From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60C1B3B29D for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:30:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-578d0dcd4e1so3697393a12.2 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696951811; x=1697556611; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=+6by4zQ3VlS2i13ghHVvHi4NrD3ZPpJuqE4uS+PMSII=; b=VD4nDh+jMzecQ1+7pNjVU5fGHjQbQOagP/XBz2O5dAe9OpyQHT/ZhYMYVZFIRPfzCS LG+PegQOMl1h7XfY/QYSPLpXFRfzD8YbPX9XYlUMkBWCw62MtukMGj/mJwtp1Vllc7jh rnwzZLC+FLFh5LxNtcSqYgvEksOarOIEHos9nScodak6ApA8R6GB/lyT4E8J971kVfRJ qTxzgttICORAPE4314uuO/msTnEzJ1bb6fq6+FfSlEy7p7TIf+Osq8s+l00PRvh/B4L3 lLKCLyb5P32Ed4h1WXw9UJFQ3Mh2z1OEzWOpSQdTlqoZg0tSgYiSrS6AXaNV4dEF/R0J K3tA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696951811; x=1697556611; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+6by4zQ3VlS2i13ghHVvHi4NrD3ZPpJuqE4uS+PMSII=; b=nHPJsd2ZnTrASjbqU0uHlCTHBJqsnupuEOwXxKk0LsZLKHVZ41NKmZvc5LaQ8jIuiY c7DzwYWU/NuwMYxVS0DxrlQWZogVn4qxyd1PDJwH+FZ65aykv0lD/vuLYOd9Fu/fAOcV ik8cXniFekGJZjeK3fF2c0oBOdjlT+rmOV3hM/v4kkJ7vL+4BJmVumKPgzxSf7BqKMRh Xa6GCnVg5qRUE26ugAJxGqEQ33dnlpOrB1C/MMAGwZhKN9tLCsDFHIjUnzwNTwdJtORy Mdawlk9HqAidTg5oxKL6eZcliGe2G1GiQhCDfPviCEexLuqZDjPFQnYDk5a+haX2fDwh i5/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyyWDFMFiurb7uxrQadT9g3VuuNlHQNmf8TCOgo9fMrSpE3/X4C QMvKtRCNOqYZLTUgIUTqC61sz/v87qVGK1BHyj9U9gBDpQw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHngQcYuPuayGb6Adl57lOKayPjrhEc4TZasAJg2ivIeIb18bp/yUiTy3JhvS7SdA6hEmZDGRtIvFH6YrY6KQQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f414:b0:274:a5a6:120b with SMTP id ch20-20020a17090af41400b00274a5a6120bmr15165235pjb.36.1696951809928; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:30:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <028f61d7-be24-4fe3-82d3-6eca0386d0d0@3kitty.org> <10976208-a880-4974-9f13-d84a7b5ebb6b@3kitty.org> <319cc107-f753-4e2a-8b72-6595117ae37b@3kitty.org> In-Reply-To: <319cc107-f753-4e2a-8b72-6595117ae37b@3kitty.org> From: Dave Taht Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:29:55 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_asp?= =?UTF-8?Q?ects_heard_this_time=21?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [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 15:30:12 -0000 On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:56=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty via Nnagain wrote: For starters it is an honor to be conversing with folk that knew Bob Taylor, and "Lick", and y'all made me go back and re-read http://memex.org/licklider.pdf For inspiration. I think everyone in our field should re-read that, periodically. For example he makes an overgeneralization about the thinking processes of men, as compared to the computers of the time, and not to women... 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. I love the angularness and surprises in jazz, and the deep storytelling buried deep in Shostakovich's Fifth. Moving forward to modern music: the steady backbeat of Burning Man - and endless repetition of short phrases - seems to lead to groupthink - I can hardly stand EDM for an hour. 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. No doubt it differs significantly for everyone here, please share? Powerful tales and their technologies predate the internet, and because they were wildly shared, influenced how generations thought without being the one true answer. 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, although nowadays it has become so easy and natural to be able to use computer assisted language translation tools, I do not know how well they truly make the jump between cultures. In that paper he talked about 75% of his time being spent setting up to do analytics, where today so much information exists as to be impossible to analyze. I only have a few more small comments below, but I wanted to pick out the concepts of TOS and backpressure as needing thought on another day, in another email (what was licks song list??? :)). 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. To some extent this matches some of Nagles' "every application has a right to one packet in the network", and puts a reward into the system for applications that use slightly less than their fair share of the bandwidth. > IMHO, the problem may be that the Internet, and computing technology in g= eneral, is so new that non-technical organizations, such as government enti= ties, don't understand it and therefore can't figure out whether or how to = regulate anything involved. > > In other, older, "technologies", rules, procedures, and traditions have d= eveloped over the years to provide for feedback and control between governe= es and governors. Roberts Rules of Order was created 150 years ago, and is= still widely used to manage public meetings. I've been in local meetings = where everyone gets a chance to speak, but are limited to a few minutes to = say whatever's on their mind. You have to appear in person, wait your turn= , and make your comment. Doing so is free, but still has the cost of time = and hassle to get to the meeting. > > Organizations have figured out over the years how to manage meetings. [V= int - remember the "Rathole!" mechanism that we used to keep Internet meeti= ngs on track...?] PARC had "Dealer". > From what David describes, it sounds like the current "public comment" me= chanisms in the electronic arena are only at the stage where the loudest vo= ices can drown out all others, and public debates are essentially useless c= acophonies of the loudest proponents of the various viewpoints. There are= no rules. 