February 2001 Public Policy Computer Graphics Column

Introduction

Bob Ellis

We start this column with the results of our third on-line opinion survey on public policy issues affecting computer graphics. Next we provide an introduction to and a copy of the definition paper for a prospective study of computer graphics research to be conducted by the National Research Council with partial funding from SIGGRAPH. This is followed by an update on our activities in proposing a course on public policy and a panel on digital rights management of intellectual property for SIGGRAPH 2001. Myles Losch provides an update on the issues related to the slow pace of adoption of Digital TV. Finally, we close with another set of comments from a reader.

Third On-Line Survey

David Nelson
Bob Ellis
Laurie Reinhart

Our third on-line survey (see results below) asked very pointedly policy-oriented questions unlike the first two surveys. One result that stands out is that we only had 60 respondents even though the survey was available for several months. Data we collected indicated that 80% of the respondents who told us how they discovered the existence of the survey found it by accessing the SIGGRAPH website. Only one respondent accessed the survey by reading about it in the column, although the lateness of the print version of the August 2000 issue of Computer Graphics may have had some impact. This demonstrates the importance of siggraph.org and perhaps suggests that the website receive some priority in support.

Another interesting point is that 85% of the respondents who told us their country of residence said it was the United States. It's not clear what this means. Perhaps residents of other countries did not find the survey questions relevant to their interests. Perhaps SIGGRAPH is not reaching its non-US members.

It was also interesting that 1/3 of the respondents left their email addresses in the face of no stated privacy policy anywhere on siggraph.org. We wanted to refer to ACM's privacy statement but surprisingly, during the time the survey was available, ACM did not have privacy statement on its website that was anything but a draft.

Several respondents left comments. We have summarized those later in this report. The results for the survey are summarized below. To download a printable version click here (Adobe Acrobat required).

                         User access (2.30 +/- 0.18) (below):

                         Cryptography (2.78 +/- 0.15) (below):

                         Digital copy protection (2.63 +/- 0.20) (below):

                         Electronic commerce (2.80 +/- 0.17) (below):

                         Free Speech (2.13 +/- 0.19) (below):

                         Internet governance (3.32 +/- 0.16) (below):

                         Intellectual property/copyright (2.38 +/- 0.15) (below):

                         Privacy (2.20 +/- 0.17) (below):

                         Federal goverment research support (3.12 +/- 0.16) (below):

                         Telecommunications (2.72 +/- 0.17) (below):

                         Television/computer convergence (2.63 +/- 0.17) (below):

	The availability of graphics, and other works, in digital format has resulted in a call from some parties for increased protection of such intellectual property. This has led to a number of proposed and implemented changes to intellectual property law such as through international treaties and the recently enacted (in the US) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Others have said that the traditional copyright statutes should apply to digital information with little change. (Rated from 1 (strengthen laws) to 5 (relax laws) (2.96 +/- 0.17) (below):

	Cable modem, wireless and other broadband Internet services should be defined as common carrier services (such as telephone services) and similarly regulated by government, including open access and some level of pricing control. (2.83 +/- 0.19) (below):

	Digital subscriber line services should be completely deregulated, including pricing. (2.58 +/- 0.17) (below):

	To expand residential broadband Internet access, the building of new, wired networks (competitive with existing telephone and cable television lines) should be encouraged. (2.03 +/- 0.16) (below):

	Digital technologies such as DVD are becoming available for the distribution of still and of moving images in digital format. Some copyright holders want to see strong restrictions on making copies of such materials built into the equipment. Others say these strong restrictions will limit interest of the public in such equipment. (Rated from 1 (limit adoption) to 5 (hasten adoption) (1.98 +/- 0.12) (below):

	Inform members via articles in member publications such as Computer Graphics and CACM. (2.30 +/- 0.15) (below):

	Inform members via opt-in email newsletters. (2.57 +/- 0.15) (below):

	Inform members of the general public regarding the technical implications of policy alternatives by statements in the popular press and general interest magazines. (2.33 +/- 0.16) (below):

	Inform policy makers regarding the technical implications of policy alternatives by writing white papers and by direct contact. (2.33 +/- 0.16) (below):

	Take positions on issues on behalf of the organization. (2.37 +/- 0.14) (below):

	Take positions on issues on behalf of the membership. (2.43 +/- 0.16) (below):

	Commit to the significant spending (approaching $1M annually) required to mount an effective public policy activity. (2.73 +/- 0.16) (below):

	Fund spending on public policy activities by increasing dues for all members. (3.42 +/- 0.15) (below):

	Fund spending on public policy activities by increasing dues for members in the affected geographic areas. (3.38 +/- 0.14) (below):

	Fund spending on public policy activities by using voluntary member contributions. (2.50 +/- 0.14) (below):

	Fund spending on public policy activities by successfully seeking grants from foundations and/or government agencies. (2.25 +/- 0.16) (below):

	Fund spending on public policy activities by decreasing spending in other areas such as publications or member services. (3.62 +/- 0.14) (below):

As with our other surveys, most of the responses were fairly middle of the road. It was not surprising that user access was listed as the most important policy issue facing computer graphics. We did not break this down as to user interface issues or access to computing and the Internet issues. Other highly ranked policy issues for computer graphics were free speech and intellectual property/copyright. We were surprised that digital copy protection, telecommunications, and television/computer convergence did not rank higher. Perhaps this last issue should have been titled "availability of digital television".

Section Two indicates that respondents thought that intellectual property rights statutes were about right, favoring neither the owner nor user. A possible confusion over this question was whether we were referring to pre- or post-DMCA a law that greatly strengthened the rights of copyright holders.

In Section Three respondents indicated no enthusiasm for changing the regulatory status of either cable or DSL services, keeping them both as essentially unregulated services. Respondents did indicate a fairly strong interest in encouraging the availability of competitive services although without any choice of mechanisms, the question doesn't have a lot of meaning.

Section Four seems to indicate that respondents felt that the use of strong digital copy protection mechanisms would limit rather than hasten adoption of the technologies. A 1.98 result is one of the strongest responses we've seen in any of our surveys.

Section Five seems to indicate fairly limited support for public policy activities by ACM and SIGGRAPH, even educational efforts, and little support for funding it. We do not know how many respondents were members. Respondents were strongly opposed to funding policy activities by either increasing dues or shifting support from the more traditional services. In fact, the only acceptable form of funding was outside grants, but of course who wouldn't be in favor of such a funding source!

Several readers left comments for us. We have summarized and grouped them into similar categories. Those who included comments in their responses are concerned about copyright restrictions, interested in establishing working relationships with lawmakers, questioning where those issues can/should be discussed effectively and recommending educational efforts to inform the public, including lawmakers and their staff people. Respondents feel that providing education is essential, especially to the new and/or young users.

One pointed out that the press and the broadcast media are not effective as a forum for discussing the issues due to their acceptance of advertising from the affected organizations and that the new "media industries" do not have enough "economic muscle" to force the government to deal with the issues.

Several are concerned with copyright restrictions, and with minimizing these. They express this by saying "discourage copyright protections", "as little copyright restriction as possible", and "help protect research". One thinks that there needs to be a better or "common understanding of 'fair use'". Another says that "too many use restrictions will hold back development and progress". Note that these comments are not reinforced by the survey results (Section Two) which indicated no drastic changes were needed. However, the results of Section Four of the survey indicate that strong digital copy protection schemes will limit adoption of the technologies.

None asked for more restrictions, but one pointed out that "the creators and thus the owners of the intellectual property need more protection . . . it is imperative that strong and consistent lines of communication are established with the policy makers in governments around the world."

The respondent probably was referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (of 1998) when saying: "The Electronic Signature Act represents a radical increase in the power of copyright holders, giving them far greater ability both to restrict 'fair use' and reverse engineering and to criminalize minor individual copyright violations . . . (resulting in) the potential for prohibitions on reverse engineering to stifle research and development . . . As it is SIGGRAPH should directly address the issue of software makers using license terms that prevent traditionally legally-protected activities like reverse engineering and benchmarking."

There were a couple of thoughtful comments about the survey, which of course is neither complete nor representative due to resource limitations, but is intended as a way of casually asking for opinions from those interested in answering. We will try to incorporate these comments into future versions.

In summary, the concern of the people leaving comments seems to be protection of the efforts of creators without restricting creativity or development, and how to inform the public (and the lawmakers, as part of that public) about the issues so that a perceived necessity for protection can result in effective, but not overly restrictive legislation.

If any reader has comments on the results of the survey, how we could get more respondents or ideas of how the survey could be improved, please contact Bob Ellis. One thought that occurred to us was to repeat the survey periodically (perhaps once a year) to monitor any changes and spot trends. To be meaningful the survey would have to stay fairly constant. Another possible change would be to give each respondent a fixed number of points per section and let them award as many or as few points to each issue to indicate its importance. That's a bit more like how the real world operates.

Definition of a Study of Computer Graphics Research

Bob Ellis

We have commented before (November 2000) on the prospective study of computer graphics research to be done by the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Research Council. This has been in the works for some time and seed funding of $50,000 was approved by the ACM SIGGRAPH Executive Committee, subject to final approval of the definition of the study by ACM SIGGRAPH Chair, Judy Brown. In November 2000 the definition of the study (appended to the end of the column) that was written by Jerry Sheehan (NRC), Mike McGrath and myself was approved. The next step is to work with representatives on the CSTB to identify and bring on board a full complement of sponsors.

Update on SIGGRAPH Course and Panel Proposals

Bob Ellis

As I write this (November 2000), the proposal for a course on public policy issues of particular interest to computer graphics professionals has been submitted. Barbara Simons, ACM Past President and Co-Chair of USACM and myself with the two of us and Myles Losch as speakers have organized the course. Not yet identified are two participants who will join us in an informal panel at the end of the course to discuss how these issues differ from country to country. The proposed course is titled "The Impact of Public Policy on Computer Graphics". A description of the proposed course follows:

"As the proliferation of personal computers and access to the Internet has increased the public's use of and access to computer graphics, researchers, developers and practitioners will find that policy issues and the law increasingly affect their professional activities. After an overview of computing and policy issues the course will explore, in depth, issues of particular relevance to computer graphics. Because computer graphics on the WWW is particularly sensitive to bandwidth, we will present the technical and policy issues associated with the deployment of broadband telecommunications. The use, creation and protection of intellectual property are particularly important to SIGGRAPH attendees and we will explore this issue including the use and abuse of digital copy protection mechanisms. The coming availability of digital and high definition video is of special importance to computer graphics; we will look at the technical and policy issues. SIGGRAPH's policy activities in generating support for computer graphics research will be described. Finally, the important topics of how policy is effected and affected will be discussed including the role of technical societies such as SIGGRAPH, ACM and IEEE as well as international issues."

I'm about to start work on the panel proposal that is due in January 2001. The proposed panel would be restricted to policy issues associated with the management of the digital rights to intellectual property.

Update on Digital Television`s Rate of Adoption

Myles Losch

Digital television (DTV, including high definition) is an attractive outlet for computer-generated content, and has been broadcast in the U.S. for over two years (with other world regions following suit, though varying in some technical standards). But as previously noted in this space, disputes over broadcast signal formats and anti-copying rules for digital video have inhibited this new medium's growth.

U.S. broadcasters have been given new digital TV channels, and told to return their old analog frequencies to the government when 85 percent of viewers could receive digital video (but not before 2006). The retired TV spectrum is to be auctioned for other uses, such as new broadband mobile services. But with digital TV stalled in the market, FCC chairman William Kennard feared that these newer services (and $70 billion in auction revenue) might not materialize as planned.

So Kennard has proposed to relax the 85 percent DTV conversion threshold, and further motivate broadcasters to halt analog TV transmissions by putting an escalating tax on their non-digital channels. Such ideas are of course opposed by broadcasters, who may well have enough political influence over Congress to block them.

But another of Kennard's initiatives may hold more promise: requiring new TV receivers to accept both digital and analog signal formats. A similar edict decades ago ensured that U. S. TV's could receive channels beyond the original 13, thus enabling the spread of then-new UHF TV services.

TV set makers object that Kennard's plan would raise costs by $300 per unit, a prohibitive amount for small-screen TV's. But if the requirement were phased-in by initially applying only to large-screen models, the financial impact would be softened. And the resulting economies of scale, combined with continuing technical advances in DTV electronics, would likely reduce per unit costs to levels affordable at smaller screen sizes.

Before long, such trends could well enable owners of older TV's to add outboard DTV tuner boxes for as little as $50, according to industry analysts. Of course, none of this will alone settle (e.g.) the copy protection debates, but Kennard's proposals, along with other developments (such as more affordable large-screen HDTV displays) may at last open a path toward broad acceptance for a promising new visual medium. Considering that HDTV development in Japan dates from the 1970's, such success would be very welcome.

Another Reader Comments

Bob Ellis

In the August 2000 column I included some comments from a reader and my responses. Again this month we are fortunate to be able to include a summary of an email correspondence I've had with reader Robert Wilkens that started from the comments made by Myles Losch in the August 2000 column. Myles had commented on the idea that software was a form of speech and hence protected from government control by the U.S. Constitution. Myles continued that the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which have been used to prohibit the distribution of software to decrypt DVD material could therefore be considered unconstitutional. This argument has also been applied to the control by the U.S. government of export distribution of software that provides strong encryption. The discussion continued with Mr. Wilkens' thoughts on UCITA (discussed in the November 2000 column). Our discussion ended with some philosophical thoughts of the role of organizations such as ACM and SIGGRAPH in discussion and advocacy in policy issues. Mr. Wilkens has reviewed the summary and he concurs that it is a fair representation of our discussion.

Mr. Wilkens' initial query was that if software could be considered a form of speech and hence protected by the United States Constitution from government control, perhaps a description of a hardware design could also be considered speech and enjoy the same protection. I personally have a less strong opinion than Myles that software is a form of speech because its primary purpose (except for pedagogical purposes) is not discourse, but effecting some action. This point applies only in situations where laws are passed because the U.S. Constitution only prohibits government control and most software is distributed via licensing agreements that can basically implement all types of restrictions. The DMCA is an excellent example because it is a law that specifically makes illegal certain forms of technology, such as the DeCSS software and hardware, which could be used to defeat copy protection schemes.

This lead to a discussion of UCITA which was featured in the November 2000 column which was then available on-line. UCITA attempts to legalize the shrink wrap licenses which have become the popular way to control what a customer can do with the software which is licensed. A discussion of the actions a software vendor could take beyond withdrawing a licensee's right to use the software ensued. I pointed out that all sorts of actions could be brought under the terms of the license agreement including the collection of damages, legal harassment, etc.

Mr. Wilkens raised a number of concerns about then ACM President Barbara Simons' stand against UCITA, including the concern that software is generally not free from defects and that trying to enforce defect free software by legal action is doomed to failure. Mr. Wilkens was further concerned that Ms. Simons' position was attempting to control the actions of a free market where a prospective customer is free not to license software if there is concern about the terms and conditions of the license agreement or the software is excessively buggy. The common answer to this is that we don't really have a free market in certain software due to the dominance of some companies. My fundamental concern about this is that opponents of UCITA are attempting to bring to licensing agreements those same customer protections that are available to purchasers of products. This is an important issue because I can see the day when consumers eventually can no longer buy books, CDs, etc., but merely purchase a license to use the products. Perhaps we will even someday see the situation where you can no longer purchase or lease an automobile, but can only license the right to use it!

I then asked Mr. Wilkens how he felt about the ACM President taking this action because he disagreed with several of the positions. His reply was that he was generally comfortable with such actions because they should be the result of careful analysis that perhaps most ACM members did not have the time or knowledge to make, but was concerned that some of the points needed more consideration.

Our final point of discussion involved how you decide just who and what the spokesperson of a member organization such as ACM is representing when they make statements based on their position in that organization. Mr. Wilkens also raised the issue of whether using an acm.org email forwarding address implied some sort of relationship beyond just membership in ACM. These are a couple of interesting points given that ACM is primarily known for its function of dissemination of technical knowledge and not acting as an advocacy organization or email forwarder. There's no resolution of these issues at this time.

I encourage other readers who would like to discuss any aspects of this column or SIGGRAPH's public policy activities to contact me.

Research Challenges in Computer Graphics

Research Challenges in Computer Graphics
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board
National Research Council

SCOPE

This project will identify areas in which additional research is needed to make computer graphics a more capable medium for supporting a growing body of work in areas such as health care, entertainment, product design and manufacturing, scientific visualization, and education. It will bring together computer graphics researchers with users from a range of application areas to derive a set of research needs and will attempt to identify key remaining problems to be solved in the field. In order to ensure broad input from the computer graphics community and user communities, the project will solicit participation through workshops, white papers and briefings. Indeed this process has already started: the final form of this document is the result of a review by key members of the computer graphics research community.

CONTEXT

Policy Context

Computer graphics is becoming a ubiquitous tool for interacting with information technologies. Although many feel that entertainment uses in video games, feature-length films, and Web pages dominate, computer graphics is increasingly being used to help doctors plan difficult surgeries, to enable engineers to create virtual mock-ups of large engineering projects, to help scientists interpret the results of scientific simulations, to help educators illustrate key concepts for their students, and to help monitor natural resources and environmental conditions. Graphics provides an accessible medium for users to interact with computing and communications systems and interpret data.

As the capabilities of computing and communications technologies continue to increase, improvements in generating, manipulating and displaying computer graphic images will continue to grow, enabling them to be used in an ever-broader range of applications. Advances in this field will play an important role in the diffusion of information technology throughout society.

Despite the more widespread use of computers and the Internet by the general public, certain groups of citizens are underrepresented, creating what has been referred to as a "digital divide". There are many dimensions to the Digital Divide, but computer graphics has the potential to help many more people use computers and the Internet effectively by creating more capable users and modes of accessing information (SIGGRAPH 1997).

Ensuring that computer graphics capabilities will keep pace with advances in hardware and software will require continued research. As in the past, industry, academia, and government will have important roles to play in supporting this work. Industry supports considerable research and development in graphics, especially in support of entertainment, graphics production, and computer-aided design. But industry is generally not well equipped to support fundamental research that will develop broad graphics capabilities that may not mature for a decade or more. Industry's goals, traditions, and mechanisms for selecting R&D projects tend to select research that is more closely tied to immediate needs. Ensuring continued effort in fundamental graphics research will therefore require continued federal support of university research.

Federal funding has historically played a significant role in advancing computer graphics research. The Department of Defense provided critical, early support for university research in the basic techniques for modeling solid objects, shading, and virtual reality that are used today (CSTB 1995). Other federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Institutes of Health have supported projects to extend computer graphics capabilities into particular mission areas, such as weapons simulation, scientific visualization, biomedical imaging, manufacturing design and analysis, and the global information system. The National Science Foundation has also funded computer graphics and in 1991 established a Science and Technology Center for Computer Graphics.

To date, most federal support for computer graphics has been provided on an ad hoc basis, with little long-term program support or planning. Perhaps in part because computer graphics is frequently not seen as a real branch of computing research, each agency has tended to sponsor work in its own area of interest. As computer graphics expands into a widening range of application areas, such fragmentation of support is likely to proliferate, leading to the possibility that the potential benefits of computer graphics will not be fully realized. Indeed, a 1997 review of the National Science Foundation's Science and Technology Center in Computer Graphics (NSF 1997) recommended that the NSF work with the National Research Council to identify the broader scope of research that remains to be done in computer graphics and to communicate this information to policy makers, but this recommendation has yet to be implemented. The surge in information technology applications since that time makes the need even more compelling today.

Technical Context

Research in computer graphics encompasses a broad range of topics, including modeling, rendering, interactive techniques, and graphics hardware. Modeling consists of techniques for creating computer-based representations of objects and scenes to be depicted. Rendering is the process of producing images for display on a monitor or printer. Interactive techniques include tools and physical devices that permit the development of applications that allow human users to interact with graphical representations in real time. Graphics hardware consists of specialized and general-purpose hardware for creating and displaying computer graphics. It ranges from high-end workstations and desktop PCs augmented with graphics accelerator cards for carrying out graphics calculations to specialized user interfaces, such as helmet mounted displays for virtual reality or augmented reality experiences.

Advances in these core areas will be needed to enable faster, simpler development of realistic and complex computer graphics images such as those found in increasing abundance in the growing collection of digital libraries. Research will also be needed to help tailor these fundamental advances to particular application areas, whether healthcare, entertainment, or scientific research. Such efforts will require collaboration between computer science researchers and those in other disciplines such as art, engineering, and medicine. We have specifically not defined the scope of computer graphics in detail in order to allow study members great latitude in their work.

In addition, future research in computer graphics will respond to new opportunities created by the increasing capabilities of computing and communications systems. For example, work on the virtual reality markup language (VRML) is enabling the creation of three-dimensional images that can be incorporated into pages and shared over the World Wide Web. Future work could extend these principles to allow large scale virtual environments to be shared via the Internet. Image-based rendering techniques, which incorporate real-world or synthetic imagery into 3D databases, will provide more complex and realistic computer graphics and may transform rendering, modeling, and graphics hardware. Virtual reality and augmented reality systems will be experienced through all our senses, including sight, sound, and motion or touch.

Similarly, work on automatic data simplification and database re-targeting will produce the capability to take models created at a high level of complexity and deploy them at a lower level of complexity commensurate with available computing resources. Hence, a model created on a high-end workstation can be deployed on a notebook computer. Such work is particularly important with the advent of the World Wide Web where bandwidth is limited and complex models might overwhelm the infrastructure. While itself a research issue, development of the Next Generation Internet promises to allow increased collaboration among researchers in different disciplines and countries, many of whom will share graphical images and simulations.

PLAN OF ACTION

Statement of Task

A group of experts in computer graphics and its varied applications will identify compelling research needs in the field, highlighting those that promise significant returns due to the scope, scale, or breadth of their potential applications. The group will examine research needs in both core areas of computer graphics (such as modeling and rendering) and in application areas such as defense, entertainment, medicine, manufacturing, and scientific visualization to identify those research areas that can be leveraged broadly. The results will inform research-related activities in government, universities, and industry and provide guidance on the roles each entity can play in achieving the research objectives. We do not mean to imply that such a study entirely replaces the traditional bottoms up proposal driven method of defining research areas.

Responsible Body

CSTB will assemble a study committee of 12-15 members to conduct this study. Membership will be drawn from industry and academia, and will include recognized experts with strong knowledge of core computer graphics disciplines and a diverse set of application areas. It will attempt to combine the perspectives of computer graphics researchers, artists, scientists, engineers, and others who use graphics systems to create different forms of imagery or content. Suggestions for committee membership will be solicited from CSTB members and staff, other relevant groups within the National Academies, the computer graphics research community, potential sponsors, and from recognized leaders in interesting application areas.

Although such a group cannot possibly represent all of computer graphics research and applications, committee members would attempt to solicit a wide range of input to help them identify the most pressing technical needs and biggest research challenges.

Preliminary Work Plan

Based on consultations among Board members, CSTB committee members, and the sponsors, CSTB will seek nominees for the study committee and suggestions for topics to address. The study committee will meet approximately five times over the course of the study to plan its work, meet with the sponsors and other relevant parties, prepare a summary report, and respond to review comments.

A workshop or series of smaller data-gathering sessions will be convened to solicit input on research needs from diverse communities of users. Should timing allow, a meeting or small workshop could be held in conjunction with the annual SIGGRAPH conference to facilitate broad participation of the computer graphics community. Additional efforts will be made to solicit input through white papers, briefings to the committee, and the Internet.

The committee would consider such questions as (1) How will advances in computer graphics enable significant breakthroughs in fields such as entertainment, health care, engineering design, manufacturing, and scientific research? (2) What technical advances and research are required to enable computer graphics to serve a growing range of needs? (3) What unsolved problems remain within the field of computer graphics and are they being adequately addressed? (4) What new capabilities do advanced computing and communications provide that may drive computer graphics applications? (5) How can the most promising research issues be best addressed? (6) What are the complementary roles of industry, government, and universities in meeting future challenges? (7) What are the benefits of research in different areas of computer graphics? To the extent possible, the committee will attempt to identify research topics of enduring interest and value and those with broad applicability.

Product and Dissemination Plan

The principal product of this project will be a report summarizing the findings of the study committee and articulating its recommendations. The report will be subject to NRC review procedures to ensure its accuracy, balance, and rigor. Dissemination will be targeted toward government policy makers, members of the computer graphics research community, and key users of computer graphics systems in industry, academia, and government. The report will be made available on the National Academy of Sciences World Wide Web server, as well as in paper form. Additional efforts will be made to disseminate the report's conclusions through briefings to interested parties in government, academia, and industry; through participation in high-level government and industry conferences; and by publication of summary articles in relevant journals, as appropriate. Funds for dissemination are included in the budget. In the final analysis, the success of this project will be determined by whether the daunting goals of increased awareness and funding for important elements of computer graphics research happens.

REFERENCES

CSTB 1995. Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative to Support the Nation's Information Infrastructure. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NSF 1997. Review of the Science and Technology Center for Computer Graphics. National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA.

SIGGRAPH 1997 "Computer Graphics, Visualization, Imaging and the GII (Internet)", SIGGRAPH White Paper #1, Gershon, et.al., May 1997 (www.siggraph.org/pub-policy).