From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E724F3B29D for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (c-69-181-111-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [69.181.111.171]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEEED1B258; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:01:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com AEEED1B258 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1696964468; bh=dpcn6dzDunkkiBSU532jAkKaB8IVepdk6Bm4VF54k2c=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC:From; b=KILl1TQq6w+EbGI+65Ytww14K+VRgs4i3f5UCuI+883MnTwL0LORNzXGfC0Sxf44M 4g3XNs2hgtn2yJwd+7ZFXd5jG9N8Mgc5omKgZQ5Eiw8Kwjv6H5norQzGnWdTvFctFD vo/12iSOFcocVHkXzk+w5RqRmoaqZ8qqTO/qNRXs= In-Reply-To: <48361881-9465-4c85-b726-ce7c7f565632@3kitty.org> References: <028f61d7-be24-4fe3-82d3-6eca0386d0d0@3kitty.org> <10976208-a880-4974-9f13-d84a7b5ebb6b@3kitty.org> <319cc107-f753-4e2a-8b72-6595117ae37b@3kitty.org> <48361881-9465-4c85-b726-ce7c7f565632@3kitty.org> X-Referenced-Uid: 00011441567702d5 Thread-Topic: Re: [NNagain] somewhat OT: Licklidder X-Is-Generated-Message-Id: true X-Blue-Identity: !l=1141&o=43&fo=65242&pl=870&po=0&qs=PREFIX&f=HTML&m=!%3AODY4NDIxODAtZDYzYS00ZmFiLTk1N2EtZjE0NWVlYzg4ZGQ1%3ASU5CT1g%3D%3AMDAwMTE0NDE1Njc3MDJkNQ%3D%3D%3AANSWERED&p=869&q=SHOW User-Agent: Android MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----O7DQQHUX39D6OR4QMU6754FCRJOF34" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Robert McMahon Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:00:58 -0700 To: Jack Haverty via Nnagain Message-ID: <575d8624-0c42-4090-b6fb-7a9b224f130d@rjmcmahon.com> Subject: Re: [NNagain] somewhat OT: Licklidder X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 19:01:10 -0000 ------O7DQQHUX39D6OR4QMU6754FCRJOF34 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks for sharing=2E It's amazing to me what was accomplished and continue= s forward with communications & compute by extremely phenomenal people=2E I= think the closest analog is the Gutenberg press, which many know had profo= und effects on the human condition=2E A hope is that we figure out how to p= rogress in a similar manner, and somehow, the diffusion of knowledge and pe= aceful coexistence prevail=2E https://www=2Ecrf-usa=2Eorg//bill-of-rights= -in-action/bria-24-3-b-gutenberg-and-the-printing-revolution-in-europe#:~:t= ext=3DJohann%20Gutenberg%27s%20invention%20of%20movable,split%20apart%20the= %20Catholic%20Church=2E Johann Gutenberg=E2=80=99s invention of movable-ty= pe printing quickened the spread of knowledge, discoveries, and literacy in= Renaissance Europe=2E The printing revolution also contributed mightily to= the Protestant Reformation that split apart the Catholic Church=2E Bob = On Oct 10, 2023, 10:12 AM, at 10:12 AM, Jack Haverty via Nnagain wrote: >FYI, The Arpanet was a key player in that= patent fight=2E=C2=A0 The Arpanet >IMPs (the packet switches) downloaded = software from each other, and >that >capability was used to distribute new= releases of the IMP program=2E=C2=A0 I >suggested that 1970s implementati= on to the lawyers as a good example of > >prior art, which led to a lot of = work that eventually resurrected the >1970s IMP code from a moldy listing = in someone's basement, and got it >running again on simulated ancient hard= ware=2E=C2=A0=C2=A0 At one point the 4-node >Arpanet of 1970 was created a= nd run, in anticipation of a demo of prior > >art at trial=2E=C2=A0 Sadly (= for me at least) the combatants suddenly settled >out of court, so the tri= al never happened and the patent issue was not >adjudicated=2E=C2=A0=C2=A0= But the resurrected IMP code is on github now, so anyone > >interested can= run their own Arpanet=2E > >Jack > > >On 10/10/23 08:53, Steve Crocker via= Nnagain wrote: >> Lots of good stuff here and I missed the earlier posts, = but one small > >> thing caught my attention: >> >> > About 10 years ag= o, I accidentally got involved in a patent >> dispute to be an "expert = witness", for a patent involving >> downloading new programs over a com= munications path into a remote >> computer (yes, what all our devices d= o almost every day)=2E >> >> In the seminal period of late 1968 and early 1= 969 when we were >> thinking about Arpanet protocols, one idea that was ve= ry much part of > >> our thinking was downloading a small program at the be= ginning of an >> interactive session=2E=C2=A0 The downloaded program would= take care of local > >> interactions to avoid the need to send every chara= cter across the net > >> only to have it echoed remotely=2E=C2=A0 Why not a= lways use local echo?=C2=A0 >> Because most of the=C2=A0time-shared system= s in the various ARPA-supported > >> research environments had distinct way= s of interpreting each and >> every=C2=A0character=2E=C2=A0 Imposing a net= work-wide rule of local echoing would > >> have compromised the usability o= f most of the systems on the >Arpanet=2E=C2=A0 >> I think Multics was the = only "modern" line-at-a-time system at the >time=2E >> >> In March 1969 we = decided it was time to write down the ideas from our > >> meetings in late = 1968 and early 1969=2E=C2=A0 The first batch of RFCs >> included Rulifson'= s=C2=A0RFC 5=2E=C2=A0 He proposed DEL, the Decode-Encode >> Language=2E=C2= =A0 Elie's RFC 51 a year later proposed the Network >Interchange >> Langua= ge=2E=C2=A0 In both cases the basic concept was the creation of a >> simpl= e language, easily implementable on each platform, that would >> mediate t= he interaction with a remote system=2E=C2=A0 The programs were >> expected= to be short -- hence downloadable quickly -- and either >> interpreted or= quickly translated=2E=C2=A0 There was a tiny bit of >> experimental work = along this line, but it was far ahead of its time=2E=C2=A0 > >> I think it = was about 25 years before ActiveX came along, followed by >Java=2E >> >> St= eve >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:30=E2=80=AFAM Dave Taht via Nnagain= >> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 20= 23 at 7:56=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty via Nnagain >> wrote: >> >> For starters it is an honor to be conversin= g with folk that knew >Bob >> Taylor, and "Lick", and y'all made me go = back and re-read >> >> http://memex=2Eorg/licklider=2Epdf >> >> For= inspiration=2E I think everyone in our field should re-read >that, >> = periodically=2E For example he makes an overgeneralization about >the >> = thinking processes of men, as compared to the computers of the >time, >> = and not to women=2E=2E=2E >> >> But I have always had an odd questi= on - what songs did Lick play >on >> guitar? Do any recordings exist? >= > >> Music defines who I am, at least=2E I love the angularness and >su= rprises >> in jazz, and the deep storytelling buried deep in Shostakovi= ch's >> Fifth=2E Moving forward to modern music: the steady backbeat of= >Burning >> Man - and endless repetition of short phrases - seems to l= ead to >> groupthink - I can hardly stand EDM for an hour=2E >> >> = =C2=A0I am "maked" by Angela' Lansbury's Sweeny Todd, and my religion, >> = forever reformed by Monty Python's Life of Brian, One Flew over >the >> = Cookoos nest, 12 Angry Men, and the 12 Monkees, Pink Floyd and >punk >>= music were the things that shaped me=2E No doubt it differs >> sig= nificantly for everyone here, please share? >> >> Powerful tales and th= eir technologies predate the internet, and >> because they were wildly = shared, influenced how generations >thought >> without being the one tr= ue answer=2E Broadcast media, also, was >joint, >> and in school we >> = >> We are in a new era of uncommonality of experience, in part from >> = bringing in all the information in the world, while still >separated by= >> differences in language, exposure, education, and culture, >althoug= h >> nowadays it has become so easy and natural to be able to use >comp= uter >> assisted language translation tools, I do not know how well the= y >truly >> make the jump between cultures=2E >> >> In that paper h= e talked about 75% of his time being spent setting >up >> to do analyti= cs, where today so much information exists as to be >> impossible to an= alyze=2E >> >> I only have a few more small comments below, but I wante= d to pick >out >> the concepts of TOS and backpressure as needing thoug= ht on >another >> day, in another email (what was licks song list??? :)= )=2E The >internet >> has very little Tos or backpressure, and Flow Que= uing based >algorithms >> actually function thusly: >> >> If the ar= rival rate of a flow is less than the departure rate of >all >> other f= lows, it goes out first=2E >> >> To some extent this matches some of Na= gles' "every application >has a >> right to one packet in the network",= and puts a reward into the >system >> for applications that use slight= ly less than their fair share of >the >> bandwidth=2E >> >> > IMHO,= the problem may be that the Internet, and computing >> technology in g= eneral, is so new that non-technical >organizations, >> such as governm= ent entities, don't understand it and therefore >> can't figure out whe= ther or how to regulate anything involved=2E >> > >> > In other, ol= der, "technologies", rules, procedures, and >> traditions have develope= d over the years to provide for feedback >> and control between governe= es and governors=2E=C2=A0 Roberts Rules of >> Order was created 150 yea= rs ago, and is still widely used to >> manage public meetings=2E=C2=A0 = I've been in local meetings where >> everyone gets a chance to speak, b= ut are limited to a few minutes >> to say whatever's on their mind=2E= =C2=A0 You have to appear in person, >> wait your turn, and make your c= omment=2E Doing so is free, but >still >> has the cost of time and hass= le to get to the meeting=2E >> > >> > Organizations have figured ou= t over the years how to manage >> meetings=2E=C2=A0 [Vint - remember th= e "Rathole!" mechanism that we used >> to keep Internet meetings on tra= ck=2E=2E=2E?] >> >> PARC had "Dealer"=2E >> >> > From what David de= scribes, it sounds like the current "public >> comment" mechanisms in t= he electronic arena are only at the stage >> where the loudest voices c= an drown out all others, and public >> debates are essentially useless = cacophonies of the loudest >> proponents of the various viewpoints=2E= =C2=A0 =C2=A0There are no rules=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0Why >> should anyone sub= mit their own sensible comments, knowing they'll >> be lost in the nois= e? >> > >> > In non-electronic public forums, such behavior is rule= d out, >and >> if it persists, the governing body can have offenders ej= ected, >> adjourn a meeting until cooler heads prevail, or otherwise ma= ke >> the discourse useful for informing decisions=2E =C2=A0Courts can = issue >> restraining orders, but has any court ever issued such an orde= r >> applying to an electronic forum? >> > >> > So, why haven't= organizations yet developed rules and >mechanisms >> for managing elec= tronic discussions=2E=2E=2E=2E? >> > >> > I'd offer two observation= s and suggestions=2E >> > >> > ----- >> > >> > First, a maj= or reason for a lack of such rules and mechanisms >> may be an educatio= nal gap=2E=C2=A0 Administrators, politicians, and >> staffers may simpl= y not understand all this newfangled >technology, >> or how it works, a= nd are drowning in a sea of terminology, >> acronyms, and concepts that= make no sense (to them)=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0In the FCC >> case, even the te= chnical gurus may have deep knowledge of their >> traditional realm of = telephony, radio, and related issues and >> policy tradeoffs=2E=C2=A0 = =C2=A0But they may be largely ignorant of computing >> and networking e= quivalents=2E =C2=A0Probably even worse, they may >> unconsciously cons= ider the new world as a simple evolution of the >> old, not recognizing= the impact of incredibly fast computers and >> communications, and the= advances that they enable, such as "AI" - >> whatever that is=2E=2E=2E= >> > >> > About 10 years ago, I accidentally got involved in a pat= ent >> dispute to be an "expert witness", for a patent involving >> = downloading new programs over a communications path into a remote >> c= omputer (yes, what all our devices do almost every day)=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0I wa= s >> astounded when I learned how little the "judicial system" >> (= lawyers, judges, legislators, etc=2E) knew about computer and >> networ= k technology=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0That didn't stop them from debating the >> = meaning of technical terms=2E=C2=A0 What is RAM? How does "programming" >> = differ from "reprogramming"?=C2=A0 What is "memory"?=C2=A0 What is a >>= "processor"?=C2=A0 =C2=A0What is an "operating system"?=C2=A0 =C2=A0Th= e arguments >> continue until eventually a judge declares what the answ= er is, >> with little technical knowledge or expertise to help=2E=C2=A0= =C2=A0So you >can >> easily get legally binding definitions such as "o= perating system" >> means "Windows", and that all computers contain an = operating >system=2E >> > >> > I spent hours on the phone over abou= t 18 months, explaining to >> the lawyers how computers and networks ac= tually worked=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0In >turn, >> they taught me quite a lot ab= out the vagaries of the laws and >> patents=2E=C2=A0 It was fascinating= but also disturbing to see how >> ill-prepared the legal system was fo= r new technologies=2E >> > >> > So, my suggestion is that a focus b= e placed on helping the >> non-technical decision makers understand the= nuances of computing >> and the Internet=2E=C2=A0 I don't think that w= ill be successful by >> burying them in the sea of technical jargon and= acronyms=2E >> > >> > Before I retired, I spent a lot of time with= C-suite denizens >> from companies outside of the technology industry = - banks, >> manufacturers, transportation, etc=2E - helping them unders= tand >what >> "The Internet" was, and help them see it as both a huge >= > opportunity and a huge threat to their businesses=2E=C2=A0 One techni= que >> I used was simply stolen from the early days of The Internet=2E = >> > >> > When we were involved in designing the internal mechanism= s of >> the Internet, in particular TCPV4, we didn't know much about >>= networks either=2E=C2=A0 So we used analogies=2E=C2=A0 In particular w= e used >the >> existing transportation infrastructure as a model=2E=C2= =A0 =C2=A0Moving bits >> around the world isn't all that different from= moving goods and >> people=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0But everyone, even with no t= echnical expertise, knows >> about transportation=2E >> > >> > = It turns out that there are a lot of useful analogies=2E For >> example= , we recognized that there were different kinds of >> "traffic" with di= fferent needs=2E=C2=A0 Coal for power plants was >> important, but not = urgent=2E=C2=A0 If a coal train waits on a siding >> while a passenger = train passes, it's OK, even preferred=2E =C2=A0There >> could be differ= ent "types of service" available from the >> transportation infrastruct= ure=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0At the time (late 1970s) we >> didn't know exactly h= ow to do that, but decided to put a field in >> the IP header as a plac= eholder - the "TOS" field=2E Figuring out >> what different TOSes there= should be, and how they would be >> handled differently, was still on = the to-do list=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0There are >even >> analogies to the Inter= net - goods might travel over a "marine >> network" to a "port", where = they are moved onto a "rail network", >> to a distributor, and moved on= the highway network to their final >> destination=2E=C2=A0 Routers, ga= teways, =2E=2E=2E >> > >> > Other transportation analogies reinforc= ed the notion of TOS=2E=C2=A0 >> E=2Eg=2E, if you're sending a document= somewhere, you can choose how >> to send it - normal postal mail, or P= riority Mail, or even use a >> different "network" such as an overnight= delivery service=2E=C2=A0 >> Different TOS would engage different beha= viors of the underlying >> communications system, and might also have d= ifferent costs to use >> them=2E=C2=A0 Sending a ton of coal to get del= ivered in a week or two >> would cost a lot less than sending a ton of = documents for >> overnight delivery=2E >> > >> > There were oth= er transportation analogies heard during the >TCPV4 >> design discussio= ns - e=2Eg=2E, "Expressway Routing" (do you take a >> direct route over= local streets, or go to the freeway even though >> it's longer) and "M= ulti-Homing" (your manufacturing plant has >> access to both a highway = and a rail line)=2E >> > >> > Suggestion -- I suspect that using a = familiar infrastructure >> such as transport to discuss issues with non= -technical decision >> makers would be helpful=2E=C2=A0 E=2Eg=2E, imagi= ne what would happen if some >> particular "net neutrality" set of rule= s was placed on the >> transportation infrastructure?=C2=A0 =C2=A0Would= it have a desirable >effect? >> > >> > ----- >> > >> > Sec= ond, in addition to anonymity as an important issue in the >> electroni= c world, my experience as a mentee of Licklider surfaced >> another imp= ortant issue in the "galactic network" vision -- "Back >> Pressure"=2E= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The notion is based in existing knowledge=2E=C2=A0 >> = =C2=A0Economics has notions of Supply and Demand and Cost Curves=2E=C2= =A0 >> =C2=A0Engineering has the notion of "Negative Feedback" to stabi= lize >> mechanical, electrical, or other systems=2E >> > >> > W= e discussed Back Pressure, in the mid 70s, in the context of >> electro= nic mail, and tried to get the notion of "stamps" accepted >> as part o= f the email mechanisms=2E=C2=A0 The basic idea was that there >> had to= be some form of "back pressure" to prevent overload by >> discouraging= sending of huge quantities of mail=2E >> > >> > At the time, mail = traffic was light, since every message was >> typed by hand by some use= r=2E=C2=A0 In Lick's group we had experimented >> with using email as a= way for computer programs to interact=2E=C2=A0 In >> Lick's vision, hu= mans would interact by using their computers as >> their agents=2E=C2= =A0 =C2=A0Even then, computers could send email a lot >faster >> and co= ntinuously than any human at a keyboard, and could easily >> flood the = network=2E=C2=A0 [This epiphany occurred shortly after a >> mistake in = configuring distribution lists caused so many messages >> and replies t= hat our machine crashed as its disk space ran out=2E] >> > >> > "St= amps" didn't necessarily represent monetary cost=2E Back >> pressure co= uld be simple constraints, e=2Eg=2E, no user can send more >> than 500 = (or whatever) messages per day=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0This notion never got >> = enough support to become part of the email standards; I still >> think = it would help with the deluge of spam we all experience >today=2E >> > = >> > Back Pressure in the Internet today is largely non-existent=2E=C2= =A0 I >> (or my AI and computers) can send as much email as I like=2E= =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0Communications carriers promote "unlimited data" but wo= n't >> guarantee anything=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0Memory has become cheap, and a= s a result >> behaviors such as "buffer bloat" have appeared=2E >> = > >> > Suggestion - educate the decision-makers about Back Pressure, >>= using highway analogies (metering lights, etc=2E) >> > >> > --= --- >> > >> > Education about the new technology, but by using some= familiar >> analogs, and introduction of Back Pressure, in some approp= riate >> form, as part of a "network neutrality" policy, would be the t= wo >> foci I'd recommend=2E >> > >> > My prior suggestion of "r= egistration" and accepting only the >> last comment was based on the ob= servations above=2E=C2=A0 Back pressure >> doesn't have to be monetary,= and registered users don't have to >be >> personally identified=2E=C2= =A0 =C2=A0Simply making it sufficiently "hard" to >> register (using CA= PTCHAs, 2FA, whatever) would be a "cost" >> discouraging "loud voices"= =2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0Even the law firms submitting >> millions of comments o= n behalf of their clients might balk at the >> cost (in labor not money= ) to register their million clients, even >> anonymously, so each could= get his/her comment submitted=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0Of >> course, they could = always pass the costs on to their (million? >> really?) clients=2E But = it would still be Back Pressure=2E >> > >> > One possibility -- mak= e the "cost" of submitting a million >> electronic comments equal to th= e cost of submitting a million >> postcards=2E=2E=2E? >> > >> >= Jack Haverty >> > >> > >> > On 10/9/23 16:55, David Bray, PhD = wrote: >> > >> > Great points Vint as you're absolutely right - the= re are >> multiple modalities here (and in the past it was spam from >>= thousands of postcards, then mimeographs, then faxes, etc=2E) >> >= >> > The standard historically has been set by the Administrative >> = Conference of the United States: https://www=2Eacus=2Egov/about-acus >> = > >> > In 2020 there seemed to be an effort to gave the General >> = Services Administration weigh-in, however they closed that >> rulem= aking attempt without publishing any of the comments they >got >> and n= o announcement why it was closed=2E >> > >> > As for what part of C= ongress - I believe ACUS was championed by >> both the Senate and House= Judiciary Committees as it has >oversight >> and responsibility for th= e interpretations of the Administrative >> Procedure Act of 1946 (which= sets out the whole rulemaking >procedure)=2E >> > >> > Sadly there= isn't a standard across agencies - which also means >> there isn't a s= tandard across Administrations=2E Back in 2018 and >> 2020, both with t= his group of 52 people here >> https://tinyurl=2Ecom/letter-signed-52-p= eople - as well as >> individually - I did my darnest to encourage them= to do a >standard=2E >> > >> > There's also the National Academy o= f Public Administration >which >> is probably the latest remaining non-= partisan forum for >> discussions like this too=2E >> > >> > >>= > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:46=E2=80=AFPM Vint Cerf = >wrote: >> >> >> >> David, this is a good list=2E >> >> FACA h= as rules for public participation, for example=2E >> >> >> >> I thi= nk it should be taken into account for any public >> commenting process= that online (and offline such as USPS or fax >> and phone calls) that = spam and artificial inflation of comments >> are possible=2E Is there a= ny specific standard for US agency public >> comment handling? If now, = what committees of the US Congress >might >> have jurisdiction? >> = >> >> >> v >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 8:22= =E2=80=AFAM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I'm all for doing new things to make t= hings better=2E >> >>> >> >>> At the same time, I used to do bioter= rorism preparedness and >> response from 2000-2005 (and aside from aski= ng myself what kind >of >> crazy world needed counter-bioterrorism effo= rts=2E=2E=2E I also >realized >> you don't want to interject something = completely new in the >middle >> of an unfolding crisis event)=2E If so= mething were to be injected >> now, it would have to have consensus fro= m both sides, otherwise >at >> least one side (potentially detractors f= rom both) will claim that >> whatever form the new approaches take are = somehow advantaging >"the >> other side" and disadvantaging them=2E >> = >>> >> >>> Probably would take a ruling by the Administrative Confe= rence >> of the United States, at a minimum to answer these five questi= ons >> - and even then, introducing something completely different in >= the >> midst of a political melee might just invite mudslinging unless = >> moderate voices on both sides can reach some consensus=2E >> >>>= >> >>> 1=2E Does identity matter regarding who files a comment or not = >=E2=80=94 >> and must one be a U=2ES=2E person in order to file? >> = >>> >> >>> 2=2E Should agencies publish real-time counts of the numbe= r of >> comments received =E2=80=94 or is it better to wait until the e= nd of a >> commenting round to make all comments available, including >= counts? >> >>> >> >>> 3=2E Should third-party groups be able to fil= e on behalf of >> someone else or not =E2=80=94 and do agencies have th= e right to remove >> spam-like comments? >> >>> >> >>> 4=2E Sho= uld the public commenting process permit multiple >> comments per indiv= idual for a proceeding =E2=80=94 and if so, how many >> comments from a= single individual are too many? 100? 1000? More? >> >>> >> >>> 5= =2E Finally, should the U=2ES=2E government itself consider, given >> p= ublic perceptions about potential conflicts of interest for any >> agen= cy performing a public commenting process, whether it would >be >> bett= er to have third-party groups take responsibility for >> assembling com= ments and then filing those comments via a >validated >> process with t= he government? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2= 023 at 4:10=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty >> wrote: >> = >>>> >> >>>> Hi again David et al, >> >>>> >> >>>> Interestin= g frenzy=2E=2E=2Elots of questions that need answers and >> associated = policies=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0I served 6 years as an elected official >(in >> = a small special district in California), so I have some small >> under= standing of the government side of things and the >constraints >> invol= ved=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0Being in charge doesn't mean you can do what you >want= =2E >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm thinking here more near-term and incrementa= l steps=2E=C2=A0 You >> said "These same questions need pragmatic pilot= s that involve the >> public =2E=2E=2E" >> >>>> >> >>>> So, how= about using the current NN situation for a pilot?=C2=A0 >> Keep all th= e current ways and emerging AI techniques to continue >> to flood the s= ystem with comments=2E =C2=A0But also offer an *optional* >> way for hu= mans to "register" as a commenter and then submit their >> (latest only= ) comment into the melee=2E=C2=A0 Will people use it?=C2=A0 Will >> "co= nsumers" (the lawyers, commissioners, etc=2E) find it useful? >> >>>> >= > >>>> I've found it curious, for decades now, that there are (too >> = many) mechanisms for "secure email", that may help with the flood >> = of disinformation from anonymous senders, but very very few >people >> = use them=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0Maybe they don't know how; maybe the available >sc= hemes >> are too flawed; maybe =2E=2E=2E? >> >>>> >> >>>> About= 30 years ago, I was a speaker in a public meeting >> orchestrated by U= SPS, and recommended that they take a lead role, >> e=2Eg=2E, by acting= as a national CA - certificate authority=2E=C2=A0 Never >> happened th= ough=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0FCC issues lots of licenses=2E=2E=2Eperhaps they >> = could issue online credentials too? >> >>>> >> >>>> Perhaps a "pil= ot" where you will also accept comments by >> email, some possibly sent= by "verified" humans if they understand >> how to do so, would be wort= h trying?=C2=A0 =C2=A0Perhaps comments on >> "technical aspects" coming= from people who demonstrably know how >> to use technology would be va= luable to the policy makers? >> >>>> >> >>>> The Internet, and tech= nology such as TCP, began as an >> experimental pilot about 50 years ag= o=2E=C2=A0 Sometimes pilots become >> infrastructures=2E >> >>>> >>= >>>> FYI, I'm signing this message=2E=C2=A0 Using OpenPGP=2E=C2=A0 I c= ould >> encrypt it also, but my email program can't find your public ke= y=2E >> >>>> >> >>>> Jack Haverty >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>= >> On 10/5/23 14:21, David Bray, PhD wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Indeed = Jack - a few things to balance - the Administrative >> Procedure Act of= 1946 (on which the idea of rulemaking is based) >> us about raising le= gal concerns that must be answered by the >> agency at the time the rul= emaking is done=2E It's not a vote nor is >> it the case that if the ag= ency gets tons of comments in one >> direction that they have to go in = that direction=2E Instead it's >> only about making sure legal concerns= are considered and >responded >> to before the agency before the agenc= y acts=2E (Which is partly why >> sending "I'm for XYZ" or "I'm against= ABC" really doesn't mean >> anything to an agency - not only is that n= ot a legal argument or >> concern, it's also not something where they'r= e obligated to >follow >> these comments - it's not a vote or poll)=2E = >> >>>> >> >>>> That said, political folks have spun things to the = public as >> if it is a poll/vote/chance to act=2E The raise a valid le= gal >> concern part of the APA of 1946 is omitted=2E Moreover the fact = >that >> third party law firms and others like to submit comments on >b= ehalf >> of clients - there will always be a third party submitting >> = multiple comments for their clients (or "clients") because that's >> = their business=2E >> >>>> >> >>>> In the lead up to 2017, the Con= sumer and Government Affairs >> Bureau of the FCC got an inquiry from a= firm asking how they >could >> submit 1 million comments a day on an "= upcoming privacy >> proceeding" (their words, astute observers will not= e there was no >> privacy proceeding before the FCC in 2017)=2E When th= e Bureau asked >> me, I told them either mail us a CD to upload it or s= ubmit one >> comment with 1 million signatures=2E To attempt to flood u= s with 1 >> million comments a day (aside from the fact who can "predic= t" >> having that many daily) would deny resources to others=2E In the = >> mess that followed, what was released to the public was so >> re= dacted you couldn't see the legitimate concerns and better >paths >> th= at were offered to this entity=2E >> >>>> >> >>>> And the FCC isn't= alone=2E EPA, FTC, and other regulatory >> agencies have had these hij= inks for years - and before the >> Internet it was faxes, mass mimeogra= phs (remember blue ink?), and >> postcards=2EThe Administrative Confere= nce of the United States >> (ACUS) - is the body that is supposed to pr= ovide consistent >> guidance for things like this across the U=2ES=2E g= overnment=2E I've >> briefed them and tried to raise awareness of these= issues - as I >> think fundamentally this is a **process** question th= at once >> answered, tech can support=2E However they're not technologi= es and >> updating the interpretation of the process isn't something >l= awyers >> are apt to do until the evidence that things are in trouble i= s >> overwhelming=2E >> >>>> >> >>>> 52 folks wrote a letter to= them - and to GSA - back in 2020=2E >> GSA had a rulemaking of its own= on how to improve things, yet >> oddly never published any of the comm= ents it received (including >> ours) and closed the rulemaking quietly= =2E Here's the letter: >> https://tinyurl=2Ecom/letter-signed-52-people= >> >>>> >> >>>> And here's an article published in OODAloop about = this - and >> why Generative AI is probably going to make things even m= ore >> challenging: >> >https://www=2Eoodaloop=2Ecom/archive/2023/0= 4/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspectiv= e/ >> >>>> >> >>>> [snippet of the article] Now in 2023 and Beyond:= Proactive >> Approaches to AI and Society >> >>>> >> >>>> Look= ing to the future, to effectively address the challenges >> arising fro= m AI, we must foster a proactive, results-oriented, >and >> cooperative= approach with the public=2E Think tanks and >universities >> can engag= e the public in conversations about how to work, live, >> govern, and c= o-exist with modern technologies that impact >society=2E >> By involvin= g diverse voices in the decision-making process, we >can >> better addr= ess and resolve the complex challenges AI presents on >> local and nati= onal levels=2E >> >>>> >> >>>> In addition, we must encourage indus= try and political >leaders >> to participate in finding non-partisan, m= ulti-sector solutions if >> civil societies are to remain stable=2E By = working together, we can >> bridge the gap between technological advanc= ements and their >> societal implications=2E >> >>>> >> >>>> Fi= nally, launching AI pilots across various sectors, such as >> work, edu= cation, health, law, and civil society, is essential=2E We >> must lear= n by doing on how we can create responsible civil >> environments where= AIs can be developed and deployed responsibly=2E >> These initiatives = can help us better understand and integrate AI >> into our lives, ensur= ing its potential is harnessed for the >> greater good while mitigating= risks=2E >> >>>> >> >>>> In 2019 and 2020, a group of fifty-two pe= ople asked the >> Administrative Conference of the United States (which= helps guide >> rulemaking procedures for federal agencies), General Ac= counting >> Office, and the General Services Administration to call att= ention >> to the need to address the challenges of chatbots flooding pu= blic >> commenting procedures and potentially crowding out or denying >= > services to actual humans wanting to leave a comment=2E We asked: >> = >>>> >> >>>> 1=2E Does identity matter regarding who files a commen= t or not >> =E2=80=94 and must one be a U=2ES=2E person in order to fil= e? >> >>>> >> >>>> 2=2E Should agencies publish real-time counts of= the number of >> comments received =E2=80=94 or is it better to wait u= ntil the end of a >> commenting round to make all comments available, i= ncluding >counts? >> >>>> >> >>>> 3=2E Should third-party groups be= able to file on behalf of >> someone else or not =E2=80=94 and do agen= cies have the right to remove >> spam-like comments? >> >>>> >> = >>>> 4=2E Should the public commenting process permit multiple >> comm= ents per individual for a proceeding =E2=80=94 and if so, how many >> c= omments from a single individual are too many? 100? 1000? More? >> >>>>= >> >>>> 5=2E Finally, should the U=2ES=2E government itself consider, = >given >> public perceptions about potential conflicts of interest for = any >> agency performing a public commenting process, whether it would = >be >> better to have third-party groups take responsibility for >> = assembling comments and then filing those comments via a >validated >> = process with the government? >> >>>> >> >>>> These same questions = need pragmatic pilots that involve the >> public to co-explore and co-d= evelop how we operate effectively >> amid these technological shifts=2E= As the capabilities of LLMs >> continue to grow, we need positive chan= ge agents willing to >tackle >> the messy issues at the intersection of= technology and society=2E >> The challenges are immense, but so too ar= e the opportunities for >> positive change=2E Let=E2=80=99s seize this = moment to create a better >> tomorrow for all=2E Working together, we c= an co-create a future >that >> embraces AI=E2=80=99s potential while mi= tigating its risks, informed by >> the hard lessons we have already lea= rned=2E >> >>>> >> >>>> Full article: >> >https://www=2Eoodaloo= p=2Ecom/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-= an-insiders-perspective/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Hope this helps=2E >> = >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 4:44=E2=80=AFPM Jack Ha= verty via Nnagain >> wrote: >> = >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks for all your efforts to keep the "feedback loop" = to >> the rulemakers functioning! >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'd like to= offer a suggestion for a hopefully politically >> acceptable way to ha= ndle the deluge, derived from my own battles >> with "email" over the y= ears (decades)=2E >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Back in the 1970s, I implemente= d one of the first email >> systems on the Arpanet, under the mentorshi= p of JCR Licklider, >who >> had been pursuing his vision of a "Galactic= Network" at ARPA and >> MIT=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0One of the things we discov= ered was the significance of >> anonymity=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0At the time, a= nonymity was forbidden on the Arpanet; >> you needed an account on some= computer, protected by passwords, >in >> order to legitimately use the= network=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0The mechanisms were >crude >> and easily broken= , but the principle applied=2E >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Over the years, th= at principle has been forgotten, and the >> right to be anonymous has b= ecome entrenched=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0But many uses of >> the network, and ne= eds of its users, demand accountability, so >all >> sorts of mechanisms= have been pasted on top of the network to >> provide ways to judge use= r identity=2E=C2=A0 Banks, medical services, >> governments, and busine= sses all demand some way of proving your >> identity, with passwords, v= arious schemes of 2FA, VPNs, or other >> such technology, with varying = degrees of protection=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0It is >still >> possible to be ano= nymous on the net, but many things you do >> require you to prove, to s= ome extent, who you are=2E >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So, my suggestion for = handling the deluge of "comments" is: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 1/ create s= ome mechanism for "registering" your intent to >> submit a comment=2E= =C2=A0 =C2=A0Make it hard for bots to register=2E=C2=A0 Perhaps >> you = can leverage the work of various partners, e=2Eg=2E, ISPs, >> retailers= , government agencies, financial institutions, of others >> who already= have some way of identifying their users=2E >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 2/ A= lso make registration optional - anyone can still >submit >> comments a= nonymously if they choose=2E >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 3/ for "registered c= ommenters", provide a way to "edit" >your >> previous comment - i=2Ee= =2E, advise that your comment is always the >> last one you submitted= =2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0I=2EE=2E, whoever you are, you can only >> submit one c= omment, which will be the last one you submit=2E >> >>>>> >> >>>>> = 4/ In the thousands of pages of comments, somehow flag the >> ones that= are from registered commenters, visible to the people >> who read the = comments=2E=C2=A0 =C2=A0Even better, provide those "information >> cons= umers" with ways to sort, filter, and search through the body >> of com= ments=2E >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This may not reduce the deluge of commen= ts, but I'd expect >> it to help the lawyers and politicians keep their= heads above the >> water=2E >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anonymity is an = important issue for Net Neutrality too, but ------O7DQQHUX39D6OR4QMU6754FCRJOF34 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for s= haring=2E It's amazing to me what was accomplished and continues forward wi= th communications & compute by extremely phenomenal people=2E I think t= he closest analog is the Gutenberg press, which many know had profound effe= cts on the human condition=2E A hope is that we figure out how to progress = in a similar manner, and somehow, the diffusion of knowledge and peaceful c= oexistence prevail=2E