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 pe= rsists, the governing body can have offenders ejected, adjourn a meeting un= til cooler heads prevail, or otherwise make the discourse useful for inform= ing decisions. Courts can issue restraining orders, but has any court eve= r issued such an order applying to an electronic forum? > > So, why haven't organizations yet developed rules and mechanisms for mana= ging electronic discussions....? > > I'd offer two observations and suggestions. > > ----- > > First, a major reason for a lack of such rules and mechanisms may be an e= ducational gap. Administrators, politicians, and staffers may simply not u= nderstand all this newfangled technology, or how it works, and are drowning= in a sea of terminology, acronyms, and concepts that make no sense (to the= m). In the FCC case, even the technical gurus may have deep knowledge of = their traditional realm of telephony, radio, and related issues and policy = tradeoffs. But they may be largely ignorant of computing and networking e= quivalents. Probably even worse, they may unconsciously consider the new = world as a simple evolution of the old, not recognizing the impact of incre= dibly fast computers and communications, and the advances that they enable,= such as "AI" - whatever that is... > > About 10 years ago, I accidentally got involved in a patent dispute to be= an "expert witness", for a patent involving downloading new programs over = a communications path into a remote computer (yes, what all our devices do = almost every day). I was astounded when I learned how little the "judicia= l system" (lawyers, judges, legislators, etc.) knew about computer and netw= ork technology. That didn't stop them from debating the meaning of techni= cal terms. What is RAM? How does "programming" differ from "reprogramming= "? What is "memory"? What is a "processor"? What is an "operating syste= m"? The arguments continue until eventually a judge declares what the ans= wer is, with little technical knowledge or expertise to help. So you can = easily get legally binding definitions such as "operating system" means "Wi= ndows", and that all computers contain an operating system. > > I spent hours on the phone over about 18 months, explaining to the lawyer= s how computers and networks actually worked. In turn, they taught me qui= te a lot about the vagaries of the laws and patents. It was fascinating bu= t also disturbing to see how ill-prepared the legal system was for new tech= nologies. > > So, my suggestion is that a focus be placed on helping the non-technical = decision makers understand the nuances of computing and the Internet. I do= n't think that will be successful by burying them in the sea of technical j= argon and acronyms. > > Before I retired, I spent a lot of time with C-suite denizens from compan= ies outside of the technology industry - banks, manufacturers, transportati= on, etc. - helping them understand what "The Internet" was, and help them s= ee it as both a huge opportunity and a huge threat to their businesses. On= e technique I used was simply stolen from the early days of The Internet. > > When we were involved in designing the internal mechanisms of the Interne= t, in particular TCPV4, we didn't know much about networks either. So we u= sed analogies. In particular we used the existing transportation infrastru= cture as a model. Moving bits around the world isn't all that different f= rom moving goods and people. But everyone, even with no technical experti= se, knows about transportation. > > It turns out that there are a lot of useful analogies. For example, we r= ecognized that there were different kinds of "traffic" with different needs= . Coal for power plants was important, but not urgent. If a coal train wa= its on a siding while a passenger train passes, it's OK, even preferred. = There could be different "types of service" available from the transportati= on infrastructure. At the time (late 1970s) we didn't know exactly how to= do that, but decided to put a field in the IP header as a placeholder - th= e "TOS" field. Figuring out what different TOSes there should be, and how = they would be handled differently, was still on the to-do list. There are= even analogies to the Internet - 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. Routers, ga= teways, ... > > Other transportation analogies reinforced the notion of TOS. E.g., if yo= u're sending a document somewhere, you can choose how to send it - normal p= ostal mail, or Priority Mail, or even use a different "network" such as an = overnight delivery service. Different TOS would engage different behaviors= of the underlying communications system, and might also have different cos= ts to use them. Sending a ton of coal to get delivered in a week or two wo= uld cost a lot less than sending a ton of documents for overnight delivery. > > There were other transportation analogies heard during the TCPV4 design d= iscussions - e.g., "Expressway Routing" (do you take a direct route over lo= cal streets, or go to the freeway even though it's longer) and "Multi-Homin= g" (your manufacturing plant has access to both a highway and a rail line). > > Suggestion -- I suspect that using a familiar infrastructure such as tran= sport to discuss issues with non-technical decision makers would be helpful= . E.g., imagine what would happen if some particular "net neutrality" set = of rules was placed on the transportation infrastructure? Would it have a= desirable effect? > > ----- > > Second, in addition to anonymity as an important issue in the electronic = world, my experience as a mentee of Licklider surfaced another important is= sue in the "galactic network" vision -- "Back Pressure". The notion is = based in existing knowledge. Economics has notions of Supply and Demand a= nd Cost Curves. Engineering has the notion of "Negative Feedback" to stab= ilize mechanical, electrical, or other systems. > > We discussed Back Pressure, in the mid 70s, in the context of electronic = mail, and tried to get the notion of "stamps" accepted as part of the email= mechanisms. The basic idea was that there had to be some form of "back pr= essure" to prevent overload by discouraging sending of huge quantities of m= ail. > > At the time, mail traffic was light, since every message was typed by han= d by some user. In Lick's group we had experimented with using email as a = way for computer programs to interact. In Lick's vision, humans would inte= ract by using their computers as their agents. Even then, computers could= send email a lot faster and continuously than any human at a keyboard, and= could easily flood the network. [This epiphany occurred shortly after a m= istake in configuring distribution lists caused so many messages and replie= s that our machine crashed as its disk space ran out.] > > "Stamps" didn't necessarily represent monetary cost. Back pressure could= be simple constraints, e.g., no user can send more than 500 (or whatever) = messages per day. 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. > > Back Pressure in the Internet today is largely non-existent. I (or my AI= and computers) can send as much email as I like. Communications carriers= promote "unlimited data" but won't guarantee anything. Memory has become= cheap, and as a result behaviors such as "buffer bloat" have appeared. > > Suggestion - educate the decision-makers about Back Pressure, using highw= ay analogies (metering lights, etc.) > > ----- > > Education about the new technology, but by using some familiar analogs, a= nd introduction of Back Pressure, in some appropriate form, as part of a "n= etwork neutrality" policy, would be the two foci I'd recommend. > > My prior suggestion of "registration" and accepting only the last comment= was based on the observations above. Back pressure doesn't have to be mon= etary, and registered users don't have to be personally identified. Simpl= y making it sufficiently "hard" to register (using CAPTCHAs, 2FA, whatever)= would be a "cost" discouraging "loud voices". Even the law firms submitt= ing millions of comments on behalf of their clients might balk at the cost = (in labor not money) to register their million clients, even anonymously, s= o each could get his/her comment submitted. Of course, they could always = pass the costs on to their (million? really?) clients. But it would still = be Back Pressure. > > One possibility -- make the "cost" of submitting a million electronic com= ments equal to the cost of submitting a million postcards...? > > Jack Haverty > > > On 10/9/23 16:55, David Bray, PhD wrote: > > Great points Vint as you're absolutely right - there are multiple modalit= ies here (and in the past it was spam from thousands of postcards, then mim= eographs, then faxes, etc.) > > The standard historically has been set by the Administrative Conference o= f the United States: https://www.acus.gov/about-acus > > In 2020 there seemed to be an effort to gave the General Services Adminis= tration weigh-in, however they closed that rulemaking attempt without publi= shing any of the comments they got and no announcement why it was closed. > > As for what part of Congress - I believe ACUS was championed by both the = Senate and House Judiciary Committees as it has oversight and responsibilit= y for the interpretations of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (whic= h sets out the whole rulemaking procedure). > > Sadly there isn't a standard across agencies - which also means there isn= 't a standard across Administrations. Back in 2018 and 2020, both with this= group of 52 people here https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people - as w= ell as individually - I did my darnest to encourage them to do a standard. > > There's also the National Academy of Public Administration which is proba= bly the latest remaining non-partisan forum for discussions like this too. > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:46=E2=80=AFPM Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> David, this is a good list. >> FACA has rules for public participation, for example. >> >> I think it should be taken into account for any public commenting proces= s that online (and offline such as USPS or fax and phone calls) that spam a= nd artificial inflation of comments are possible. Is there any specific sta= ndard 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 things better. >>> >>> At the same time, I used to do bioterrorism preparedness and response f= rom 2000-2005 (and aside from asking myself what kind of crazy world needed= counter-bioterrorism efforts... I also realized you don't want to interjec= t something completely new in the middle of an unfolding crisis event). If = something were to be injected now, it would have to have consensus from bot= h sides, otherwise at least one side (potentially detractors from both) wil= l claim that whatever form the new approaches take are somehow advantaging = "the other side" and disadvantaging them. >>> >>> Probably would take a ruling by the Administrative Conference of the Un= ited States, at a minimum to answer these five questions - and even then, i= ntroducing something completely different in the midst of a political melee= might just invite mudslinging unless moderate voices on both sides can rea= ch some consensus. >>> >>> 1. Does identity matter regarding who files a comment or not =E2=80=94 = and must one be a U.S. person in order to file? >>> >>> 2. Should agencies publish real-time counts of the number of comments r= eceived =E2=80=94 or is it better to wait until the end of a commenting rou= nd to make all comments available, including counts? >>> >>> 3. 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 comment= s? >>> >>> 4. Should the public commenting process permit multiple comments per in= dividual for a proceeding =E2=80=94 and if so, how many comments from a sin= gle individual are too many? 100? 1000? More? >>> >>> 5. Finally, should the U.S. government itself consider, given public pe= rceptions 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 co= mments via a validated process with the government? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:10=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty w= rote: >>>> >>>> Hi again David et al, >>>> >>>> Interesting frenzy...lots of questions that need answers and associate= d policies. I served 6 years as an elected official (in a small special d= istrict in California), so I have some small understanding of the governmen= t side of things and the constraints involved. Being in charge doesn't me= an you can do what you want. >>>> >>>> I'm thinking here more near-term and incremental steps. You said "The= se same questions need pragmatic pilots that involve the public ..." >>>> >>>> So, how about using the current NN situation for a pilot? Keep all th= e current ways and emerging AI techniques to continue to flood the system w= ith comments. But also offer an *optional* way for humans to "register" a= s a commenter and then submit their (latest only) comment into the melee. = Will people use it? Will "consumers" (the lawyers, commissioners, etc.) fi= nd it useful? >>>> >>>> I've found it curious, for decades now, that there are (too many) mech= anisms for "secure email", that may help with the flood of disinformation f= rom anonymous senders, but very very few people use them. Maybe they don'= t know how; maybe the available schemes are too flawed; maybe ...? >>>> >>>> About 30 years ago, I was a speaker in a public meeting orchestrated b= y USPS, and recommended that they take a lead role, e.g., by acting as a na= tional CA - certificate authority. Never happened though. FCC issues lot= s of licenses...perhaps they could issue online credentials too? >>>> >>>> Perhaps a "pilot" where you will also accept comments by email, some p= ossibly sent by "verified" humans if they understand how to do so, would be= worth trying? Perhaps comments on "technical aspects" coming from people= who demonstrably know how to use technology would be valuable to the polic= y makers? >>>> >>>> The Internet, and technology such as TCP, began as an experimental pil= ot about 50 years ago. Sometimes pilots become infrastructures. >>>> >>>> FYI, I'm signing this message. Using OpenPGP. I could encrypt it als= o, but my email program can't find your public key. >>>> >>>> Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/5/23 14:21, David Bray, PhD wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed Jack - a few things to balance - the Administrative Procedure A= ct of 1946 (on which the idea of rulemaking is based) us about raising lega= l concerns that must be answered by the agency at the time the rulemaking i= s done. It's not a vote nor is it the case that if the agency gets tons of = comments in one direction that they have to go in that direction. Instead i= t's only about making sure legal concerns are considered and responded to b= efore the agency before the agency acts. (Which is partly why sending "I'm = for XYZ" or "I'm against ABC" really doesn't mean anything to an agency - n= ot only is that not a legal argument or concern, it's also not something wh= ere they're obligated to follow these comments - it's not a vote or poll). >>>> >>>> That said, political folks have spun things to the public as if it is = a poll/vote/chance to act. The raise a valid legal concern part of the APA = of 1946 is omitted. Moreover the fact that third party law firms and others= like to submit comments on behalf of clients - there will always be a thir= d party submitting multiple comments for their clients (or "clients") becau= se that's their business. >>>> >>>> In the lead up to 2017, the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau of = the FCC got an inquiry from a firm asking how they could submit 1 million c= omments a day on an "upcoming privacy proceeding" (their words, astute obse= rvers will note there was no privacy proceeding before the FCC in 2017). Wh= en the Bureau asked me, I told them either mail us a CD to upload it or sub= mit one comment with 1 million signatures. To attempt to flood us with 1 mi= llion comments a day (aside from the fact who can "predict" having that man= y daily) would deny resources to others. In the mess that followed, what wa= s released to the public was so redacted you couldn't see the legitimate co= ncerns and better paths that were offered to this entity. >>>> >>>> And the FCC isn't alone. EPA, FTC, and other regulatory agencies have = had these hijinks for years - and before the Internet it was faxes, mass mi= meographs (remember blue ink?), and postcards.The Administrative Conference= of the United States (ACUS) - is the body that is supposed to provide cons= istent guidance for things like this across the U.S. government. I've brief= ed them and tried to raise awareness of these issues - as I think fundament= ally this is a **process** question that once answered, tech can support. H= owever they're not technologies and updating the interpretation of the proc= ess isn't something lawyers are apt to do until the evidence that things ar= e in trouble is overwhelming. >>>> >>>> 52 folks wrote a letter to them - and to GSA - back in 2020. GSA had a= rulemaking of its own on how to improve things, yet oddly never published = any of the comments it received (including ours) and closed the rulemaking = quietly. Here's the letter: https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people >>>> >>>> And here's an article published in OODAloop about this - and why Gener= ative AI is probably going to make things even more challenging: https://ww= w.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-= answer-an-insiders-perspective/ >>>> >>>> [snippet of the article] Now in 2023 and Beyond: Proactive Approaches = to AI and Society >>>> >>>> Looking to the future, to effectively address the challenges arising f= rom AI, we must foster a proactive, results-oriented, and cooperative appro= ach with the public. Think tanks and universities can engage the public in = conversations about how to work, live, govern, and co-exist with modern tec= hnologies that impact society. By involving diverse voices in the decision-= making process, we can better address and resolve the complex challenges AI= presents on local and national levels. >>>> >>>> In addition, we must encourage industry and political leaders to parti= cipate in finding non-partisan, multi-sector solutions if civil societies a= re to remain stable. By working together, we can bridge the gap between tec= hnological advancements and their societal implications. >>>> >>>> Finally, launching AI pilots across various sectors, such as work, edu= cation, health, law, and civil society, is essential. We must learn by doin= g on how we can create responsible civil environments where AIs can be deve= loped and deployed responsibly. These initiatives can help us better unders= tand and integrate AI into our lives, ensuring its potential is harnessed f= or the greater good while mitigating risks. >>>> >>>> In 2019 and 2020, a group of fifty-two people asked the Administrative= Conference of the United States (which helps guide rulemaking procedures f= or federal agencies), General Accounting Office, and the General Services A= dministration to call attention to the need to address the challenges of ch= atbots flooding public commenting procedures and potentially crowding out o= r denying services to actual humans wanting to leave a comment. We asked: >>>> >>>> 1. Does identity matter regarding who files a comment or not =E2=80=94= and must one be a U.S. person in order to file? >>>> >>>> 2. Should agencies publish real-time counts of the number of comments = received =E2=80=94 or is it better to wait until the end of a commenting ro= und to make all comments available, including counts? >>>> >>>> 3. 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 commen= ts? >>>> >>>> 4. Should the public commenting process permit multiple comments per i= ndividual for a proceeding =E2=80=94 and if so, how many comments from a si= ngle individual are too many? 100? 1000? More? >>>> >>>> 5. Finally, should the U.S. government itself consider, given public p= erceptions 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 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 technologic= al shifts. As the capabilities of LLMs continue to grow, we need positive c= hange agents willing to tackle the messy issues at the intersection of tech= nology and society. The challenges are immense, but so too are the opportun= ities for positive change. Let=E2=80=99s seize this moment to create a bett= er tomorrow for all. Working together, we can co-create a future that embra= ces AI=E2=80=99s potential while mitigating its risks, informed by the hard= lessons we have already learned. >>>> >>>> Full article: https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-= on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective/ >>>> >>>> Hope this helps. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 4:44=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty via Nnagain wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for all your efforts to keep the "feedback loop" to the rulema= kers functioning! >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to offer a suggestion for a hopefully politically acceptable= way to handle the deluge, derived from my own battles with "email" over th= e years (decades). >>>>> >>>>> Back in the 1970s, I implemented one of the first email systems on th= e Arpanet, under the mentorship of JCR Licklider, who had been pursuing his= vision of a "Galactic Network" at ARPA and MIT. One of the things we dis= covered was the significance of anonymity. At the time, anonymity was for= bidden on the Arpanet; you needed an account on some computer, protected by= passwords, in order to legitimately use the network. The mechanisms were= crude and easily broken, but the principle applied. >>>>> >>>>> Over the years, that principle has been forgotten, and the right to b= e anonymous has become entrenched. But many uses of the network, and need= s 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. Bank= s, medical services, governments, and businesses all demand some way of pro= ving your identity, with passwords, various schemes of 2FA, VPNs, or other = such technology, with varying degrees of protection. It is still possible= to be anonymous on the net, but many things you do require you to prove, t= o some extent, who you are. >>>>> >>>>> So, my suggestion for handling the deluge of "comments" is: >>>>> >>>>> 1/ create some mechanism for "registering" your intent to submit a co= mment. Make it hard for bots to register. Perhaps you can leverage the w= ork of various partners, e.g., ISPs, retailers, government agencies, financ= ial institutions, of others who already have some way of identifying their = users. >>>>> >>>>> 2/ Also make registration optional - anyone can still submit comments= anonymously if they choose. >>>>> >>>>> 3/ for "registered commenters", provide a way to "edit" your previous= comment - i.e., advise that your comment is always the last one you submit= ted. I.E., whoever you are, you can only submit one comment, which will b= e the last one you submit. >>>>> >>>>> 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= . Even better, provide those "information consumers" with ways to sort, f= ilter, and search through the body of comments. >>>>> >>>>> This may not reduce the deluge of comments, but I'd expect it to help= the lawyers and politicians keep their heads above the water. >>>>> >>>>> Anonymity is an important issue for Net Neutrality too, but I'll opin= e about that separately..... >>>>> >>>>> Jack Haverty >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/2/23 12:38, David Bray, PhD via Nnagain wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Greetings all and thank you Dave Taht for that very kind intro... >>>>> >>>>> First, I'll open with I'm a gosh-darn non-partisan, which means I swo= re an oath to uphold the Constitution first and serve the United States - n= ot a specific party, tribe, or ideology. This often means, especially in to= day's era of 24/7 news and social media, non-partisans have to "top cover". >>>>> >>>>> Second, I'll share that in what happened in 2017 (which itself was 10= x what we saw in 2014) my biggest concern was and remains that a few actors= attempted to flood the system with less-than-authentic comments. >>>>> >>>>> In some respects this is not new. The whole "notice and comment" proc= ess is a legacy process that goes back decades. And the FCC (and others) ha= ve had postcard floods of comments, mimeographed letters of comments, faxed= floods of comments, and now this - which, when combined with generative AI= , will be yet another flood. >>>>> >>>>> Which gets me to my biggest concern as a non-partisan in 2023-2024, n= amely how LLMs might misuse and abuse the commenting process further. >>>>> >>>>> Both in 2014 and 2017, I asked FCC General Counsel if I could use CAP= TChA to try to reduce the volume of web scrapers or bots both filing and pu= lling info from the Electronic Comment Filing System. >>>>> >>>>> Both times I was told *no* out of concerns that they might prevent so= meone from filing. I asked if I could block obvious spam, defined as someon= e filing a comment >100 times a minute, and was similarly told no because o= ne of those possible comments might be genuine and/or it could be an ex par= ty filing en masse for others. >>>>> >>>>> For 2017 we had to spin up 30x the number of AWS cloud instances to h= andle the load - and this was a flood of comments at 4am, 5am, and 6am ET a= t night which normally shouldn=E2=80=99t see such volumes. When I said ther= e was a combination of actual humans wanting to leave comments and others w= ho were effectively denying service to others (especially because if anyone= wanted to do a batch upload of 100,000 comments or more they could submit = a CSV file or a comment with 100,000 signatories) - both parties said no, t= hat couldn=E2=80=99t be happening. >>>>> >>>>> Until 2021 when the NY Attorney General proved that was exactly what = was happening with 18m of the 23m apparently from non-authentic origin with= ~9m from one side of the political aisle (and six companies) and ~9m from = the other side of the political aisle (and one or more teenagers). >>>>> >>>>> So with Net Neutrality back on the agenda - here=E2=80=99s a simple p= rediction, even if the volume of comments is somehow controlled, 10,000+ pa= ges of comments produced by ChatGPT or a different LLM is both possible and= probably will be done. The question is if someone includes a legitimate le= gal argument on page 6,517 - will FCC=E2=80=99s lawyers spot it and respond= to it as part of the NPRM? >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps and with highest regards, >>>>> >>>>> -d. >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc. & Distinguished Fellow >>>>> >>>>> Henry S. Stimson Center, Business Executives for National Security >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:15=E2=80=AFPM Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> All: >>>>>> >>>>>> I have spent the last several days reaching out to as many people I >>>>>> know with a deep understanding of the policy and technical issues >>>>>> surrounding the internet, to participate on this list. I encourage y= ou >>>>>> all to reach out on your own, especially to those that you can >>>>>> constructively and civilly disagree with, and hopefully work with, t= o >>>>>> establish technical steps forward. Quite a few have joined silently! >>>>>> So far, 168 people have joined! >>>>>> >>>>>> Please welcome Dr David Bray[1], a self-described "human flack jacke= t" >>>>>> who, in the last NN debate, stood up for the non -partisan FCC IT te= am >>>>>> that successfully kept the system up 99.4% of the time despite the >>>>>> comment floods and network abuses from all sides. He has shared with >>>>>> me privately many sad (and some hilarious!) stories of that era, and= I >>>>>> do kind of hope now, that some of that history surfaces, and we can >>>>>> learn from it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much, David, for putting down your painful memories[2= ], >>>>>> and agreeing to join here. There is a lot to tackle here, going >>>>>> forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://www.stimson.org/ppl/david-bray/ >>>>>> [2] "Pain shared is reduced. Joy shared, increased." - Spider Robins= on >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-= bof.html >>>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nnagain mailing list >>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >> >> >> >> -- >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >> Vint Cerf >> Google, LLC >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> +1 (571) 213 1346 >> >> >> until further notice >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain -- Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.htm= l Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos