working on 
   figuring out ways to control content that their citizens can get 
   over the net, over the Internet, the current Internet, this is a 
   very big threat to that kind of their perception of what the 
   social order should be.  And I see this -- the Internet of the 
   future being both a combination of a promise of tremendous 
   reachability of availability of knowledge, availability of 
   interaction, people interacting with people, and a threat to -- 
   perceived threat to the ability to control what citizenry get, and 
   that it is the balance between the perception of that threat and 
   the reaction to the perception of that threat and the promise.  I 
   personally would rather focus in on the promise.
        MR. BARON:  Thank you.
        (Discussion held off the record.)
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  The Court thought that we would break now 
   before you begin your redirect, to give you the opportunity to 
   catch your breaths.
        MR. MORRIS:  Your Honor, that would be fine.  We have a 
   somewhat unexpected scheduling problem, both the Government and we 
   anticipated that Mr. Bradner's testimony would take a much shorter 
   time than it has now.  Mr. 
   Bradner -- 
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  We didn't anticipate that.
        MR. MORRIS:  Mr. Bradner has a very important meeting 
   relating to some international protocols negotiations, he -- in 
   Washington, D.C. late this afternoon. He would absolutely be able 
   to return first thing in the morning and, if it would be 
   acceptable to the Court and the Government, we would suggest that 
   we break for lunch and ask Mr. Bradner to return first thing in 
   the morning.
        THE COURT:  Is that congenital to the Government?
        MR. BARON:  In theory, your Honor, it would be acceptable, 
   but depending on the length of the questioning, it may be just for 
   a few minutes and therefore it can be done.
        THE COURT:  Well, what's your anticipation, Mr. Morris?
        MR. MORRIS:  I think we probably would only go for 15 or 20 
   minutes.  I don't know how many questions the Court might have...
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  The Court thinks tomorrow morning?
        JUDGE DALZELL:  That's fine.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  The Court thinks tomorrow morning.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  I will have some questions.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Is that all right with you?
        THE WITNESS:  Yes.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Is that all right with you?
        THE WITNESS:  Yes.
        JUDGE DALZELL:  Okay?
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  Even if you come back to lovely Philadelphia 
   just for 15 minutes, you don't mind?
        JUDGE DALZELL:  It's on the way to Harvard.
        THE WITNESS:  Yes.
        JUDGE SLOVITER:  We will resume at 1:30.
        (Luncheon recess taken at 12:10 o'clock p.m.)


Return to the EPIC Censorship Lawsuit Page