Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Re: "Domain names ... about Hapwood comment
From: David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 11:13:05 -0400
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)
Current thread:
- IP: Re: "Domain names ... about Hapwood comment David Farber (Aug 08)