Mr. Robert Willard
Executive Director
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
1110 Vermont Avenue, NW
Suite 820
Washington, DC 20005-3552
Dear Mr. Willard:
On behalf of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), I would again like to thank the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (Commission) for leading this effort and producing a “Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination” (“Assessment”). Additionally, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the working stages of this Assessment, and the opportunity to comment on this near-final draft. The timeline has been short—mirroring Internet time—and your effort has been tremendous.
I. SIIA’s Unique Role of Representing the Digital Code and Content Industry
SIIA is the principal trade association of the software code and information content industries, representing approximately 1,000 leading high-tech companies that develop and market software and electronic content for business, education, consumers and the Internet. Our members include many traditional and electronic publishers that provide a wide variety of information products and services covering nearly every subject matter imaginable, as well as companies that obtain information from government agencies and incorporate this data into products and services that are then sold to the public. These companies help serve the varied needs of society that obtain information from sources other than government itself, whether for reasons of convenience or efficiency. SIIA members also include leading technology companies that provide the backbone of the World Wide Web through the development of cutting edge search engines, software and digital services. In that regard, our members have been at the forefront of digitizing government, including providing access to public information, by constantly developing new products and services to meet the public’s increasing demands for efficient electronic access government, and all types of public information.
Therefore, as you can see, SIIA is well-positioned to provide some important considerations for this process. SIIA and its members look forward to working with the Commission, Congress and the Executive Branch in updating the policies pertaining to dissemination of public information, and we stand ready to help in any appropriate way to implement and publicize the launch of new eGovernment initiatives.
II. General Comments
A. There is a clear need to re-examine current policies pertaining to dissemination of public information in order to make necessary modification to facilitate a more effective framework for electronic dissemination. SIIA strongly agrees with the need to revisit the current policy framework regarding dissemination of government information. The draft “Assessment” accurately compares the Internet to the printing press, in measuring its potential impact on allowing increased public access to information. In fact, many in the information technology industry believe that the Internet promises to have a much greater impact, as it carries us into the “Information Age.”
SIIA is a strong proponent of eGovernment, and we commend the Commission for undergoing this process to help define how “the government should reform its laws, policies, programs and practices for disseminating information to the public in the Internet Age.” Advances in information technology, including computing and telecommunications, have indeed dramatically expanded public access to public information, both directly and through private sector redisseminators.
Unfortunately, the early days of electronic/Internet dissemination have been less than ideal. There are presently several government dissemination initiatives offered by the public sector that have neither sufficiently adhered to policies to encourage private sector involvement, nor sought maximize public-private partnerships. Moreover, several of these efforts also unfairly compete with existing private sector products and services, and/or place restrictions on access to government—public—information. These initiatives are identified individually, along with respective recommendations, in the following section of our comments.
Based on our experiences up to this point, and our expectations moving forward, SIIA believes that the most valuable contribution of this “Assessment,” could be improved coordination and interaction between the various branches of government, Administrative agencies and the private sector. Particularly, as we have noted below in greater detail, the continued encouragement and enforcement of information source diversity is an essential component of this effort.
B. SIIA envisions the Internet and new technologies—the tools of electronic dissemination—increasing efficiency and reducing governments costs and human resources. SIIA maintains a clear vision for eGovernment. Our vision is one where the government utilizes technology more efficiently to perform the inherent government functions and services, and works in cooperation with the private sector to help apply new technologies to provide enhanced public access to government information. The promise of technology is to enhance efficiency, not increase the need for government bureaucracy
The proposal for a new agency within the Executive Branch, and new offices within the Legislative and Judicial Branches is truly an ambitious effort. We understand that this effort is intended to improve the management of federal information resources. However, given that this approach has not received sufficient support after years of past consideration, we are surprised to see such a proposal at this time. That is, a proposal to expand the federal government, potentially both in size and budget, during times of reduced government and increasing budget pressures, appears contradictory to the direction in which we are heading as a nation.
While SIIA agrees with the Commission that the “government’s data, information, and knowledge resources are a critical national asset that must be exploited to the fullest extent,” the general sense and specific recommendations of the “Assessment” appear to endorse absolute “proactive dissemination” over “passive availability” with respect to providing the public efficient access to government information. This represents a significant departure from current policies, which encourage government agencies to make decisions regarding which information to disseminate proactively, and that which to make passively available.
