IP: Re: "Domain names ... about Hapwood comment

[David Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 10:15:48 -0400
From: Jock Gill <jgill@penfield-gill.com>




David,


My problem with what Fred Hapgood wrote is as follows:


When I went to Washington in 1993, the US Government was hog tied with
respect to communications because it had made it the law that agencies
must use X.400 and the related stack  for all email etc.  It is
important to remember that the roots of this technology are deep in the
top down, government controlled, model of regulation.  The  ITU and WIPO
come to mind.


One of the most important things the Clinton Administration did very
early on was to make TCP/IP, and its related technologies, a legal
option for all government communications.  This effectively terminated
the X.400 approach: too expensive, not backwards compatible, and hard to
install and support.   I do not think it is much missed.


The result of this allowing TCP/IP use by US Government agencies is
dramatically self-evident.  One only has to look at the revolution is
USG email use, citizen access to information, improved quality of
service to the tax payers, and the explosion of USG web sites to get an
appreciation of the advantages of being liberated from  the tyranny of
the X.400 standard and the power of guided bottom-up solutions.


So why would anyone want us to revert to a top down approach on the ITU
& WIPO model?


Regards,


Jock


David Farber wrote:


> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 07:58:52 -0400
> To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu
> From: gaj@portman.com (Gordon Jacobson)
>