<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
FYI, The Arpanet was a key player in that patent fight. The Arpanet
IMPs (the packet switches) downloaded software from each other, and
that capability was used to distribute new releases of the IMP
program. I suggested that 1970s implementation to the lawyers as a
good example of prior art, which led to a lot of work that
eventually resurrected the 1970s IMP code from a moldy listing in
someone's basement, and got it running again on simulated ancient
hardware. At one point the 4-node Arpanet of 1970 was created and
run, in anticipation of a demo of prior art at trial. Sadly (for me
at least) the combatants suddenly settled out of court, so the trial
never happened and the patent issue was not adjudicated. But the
resurrected IMP code is on github now, so anyone interested can run
their own Arpanet.<br>
<br>
Jack<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/10/23 08:53, Steve Crocker via
Nnagain wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABf5zvJiZXT16jJsijbUYj0+KBebm8-POOtyW=vrxOv0dcMgXw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Lots
of good stuff here and I missed the earlier posts, but one
small thing caught my attention:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">>
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). </span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">In
the seminal period of late 1968 and early 1969 when we were
thinking about Arpanet protocols, one idea that was very much
part of our thinking was downloading a small program at the
beginning of an interactive session. The downloaded program
would take care of local interactions to avoid the need to
send every character across the net only to have it echoed
remotely. Why not always use local echo? Because most of
the time-shared systems in the various ARPA-supported research
environments had distinct ways of interpreting each and
every character. Imposing a network-wide rule of local
echoing would have compromised the usability of most of the
systems on the Arpanet. I think Multics was the only "modern"
line-at-a-time system at the time.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">In
March 1969 we decided it was time to write down the ideas from
our meetings in late 1968 and early 1969. The first batch of
RFCs included Rulifson's RFC 5. He proposed DEL, the
Decode-Encode Language. Elie's RFC 51 a year later proposed
the Network Interchange Language. In both cases the basic
concept was the creation of a simple language, easily
implementable on each platform, that would mediate the
interaction with a remote system. The programs were expected
to be short -- hence downloadable quickly -- and either
interpreted or quickly translated. There was a tiny bit of
experimental work along this line, but it was far ahead of its
time. I think it was about 25 years before ActiveX came
along, followed by Java.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Steve</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at
11:30 AM Dave Taht via Nnagain <<a
href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:56 PM Jack Haverty via Nnagain<br>
<<a href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
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" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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>
> IMHO, the problem may be that the Internet, and computing
technology in general, is so new that non-technical
organizations, such as government entities, don't understand
it and therefore can't figure out whether or how to regulate
anything involved.<br>
><br>
> In other, older, "technologies", rules, procedures, and
traditions have developed over the years to provide for
feedback and control between governees 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.<br>
><br>
> Organizations have figured out over the years how to
manage meetings. [Vint - remember the "Rathole!" mechanism
that we used to keep Internet meetings on track...?]<br>
<br>
PARC had "Dealer".<br>
<br>
> From what David describes, it sounds like the current
"public comment" mechanisms in the electronic arena are only
at the stage where the loudest voices can drown out all
others, and public debates are essentially useless cacophonies
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?<br>
><br>
> In non-electronic public forums, such behavior is ruled
out, and if it persists, the governing body can have offenders
ejected, adjourn a meeting until cooler heads prevail, or
otherwise make the discourse useful for informing decisions.
Courts can issue restraining orders, but has any court ever
issued such an order applying to an electronic forum?<br>
><br>
> So, why haven't organizations yet developed rules and
mechanisms for managing electronic discussions....?<br>
><br>
> I'd offer two observations and suggestions.<br>
><br>
> -----<br>
><br>
> First, a major reason for a lack of such rules and
mechanisms may be an educational gap. Administrators,
politicians, and staffers may simply not understand all this
newfangled technology, or how it works, and are drowning in a
sea of terminology, acronyms, and concepts that make no sense
(to them). 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 equivalents.
Probably even worse, they may unconsciously consider the new
world as a simple evolution of the old, not recognizing the
impact of incredibly fast computers and communications, and
the advances that they enable, such as "AI" - whatever that
is...<br>
><br>
> 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
"judicial system" (lawyers, judges, legislators, etc.) knew
about computer and network technology. That didn't stop them
from debating the meaning of technical terms. What is RAM?