Historically, the role of private sector information disseminators has allowed the government to selectively allocate tax dollars on information which enjoys great public demand and repeated requests. This framework, in which government makes thoughtful decisions regarding allocation of scarce resources, has enjoyed much success over the years, and promises to continue serving the best interest of the public. Any revisions to federal government information policy should ensure that scarce taxpayer funds are used to meet clearly identified public needs not otherwise served by the private sector.
C. The “Assessment’s” focus on developing a new intra-government framework for public information management should explicitly reiterate the need to maintain a diversity of information sources. By not setting forth any recommendations to ensure that a diversity of sources is maintained, the effect is to minimize its importance, at a time when emphasizing a diversity could not be more important. The Assessment and recommendations provide an excellent opportunity to reinforce the importance of information source diversity. While the Commission supports information source diversity in several early sections of the “Assessment,” no concrete recommendations or conclusions were included to reiterate the need for this vital principle.
A diversity, rather than a government monopoly, of information sources best serves the public interest. The public is not served when the government, or some other provider, is the only source of public information—that is the hallmark of our democratic society. One of the most important contributions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) is the adoption of the principle of diversity of information sources. Despite the affirmative mandate established by the PRA, the government has not adequately complied with this mandate.
III. Specific Comments & Recommendations
A. SIIA recommends that the Commission expand Recommendation #12 to more comprehensively encourage private sector dissemination efforts, and reiterate the need to encourage information source diversity. As presently worded, Recommendation #12 refers specifically to the need to strengthen, extend, and expand “public and private sector partnerships” (p. 108). While public-private partnerships are one very important role of the private sector with respect to the dissemination of public information, they are only one component. In addition to public-private sector collaborative partnerships, it is also essential to implement policies recognize the continued need for independent efforts by the private sector—both profit and not-for-profit—in disseminating valuable information and providing much needed value-added products and services that cannot be achieved efficiently within the public sector. This should not only be recognized, but also encouraged.
The Commission should expand this recommendation to include the following language, excerpted from Section 1.F of the “Assessment” (p. 39):
B. SIIA recommends that the Commission include another recommendation, following #6, to encourage regulations that specifically define the public notification process as required in Title 44, Sec. 3506(d). SIIA agrees that Title 44, Sec. 3506(d) be extended to the Legislative Branch. Additionally, SIIA recommends that the Commission propose new, specific guidelines to ensure that public input is adequately solicited and considered for the initiation, modification or termination of information dissemination products. This would be very helpful in providing a uniform process through which private sector companies could better assist the public sector in providing electronic dissemination services for, or in collaboration with, the government.
Specifically, SIIA recommends that the commission identify a standard, uniform process for notifying the public. At minimum, it would be very helpful for a recognizable source, such as the “Federal Register,” be identified for this purpose, and that guidelines be made pertaining to the comment period and process for considering public input. The Commission is well suited to make such a recommendation, and this “Assessment” provides an excellent opportunity to do so.
C. SIIA recommends that the Commission expand on the findings pertaining to “cataloging, abstracting and indexing” (P. 37, 1.F) to identify the increasingly vital role of the private sector in this area. Over the last several years, the private sector has lead the process of developing cutting edge information technologies that have revolutionized the way the public receives and digests all information, particularly the vast amount of information available throughout the Internet. The Commission accurately identifies that “it is now more important than ever to help the public find information,” as a result of the advanced capability to make information available via the Internet.
However, the “Assessment” does not identify the success the private sector has had in implementing technologies to accomplish this objective, or that public-private partnerships are now more important than ever to enable the public sector to implement the necessary search and abstracting technologies necessary for efficient public access to vast online collections of information. This is perhaps one of the greatest opportunities for the private sector to work directly in cooperation with and assist public sector efforts for electronic dissemination.
Since these technologies already exist, and are commonly used throughout the private sector, SIIA urges the Commission to recommend that the public sector seek to partner with the private sector in providing these much needed, sophisticated technologies. Duplication of these technologies within the public sector would represent an inefficient allocation of scarce tax dollars—not to mention potential unfair competition with private sector efforts.
D. In response to the Commission’s identification of “highly effective public information resources” (p. 47, 4.A) developed in past years, SIIA recommends that the following needs and concerns be reflected in the Assessment’s findings and/or recommendations.
1. FirstGov. While FirstGov is a significant first step towards providing “easy, one stop access to federal government online information and services,” it is just that, a first step. Without involvement of a larger cross section of the private sector, and cooperation of industry partners, some of the greatest possible benefits from FirstGov will not be realized. Moreover, a failure to adhere to current information policy guidelines promises to threaten the ability of FirstGov to continue serving the public efficiently for years to come. FirstGov, as it exists today, rather than presenting a strong benefit to the public, is a flawed model. These flaws threaten the requirement for diversity of information sources.
In creating FirstGov, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has entered into a special, exclusive arrangement with the Federal Search Foundation, much to the detriment of maintaining a diversity of information sources. SIIA remains very concerned about the creation and utilization of an index of all online government information, kept exclusively for access by limited parties through unlawful restrictions applied to interested partners. Despite repeated complaints expressed by SIIA and others, GSA continues to charge a price significantly higher than the marginal cost of access, and continues to apply restrictions on the use of this information. Additionally, contrary to public statements, the FirstGov index does contain access to content that cannot be accessed through any other means—this is a vital threat which only promises to expand in scope over time.
In recommending that FirstGov “develop an underlying thesaurus, and taxonomy to insure that the user is getting closer to the information he or she wishes,” (p. 35) SIIA requests that the Commission note the promising opportunity for public-private partnership in this effort, analogous to our previous recommendation..
2. STAT-USA/Internet. Also referenced by the Commission as a model for electronic dissemination (p. 48, 4.A), STAT-USA’s operational model is very flawed. Therefore, it should be cited as an example for modification, rather than emulation.
First, STAT-USA’s practice of making U.S. Federal Government trade information available “wholesale” according to a discriminatory subscription fee inhibits the ability of redisseminators to add value and make this information available on an efficient, cost effective basis. Therefore, this practice threatens a diversity of sources for U.S. Government trade information and should be discontinued. STAT-USA presently uses a pricing method for wholesale distribution of U.S. Government trade information based on the anticipated market value of the information or their own anticipated revenue losses, rather than making the information available at the marginal cost of dissemination. This is a capricious and arbitrary model, one that cannot be justified.
In funding government databases through revolving fund dissemination operations, agencies are forced to subordinate the public interest to the goal of generating fees. To generate sufficient revenues to fund its “service,” STAT-USA is acting like a business, inappropriately, by competing with private-sector redisseminators in providing taxpayer funded information. They view non-government users as competitors and, as a result, are compelled to charge fees in excess of their cost to provide public access to information as mandated by current government information laws and policies. These governmental practices, in this case as well as most others, discourage rather than encourage a diversity of sources of public information.
Second, the STAT-USA/Internet model of selling U.S. Federal Government trade information to the public according to a “retail” pricing structure provides unnecessary, unfair competition with the private sector. STAT-USA/Internet is not serving the best interest of the general public by competing with private sector products and services, but rather provides a disincentive for private sector innovation. The revolving fund dissemination model utilized by STAT-USA is at the heart of its threats to maintaining a diversity of information sources. This is not an effective model for agency information dissemination, and it should therefore be discontinued.
E. SIIA agrees that the business model of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) should be updated, representing a departure from the sales-based business model that was detrimental to NTIS core mission. NTIS’s reliance on funding through a revolving fund dissemination operation forced the agency to subordinate the public interest to the goal of generating fees. SIIA has long disagreed with this model, noting that such a funding system has the undesired effect of causing agencies, in this case NTIS, to act more like a business, rather than as custodians of taxpayer funded information. NTIS clearly fell victim to this model, treating non-government users and redisseminators as competitors and tending to deny them equal and timely access to public information.
Providing appropriated funds for the NTIS functions which are inherently governmental will help assure that the public good is met. This will also require justification of the expenditures to the appropriators, including the need for the activity as well as the means by which NTIS or its replacement has chosen to proceed. Further, it will provide an opportunity for examination of the activities against a backdrop of the public interest. Even after Congress decides on the future of NTIS, the agency will be cognizant that their activities will be scrutinized continuously during future authorization and appropriation cycles. Therefore, legislative oversight will serve both as an opportunity for public input as well as a continuing mechanism for ensuring fairness and practicality.
IV. Conclusion
Again, I would like to extend a sincere thank you to all the members of the Commission and the others key stakeholders who worked so diligently to produce this comprehensive, thoughtful analysis of electronic dissemination of public information. I hope that these comments have been helpful in conveying the reaction and recommendations of the digital code and content industry. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or to seek additional feedback.
Sincerely,
Ken Wasch
President