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.
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...?]
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?
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?
So, why haven't organizations yet developed rules and mechanisms for managing electronic discussions....?
I'd offer two observations and suggestions. -----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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, ...
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.
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).
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?
-----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.
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.
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.]
"Stamps" didn't necessarily represent monetary cost. Back pressure could be simple constraints, e.g., no user can send more than 500 (or whatever) messages per day. This notion never got enough support to become part of the email standards; I still think it would help with the deluge of spam we all experience today.
Back Pressure in the Internet today is largely non-existent. I (or my AI and computers) can send as much email as I like. Communications carriers promote "unlimited data" but won't guarantee anything. Memory has become cheap, and as a result behaviors such as "buffer bloat" have appeared.
Suggestion - educate the decision-makers about Back Pressure, using highway analogies (metering lights, etc.)
-----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.
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.
One possibility -- make the "cost" of submitting a million electronic comments equal to the cost of submitting a million postcards...?
Jack Haverty On 10/9/23 16:55, David Bray, PhD wrote:
Great points Vint as you're absolutely right - there are multiple modalities here (and in the past it was spam from thousands of postcards, then mimeographs, then faxes, etc.)The standard historically has been set by the Administrative Conference of the United States: https://www.acus.gov/about-acusIn 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.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).Sadly there isn't a standard across agencies - which also means there isn't a standard across Administrations. Back in 2018 and 2020, both with this group of 52 people here https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people - as well as individually - I did my darnest to encourage them to do a standard.There's also the National Academy of Public Administration which is probably the latest remaining non-partisan forum for discussions like this too.On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:46 PM Vint Cerf <[email protected]> wrote: David, this is a good list. FACA has rules for public participation, for example. I think it should be taken into account for any public commenting 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? v On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 8:22 AM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain <[email protected]> wrote: I'm all for doing new things to make things better. 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. 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. *1. Does identity matter regarding who files a comment or not — and must one be a U.S. person in order to file?* *2. Should agencies publish real-time counts of the number of comments received — or is it better to wait until the end of a commenting round to make all comments available, including counts?* *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?* *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?* *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?* On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:10 PM Jack Haverty <[email protected]> wrote: Hi again David et al, 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. I'm thinking here more near-term and incremental steps. You said "These same questions need pragmatic pilots that involve the public ..." 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? 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 ...? 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? 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? The Internet, and technology such as TCP, began as an experimental pilot about 50 years ago. Sometimes pilots become infrastructures. FYI, I'm signing this message. Using OpenPGP. I could encrypt it also, but my email program can't find your public key. Jack Haverty On 10/5/23 14:21, David Bray, PhD wrote:Indeed Jack - a few things to balance - the Administrative Procedure 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). 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. 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. 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. 52 folks wrote a letter to them - and to GSA - back in 2020. GSA had a rulemaking of its own on how to improve things, yet oddly never published any of the comments it received (including ours) and closed the rulemaking quietly. Here's the letter: https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people And here's an article published in OODAloop about this - and why Generative AI is probably going to make things even more challenging: https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective/ [snippet of the article] *Now in 2023 and Beyond: Proactive Approaches to AI and Society* Looking to the future, to effectively address the challenges arising from AI, we must foster a proactive, results-oriented, and cooperative approach with the public <https://davidbray.medium.com/challenges-and-needed-new-solutions-for-open-societies-to-maintain-civil-discourse-part-1-b5ea95f8c679>. 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. 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. 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. In 2019 and 2020, a group of fifty-two people asked the Administrative Conference of the United States <https://tinyurl.com/letter-signed-52-people>(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 <https://davidbray.medium.com/challenges-and-needed-new-solutions-for-open-societies-to-maintain-civil-discourse-part-1-b5ea95f8c679>: *1. Does identity matter regarding who files a comment or not — and must one be a U.S. person in order to file?* *2. Should agencies publish real-time counts of the number of comments received — or is it better to wait until the end of a commenting round to make all comments available, including counts?* *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?* *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?* *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?* These same questions need pragmatic pilots that involve the public to co-explore and co-develop how we operate effectively amid these technological shifts <https://davidbray.medium.com/challenges-and-needed-new-solutions-for-open-societies-to-maintain-civil-discourse-part-2-2f637c472112>. 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 <https://medium.com/peoplecentered/the-need-for-people-centered-sources-of-hope-for-our-digital-future-ahead-ef491dd2703d>, informed by the hard lessons we have already learned. Full article: https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2023/04/18/why-a-pause-on-ai-development-is-not-the-answer-an-insiders-perspective/ Hope this helps. On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 4:44 PM Jack Haverty via Nnagain <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks for all your efforts to keep the "feedback loop" to the rulemakers functioning! I'd like to offer a suggestion for a hopefully politically acceptable way to handle the deluge, derived from my own battles with "email" over the years (decades). 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. 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. So, my suggestion for handling the deluge of "comments" is: 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. 2/ Also make registration optional - anyone can still submit comments anonymously if they choose. 3/ for "registered commenters", provide a way to "edit" your previous comment - i.e., advise that your comment is always the last one you submitted. I.E., whoever you are, you can only submit one comment, which will be the last one you submit. 4/ In the thousands of pages of comments, somehow flag the ones that are from registered commenters, visible to the people who read the comments. Even better, provide those "information consumers" with ways to sort, filter, and search through the body of comments. This may not reduce the deluge of comments, but I'd expect it to help the lawyers and politicians keep their heads above the water. Anonymity is an important issue for Net Neutrality too, but I'll opine about that separately..... Jack Haverty On 10/2/23 12:38, David Bray, PhD via Nnagain wrote:Greetings all and thank you Dave Taht for that very kind intro... First, I'll open with I'm a gosh-darn non-partisan, which means I 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Until 2021 when the NY Attorney General proved that was exactly what was happening with 18m of the 23m apparently from non-authentic origin with ~9m from one side of the political aisle (and six companies) and ~9m from the other side of the political aisle (and one or more teenagers). So with Net Neutrality back on the agenda - here’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? Hope this helps and with highest regards, -d.--Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc. <https://www.leaddoadapt.com/> & Distinguished Fellow Henry S. Stimson Center <https://www.stimson.org/ppl/david-bray/>, Business Executives for National Security <https://bens.org/people/dr-david-bray/> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:15 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <[email protected]> wrote: All: I have spent the last several days reaching out to as many people I know with a deep understanding of the policy and technical issues surrounding the internet, to participate on this list. I encourage you all to reach out on your own, especially to those that you can constructively and civilly disagree with, and hopefully work with, to establish technical steps forward. Quite a few have joined silently! So far, 168 people have joined! Please welcome Dr David Bray[1], a self-described "human flack jacket" who, in the last NN debate, stood up for the non -partisan FCC IT team that successfully kept the system up 99.4% of the time despite the comment floods and network abuses from all sides. He has shared with me privately many sad (and some hilarious!) stories of that era, and I do kind of hope now, that some of that history surfaces, and we can learn from it. Thank you very much, David, for putting down your painful memories[2], and agreeing to join here. There is a lot to tackle here, going forward. [1] https://www.stimson.org/ppl/david-bray/ [2] "Pain shared is reduced. Joy shared, increased." - Spider Robinson-- Oct 30:https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos _______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain _______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain_______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain_______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain-- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:Vint Cerf Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor Reston, VA 20190 +1 (571) 213 1346 until further notice
_______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