How does "programming" differ from "reprogramming"? What is
"memory"? What is a "processor"? What is an "operating
system"? The arguments continue until eventually a judge
declares what the answer is, with little technical knowledge
or expertise to help. So you can easily get legally binding
definitions such as "operating system" means "Windows", and
that all computers contain an operating system.<br>
><br>
> I spent hours on the phone over about 18 months,
explaining to the lawyers how computers and networks actually
worked. In turn, they taught me quite a lot about the
vagaries of the laws and patents. It was fascinating but also
disturbing to see how ill-prepared the legal system was for
new technologies.<br>
><br>
> 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 don't think that will be
successful by burying them in the sea of technical jargon and
acronyms.<br>
><br>
> Before I retired, I spent a lot of time with C-suite
denizens from companies outside of the technology industry -
banks, manufacturers, transportation, etc. - helping them
understand what "The Internet" was, and help them see it as
both a huge opportunity and a huge threat to their
businesses. One technique I used was simply stolen from the
early days of The Internet.<br>
><br>
> When we were involved in designing the internal
mechanisms of the Internet, in particular TCPV4, we didn't
know much about networks either. So we used analogies. In
particular we used the existing transportation infrastructure
as a model. Moving bits around the world isn't all that
different from moving goods and people. But everyone, even
with no technical expertise, knows about transportation.<br>
><br>
> It turns out that there are a lot of useful analogies.
For example, we recognized that there were different kinds of
"traffic" with different needs. Coal for power plants was
important, but not urgent. If a coal train waits on a siding
while a passenger train passes, it's OK, even preferred.
There could be different "types of service" available from
the transportation 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 - the "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,
gateways, ...<br>
><br>
> Other transportation analogies reinforced the notion of
TOS. E.g., if you're sending a document somewhere, you can
choose how to send it - normal postal 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 costs to use them. Sending a ton of coal
to get delivered in a week or two would cost a lot less than
sending a ton of documents for overnight delivery.<br>
><br>
> There were other transportation analogies heard during
the TCPV4 design discussions - e.g., "Expressway Routing" (do
you take a direct route over local streets, or go to the
freeway even though it's longer) and "Multi-Homing" (your
manufacturing plant has access to both a highway and a rail
line).<br>
><br>
> Suggestion -- I suspect that using a familiar
infrastructure such as transport 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?<br>
><br>
> -----<br>
><br>
> Second, in addition to anonymity as an important issue in
the electronic world, my experience as a mentee of Licklider
surfaced another important issue in the "galactic network"
vision -- "Back Pressure". The notion is based in existing
knowledge. Economics has notions of Supply and Demand and
Cost Curves. Engineering has the notion of "Negative
Feedback" to stabilize mechanical, electrical, or other
systems.<br>
><br>
> 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 pressure" to
prevent overload by discouraging sending of huge quantities of
mail.<br>
><br>
> At the time, mail traffic was light, since every message
was typed by hand 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 interact 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 mistake in configuring distribution
lists caused so many messages and replies that our machine
crashed as its disk space ran out.]<br>
><br>
> "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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Suggestion - educate the decision-makers about Back
Pressure, using highway analogies (metering lights, etc.)<br>
><br>
> -----<br>
><br>
> Education about the new technology, but by using some
familiar analogs, and introduction of Back Pressure, in some
appropriate form, as part of a "network neutrality" policy,
would be the two foci I'd recommend.<br>
><br>
> My prior suggestion of "registration" and accepting only
the last comment was based on the observations above. Back
pressure doesn't have to be monetary, and registered users
don't have to be personally identified. Simply making it
sufficiently "hard" to register (using CAPTCHAs, 2FA,
whatever) would be a "cost" discouraging "loud voices". Even
the law firms submitting millions of comments on behalf of
their clients might balk at the cost (in labor not money) to
register their million clients, even anonymously, so each
could get his/her comment submitted. Of course, they could
always pass the costs on to their (million? really?) clients.
But it would still be Back Pressure.<br>
><br>
> One possibility -- make the "cost" of submitting a
million electronic comments equal to the cost of submitting a
million postcards...?<br>
><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
multiple modalities here (and in the past it was spam from
thousands of postcards, then mimeographs, then faxes, etc.)<br>
><br>
> The standard historically has been set by the
Administrative Conference of the United States: <a
href="https://www.acus.gov/about-acus" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.acus.gov/about-acus</a><br>
><br>
> In 2020 there seemed to be an effort to gave the General
Services Administration weigh-in, however they closed that
rulemaking attempt without publishing any of the comments they
got and no announcement why it was closed.<br>
><br>
> As for what part of Congress - I believe ACUS was
championed by both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees
as it has oversight and responsibility for the interpretations
of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (which sets out
the whole rulemaking procedure).<br>
><br>
> 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 <a
href="https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people</a>
- as well as individually - I did my darnest to encourage them
to do a standard.<br>
><br>
> There's also the National Academy of Public
Administration which is probably the latest remaining
non-partisan forum for discussions like this too.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:46 PM Vint Cerf <<a
href="mailto:vint@google.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">vint@google.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><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 commenting process that online (and offline such as
USPS or fax and phone calls) that spam and artificial
inflation of comments are possible. Is there any specific
standard for US agency public comment handling? If now, what
committees of the US Congress might have jurisdiction?<br>
>><br>
>> v<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 8:22 AM David Bray, PhD via
Nnagain <<a href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>><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 response from 2000-2005 (and aside from
asking myself what kind of crazy world needed
counter-bioterrorism efforts... I also realized you don't want
to interject 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 both sides, otherwise at
least one side (potentially detractors from both) will claim
that whatever form the new approaches take are somehow
advantaging "the other side" and disadvantaging them.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Probably would take a ruling by the
Administrative Conference of the United States, at a minimum
to answer these five questions - and even then, introducing
something completely different in the midst of a political
melee might just invite mudslinging unless moderate voices on
both sides can reach some consensus.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. Does identity matter regarding who files a
comment or not — and must one be a U.S. person in order to
file?<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. Should agencies publish real-time counts of
the number of comments received — or is it better to wait
until the end of a commenting round to make all comments
available, including counts?<br>
>>><br>
>>> 3. Should third-party groups be able to file on
behalf of someone else or not — and do agencies have the right
to remove spam-like comments?<br>
>>><br>
>>> 4. Should the public commenting process permit
multiple comments per individual for a proceeding — and if so,
how many comments from a single individual are too many? 100?
1000? More?<br>
>>><br>
>>> 5. Finally, should the U.S. government itself
consider, given public perceptions about potential conflicts
of interest for any agency performing a public commenting
process, whether it would be better to have third-party groups
take responsibility for assembling comments and then filing
those comments via a validated process with the government?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:10 PM Jack Haverty <<a
href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">jack@3kitty.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hi again David et al,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Interesting frenzy...lots of questions that
need answers and associated policies. I served 6 years as an
elected official (in a small special district in California),
so I have some small understanding of the government side of
things and the constraints involved. Being in charge doesn't
mean you can do what you want.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I'm thinking here more near-term and
incremental steps. You said "These same questions need
pragmatic pilots that involve the public ..."<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> So, how about using the current NN situation
for a pilot? Keep all the current ways and emerging AI
techniques to continue to flood the system with comments.
But also offer an *optional* way for humans to "register" as
a commenter and then submit their (latest only) comment into
the melee. Will people use it? Will "consumers" (the
lawyers, commissioners, etc.) find it useful?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I've found it curious, for decades now, that
there are (too many) mechanisms for "secure email", that may
help with the flood of disinformation from anonymous senders,
but very very few people use them. Maybe they don't know
how; maybe the available schemes are too flawed; maybe ...?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> About 30 years ago, I was a speaker in a
public meeting orchestrated by USPS, and recommended that they
take a lead role, e.g., by acting as a national CA -
certificate authority. Never happened though. FCC issues
lots of licenses...perhaps they could issue online credentials
too?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Perhaps a "pilot" where you will also accept
comments by email, some possibly 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 policy makers?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The Internet, and technology such as TCP,
began as an experimental pilot about 50 years ago. Sometimes
pilots become infrastructures.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> FYI, I'm signing this message. Using
OpenPGP. I could encrypt it also, but my email program can't
find your public key.<br>
>>>><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 Procedure Act of 1946 (on which the idea of
rulemaking is based) us about raising legal concerns that must
be answered by the agency at the time the rulemaking is done.
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 it's only about making sure legal concerns
are considered and responded to before 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 -
not only is that not a legal argument or concern, it's also
not something where they're obligated to follow these comments
- it's not a vote or poll).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 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 third party submitting multiple comments for their clients
(or "clients") because that's their business.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 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 comments a day on
an "upcoming privacy proceeding" (their words, astute
observers will note there was no privacy proceeding before the
FCC in 2017). When the Bureau asked me, I told them either
mail us a CD to upload it or submit one comment with 1 million
signatures. To attempt to flood us with 1 million comments a
day (aside from the fact who can "predict" having that many
daily) would deny resources to others. In the mess that
followed, what was released to the public was so redacted you
couldn't see the legitimate concerns and better paths that
were offered to this entity.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 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 mimeographs (remember
blue ink?), and postcards.The Administrative Conference of the
United States (ACUS) - is the body that is supposed to provide
consistent guidance for things like this across the U.S.
government. I've briefed them and tried to raise awareness of
these issues - as I think fundamentally this is a **process**
question that once answered, tech can support. However they're
not technologies and updating the interpretation of the
process isn't something lawyers are apt to do until the
evidence that things are in trouble is overwhelming.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 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: <a
href="https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> And here's an article published in OODAloop
about this - and why Generative AI is probably going to make
things even more challenging: <a
href="https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective/</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> [snippet of the article] Now in 2023 and
Beyond: Proactive Approaches to AI and Society<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Looking to the future, to effectively address
the challenges arising from AI, we must foster a proactive,
results-oriented, and cooperative approach with the public.
Think tanks and universities can engage the public in
conversations about how to work, live, govern, and co-exist
with modern technologies 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.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> In addition, we must encourage industry and
political leaders to participate in finding non-partisan,
multi-sector solutions if civil societies are to remain
stable. By working together, we can bridge the gap between
technological advancements and their societal implications.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Finally, launching AI pilots across various
sectors, such as work, education, health, law, and civil
society, is essential. We must learn by doing on how we can
create responsible civil environments where AIs can be
developed and deployed responsibly. These initiatives can help
us better understand and integrate AI into our lives, ensuring
its potential is harnessed for the greater good while
mitigating risks.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> In 2019 and 2020, a group of fifty-two people
asked the Administrative Conference of the United States
(which helps guide rulemaking procedures for federal
agencies), General Accounting Office, and the General Services
Administration to call attention to the need to address the
challenges of chatbots flooding public commenting procedures
and potentially crowding out or denying services to actual
humans wanting to leave a comment. We asked:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 1. Does identity matter regarding who files a
comment or not — and must one be a U.S. person in order to
file?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 2. Should agencies publish real-time counts
of the number of comments received — or is it better to wait
until the end of a commenting round to make all comments
available, including counts?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 3. Should third-party groups be able to file
on behalf of someone else or not — and do agencies have the
right to remove spam-like comments?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 4. Should the public commenting process
permit multiple comments per individual for a proceeding — and
if so, how many comments from a single individual are too
many? 100? 1000? More?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 5. Finally, should the U.S. government itself
consider, given public perceptions about potential conflicts
of interest for any agency performing a public commenting
process, whether it would be better to have third-party groups
take responsibility for assembling comments and then filing
those comments via a validated process with the government?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> These same questions need pragmatic pilots
that involve the public to co-explore and co-develop how we
operate effectively amid these technological shifts. As the
capabilities of LLMs continue to grow, we need positive change
agents willing to tackle the messy issues at the intersection
of technology and society. The challenges are immense, but so
too are the opportunities for positive change. Let’s seize
this moment to create a better tomorrow for all. Working
together, we can co-create a future that embraces AI’s
potential while mitigating its risks, informed by the hard
lessons we have already learned.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Full article: <a
href="https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective/</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hope this helps.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 4:44 PM Jack Haverty
via Nnagain <<a href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Thanks for all your efforts to keep the
"feedback loop" to the rulemakers functioning!<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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 the years
(decades).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Back in the 1970s, I implemented one of
the first email systems on the 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
discovered was the significance of anonymity. At the time,
anonymity was forbidden 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.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Over the years, that principle has been
forgotten, and the right to be anonymous has become
entrenched. But many uses of the network, and needs of its
users, demand accountability, so all sorts of mechanisms have
been pasted on top of the network to provide ways to judge
user identity. Banks, medical services, governments, and
businesses all demand some way of proving 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, to some extent, who you are.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> So, my suggestion for handling the deluge
of "comments" is:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1/ create some mechanism for
"registering" your intent to submit a comment. Make it hard
for bots to register. Perhaps you can leverage the work of
various partners, e.g., ISPs, retailers, government agencies,
financial institutions, of others who already have some way of
identifying their users.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 2/ Also make registration optional -
anyone can still submit comments anonymously if they choose.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 3/ for "registered commenters", provide a
way to "edit" your previous comment - i.e., advise that your
comment is always the last one you submitted. I.E., whoever
you are, you can only submit one comment, which will be the
last one you submit.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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,
filter, and search through the body of comments.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Anonymity is an important issue for Net
Neutrality too, but I'll opine about that separately.....<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Jack Haverty<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 10/2/23 12:38, David Bray, PhD via
Nnagain wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Greetings all and thank you Dave Taht for
that very kind intro...<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> First, I'll open with I'm a gosh-darn
non-partisan, which means I swore an oath to uphold the
Constitution first and serve the United States - not a
specific party, tribe, or ideology. This often means,
especially in today's era of 24/7 news and social media,
non-partisans have to "top cover".<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Second, I'll share that in what happened
in 2017 (which itself was 10x 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.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> In some respects this is not new. The
whole "notice and comment" process is a legacy process that
goes back decades. And the FCC (and others) have 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.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Which gets me to my biggest concern as a
non-partisan in 2023-2024, namely how LLMs might misuse and
abuse the commenting process further.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Both in 2014 and 2017, I asked FCC
General Counsel if I could use CAPTChA to try to reduce the
volume of web scrapers or bots both filing and pulling info
from the Electronic Comment Filing System.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Both times I was told *no* out of
concerns that they might prevent someone from filing. I asked
if I could block obvious spam, defined as someone filing a
comment >100 times a minute, and was similarly told no
because one of those possible comments might be genuine and/or
it could be an ex party filing en masse for others.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> For 2017 we had to spin up 30x the number
of AWS cloud instances to handle the load - and this was a
flood of comments at 4am, 5am, and 6am ET at night which
normally shouldn’t see such volumes. When I said there was a
combination of actual humans wanting to leave comments and
others who 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, that
couldn’t be happening.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> So with Net Neutrality back on the agenda
- here’s a simple prediction, even if the volume of comments
is somehow controlled, 10,000+ pages 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
legal argument on page 6,517 - will FCC’s lawyers spot it and
respond to it as part of the NPRM?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Hope this helps and with highest regards,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -d.<br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc.
& Distinguished Fellow<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Henry S. Stimson Center, Business
Executives for National Security<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:15 PM Dave Taht
via Nnagain <<a href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> All:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I have spent the last several days
reaching out to as many people I<br>
>>>>>> know with a deep understanding of the
policy and technical issues<br>
>>>>>> surrounding the internet, to
participate on this list. I encourage you<br>
>>>>>> all to reach out on your own,
especially to those that you can<br>
>>>>>> constructively and civilly disagree
with, and hopefully work with, to<br>
>>>>>> establish technical steps forward.
Quite a few have joined silently!<br>
>>>>>> So far, 168 people have joined!<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Please welcome Dr David Bray[1], a
self-described "human flack jacket"<br>
>>>>>> who, in the last NN debate, stood up
for the non -partisan FCC IT team<br>
>>>>>> that successfully kept the system up
99.4% of the time despite the<br>
>>>>>> comment floods and network abuses
from all sides. He has shared with<br>
>>>>>> me privately many sad (and some
hilarious!) stories of that era, and I<br>
>>>>>> do kind of hope now, that some of
that history surfaces, and we can<br>
>>>>>> learn from it.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Thank you very much, David, for
putting down your painful memories[2],<br>
>>>>>> and agreeing to join here. There is a
lot to tackle here, going<br>
>>>>>> forward.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> [1] <a
href="https://www.stimson.org/ppl/david-bray/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.stimson.org/ppl/david-bray/</a><br>
>>>>>> [2] "Pain shared is reduced. Joy
shared, increased." - Spider Robinson<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>> Oct 30: <a
href="https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html</a><br>
>>>>>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos<br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Nnagain mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a
href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Nnagain mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a
href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Nnagain mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a
href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Nnagain mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>> <a
href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:<br>
>> Vint Cerf<br>
>> Google, LLC<br>
>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor<br>
>> Reston, VA 20190<br>
>> +1 (571) 213 1346<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> until further notice<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Nnagain mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Oct 30: <a
href="https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html</a><br>
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Nnagain mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>