<html><head></head><body style="zoom: 0%;"><div dir="auto">Thanks for sharing. It's amazing to me what was accomplished and continues forward with communications & compute by extremely phenomenal people. I think the closest analog is the Gutenberg press, which many know had profound effects on the human condition. A hope is that we figure out how to progress in a similar manner, and somehow, the diffusion of knowledge and peaceful coexistence prevail.<br><br><br></div>
<div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.crf-usa.org//bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-3-b-gutenberg-and-the-printing-revolution-in-europe#:~:text=Johann%20Gutenberg%27s%20invention%20of%20movable,split%20apart%20the%20Catholic%20Church">https://www.crf-usa.org//bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-3-b-gutenberg-and-the-printing-revolution-in-europe#:~:text=Johann%20Gutenberg%27s%20invention%20of%20movable,split%20apart%20the%20Catholic%20Church</a>.<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">Johann Gutenberg’s invention of movable-type printing quickened the spread of knowledge, discoveries, and literacy in Renaissance Europe. The printing revolution also contributed mightily to the Protestant Reformation that split apart the Catholic Church.<br><br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">Bob</div>
<div class="gmail_quote" >On Oct 10, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Jack Haverty via Nnagain <<a href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="blue">FYI, The Arpanet was a key player in that patent fight. The Arpanet <br>IMPs (the packet switches) downloaded software from each other, and that <br>capability was used to distribute new releases of the IMP program. I <br>suggested that 1970s implementation to the lawyers as a good example of <br>prior art, which led to a lot of work that eventually resurrected the <br>1970s IMP code from a moldy listing in someone's basement, and got it <br>running again on simulated ancient hardware. At one point the 4-node <br>Arpanet of 1970 was created and run, in anticipation of a demo of prior <br>art at trial. Sadly (for me at least) the combatants suddenly settled <br>out of court, so the trial never happened and the patent issue was not <br>adjudicated. But the resurrected IMP code is on github now, so anyone <br>interested can run their own Arpanet.<br><br>Jack<br><br><br>On 10/10/23 08:53, Steve Crocker via Nnagain wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Lots of good stuff here and I missed the earlier posts, but one small <br> thing caught my attention:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> About 10 years ago, I accidentally got involved in a patent<br></blockquote> dispute to be an "expert witness", for a patent involving<br> downloading new programs over a communications path into a remote<br> computer (yes, what all our devices do almost every day).<br><br> In the seminal period of late 1968 and early 1969 when we were <br> thinking about Arpanet protocols, one idea that was very much part of <br> our thinking was downloading a small program at the beginning of an <br> interactive session. The downloaded program would take care of local <br> interactions to avoid the need to send every character across the net <br> only to have it echoed remotely. Why not always use local echo? <br> Because most of the time-shared systems in the various ARPA-supported <br> research environments had distinct ways of interpreting each and <br> every character. Imposing a network-wide rule of local echoing would <br> have compromised the usability of most of the systems on the Arpanet. <br> I think Multics was the only "modern" line-at-a-time system at the time.<br><br> In March 1969 we decided it was time to write down the ideas from our <br> meetings in late 1968 and early 1969. The first batch of RFCs <br> included Rulifson's RFC 5. He proposed DEL, the Decode-Encode <br> Language. Elie's RFC 51 a year later proposed the Network Interchange <br> Language. In both cases the basic concept was the creation of a <br> simple language, easily implementable on each platform, that would <br> mediate the interaction with a remote system. The programs were <br> expected to be short -- hence downloadable quickly -- and either <br> interpreted or quickly translated. There was a tiny bit of <br> experimental work along this line, but it was far ahead of its time. <br> I think it was about 25 years before ActiveX came along, followed by Java.<br><br> Steve<br><br><br> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:30 AM Dave Taht via Nnagain <br> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:<br><br> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:56 PM Jack Haverty via Nnagain<br> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:<br><br> For starters it is an honor to be conversing with folk that knew Bob<br> Taylor, and "Lick", and y'all made me go back and re-read<br><br> <a href="http://memex.org/licklider.pdf">http://memex.org/licklider.pdf</a><br><br> For inspiration. I think everyone in our field should re-read that,<br> periodically. For example he makes an overgeneralization about the<br> thinking processes of men, as compared to the computers of the time,<br> and not to women...<br><br> But I have always had an odd question - what songs did Lick play on<br> guitar? Do any recordings exist?<br><br> Music defines who I am, at least. I love the angularness and surprises<br> in jazz, and the deep storytelling buried deep in Shostakovich's<br> Fifth. Moving forward to modern music: the steady backbeat of Burning<br> Man - and endless repetition of short phrases - seems to lead to<br> groupthink - I can hardly stand EDM for an hour.<br><br> I am "maked" by Angela' Lansbury's Sweeny Todd, and my religion,<br> forever reformed by Monty Python's Life of Brian, One Flew over the<br> Cookoos nest, 12 Angry Men, and the 12 Monkees, Pink Floyd and punk<br> music were the things that shaped me. No doubt it differs<br> significantly for everyone here, please share?<br><br> Powerful tales and their technologies predate the internet, and<br> because they were wildly shared, influenced how generations thought<br> without being the one true answer. Broadcast media, also, was joint,<br> and in school we<br><br> 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<br> differences in language, exposure, education, and culture, although<br> nowadays it has become so easy and natural to be able to use computer<br> assisted language translation tools, I do not know how well they truly<br> make the jump between cultures.<br><br> In that paper he talked about 75% of his time being spent setting up<br> to do analytics, where today so much information exists as to be<br> impossible to analyze.<br><br> I only have a few more small comments below, but I wanted to pick out<br> the concepts of TOS and backpressure as needing thought on another<br> day, in another email (what was licks song list??? :)). The internet<br> has very little Tos or backpressure, and Flow Queuing based algorithms<br> actually function thusly:<br><br> If the arrival rate of a flow is less than the departure rate of all<br> other flows, it goes out first.<br><br> To some extent this matches some of Nagles' "every application has a<br> right to one packet in the network", and puts a reward into the system<br> for applications that use slightly less than their fair share of the<br> bandwidth.<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> IMHO, the problem may be that the Internet, and computing<br></blockquote> technology in general, is so new that non-technical organizations,<br> such as government entities, don't understand it and therefore<br> can't figure out whether or how to regulate anything involved.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> In other, older, "technologies", rules, procedures, and<br></blockquote> traditions have developed over the years to provide for feedback<br> and control between governees and governors. Roberts Rules of<br> Order was created 150 years ago, and is still widely used to<br> manage public meetings. I've been in local meetings where<br> everyone gets a chance to speak, but are limited to a few minutes<br> to say whatever's on their mind. You have to appear in person,<br> wait your turn, and make your comment. Doing so is free, but still<br> has the cost of time and hassle to get to the meeting.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Organizations have figured out over the years how to manage<br></blockquote> meetings. [Vint - remember the "Rathole!" mechanism that we used<br> to keep Internet meetings on track...?]<br><br> PARC had "Dealer".<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> From what David describes, it sounds like the current "public<br></blockquote> comment" mechanisms in the electronic arena are only at the stage<br> where the loudest voices can drown out all others, and public<br> debates are essentially useless cacophonies of the loudest<br> proponents of the various viewpoints. There are no rules. Why<br> should anyone submit their own sensible comments, knowing they'll<br> be lost in the noise?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> In non-electronic public forums, such behavior is ruled out, and<br></blockquote> if it persists, the governing body can have offenders ejected,<br> adjourn a meeting until cooler heads prevail, or otherwise make<br> the discourse useful for informing decisions. Courts can issue<br> restraining orders, but has any court ever issued such an order<br> applying to an electronic forum?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> So, why haven't organizations yet developed rules and mechanisms<br></blockquote> for managing electronic discussions....?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> I'd offer two observations and suggestions.<br><br> -----<br><br> First, a major reason for a lack of such rules and mechanisms<br></blockquote> may be an educational gap. Administrators, politicians, and<br> staffers may simply not understand all this newfangled technology,<br> or how it works, and are drowning in a sea of terminology,<br> acronyms, and concepts that make no sense (to them). In the FCC<br> case, even the technical gurus may have deep knowledge of their<br> traditional realm of telephony, radio, and related issues and<br> policy tradeoffs. But they may be largely ignorant of computing<br> and networking equivalents. Probably even worse, they may<br> unconsciously consider the new world as a simple evolution of the<br> old, not recognizing the impact of incredibly fast computers and<br> communications, and the advances that they enable, such as "AI" -<br> whatever that is...<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> About 10 years ago, I accidentally got involved in a patent<br></blockquote> dispute to be an "expert witness", for a patent involving<br> downloading new programs over a communications path into a remote<br> computer (yes, what all our devices do almost every day). I was<br> astounded when I learned how little the "judicial system"<br> (lawyers, judges, legislators, etc.) knew about computer and<br> network technology. That didn't stop them from debating the<br> meaning of technical terms. What is RAM? How does "programming"<br> differ from "reprogramming"? What is "memory"? What is a<br> "processor"? What is an "operating system"? The arguments<br> continue until eventually a judge declares what the answer is,<br> with little technical knowledge or expertise to help. So you can<br> easily get legally binding definitions such as "operating system"<br> means "Windows", and that all computers contain an operating system.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> I spent hours on the phone over about 18 months, explaining to<br></blockquote> the lawyers how computers and networks actually worked. In turn,<br> they taught me quite a lot about the vagaries of the laws and<br> patents. It was fascinating but also disturbing to see how<br> ill-prepared the legal system was for new technologies.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> So, my suggestion is that a focus be placed on helping the<br></blockquote> non-technical decision makers understand the nuances of computing<br> and the Internet. I don't think that will be successful by<br> burying them in the sea of technical jargon and acronyms.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Before I retired, I spent a lot of time with C-suite denizens<br></blockquote> from companies outside of the technology industry - banks,<br> manufacturers, transportation, etc. - helping them understand what<br> "The Internet" was, and help them see it as both a huge<br> opportunity and a huge threat to their businesses. One technique<br> I used was simply stolen from the early days of The Internet.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> When we were involved in designing the internal mechanisms of<br></blockquote> the Internet, in particular TCPV4, we didn't know much about<br> networks either. So we used analogies. In particular we used the<br> existing transportation infrastructure as a model. Moving bits<br> around the world isn't all that different from moving goods and<br> people. But everyone, even with no technical expertise, knows<br> about transportation.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> It turns out that there are a lot of useful analogies. For<br></blockquote> example, we recognized that there were different kinds of<br> "traffic" with different needs. Coal for power plants was<br> important, but not urgent. If a coal train waits on a siding<br> while a passenger train passes, it's OK, even preferred. There<br> could be different "types of service" available from the<br> transportation infrastructure. At the time (late 1970s) we<br> didn't know exactly how to do that, but decided to put a field in<br> the IP header as a placeholder - the "TOS" field. Figuring out<br> what different TOSes there should be, and how they would be<br> handled differently, was still on the to-do list. There are even<br> analogies to the Internet - goods might travel over a "marine<br> network" to a "port", where they are moved onto a "rail network",<br> to a distributor, and moved on the highway network to their final<br> destination. Routers, gateways, ...<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Other transportation analogies reinforced the notion of TOS. <br></blockquote> E.g., if you're sending a document somewhere, you can choose how<br> to send it - normal postal mail, or Priority Mail, or even use a<br> different "network" such as an overnight delivery service. <br> Different TOS would engage different behaviors of the underlying<br> communications system, and might also have different costs to use<br> them. Sending a ton of coal to get delivered in a week or two<br> would cost a lot less than sending a ton of documents for<br> overnight delivery.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> There were other transportation analogies heard during the TCPV4<br></blockquote> design discussions - e.g., "Expressway Routing" (do you take a<br> direct route over local streets, or go to the freeway even though<br> it's longer) and "Multi-Homing" (your manufacturing plant has<br> access to both a highway and a rail line).<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Suggestion -- I suspect that using a familiar infrastructure<br></blockquote> such as transport to discuss issues with non-technical decision<br> makers would be helpful. E.g., imagine what would happen if some<br> particular "net neutrality" set of rules was placed on the<br> transportation infrastructure? Would it have a desirable effect?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> -----<br><br> Second, in addition to anonymity as an important issue in the<br></blockquote> electronic world, my experience as a mentee of Licklider surfaced<br> another important issue in the "galactic network" vision -- "Back<br> Pressure". The notion is based in existing knowledge. <br> Economics has notions of Supply and Demand and Cost Curves. <br> Engineering has the notion of "Negative Feedback" to stabilize<br> mechanical, electrical, or other systems.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> We discussed Back Pressure, in the mid 70s, in the context of<br></blockquote> electronic mail, and tried to get the notion of "stamps" accepted<br> as part of the email mechanisms. The basic idea was that there<br> had to be some form of "back pressure" to prevent overload by<br> discouraging sending of huge quantities of mail.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> At the time, mail traffic was light, since every message was<br></blockquote> typed by hand by some user. In Lick's group we had experimented<br> with using email as a way for computer programs to interact. In<br> Lick's vision, humans would interact by using their computers as<br> their agents. Even then, computers could send email a lot faster<br> and continuously than any human at a keyboard, and could easily<br> flood the network. [This epiphany occurred shortly after a<br> mistake in configuring distribution lists caused so many messages<br> and replies that our machine crashed as its disk space ran out.]<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> "Stamps" didn't necessarily represent monetary cost. Back<br></blockquote> pressure could be simple constraints, e.g., no user can send more<br> than 500 (or whatever) messages per day. This notion never got<br> enough support to become part of the email standards; I still<br> think it would help with the deluge of spam we all experience today.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Back Pressure in the Internet today is largely non-existent. I<br></blockquote> (or my AI and computers) can send as much email as I like. <br> Communications carriers promote "unlimited data" but won't<br> guarantee anything. Memory has become cheap, and as a result<br> behaviors such as "buffer bloat" have appeared.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Suggestion - educate the decision-makers about Back Pressure,<br></blockquote> using highway analogies (metering lights, etc.)<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> -----<br><br> Education about the new technology, but by using some familiar<br></blockquote> analogs, and introduction of Back Pressure, in some appropriate<br> form, as part of a "network neutrality" policy, would be the two<br> foci I'd recommend.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> My prior suggestion of "registration" and accepting only the<br></blockquote> last comment was based on the observations above. Back pressure<br> doesn't have to be monetary, and registered users don't have to be<br> personally identified. Simply making it sufficiently "hard" to<br> register (using CAPTCHAs, 2FA, whatever) would be a "cost"<br> discouraging "loud voices". Even the law firms submitting<br> millions of comments on behalf of their clients might balk at the<br> cost (in labor not money) to register their million clients, even<br> anonymously, so each could get his/her comment submitted. Of<br> course, they could always pass the costs on to their (million?<br> really?) clients. But it would still be Back Pressure.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> One possibility -- make the "cost" of submitting a million<br></blockquote> electronic comments equal to the cost of submitting a million<br> postcards...?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Jack Haverty<br><br><br> On 10/9/23 16:55, David Bray, PhD wrote:<br><br> Great points Vint as you're absolutely right - there are<br></blockquote> multiple modalities here (and in the past it was spam from<br> thousands of postcards, then mimeographs, then faxes, etc.)<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> The standard historically has been set by the Administrative<br></blockquote> Conference of the United States: <a href="https://www.acus.gov/about-acus">https://www.acus.gov/about-acus</a><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> In 2020 there seemed to be an effort to gave the General<br></blockquote> Services Administration weigh-in, however they closed that<br> rulemaking attempt without publishing any of the comments they got<br> and no announcement why it was closed.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> As for what part of Congress - I believe ACUS was championed by<br></blockquote> both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees as it has oversight<br> and responsibility for the interpretations of the Administrative<br> Procedure Act of 1946 (which sets out the whole rulemaking procedure).<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Sadly there isn't a standard across agencies - which also means<br></blockquote> there isn't a standard across Administrations. Back in 2018 and<br> 2020, both with this group of 52 people here<br> <a href="https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people">https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people</a> - as well as<br> individually - I did my darnest to encourage them to do a standard.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> There's also the National Academy of Public Administration which<br></blockquote> is probably the latest remaining non-partisan forum for<br> discussions like this too.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:46 PM Vint Cerf <vint@google.com> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> David, this is a good list.<br> FACA has rules for public participation, for example.<br><br> I think it should be taken into account for any public<br></blockquote></blockquote> commenting process that online (and offline such as USPS or fax<br> and phone calls) that spam and artificial inflation of comments<br> are possible. Is there any specific standard for US agency public<br> comment handling? If now, what committees of the US Congress might<br> have jurisdiction?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> v<br><br><br> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 8:22 AM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain<br></blockquote></blockquote> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> I'm all for doing new things to make things better.<br><br> At the same time, I used to do bioterrorism preparedness and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> response from 2000-2005 (and aside from asking myself what kind of<br> crazy world needed counter-bioterrorism efforts... I also realized<br> you don't want to interject something completely new in the middle<br> of an unfolding crisis event). If something were to be injected<br> now, it would have to have consensus from both sides, otherwise at<br> least one side (potentially detractors from both) will claim that<br> whatever form the new approaches take are somehow advantaging "the<br> other side" and disadvantaging them.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Probably would take a ruling by the Administrative Conference<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> of the United States, at a minimum to answer these five questions<br> - and even then, introducing something completely different in the<br> midst of a political melee might just invite mudslinging unless<br> moderate voices on both sides can reach some consensus.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 1. Does identity matter regarding who files a comment or not —<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> and must one be a U.S. person in order to file?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 2. Should agencies publish real-time counts of the number of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> comments received — or is it better to wait until the end of a<br> commenting round to make all comments available, including counts?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 3. Should third-party groups be able to file on behalf of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> someone else or not — and do agencies have the right to remove<br> spam-like comments?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 4. Should the public commenting process permit multiple<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> comments per individual for a proceeding — and if so, how many<br> comments from a single individual are too many? 100? 1000? More?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 5. Finally, should the U.S. government itself consider, given<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> public perceptions about potential conflicts of interest for any<br> agency performing a public commenting process, whether it would be<br> better to have third-party groups take responsibility for<br> assembling comments and then filing those comments via a validated<br> process with the government?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br><br> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:10 PM Jack Haverty <jack@3kitty.org><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Hi again David et al,<br><br> Interesting frenzy...lots of questions that need answers and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> associated policies. I served 6 years as an elected official (in<br> a small special district in California), so I have some small<br> understanding of the government side of things and the constraints<br> involved. Being in charge doesn't mean you can do what you want.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> I'm thinking here more near-term and incremental steps. You<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> said "These same questions need pragmatic pilots that involve the<br> public ..."<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> So, how about using the current NN situation for a pilot? <br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> Keep all the current ways and emerging AI techniques to continue<br> to flood the system with comments. But also offer an *optional*<br> way for humans to "register" as a commenter and then submit their<br> (latest only) comment into the melee. Will people use it? Will<br> "consumers" (the lawyers, commissioners, etc.) find it useful?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> I've found it curious, for decades now, that there are (too<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> many) mechanisms for "secure email", that may help with the flood<br> of disinformation from anonymous senders, but very very few people<br> use them. Maybe they don't know how; maybe the available schemes<br> are too flawed; maybe ...?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> About 30 years ago, I was a speaker in a public meeting<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> orchestrated by USPS, and recommended that they take a lead role,<br> e.g., by acting as a national CA - certificate authority. Never<br> happened though. FCC issues lots of licenses...perhaps they<br> could issue online credentials too?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Perhaps a "pilot" where you will also accept comments by<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> email, some possibly sent by "verified" humans if they understand<br> how to do so, would be worth trying? Perhaps comments on<br> "technical aspects" coming from people who demonstrably know how<br> to use technology would be valuable to the policy makers?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> The Internet, and technology such as TCP, began as an<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> experimental pilot about 50 years ago. Sometimes pilots become<br> infrastructures.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> FYI, I'm signing this message. Using OpenPGP. I could<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> encrypt it also, but my email program can't find your public key.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Jack Haverty<br><br><br> On 10/5/23 14:21, David Bray, PhD wrote:<br><br> Indeed Jack - a few things to balance - the Administrative<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> Procedure Act of 1946 (on which the idea of rulemaking is based)<br> us about raising legal concerns that must be answered by the<br> agency at the time the rulemaking is done. It's not a vote nor is<br> it the case that if the agency gets tons of comments in one<br> direction that they have to go in that direction. Instead it's<br> only about making sure legal concerns are considered and responded<br> to before the agency before the agency acts. (Which is partly why<br> sending "I'm for XYZ" or "I'm against ABC" really doesn't mean<br> anything to an agency - not only is that not a legal argument or<br> concern, it's also not something where they're obligated to follow<br> these comments - it's not a vote or poll).<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> That said, political folks have spun things to the public as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> if it is a poll/vote/chance to act. The raise a valid legal<br> concern part of the APA of 1946 is omitted. Moreover the fact that<br> third party law firms and others like to submit comments on behalf<br> of clients - there will always be a third party submitting<br> multiple comments for their clients (or "clients") because that's<br> their business.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> In the lead up to 2017, the Consumer and Government Affairs<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> Bureau of the FCC got an inquiry from a firm asking how they could<br> submit 1 million comments a day on an "upcoming privacy<br> proceeding" (their words, astute observers will note there was no<br> privacy proceeding before the FCC in 2017). When the Bureau asked<br> me, I told them either mail us a CD to upload it or submit one<br> comment with 1 million signatures. To attempt to flood us with 1<br> million comments a day (aside from the fact who can "predict"<br> having that many daily) would deny resources to others. In the<br> mess that followed, what was released to the public was so<br> redacted you couldn't see the legitimate concerns and better paths<br> that were offered to this entity.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> And the FCC isn't alone. EPA, FTC, and other regulatory<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> agencies have had these hijinks for years - and before the<br> Internet it was faxes, mass mimeographs (remember blue ink?), and<br> postcards.The Administrative Conference of the United States<br> (ACUS) - is the body that is supposed to provide consistent<br> guidance for things like this across the U.S. government. I've<br> briefed them and tried to raise awareness of these issues - as I<br> think fundamentally this is a **process** question that once<br> answered, tech can support. However they're not technologies and<br> updating the interpretation of the process isn't something lawyers<br> are apt to do until the evidence that things are in trouble is<br> overwhelming.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 52 folks wrote a letter to them - and to GSA - back in 2020.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> GSA had a rulemaking of its own on how to improve things, yet<br> oddly never published any of the comments it received (including<br> ours) and closed the rulemaking quietly. Here's the letter:<br> <a href="https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people">https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people</a><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> And here's an article published in OODAloop about this - and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> why Generative AI is probably going to make things even more<br> challenging:<br> <a href="https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective">https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective</a>/<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> [snippet of the article] Now in 2023 and Beyond: Proactive<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> Approaches to AI and Society<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Looking to the future, to effectively address the challenges<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> arising from AI, we must foster a proactive, results-oriented, and<br> cooperative approach with the public. Think tanks and universities<br> can engage the public in conversations about how to work, live,<br> govern, and co-exist with modern technologies that impact society.<br> By involving diverse voices in the decision-making process, we can<br> better address and resolve the complex challenges AI presents on<br> local and national levels.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> In addition, we must encourage industry and political leaders<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> to participate in finding non-partisan, multi-sector solutions if<br> civil societies are to remain stable. By working together, we can<br> bridge the gap between technological advancements and their<br> societal implications.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Finally, launching AI pilots across various sectors, such as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> work, education, health, law, and civil society, is essential. We<br> must learn by doing on how we can create responsible civil<br> environments where AIs can be developed and deployed responsibly.<br> These initiatives can help us better understand and integrate AI<br> into our lives, ensuring its potential is harnessed for the<br> greater good while mitigating risks.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> In 2019 and 2020, a group of fifty-two people asked the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> Administrative Conference of the United States (which helps guide<br> rulemaking procedures for federal agencies), General Accounting<br> Office, and the General Services Administration to call attention<br> to the need to address the challenges of chatbots flooding public<br> commenting procedures and potentially crowding out or denying<br> services to actual humans wanting to leave a comment. We asked:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 1. Does identity matter regarding who files a comment or not<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> — and must one be a U.S. person in order to file?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 2. Should agencies publish real-time counts of the number of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> comments received — or is it better to wait until the end of a<br> commenting round to make all comments available, including counts?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 3. Should third-party groups be able to file on behalf of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> someone else or not — and do agencies have the right to remove<br> spam-like comments?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 4. Should the public commenting process permit multiple<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> comments per individual for a proceeding — and if so, how many<br> comments from a single individual are too many? 100? 1000? More?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> 5. Finally, should the U.S. government itself consider, given<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> public perceptions about potential conflicts of interest for any<br> agency performing a public commenting process, whether it would be<br> better to have third-party groups take responsibility for<br> assembling comments and then filing those comments via a validated<br> process with the government?<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> These same questions need pragmatic pilots that involve the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> public to co-explore and co-develop how we operate effectively<br> amid these technological shifts. As the capabilities of LLMs<br> continue to grow, we need positive change agents willing to tackle<br> the messy issues at the intersection of technology and society.<br> The challenges are immense, but so too are the opportunities for<br> positive change. Let’s seize this moment to create a better<br> tomorrow for all. Working together, we can co-create a future that<br> embraces AI’s potential while mitigating its risks, informed by<br> the hard lessons we have already learned.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Full article:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> <a href="https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective">https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective</a>/<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Hope this helps.<br><br><br> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 4:44 PM Jack Haverty via Nnagain<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Thanks for all your efforts to keep the "feedback loop" to
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> the rulemakers functioning!<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
I'd like to offer a suggestion for a hopefully politically
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> acceptable way to handle the deluge, derived from my own battles<br> with "email" over the years (decades).<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Back in the 1970s, I implemented one of the first email
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> systems on the Arpanet, under the mentorship of JCR Licklider, who<br> had been pursuing his vision of a "Galactic Network" at ARPA and<br> MIT. One of the things we discovered was the significance of<br> anonymity. At the time, anonymity was forbidden on the Arpanet;<br> you needed an account on some computer, protected by passwords, in<br> order to legitimately use the network. The mechanisms were crude<br> and easily broken, but the principle applied.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Over the years, that principle has been forgotten, and the
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> right to be anonymous has become entrenched. But many uses of<br> the network, and needs of its users, demand accountability, so all<br> sorts of mechanisms have been pasted on top of the network to<br> provide ways to judge user identity. Banks, medical services,<br> governments, and businesses all demand some way of proving your<br> identity, with passwords, various schemes of 2FA, VPNs, or other<br> such technology, with varying degrees of protection. It is still<br> possible to be anonymous on the net, but many things you do<br> require you to prove, to some extent, who you are.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
So, my suggestion for handling the deluge of "comments" is:
<br>
<br>
1/ create some mechanism for "registering" your intent to
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> submit a comment. Make it hard for bots to register. Perhaps<br> you can leverage the work of various partners, e.g., ISPs,<br> retailers, government agencies, financial institutions, of others<br> who already have some way of identifying their users.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
2/ Also make registration optional - anyone can still submit
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> comments anonymously if they choose.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
3/ for "registered commenters", provide a way to "edit" your
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> previous comment - i.e., advise that your comment is always the<br> last one you submitted. I.E., whoever you are, you can only<br> submit one comment, which will be the last one you submit.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
4/ In the thousands of pages of comments, somehow flag the
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> ones that are from registered commenters, visible to the people<br> who read the comments. Even better, provide those "information<br> consumers" with ways to sort, filter, and search through the body<br> of comments.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
This may not reduce the deluge of comments, but I'd expect
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> it to help the lawyers and politicians keep their heads above the<br> water.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Anonymity is an important issue for Net Neutrality too, but
<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>