X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16]
Approved-By:  Duncan Aldrich <duncan@EQUINOX.UNR.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.govdoc-l
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:41:44 GMT
From:         Duncan Aldrich <duncan@equinox.unr.edu>
Subject:      Re: WINDO

Forwarded message:

From LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU  Fri Jul 24 08:27:48 1992
Resent-Message-Id: <9207241527.AA27083@equinox.unr.edu>
Message-Id: <9207241527.AA27083@equinox.unr.edu>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 24 Jul 92 11:24:41 EDT
Resent-From: James P Love <LOVE@pucc.BITNET>
Resent-To: Discussion of Government Documents Issues <govdoc-l@psuvm.bitnet>
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 92 11:03:01 EDT
From: James P Love <LOVE@pucc.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: WINDO
To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
 <BLIPS15@BROWNVM.BITNET>

This is a response for a post on Pacs-l.  jamie

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:48:48 CDT Howard Pasternack said:
>
>I am going to play devil's advocate on the subject of WINDO.
>
>What factors are there in the WINDO legislation which lead us to
>believe that the GPO will do better with WINDO in developing consistent
>and usable interfaces than it has done with the CD ROM distribution service.
The issue of GPO's competence is one consideration for WINDO, but
it has to looked at in the larger picture.  First, GPO was choosen
less for its competence than for two other important considerations.
First, unlike NTIS, it has a mandate to price information at
the incremental costs of dissemination (the so called rider
rate in title 44.

Second, GPO is a historic relationship with the Depository Library
Program, at is natural for them to integrate the service with
DLP.  This isn't really a trival issue.  Pressures to introduce
users fees on libraries (and library patrons) are immense.  GPO
not only works with the DLP, but librarians have clout on the
jcp.  How does this compare with things going on in the Science
comittees (no legislative appropriations for NTIS, Landsat
privatization, etc) or Government Operations (check out last
year's Paperwork Reduction Act, unless the title alone doesn't
indicate the general drift).

OMB's draft A-130 now gives agencies a green light to withhold
all electronic products and services from the DLP.  This is
a battle that the Gateway/WINDO join directly, in favor of the
DLP.

Third, GPO stepped up the plate when everyone else in government
was running for cover on this.  Where was NTIS or NARA a year
ago?  Where are they today?

Fourth, the Gateway/WINDO legislation requires annual public
comment on the entire range of Gateway/WINDO policies and
pratices.  If they screw it up the public will have an opportunity
to let them know, annually, and GPO has to respond to the
criticism.

Last, if GPO can't pull it off, you can take a program, that will
have mandate complete with good pricing rules (incremental cost,
DLP participation, public notice, etc), and give it to someone
else,  where the grass seems greener.  (LOC, NARA, NTIS, or
as GSE?).....


We have about two weeks to get these bills (s 2813/hr2772) moving.
It's time to try to put it over the top.  Contact the members
of the Senate Rules and House Administation committees and tell
them its time to mark these bills up.  The clock is running out.
jamie
-------------------------------------------
James Love, Director               VOICE:    609-683-0534
Taxpayer Assets Project            FAX:      202-234-5176
P.O. Box 19367                     INTERNET: love@essential.org
Washington, DC 20036
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU