Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1992 11:44:21 CST
From: Cayman Zahn <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--PRA and Owens Bill

((Your readers might be interested in the following that came
across the nets))

                     ++++ Original Message ++++

>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 16:23:42 EST
>From: James P Love<[email protected]>
>Subject: PRA and Owens Bill

A number of persons have asked me how the Owens Bill (HR 3459) and the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) relate to each other.  From our point of
view, they represent competing approaches to federal information
policy.  Not only do these bills accomplish different things, but it
is highly unlikely that both bills will be acted on by Congress.

    THE PRA

The sections of the PRA that deal with the dissemination of government
information largely reflect IIA's vision of federal information
policy.

1.   Agency mandates to disseminate information are qualified by the
    existence of private sector "equivalent" products and services.

2.   The law limits agency prices for information "products," which
    vendors buy, but not "services," which would include such things
    as online access to government information systems.

3.   While the PRA would benefit data users and vendors by prohibiting
    royalties on government information, it may also prohibit
    agencies from limiting the prices vendors charge for access to
    services such as CENDATA or the FEC database.

4.   The PRA only requires public notice when agencies start or
    terminate "significant" new information products and services.
    These are when privatization issues are important.  There are no
    provisions for public notice to review an existing policy to see
    if it is adequate in light of changing technologies, or to raise
    hundreds of user concerns over things like standards for file
    formats, query command structures, user interfaces, indexes or
    other important features of information dissemination programs.

5.   The PRA strengthens OMB's role in setting federal information
    policy.  OMB has a long record of promoting the privatization of
    federal information resources.

    THE OWENS BILL

The Owens bill was drafted from the point of view of data users.

1.   Agency have an unambiguous mandate to disseminate information
    using modern technologies.  Not only is the intent as expressed
    in the findings quite good, but the bill specifically mentions
    such things as the use of national computer networks.

2.   Agency prices are limited for goods _and_ services.

3.   The Owens bill bans agency royalties or fees for the
    redissemination of information, but it doesn't place other
    restrictions on federal agencies.

4.   The public notice sections of the Owens bill are extensive, and
    they address, on an annual basis, issues such as standards for
    file formats, query command structures, user interfaces, and
    indexes, as well as agency product lines, prices, outlets, and a
    number of other things.

5.   OMB will be constrained by the Owens bill, since the bill
    carefully sets out agency mandates to disseminate information,
    but OMB isn't given powers to make federal information policy.
    NIST and NARA are asked to become more involved in federal
    information policy.

    POLITICS OF THE TWO BILLS

1.   IIA wants a bill that addresses the pricing of government
    information.  Vendors are disturbed by the recent attempts to
    place royalties on the redisseminate of ocean tariff information.
    Both bills would address this issue.

2.   The IIA has told its membership that the Owens bill is consistent
    with IIA principles.

3.   The PRA probably can't pass without the support of the library
    community.

4.   IIA is asking the library community to cut a deal on the PRA.

5.   The PRA is a political tar baby, because it gets into many
    unrelated subjects, such as OMB's authority to review agency
    regulations before they are published, or the authority of
    agencies to require firms to disclose health warnings to third
    parties.  The heavy hitters in those disputes don't care about
    the information dissemination parts of the bill, and federal
    information policy ends up being lost in the public debates.

We have opposed the passage of the PRA and we have supported the
passage of the Owens bill.  We don't think OMB has much to recommend
it as a maker of federal information policy.  If you disagree, ask
yourself this questions:  Who else in the federal government would
want OMB to set policy?  Do education groups want OMB to set education
policy?  Do scientists want OMB to set science policy?  OMB is
primarily staffed by accounting and management types who have little
background or commitment to the development and use information
resources or technologies.  Why put them in the drivers seat?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
James Love, Director               VOICE:    609-683-0534
Taxpayer Assets Project            FAX:      202-234-5176
7-Z Magie, Faculty Road            bitnet:   [email protected]
Princeton, NJ 08540                internet: [email protected]

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.