Johann Gutenberg=E2=80=99s invention of movable-type printing q= uickened the spread of knowledge, discoveries, and literacy in Renaissance = Europe=2E The printing revolution also contributed mightily to the Protesta= nt Reformation that split apart the Catholic Church=2E


Bob
On Oct 10, 2023, at 1= 0:12 AM, Jack Haverty via Nnagain <nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet>= wrote:
FYI, The Arpanet was a key player in that patent fight=2E =
; The Arpanet 
IMPs (the packet switches) downloaded software from each =
other, and that 
capability was used to distribute new releases of the I=
MP program=2E  I 
suggested that 1970s implementation to the lawyer=
s as a good example of 
prior art, which led to a lot of work that event=
ually resurrected the 
1970s IMP code from a moldy listing in someone's =
basement, and got it 
running again on simulated ancient hardware=2E&nbs=
p;  At one point the 4-node 
Arpanet of 1970 was created and run, i=
n anticipation of a demo of prior 
art at trial=2E  Sadly (for me a=
t least) the combatants suddenly settled 
out of court, so the trial nev=
er happened and the patent issue was not 
adjudicated=2E   But=
 the resurrected IMP code is on github now, so anyone 
interested can ru=
n their own Arpanet=2E

Jack


On 10/10/23 08:53, Steve Croc=
ker via Nnagain wrote:
=
 Lots of good stuff here and I missed the earlier posts, but one small 
=
 thing caught my attention:

 About 10 years ago, I accidentally got involved in a patent
<=
/blockquote>     dispute to be an "expert witness", for a patent involving<=
br>     downloading new programs over a communications path into a remote     computer (yes, what all our devices do almost every day)=2E

 =
In the seminal period of late 1968 and early 1969 when we were 
 thinkin=
g about Arpanet protocols, one idea that was very much part of 
 our thi=
nking was downloading a small program at the beginning of an 
 interacti=
ve session=2E  The downloaded program would take care of local 
 in=
teractions to avoid the need to send every character across the net 
 on=
ly to have it echoed remotely=2E  Why not always use local echo? =
 
 Because most of the time-shared systems in the various ARPA-supp=
orted 
 research environments had distinct ways of interpreting each and=
 
 every character=2E  Imposing a network-wide rule of local e=
choing would 
 have compromised the usability of most of the systems on =
the Arpanet=2E  
 I think Multics was the only "modern" line-at-a-t=
ime system at the time=2E

 In March 1969 we decided it was time to w=
rite down the ideas from our 
 meetings in late 1968 and early 1969=2E&n=
bsp; The first batch of RFCs 
 included Rulifson's RFC 5=2E  H=
e proposed DEL, the Decode-Encode 
 Language=2E  Elie's RFC 51 a ye=
ar later proposed the Network Interchange 
 Language=2E  In both ca=
ses the basic concept was the creation of a 
 simple language, easily im=
plementable on each platform, that would 
 mediate the interaction with =
a remote system=2E  The programs were 
 expected to be short -- hen=
ce downloadable quickly -- and either 
 interpreted or quickly translate=
d=2E  There was a tiny bit of 
 experimental work along this line, =
but it was far ahead of its time=2E  
 I think it was about 25 year=
s before ActiveX came along, followed by Java=2E

 Steve


 =
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:30=E2=80=AFAM Dave Taht via Nnagain 
 <nna=
gain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet> wrote:

     On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 a=
t 7:56=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty via Nnagain
     <nnagain@lists=2Ebuff=
erbloat=2Enet> wrote:

     For starters it is an honor to be conv=
ersing with folk that knew Bob
     Taylor, and "Lick", and y'all made m=
e go back and re-read

     http://memex=2Eorg/licklider=2Epdf

     For inspiration=
=2E I think everyone in our field should re-read that,
     periodically=
=2E For example he makes an overgeneralization about the
     thinking p=
rocesses of men, as compared to the computers of the time,
     and not =
to women=2E=2E=2E

     But I have always had an odd question - what =
songs did Lick play on
     guitar? Do any recordings exist?

    =
 Music defines who I am, at least=2E I love the angularness and surprises     in jazz, and the deep storytelling buried deep in Shostakovich's
=
     Fifth=2E Moving forward to modern music: the steady backbeat of Burnin=
g
     Man - and endless repetition of short phrases - seems to lead to<=
br>     groupthink - I can hardly stand EDM for an hour=2E

     &nbs=
p;I am "maked" by Angela' Lansbury's Sweeny Todd, and my religion,
     =
forever reformed by Monty Python's Life of Brian, One Flew over the
    =
 Cookoos nest, 12 Angry Men, and the 12 Monkees, Pink Floyd and punk
   =
  music were the things that shaped me=2E No doubt it differs
     signi=
ficantly for everyone here, please share?

     Powerful tales and th=
eir technologies predate the internet, and
     because they were wildly=
 shared, influenced how generations thought
     without being the one t=
rue answer=2E Broadcast media, also, was joint,
     and in school we
     We are in a new era of uncommonality of experience, in part from<=
br>     bringing in all the information in the world, while still separated=
 by
     differences in language, exposure, education, and culture, alth=
ough
     nowadays it has become so easy and natural to be able to use c=
omputer
     assisted language translation tools, I do not know how well=
 they truly
     make the jump between cultures=2E

     In that p=
aper he talked about 75% of his time being spent setting up
     to do a=
nalytics, where today so much information exists as to be
     impossibl=
e to analyze=2E

     I only have a few more small comments below, bu=
t I wanted to pick out
     the concepts of TOS and backpressure as need=
ing thought on another
     day, in another email (what was licks song l=
ist??? :))=2E The internet
     has very little Tos or backpressure, and=
 Flow Queuing based algorithms
     actually function thusly:

   =
  If the arrival rate of a flow is less than the departure rate of all
 =
    other flows, it goes out first=2E

     To some extent this match=
es some of Nagles' "every application has a
     right to one packet in =
the network", and puts a reward into the system
     for applications th=
at use slightly less than their fair share of the
     bandwidth=2E
<=
br>
 IMHO, the problem may =
be that the Internet, and computing
     technology in gene=
ral, is so new that non-technical organizations,
     such as government=
 entities, don't understand it and therefore
     can't figure out wheth=
er or how to regulate anything involved=2E

 In other, older, "technologies", rules, procedures=
, and
     traditions have developed over the years to prov=
ide for feedback
     and control between governees and governors=2E&nbs=
p; Roberts Rules of
     Order was created 150 years ago, and is still w=
idely used to
     manage public meetings=2E  I've been in local me=
etings where
     everyone gets a chance to speak, but are limited to a =
few minutes
     to say whatever's on their mind=2E  You have to ap=
pear in person,
     wait your turn, and make your comment=2E Doing so i=
s free, but still
     has the cost of time and hassle to get to the mee=
ting=2E

 Organizati=
ons have figured out over the years how to manage
     meet=
ings=2E  [Vint - remember the "Rathole!" mechanism that we used
   =
  to keep Internet meetings on track=2E=2E=2E?]

     PARC had "Deale=
r"=2E

 From what Da=
vid describes, it sounds like the current "public
     comm=
ent" mechanisms in the electronic arena are only at the stage
     where=
 the loudest voices can drown out all others, and public
     debates ar=
e essentially useless cacophonies of the loudest
     proponents of the =
various viewpoints=2E   There are no rules=2E   Why
=
     should anyone submit their own sensible comments, knowing they'll
 =
    be lost in the noise?

 In non-electronic public forums, such behavior is ruled out, and
     if it persists, the governing body can have offenders ej=
ected,
     adjourn a meeting until cooler heads prevail, or otherwise m=
ake
     the discourse useful for informing decisions=2E  Courts ca=
n issue
     restraining orders, but has any court ever issued such an o=
rder
     applying to an electronic forum?

 So, why haven't organizations yet developed rul=
es and mechanisms
     for managing electronic discussions=
=2E=2E=2E=2E?

 I'd =
offer two observations and suggestions=2E

 -----

 First, a ma=
jor reason for a lack of such rules and mechanisms
     may=
 be an educational gap=2E  Administrators, politicians, and
     st=
affers may simply not understand all this newfangled technology,
     or=
 how it works, and are drowning in a sea of terminology,
     acronyms, =
and concepts that make no sense (to them)=2E   In the FCC
    =
 case, even the technical gurus may have deep knowledge of their
     tr=
aditional realm of telephony, radio, and related issues and
     policy =
tradeoffs=2E   But they may be largely ignorant of computing
 =
    and networking equivalents=2E  Probably even worse, they may
  =
   unconsciously consider the new world as a simple evolution of the
   =
  old, not recognizing the impact of incredibly fast computers and
     =
communications, and the advances that they enable, such as "AI" -
     w=
hatever that is=2E=2E=2E
 =
    downloading new programs over a communications path into a remote
  =
   computer (yes, what all our devices do almost every day)=2E   =
I was
     astounded when I learned how little the "judicial system"
=
     (lawyers, judges, legislators, etc=2E) knew about computer and
    =
 network technology=2E   That didn't stop them from debating the<=
br>     meaning of technical terms=2E  What is RAM? How does "programm=
ing"
     differ from "reprogramming"?  What is "memory"?  Wha=
t is a
     "processor"?   What is an "operating system"? =
;  The arguments
     continue until eventually a judge declares wh=
at the answer is,
     with little technical knowledge or expertise to h=
elp=2E   So you can
     easily get legally binding definition=
s such as "operating system"
     means "Windows", and that all computer=
s contain an operating system=2E

 I spent hours on the phone over about 18 months, explaining =
to
     the lawyers how computers and networks actually wor=
ked=2E   In turn,
     they taught me quite a lot about the va=
garies of the laws and
     patents=2E  It was fascinating but also=
 disturbing to see how
     ill-prepared the legal system was for new te=
chnologies=2E

 So, =
my suggestion is that a focus be placed on helping the
    =
 non-technical decision makers understand the nuances of computing
     =
and the Internet=2E  I don't think that will be successful by
     =
burying them in the sea of technical jargon and acronyms=2E

 Before I retired, I spent a lot o=
f time with C-suite denizens
     from companies outside of=
 the technology industry - banks,
     manufacturers, transportation, et=
c=2E - helping them understand what
     "The Internet" was, and help th=
em see it as both a huge
     opportunity and a huge threat to their bus=
inesses=2E  One technique
     I used was simply stolen from the ea=
rly days of The Internet=2E

 When we were involved in designing the internal mechanisms of
=

     the Internet, in particular TCPV4, we didn't know much ab=
out
     networks either=2E  So we used analogies=2E  In parti=
cular we used the
     existing transportation infrastructure as a model=
=2E   Moving bits
     around the world isn't all that differe=
nt from moving goods and
     people=2E   But everyone, even w=
ith no technical expertise, knows
     about transportation=2E

 It turns out that there are=
 a lot of useful analogies=2E For
     example, we recogniz=
ed that there were different kinds of
     "traffic" with different need=
s=2E  Coal for power plants was
     important, but not urgent=2E&n=
bsp; If a coal train waits on a siding
     while a passenger train pass=
es, it's OK, even preferred=2E  There
     could be different "type=
s of service" available from the
     transportation infrastructure=2E&n=
bsp;  At the time (late 1970s) we
     didn't know exactly how to d=
o that, but decided to put a field in
     the IP header as a placeholde=
r - the "TOS" field=2E Figuring out
     what different TOSes there shou=
ld be, and how they would be
     handled differently, was still on the =
to-do list=2E   There are even
     analogies to the Internet =
- goods might travel over a "marine
     network" to a "port", where the=
y are moved onto a "rail network",
     to a distributor, and moved on t=
he highway network to their final
     destination=2E  Routers, gat=
eways, =2E=2E=2E

 O=
ther transportation analogies reinforced the notion of TOS=2E 
     E=2Eg=2E, if you're sending a document somewhere, you can cho=
ose how
     to send it - normal postal mail, or Priority Mail, or even =
use a
     different "network" such as an overnight delivery service=2E&=
nbsp;
     Different TOS would engage different behaviors of the underly=
ing
     communications system, and might also have different costs to u=
se
     them=2E  Sending a ton of coal to get delivered in a week o=
r two
     would cost a lot less than sending a ton of documents for
=
     overnight delivery=2E

 There were other transportation analogies heard during the TCPV4
     design discussions - e=2Eg=2E, "Expressway Routing" (do=
 you take a
     direct route over local streets, or go to the freeway e=
ven though
     it's longer) and "Multi-Homing" (your manufacturing plan=
t has
     access to both a highway and a rail line)=2E

 Suggestion -- I suspect that using=
 a familiar infrastructure
     such as transport to discus=
s issues with non-technical decision
     makers would be helpful=2E&nbs=
p; E=2Eg=2E, imagine what would happen if some
     particular "net neut=
rality" set of rules was placed on the
     transportation infrastructur=
e?   Would it have a desirable effect?

 -----

 Second, in addition to anonymi=
ty as an important issue in the
     electronic world, my e=
xperience as a mentee of Licklider surfaced
     another important issue=
 in the "galactic network" vision -- "Back
     Pressure"=2E   =
;  The notion is based in existing knowledge=2E 
      Ec=
onomics has notions of Supply and Demand and Cost Curves=2E 
     &=
nbsp;Engineering has the notion of "Negative Feedback" to stabilize
    =
 mechanical, electrical, or other systems=2E

 We discussed Back Pressure, in the mid 70s, in t=
he context of
     electronic mail, and tried to get the no=
tion of "stamps" accepted
     as part of the email mechanisms=2E  =
The basic idea was that there
     had to be some form of "back pressure=
" to prevent overload by
     discouraging sending of huge quantities of=
 mail=2E

 At the ti=
me, mail traffic was light, since every message was
     ty=
ped by hand by some user=2E  In Lick's group we had experimented
  =
   with using email as a way for computer programs to interact=2E  In<=
br>     Lick's vision, humans would interact by using their computers as     their agents=2E   Even then, computers could send email a l=
ot faster
     and continuously than any human at a keyboard, and could =
easily
     flood the network=2E  [This epiphany occurred shortly a=
fter a
     mistake in configuring distribution lists caused so many mes=
sages
     and replies that our machine crashed as its disk space ran ou=
t=2E]

 "Stamps" d=
idn't necessarily represent monetary cost=2E Back
     pres=
sure could be simple constraints, e=2Eg=2E, no user can send more
     t=
han 500 (or whatever) messages per day=2E   This notion never got=

     enough support to become part of the email standards; I still
 =
    think it would help with the deluge of spam we all experience today=2E<=
br>

 Back Pressure in t=
he Internet today is largely non-existent=2E  I
     (=
or my AI and computers) can send as much email as I like=2E 
     &=
nbsp;Communications carriers promote "unlimited data" but won't
     gua=
rantee anything=2E   Memory has become cheap, and as a result
=
     behaviors such as "buffer bloat" have appeared=2E

 Suggestion - educate the decision-make=
rs about Back Pressure,
     using highway analogies (meter=
ing lights, etc=2E)
 -----

 Education about the new technology, but by using some famil=
iar
     analogs, and introduction of Back Pressure, in som=
e appropriate
     form, as part of a "network neutrality" policy, would=
 be the two
     foci I'd recommend=2E

 My prior suggestion of "registration" and accepting=
 only the
     last comment was based on the observations a=
bove=2E  Back pressure
     doesn't have to be monetary, and regist=
ered users don't have to be
     personally identified=2E   Si=
mply making it sufficiently "hard" to
     register (using CAPTCHAs, 2FA=
, whatever) would be a "cost"
     discouraging "loud voices"=2E  &=
nbsp;Even the law firms submitting
     millions of comments on behalf o=
f their clients might balk at the
     cost (in labor not money) to regi=
ster their million clients, even
     anonymously, so each could get his=
/her comment submitted=2E   Of
     course, they could always =
pass the costs on to their (million?
     really?) clients=2E But it wou=
ld still be Back Pressure=2E

 One possibility -- make the "cost" of submitting a million
     electronic comments equal to the cost of submitting a milli=
on
     postcards=2E=2E=2E?

 Jack Haverty


 On 10/9/23 16:55, David Bray, PhD w=
rote:

 Great points Vint as you're absolutely right - there are
<=
/blockquote>     multiple modalities here (and in the past it was spam from=

     thousands of postcards, then mimeographs, then faxes, etc=2E)
<=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; bord=
er-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">
 The standard historica=
lly has been set by the Administrative
     Conference of t=
he United States: https://w=
ww=2Eacus=2Egov/about-acus

 In 2020 there seemed to be an effort to gave the General
=

     Services Administration weigh-in, however they closed tha=
t
     rulemaking attempt without publishing any of the comments they go=
t
     and no announcement why it was closed=2E

 As for what part of Congress - I believe A=
CUS was championed by
     both the Senate and House Judici=
ary Committees as it has oversight
     and responsibility for the inter=
pretations of the Administrative
     Procedure Act of 1946 (which sets =
out the whole rulemaking procedure)=2E

 Sadly there isn't a standard across agencies - which a=
lso means
     there isn't a standard across Administration=
s=2E Back in 2018 and
     2020, both with this group of 52 people here<=
br>     https://t=
inyurl=2Ecom/letter-signed-52-people - as well as
     individually =
- I did my darnest to encourage them to do a standard=2E

 There's also the National Academy of=
 Public Administration which
     is probably the latest re=
maining non-partisan forum for
     discussions like this too=2E


 On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 a=
t 7:46=E2=80=AFPM Vint Cerf <vint@google=2Ecom> wrote:

 David, this is a good list=2E FACA has rules for public participation, for example=2E

 I think i=
t should be taken into account for any public
=
     commenting process that online (and offline such as USPS or fax
   =
  and phone calls) that spam and artificial inflation of comments
     a=
re possible=2E Is there any specific standard for US agency public
     =
comment handling? If now, what committees of the US Congress might
     =
have jurisdiction?

 v


 On Tue, Oct=
 10, 2023 at 8:22=E2=80=AFAM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain
     <nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet> wrote:

 I'm a=
ll for doing new things to make things better=2E

 At the same time, =
I used to do bioterrorism preparedness and
     response from 2000-2005 (and aside from asking myself what k=
ind of
     crazy world needed counter-bioterrorism efforts=2E=2E=2E I a=
lso realized
     you don't want to interject something completely new i=
n the middle
     of an unfolding crisis event)=2E If something were to =
be injected
     now, it would have to have consensus from both sides, o=
therwise at
     least one side (potentially detractors from both) will =
claim that
     whatever form the new approaches take are somehow advant=
aging "the
     other side" and disadvantaging them=2E

 Probably w=
ould take a ruling by the Administrative Conference
     of the United States, at a minimum to answer these =
five questions
     - and even then, introducing something completely di=
fferent in the
     midst of a political melee might just invite mudslin=
ging unless
     moderate voices on both sides can reach some consensus=
=2E

 1=2E Does identity matter regarding who files a comment or not =
=E2=80=94
     and must one be a =
U=2ES=2E person in order to file?

 2=2E Should agencies publish real-ti=
me counts of the number of
     c=
omments received =E2=80=94 or is it better to wait until the end of a
  =
   commenting round to make all comments available, including counts?

 =
3=2E Should third-party groups be able to file on behalf of
     someone else or not =E2=80=94 and do agenci=
es have the right to remove
     spam-like comments?

 4=2E Should th=
e public commenting process permit multiple
     comments per individual for a proceeding =E2=80=94 and if s=
o, how many
     comments from a single individual are too many? 100? 10=
00? More?

 5=2E Finally, should the U=2ES=2E government itself consider=
, given
     public perceptions a=
bout potential conflicts of interest for any
     agency performing a pu=
blic commenting process, whether it would be
     better to have third-p=
arty groups take responsibility for
     assembling comments and then fi=
ling those comments via a validated
     process with the government?


 On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:10=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty <jack@3ki=
tty=2Eorg>
     wrote:

 Hi again David et al,
 Interesting frenzy=2E=2E=2Elots of questions that need answers and
     associated policies=
=2E   I served 6 years as an elected official (in
     a small=
 special district in California), so I have some small
     understandin=
g of the government side of things and the constraints
     involved=2E&=
nbsp;  Being in charge doesn't mean you can do what you want=2E

 I'm thinking here more near=
-term and incremental steps=2E  You
     said "These same questions need pragmatic pilots =
that involve the
     public =2E=2E=2E"

 So, how about using the current NN situation for a pi=
lot? 
     Keep=
 all the current ways and emerging AI techniques to continue
     to flo=
od the system with comments=2E  But also offer an *optional*
     w=
ay for humans to "register" as a commenter and then submit their
     (l=
atest only) comment into the melee=2E  Will people use it?  Will<=
br>     "consumers" (the lawyers, commissioners, etc=2E) find it useful?

 I've found it curious, =
for decades now, that there are (too
     many) mechanisms for "secure email", that may help wi=
th the flood
     of disinformation from anonymous senders, but very ver=
y few people
     use them=2E   Maybe they don't know how; may=
be the available schemes
     are too flawed; maybe =2E=2E=2E?

 About 30 years ago, I was a sp=
eaker in a public meeting
     orchestrated by USPS, and recommended that they take a lead role=
,
     e=2Eg=2E, by acting as a national CA - certificate authority=2E&n=
bsp; Never
     happened though=2E   FCC issues lots of licens=
es=2E=2E=2Eperhaps they
     could issue online credentials too?

 Perhaps a "pilot" where you =
will also accept comments by
email, some possibly sent by "verified" humans if they unders= tand
how to do so, would be worth trying?   Perhaps comme= nts on
"technical aspects" coming from people who demonstrably know= how
to use technology would be valuable to the policy makers?
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; bord= er-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">

The Internet, and technol= ogy such as TCP, began as an
experimental pilot about 50 years ago=2E  Sometimes pilo= ts become
infrastructures=2E

FYI, I'm signing this message=2E  Using OpenPGP=2E&nbs= p; I could
encr= ypt it also, but my email program can't find your public key=2E

Jack Haverty


On 10/5= /23 14:21, David Bray, PhD wrote:

Indeed Jack - a few things to bal= ance - the Administrative
Procedure Act of 1946 (on which the idea of rulemaking is based)=
us about raising legal concerns that must be answered by the
= agency at the time the rulemaking is done=2E It's not a vote nor is
= it the case that if the agency gets tons of comments in one
dir= ection that they have to go in that direction=2E Instead it's
only = about making sure legal concerns are considered and responded
to be= fore the agency before the agency acts=2E (Which is partly why
send= ing "I'm for XYZ" or "I'm against ABC" really doesn't mean
anything= to an agency - not only is that not a legal argument or
concern, i= t's also not something where they're obligated to follow
these comm= ents - it's not a vote or poll)=2E

That said, political folks have spun things to the public as=
if it is a pol= l/vote/chance to act=2E The raise a valid legal
concern part of the= APA of 1946 is omitted=2E Moreover the fact that
third party law f= irms and others like to submit comments on behalf
of clients - ther= e will always be a third party submitting
multiple comments for the= ir clients (or "clients") because that's
their business=2E

In the lead up to 2017, the C= onsumer and Government Affairs
Bureau of the FCC got an inquiry from a firm asking how the= y could
submit 1 million comments a day on an "upcoming privacy
= proceeding" (their words, astute observers will note there was no
= privacy proceeding before the FCC in 2017)=2E When the Bureau asked
= me, I told them either mail us a CD to upload it or submit one
= comment with 1 million signatures=2E To attempt to flood us with 1
= million comments a day (aside from the fact who can "predict"
havi= ng that many daily) would deny resources to others=2E In the
mess t= hat followed, what was released to the public was so
redacted you c= ouldn't see the legitimate concerns and better paths
that were offe= red to this entity=2E
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; bord= er-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;">

= And the FCC isn't alone=2E EPA, FTC, and other regulatory
=
agencies have had these hijinks= for years - and before the
Internet it was faxes, mass mimeographs= (remember blue ink?), and
postcards=2EThe Administrative Conferenc= e of the United States
(ACUS) - is the body that is supposed to pro= vide consistent
guidance for things like this across the U=2ES=2E g= overnment=2E I've
briefed them and tried to raise awareness of thes= e issues - as I
think fundamentally this is a **process** question = that once
answered, tech can support=2E However they're not technol= ogies and
updating the interpretation of the process isn't somethin= g lawyers
are apt to do until the evidence that things are in troub= le is
overwhelming=2E

52 folks wrote a letter to them - and to GSA - back in 2020=2E
GSA had a rulema= king of its own on how to improve things, yet
oddly never published= any of the comments it received (including
ours) and closed the ru= lemaking quietly=2E Here's the letter:
https://tinyurl=2Ecom/letter-signed-52-peop= le

And here's= an article published in OODAloop about this - and
why Generative AI is probably going to = make things even more
challenging:
https://www=2Eoodaloop=2Ecom/archive/202= 3/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspec= tive/

[snippet o= f the article] Now in 2023 and Beyond: Proactive
Approaches to AI and Society

Looking to the future, to effecti= vely address the challenges
arising from AI, we must foster a proactive, results-oriented,= and
cooperative approach with the public=2E Think tanks and univer= sities
can engage the public in conversations about how to work, li= ve,
govern, and co-exist with modern technologies that impact socie= ty=2E
By involving diverse voices in the decision-making process, w= e can
better address and resolve the complex challenges AI presents= on
local and national levels=2E

In addition, we must encourage industry and political l= eaders
to parti= cipate in finding non-partisan, multi-sector solutions if
civil soc= ieties are to remain stable=2E By working together, we can
bridge t= he gap between technological advancements and their
societal implic= ations=2E

Finally, l= aunching AI pilots across various sectors, such as
work, education, health, law, and civil= society, is essential=2E We
must learn by doing on how we can crea= te responsible civil
environments where AIs can be developed and de= ployed responsibly=2E
These initiatives can help us better understa= nd and integrate AI
into our lives, ensuring its potential is harne= ssed for the
greater good while mitigating risks=2E

In 2019 and 2020, a group of fifty-t= wo people asked the
= Administrative Conference of the United States (which helps guide
= rulemaking procedures for federal agencies), General Accounting
= Office, and the General Services Administration to call attention
= to the need to address the challenges of chatbots flooding public
c= ommenting procedures and potentially crowding out or denying
servic= es to actual humans wanting to leave a comment=2E We asked:

1=2E Does identity matter regarding = who files a comment or not
=E2=80=94 and must one be a U=2ES=2E person in order to file?
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; bord= er-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;">
2=2E Should agencies p= ublish real-time counts of the number of
comments received =E2=80=94 or is it better to wa= it until the end of a
commenting round to make all comments availab= le, including counts?
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; bord= er-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;">

= 3=2E Should third-party groups be able to file on behalf of
someone else or not =E2=80=94= and do agencies have the right to remove
spam-like comments?

4=2E Should the public com= menting process permit multiple
<= /blockquote> comments per individual for a proceeding =E2=80=94 and if = so, how many
comments from a single individual are too many? 100? 1= 000? More?

5=2E Final= ly, should the U=2ES=2E government itself consider, given
<= /blockquote>
public perceptions about potenti= al conflicts of interest for any
agency performing a public comment= ing process, whether it would be
better to have third-party groups = take responsibility for
assembling comments and then filing those c= omments via a validated
process with the government?

These same questions need pragmatic= pilots that involve the
public to co-explore and co-develop how we operate effectively amid these technological shifts=2E As the capabilities of LLMs
= continue to grow, we need positive change agents willing to tackle
= the messy issues at the intersection of technology and society=2E
= The challenges are immense, but so too are the opportunities for
p= ositive change=2E Let=E2=80=99s seize this moment to create a better
= tomorrow for all=2E Working together, we can co-create a future that
= embraces AI=E2=80=99s potential while mitigating its risks, informed by=
the hard lessons we have already learned=2E

Full article:
https://www=2Eoodaloop=2Ecom/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-= on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective/

Hope this helps=2E


= On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 4:44=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists=2Ebuffer= bloat=2Enet> wrote:
=

Thanks for = all your efforts to keep the "feedback loop" to
the rulemakers functi= oning!

I'd like to offer a sug= gestion for a hopefully politically
acceptable way to handle the delu= ge, derived from my own battles
with "email" over the years (decade= s)=2E

Back in the 1970s, I im= plemented one of the first email
systems on the Arpanet, under the me= ntorship of JCR Licklider, who
had been pursuing his vision of a "G= alactic Network" at ARPA and
MIT=2E   One of the things w= e discovered was the significance of
anonymity=2E   At th= e time, anonymity was forbidden on the Arpanet;
you needed an accou= nt on some computer, protected by passwords, in
order to legitimate= ly use the network=2E   The mechanisms were crude
and eas= ily broken, but the principle applied=2E

= Over the years, that principle has been forgotten, and the
rig= ht to be anonymous has become entrenched=2E   But many uses of the network, and needs of its users, demand accountability, so all sorts of mechanisms have been pasted on top of the network to
= provide ways to judge user identity=2E  Banks, medical services,
= governments, and businesses all demand some way of proving your
= identity, with passwords, various schemes of 2FA, VPNs, or other
s= uch technology, with varying degrees of protection=2E   It is sti= ll
possible to be anonymous on the net, but many things you do
= require you to prove, to some extent, who you are=2E

So, my suggestion for handling the deluge of "c= omments" is:

1/ create some mechanism for "= registering" your intent to
submit a comment=2E   Make it h= ard for bots to register=2E  Perhaps
you can leverage the work= of various partners, e=2Eg=2E, ISPs,
retailers, government agencie= s, financial institutions, of others
who already have some way of i= dentifying their users=2E
=

2/ Also = make registration optional - anyone can still submit
comments anonymo= usly if they choose=2E
=

3/ for "reg= istered commenters", provide a way to "edit" your
<= /blockquote>
previous comment - = i=2Ee=2E, advise that your comment is always the
last one you submi= tted=2E   I=2EE=2E, whoever you are, you can only
submit = one comment, which will be the last one you submit=2E
=
4/ In the thousands of pages of comments, somehow flag= the
ones that are from registered commenters, visible to the people<= br> who read the comments=2E   Even better, provide those "in= formation
consumers" with ways to sort, filter, and search through = the body
of comments=2E

= This may not reduce the deluge of comments, but I'd expect
it to h= elp the lawyers and politicians keep their heads above the
water=2E=

Anonymity is an important issue f= or Net Neutrality too, but
------O7DQQHUX39D6OR4QMU6754FCRJOF34--