AO FCC OnlineComments Emails 201805 (1) Redacted

From: Chris Bing
To: David Bray

Cc: Mark Wigfield; Will Wiquist; Neil Grace
Subject: Re: [FEDSCOOP] - FCC experiences DDoS?
Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 4:29:50 PM
Thanks David.
No problem. Just sent similar questions separately to the general press email.
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:24 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Hi Chris,
Happy to help – that said, can you route through OMR as they have some answers already
available and then we can go from there? Many thanks.
From: Chris Bing [mailto:chris.bing@fedscoop.com]

Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 4:24 PM
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>
Subject: [FEDSCOOP] - FCC experiences DDoS?
Hi David,
My name is Chris Bing, I am a cybersecurity reporter with FedScoop. I am interested in this

statement: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.pdf
My colleague Billy Mitchell sent me your contact information. I am curious about this
DDoS story. I have a few questions -- also available by phone:
1.) Was the DDoS limited to only the comment section of the FCC's website? Were other
services affected? Do you have any idea for why this occurred or who did this attack?
2.) How were you able to confirm this incident was in fact a DDoS rather than pure internet
traffic? How do you define a DDoS attack -- can you provide any additional technical details
like the amount of traffic? For long did the disruption last?
--
Christopher Bing
Cybersecurity Reporter
Scoop News Group
FedScoop//StateScoop//EdScoop//CyberScoop
E: Chris.Bing@fedscoop.com
Mobile P: (b) (6)
Office P: 609-747-2321
--
Christopher Bing
Scoop News Group
Mobile P: (b) (6)
Office P: 609-747-2321
From: David Bray
To: Kartikeya Iyer
Subject: Re: About the CIO statement on the FCC being the victims of an alleged DDoS attack
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 6:00:33 AM
Thank you for your note and it would be best if you contact the Office of Media Relations.
On May 9, 2017, at 00:24, Kartikeya Iyer (b) (6) wrote:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just issued a press release

(https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.pdf) claiming, “Beginning on
Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed
denial-of-service attacks (DDoS).”
The FCC is saying that the site hosting their comment system was attacked at the exact same
time comments would have started flooding in from John Oliver’s viral "Last Week Tonight"
segment about net neutrality. The media widely reported that the surge in comments crashed
the FCC’s site.
The FCC’s statement today raises two concerns:
- The FCC is being intentionally misleading, and trying to claim that the surge in traffic
from large numbers of people attempting to access their site through John Oliver’s
GoFCCYourself.com redirect amounts to a “DDoS” attack, to let themselves off the hook for
essentially silencing large numbers of people by not having a properly functioning site to
receive comments from the public about an important issue, or—worst case—is preparing a
bogus legal argument that somehow John Oliver’s show itself was the DDoS attack.
- Someone actually did DDoS the FCC’s site at the exact same time as John Oliver’s
segment, in order to actively prevent people from being able to comment in support of keeping
the Title II net neutrality rules many of us fought for in 2015.
Given the current FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s open hostility ( https://www.theguardian.com/
technology/2017/apr/26/trump-overturn-net-neutrality-rules-resistance ) towards real net
neutrality (notwithstanding the blatant sham that is the laughably-titled "Restoring Internet
Freedom"), and the telecom industry’s long history of astroturfing (
https://news.vice.com/article/cable-companies-are-astroturfing-fake-consumer-support-to-end-
net-neutrality ) and paying shady organizations ( https://motherboard.vice.com/
en_us/article/shady-conservative-group-is-flooding-the-fcc-with-anti-net-neutrality-comments
) to influence the FCC, either of these scenarios should be concerning for anyone who cares
about government transparency, free speech, and the future of the Internet.
To validate the claims of being "DDoS"ed, The FCC should release original untampered
server logs to qualified independent & unaffiliated security researchers. Not doing this will
merely lend credence and substantiation to claims that the FCC is being less-than-truthful
about this matter, and in fact is actively preventing members of the public from expressing
and/or formally registering their views on the very important matter of a free and open
Internet.
Thank you,
Kartikeya IYER
From: FCC Office of Media Relations
Subject: Statement by FCC CIO on Denial-of-Service Attack on FCC Comment System
Media Contact:
Mark Wigfield, (202) 418-0253
mark.wigfield@fcc.gov
For Immediate Release
FCC CIO STATEMENT ON DISTRIBUTED DENIAL-OF-SERVICE

ATTACKS ON FCC ELECTRONIC COMMENT FILING SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, May 8, 2017 – Federal Communications Commission Chief Information

Officer Dr. David Bray issued the following statement today regarding the cause of delays
experienced by consumers recently trying to file comments on the FCC’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS):
“Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to
multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external
actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial
cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it
difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system
remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented
them from responding to people attempting to submit comments. We have worked with our
commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going
forward.”
###
Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500

ASL Videophone: (844) 432-2275
TTY: (888) 835-5322
Twitter: @FCC
www fcc.gov/office-media-relations
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes
official action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Non-Responsive
From: FCC Office of Media Relations

Subject: Statement by FCC CIO on Denial-of-Service Attack on FCC Comment System
Media Contact:
Mark Wigfield, (202) 418-0253
mark.wigfield@fcc.gov
For Immediate Release
FCC CIO STATEMENT ON DISTRIBUTED DENIAL-OF-SERVICE

ATTACKS ON FCC ELECTRONIC COMMENT FILING SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, May 8, 2017 – Federal Communications Commission Chief Information

Officer Dr. David Bray issued the following statement today regarding the cause of delays
experienced by consumers recently trying to file comments on the FCC’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS):
“Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to
multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external
actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial
cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it
difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system
remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented
them from responding to people attempting to submit comments. We have worked with our
commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going
forward.”
###
Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500

ASL Videophone: (844) 432-2275
TTY: (888) 835-5322
Twitter: @FCC
www fcc.gov/office-media-relations
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes
official action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield
Subject: RE: Also, does he have any comment on the bot reports?
Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:39:00 PM
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:33 PM
Subject: FW: Also, does he have any comment on the bot reports?

(b) (5)

From: Kirby, Paul [mailto:paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com]
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>

When he mentioned the alternative filing method, he mentioned the electronic
inbox, but I don’t think he mentioned the API. Stuff filed through the API goes
through the regular process as if someone filed directly in ECFS, correct?

Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
(A Unit of Wolters Kluwer
Legal & Regulatory Solutions U.S.)
202-842-8920
1015 15th St. NW, 10th floor
Washington, D.C., 20005
www.trdailyonline.com
paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com

From: Mark Wigfield [mailto:Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov]
To: Kirby, Paul

No, not related. The change in dissemination schedules (i.e., making the comments available for the
public to view on ECFS) was made to ensure that the high volume of comments could get processed.
The DDos attack traffic tied up access to the servers, but did not actually try to file comments. So
changing dissemination would have no effect on traffic hitting the server.

OK. And did you see my first question: The stuff we discussed on the call is not
related to the DDOS attack, correct?
Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

To: Kirby, Paul
Still no comment. Thanks

FCC: NO COMMENT ON REPORTS OF FALSE COMMENTS FILED BY

BOT
The FCC declined to comment today on a report by ZDNet that a bot may have falsely attributed thousands of
electronic filings opposing FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s recent proposal regarding the regulatory classification of
broadband Internet services to individuals who had no knowledge that filings were being made in their name.
Specifically, the FCC declined to comment on whether the FCC was aware of such bot activity and whether it had
any plans for measures to deal with it.

Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

To: Kirby, Paul

Sorry, wchih reports?

Subject: Also, does he have any comment on the bot reports?

Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: FW: Also, does he have any comment on the bot reports?

(b) (5)


OK. And did you see my first question: The stuff we discussed on the call is not
related to the DDOS attack, correct?

Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

To: Kirby, Paul

Still no comment. Thanks
FCC: NO COMMENT ON REPORTS OF FALSE COMMENTS FILED BY

BOT
The FCC declined to comment today on a report by ZDNet that a bot may have falsely attributed thousands of
electronic filings opposing FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s recent proposal regarding the regulatory classification of
broadband Internet services to individuals who had no knowledge that filings were being made in their name.
Specifically, the FCC declined to comment on whether the FCC was aware of such bot activity and whether it had
any plans for measures to deal with it.
Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

To: Kirby, Paul
Sorry, wchih reports?

Subject: Also, does he have any comment on the bot reports?
Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920
From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry; Mark Wigfield; Brian Hart
Subject: RE: any indication DDOS is related to Oliver broadcast?
(b) (5)
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Berry
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart
<Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart
(b) (5)
From: Mark Stone

Subject: FW: Following FCC site crash, activist groups offer net neutrality comment channel
(b) (5)
From: POLITICO Pro Technology Whiteboard [mailto:politicoemail@politicopro.com]

To: Mark Stone <Mark.Stone@fcc.gov>
Subject: Following FCC site crash, activist groups offer net neutrality comment channel
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
From: Mark Wigfield
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart
Subject: FW: any indication DDOS is related to Oliver broadcast?
(b) (5)
From: Todd Shields (BLOOMBERG/ WASHINGTO) [mailto:tshields3@bloomberg net]
Cc: Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
Subject: any indication DDOS is related to Oliver broadcast?
thnx - ts
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shields
Bloomberg News
reporter - Washington
(202) 807-2075 (office)
-- www.bloomberg.net --
<< FCC coverage 202 807-2075 >>

From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield; Matthew Berry; Brian Hart
(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart
(b) (5)
From: David Bray
(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: FW: any indication DDOS is related to Oliver broadcast?
(b) (5)
From: Todd Shields (BLOOMBERG/ WASHINGTO) [mailto:tshields3@bloomberg net]
Cc: Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
Subject: any indication DDOS is related to Oliver broadcast?
thnx - ts
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shields
Bloomberg News
reporter - Washington
(202) 807-2075 (office)
-- www.bloomberg.net --
<< FCC coverage 202 807-2075 >>

From: Michael Krigsman
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: API documentation
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 7:02:59 PM
Sure makes sense
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:00 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Sounds good. I might suggest Bot-Swarm vs. Attack or "Massive Bot-Bombardment" as
some people think attack=hack which this wasn't and I don't think the person(s) who did it
meant violence?
On May 18, 2017, at 18:59, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:
Here is my working title at the moment:
CIO Diary: Bot-attack at the Federal Communications Commission
I am taking a CIO-centric perspective since that plays to my personal strengths.
Aye, and some might guess that by creating buzz about the technical aspects of this you
also generate word of moth and articles that share the video.
I can't comment however that might be part of the psychology. Create a spectacle.
Actually, I realized the video is kind of beside the point.
Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak
Not sure if this adds or detracts as ideally we don't want the article to. E political,
however Chairman Pai reads some of the mean tweets he received which
shows some of the fervor of the not so nice comments
received: https://youtu.be/iBt84HNAGwU
Can you also send me a link to the show that kicked all this off? Thanks again.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com>

wrote:
Thanks!
+Here's a slightly shorter URL redirect for the bulk upload option:
https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments
On May 18, 2017, at 18:01, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov> wrote:
Here’s the ECFS home page https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/
And here’s a link to a page with the bulk filing mechanism https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-
internet-freedom-comments-wc-docket-no-17-108
From: David Bray

Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:57 PM
To: mkrigsman@cxotalk.com; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>
Subject: API documentation
Great to chat today; here is the link:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api-docs.html
From: David.Bray@fcc.gov
To: Michael Krigsman
Sounds good. I might suggest Bot-Swarm vs. Attack or "Massive Bot-Bombardment" as some
people think attack=hack which this wasn't and I don't think the person(s) who did it meant
violence?
Here is my working title at the moment:
CIO Diary: Bot-attack at the Federal Communications Commission
I am taking a CIO-centric perspective since that plays to my personal strengths.
Aye, and some might guess that by creating buzz about the technical aspects of this you also
generate word of moth and articles that share the video.
however Chairman Pai reads some of the mean tweets he received which shows
some of the fervor of the not so nice comments received: https://youtu.be/iBt
84HNAGwU
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:
Thanks!

From: David Bray

From: David Bray
Also if you do talk to the NYTimes API guru -- what makes our lives complicated is it is not
just a pull request of data from our system, we permit push requests to send/public data. I just
sent this email to a different request.
On May 18, 2017, at 18:54, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Hi Will,
Happy to help. I would suggest:
Answer: Our public API does have set rate limits consistent for every key requested, similar
to Data.gov -- what becomes more challenging is if multiple automated programs use multiple
IP addresses to request multiple keys. The public API allows both the pulling of data from the
system and the sending of data to the system. The FCC did talk to its stakeholders in 2015
about only allowing information to be pulled however some stakeholders wanted the ability to
file a comment in an automated mechanism as they said they had saved comments from other
humans that they were filing for them. Having an API for both pulling and sending data makes
it difficult to require a ReCAPTCHA/NoCAPTCHA since an API bypasses such a test for
whether someone is a human.
some of the fervor of the not so nice comments received: https://youtu.be/
iBt84HNAGwU
Thanks!
From: David Bray

some of the fervor of the not so nice comments received: https://youtu.be/
iBt84HNAGwU
Thanks!
From: David Bray

From: David Bray
To: Paul Miller
Subject: Re: Astroturfing of FCC comments
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:17:32 PM
Thank you for your note and it would be best if you contact the Office of Media Relations. This
is a challenge of the modern age, anyone and everyone can leave a comment and we do not
block anyone. FCC experts will later review.
From: Paul Miller <pmiller@threadfin.com>

Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:15:15 PM
To: David Bray
Subject: Astroturfing of FCC comments
David,
Your comment site is being astroturfed by a bot. Specifically proceeding 17-108 is being hit hard
with repetitive comments against Title 2 regulations. These synthetic comments should be
discounted completely or consolidated to a single comment when being weighed in the decision.
You will notice large variance in verbiage of legitimate comments and should take care not to give
credence to bot generated comments.
The synthetic text reads as follows:
“The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is
smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the
Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet
known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the
internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to
repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free
and open internet for everyone.”
The logic used in the bot generated comments is fallacious as well. The way the internet operated
under title 1 protections was good only because the technology and market for manipulating
content access was not mature. As the market for such manipulations developed ISPs built
mechanisms to provide these manipulations and filed suit against the FCC to gain the rights to do so.
In 2015 the FCC made the correct decision regarding ISPs by placing them into title 2 regulations.
This is where they belong and where they should stay.
Thanks!
Paul Miller
Sr. Solutions Architect
Threadfin Business Solutions
(561)299-0319
http://www.threadfin.com/
Threadfin Business Solutions is an IT services company, primarily focused on advanced and emerging technologies. Our Convergence
SM
Consultants deliver professional services around Advanced Infrastructure, Unified Communications, Messaging, and Virtualization.
From: Mark Wigfield
To: Matthew Berry; David Bray; Mark Stephens; Tony Summerlin (CTR); Nicholas Degani; Brian Hart
Subject: (b) (5)
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 2:03:43 PM
(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 1:05 PM
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Mark Stephens
<Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; Nicholas Degani
<Nicholas.Degani@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: (b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Mark Stephens
From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Mark Stephens
Subject: (b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
From: David Bray
To: Frank Konkel
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Subject: Re: Background chat on FCC website issues?
Hi Frank,
Unknown on bandwidth -- since this was an application-level attack it was more about the
API's capacity to receive API calls and distribute those requests to the elastic infrastructure of
the cloud. We did spin up more virtual servers in the cloud however the API was the
bottleneck -- and as mentioned the number of API calls per minute that were filing a comment
were *much* much smaller than the # of API calls that were just tying up the API with high
traffic or junk data.
Hope this helps,
-d.
On May 15, 2017, at 14:11, Frank Konkel <fkonkel@govexec.com> wrote:
Thanks David.
One question: Any idea and how much bandwidth the attackers used to paralyze the site? I've
seen estimates of other attacks in the hundreds of megs/sec range, but any idea here?
My apologies Mark, sorry I just got this message -- Frank asked for the link to the bulk
upload solution, here it is: https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments
Also Frank, on background here is the link to info on the Pokémon Go DDoS attacks: Akin
to the Pokemon attack: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/
gaming/pokemon-go-down-servers-ddos-attack-hackers-poodlecorp-game-unavailable-
a7140811.html which also targeted an API with lots of It traffic; the difference here is this
wasn't using DarkWeb bots this was using commercial cloud services to host the bots
causing the denial of service which made it harder to remedy.
As noted on the call for those members of the public who are concerned: One, the site did
not go down, it was unavailable for everyone to access. Two, there has always been an
alternative easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file
comments if groups happen to find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Three, we
have noticed some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual mechanism
(ECFS) to file comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it
difficult for individuals to file.
And as mentioned Thursday was our highest day of comments ever, more than 400,000 --
which shows when there aren't additional variables present the cloud based system can scale
to receive them all.
Hope this helps and best regards,
-d.
I just accidentally cut myself off – David can patch me back in unless I cut you both off already.
418-0253
From: David Bray

To: Frank Konkel <fkonkel@govexec.com>
Cc: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>
I am at 202.418.2020 for the call.
Great - will look forward to it.
Talk soon
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov> wrote:
Frank, I’ll call you and conference us all in.
From: Frank Konkel [mailto:fkonkel@govexec.com]

Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 11:37 AM
1210 works!
Should I call you or you call me? If you want to call me, I will be at (b) (6)
Let me know!

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Completely understand and I could do 1210pm-1230pm today if that works for Mark as
well? Or later this afternoon after 4:30pm?
Many thanks.
Hey Mark & David,
Sorry about that, I was on the road already when it looks like Mark called my office
phone Friday. Can we set something up for today or tomorrow?
-Frank
(I'll be at home office this morning at (b) (6) if you have any questions)
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov> wrote:
Frank, will let you know shortly

To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>
Subject: Background chat on FCC website issues?
Mark & David,
Frank Konkel here at Government Executive. Thought I'd reach out to see about
setting up a background chat with David to discuss the FCC's response to the DDoS
attacks earlier this week.
We've been getting a series of statements from organizations calling for FCC to
release activity logs and other such information to prove the validity of said attacks,
and we've been reluctant to run any of those. I'd rather see what the real story is, and
perhaps some details can shed light on what really happened here and how you might
try to mitigate similar issues in the future.
Schedule-wise, Monday morning would be ideal (with the exception of 11-1130 am).
Let me know your thoughts here! Thanks
-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Senior Editor, Technology & Events
Government Executive Media Group
A Division of Atlantic Media
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
Twitter | @Frank Konkel
GovExec.com | Nextgov.com | www.DefenseOne.com
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: Matthew Berry
To: Mark Wigfield; David Bray
Subject: Re: background for Comm Daily
(b) (5)
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: Mark Wigfield
To: Matthew Berry; David Bray
Subject: background for Comm Daily
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Cc: ITleadership <ITleadership@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: FYI TR Daily says ECFS is down

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart
Subject: Re: FYI TR Daily says ECFS is down

(b) (5)
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 11:36:39 AM
To: Mark Wigfield; David Bray; Brian Hart
Cc: ITleadership

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 11:32 AM

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield
<Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry
<Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)
From: David Bray

To: Brian Hart; Mark Wigfield; Christine Calvosa
Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)
From: Brian Hart

To: Mark Wigfield; David Bray; Christine Calvosa
Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa
<Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Cc: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

To: David Bray; Christine Calvosa
Cc: Matthew Berry
Subject: FYI TR Daily says ECFS is down

(b) (5)

To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace
<Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
Cc: Stanton, Lynn <Lynn.Stanton@wolterskluwer.com>
Subject: ECFS

Obviously, it’s down again because I get no hits searching yesterday’s and
today’s dates. So we are going to write about that fact. Can you tell me if it’s
due to the DDoS attack or the number of net neutrality comments?

Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: Matthew Berry
Subject: RE: background interview request with David
Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 11:52:19 AM
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: (b) (5)

From: Billy Mitchell [mailto:billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com]
Cc: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>
Subject: Request for comment/interview
Hi Mark,
It's been a few days since we last reached out to OMR, and I wanted to see if the dust has
settled some and I could get the FCC's side on the DDoS/comment filing incident over the
weekend.
I've worked with David Bray, CC'd before, and I'd love the chance to chat with him on the
phone on the record, or if that's not possible, as not for direct attribution. We'd really like to
get something solid from the FCC on it.
Please let me know.
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Managing Editor, FedScoop
Scoop News Group
E: billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com
P: 757.880.7439
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray
Subject: RE: can you ask him if this is accurate? thanks.
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: FW: can you ask him if this is accurate? thanks.

(b) (5)

Subject: can you ask him if this is accurate? thanks.

The FCC this week delayed posting comments in the electronic comment filing
system (ECFS), while it modifies the posting schedule in the wake of a huge
number of comments in its open Internet proceeding, an FCC official told TR
Daily today.

Currently, comments filed to ECFS are posted on weekdays at 11 a.m. and 1, 3,
and 5 p.m. but not on weekends. Under the new process, comments can be
posted whenever leadership decides they should be, which could allow them to
posted by the FCC more frequently and reduce backlogs, the official said. The
plan is for comments to now be posted on weekends as well, the official said.
Coding is being tested both for the “on demand” function as well as to enable
comments filed in the open Internet proceeding in WC docket 17-08 via an
electronic inbox established for the docket (TR Daily, April 27) to be pulled into
ECFS. However, additional manual work on those submissions is necessary
before they can be posted so they would not be posted with the “on demand”
function, the official said.
The decision to delay posting comments filed in ECFS took effect the afternoon
of May 10, said the official, adding that some comments would be posted today
and all of them should be posted by the end of this weekend.
Earlier this week, FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray said that delays
experienced by parties attempting to file comments through ECFS were caused
by multiple distributed denial-of service attacks (DDoS), not by a large number
of parties trying to file comments (TR Daily May 8). That problem is not related
to the ECFS posting changes that are being made, a spokesman said.- Paul
Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com
Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920
From: David Bray
To: Ed Vargas
Subject: Re: CIO Perspectives Virginia
Attachments: image005.png
Many thanks Ed and it has been a rather full 48 hours. It continues however hopefully we have worked out
some solutions for now w/ our cloud partners to keep everything open for folks to comment as best as
possible.
How about we plan to chat in mid-June about other CIO events I can help speak on, especially on rapid
cloud adoption and motivating high performing teams to be self-starting creative problem solvers? I will
also ideally be at the CIO100 event if speakers are needed there?
Truly appreciated and best regards,
-d.
On May 9, 2017, at 14:24, Ed Vargas <evargas@cio.com> wrote:
Hi David –

I hope all is well… I was recently asked to jump in get back to you around your question below.
I spoke with Maryfran who said she was bringing in speakers that haven’t been on the agenda in past year or so –
hence why she hasn’t reached out to you for this year’s program.

However please do let us (on the Council side) of the business know if you will be attending, as it will be nice to
connect with you and discuss ways we can leverage each other support. Our role as an advisory services group is
to drive peer connections that become mutually beneficial in tackling challenges for all CIO’s involved. However I
see a bigger opportunity in leveraging Brand Management Team to promote you as possible speaker and panelists
at some of the national and global events we connect with though partner arrangements.

I saw the article below and realize you have your hands full right now, but let me know if we can meet at the event
in June or setup time for a call to discuss the benefits the CIO Executive Council can offer…

Thanks in advance
Ed V.

PS: as a CIO you did a nice job addressing the public attention to this…

FCC suffers DDoS attacks against public comments website
http://bit.ly/2qYBemI

Edwin Vargas
Director
CIO Executive Council from IDG
O +1.508.766.5420 | C +(b) (6) | CEC
<image005.png>

From: David Bray [mailto:David.Bray@fcc.gov]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Steve Ka <ska@cio.com>
From: David Bray
To: townery
Subject: RE: Citizen Request To Release FCC DDOS Log Files
There has always been an alternative easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-

freedom-comments to file comments from should you find the ECFS site busy responding to
high traffic. We have noticed some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual
mechanism (ECFS) to file comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially
making it difficult for individuals to file. Hope this helps.

From: townery [(b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:52 AM
Subject: Citizen Request To Release FCC DDOS Log Files

Hello, David. My name is Ryan Towne and I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen
asking you to release the log files pertaining to the FCC's claims that it was hit with a
distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack following their request for public comment on net
neutrality to an independent security researcher.

For someone to claim to be hit by an attack and then offer zero evidence to support their claim
just as the public is supposed to be weighing in on this inportant issue is deeply troubling. Net
neutrality is important to everyone and the FCC needs to be transparent now more than ever.

Again, I implore you to release the log files to an independent security researcher so we can
know the truth of the agency's claims. Thank you.
On May 11, 2017, at 16:19, Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry
<Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: Comm Daily Q, ECFS woes

(b) (5)

From: Will Wiquist
Subject: FW: Comm Daily Q, ECFS woes

(b) (5)

From: Daneman, Matthew [mailto:mdaneman@warren-news.com]
To: Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>

Will

Hi. Just checking, does FCC have any comment?

Matt Daneman
Pay-TV and satellite reporter, Communications Daily
2115 Ward Court NW, Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202-552-8204
Mobile: 301-676-5904
mdaneman@warren-news.com
Twitter: @mdaneman

From: Daneman, Matthew
To: 'Will Wiquist'
Subject: Comm Daily Q, ECFS woes

Will

‘Morning.
We’re working on an update on ECFS. For the fourth day in a row, looks like ECFS is non-/barely
functioning. Are you seeing the same? Are ECFS probs causing the FCC difficulty in doing its work, or
is it hearing complaints regarding? It seems every few weeks there’s an ECFS disruption – is the
agency having any discussions about making the system more robust in the future? What are the
causes of the current difficulties?

Matt Daneman
Phone: 202-552-8204
Mobile: 301-676-5904
Twitter: @mdaneman

(b) (5)
From: Will Wiquist

(b) (5)
From: Daneman, Matthew [mailto:mdaneman@warren-news.com]

Will
Matt Daneman
Phone: 202-552-8204
Mobile: 301-676-5904
Twitter: @mdaneman

To: 'Will Wiquist'
Will
‘Morning.
We’re working on an update on ECFS. For the fourth day in a row, looks like ECFS is non-/barely
functioning. Are you seeing the same? Are ECFS probs causing the FCC difficulty in doing its work, or
is it hearing complaints regarding? It seems every few weeks there’s an ECFS disruption – is the
agency having any discussions about making the system more robust in the future? What are the
causes of the current difficulties?

Matt Daneman
Phone: 202-552-8204
Mobile: 301-676-5904
Twitter: @mdaneman

From: Erik Scheibert
To: David Bray; Christine Calvosa; Mark Wigfield
Subject: Re: Comm Daily Q, ECFS woes
(b) (5)
On 5/11/17, 4:49 PM, someone claiming to be "David Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>
Date: May 11, 2017 at 16:47:10 EDT
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>
Cc: Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>, Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>

(b)
(5)
From: Matthew Berry
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>
Cc: Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>
Cc: Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: Comm Daily Q, ECFS woes

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

On May 11, 2017, at 16:19, Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov> wrote:

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry
<Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Will Wiquist

(b) (5)

From: Daneman, Matthew [mailto mdaneman@warren-news.com]


Will


Matt Daneman
Pay-TV and satellite reporter,
Communications Daily <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__communicationsdaily.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=t-bgN3RZly0DRbszL-
q_UF6HGNR98ToiZ4QGXnF5MYI&m=DIhzndcU5YQ_yq9iHwCNGfKZQ29g6wuSdLh-9bj-
YzA&s=DCujgQaLGfgSjaTIDfFjR9TwzqDjoMOXDCOuHcxYF7o&e=>
Phone: 202-552-8204
Mobile: 301-676-5904
Twitter:
@mdaneman <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__twitter.com_mdaneman&d=DwMFAg&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=t-bgN3RZly0DRbszL-
YzA&s=nwzykOYirkdnIvJ9lP7GRgWGunR2fQPHzWMBykRe7nU&e=>


To: 'Will Wiquist'

Will

‘Morning.
We’re working on an update on ECFS. For the fourth day in a row, looks like ECFS is non-/barely functioning.
Are you seeing the same? Are ECFS probs causing the FCC difficulty in doing its work, or is it hearing complaints
regarding? It
seems every few weeks there’s an ECFS disruption – is the agency having any discussions about making the
system more robust in the future? What are the causes of the current difficulties?

Matt Daneman
Pay-TV and satellite reporter,
Communications Daily <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__communicationsdaily.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=t-bgN3RZly0DRbszL-
YzA&s=DCujgQaLGfgSjaTIDfFjR9TwzqDjoMOXDCOuHcxYF7o&e=>
Phone: 202-552-8204
Mobile: 301-676-5904
Twitter:
@mdaneman <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__twitter.com_mdaneman&d=DwMFAg&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=t-bgN3RZly0DRbszL-
YzA&s=nwzykOYirkdnIvJ9lP7GRgWGunR2fQPHzWMBykRe7nU&e=>

From: David Bray
To: Spencer Hersom
Subject: Re: Comment system server logs
One, the site did not go down, it was unavailable for everyone to access. Two, there has
always been an alternative easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-
comments to file comments from should you find the ECFS site busy responding to high
traffic. Three, we have noticed some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual
making it difficult for individuals to file. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-service-
are-latest-weapons-in-net-neutrality-battle-1494533379
Hope this helps.
On May 12, 2017, at 05:07, Spencer Hersom (b) (6) wrote:
Given the incredible public interest in the topic of net neutrality, the relatively wide spread
distrust, and the peculiar timing of the failures, it seems the only reasonable thing to do is to
release server logs for independent inspection. Please do what you can to make that a reality.
Spencer Hersom
Tehachapi, CA 93561
From: David Bray
To: pamela worth
Subject: Re: concerned citizen asking for info about your logs
We try to help -- right now there is a lot of shouting going on and as mentioned there always
been an alternative easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to
file comments from should you find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. We have
noticed some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual mechanism (ECFS) to
file comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for
individuals to file. Hope this helps.
On May 10, 2017, at 16:57, pamela worth (b) (6) wrote:
Thank you for the helpful information and speedy reply!
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:44 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
There has always been an alternative mechanism easy to use website

at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from should you find
the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Hope this helps.
Mr. Bray--I think the public, myself included, has a right to know about what really
happened with your alleged DDOS attacks this week, just as many thousands of people were
gearing up to comment publicly about net neutrality on the FCC's website. Please make your
logs public. (And for the love of the internet, please do what you can to preserve net
neutrality!)
Sincerely,
Pamela Worth
A taxpayer in Somerville, MA
To: pamela worth

at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from should you find the
ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Hope this helps.
Mr. Bray--I think the public, myself included, has a right to know about what really happened
with your alleged DDOS attacks this week, just as many thousands of people were gearing up
to comment publicly about net neutrality on the FCC's website. Please make your logs public.
(And for the love of the internet, please do what you can to preserve net neutrality!)
Sincerely,
Pamela Worth
From: Dan Paullus
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: Concerns Regarding the DDOS Attack Preventing Public Comment
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 11:42:18 AM
Thanks for your time David.
Dan
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:38 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:

What you are asking is a Public Affairs issue. Also as noted there always was an advertised
alternative mechanism to file if ECFS was available. Hope this helps.
On May 9, 2017, at 20:19, Dan Paullus <dan@sixense.com> wrote:
Missed my point entirely. Can't say I'm surprised.
Dan Paullus
Art Director
Sixense Studios
+1 650 210 6017


Hello David,
My names Daniel Paullus, I'm a concerned citizen of the US. My issue is that the DDOS
attack that the FCC reported came at the most convenient possible time to accommodate
the well known agenda of the FCC's chairman Ajit Pai.
As of right now, there's no good avenue to procure records to prove this DDOS attack
happened, so I wanted to start by joining many other people in letting you know that this
doesn't look legitimate. The best way the FCC can maintain or restore public faith is to
release logs from the time frame in question.
I hope those in power at the FCC make the right decision.
Dan Paullus
Art Director
Sixense Studios
+1 650 210 6017
To: Dan Paullus
What you are asking is a Public Affairs issue. Also as noted there always was an advertised
alternative mechanism to file if ECFS was available. Hope this helps.
Missed my point entirely. Can't say I'm surprised.
Dan Paullus
Art Director
Sixense Studios
+1 650 210 6017

There has always been an alternative mechanism easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/
internet-freedom-comments to file comments from should you find the ECFS site busy
responding to high traffic. Hope this helps.
Hello David,
attack that the FCC reported came at the most convenient possible time to accommodate the
well known agenda of the FCC's chairman Ajit Pai.
doesn't look legitimate. The best way the FCC can maintain or restore public faith is to
release logs from the time frame in question.
Dan Paullus
Art Director
Sixense Studios
+1 650 210 6017
To: Dan Paullus

Hello David,
attack that the FCC reported came at the most convenient possible time to accommodate the
well known agenda of the FCC's chairman Ajit Pai.
doesn't look legitimate. The best way the FCC can maintain or restore public faith is to release
logs from the time frame in question.
Dan Paullus
Art Director
Sixense Studios
+1 650 210 6017
From: David Bray
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Ddos claim
From: Matt Oberg (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 14:17
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: Ddos claim
Thank you, I already filed an Express comment through the ECFS website.
My greater concern is the fact that the FCC is making a very serious claim regarding the
supposed ddos attack. I will forward my concerns to the office of media relations.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:10 PM, David Bray

<David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
There has always been an alternative mechanism easy to use website at

https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from should you find
From: Matt Oberg (b) (6)

To: David Bray
Subject: Ddos claim
It is extremely troubling to imagine that the FCC would intentionally mislead the public
regarding a purported ddos attack. It is imperative that you release your logs to an
independent organization in order to verify the FCC's claims.
Please, do not do a disservice to the public you have been entrusted to serve.
Thank you for your time.
Matthew Oberg,
High School teacher and Net Neutrality advocate.
From: Avi Bender (Fed)
To: David Bray; Monica Voigt (Fed); Tony Summerlin (CTR)
Cc: Gregory Capella (Fed); Clifton Brown (Fed)
Yes- we will be flexible and will do our best to accommodate. Thank you.

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 12:12 PM
To: Monica Voigt (Fed) <MVoigt@ntis.gov>; Avi Bender (Fed) <avi.bender@ntis.gov>; Tony
Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: Discuss Potential Licensing Problem Statement - NTIS & FCC
Many thanks Monica and Avi -- would it be possible to start 30 minutes earlier from 1200-1pm
on 25 May, I have a meeting at 1pm that I can be a few minutes late for however ideally I'll
head to them around 1:15pm?
Truly appreciated,
-d.
From: Monica Voigt (Fed) <MVoigt@ntis.gov>

To: David Bray; Avi Bender (Fed); Paul Weston (Fed); Tony Summerlin (CTR); Clifton Brown (Fed);
Gregory Capella (Fed)
Good Morning David,
Our team can do 12:30pm – 1:30pm on Thursday, May 25th at FCC downtown. Would this work for
you?
Thank you,
Monica
Monica Voigt
Management Analyst
Office of the Director
National Technical Information Service
Department of Commerce
(work mobile) 703-399-9188

mvoigt@ntis.gov
www.ntis.gov
We welcome your comments

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 9:01 AM
To: Avi Bender (Fed) <avi.bender@ntis.gov>; Monica Voigt (Fed) <MVoigt@ntis.gov>; Paul Weston
(Fed) <PWeston@ntis.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; Clifton Brown (Fed)
<cbrown@ntis.gov>; Gregory Capella (Fed) <GCapella@ntis.gov>
Subject: Re: (b) (5)
Hi Avi,
Thank you for your understanding as we weathered a DDoS. How would a meeting the either
as a working lunch from 12-1pm at the FCC on Thurs 25 May or any time after 3pm?f you
want to meet in Clarendon we could do 4:30pm or later? The Commission meeting on the
attention-getting proceeding 17-108 is 18 May so that should give us enough space afterwards
for any additional activity -- again my apologies that Monday had us busy that morning.
With highest regards,
-d.

Many thanks and my apologies. While we have initially stabilized the surge to our comment
filing system (...alas we cannot block those intentionally sending high traffic else it would. E
easier...), it would be best to meet when we can provide our full attention and Team's thoughts
to this.
Definitely we can reschedule and truly appreciate you understand this case of digital "snow"
today. I will send some possible dates soon.
Thank you,
-d.
On May 8, 2017, at 09:34, Avi Bender (Fed) <avi.bender@ntis.gov> wrote:

I just called the Van and told them to turn around - they are coming from Springfield- we will
reschedule
Get Outlook for iOS
From: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>

Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 9:25:33 AM
To: Gregory Capella (Fed); Avi Bender (Fed); Tony Summerlin (CTR)
Subject: (b) (5)
Hi Avi,
My apologies -- can we reschedule?
There was a news show that last night directed massive amounts of attention and internet
traffic to the FCC. It would be better to meet during a less hectic time?
Many thanks,
-d.
Discuss (b) (5)

Scheduled: Monday, May 8, 2017 from 10:00 to 11:00
Location: 445 12th St. SW WDC
Invitees: Gregory Capella (Fed)‌, Avi Bender (Fed)‌, Tony Summerlin (CTR)
From: Monica Voigt (Fed)
To: David Bray; Avi Bender (Fed); Tony Summerlin (CTR)
Subject: RE: Discuss Potential Licensing Problem Statement - NTIS & FCC
Good Afternoon David,
I think I can make 12pm work for Avi’s schedule. I will send an invite out shortly.
Thank you,
Monica
Monica Voigt
Management Analyst
(work mobile) 703-399-9188

mvoigt@ntis.gov
www.ntis.gov

To: Monica Voigt (Fed) <MVoigt@ntis.gov>; Avi Bender (Fed) <avi.bender@ntis.gov>; Tony
Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Many thanks Monica and Avi -- would it be possible to start 30 minutes earlier from 1200-1pm
on 25 May, I have a meeting at 1pm that I can be a few minutes late for however ideally I'll
head to them around 1:15pm?
Truly appreciated,
-d.
From: Monica Voigt (Fed) <MVoigt@ntis.gov>

To: David Bray; Avi Bender (Fed); Paul Weston (Fed); Tony Summerlin (CTR); Clifton Brown (Fed);
Gregory Capella (Fed)
Good Morning David,
Our team can do 12:30pm – 1:30pm on Thursday, May 25th at FCC downtown. Would this work for
you?
Thank you,
Monica
Monica Voigt
Management Analyst
(work mobile) 703-399-9188

mvoigt@ntis.gov
www.ntis.gov

Hi Avi,
-d.

to this.
Thank you,
-d.

reschedule
Get Outlook for iOS

Subject: Discuss Potential Licensing Problem Statement - NTIS & FCC
Hi Avi,
Many thanks,
-d.
Discuss Potential Licensing Problem Statement - NTIS & FCC

From: Avi Bender (Fed)
To: David Bray; Monica Voigt (Fed); Paul Weston (Fed); Tony Summerlin (CTR); Clifton Brown (Fed); Gregory
Capella (Fed)
Thanks David and we look forward to rescheduling. The 25th should be OK and we can meet
wherever its convenient for you and your team. I think the lunch meeting would work at the FCC
and will ask Monica to look at our calendars to lock something in.

See you

Avi

Hi Avi,
-d.
to this.
Thank you,
-d.

reschedule
Get Outlook for iOS

Hi Avi,
Many thanks,
-d.

To: Avi Bender (Fed); Monica Voigt (Fed); Paul Weston (Fed); Tony Summerlin (CTR); Clifton Brown (Fed); Gregory
Capella (Fed)
Hi Avi,
-d.
to this.
Thank you,
-d.
reschedule
Get Outlook for iOS


Hi Avi,
Many thanks,
-d.

To: Avi Bender (Fed); Monica Voigt (Fed); Paul Weston (Fed); Tony Summerlin (CTR); Clifton Brown (Fed); Gregory
Capella (Fed)
Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 9:43:58 AM
to this.
Thank you,
-d.
reschedule
Get Outlook for iOS


Hi Avi,
Many thanks,
-d.

From: Richard Mansfield
To: John Skudlarek
Subject: RE: Draft Sunshine Meeting Response to Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

Rich M

Richard L. Mansfield
Associate CIO for Stakeholder Relations
Information Technology
Federal Communications Commission
Room: 1-C220
Office: 202-418-2021
Intrapreneur Directory

*** Non-Public: For Internal Use Only ***

From: John Skudlarek
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>; Andrew Nebus (CTR)
<Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>; Mark Savi <Mark.Savi@fcc.gov>; Richard Mansfield
<Richard.Mansfield@fcc.gov>
Cc: Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Subject: Draft Sunshine Meeting Response to Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

(b) (5)
John P. Skudlarek
Deputy Chief Information Officer
445 Twelfth Street SW.
Washington, DC 20554
Office: (202) 418-0859
@JohnSkudlarek
To: David Bray; Erik Scheibert; Andrew Nebus (CTR); Mark Savi; Tony Summerlin (Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov)
Subject: Draft Sunshine Meeting Response to Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

John P. Skudlarek
Deputy Chief Information Officer
445 Twelfth Street SW.
Office: (202) 418-0859
@JohnSkudlarek

From: andrew.nebus@fcc.gov <andrew.nebus@fcc.gov>
To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS

Yes. It was released yesterday afternoon and has been updated everywhere.
On May 19, 2017 at 4:24 PM, <Jonathan Make> wrote:
It did seem to be working yesterday afternoon. A couple of us noticed it. Does that mean it's
fixed going forward?
On May 19, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov> wrote:
The update for Firefox was pushed to production last night, and I have confirmed that
that result counts and pagination work properly for me. Can you have a look in
Firefox?
From: Andrew Nebus (CTR)

To: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>
Subject: Re: ECFS
I understand. When you say not that stable, are there reproducible issues I can
have the team look into when using Internet Explorer, or more along the lines of
usability feedback (also welcome, but prioritized differently of course)?

Once I have confirmed this is pushed to production and I can verify the fix, I’ll let
you know.
Andrew
On May 16, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-

news.com> wrote:
Hi Andrew and David.
I think that is it.
I have not yet been able to use consistently Firefox to access ECFS.
So I have been using Internet Explorer.
Which is not that stable, either, for that application, but it does have
more functionality.
Would you be able to please let me know once the Firefox functionality
is fully restored?
Thanks for all you do.
Jonathan
From: Andrew Nebus (CTR) [mailto:Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov]

To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Jonathan,
Big thanks again for reporting and detailing the issue so well with
Firefox. The team is testing a fix for this that should deploy later this
week.
Beyond the numbering and pagination issues (and the missing RSS
feed) on Firefox, I wanted to follow up if you had identified any
other issues.
Andrew
On May 12, 2017, at 1:39 PM, David Bray

Many thanks. Beyond the numbering issue, Jonathan send

any screenshots + URL of other issues you’re having or if
the issues are happening on a browser other than Firefox.
Thank you.


To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Make, Jonathan
<jmake@warren-news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS
I am looking into this. My last status update on this was

that we had a fix for the numbering issue in the works that
had to be tested. I will check if it made its way to
production.
From: David Bray
To: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>; Andrew
Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS
If it is still not working for you, yes and please send a

screenshot + the URL you are trying to access and send to
Andrew – you can cc me.
Andrew – can you look into this today? Thank you.

We are aware that some versions of Firefox have bugs
and are trying to identify a fix. Other browsers should
work fine.
From: Make, Jonathan [mailto:jmake@warren-news.com]

Subject: RE: ECFS
Do you want me to take some screenshots now?

To: Make, Jonathan; Andrew Nebus (CTR)
Cc: Mark Wigfield; Christine Calvosa
Subject: RE: ECFS
It could be a new Firefox version has bugs – in the future

please send us URLs and screenshots.
Same with IE. On our end and with several others it has
been working too. The challenge with IT for websites is
isolating whether it’s the system that is delivering the
information or the browser (on the user’s end) that is
showing it or some combination. If other folks had the
same plug-in or browser version that could have been an
issue.
If your browser was cached that could have also been an

issue. Lots of different variables.
We strive to help as much as possible, so screenshots and

URLs will help Andrew (copied here) at the Team “sleuth”
what’s going on either at the server end or the web
browser end.
Best regards,
-d.

To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Andrew Nebus (CTR)
<Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>
Cc: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Christine
Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again.
Just based on what others have said outside this

organization, I don’t think this is limited to only my
computer.
Firefox will not show most filings made at any time.
IE as of today is showing them (except obviously today and

yesterday which have not yet been posted at all). But IE
before today I do not think was showing them, either.

Subject: RE: ECFS

The Firefox issue makes me wonder Jonathan if you have a

plug-in or antivirus too that’s causing the issue as we’re
simply not seeing it here – I use Firefox and haven’t had an
issue nor have other folks.
Sometimes browsers do become corrupted on local

machines. Andrew Nebus copied here, and again off the
record as we’re trying to provide IT assistance can help, can
work with you if it arises. In the future if you send Andrew
URLs that you think are not working, we can trying them
ourselves and see if we see the same result.
Also to be clear, when you say on IE could case see all

filings made before Thursday on IE, did you try IE on
Tuesday as well or just Firefox?
Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David.
I believe I am going to speak with someone @ OMR later

today, for that part, and to ensure we’re all on the same
page.
ECFS all this week has been barely working on Firefox. Not
just the page number issue, which began last week, but
many if not most filings from any time period do not display
using Firefox. Right now, I am pleased to say, I can see all
filings made before Thursday on IE. That was not
happening earlier this week, but it is now.
Cheers.

To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,
All off the record as I am trying to provide you IT help,

not a media comment:
When you say ECFS is not entirely working now on

Firefox -- do you mean that it's not working at all, or it's
not working fully (as in the numbers at the top of a
search aren't working) however that it does work in IE
and Chrome? We are aware that some versions of
Firefox have bugs and are trying to identify a fix. Other
browsers should work fine.
You are correct that the auto-dissemination has not

happened for yesterday and today. We have turned it
off until we can also bring in the filings done via the
bulk filing mechanism this weekend, that way they're all
there at the same time together.
Yesterday we didn't receive reports of issues and that

was unofficially the highest day ever for comments
received by the FCC ever (you'd have to ask OMR for
details). Monday you already know what that was.
Tuesday was fine. Off the record, Wednesday afternoon
there was an issue where some entities were using the
RSS feeds to create excessive loads on the search
function of ECFS with massive queries that was address
that evening.
Hope this helps in our non-normal times,
-d.
From: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>

To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS
Hi David.
Here is my understanding of where things stand with ECFS,

from talking with a programmer and an ECFS help desk
person today and from talking to others in our newsroom
and among the communications bar all this week. Would
you mind letting me know if I am missing anything or if the
ECFS folks do not know any of this, so I can communicate it
to them? I am also trying to communicate this to the FCC
PR people, so that everyone is on the same page there. I
am just relating this to you as a courtesy.

ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox, so it’s

recommended that folks use a different browser.
ECFS later today will post all filings made today and
yesterday, none of which have been posted yet.
ECFS has experienced various periods of down time this

week. This is due to receiving a high volume of filings this
week. For all day so far today, ECFS has been fully up. The
issues we & others have encountered with ECFS this week
(in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are related to
ECFS being overwhelmed with comments. None of this is
related to the previous and recent DDoS attacks.
Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200

From: Make, Jonathan
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS
Date: Saturday, May 20, 2017 9:58:06 AM
sure. thanks.
On May 20, 2017, at 9:48 AM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
Remembering that Andrew is trying to help as an IT person and this assistance

thread is *not* on the record, the Firefox issue was actually with their most recent
browser version not handling an exception that other browsers did. It was not with
ECFS.
Similarly, the issue you experienced with Internet Explorer was with that plugin
you mentioned and not ECFS.
Right now we are not getting any calls or emails (in the future we do continue to
ask for screenshots and URLs as they really do help us rapidly diagnosis) about
issues w/ ECFS.
Hope this helps,
-d.
On May 19, 2017, at 21:52, Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com> wrote:
Great news.
So we're now entirely past any ECFS problems of any type, as far as you know?
From: andrew.nebus@fcc.gov <andrew.nebus@fcc.gov>

To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS
Yes. It was released yesterday afternoon and has been updated everywhere.
On May 19, 2017 at 4:24 PM, <Jonathan Make> wrote:

It did seem to be working yesterday afternoon. A couple of us noticed it. Does
that mean it's fixed going forward?
On May 19, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Andrew Nebus (CTR)

<Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov> wrote:
The update for Firefox was pushed to production last night, and I have
confirmed that that result counts and pagination work properly for me.
Can you have a look in Firefox?

Subject: Re: ECFS
I understand. When you say not that stable, are there reproducible
issues I can have the team look into when using Internet Explorer, or
more along the lines of usability feedback (also welcome, but
prioritized differently of course)?
Once I have confirmed this is pushed to production and I can verify

the fix, I’ll let you know.
Andrew

On May 16, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Make, Jonathan

<jmake@warren-news.com> wrote:
I think that is it.
I have not yet been able to use consistently Firefox to access

ECFS.
Which is not that stable, either, for that application, but it

does have more functionality.
Would you be able to please let me know once the Firefox

functionality is fully restored?
Jonathan

[mailto:Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov]
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Jonathan,

Big thanks again for reporting and detailing the issue so

well with Firefox. The team is testing a fix for this that
should deploy later this week.
Beyond the numbering and pagination issues (and the

missing RSS feed) on Firefox, I wanted to follow up if you
had identified any other issues.
Andrew

Many thanks. Beyond the numbering issue,

Jonathan send any screenshots + URL of other
issues you’re having or if the issues are
happening on a browser other than Firefox.
Thank you.

To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Make,
Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS
I am looking into this. My last status update

on this was that we had a fix for the
numbering issue in the works that had to be
tested. I will check if it made its way to
production.
From: David Bray
To: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-
news.com>; Andrew Nebus (CTR)
Subject: RE: ECFS
If it is still not working for you, yes and please

send a screenshot + the URL you are trying to
access and send to Andrew – you can cc me.
Andrew – can you look into this today? Thank

you.
We are aware that some versions of Firefox

have bugs and are trying to identify a fix.
Other browsers should work fine.
From: Make, Jonathan [mailto:jmake@warren-
news.com]
Subject: RE: ECFS
Do you want me to take some screenshots

now?

Subject: RE: ECFS
It could be a new Firefox version has bugs – in

the future please send us URLs and
screenshots.
Same with IE. On our end and with several

others it has been working too. The challenge
with IT for websites is isolating whether it’s the
system that is delivering the information or the
browser (on the user’s end) that is showing it
or some combination. If other folks had the
same plug-in or browser version that could
have been an issue.
If your browser was cached that could have

also been an issue. Lots of different variables.
We strive to help as much as possible, so

screenshots and URLs will help Andrew (copied
here) at the Team “sleuth” what’s going on
either at the server end or the web browser
end.
Best regards,
-d.

news.com]
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Andrew
Cc: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>;
Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again.
Just based on what others have said outside

this organization, I don’t think this is limited to
only my computer.
Firefox will not show most filings made at any

time.
IE as of today is showing them (except

obviously today and yesterday which have not
yet been posted at all). But IE before today I do
not think was showing them, either.
Subject: RE: ECFS
The Firefox issue makes me wonder Jonathan

if you have a plug-in or antivirus too that’s
causing the issue as we’re simply not seeing it
here – I use Firefox and haven’t had an issue
nor have other folks.
Sometimes browsers do become corrupted on

local machines. Andrew Nebus copied here,
and again off the record as we’re trying to
provide IT assistance can help, can work with
you if it arises. In the future if you send
Andrew URLs that you think are not working,
we can trying them ourselves and see if we see
the same result.
Also to be clear, when you say on IE could case

see all filings made before Thursday on IE, did
you try IE on Tuesday as well or just Firefox?
Hope this helps.

news.com]
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks, David.
I believe I am going to speak with someone @

OMR later today, for that part, and to ensure
we’re all on the same page.
ECFS all this week has been barely working on

Firefox. Not just the page number issue, which
began last week, but many if not most filings
from any time period do not display using
Firefox. Right now, I am pleased to say, I can
see all filings made before Thursday on IE. That
was not happening earlier this week, but it is
now.
Cheers.

To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,
All off the record as I am trying to provide

you IT help, not a media comment:
When you say ECFS is not entirely working

now on Firefox -- do you mean that it's not
working at all, or it's not working fully (as in
the numbers at the top of a search aren't
working) however that it does work in IE
and Chrome? We are aware that some
versions of Firefox have bugs and are trying
to identify a fix. Other browsers should
work fine.
You are correct that the auto-dissemination

has not happened for yesterday and today.
We have turned it off until we can also
bring in the filings done via the bulk filing
mechanism this weekend, that way they're
all there at the same time together.
Yesterday we didn't receive reports of

issues and that was unofficially the highest
day ever for comments received by the FCC
ever (you'd have to ask OMR for details).
Monday you already know what that was.
Tuesday was fine. Off the record,
Wednesday afternoon there was an issue
where some entities were using the RSS
feeds to create excessive loads on the
search function of ECFS with massive
queries that was address that evening.
-d.
From: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-

news.com>
To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.
Here is my understanding of where things

stand with ECFS, from talking with a
programmer and an ECFS help desk person
today and from talking to others in our
newsroom and among the communications
bar all this week. Would you mind letting me
know if I am missing anything or if the ECFS
folks do not know any of this, so I can
communicate it to them? I am also trying to
communicate this to the FCC PR people, so
that everyone is on the same page there. I am
just relating this to you as a courtesy.
ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox, so

it’s recommended that folks use a different
browser.
ECFS later today will post all filings made today

and yesterday, none of which have been
posted yet.
ECFS has experienced various periods of down

time this week. This is due to receiving a high
volume of filings this week. For all day so far
today, ECFS has been fully up. The issues we &
others have encountered with ECFS this week
(in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are
related to ECFS being overwhelmed with
comments. None of this is related to the
previous and recent DDoS attacks.
Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200

To: Andrew Nebus (CTR)
Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS
It did seem to be working yesterday afternoon. A couple of us noticed it. Does that mean it's
fixed going forward?
On May 19, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov> wrote:

The update for Firefox was pushed to production last night, and I have confirmed that
that result counts and pagination work properly for me. Can you have a look in
Firefox?

Subject: Re: ECFS


you know.

Andrew

news.com> wrote:


I think that is it.

Which is not that stable, either, for that application, but it does have more
functionality.

Would you be able to please let me know once the Firefox functionality is
fully restored?

Jonathan

To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Jonathan,

week.

feed) on Firefox, I wanted to follow up if you had identified any other
issues.

Andrew


any screenshots + URL of other issues you’re having or if the
issues are happening on a browser other than Firefox.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: ECFS

I am looking into this. My last status update on this was that
we had a fix for the numbering issue in the works that had to
be tested. I will check if it made its way to production.

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS



work fine.

Subject: RE: ECFS


Subject: RE: ECFS


Same with IE. On our end and with several others it has been
working too. The challenge with IT for websites is isolating
whether it’s the system that is delivering the information or
the browser (on the user’s end) that is showing it or some
combination. If other folks had the same plug-in or browser
version that could have been an issue.


what’s going on either at the server end or the web browser
end.

Best regards,

-d.

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks again.

computer.

Subject: RE: ECFS



Also to be clear, when you say on IE could case see all filings
made before Thursday on IE, did you try IE on Tuesday as
well or just Firefox?

Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks, David.

page.

filings made before Thursday on IE. That was not happening
earlier this week, but it is now.

Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Hi Jonathan,



happened for yesterday and today. We have turned it off
until we can also bring in the filings done via the bulk
filing mechanism this weekend, that way they're all there
at the same time together.

that evening.


-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.

to them? I am also trying to communicate this to the FCC PR
people, so that everyone is on the same page there. I am just
relating this to you as a courtesy.



(in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are related to ECFS
being overwhelmed with comments. None of this is related
to the previous and recent DDoS attacks.

Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200

Cc: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS
One issue is I often have to wait a bit before I can execute certain commands in ECFS in IE.
Like, moving from the 25 filings/screen to another page view.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/18/2017-09885/promoting-technological-
solutions-to-combat-contraband-wireless-device-use-in-correctional

Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS
Sure.
For the first time since two Sundays ago,
this afternoon, it worked OK in IE.

From: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>

To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS

Indeed, I am keen to reproduce issues so that we can debug them.

General stability of your Internet Explorer is harder to trace to ECFS without more details, so if
you can grab them (a screen shot, error messages, etc) when they occur it might help.

Andrew

On May 16, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>
wrote:

Not sure on IE. Quite possibly. It apparently is an issue that IE has generally with ECFS.
It takes a lot of time to do any particular function. And it crashes often. I could probably
send specific issues as they occur.
To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS
you know.
Andrew

news.com> wrote:

I think that is it.

Which is not that stable, either, for that application, but it does have more
functionality.

Would you be able to please let me know once the Firefox functionality is
fully restored?

Jonathan

To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Jonathan,
week.
feed) on Firefox, I wanted to follow up if you had identified any other
issues.
Andrew


any screenshots + URL of other issues you’re having or if the
issues are happening on a browser other than Firefox.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: ECFS

I am looking into this. My last status update on this was that
we had a fix for the numbering issue in the works that had to
be tested. I will check if it made its way to production.

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS



work fine.

Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS


Same with IE. On our end and with several others it has been
working too. The challenge with IT for websites is isolating
whether it’s the system that is delivering the information or
the browser (on the user’s end) that is showing it or some
combination. If other folks had the same plug-in or browser


what’s going on either at the server end or the web browser
end.

Best regards,

-d.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again.

computer.

Subject: RE: ECFS



Also to be clear, when you say on IE could case see all filings
made before Thursday on IE, did you try IE on Tuesday as
well or just Firefox?

Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David.

page.

filings made before Thursday on IE. That was not happening
earlier this week, but it is now.

Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,



happened for yesterday and today. We have turned it off
until we can also bring in the filings done via the bulk
filing mechanism this weekend, that way they're all there
at the same time together.

that evening.


-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.

to them? I am also trying to communicate this to the FCC PR
people, so that everyone is on the same page there. I am just



(in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are related to ECFS
being overwhelmed with comments. None of this is related
to the previous and recent DDoS attacks.

Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200

Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Cc: John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

To: Andrew Nebus (CTR); Christine Calvosa
Cc: John Skudlarek; Tony Summerlin (CTR)
Subject: FW: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>; Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-
news.com>
Cc: Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS

Many thanks. Beyond the numbering issue, Jonathan send any screenshots + URL of other issues
you’re having or if the issues are happening on a browser other than Firefox.

Thank you.

To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS

I am looking into this. My last status update on this was that we had a fix for the numbering issue in
the works that had to be tested. I will check if it made its way to production.

From: David Bray
To: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>; Andrew Nebus (CTR)
Subject: RE: ECFS

If it is still not working for you, yes and please send a screenshot + the URL you are trying to access
and send to Andrew – you can cc me.


We are aware that some versions of Firefox have bugs and are trying to identify a fix. Other

Subject: RE: ECFS


Subject: RE: ECFS

It could be a new Firefox version has bugs – in the future please send us URLs and screenshots.

Same with IE. On our end and with several others it has been working too. The challenge with IT for
websites is isolating whether it’s the system that is delivering the information or the browser (on
the user’s end) that is showing it or some combination. If other folks had the same plug-in or
browser version that could have been an issue.

If your browser was cached that could have also been an issue. Lots of different variables.

We strive to help as much as possible, so screenshots and URLs will help Andrew (copied here) at
the Team “sleuth” what’s going on either at the server end or the web browser end.

Best regards,

-d.

To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>
Cc: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks again.

Just based on what others have said outside this organization, I don’t think this is limited to only my
computer.

IE as of today is showing them (except obviously today and yesterday which have not yet been
posted at all). But IE before today I do not think was showing them, either.
Subject: RE: ECFS

The Firefox issue makes me wonder Jonathan if you have a plug-in or antivirus too that’s causing
the issue as we’re simply not seeing it here – I use Firefox and haven’t had an issue nor have other
folks.

Sometimes browsers do become corrupted on local machines. Andrew Nebus copied here, and
again off the record as we’re trying to provide IT assistance can help, can work with you if it arises.
In the future if you send Andrew URLs that you think are not working, we can trying them ourselves
and see if we see the same result.

Also to be clear, when you say on IE could case see all filings made before Thursday on IE, did you
try IE on Tuesday as well or just Firefox?

Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks, David.

I believe I am going to speak with someone @ OMR later today, for that part, and to ensure we’re
all on the same page.

ECFS all this week has been barely working on Firefox. Not just the page number issue, which began
last week, but many if not most filings from any time period do not display using Firefox. Right now,
I am pleased to say, I can see all filings made before Thursday on IE. That was not happening earlier
this week, but it is now.

Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Hi Jonathan,

All off the record as I am trying to provide you IT help, not a media comment:

When you say ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox -- do you mean that it's not
working at all, or it's not working fully (as in the numbers at the top of a search aren't
working) however that it does work in IE and Chrome? We are aware that some versions of
Firefox have bugs and are trying to identify a fix. Other browsers should work fine.

You are correct that the auto-dissemination has not happened for yesterday and today. We
have turned it off until we can also bring in the filings done via the bulk filing mechanism this
weekend, that way they're all there at the same time together.

Yesterday we didn't receive reports of issues and that was unofficially the highest day ever for
comments received by the FCC ever (you'd have to ask OMR for details). Monday you already
know what that was. Tuesday was fine. Off the record, Wednesday afternoon there was an
issue where some entities were using the RSS feeds to create excessive loads on the search
function of ECFS with massive queries that was address that evening.


-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.

Here is my understanding of where things stand with ECFS, from talking with a programmer and an
ECFS help desk person today and from talking to others in our newsroom and among the
communications bar all this week. Would you mind letting me know if I am missing anything or if
the ECFS folks do not know any of this, so I can communicate it to them? I am also trying to
communicate this to the FCC PR people, so that everyone is on the same page there. I am just

ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox, so it’s recommended that folks use a different browser.

ECFS later today will post all filings made today and yesterday, none of which have been posted yet.

ECFS has experienced various periods of down time this week. This is due to receiving a high volume
of filings this week. For all day so far today, ECFS has been fully up. The issues we & others have
encountered with ECFS this week (in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are related to ECFS
being overwhelmed with comments. None of this is related to the previous and recent DDoS
attacks.

Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200
From: Tony Summerlin (CTR)
To: Christine Calvosa
Subject: Fwd: ECFS
(b) (5)
From: "Andrew Nebus (CTR)" <Andrew Nebus ctr@fcc gov>

Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:35:07 PM
To: "Tony Summerlin (CTR)" <Tony Summerlin@fcc gov>
Cc: "David Bray" <David Bray@fcc gov>, "Christine Calvosa" <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>, "John Skudlarek" <John Skudlarek@fcc gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS
(b) (5)
On May 12, 2017 at 7 05 PM, <Tony Summerlin (CTR)> wrote:
(b) (5)

To: "David Bray" <David Bray@fcc gov>, "Tony Summerlin (CTR)" <Tony Summerlin@fcc gov>, "Christine Calvosa" <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>
Cc: "John Skudlarek" <John Skudlarek@fcc gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew Nebus ctr@fcc gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony Summerlin@fcc gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>
Cc: John Skudlarek <John Skudlarek@fcc gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b)

(5)

To: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony Summerlin@fcc gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b)

(5)

To: Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony Summerlin@fcc gov>; David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 4:10:40 PM
To: Andrew Nebus (CTR); David Bray; Christine Calvosa
Cc: John Skudlarek
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b)

(5)
To: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>
Cc: John Skudlarek <John Skudlarek@fcc gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony Summerlin@fcc gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b)

(5)

From: David Bray
To: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew Nebus ctr@fcc gov>; Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news com>
Cc: Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS

Many thanks Beyond the numbering issue, Jonathan send any screenshots + URL of other issues you re having or if the issues are happening on a browser other than Firefox

Thank you

To: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>; Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news com>
Subject: RE: ECFS

I am looking into this My last status update on this was that we had a fix for the numbering issue in the works that had to be tested I will check if it made its way to production

From: David Bray
To: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news com>; Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew Nebus ctr@fcc gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS

If it is still not working for you, yes and please send a screenshot + the URL you are trying to access and send to Andrew – you can cc me

Andrew – can you look into this today? Thank you

We are aware that some versions of Firefox have bugs and are trying to identify a fix Other browsers should work fine

From: Make, Jonathan [mailto jmake@warren-news com]
To: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray [mailto:David Bray@fcc gov]
Subject: RE: ECFS

It could be a new Firefox version has bugs – in the future please send us URLs and screenshots

Same with IE On our end and with several others it has been working too The challenge with IT for websites is isolating whether it s the system that is delivering the information or the browser
(on the user s end) that is showing it or some combination If other folks had the same plug-in or browser version that could have been an issue

If your browser was cached that could have also been an issue Lots of different variables

We strive to help as much as possible, so screenshots and URLs will help Andrew (copied here) at the Team “sleuth” what s going on either at the server end or the web browser end

Best regards,

-d

To: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>; Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew Nebus ctr@fcc gov>
Cc: Mark Wigfield <Mark Wigfield@fcc gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks again

Just based on what others have said outside this organization, I don t think this is limited to only my computer

Firefox will not show most filings made at any time
IE as of today is showing them (except obviously today and yesterday which have not yet been posted at all) But IE before today I do not think was showing them, either
Subject: RE: ECFS

The Firefox issue makes me wonder Jonathan if you have a plug-in or antivirus too that s causing the issue as we re simply not seeing it here – I use Firefox and haven t had an issue nor have other
folks

Sometimes browsers do become corrupted on local machines Andrew Nebus copied here, and again off the record as we re trying to provide IT assistance can help, can work with you if it arises
In the future if you send Andrew URLs that you think are not working, we can trying them ourselves and see if we see the same result

Also to be clear, when you say on IE could case see all filings made before Thursday on IE, did you try IE on Tuesday as well or just Firefox?

Hope this helps

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks, David

I believe I am going to speak with someone @ OMR later today, for that part, and to ensure we re all on the same page

ECFS all this week has been barely working on Firefox Not just the page number issue, which began last week, but many if not most filings from any time period do not display using Firefox Right
now, I am pleased to say, I can see all filings made before Thursday on IE That was not happening earlier this week, but it is now

Cheers
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Hi Jonathan,


When you say ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox -- do you mean that it's not working at all, or it's not working fully (as in the numbers at the top of a search aren't working)
however that it does work in IE and Chrome? We are aware that some versions of Firefox have bugs and are trying to identify a fix Other browsers should work fine

You are correct that the auto-dissemination has not happened for yesterday and today We have turned it off until we can also bring in the filings done via the bulk filing mechanism
this weekend, that way they're all there at the same time together

Yesterday we didn't receive reports of issues and that was unofficially the highest day ever for comments received by the FCC ever (you'd have to ask OMR for details) Monday you
already know what that was Tuesday was fine Off the record, Wednesday afternoon there was an issue where some entities were using the RSS feeds to create excessive loads on the
search function of ECFS with massive queries that was address that evening


-d

From: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news com>

To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David

Here is my understanding of where things stand with ECFS, from talking with a programmer and an ECFS help desk person today and from talking to others in our newsroom and among the
communications bar all this week Would you mind letting me know if I am missing anything or if the ECFS folks do not know any of this, so I can communicate it to them? I am also trying to
communicate this to the FCC PR people, so that everyone is on the same page there I am just relating this to you as a courtesy

ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox, so it s recommended that folks use a different browser

ECFS later today will post all filings made today and yesterday, none of which have been posted yet

ECFS has experienced various periods of down time this week This is due to receiving a high volume of filings this week For all day so far today, ECFS has been fully up The issues we & others
have encountered with ECFS this week (in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are related to ECFS being overwhelmed with comments None of this is related to the previous and recent DDoS
attacks

Thanks
Jonathan
202-552-8200
Subject: Re: ECFS
(b) (5)
From: "Christine Calvosa" <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>

Subject: Fwd: ECFS
(b) (5)
-------- Original Message --------
From: Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>
Date: Fri, May 12, 2017, 19:36
To: "Andrew Nebus (CTR)" <Andrew Nebus ctr@fcc gov>,"Tony Summerlin (CTR)" <Tony Summerlin@fcc gov>
CC: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>,John Skudlarek <John Skudlarek@fcc gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS
(b) (5)
Date: Fri, May 12, 2017, 19:35
CC: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>,Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>,John Skudlarek <John Skudlarek@fcc gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS
(b) (5)
On May 12, 2017 at 7 05 PM, <Tony Summerlin (CTR)> wrote:
(b) (5)

Subject: RE: ECFS
(b)

(5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b)

(5)

Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

Cc: John Skudlarek
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b)

(5)
Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b)

(5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS


Thank you

Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS




Subject: RE: ECFS


Subject: RE: ECFS





Best regards,

-d

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks again


Subject: RE: ECFS

folks



Hope this helps

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks, David



Cheers
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Hi Jonathan,






-d


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David




attacks

Thanks
Jonathan
202-552-8200
To: Chr stine Calvosa
Cc: Andrew Nebus (CTR); Tony Summerlin (CTR); David Bray; John Skudlarek
Subject: Re: ECFS
Attachments: mage001.png
(b) (5)
On May 12, 2017 at 7:36 PM, <Christine Calvosa> wrote:
(b) (5)
Date: Fri, May 12, 2017, 19:35
CC: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>,Christine Calvosa <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>,John Skudlarek <John Skudlarek@fcc gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS
(b) (5)
On May 12, 2017 at 7:05 PM, <Tony Summerlin (CTR)> wrote:
(b) (5)

Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 4 51 PM
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b)

(5)

Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

Cc: John Skudlarek
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b)

(5)
Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b)

(5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS


Thank you

Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS




From: Make, Jonathan [mailto:jmake@warren-news com]
Subject: RE: ECFS


Subject: RE: ECFS





Best regards,

-d

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks again


Subject: RE: ECFS

folks



Hope this helps

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks, David



Cheers
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Hi Jonathan,






-d


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David




attacks

Thanks
Jonathan
202-552-8200
To: Andrew Nebus (CTR); Dav d Bray; Christine Calvosa
Cc: John Skudlarek
Subject: Re: ECFS
(b) (5)

Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 5 02:32 PM
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

Cc: John Skudlarek
Subject: RE: ECFS

(b)

(5)
Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b)

(5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS


Thank you

Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS




Subject: RE: ECFS


Subject: RE: ECFS





Best regards,

-d

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks again


Subject: RE: ECFS

folks



Hope this helps

Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks, David



Cheers
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Hi Jonathan,






-d


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David




attacks

Thanks
Jonathan
202-552-8200
To: Make, Jonathan; David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thank you, I ll make sure the team reviews these details

Cc: Mark Wigfield <Mark Wigfield@fcc gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks Mozilla created this: https://webcompat com/issues/6675

I will note that the FCC representative said that this is limited only to the latest versions of Firefox
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Subject: RE: ECFS
We can confirm it is happening with the latest versions of Firefox Older versions of Firefox don t show it Internet Explorer also shows fine

To: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew Nebus ctr@fcc gov>
Cc: David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS
Mozilla says they are looking into it, too They said they have not yet had any reports except for mine
On May 12, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew Nebus ctr@fcc gov> wrote:


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS



Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS

Same with IE On our end and with several others it has been working too The challenge with IT for websites is isolating whether it s the system that is delivering the information or
the browser (on the user s end) that is showing it or some combination If other folks had the same plug-in or browser version that could have been an issue



Best regards,

-d

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again


Subject: RE: ECFS
The Firefox issue makes me wonder Jonathan if you have a plug-in or antivirus too that s causing the issue as we re simply not seeing it here – I use Firefox and haven t had an issue
nor have other folks

Sometimes browsers do become corrupted on local machines Andrew Nebus copied here, and again off the record as we re trying to provide IT assistance can help, can work with
you if it arises In the future if you send Andrew URLs that you think are not working, we can trying them ourselves and see if we see the same result


Hope this helps

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David


ECFS all this week has been barely working on Firefox Not just the page number issue, which began last week, but many if not most filings from any time period do not display using
Firefox Right now, I am pleased to say, I can see all filings made before Thursday on IE That was not happening earlier this week, but it is now

Cheers
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,


When you say ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox -- do you mean that it's not working at all, or it's not working fully (as in the numbers at the top of a search
aren't working) however that it does work in IE and Chrome? We are aware that some versions of Firefox have bugs and are trying to identify a fix Other browsers should
work fine

You are correct that the auto-dissemination has not happened for yesterday and today We have turned it off until we can also bring in the filings done via the bulk filing
mechanism this weekend, that way they're all there at the same time together

Yesterday we didn't receive reports of issues and that was unofficially the highest day ever for comments received by the FCC ever (you'd have to ask OMR for details)
Monday you already know what that was Tuesday was fine Off the record, Wednesday afternoon there was an issue where some entities were using the RSS feeds to
create excessive loads on the search function of ECFS with massive queries that was address that evening


-d


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David

Here is my understanding of where things stand with ECFS, from talking with a programmer and an ECFS help desk person today and from talking to others in our newsroom and
among the communications bar all this week Would you mind letting me know if I am missing anything or if the ECFS folks do not know any of this, so I can communicate it to them? I
am also trying to communicate this to the FCC PR people, so that everyone is on the same page there I am just relating this to you as a courtesy



ECFS has experienced various periods of down time this week This is due to receiving a high volume of filings this week For all day so far today, ECFS has been fully up The issues we
& others have encountered with ECFS this week (in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are related to ECFS being overwhelmed with comments None of this is related to the
previous and recent DDoS attacks

Thanks
Jonathan
202-552-8200
To: Andrew Nebus (CTR); David Bray; Tony Summerlin (CTR); Christine Calvosa
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b)

(5)

Subject: RE: ECFS
(b)

(5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b)

(5)

Subject: RE: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b)

(5)

Subject: Re: ECFS
(b) (5)
Cc: John Skudlarek
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b)

(5)
Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b)

(5)

From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thank you

Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS



Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS




Best regards,

-d

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again


Subject: RE: ECFS
folks



Hope this helps

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David



Cheers
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,






-d

To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David




attacks

Thanks
Jonathan
202-552-8200
Subject: FW: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thank you.

Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS



Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS

websites is isolating whether it’s the system that is delivering the information or the browser (on the
user’s end) that is showing it or some combination. If other folks had the same plug-in or browser


We strive to help as much as possible, so screenshots and URLs will help Andrew (copied here) at the
Team “sleuth” what’s going on either at the server end or the web browser end.

Best regards,

-d.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again.

computer.

Subject: RE: ECFS
The Firefox issue makes me wonder Jonathan if you have a plug-in or antivirus too that’s causing the
issue as we’re simply not seeing it here – I use Firefox and haven’t had an issue nor have other folks.

again off the record as we’re trying to provide IT assistance can help, can work with you if it arises. In
the future if you send Andrew URLs that you think are not working, we can trying them ourselves

Also to be clear, when you say on IE could case see all filings made before Thursday on IE, did you try
IE on Tuesday as well or just Firefox?

Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David.

I believe I am going to speak with someone @ OMR later today, for that part, and to ensure we’re all
on the same page.

last week, but many if not most filings from any time period do not display using Firefox. Right now, I
am pleased to say, I can see all filings made before Thursday on IE. That was not happening earlier

Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,


When you say ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox -- do you mean that it's not working
at all, or it's not working fully (as in the numbers at the top of a search aren't working)
however that it does work in IE and Chrome? We are aware that some versions of Firefox have
bugs and are trying to identify a fix. Other browsers should work fine.




-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.

communications bar all this week. Would you mind letting me know if I am missing anything or if the
ECFS folks do not know any of this, so I can communicate it to them? I am also trying to



encountered with ECFS this week (in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are related to ECFS being
overwhelmed with comments. None of this is related to the previous and recent DDoS attacks.

Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200
To: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; Andrew Nebus (CTR)
<Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Cc: John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

To: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Christine
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thank you.

Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS



Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS




Best regards,

-d.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again.

computer.

Subject: RE: ECFS



Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David.

on the same page.


Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,






-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.





Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200
From: David Bray
To: Tony Summerlin (CTR); Andrew Nebus (CTR); Christine Calvosa
Cc: John Skudlarek
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

To: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Christine
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thank you.

Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS



Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS




Best regards,

-d.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again.

computer.

Subject: RE: ECFS



Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David.

on the same page.


Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,






-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.





Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200
From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS
(b) (5)

Subject: Re: ECFS

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b) (5)

(
b
)
(
5)

From: David Bray
news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thank you.

Subject: RE: ECFS


From: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS



Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS




Best regards,

-d.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again.

computer.

Subject: RE: ECFS



Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David.

on the same page.


Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,






-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.





Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200
To: Erik Scheibert; Uttam Kumar
Cc: Christine Calvosa
Subject: Fw: ECFS
(b) (5)
From: David Bray

Subject: FW: ECFS

(b) (5)
From: David Bray

news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS
Thank you.

Subject: RE: ECFS
From: David Bray

Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS

Subject: RE: ECFS
Best regards,
-d.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks again.
computer.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David.
on the same page.
Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,






-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS
Hi David.





Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200

Subject: RE: ECFS
Thanks, David.

on the same page.


Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS
Hi Jonathan,






-d.


To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.





Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200
From: Mike Morris
To: Stephen Vong (CTR)
Cc: Andrew Nebus (CTR); James Brown; Ali Toor (CTR)
Subject: Re: ECFS API Errors and Rate Limit increase
Noticed we’ve been maxing out on the 30 req/min rate limit and getting 429 Too Many
Requests responses for the past ~20mins now, can this please be raised?
Thanks,
Mike
On May 4, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Stephen Vong (CTR) <Stephen.Vong@fcc.gov>

wrote:
Hi Mike,

Sorry for the slow reply.

The “Proceeding” part of the submission remains the same, so you are correct in that
you should be able to skip that query.
I checked and your test submission went through normally:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1050310253630

Thanks,
Steve

From: Mike Morris [mailto:mike@fightforthefuture.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:13 AM
To: Stephen Vong (CTR) <Stephen.Vong@fcc.gov>
Cc: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>; James Brown
<James.Brown@fcc.gov>; Ali Toor (CTR) <Ali.Toor.CTR@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: ECFS API Errors and Rate Limit increase

I removed an initial lookup of the ECFS proceeding that we were doing before
each comment submission, so we’re now submitting ECFS comments with only
the “name” docket identifier and not a “description”, which yields confirmation
emails like the following:

Confirmation Number: 20170503652204734
Proceeding(s): 17-108 : undefined

Whereas previously I was seeing:

Proceeding(s): 17-108 : Restoring Internet Freedom

Can you confirm that these are being processed correctly on your end? If this is an
issue I can look into caching the proceeding lookup to save on API calls instead
of skipping it entirely.

Thanks,
Mike

On May 2, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Vong (CTR)
<Stephen.Vong@fcc.gov> wrote:

Hi Mike,

Thank you for the heads-up.
We do expect a rush of submissions, and are working hard to ensure that
everyone will be able to file their comments.
The error you saw yesterday was likely due to a server issue that we
encountered in the late afternoon/evening. That has been addressed, so
the system should be available normally again.

We very much appreciate your help in mitigating the anticipated traffic
congestion. Certainly, one big change that could help with performance
would be to limit the use of file attachments. Background processing of
the file attachments is one of the biggest performance bottlenecks of the
system, and so if you can instead use the text area of the Express
comments to make your filings (and that text area can accommodate
many pages’ worth of text), then the application will be able to handle
more entries.
In return, we could more comfortably raise your submission rate limits.

As mentioned before, we’ve set the general limits to 500 submissions/hr
per user. I have just raised the limits on your account to 30
submissions/minute, which equates to 1800/hour. We will continue to
monitor the system, and will raise that limit if we see that the servers can
handle it.

Thank you,
Steve

From: Mike Morris [mailto:mike@fightforthefuture.org]
To: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>; Stephen Vong
(CTR) <Stephen.Vong@fcc.gov>
Cc: James Brown <James.Brown@fcc.gov>
Subject: ECFS API Errors and Rate Limit increase

ClusterBlockException[blocked by:
[SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE/1/state not recovered / initialized];]
Saw a burst of new errors (^ above) yesterday from the ECFS API,
wanted to make sure you were aware of them, and also give y’all a
heads up that we’re anticipating sending a very high volume of traffic
later this week, likely starting on Thursday evening. It sounds like
there were some stability issues the last time there was a surge of
comments
(http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/06/03/31845849
6/john-oliver-helps-rally-45-000-net-neutrality-comments-to-fcc) and
we’d like to do what we can to mitigate any issues this time around.
Stephen - can we have the rate limit on our API key (registered to
admin@fightforthefuture.org) raised to something like 10,000
requests/hour? We’re planning to have retries with exponential
backoff to accommodate any instability on your side - is there
anything else that would be helpful for us to adjust on our end?
Thanks,
<image001.jpg>
Mike
From: David Bray
To: Sherry Rand
Subject: Re: Fake DDoS attack?

high traffic. We have notice some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual
On May 10, 2017, at 17:12, Sherry Rand (b) (6) wrote:
Mr. Bray
Did the FCC make up a fake DDoS attack to cover up the fact that they lost comments from
net neutrality supporters?
You, the FCC, is claiming that a cyber attack took down your site this week at the same time
that a massive flood of people were trying to comment in support of net neutrality, following
John Oliver's viral segment on Last Week Tonight.
The FCC has offered zero evidence of this alleged DDoS attack, and has even claimed that the
same thing happened during John Oliver's last segment on the issue in 2014. The FCC's
servers have crashed multiple times under the weight of massive public feedback when they
have tried to take away the free speech protections that keep the Internet open. In fact, the
servers went down again on Monday night around the same time that the John Oliver segment
re-aired on HBO.
It seems likely that this alleged DDoS attack is your way of covering up the fact that the FCC
never actually fixed the website so that it could handle the large volume of comments from
supporters of net neutrality. If indeed the site was attacked, it seems likely it was by anti-net
neutrality actor trying to prevent the flood of legitimate comments resulting from the John
Oliver video.
Either way, the public deserves to know what is really going on. This issue affects all of us.
You can't continue making these claims about strangely timed DDoS attacks without proof.
Release your logs to an independent security researcher or major media outlet who can verify
your claims and inform the public about what really happened.
The internet is FREE SPEECH, doesn't belong to you, and should not be controlled by greedy
Verizon or Comcast.
I'm hopping mad like about a million or 2 other voters, and I am sick of being on the short end
of the stick regarding issues which are our RIGHTS and should be upheld as such by the FCC,
which we pay for.
Trump and this corrupt administration is in charge temporarily. We, the voters, are here for
good. History is writing this all down as we speak. Do the right thing.
S. Rand
From: Susan Crawford
To: Ajit Pai; Mignon Clyburn; Mike ORielly
Subject: False Anti-Net Neutrality comments
To all concerned,
Whether or not you are aware, there's an issue within the commentary section
of your website. A canned statement against Net Neutrality is being posted
over and over, all instances of it identical. The message itself is obviously
spam as it uses the names of people who didn't post the comment, as well as
locations that don't match their zip code or the respective people (even using
such specific details as their middle names). Finally, all comments are posted
extremely close together, which is suspiciously indicative of a bot. You don't
have to be well versed in cyber warfare to understand that this is clearly an
attempt to sway opinion without actually representing reality.
The canned message is as follows:
"The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on

the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and
obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to
end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II
and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the
internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under
consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive
step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for
everyone."
Again, you don't need to be a detective to see that this message couldn't
possibly have been written identically by so many people. A quick search
through your database will show this chunk of text populating repeatedly. It
would be a good idea for you all to ensure that any of the comments you
receive that follow this pattern are checked to make certain they match the
proper IP address for their alleged location, the time stamps and if you really
feel so inclined, go to one of the many databases that have bought
information from third parties and check to see if these individuals have ever
lived in the areas they are supposedly commenting from. It might take some
time, but I think your due diligence in ensuring that you are truly hearing the
voice of the people and not a program that someone at Comcast, Verizon, or
other such company have written.
Thank you.
From: Nina Stone
To: Ajit Pai
Cc: Mignon Clyburn; Mike ORielly
Subject: False comment spamming with regard to Net Neutrality
ALCON,
Whether or not you are aware, an issue exists within the commentary section of your
website. A canned statement against Net Neutrality is being posted over and over, all
quite identical. The message itself is clearly spam as it utilizes the names of people
who did not post the comment, as well as locations that do not match their zip code or
the respective people (even using such a specificity as their middle names). Finally,
all comments are posted extremely close together, which is suspiciously indicative of
a bot. One doesn't need to be well versed in cyber warfare to understand that this is
clearly an attempt to sway opinion without actually representing reality.
The canned message is as follows:
"The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the

internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing
job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic
regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-
touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20
years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II
power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open
internet for everyone."
Again, one doesn't need to be a detective to see that this message couldn't possibly
have been written identically by so many people. A quick search through your
database will show this chunk of text populating repeatedly. It would behoove you all
to ensure that any of the comments you receive that follow this pattern are checked to
ensure they match the proper IP address for their alleged location, the time stamps
and if you really feel so inclined, go to one of the many databases that have
purchased information from third parties and check to see if these individuals have
ever resided in the areas they are supposedly commenting from. It might take some
time, but I think your due diligence in ensuring that you are truly hearing the word of
the people and not a program that someone at Comcast or Verizon, for example,
have written.
Thank you,
Nina Stone
From: David Bray
To: Jacob Ulrich
Subject: Re: FCC and the role in regulating net neutrality
Aye here to do the best with what resources are available. For sites wanting to submit
comments in bulk we recommend the URL below as that has been up without issues through
the proceeding.
What becomes more challenging is when folks you bots to submit comments in bulk through
the individual electronic comment filing system which tie-up available resources for actual
humans and thus deny service to some if there are too many bots at once. It does. Are you
wonder why if folks want to submit comments in bulk they aren't using the bulk mechanism?
On May 18, 2017, at 12:41, Jacob Ulrich (b) (6) wrote:
David,
Thank you for your reply and clarification on your role within the FCC. While it is a shame
the site was having issues as I personally had trouble submitting my comments, I do
understand how difficult it can be to work with limited resources in the government sector.
The amount of fake comments within the system was very troubling
(https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-comments-are-being-spammed-
with-anti-obama-boilerplate/), and I personally noticed this as I went to submit my concerns
within the system. Although I suppose it did not mater as Chairman Pai did not bother to take
the wishes of the public into consideration with his upsetting vote today.
Thank you for the work you've done to keep the site up under immense response from the
public, spammers, and apparently DDoS.
Jacob
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:31 AM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Thank you for your note. I am not a Commissioner, I am a non-partisan SES member who
served under Chairman Wheeler and now serves under Chairman Pai. My views on the issue
were never consulted and it is not my place to weigh-in as I have not been hired in that
capacity. My mom-partisan role to provide, given the finite resources available, the ability
for the U.S. public to leave their comments with the FCC.
On what is in my purview:
There have been groups claiming the commenting website crashed. One, the site did not go
down, it was unavailable for everyone to access. Two, there has always been an alternative
easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments
from should you find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Three, we have noticed
some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual mechanism (ECFS) to file
comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for
individuals to file. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-service-are-latest-weapons-
in-net-neutrality-battle-1494533379
Groups have also wanted logs regarding the bots and denial of service. On that topic,
the logs have massive amounts of personal IP addresses associated with the comments filed
that the public did not give consent to share publicly and even if we do our best to scrub
there still might be something there that someone did not agree to have shared.
Again, I am non-partisan and haves under multiple Administrations. My role is to provide,

given the finite resources available, the ability for the U.S. public to leave their comments
with the FCC. Hope this helps.
Ajit, David, Mignon, and Mike,
I watched your vote on Net Neutrality legislation today and it is clear to me that the FCC is
nothing but a shill for internet service providers. Your dismissal of the views of the
American people is what troubles me the most. I will do my part to spread the truth about
the FCC and it's role in what will ultimately result in a further increase in broadband pricing.
In a time where corporations have unlimited power over the American people, some of the
biggest corporations in existence were just handed even more. This is your legacy.
Sincerely,
Jacob Ulrich
From: David Bray
To: greg.otto@fedscoop.com
Subject: Re: FCC claims DDoS attacks after HBO show calls out net neutrality rollbacks, and more.
Date: Sunday, May 21, 2017 9:30:07 PM
Hi Greg,
Good to talk to you on Friday and hopefully now you understand that we were being bombarded in real-life with
emails and phone calls too; they've also gone after the Chairman's home and taken photographs through the
windows of this children https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/5/8/15577988/ajit-pai-protest-door-
hangers-fcc-net-neutrality-proposal
It would be good to do a correction to both articles as they both contain innuendo that implies dimensions to the
attack that simply do not exist. We never said it was from the DarkWeb, so Chris' "expert" is looking in the wrong
place. We're not sharing the logs simply because they contain PII as well as network sensitive information about how
we operate; even Brian Krebs when he had a massive DDoS never shared his logs either.
* The one expert Chris cites in his article is looking at the DarkWeb.
* Chris doesn't reference other experts.
* Chris uses a stilled definition of a DDoS. If you Google "What is a DDoS?" you'll get this link at the top
http://www.digitalattackmap.com/understanding-ddos/ with this definition:
A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is an attempt to make an online service unavailable by overwhelming it
with traffic from multiple sources. They target a wide variety of important resources, from banks to news websites,
and present a major challenge to making sure people can publish and access important information.
... if you play the video it says that botnets are typical however that's not the only way to do a DDoS. You'll note
nothing in that definition above says botnet. Yet in his article he still claims a DDoS must be done by a botnet, which
is not true and not been updated.
* We've already shared info that this was akin to the Pokemon Go DDoS attack hitting the API, just using cloud
services to do so.
* Chris uses only one group, a group that's decidedly political on the issue and not the other side.
* Even the title is innuendo. Chris claims "it’s not uncommon for hackers to boast about disrupting operations at a
large organization like the FCC" unless it was a grop that wanted to create the very scene claiming the FCC had
crashed to detracted from the issue?
The two articles fall below the standard of factual reporting we expect from FedScoop and CyberScoop and that, as a
whole, it creates a misleading impression. I recognize everyone was operating under tight timelines to file, so
hopefully now the corrections can be made to the original articles to move forward?
Thank you,
-d.
From: David Bray

Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 12:17
To: Chris Bing; Billy Mitchell; greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali

Hope everyone is doing well. Here is a good article that does get the technical facts correct on what happened:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/cio-diary-lessons-from-the-fcc-bot-swarm/
CIO Diary: Lessons from the FCC bot-swarm

attack | ZDNet
www.zdnet.com
Cloud-based bots attacked the Federal Communications Commission

-- here's what we know and what it means for Chief Information
Officers.
From: David Bray

To: Chris Bing
Cc: Billy Mitchell; greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali

Appreciated. This is one of those cases where those on the outside are allowed to shout all they want -- we cannot
comment because that would give them operational details.
It would be like asking firefighters for a play-by-play while they were responding.
I have not seen FedScoop yet point out that FftF was wrong when Open Internet happened (2014 not 2015 like they
said). Moreover per the data we released after it was all over, we could handle 250,000 without issue and there
*was* a DDoS event right after the J.O. video in 2014.
That would help balance where we can -- even if we cannot share operational details until it's all over.
From: Chris Bing <chris.bing@fedscoop.com>

To: David Bray

Thanks David. I'll take this information into account as I continue to look into this.

Hi Chris,
Off the record, your "expert" is looking at the DarkWeb -- and isn't looking that perhaps these are cloud-based
commercial bots (so not infected machines, hired machines). Off the record, if our top IP addresses hits were from
a major cloud hosting company, that would suggest it's not humans filing and someone farmed to a public cloud
provider bot services.
Hope this helps as background,
-d.
From: David Bray

Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:06:39 AM
To: Chris Bing

Off the record, a good definition of a DDoS is at http://www.digitalattackmap.com/understanding-ddos/
A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is an attempt to make an online service unavailable by overwhelming
it with traffic from multiple sources. They target a wide variety of important resources, from banks to news
websites, and present a major challenge to making sure people can publish and access important information.
Again off the record, we're seeing the number of visitors who actually file a comment -- when compared to those
who just want to ping ECFS to shout the equivalent of "Fire!" -- to be very low. In other words, lots of IP addresses
were pinging ECFS and not filing comments -- just shouting at it over and over and over and over.
If the number of requests per hour hitting ECFS actually filed a comment, we'd have a *lot* more comments than
we actually did yesterday -- and a large majority of those requests were from IP addresses with whom you
wouldn't associate a person. Also as noted, even back in 2014 we had no issues with 250,000 comments/day into
ECFS -- yesterday was only about 100,000 comments *plus* a lot of shouting IP addresses not filing comments to
create high traffic.
We don't want to encourage more of these DDoS events -- as we want to do everything we can to allow those who
legitimately want to comment to do as such -- so that's why we're not commenting too much on details for now.
Folks with any view should be able to comment.
Also we stood up, before proceeding 17-108 started, a simple Box.com account as well that folks can also use for
bulk comment filings. Strictly off the record so far we're seeing mostly uploads of video clips to that account, not a
lot of actual comments. https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments
Restoring Internet Freedom Comments (WC Docket No. 17-108)

www.fcc.gov
Individual Comments Those who wish to file individual comments should submit them electronically via the
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by going to Proceeding 17-108 at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/
search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108)) and clicking on the "+ Express" link to file an express comment. Bulk
Comments
Best regards,
-d.
From: Chris Bing <chris.bing@fedscoop.com>

To: David Bray

So my question is relatively simple.
How does the FCC qualify a DDoS attack? How do you define whether a particular incident is in fact a DDoS event?
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:45 AM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:

Right now OMR has been designated as the official on-the-record conduit.
Chris can ask OMR more specific questions and if we can share we will -- the one challenge is if he asks about the
specific type of attack or operational details we can't share that until it's over because they might use what we
share we know (and don't appear to know) to morph the attacks. If Chris wants to ask off-the-record by email
feel free with the same caveats above.
Hope this helps.
From: Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com>

To: David Bray
Cc: greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali; Chris Bing

Hi David,
Thanks again for reaching out. Any chance you could talk to our reporter Chris Bing (cc'd here) off-the-record
about this? Of course we'll reach out to OMR about anything on-the-record, but Chris has some more specific
questions that he hopes you might be able to clarify more immediately off the record.
Thanks!
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439


Feel free to ask OMR about whether a similar DDoS happened in 2014, as I believe both Politico and WSJ have
asked and gotten the correct info (they also sorted that the group had the wrong year for when the Open
Internet proceeding happened).
Off the record when a DDoS happens -- and in this case is still being attempted even now -- several of us are
more focused on responding to that event; so depending on when you asked OMR they may have been rather
busy or IT staff weren't available to share details at that time.
Hope this helps.
On May 9, 2017, at 08:25, Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com> wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the background on all of this; it certainly helps. It's not our intent to do anything but tell an
accurate story. Yesterday one of our reporters contacted the FCC press staff and they declined to comment on
what he and we thought were valid questions. With that, we did the best we could to be fair to the FCC given
your statement and the other contextual information of the show and the advocacy group.
If it's possible to talk more about it on the record and to update and reflect that in the story, we'd be more
than happy to do so with more context from the your office.
Please let me know. I'm happy to jump on a call at any time today.
Best,
Billy
Hi Billy and Greg,
Just a heads-up as I have done earlier articles with FedScoop and off the record, the group that
claimed folks fought for Open Internet were wrong about it occurring in 2015. The 14-28 (Open
Internet) proceeding was in 2014.
Also off-the-record, yes -- there was a similar DDoS attack after the 2014 J.O. clip. We later
released the total count of comments received to show this without saying this. Specifically his
video at the time in June 2014 only increased the rate from 5,000 a day to 25,000 a day. Yet we
had issues because of a parallel DDoS. Later when the proceeding neared the end we were able to
accept 250,000 proceedings with our issue because a DDoS attack wasn't coinciding.
At the time the Chairman did not want to say there was a DDoS attack out of concern of copycats.
So we accepted the punches that it somehow crashed because of volume even though actual
comment volume wasn't an issue. Counts from the 2014 proceeding by day are
here https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2014/09/17/update-volume-open-internet-
comments-submitted-fcc
Activist groups like to create news. Yesterday we only got about 100,000 comments -- which if we
can accept 250,000 comments without issue should tell you something about that group's claims.
Hope this helps as background because your story is a tad leaning to the other group without
checking their claims -- to include incorrectly getting the date when all this actually happened?
Best regards,
From: David Bray
To: Greg Otto; greg.otto@fedscoop.com
Subject: FW: FCC claims DDoS attacks after HBO show calls out net neutrality rollbacks, and more.

OK, I'll do that.
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Yes it might be good to ask again now as everyone has more bandwidth... folks were busy here.
Offer to do it on background as a phone call and you can indicate that you and I have worked together in the past. If
you want, you can even send a separate email to Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov and cc me (separate title, etc.) and I can
provide chime in that this would be good for the public. Hope this helps.

To: David Bray

Hi David,
We did quite early on and received a "decline to comment," which our story reflects.
Thanks,
Billy
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
Hi Billy, have you contacted our Office of Media Relations/Mark Wigfield? That would be the best path to first try
for an on the record or even a background?
Hope this helps,
-d.

To: David Bray
Hey David,
Thanks for sticking with us through this. We want to be as fair as possible with all this, and would love to get
something on the record, or at least on the record but not for direct attribution to tell FCC's side of it. To this point,
though, we haven't been able to.
If you want, I'm happy to jump on a call.
Just let me know.
Best,
Billy
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
Off the record -- I am still concerned this "claim" issue was playing into the hands of a certain political advocacy
group, I am also surprised folks haven't pieced together that if there were lots of bots submitting the same
messages over and over (at speeds much faster than humans) then yes that could have tied up the API and denied
service to humans also using the website with the same API, i.e., a DDoS. Google the Pokémon Go attack if you
are not familiar with this form of denial of service; a DDoS doesn't have to use DarkWeb machines to deny
service, commercial cloud vendors hosting bots will work just as well.
Fortunately this news outlet did piece the cyber-related puzzle pieces together this
evening: https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-service-are-latest-weapons-in-net-neutrality-battle-
1494533379
Which incidentally was an off-the-record story I told to Wyatt Kash weeks ago when I was at SxSW, before this
event, about what also happened in 2014 if you want to verify.
Best regards,
-d.
If needed, my cell is (b) (6) ; hope this helps.
From: David Bray

To: Billy Mitchell
Hope this helps.

To: David Bray
Hi David,
Thanks!
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
Feel free to ask OMR about whether a similar DDoS happened in 2014, as I believe both Politico and WSJ
have asked and gotten the correct info (they also sorted that the group had the wrong year for when the Open
Hope this helps.
On May 9, 2017, at 08:25, Billy Mitchell <billy mitchell@fedscoop.com> wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the background on all of this; it certainly helps. It's not our intent to do anything but tell an accurate
story. Yesterday one of our reporters contacted the FCC press staff and they declined to comment on what he
and we thought were valid questions. With that, we did the best we could to be fair to the FCC given your
statement and the other contextual information of the show and the advocacy group.
If it's possible to talk more about it on the record and to update and reflect that in the story, we'd be more than
happy to do so with more context from the your office.
Best,
Billy
Hi Billy and Greg,
here https://www fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2014/09/17/update-volume-open-internet-comments-
submitted-fcc
Activist groups like to create news. Yesterday we only got about 100,000 comments -- which if
we can accept 250,000 comments without issue should tell you something about that group's
claims.
Best regards,
-d.
On May 9, 2017, at 06:05, FedScoop News <news@fedscoop.com> wrote:
Lawmakers have an idea for how OPM can hire more cybersecurity pros.
Not rendering correctly? View this email as a web page here.

To: Billy Mitchell; Chris Bing
Cc: greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali
1494533379
Best regards,
-d.
If needed, my cell is (b) (6) ; hope this helps.
From: David Bray

To: Billy Mitchell

Hope this helps.

To: David Bray

Hi David,
Thanks!
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439


Hope this helps.
On May 9, 2017, at 08:25, Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com> wrote:
Hi David,
Best,
Billy
Hi Billy and Greg,
here https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2014/09/17/update-volume-open-internet-comments-
To: Billy Mitchell
Cc: greg.otto@fedscoop.com; wyatt.kash@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali
Hope this helps.
Hi David,
Best,
Billy
Hi Billy and Greg,
here https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2014/09/17/update-volume-open-internet-comments-
submitted-fcc
claims.
To: billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com; greg.otto@fedscoop.com
Cc: wyatt.kash@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali
Hi Billy and Greg,
Just a heads-up as I have done earlier articles with FedScoop and off the record, the group that claimed
folks fought for Open Internet were wrong about it occurring in 2015. The 14-28 (Open Internet)
proceeding was in 2014.
Also off-the-record, yes -- there was a similar DDoS attack after the 2014 J.O. clip. We later released the
total count of comments received to show this without saying this. Specifically his video at the time in
June 2014 only increased the rate from 5,000 a day to 25,000 a day. Yet we had issues because of a
parallel DDoS. Later when the proceeding neared the end we were able to accept 250,000 proceedings
with our issue because a DDoS attack wasn't coinciding.
At the time the Chairman did not want to say there was a DDoS attack out of concern of copycats. So we
accepted the punches that it somehow crashed because of volume even though actual comment volume
wasn't an issue. Counts from the 2014 proceeding by day are here https://www.fcc.gov/news-
events/blog/2014/09/17/update-volume-open-internet-comments-submitted-fcc
Activist groups like to create news. Yesterday we only got about 100,000 comments -- which if we can
accept 250,000 comments without issue should tell you something about that group's claims.
Hope this helps as background because your story is a tad leaning to the other group without checking
their claims -- to include incorrectly getting the date when all this actually happened?
Best regards,
-d.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
FCC claims overnight DDoS

attacks
At about midnight Sunday night, the
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray
Subject: RE: FCC comments site
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: Fwd: FCC comments site
(b) (5)
From: Jon Brodkin <jon.brodkin@arstechnica.com>

Date: May 10, 2017 at 17:24:14 EDT
Subject: FCC comments site
Hi David, the FCC comments site has been inconsistent again today. Is there another DDoS
attack, or is the downtime due to comment volume? Thanks.
__________
Jon Brodkin
Senior IT Reporter
Ars Technica
Ars Orbiting HQ
From: David Bray
To: Make, Jonathan; ECFSHelp; Melissa Askew
Cc: Mark Wigfield; Mark Stone
Subject: RE: FCC ECFS
Perhaps though there is an option to make something confidential after it has been shown. Please
work with them on specifics and then we can see where they are in the queue.

To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; ECFSHelp <ECFSHelp@fcc.gov>; Melissa Askew
<Melissa.Askew@fcc.gov>
Cc: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Mark Stone <Mark.Stone@fcc.gov>

These were filings that on Friday were available in ECFS, for instance, but today were not. So I don’t
think a staff approval of the filings issue.


Work with ECFShelp and they can see where they are – they might not have been approved for
public release yet. There’s a two-step process.

To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; ECFSHelp <ECFSHelp@fcc.gov>; Melissa Askew
<Melissa.Askew@fcc.gov>
Cc: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Mark Stone <Mark.Stone@fcc.gov>

All proceedings. Sorry, have not had a chance to formally send the email. Many filings were missing
from ECFS. Only certain ones could be viewed. When say filtering all non-express comments from
today, or from yesterday and today. Thanks.


Do you have a confirmation number? I’m looping in ECFShelp@fcc.gov

Which proceeding?


Hi David and Mark – It’s that previously filed and previously available comments on ECFS were not
available on ECFS. Jonathan

To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: Mark Wigfield

ECFS is up – are you saying that CGB/OSEC just haven’t approved comments for public viewing that
were filed?

Have you contacted ECFShelp?


If the DDOS announcement didn’t supersede it, sure, I can do this.
Mark, any comment re ECFS not working?
To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi Jonathan, probably best to contact ECFShelp@fcc.gov or 202-418-0193 first – there is a human-
based approval process that CGB uses to release comments received so they may be focused on
other proceedings.

IT-wise the system is running.

Hope this helps.

Subject: FCC ECFS

It seems like it’s not showing most substantive comments that were filed using it on Friday and
Monday. Only showing mostly net neutrality brief comments. Even some comments that were
accessible Friday through a key date search eliminating any express filings are not accessible today.

David, do you need me to submit something?

Mark, any comment?

Thanks.
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield; Make, Jonathan
I think he’s looking for comments that were filed on Friday and Monday – though it’s not clear which
ones they are.

I recommend indicating which ones you were expecting and then contact ECFShelp who can let you
know if they’re in the queue for approval for public release. It’s not an IT issue as the website is right
now responsive.

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>

So you are saying this is a separate issue from the DDOS attack?


If the DDOS announcement didn’t supersede it, sure, I can do this.
Mark, any comment re ECFS not working?
To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi Jonathan, probably best to contact ECFShelp@fcc.gov or 202-418-0193 first – there is a human-
based approval process that CGB uses to release comments received so they may be focused on
other proceedings.

IT-wise the system is running.

Hope this helps.

Subject: FCC ECFS

It seems like it’s not showing most substantive comments that were filed using it on Friday and
Monday. Only showing mostly net neutrality brief comments. Even some comments that were
accessible Friday through a key date search eliminating any express filings are not accessible today.

David, do you need me to submit something?

Mark, any comment?

Thanks.
From: ECFSHelp
To: David Bray; Jude M.; ECFSHelp
Cc: Mark Stone
Subject: RE: FCC ECFS Filing Confirmation
Jude M

Thank you for contacting the FCC. Your comment was received at 12:25 pm and posted to ecfs at
3:18pm. There is a two hour window before filings are posted to ecfs allowing filers an opportunity
to have their filing deleted from ecfs before it is posted to the system. Any filings received after 5pm
will not be available for viewing until 11 am the next business day.

Thanks
Melisa
From: David Bray
To: Jude M (b) (6) ECFSHelp <ECFSHelp@fcc.gov>
Cc: Mark Stone <Mark.Stone@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: FCC ECFS Filing Confirmation
Dear ECFSHelp,

Can you provide background on the review -- I believe it is to allow users to modify their
comment before it goes public. Also can you help Jude with locating the comment?

Thank you.

-d.
From: (b) (6) on behalf of Jude M.

(b) (6)
To: David Bray
Cc: ECFSHelp
David,
It's been over 3 hours, and I see it at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10509355619738 ;

however, it doesn't appear in the search I linked yet.
Did I miss a message informing me of the intentional delay? I don't appear to have received
anything about the unintentional additional delay.
What's the reasoning behind the intentional delay?

Thanks,
-Jude M.
Comment was received per the confirmation link below -- there is a process in which it later
is made available to the public usually every 2 hours after receipt during normal business
hours. ECFShelp@fcc.gov can assist

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/status/detail/20170509591222073

(b) (6)
To: David Bray
Subject: Fwd: FCC ECFS Filing Confirmation
David,
Where's my comment?
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?
authors_name=Jude%20Melancon&proceedings_name=17-108
-Jude M.
---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: <no-reply@fcc.gov>
Date: Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:25 AM
Subject: FCC ECFS Filing Confirmation
To: (b) (6)
Thank you for your submission to the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Please Note that your filing will not be available for searching until it has been reviewed
and posted by the FCC.
Filer(s): Jude Melancon
Brief Comments: ISPs are obviously common carriers subject to regulation under Title II.
Verizon v FCC established that pretending otherwise doesn't allow for regulating them
appropriately. ISPs need to stay classified as Title II common carriers.
Content-based slowing of consumer internet connections is reason enough alone for this to
be profoundly obvious to anyone honest and informed. However, they're certainly not the
biggest problem with having neither proper regulation nor a conscience be involved in
running effective monopolies on usable access to the greatest communication system in
human history.
Address: (b) (6)

From: David Bray
To: ECFSHelp
(b) (5)
From: ECFSHelp
To: David Bray
Subject: RE: FCC ECFS Filing Confirmation

(b)
(5)

From: David Bray
To: (b) (6) ECFSHelp <ECFSHelp@fcc.gov>

Comment was received per the confirmation link below -- there is a process in which it later is
made available to the public usually every 2 hours after receipt during normal business hours.
ECFShelp@fcc.gov can assist

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/status/detail/20170509591222073

(b) (6)
To: David Bray
Subject: Fwd: FCC ECFS Filing Confirmation

David,

Where's my comment?

authors_name=Jude%20Melancon&proceedings_name=17-108

-Jude M.

From: <no-reply@fcc.gov>
Date: Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:25 AM
Subject: FCC ECFS Filing Confirmation
To: (b) (6)
Thank you for your submission to the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Please Note that your filing will not be available for searching until it has been reviewed and
posted by the FCC.
Filer(s): Jude Melancon
Brief Comments: ISPs are obviously common carriers subject to regulation under Title II.
Verizon v FCC established that pretending otherwise doesn't allow for regulating them
appropriately. ISPs need to stay classified as Title II common carriers.
Content-based slowing of consumer internet connections is reason enough alone for this to be
profoundly obvious to anyone honest and informed. However, they're certainly not the biggest
problem with having neither proper regulation nor a conscience be involved in running
effective monopolies on usable access to the greatest communication system in human history.
Address: (b) (6)

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Matthew Berry; David Bray; Brian Hart
Cc: Neil Grace; Will Wiquist
Subject: RE: Fight for the Future comment questiosn DDOS attack
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart
Cc: Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>; Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; David Bray
<David.Bray@fcc.gov>
Subject: Fight for the Future comment questiosn DDOS attack
(b)
(5)
From: McKinnon, John [mailto:john.mckinnon@wsj.com]
Subject: Fight for the Future comment
I'd welcome any response.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, May 8, 2017

Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457
FCC’s claim that site was DDoS attacked during John Oliver’s viral
net neutrality segment raises questions
Fight for the Future calls for the agency to release its logs to an independent analyst,
guarantee that all comments will be counted
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a press release claiming that
it’s website was hit with a DDoS attack at the exact same time that comments would have
started flooding in from John Oliver’s viral Last Week Tonight segment about net neutrality
on Sunday night. The media widely reported that the surge in comments from the segment
crashed the FCC’s site, which also happened several times during the massive grassroots
mobilization that led to the current FCC rules in 2014 and 2015.
Fight for the Future, a leading digital rights group that has organized some of the largest
actions in support of net neutrality, issued the following statement, which can be attributed
to Campaign Director Evan Greer (pronouns: she/hers:)
“The FCC’s statement today raises a lot of questions, and the agency should act
immediately to ensure that voices of the public are not being silenced as it considers a
move that would affect every single person that uses the Internet.
There are two possible scenarios and they are both concerning:
1. FCC is being intentionally misleading, and trying to claim that the surge in traffic
from large numbers of people attempting to access following John Oliver’s segment
amounts to a “DDoS” attack, in order to let themselves off the hook for essentially
silencing large numbers of people by not having a properly functioning site to
receive comments from the public about an important issue, or
2. Someone actually did DDoS the FCC’s site at the exact same time as John
Oliver’s segment, in order to actively prevent people from commenting in support
of keeping the Title II net neutrality rules that millions of people fought for in 2015.
Given Ajit Pai’s open hostility toward net neutrality, and the telecom industry’s long history
of astroturfing and paying shady organizations to do their dirty work, either of these
scenarios should be concerning for anyone who cares about government transparency,
free speech, and the future of the Internet.
The FCC should immediately release its logs to an independent security analyst or major
news outlet to verify exactly what happened last night. The public deserves to know, and
the FCC has a responsibility to maintain a functioning website and ensure that every
member of the public who wants to submit a comment about net neutrality has the ability to
do so. Anything less is a subversion of our democracy.”
Fight for the Future was instrumental in the massive grassroots campaign that successfully
pushed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enact the strongest net
neutrality protections in US. history last year. They built the page BattleForTheNet.com,
which was responsible for more than ¼ of all the net neutrality comments received by the
FCC during its feedback process, and were behind the Internet Slowdown protest, which
was supported by more than 40,000 websites including some of the largest on the Web like
Kickstarter, Etsy, Netflix, and Tumblr.
The group also helped take the fight for net neutrality into the streets with creative protest
campaigns like Occupy the FCC and the nationwide Internet Emergency protests.
Fight for the Future is best known for their role in the massive online protests against
SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and continues to organize many of the largest protests
in the history of the Internet. Over the summer, they organized the high profile Rock Against
the TPP tour featuring many celebrities and well known musicians. Learn more at
FightFortheFuture.org
###
From: Miller, Jason
To: David Bray
Subject: RE: Files for the CCOE
Figured as much, but just in case.

Jason Miller
Executive Editor
Federal News Radio
202-895-5282
www.federalnewsradio.com
@jmillerwfed

To: Miller, Jason
Subject: Re: Files for the CCOE
Yes, already on it :-)
From: Miller, Jason <jpmiller@federalnewsradio.com>

To: David Bray
Subject: RE: Files for the CCOE
Thanks on both.

Sen. Wyden wrote a letter to the FCC about the DDoS attack.

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=AE80F574-81AE-4877-B9D4-
4EC860BE6103&download=1

Jason Miller
Executive Editor
Federal News Radio
202-895-5282
www.federalnewsradio.com
@jmillerwfed

To: Miller, Jason
Subject: Fw: Files for the CCOE
Hi Jason - here's a draft, not for public release yet.

Also, on background:
Counts from the 2014 proceeding by day are here https://www.fcc.gov/news-
Specifically his video at the time in June 2014 only increased the rate from 5,000 a day to
25,000 a day. Yet we had issues because of a parallel DDoS. Later when the proceeding neared
the end we were able to accept 250,000 proceedings with our issue because a DDoS attack
wasn't coinciding. At the time the Chairman did not want to say there was a DDoS attack out
of concern of copycats. So we accepted the punches that it somehow crashed because of
volume even though actual comment volume wasn't an issue.
claims.

Onwards and upwards together,

-d.

From: David Bray

Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 16:51
To: Sarah Millican (CTR); Tony Summerlin (Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov); karenevans@prodigy.net
Subject: FW: Files for the CCOE

Not for public release yet.

From: Kermit McKelvy - QT3GA [mailto:william.mckelvy@gsa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 11:39 AM
To: Kim Pack - QTGBC-C <kimberly.pack@gsa.gov>
Cc: Adrian J Monza <adrian.j.monza@uscis.dhs.gov>; Alen Kirkorian <kirkoriana@fan.gov>; Amanda -
RMA Finley <amanda.finley@rma.usda.gov>; Andrea Simpson <asimpson@cns.gov>; Anthony - NITC
Washington, DC Cossa <tony.cossa@ocio.usda.gov>; Ashley Mahan - TAC <ashley.mahan@gsa.gov>;
Brendon Johnson <brendon johnson@ibc.doi.gov>; Bret Mogilefsky - XFB
<bret.mogilefsky@gsa.gov>; Cecilia Burrus <cecilia.burrus@va.gov>; Chad - RMA Sheridan
<chad.sheridan@rma.usda.gov>; Christopher Little - QTGBC-C <chris.little@gsa.gov>; Daniel Jacobs -
M1E <daniel.jacobs@gsa.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; David Harrity - IDI
<david.harrity@gsa.gov>; David Larrimore <david.larrimore@ice.dhs.gov>; David Shive - I
<david.shive@gsa.gov>; Dominic Sale - M1E <dominic.sale@gsa.gov>; Earl Warrington - QT3L
<earl.warrington@gsa.gov>; Edward Boriso - M1EA <edward.boriso@gsa.gov>; Elizabeth Angerman
- M1Z <beth.angerman@gsa.gov>; Eric Fears - QTGBC <eric.fears@gsa.gov>; Eric Roggenstroh -
QTGBC-C <eric.roggenstroh@gsa.gov>; Jeanette Molnar <jmolnar@uspsoig.gov>; Jeremy A Wood
(AF/OCIO) <woodja@mcc.gov>; Jim Ghiloni - QD1 <jim.ghiloni@gsa.gov>; John Felleman - QDA
<john.felleman@gsa.gov>; Karen E. Petraska (HQ-JD000) <karen.e.petraska@nasa.gov>; Karen
Paratore <kparatore@presidiotrust.gov>; Kevin Coyne <kevin.coyne@bis.doc.gov>; Kimberly C.
Ullmann <kullmann@uspsoig.gov>; Lalit Bajaj - QT3GB <lalit.bajaj@gsa.gov>; Laura Downey
<laura.downey@tsa.dhs.gov>; Lisa Wallace - QTGBC-C <lisa.wallace@gsa.gov>; Marcelo Olascoaga
<marcelo.olascoaga@gsa.gov>; Marion Royal - TAF <marion.royal@gsa.gov>; Marlon Andrews
<marlon.andrews@nara.gov>; Matthew Goodrich - TAC <matthew.goodrich@gsa.gov>; Maynard
Crum - QT3J <maynard.crum@gsa.gov>; Michael C. Cassidy (USTP) <michael.c.cassidy@usdoj.gov>;
Michaela Iorga (Fed) <michaela.iorga@nist.gov>; Nalin DeSilva (OJP) <nalin.desilva@usdoj.gov>;
Nathan Hintz - QTGBC-C <nathan.hintz@gsa.gov>; Noah Kunin - T <noah.kunin@gsa.gov>; Ralph
Mosios <ralph.mosios@fhfa.gov>; Richard Blake - QTG <richard.blake@gsa.gov>; Robert B. Bohn
(Fed) <robert.bohn@nist.gov>; Robert Wuhrman - M1Z <robert.wuhrman@gsa.gov>; Roger Castillo
(OJP/OCIO FED) <roger.castillo@usdoj.gov>; Roland Chan - IDRGS <roland.chan@gsa.gov>; Roopangi
Kadakia <roopangi.kadakia@va.gov>; Sarah Millican (CTR) <Sarah.Millican.CTR@fcc.gov>; Scott M
CIV DISA PLD Stewart (US) <scott.m.stewart14.civ@mail.mil>; Shon Lyublanovits - QT3JB
<shondrea.lyublanovits@gsa.gov>; Stanley Kaczmarczyk - QT3J <stan.kaczmarczyk@gsa.gov>;
Stephanie Hrin - M1Z <stephanie.hrin@gsa.gov>; Stephenie Gorham - I
<stephenie.gorham@gsa.gov>; Steve Harms - TEAAC <steven.harms@gsa.gov>; Tammy Stathas -
QT3JB <tammy.stathas@gsa.gov>; Thomas J CTR USARMY HQDA CIO G-6 Arnsperger (US)
<thomas.j.arnsperger.ctr@mail.mil>; Tiffany Worthington - QT3GCA <tiffany.worthington@gsa.gov>;
Van Patrick Bevill <patrick.bevill@nlrb.gov>; Vanessa Ros - I <vanessa.ros@gsa.gov>; Vladlen
Zvenyach - TC <vladlen.zvenyach@gsa.gov>; William Hamilton - TAC <william.hamilton@gsa.gov>;
William Huie - TEE <william.huie@gsa.gov>; William Merkle <wmerkle@ftc.gov>; William Slack - TEH
<william.slack@gsa.gov>; William Zielinski - QT3 <william.zielinski@gsa.gov>;
aidan.cleary@tsa.dhs.gov; brian.a.balazs.mil@mail.mil; Coen, Darlene E. (GSFC-7030)
<darlene.e.coen@nasa.gov>; Catanoso, David <david.catanoso@va.gov>; james.e.jones@dot.gov;
james.f.palumbo2.mil@mail.mil; Woytek, Joanne R. (GSFC-7030) <joanne.r.woytek@nasa.gov>;
john.e.hale.civ@mail.mil; kirkoriana@state.gov; kullman@uspsoig.gov; linda.ennis@va.gov;
maryjo.alfano@nasa.gov; rodney.g.swann.mil@mail.mil; rond@mail.nih.gov;
sara.mosley@hq.dhs.gov; sean.connelly@hq.dhs.gov; sidney.rodgers@va.gov; tarnsper@gmu.edu;
thomas.jenkins@va.gov; Tim Womack <timothy.womack@treasury.gov>; victor.pham@ntsb.gov;
walter.bigelow@atf.gov; william.hoffman@ed.gov
Hi All.
Tomorrow, March 23rd, is the day we were hoping to hear from you regarding the
Playbook.

I have attached a copy to this e-mail to make locating it more convenient. Please feel
free to turn on Track Changes and make your comments.

Thank you for the consideration.

/vr/
Wm Kermit McKelvy, CBAP®, CBA®, PMP® | Phone: 202.357.9639
Office of IT Services
Office of Information Technology Category (ITC)
Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Kermit McKelvy - QT3GA <william.mckelvy@gsa.gov>
wrote:
Hi All. Thank you for your attention and questions on the Playbook in our meeting
yesterday.

As a follow up, we would really appreciate it if you would provide feedback on the
document (See attached to original message. Disregard yellow highlights).
Comments beyond grammar are especially appreciated. We are happy to hear about
your Playbook ideas beyond this document as well. Please use Tracked Changes to
make your comments and edits.

Can we get your feedback by Thursday, March 23rd?

Again, thanks for your help to date. We will keep you posted regarding our progress.

/vr/


On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Kim Pack - QTGBC-C <kimberly.pack@gsa.gov>
wrote:
Attached are files we will be using for the CCOE.
Kimberly Pack
Wolf Den Associates
Mobile: (571) 318-0328
In support of the:
GSA Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)
Customer Engagement and Solutions Development Division
1800 F Street
Washington, DC
From: David Bray
To: jpmiller@federalnewsradio.com
Subject: Fw: Files for the CCOE
Attachments: CloudComputeAcqPlaybook Final v4.0.docx
Hi Jason - here's a draft, not for public release yet.
Also, on background:
Counts from the 2014 proceeding by day are here https://www.fcc.gov/news-
Specifically his video at the time in June 2014 only increased the rate from 5,000 a day to
25,000 a day. Yet we had issues because of a parallel DDoS. Later when the proceeding neared
the end we were able to accept 250,000 proceedings with our issue because a DDoS attack
wasn't coinciding. At the time the Chairman did not want to say there was a DDoS attack out
of concern of copycats. So we accepted the punches that it somehow crashed because of
volume even though actual comment volume wasn't an issue.
claims.
Onwards and upwards together,
-d.
From: David Bray

To: Sarah Millican (CTR); Tony Summerlin (Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov); karenevans@prodigy.net

Not for public release yet.

Brendon Johnson <brendon_johnson@ibc.doi.gov>; Bret Mogilefsky - XFB
Hi All.
Playbook.
/vr/

wrote:
yesterday.
/vr/

wrote:

Kimberly Pack
Wolf Den Associates
Mobile: (571) 318-0328
In support of the:
1800 F Street
Washington, DC
Cloud Computing Acquisition Playbook
A Guide to Ordering Cloud
(Working Draft)
General Services Administration

Federal Acquisition Services
Office of Integrated Technology Category
(GSA FAS ITC)
March 2017
Cloud Computing Acquisition Playbook 1

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Cloud Computing Defined .......................................................................................................... 4
Challenges of Cloud Computing ................................................................................................. 4
Core Cloud Playbook ...................................................................................................................... 5
Visual Play Reference ................................................................................................................. 5
Play Structure .............................................................................................................................. 6
Play Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Establishing Cloud................................................................................................................... 7
Building Cloud ...................................................................................................................... 11
Refining Cloud ...................................................................................................................... 15
Tuning Cloud ......................................................................................................................... 17
Expanded Cloud Topics ................................................................................................................ 20
Cloud Services vs Managed Data Center Services ................................................................... 20
Transition Professional Services ............................................................................................... 21
Paying For the Cloud................................................................................................................. 21
Consumption Based Billing ................................................................................................... 21
How the Government Pays for Cloud.................................................................................... 21
Cloud Security Considerations .................................................................................................. 24
Legal and Contractual Clauses .................................................................................................. 25
Data in Clouds ........................................................................................................................... 25
Choosing a Requirements Document Type and a Solicitation Type ........................................ 26
Cloud Service Models and Contract Types ............................................................................... 27
Advanced Cloud Topics................................................................................................................ 28
Strategic Contracting Considerations ........................................................................................ 28
Blanket Purchase Agreements ................................................................................................... 29
Competition Requirements ........................................................................................................ 30
Requirements Contracts ............................................................................................................ 31

Introduction
Purpose
The Federal Government has developed a number of strategies to increase the security and value
of its information technology investments. Cloud computing is one of the primary approaches
that is cross-cutting and broadly applicable. Experience garnered from industry partners and
research indicates cloud computing systems are generally less expensive to operate, more secure,
and more agile than much of the IT assets and systems that currently exist within the Federal
Government. The advantages that cloud can deliver to the Federal Government are promising
enough that real interest and intent to move onto cloud has developed broadly. Cloud is both a
new and a relative term that creates uncertainty or confusion particularly to those lacking
significant experience and education in this area. Some areas of uncertainty include how to apply
contract types to meet cloud goals, a lack of education about how the market is structured,
unfamiliarity with cloud models, and disconnects between cloud requirements and existing
agency policies. This has created the perception of barriers and slowed the adoption of cloud
within the Federal Government more than is desirable or sustainable.
It is the assertion of this team, as a result of research and experience, that most of the inhibitors
to federal cloud adoption are not technical in nature but the result of social and cultural
constraints. As a result, the approach to increase the velocity of adoption for cloud computing in
the Federal Government will be addressed with highly effective methods to address knowledge,
understanding and application of cloud computing within the Government. A playbook that
identifies, explains and offers flexible paths to cloud acquisition and adoption can effectively
reduce or remove these barriers to increase cloud deployment in the Federal Government. The
Playbook is scenario based and explains a certain connected set of issues that provide a firm
foundation and clear understanding of how to apply cloud technology in the Federal
Government. Agency stakeholders are able to match key attributes of their agencies expected
situation to attributes of the provided scenarios to match their situation to the specific scenario
that best illuminates guidelines and a path forward for their situation. The guidelines and path-
forward information are compact and succinct to facilitate agency action. Should agency
stakeholders have less familiarity with cloud and require more detailed information, the
Playbook provides layered details of information and background in Discussion, Expanded
Topics and Advanced Cloud sections. Beyond the scenarios, some of the topics covered in the
playbook include defining cloud, paying for cloud, managed data center services, and strategic
considerations for cloud. Additionally, cloud is a contemporary technology that applies IT
capabilities with highly variable usage that stretch perceived regulatory limits in areas like
funding or contract types. To this end, the playbook will provide thoughtful insights about
historically differentiated, but appropriate, application of regulations to the cloud environment
pertaining mainly to paying for cloud.

With the playbook tool, executive sponsors, program managers, contracting officers and their
staffs should clearly understand and be confident about their cloud deployments. The playbook
purposefully covers a prescribed set of topics that address the concerns of key staff in an agency
concerned with cloud deployment including those directly involved in the planning, application
and procurement of cloud computing services.
Cloud Computing Defined

The term cloud has been applied to much different architecture, services, functions and
applications. For the purpose of this discussion, the Playbook defines and uses the term “cloud
computing” as defined by NIST SP 800-145, The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing: 1
Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network

access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers,
storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with
minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model is composed
of five essential characteristics and defines three service models and four deployment
models.
While this Playbook endorses the computing services that are fully compliant with the NIST
cloud characteristics, the concepts within this Playbook apply equally well to any IT “as-a-
service” that have consumption based pricing, fully eliminate related capital expenditures, and
present packaged services consistent with commercial best practices.
Challenges of Cloud Computing

Commercial-ready cloud services are relatively new to the mass market. For this reason, cloud
computing has no international standard and few conventional standards across vendors and the
industry. Add the loose application of marketing driven expansions and application of cloud
language, and it is easy to understand why cloud confusion abounds. It is also true that some of
the confusion and challenges of cloud come with those of an emerging industry. Some of the
existing challenges are the differences among cloud models, how the industry is organized,
pricing practices, data rights, service definitions and access management. Many of these topics
are covered in more detail in the Expanded Cloud Topics section of this playbook. However, one
universal topic that is best covered early in the discussion regarding the dynamics of cloud
costing and paying for cloud.
A fundamental component of cloud computing is consumption based payment. Typically, an

organization uses the service throughout the month and pays a metered rate directly reflective of
what the organization used that month. The overarching objective for the organization is to pay
exactly what it owes as a direct function of what it consumed.
1
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf
The broad deployment of those services within the Federal Government has put pressure on
Government systems that were not designed to accommodate the variable usage and quick-pay
cycles that are the hallmark of the cloud computing models that are based on consumption.
Unlike business-to-business contracts, Government contracts are constrained by fiscal laws as
well. The Government cannot incur obligations in excess of contract funding, nor can the
Government front-load funding for more support and services than are expected. To cope with
quick usage to bill cycles, the Federal Government must obligate money commensurate with
current federal law which requires agencies to either set aside a large amount of money for
corresponding services it may never fully consume or set aside a little money that may not cover
its full and actual service consumption. The Federal Government does not currently have these
kinds of usage-to-quick-payment capabilities in its systems. As a result, it currently accepts a set
of funding mechanisms that cost (at best) the Federal Government 67% more than necessary for
those services or routinely accepts risk of anti-deficiency. The current structure of Federal funds
systems works directly against the advantages and intended business and value elegances of
cloud computing. This is the most impactful issue facing the Federal Government with cloud
computing. There are other disadvantages in the current Federal structures but are relatively
minor compared to funding.
To solve the funding challenge, the Playbook recommends a set of actions that mitigate these
disadvantages. Most importantly, it recommends the free and active use of Time and Materials
type contracts for cloud computing contracts, and a clarification of Time and Materials
contracting within the FAR. Specific approaches, pros and cons, and additional detail are in the
playbook chapter Paying for Cloud.
Core Cloud Playbook

Visual Play Reference
Playbook authors have discovered common situations that agencies have faced when deciding to
acquire cloud solutions. This is the basis for the scenario-based approach that this playbook
takes. The most common and situations believed to be most useful are reflected in the table
below of Cloud Plays. Usually, the situation of an agency can be categorized by a few factors
that include knowledge of their application suite, the cloud readiness for that suite, whether the
agency will perform the migration itself and whether a service provider is identified.
Knowing the answers to these questions allows an agency stakeholder to immediately turn to the
play that intersects most often with the answers to the knowledge questions of the agency. Once
the agency locates the tab to that particular play, they can turn to that section of the playbook to
begin preparing for and acquiring that service. Because it is true the playbook is not exhaustive,
program managers must be willing to assess intent, generally apply criteria and make decisions
when using the playbook tools. The decision regarding the proximity of the situation of the
agency to these factors will result in valuable and actionable information allowing them to get
scenario and deals in depth with the key points, risk management, and benefit assessment.
The deepest information transmission and learning takes place in these discussions.
Play Definitions
Establishing Cloud
Scenario:
● You are in a small agency (10,000).
● Your solution to data center consolidation is an IaaS solution.
● Your plan is to complete movement onto the solution in phases. You are in phase I.
● Phase I goal is to move key support infrastructure and four related mission critical
applications into the cloud.
● Systems development efforts have been fragmented over time and recent centralized
documentation efforts have highlighted inconsistent standards and coverage gaps.
● You are the director for infrastructure services.
● You have client server based premise solutions for the majority of your mission services.
● Many of your current infrastructure services are virtualized.
● Your COR functions are basic, meeting minimum requirements and focused on validating
payments. Service surveillance is compliant, minimal and mainly by exception.
Additional Assumptions
● Agency staff and support contractors will have application support expertise but limited
expertise or bandwidth for executing application upgrade and migration tasks.
● The agency has a national presence across the United States.
● You prefer the maximum control and touch your current staff can apply.
Checklist
❏ Inventory and definition of infrastructure services.
❏ Current enterprise and solution architecture documentation.
❏ Current application definition list.
❏ Application reconciliation contract or internal work plan.
❏ Organizational knowledge development plan.
❏ Thorough market research for CSP’s.
Key Questions
● What is the condition of your enterprise architecture blueprints? Are they good enough to
facilitate migration of the LOB apps to a CSP?
● Is your security breach and notification plan thorough, compliant and resilient?
● Will you need a headcount surge plan to support cutover periods during migration?
● Are you planning for changes to your DR and COOP plans necessary?
● Are your administration rights, delegation, and credential issuing plans sound?

● What mission critical services, if any, will you continue to deliver on premise? Are there
services you plan to source differently than on-premise or from the IaaS CSP?
● Will your service level definitions accommodate this delivery plan?
● Have you considered differences in communications with users under the new service
delivery plan?
● Do you have a requirements definition that clearly defines duties of the provider relative
to duties of the government?
Discussion
Inventory and Assessment

An accurate and complete inventory and assessment of all IT system assets is important for IT
management generally and critical for successfully migrating those assets to the cloud. Since a
big-bang transition involving all systems at once is seldom financially feasible and risk
warranted, having fully documented current state information, along with change management
processes to keep them maintained, will be key baseline information to include in future
acquisitions for later migration phases.
There are three main elements within an inventory and assessment phase that will provide a
foundation and roadmap for modernizing the IT enterprise. The inventory, through both
automated scans and gathering information from stakeholders, will document all IT assets and
provide both physical organization and a logical organization to those assets such as by
application system, environment (dev, production, etc.), circuit, physical location, and
organizational control. The next element is the application rationalization which documents
business functions and system integrations and outputs specific modernization plans and
recommendations including eliminating duplicative systems by merging application functions,
terminating legacy applications with minimal business value, and complete application re-
engineering as appropriate when warranted. The third element is the actual migration planning
which is often constrained by budgetary considerations and necessarily takes into account risk
assessments for prioritization. GSA developed at the behest of OMB and in collaboration with
industry partners a set of SOO templates for agency use in acquiring cloud migration services 2.
Goals for the inventory and assessment work will include 1) a complete inventory and
assessment to establish a baseline for later migration implementation phases and 2) producing a
rationalization and modernization plan for the targeted support infrastructure and four mission
critical applications.
Application Preparation
The existing agency experience with virtualization for its current server assets will be a benefit in
capacity planning and right-sizing VM resources in the target environment. However, the
2
https://gsa.gov/portal/content/141191
prevalence of client-server architecture generally does not indicate a fully service oriented cloud-
ready architecture and the agency can reasonably expect various levels of application refactoring
to be required in the move to the cloud. The detailed application assessment process presents the
opportunity to make appropriate investments in modernization such as to enhance business
value, improve security to latest standards, rationalize and consolidate data stores, and reduce
complexity while migrating to a scalable platform.
High level goals for the to-be state at the end of the acquisition for the targeted support
infrastructure and the four mission related applications will be necessary to guide the contractor.
To the extent that agency enterprise architecture standards are already developed, these need to
be part of the referenced standards in the acquisition. Given the minimal cloud adoption of the
agency, these standards likely may not currently reflect your future state or at least will be
lacking considerable details that will be developed during this project. This type of
documentation and standards maintenance should be built into a strong governance and change
management process at the agency. Whether these structures and guidance is complete at the
outset, guidelines need to be provided in the acquisition to ensure agency IT services agility and
responsiveness are achieved and enhanced.
The challenge in this scenario is that at the time of acquisition, without reliable and
comprehensive inventory and application dependency information, bidding contractors will have
a difficult time making accurate estimates for the scope of application modernization efforts to
undertake. One approach for managing this work includes using Time and Materials CLINs for
this part of the work and requesting multiple options with trade-offs be produced in the plans
prepared for the rationalization and modernization effort. Alternatively, one or more optional
CLINs could be used for selectively undertaking recommendations arising from the assessment.
Migration Support
An effort of this scope and criticality to agency mission will require significant resources to plan
and execute the migration of these related systems. Project management and stakeholder
coordination support in addition to the technical expertise for planning the cloud environment,
configuration, testing, building and scheduling the cutover plan, to name a few, are all activities
to be performed. You should expect resources to ramp up and down for this part of the work
since minimal resources can be effectively deployed until the inventory & assessment is
complete.
Network architecture and agency circuit capacity for the network traffic between agency
premises and the CSP will be a key planning element. Patterns vary widely for network traffic
and utilization by applications based on the variety of types, number, and logical location
(public, internal agency, trusted systems, etc.) of users and systems connecting as well as the
amount of data transferred. Your inventory and assessment phase will consider these issues and
could even indicate a scope change to the targeted migrated systems based on this information.

Prior market research should raise the question and may well inform if a dedicated circuit to the
CSP is warranted as part of the overall project. Anticipate coordinating appropriate changes to
your existing agency telecom and circuit contract as the approach is determined. At a minimum,
plan for your acquisition to specify development of networking architectures to ensure sufficient
bandwidth and a TIC-compliant solution 3. It has been noted there can be challenges with some
cloud-exclusive type architectures in meeting monitoring requirements contained in TIC, but it
does remain a Federal requirement.
To the extent possible within this project and acquisition, executing a phased migration with, for
example, the key support infrastructure moving first, likely will lower risk more than performing
a complete cutover of all targeted applications at once. Subsequently, migration of four targeted
applications individually may limit the scope of potential related mission delivery problems.
Since moving a significant portion of IT services is contemplated in this project, a phased
approach to effectively test networking, latency, and overall service performance will be a useful
in potentially limiting the scope of affected systems with each change. As key support
infrastructure is to be moved, an opportunity for moving it first or early can shed light on
undocumented dependencies within the systems and applications that are not in scope for
migration in this phase. Similarly, moving individual components within an application in stages
also can mitigate cutover risk in the cases when it is architecturally feasible to do so. Effective
testing of production systems in new environments can be challenging and given the mission
critical nature of the targeted applications these strategies may prove effective.
CSP
CSP specific requirements likely won’t be numerous in a scenario where there is little agency
cloud footprint and this acquisition will represent the first significant foray into cloud. There will
of course be DR and COOP requirements but these are better treated at the application level
versus viewing the CSP as a traditional datacenter and layering on outmoded legacy backup
requirements. The goal is a transition to the cloud and an associated operational transformation
to an efficient service oriented posture. Geographic diversity is one such requirement to include
but is easily met by most CSP and can be programmatically achieved by changing one parameter
in the API call to instantiate the resource. Granted, not all (and perhaps even few) typical Federal
agency applications will ever be re-engineered into fully next generation cloud-designed
applications that are stateless works of resiliency but it still makes sense to position the
organization to leverage this potential where appropriate.
This scenario contemplates migration of 4 mission critical applications. Of course, there needs to
be application availability SLA’s but these will rest with the contractor layering managed
services above the CSP and not directly with the CSP hosting the resources. The implementation
path the contractor implements to achieve those service level objectives (SLOs) will vary based
3
https://www.dhs.gov/trusted-internet-connections
on the particulars of the application architecture. Specifying those goals can influence the
approaches taken during the application preparation phases to enhance application resiliency.
Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPO) are more appropriately
specified at the application level (or standardized across groups of applications). CSP-specific
specifications are better focused on items such as average resource deployment times, resource
configuration requirements (e.g. VM’s with 16 cores), resource performance (e.g. network and
block storage IOPS), and functional characteristics such as fully API enabled access to all
capabilities.
Additionally, the FISMA security categorization of the applications to be hosted will be a key
requirement for defining the CSP’s that can be leveraged by contractors. Plan for proactive
management and processes to monitor CSP resource consumption by requiring reporting and
providing mechanisms for managing and periodically reviewing consumption. Contracting
flexibility can be provided by employing optional CLINs within appropriate resource categories
to accommodate future growth.
Contract Vehicle Options

Projects of this advanced complexity with a soup to nuts scope will need a full range of IT
professional services to support the entire range of inventory and assessment, application
development, and migration support functions that are required. Projects with these labor
requirements and multi-phase executions are typically most easily accommodated by the IT
solutions based GWACs such as Alliant and CIO-SP3 as they have the flexibility and capability
for such an enterprise lift. Agency specific IT solutions contracts such as DHS Eagle II and VA’s
T4NG can be similarly suitable for those ordering activities eligible to use them. Cloud focused
contracts that support the full range of services required such as DOI’s Foundation Cloud
Hosting Services (FCHS) can be appropriate on a government-wide basis and Army’s ACCENT
contract would be a candidate as well for Army mission owners. Although there is no individual
requirement outside the scope, the multi-phase approach and broad range of requirements may
render Schedule 70 an imperfect fit. The large delivery order based contracts such as NASA
SEWP & CIO-CS would not be suitable due to the overall project emphasis on the analysis,
assessment, and software development aspects of this project.
Building Cloud
Scenario:
● The mission area for your agency is acquisition services for the federal government.
● Management has asked you to move your largest line of business to the cloud.
● You are from a medium sized agency.
● Your agency has put a single business support application in the cloud last year.
● You worked for a cloud provider before joining your current agency
● Most agree, your CIO shop is stretched to capacity.

● Average tenure in your CIO shop is 19 years.
● Some application re-engineering within this largest line of business application will be
required prior to migrating to cloud.
● Single acquisition.
Checklist
❏ Current application definition list.
❏ Application reconciliation contract or internal work plan.
❏ Organizational knowledge development plan.
❏ Post-migration application support strategy.
❏ Cost goals that reflect what is more expensive and what is less expensive when deploying
cloud services.
Key Questions
● What is the condition of your enterprise architecture blueprints? Are they good enough to
facilitate migration of the LOB apps to a CSP?
● Have you chosen a contracting approach?
● Have you decided what identity management approaches are acceptable and desirable?
● Do you have a comprehensive set of service level agreement requirements? Does it
include acceptable application performance metrics?
● Do you have a “consumption-to-cost” management and adjustment mechanism?
● Is governance in place?
● Have you decided on the most advantageous contract vehicle for your move to the cloud?
● Can you discuss your strategy for cloud sourcing? Do you have a roadmap?
● Are the stakeholders in all key areas at the same industry knowledge level for cloud?
Discussion
Application Preparation
With the target project consisting of your largest line of business, risk is elevated for your cloud
migration. Given the importance of the application you are taking the opportunity to modernize
your application to an appropriate extent to improve reliability and lower future maintenance
burdens by leveraging features of cloud computing. Ensuring current documentation, security
posture improvements, leveraging modern architecture and interface capabilities, and enhancing
testing and maintenance efficiency are just some of the outcomes of careful application
preparation.
However, this significant project will be building on at least some prior cloud experience and
therefore some network topology and systems integration concerns will have been included or at
least considered with the prior business support application migration. Contracting for IT
projects of this type always requires detailed and comprehensive system descriptions of the as-is
state and detailed objectives for the to-be state.
As an IT system inventory and assessment has been completed, we can trust that much of the as-
is documentation for this system/line-of-business has been completed and remains current.
Depending on the scope of that initial effort, it may even have outlined some modernization
paths for this application suite. In the more likely scenario that it did not, your current project
will need to anticipate some uncertainty in the implemented approach to its preparation for the
cloud. Given the assumption of a single acquisition, you’ll be asking vendors for an end-to-end
solution approach. This can result in sub-optimal outcomes if various vendors propose different
approaches to the project sections with no vendor proposing what might be the best approach for
each project section. Early contractor engagement during market research and especially the use
of RFI’s can be very valuable in providing input to framing the project and the solicitation to
ensure that the organization’s goals are met.
The to-be state after application refactoring must be consistent with existing agency enterprise
architecture, platform, and security standards. All of these documents will need to be referenced
in the solicitation. If exceptions to such standards have been made for this project, such as a
particular legacy system component to be replaced separately, those should be clearly noted as
well.
Multiple contracting approaches are possible with projects of this complexity that comprise
multiple phases. Separate CLINs can be created for each phase and these can further be broken
down within a phase. Hybrid contract types with optional CLINs mixing FFP and T&M (or just
Labor Hour) provide tremendous flexibility to ensure successful project execution within the
scope of the awarded contract.
Migration Support
It is a given that agency staff resources will be involved in the transition to the new cloud hosting
environment for this important line of business application. Very likely existing contractor
support resources for this application will also be utilized commensurate to their scope of
support. Nevertheless, you can anticipate needing transition related support activities including
project management for the planning, implementation, cutover, and legacy shutdown activities
for the application will be needed as well. The important theme for both your project and
especially the related solicitation is to be clear and thorough identifying the roles and
responsibilities of existing stakeholders and those to be undertaken by your new contractor.
CSP
The relative dollar value of the CSP hosting services in this scenario will typically result in
reduced attention to be given to this aspect of the project. The overall scope of the line of
business application being migrated may consist of many subsystems creating a large footprint of
VM’s, storage, and bandwidth consumed by the aggregated whole. This initial resource footprint
will be further multiplied when factoring in the various environment instances required for a full
development lifecycle such as for development, integration, QA, and production environments.
Compounding the contractor’s problem in pricing such services will be the phased approach of
the project and potential significant unknowns in the application modernization and preparation
phase that will impact resource consumption while seeking to maintain performance
characteristics.
Plan for proactive management of CSP resource consumption by requiring estimates and
providing mechanisms for managing and periodically reviewing consumption. Contracting
flexibility can be provided by employing optional CLINs within appropriate resource categories
to accommodate future growth.
As always, the FISMA security categorization will be essential in determining the available pool
of CSP’s that can be leveraged by contractors. Integration considerations for related applications
can impact hosting CSP selection for performance and manageability reasons based on where
those resources are hosted and the nature of the system interactions. Again, effective
comprehensive documentation of your existing IT system state will be key to contractor success
in their proposed solutions.

This project is composed of major steps involving at least three main phases with potentially the
biggest phase in both cost and schedule risk being the application preparation. The overall scope
of this effort will favor either specialty cloud migration focused contract vehicles (e.g.
ACCENT) or solutions-based general purpose IT vehicles (e.g. Alliant, CIO-SP3). They will
provide the flexibility in scope to handle the potentially significant resource effort needed to
reengineer the application. GSA’s Schedule 70 is a potential option as well with the solicitation
spanning both SIN 132-40 for the cloud services and SIN 132-51 for the professional services
needed to execute both the application refactoring and the hosting transition efforts. Delivery
order based GWACs (e.g. NASA SEWP, CIO-CS) will likely be a poor fit as the application
development effort for refactoring combined with the transition support services result in the
required professional services dominating the project and overwhelming the cloud hosting
portion of the acquisition.
DHS has undertaken a department-wide strategy of establishing separate contracting solutions

for commercial commodity-based IaaS cloud hosting services (DHS ECS BPAs) versus the
professional IT services needed for supporting those CSPs. This model of having separate
acquisitions can still effectively meet mission needs, albeit with a different set of tradeoff
considerations based on the parameters. Consideration through governance processes and/or
requirements within the professional services solicitation will need to be made to manage system
integrator consumption of hosting resources they are not providing. Contractors should be

required to provide estimates of cloud hosting resources anticipated to be used and be held
accountable to those estimates.
Refining Cloud
Scenario:
● You are in a medium sized – large agency (110,000).
● A significant portion of the agency infrastructure is already in the cloud.
● You will migrate all remaining on-premise cloud capable mission and mission-support
applications to another cloud provider.
● You are the most experienced deputy CIO with a mission area facing role.
● The agency has a national presence across the United States.
● Your COR functions are basic, meeting minimum requirements and focused on validating
payments. Service surveillance is compliant, minimal and mainly by exception.
● IT system inventory is current and up-to-date.
● Where performance is not a critical requirement, the goal is to save money.
● 20% of your applications are not available.
Checklist
❏ Data rights and movement conditions are documented as a requirement.
❏ Documented support plan during migration.
❏ Are your administration rights, delegation and credential issuing plans sound?
❏ Post migration support and communications plan for mission area application users.
Key Questions
● Is your security breach and notification plan thorough, compliant and resilient?
● What are the changes you plan to make to disaster recovery and COOP plans?
● Will your service level definitions accommodate this delivery plan? How will you
maintain surveillance and balance competing requirements?
● You have a hosting and management strategy.
● Do you have a requirements definition that clearly defines duties of the provider relative
to duties of the government?
Discussion
Migration Support
The essence of this type of project scenario is getting applications out of the legacy on-premise
data center and to the cloud. As the application inventory is complete, the scope of cloud-ready
applications included in this migration effort should be well defined as are the major integration
and dependency hurdles, all of which can be provided in the solicitation to describe the as-is

state of the agency enterprise. As a separate CSP is specified for hosting these applications to
provide enterprise resiliency and flexibility, the new environment will need configuration
planning and architectural standards development and specification. This may be straightforward
on the one hand due to the “green field” nature of a new CSP while requiring additional effort to
ensure common services across the enterprise such as ICAM and enterprise resource monitoring
are available and uniformly instantiated. Likely an agency of this size will have some IT assets
already hosted in the target CSP but they are expected to be isolated and inconsequential relative
to this scope of this project scenario. Further, the national presence of the agency may warrant
deployment on multiple regions within the CSP for performance purposes depending on the
nature of the applications.
Leveraging repeatable processes that are well integrated to agency configuration management
and governance processes will be a key driver for success since the overall scheduling of the
transition of individual applications can be become a quite complex challenge based on the
interdependencies between applications. These challenges may be further complicated by the
extended multi-CSP architecture in place. As the number of applications grows expanding the
project scope and likely manifesting interdependency driven scheduling challenges, the contract
structure may necessitate phased implementation approaches with multiple milestones breaking
the project into lower risk chunks. As always, the goal is to balance between execution flexibility
and effectively holding contractors accountable for meaningful performance in support of
mission.
Even though the targeted applications are cloud ready, security requirements for each application
will need to be considered as part of the migration to the cloud hosting environment. This can
include and may necessitate internal application component security analysis. Migration
activities to consider should include data preparation in addition to the interface and service
transition planning steps. Cutover planning combined with go-live support are key considerations
along with an appropriate back out or rollback planning must be anticipated and fully prepared
for when (not if) things go wrong.
Consideration of a cloud management platform implementation capable of supporting the

multiple clouds deployed across the enterprise is appropriate if one is already in place. However,
implementation of a successful cloud management platform may be better served as a separate
project to enhance opportunities for solution flexibility rather than tacking it onto this
acquisition.
CSP
This scenario represents a novel case where rather than justifying a particular CSP 4 be used for
hosting, a specific provider is not to be leveraged in order to specifically provide for vendor
diversity to enhance resiliency. The agency’s national presence does not itself necessitate a CSP
4
CSP justification is discussed within other Plays.
with particular attributes such as multiple regions for potentially more localized resource
deployment but does increase the likelihood that some application or application interaction
characteristics exist that may.
Consistent with all scenarios, it is important to provide the best available description of hosting
needs to ensure the workloads will function effectively and that the CSP supports any known
specialized performance characteristics. Standardized resource consumption estimates will
provide both an overall scope of effort to contractors and a potential path to price evaluation
within this component when needed. Appropriate CSP resource consumption metrics to specify
will vary by situation but can include overall numbers of, for example, VM’s with particular
RAM and vCPU cores, total required block storage, among other resources.
Do anticipate and plan for future expansion of required CSP capacity but also do not commit to
requirements beyond current needs. The goal is to build in flexibility for anticipated and
potential increases, and as appropriate decreases, in consumption based on reasonable
assumptions. Optional CLINs can be valuable tools to achieve this flexibility.

This scenario potentially presents the largest pool of contracting vehicle options to meet the basic
requirements of providing significant hosting capacity combined with considerable IT support
labor to implement the transition. The biggest project specific factor that will influence the
available choices will be the number of systems moving and their interdependencies as these
factors will increase the overall amount of IT services support involved in the overall acquisition.
Additionally, as this complexity increases, actual system transition execution phases may be
introduced lengthening overall implementation timelines necessitating more sophisticated
contract structures. These higher complexity enterprise level projects will favor the general-
purpose IT solutions-based contracts (e.g. Alliant, CIO-SP3) over the delivery order based
GWACs (e.g. CIO-CS, NASA SEWP). Cloud-focused contracts including transition support
services such as DOI’s FCHS or an available agency-specific option can be considered in
addition to the utility belt of IT contracting, Schedule 70.
Tuning Cloud
Scenario:
● You are in a large agency (175,000).
● You have a rationalized and working cloud strategy that includes all cloud types.
● There is a single primary CSP and your contract ends in 21 months.
● Recent experience indicates a sensitive mission area requires very high service levels and
support responsiveness (Relative to the remainder of the enterprise).
● The performance of the current CSP is marginally acceptable.
● The agency has an active, responsive and accurate enterprise architecture function.
● IT professional services support across the IT portfolio is in place and functioning well.
Checklist
❏ Documented lessons learned in the existing arrangement.
❏ Cost planning strategies.
❏ Data rights and movement conditions are documented as a requirement.
Key Questions
● What are the changes you plan to make to disaster recovery and COOP plans?
● What service levels do you need that are different from those in use?
● What requirements or contract weaknesses exist in the current arrangement that limit
achieving service that would delight you?
Discussion
CSP
Being this far along in the cloud journey, the only focus for the acquisition will be obtaining the
cloud services directly. A key question and concern at this point will be whether there are
requirements for a specific CSP based on the existing system landscape. Specifying a particular
CSP will typically require justification as part of the solicitation. The type of justification may
vary based on whether the CSP has multiple resellers (brand name) or if the CSP is directly
contracting with the Government (sole source). Conversely, in a case where cross provider
resiliency is required beyond regional workload distribution within the same CSP, it may be
necessary to specify your current providers as a way to exclude them from proposal within the
goals of the acquisition.
In the situation where the hosting requirements allow for more generic resources, competition
can be enhanced since a range of CSP solutions can be brought forward. A critical success
component will be describing the hosting needs sufficiently to be able to ensure the workloads
will function effectively and allow for an effective comparison between bids. Appropriate
metrics will vary of course by workload but it can be very helpful to describe the range by
percentage of, for example, VM’s by RAM or vCPU cores, and/or IOPS and throughput of
storage or networking performance. This can be important in obtaining effective cost estimates
when diverse workloads are aggregated from across many components and combined into a
single solicitation such as in this scenario. Also note that the particular capacity metrics utilized
can vary significantly across service models. SaaS solution metrics can often be based on
capabilities more closely aligned to the various application capabilities delivered and may not
include as many technical measurements.
Do anticipate and plan for future expansion of required CSP capacity but also do not commit to
requirements beyond current needs. The goal is to build in flexibility for anticipated and
potential increases, and even decreases, in consumption based on reasonable assumptions.
Optional CLINs can be valuable tools to achieve this flexibility.
Since the primary subject of this Playbook is cloud computing, solicitations that require CSP
solutions compliant with The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing will avoid solutions that are
only called cloud while ensuring your agency fully leverages its benefits. FISMA security
categorization for the hosted systems is a key constraint on the ability of the provider to meet
security requirements. There are far fewer FedRAMP High provisional authorizations than
FedRAMP Moderate. This constraint is even more impactful within DoD with their four separate
Impact Levels as defined in the Cloud Computing SRG. Consideration of whether to require
FedRAMP authorization at the time of solicitation will save time on deployment by lowering risk
of problems achieving security authorization in a timely manner but may create challenges if the
pool of capable providers is too small.
Billing management requirements are an often-overlooked component for a typical CSP-only

acquisition. As hundreds or thousands of individual resources can easily be deployed across the
enterprise, managing the consumption can prove to be a significant challenge. Ensuring that
methods exist to help mark resources by organizational unit, by application within that
organizational unit, and by environment (dev, QA, prod), to name but a few, will help with the
management problem. All CSPs should provide API driven access to billing data and resource
consumption details. Building on this, ensure CSP integration capability with agency systems
and prepare agency processes to support effective management of resource consumption.

With the scope of the acquisition narrowed down to a single well defined category, potential
contract vehicle identification is simplified. There are numerous government-wide options
available but few have pre-evaluated cloud solution compliance with the NIST cloud computing
characteristics. Popular general purpose players include the delivery order based GWACs (e.g.
NASA SEWP, CIO-CS) and of course Schedule 70 which features the Cloud SIN that does
contain pre-vetted NIST compliant offerings. DOI’s Foundation Cloud Hosting Services (FCHS)
also is a viable option as it is open to government-wide use and also vetted solutions for the
NIST cloud characteristics. The major IT solutions contracts are not suitable options when only
procuring commodity cloud services. Some agencies will have other specific options such as the
Army ACCENT blanket ordering agreement (BOA) and the DHS ECS BPA are recent examples.
Having removed the requirement for professional services, LPTA evaluation becomes an option.
Differences will be found in contract vehicle access to CSP’s based on the service model,
especially for SaaS. Comprehensive IaaS providers that deliver a range of typical hosting
services including various sized VM’s, storage options, and flexible programmatic networking
capabilities, are typically well represented on vehicles. SaaS providers may not be generally

available on multiple government-wide contracts due to licensing exclusivity with their channel
partners.
Expanded Cloud Topics

Cloud Services vs Managed Data Center Services
In the prior discussion about challenges of cloud, it was mentioned that the cloud market is
nascent enough that there are general conventions, but no standards within the industry. As a
result, many apply traditional understanding and historical frameworks to cloud services. It is
common for those unfamiliar with the cloud industry to view cloud through the lens of managed
services. This is much more familiar to them; they hear familiar terms and readily apply the
managed services framework to increase their ease of deployment and speed of progress. While
understandable, this may be a significant mistake. A simple example of this situation is the
service type and levels an agency receives when they purchase infrastructure managed services
as part of a data center outsourcing arrangement. In a mature marketplace, an agency expects to
receive all services from the physical structure, air conditioning, facility power distribution,
network core and support, and server platforms. Maintenance of these components is reasonably
expected as well. When purchasing cloud services the maintenance of some components such as
applications and monitoring services standardized to existing agency models and systems are not
included in the standard CSP provided services. Most cloud infrastructures are virtualized frames
that run an “operating system” for the frame (hypervisor for example), typically referred to as the
host. The cloud provider will invariably operate, maintain, and guarantee the host or frame
management operating system as it is on CSP’s side of the service boundary. On the agency side
of the boundary is the operating system known as the guest that runs the computing instances for
the agency. It is the one that runs the agency application as part of the virtual OS and interfaces
with the application. This is a modern form of the traditional OS most of us are familiar with
from the “racked iron” era. By default, this guest OS is not necessarily patched, updated and
maintained as a standard managed cloud offering as an agency might expect if viewing this
through a managed service lens.
Commercial cloud service provider (CSP) offerings have been standardized to efficiently support
high volume consumption and perceived near-infinite scaling capabilities in a multi-tenant
environment. This standardization typically means the agency consumer will need to have
additional services layered on top of the direct CSP service to match their individual
requirements. These additional services can be provided either by agency staff or by contracting
for professional services. A common example exists in Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)
offerings such as a virtual machine service. Although IaaS CSP’s will provide the agency
consumer with a fully tested and patched OS image to launch the virtual server, once that virtual
machine is launched and running, the CSP is not responsible for installing application software,
applying future OS patches, monitoring that the server is performing the task intended (e.g.

software application errors), or otherwise responsible for management of what happens within
that guest server instance. These extra services, along with other requirements such as disaster
recovery, continuity of operations, and application management, constitute typical managed data
center services.
It is a key procurement and risk management consideration to plan for these services in the cloud
space. Does your agency have in-house expertise to provide these services or are they currently
contracted to a system integrator? Although they can easily be obtained and contracted with the
IaaS hosting services by system integrators or other contractors, tradeoffs must considered in
contracting convenience versus flexibility and managing vendor lock-in risk by separating the
contracting efforts.
Transition Professional Services

Transition professional services include all those IT professional services used to support the
migration or transition of workloads from its current hosting environment to a destination
environment. This can include various support services including inventory, assessment and
rationalization, migration assistance, cloud architecting, environment configuration, and similar
related services. Labor in this case does not include billing administration, help desk specific to
services within the CSP’s boundary, incident response, etc., which are usually all included in the
CSP rates for compute, storage, or related provisioned resources.
Paying For Cloud

Consumption Based Billing
The metered billing aspect of cloud computing services is a critical element to achieve the goal
of improving IT spending efficiency and forces government to approach purchasing computing
power in a whole new way. Consumption based billing is the most desired payment method for
cloud computing to drive down costs for the government and to create the most efficient spend.
Cloud computing power is often purchased by the metered minute or hour, like a rental model.
Vendor billing for cloud computing power is often broken down into units of processing power,
units of storage, and units of up/down bandwidth, all by the minute or hour.
This metered facet of cloud computing billing and realizing the cost benefits conveyed by buying
only the amount required has caused confusion and concern in the government contracting
community. The challenge contains aspects of both contracting specifics and government
financial business processes. This form of billing is widely used in the private sector but is not
common among government customers. Consumption based billing is burdensome in terms of
the management required to budget, obligate and monitor billing.
How the Government Pays for Cloud

Cloud computing services, while still an evolving concept clearly falls within the realm of
commercial services, and there are numerous pricing models for cloud in the commercial world.
However, unlike business-to-business contracts, Government contracts are constrained by fiscal
law. The Government cannot incur obligations in excess of contract funding. Nor can the
Government front-load funding for more goods or services than is reasonably expected. This is
problematic when unexpected demands emerge – e.g., disasters, recovery services, etc.
How shall a contract be crafted when the method of billing calls for a time & materials (T&M)
contract type if an agency discourages the use of T&M contracts because of the risks to the
government? There are risks of running out of funding and violating the Antideficiency Act,
especially for a service that can be provisioned so easily. Thus far, most agencies’ innovations
with respect to procuring cloud computing services have relied upon flexibilities already existing
within the FAR. Agencies are using three approaches for paying for cloud computing services
today, including:
● Approach 1: Optional CLIN Not To Exceed

● Approach 2: Drawdown Accounts
● Approach 3: Subscription Based
For Approaches 1 and 2, Agencies have been crafting a contract with a Firm Fixed Price (FFP)
per unit of sale and then monitoring the burn rate similar to a T&M contract to manage the risk
of runaway cloud services and labor exceeding funding and possibly violating of the
Antideficiency Act. Similar risk exists in having to de-obligate excess funding near the end of
the fiscal year. Agencies must have the contract management governance in place to monitor
cloud services contracts. Many CSPs offer tools that will alert agencies when a specific threshold
of spent funds has been reached to help mitigate this situation.
Another option available from cloud service providers (CSPs) is offering cloud services by
subscription. For Approach 3, rather than paying by the individual item, a CSP might offer a
bundle of cloud computing services for a fixed monthly price that the agency must commit to
using for a defined period. The agency then receives a known quantity of cloud services for a
known price for many months, or even a year. The agency then remains somewhat at risk since
the subscription cloud services are provided on a “use or lose” basis where the agency might pay
for unused computing power that it has committed to via subscription. In this case, the agency
forfeits one of the advantages of cloud computing - its potential for saving money during periods
of low consumption. The other advantages of cloud computing, such as agility, etc., are not
affected by the subscription billing model.
Each of these current approaches is described below along with an explanation of their detractors
and why they are preventing the government from acquiring cloud services.
Approach 1: Optional CLIN Not to Exceed:

A contract will have one or more optional CLINs specific to the hosting of cloud computing
services. The government obligates the money to a CLIN as needed and the funded vendor does
the work based on a notice to proceed. The government receives invoices as the services are
consumed and the vendor is paid out of the obligated money. The government monitors the
bucket of money and exercises another optional CLIN as necessary to support additional cloud
computing utilization.
Pros: Most common method for funding cloud and is the traditional method on contracting for
IT services.
Cons: Unable to ramp services up and down based on usage. There is not full realization of the
benefits of elasticity of cloud in terms of cost savings.
Approach 2: Drawdown Accounts:

Drawdown Model A: Government monitors
The government engages with the vendor to estimate what the government is going to use. The
government agrees to terms with the vendor such as $50 million over 5 years, which comes to
$10 million per year. The government obligates the initial $10 million annual amount. Each
month there is a bill and the money is taken from the fund to pay it. There is a drawdown against
that account. The remaining funds are monitored for burn rate. If the remaining funds get low,
the agency requests additional funds from the CFO that can be obligated to maintain services.
Drawdown Model B: Vendor monitors
The vendor is obligated a lump sum of money for work to be completed. The vendor keeps track
of burn rate and value. There is a drawdown against that account. Once the burn hits a
prearranged level such as 70%, the vendor notifies the government and estimates how long 30%
remaining will last. The government gets additional funding obligated to “recharge the debit
card” and work proceeds.
Drawdown accounts are just another name for process steps that necessarily occur when the
government contracts for goods and services. In the end, this is a “solution” in name only.
Pros: Allows customers to realize elasticity and flexibility benefits of cloud services.
Cons: Burdensome bookkeeping and effort for either the CO or the vendor as usage can be
unpredictable.
Approach 3: Subscription Based

Under the subscription model of CSP billing, a fixed amount of computing is bundled together
for a recurring fixed monthly price. The agency may consume all or part of the bundled
computing resources each month. If the agency does not use the entire bundle during the month,
the remainder is lost. Thus an agency which lets an FFP contract for cloud computing receives
the benefit of knowing exactly how much each monthly invoice amount will be. But through the
“use or lose” aspect of this contract type, the agency may not realize the pay only for what you
use cost savings benefit of cloud computing metered billing.
The government determines upfront what the needs will be and obligates the money to fund that
level. The overall number is divided by 12 to determine the monthly amount to be paid. Each
month there is a standard invoice of 1/12th of the funding at set invoice level. The government
goes into it knowing that they will pay for 10k units each month whether they fully use it or not.
Pros: This option works well if the hosting options are consistent throughout the life of the
contract. There is low risk, a certainty of forecasted utilization, and is relatively simple to
execute.
Cons: Government will typically add a buffer which ends up leaving money on the table. The
CO obligates $100k per month for what should be $60k. This method nullifies the purpose of
cloud allowing payment for what is actually consumed.
Conclusion
The Federal government’s existing methods of buying cloud services (e.g., optional CLINs,
drawdown accounts, and subscription models) do not effectively address the problem of demand
elasticity and portability. They are ultimately minor variants in contracting structure, business
financial process emphasis, or product re-characterizations that help only incrementally by
shifting trade-offs without providing complete solutions. None of these methods provide for a
complete realization of benefits of cloud computing by providing effective means for the
government to both consume and pay only for the resources it needs and uses. A potential
solution to this might explicitly allow for cloud computing resource units to be treated, including
associated oversight risk, like labor hour rates (fixed unit price) in T&M contracts.
Cloud Security Considerations

A cloud computing environment, whether self-provided or provided by a 3rd party, must adhere
to all applicable government security guidelines and mandates just as with a traditional on
premises environment. As an extension of the on premises environment, the cloud computing
environment must pass through the Assessment and Authorization (A&A) process with the final
product being an Authorization to Operate (ATO) that the agency itself must sign off on. The
agency System Security Officer (SSO) should already be familiar with this process.
In the case of 3rd party cloud service providers (CSPs,) there is a program offered by GSA where
CSPs may receive an ATO which may be leveraged by an agency and be included in an agency’s
overall ATO package. That program is called the FedRAMP program.
Under the FedRAMP program, CSPs apply to have their system security provisions scrutinized
by an approved FedRAMP consultant, known as a certified Third Party Assessment Organization
(3PAO). The CSP then receives an ATO which can be leveraged by agencies and included in
their own overall ATOs.

OMB mandates that all agencies use only CSPs that are compliant with FedRAMP security
standards for their cloud computing needs. It is important for agencies to write this into their
requirements documents and solicitations as directed and provided by FedRAMP 5.
It is important to note that each FedRAMP ATO covers only a particular cloud service offering
of the CSP of which they may have several. CSP’s with several cloud service offerings will have
separate FedRAMP ATO’s for each. The scope of each ATO is defined by the security boundary
established within the particular solution covered and importantly may not cover all services
marketed by the CSP as being part of the offering. Agency use of any services outside of the
scope of the leveraged ATO will require their security evaluation and assumption of the
associated additional risk. Some vendors may have both an IaaS and potentially several SaaS
offerings and may leverage their IaaS solution and its ATO for their SaaS offering but that may
and need not be the case. These scenarios indicate a required vigilance for security on the part of
consuming organizations to the services and solutions deployed
Legal and Contractual Clauses

There are a host of important legal and contractual clauses to consider when selecting and
acquiring a cloud service. In order to utilize Federal best practices and lessons learned and to
simplify the acquisition process, an agency should refer to the excellent report by the CIO
Council and the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, “Creating Effective Cloud Computing
Contracts for the Federal Government: Best Practices for Acquiring IT as a Service.” 6 This
document contains a substantial amount of useful information and should be an agency’s first
resource on legal and contractual topics such as:
● CSP and End User Agreements

● Service Level Agreements
● Privacy
● E-Discovery
● FOIA Access
● Federal Recordkeeping
Data in Clouds
Residency
When acquiring cloud computing solutions, another important factor to consider is the physical
location of the where the data resides. Though the data resides in the “cloud,” an agency may
still have requirements (legal, regulatory, or architectural) or preferences about where the data is
located that should be specified to the CSP during the negotiation of the purchase. For example,
5
https://s3.amazonaws.com/sitesusa/wp-
content/uploads/sites/482/2015/03/FedRAMP_Standard_Contractual_Clauses_062712_0.pdf
6
“Creating Effective Cloud Computing Contracts for the Federal Government.” February 2012. https://cio.gov/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2012/09/cloudbestpractices.pdf
a critical requirement for some agencies is that the data reside in the contiguous U.S. (CONUS)
and not be routed through or stored on infrastructure outside of the contiguous U.S. (OCONUS),
as can happen when selecting a CSP with global infrastructure. Whatever the requirement may
be, it should be clearly communicated with the CSP and written into the contract to ensure all
obligations are met.
Data Ownership / Rights

Another critically important requirement is ensuring that the agency acquiring cloud services
retains ownership to the data it stores and the rights to access, modify, or migrate that data if and
when it chooses. Such an agreement ensures that the Government is able to select and migrate to
another CSP if it is not satisfied with the services it receives. This point must always be made
clear with the CSP prior to the acquisition and specified in writing in the final contract.
In addition, ownership rights are especially important to negotiate beforehand to address

potential data breaches. It is a best practice to ensure that the CSP is held accountable for data
breaches, even as they do not own the data. According to the CIO Council and the Chief
Acquisition Officers Council, “Federal agencies should make explicit in cloud computing
contracts that CSPs indemnify Federal agencies if a breach should occur and the CSP should be
required to provide adequate capital and/or insurance to support their indemnity. In instances
where expected standards are not met, then the CSP must be required to assume the liability if an
incident occurs directly related to the lack of compliance.” 7
Greater detail on data ownership and rights pertaining to termination of service, breaches, and
information and records management can be found in the CIO Council report. 8
Choosing a Requirements Document Type and a Solicitation

Type
In the current acquisition environment, agencies use a performance work statement (PWS) by
default. This requirements document is consistent with FAR guidance and normally provides an
exceptional opportunity to obtain necessary services. The PWS is not always the best choice and
certain conditions when acquiring cloud fall into this category. The more familiarity an agency
has with cloud acquisition, the more likely the agency will use a PWS, and the reverse is true. To
understand and grasp the nuances requires great familiarity with cloud. For this reason, cloud
computing requirements documents are often crafted as a Statement of Objectives (SOO), a
Performance Work Statement (PWS), or a Statement of Work (SOW.)
Many agencies use a SOO which states the agency goals in a most general sense, allowing
vendors more creativity in proposing a solution. For instance, instead of naming the number and
7
“Creating Effective Cloud Computing Contracts for the Federal Government.” February 2012. https://cio.gov/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2012/09/cloudbestpractices.pdf
8
Ibid.
type of processors needed, the amount of memory and storage, etc., only the projected usage
statistics of an application are named. Usage statistics such as the number of visits to a website
per day, the average page size, the average number of pages viewed per visit, etc., would help
make up a SOO.
For cloud computing, requirements documents (e.g., SOO) are generally inserted into a Request
for Quotation (RFQ) or a Request for Proposal (RFP) as appropriate. Generally, an RFQ is used
when the path to the IT solution is known and specific pricing is sought for specific cloud
services. An RFP would be used when the path is not quite known and the agency is looking for
vendor input, a proposal, to craft a solution from the ground up. An RFP is also used when there
is a large labor hour component, to encourage vendors to give some input on how the labor might
be used, and what skill sets would be required. Pricing is not normally delivered in a vendor
response to an RFI.
Therefore, in general for cloud computing, a good combination of all of the above might be an
SOO issued within an RFQ. That way, the vendor responses will be creative yet contain specific
pricing. If the agency wishes simply to establish an agency “gift card” type of drawdown account
funding attached to a cloud service provider (CSP) then this may be an optimum solution. CSPs
may respond with their full price list of available services, which the agency can pick and choose
from at the Task Order level.
The final selection of the SOO/SOW/PWS and RFQ/RFP is authorized by the ordering
contracting officer. It is important for the IT shop or program office to engage with their
contracting officer early in the process because decisions like these need to be made all along
way in this process.
Cloud Service Models and Contract Types

There are three service models that are readily recognized in the current cloud industry including
IaaS, PaaS and SaaS. IaaS is a model in which the compute capability augmented with storage
and network is wholly owned by a provider and available for purchase from potential customers.
PaaS is a broad collection of application based services (middleware) that include integration,
business process and management services. SaaS is software owned, managed and provided by a
contractor. These service models are vastly different in use characteristics from the consumer
standpoint and as such, may be better managed and paid for under different conditions or
contract types. The two most common contracts types for cloud service models in the Federal
Government that offer the most advantage are time and materials (T&M) and firm fixed price
(FFP).
The recommended perspective to make this judgement is to consider the service models required
and then selected and specific subcategories of those service models. Consider Iaas and PaaS
together, and SaaS on its own. The two categories to consider under IaaS-PaaS are whether IT
professional services are needed. For SaaS, consider the subcategories as seats and usage, but IT
professional services are still an important consideration depending on the service. This sets up a
framework for an appropriate discussion of cloud service models and contract types.
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and Platform as a Service (PaaS) are close approximations of
replacements for traditional servers housed in an agency’s data center. In a subscription based
model a fixed amount of computing services are bundled together and the agency is charged
monthly. For agencies procuring IaaS and PaaS without professional services, a FFP should be
used as contract risk should be relatively low, defined within acceptable limits, and the vendors
and agency reasonably agree on price. This does not come without risk as agencies can be
charged for services aren’t used or are charged more than expected (both scenarios do not take
advantage of costs savings promised by a cloud solution). In cases where agencies require
support services, they should consider a Time and Materials (T&M) separate from the IaaS and
PaaS FFP and identify their needs in the Contract Line Item (CLIN). Agencies can avoid these
risks by writing in broad CLINs that provides the customer flexibility a broader scope and would
alleviate Government concerns around exceeding categorized line items within a contract.
Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings vary from IaaS and PaaS in that vendors charge for based
on active users or seat licenses that are permitted to access the service. SaaS seats may be scaled
up or down each month in keeping with the metered billing model for use in a T&M or FFP
contract. To take advantage of the SaaS cost savings, a T&M contract type should be used to pay
for usage. Most SaaS offerings include monitoring capabilities built into the service. Agencies
can take advantage of the automation tools to help provision, control access, and provide cloud
monitoring and reporting. It may be difficult to get agency contracting officer buy in as it is not
the traditional way of procuring IT services. If an agency selects a FFP contract type for a SaaS
procurement, allow for the flexibility at the CLIN or task order level so cost savings can be
realized.
In summary, T&M is the appropriate contract type for IaaS-PaaS if labor is required; otherwise,
FFP is more advantageous. For SaaS, T&M is useful in all cases including seats and usage, but
FFP should be limited to seat oriented contracts.
Advanced Cloud Topics

Strategic Contracting Considerations
While there are traditional options for purchasing cloud, there are many other permutations that
agencies can look to in order to ease into a cloud enabled environment. Because cloud continues
to evolve and new ideas are constantly entering the market, cloud becomes a necessary option for
many agencies. The types of services that providers can offer to organizations will continue to
grow.
Similar to considering how and where professional services will be required as part of a cloud
adoption strategy, cloud application architecture provides additional options to enhance
enterprise agility in contracting for cloud IT services. Opportunities can exist, or can be created
through planning via enterprise architecture efforts within a cloud strategy, to strategically
segregate the hosting and contracting of major components of IT systems. For example, a SaaS
presentation layer might be separately hosted from the data store undergirding the system. This
would allow a potentially less complicated and less risky migration of a support contract from an
underperforming vendor to a new contractor. Agencies could consider this multiple cloud
strategy across other applications as well using a Cloud of Clouds approach allowing for a
combined public and private cloud environment as well as services and platforms from a diverse
set of independent software vendors working harmoniously in this secure environment.
Government has struggled with moving the critical mass of Government IT to the cloud, leaving
most of the Federal legacy IT systems intact and agencies remain faced with the ever-challenging
task of overhauling legacy systems to cloud. A consideration would be to strategically move all
IT infrastructure to a Contractor Owned/Contractor Operated model with a transition strategy to
move all cloud enabled applications to the cloud immediately. Then, in a phased approach, begin
the project of migrating legacy systems to the cloud in a manageable timeline.
Ultimately strategically segregating contracting actions, whether based on hosting versus

professional services or by presentation layer versus data layer, various risk tradeoffs can be
optimized to match individual organizational needs. As agencies gain maturity in the cloud, these
approaches can be considered and tailored to maintain agility and responsiveness within IT.
Blanket Purchase Agreements

Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) are an important tool that can be used to solve certain
elaborate cloud computing challenges. A BPA, governed by FAR 13, is an administrative
arrangement that allows for the evaluation of different contractors on Schedule for a particular
category of supply or service and provides a simplified method of filling anticipated recurring
needs for goods and services by establishing a “charge account” with those contractors who have
qualified sources of supply. A BPA is not a contract and it does not obligate funds. A BPA
simply establishes the terms and conditions under which a purchase would occur including
contract types and clauses.
BPAs provide for convenience, efficiency, and reduced costs as well as a simplified ordering
process. Multiple agencies can band together to place orders for similar requirements. There is
much less overhead relative to all agencies and agencies can increase their purchasing power to
get volume discounts. BPAs offer shorter acquisition lead times and agencies can reuse or
leverage requirements other agencies have already developed. BPAs are not synopsized as part
of the use process. A BPA can be established with one Schedule contractor or multiple
contractors in accordance with FAR 8.405-3, referred to as Single-Award BPA or Multiple-
Award BPA. The preference (established through 8.405-3) is for multiple-award BPAs and

leaves the discretion of number of BPA awards to f the ordering activity, and should be based on
maximizing the effectiveness of the BPA(s).
The DHS Enterprise Computing Services (ECS) BPA is a prime example for using a BPA. ECS
provides Cloud Hosting Services for the agencies under DHS and allows for terms and
conditions to be set at the contract level such as any solution offered on the BPA must be
FedRAMP authorized. Agencies can leverage the contract for recurring requirements under
separate tasks that provide DHS an opportunity for leveraging further discounts at the task order
level.
Another good example of the use of a federal-wide, multiple awards BPA is the Email as a
Service IT-70 BPA. The BPA(s) were awarded to 14 companies and provided email,
collaboration, records management, integration, and migration services. It had distinct
requirements across each of the solutions that were uniform in nature and fit the definition of
“recurring needs for goods and services with those contractors who have qualified sources of
supply” such as the email as a service offering allowed for 4 solutions - Google, Microsoft
Exchange, and Zimbra . With the terms and conditions and discounted pricing set at the BPA
level, tasks orders were streamlined and allowed for even lower negotiated pricing at that level.
BPAs can apply across a host of opportunities and should be considered as a viable procurement
strategy. For example, Army ACCENT had many characteristics that fit a BPA procurement
strategy such as recurring transition requirements. Army wanted a standard tool that preset all the
base requirements for their estimated 10,000 applications that are to be migrated to the cloud.
The contract requirements included Infrastructure as a Service, Software as a Service, and
Platform as a Service offerings and had offerors demonstrate a DISA issued Provisional
Authority for award. It further included in scope all the IT professional services needed to fully
support and execute the transition and migration of these applications. Although ACCENT was
not itself executed as a BPA, it is an excellent example of a use case for a cloud BPA that
includes migration services in contrast to the DHS ECS BPA which is limited to CSP services.
When establishing a BPA, the ordering activity must address the frequency of ordering,
invoicing, discounts, requirements (e.g., estimated quantities, work to be performed), delivery
locations and time. For information on establishing a BPA, please refer to
https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/199393.
Competition Requirements
All cloud services must be capable of meeting FedRAMP cloud security requirements with the
necessary contract language available on the FedRAMP website. It is important to note that
current Federal (but not DoD 9) policy does not require the cloud service offering to already have
9
DoD-originated acquisitions require any Cloud Service Offering (CSO) to already possess a Provisional Authority
(PA) at the appropriate Impact Level per DFARS Subpart 239.7602-1(b)(1)
a FedRAMP authorization at the time of award. The standard contracting language requires
rather that the vendor be able to comply with the FedRAMP standards. However, in the interest
of speed to deployment of the cloud services, an agency may require that the CSP already
possess a FedRAMP authorization. For this requirement to withstand protest and meet fair
opportunity requirements there must be a sufficient number of contractors capable of meeting the
overall contract requirements.
Requirements Contracts
Requirements contracts are rare within IT services but hold promise as a solution to manage the
variable consumption aspects of cloud computing. They have the benefit of being available
options for both open market and contract vehicle based acquisitions (i.e. Alliant 2) although
there is an education gap within the acquisition workforce. As described in the Alliant 2 RFP 10:
A Requirements contract type (FAR Subpart 16.503 11) actual purchase requirements of
designated Government activities for deliveries to be scheduled by placing orders with
the Contractor. The provides for filling all services or supplies during a specified contract
period, with performance or contracting officer states a realistic estimated total quantity
in the Task Order solicitation and the resulting order. All Requirements contract type
CLINS within a Task Order must include a defined scope with all items priced at time of
award, i.e., Fixed-priced by unit/rate, size or type as defined by the issuing agency.
Established pricing is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost
experience in performing the Task Order, and established Contractor prices will not be
subsequently discounted at the Government’s request once negotiated at Task Order
award. The agency will direct the Contractor to deliver a specified quantity of the in-
scope Government requirement by use of a Call, which activates a pre-priced CLIN or
SubCLIN during the term of the Task Order.
A Requirements contract type Task Order may be appropriate for acquiring flexible IT
solution services, including ancillary services or goods when the Government anticipates
recurring requirements but cannot predetermine the precise quantities that Government
activities will need during a definite period.
No individual instances of requirements contracts for cloud computing services have been
identified yet. This section will be updated as more information on specific examples and lessons
learned associated are obtained.
10
https://www.fbo.gov/notices/ae1b53bc5499c3b3f40358ba3281d525
11
http://farsite.hill.af mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/16.htm#P404_67621
From: David Bray
To: kevin cummins@tomudall.senate.gov
Attachments: CloudComputeAcqPlaybook Final v4.0.docx
Fyi -- Not for public release yet.

Also you may have seen that FCC has now publicly shared that it’s DDoS attacks, not high comment
volume, that we’re experiencing.

Brendon Johnson <brendon johnson@ibc.doi.gov>; Bret Mogilefsky - XFB
Hi All.
Playbook.



/vr/

wrote:
yesterday.




/vr/


wrote:
Kimberly Pack
Wolf Den Associates
Mobile: (571) 318-0328
In support of the:
1800 F Street
Washington, DC
From: Christine Calvosa
To: jon.brodkin@arstechnica.com
Cc: Stephanie Kost
Subject: FOIA 2017 - 000603 - Brodkin - Expedited Processing Request
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000603 (Brodkin) - Expedited Processing Decision.pdf
Dear Mr. Brodkin,

Attached is FCC’s response to your FOIA Request – FOIA Control No. 2017-000603.

If you have any questions, please let us know.

Thank you,
Christine

Respectfully,
M. Christine Calvosa
DCIO of Technology and Resiliency
OMD/Information Technology
Christine.Calvosa@fcc.gov
“Teamwork – Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success!” Henry Ford

Washington, D.C. 20554
May 17, 2017
Jonathan Brodkin
Ars Technica
(b) (6)
Via e-mail to jon.brodkin@arstechnica.com

Re: FOIA Control No. FCC-2017-000603
Mr. Brodkin:
This letter responds to your request for expedited processing of your Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request seeking documents related to e-mails, and other communications and
records related to the downtime experienced by the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System
on May 7 and 8, 2017. Your request has been assigned FOIA Control No. FCC-2017-
000603.
Expedited processing of a FOIA request is appropriate where (1) it is made by “a person

primarily engaged in disseminating information” and (2) it pertains to a matter about which
there is an “urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government
activity.” You explain that you are a journalist with Ars Technica and that there is an
urgency to inform the public the Commission’s activities on the FCC's Electronic Comment
Filing System.
We grant your request for expedited processing. We will commence the search for records
responsive to your request and anticipate responding to you as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Christine Calvosa
DCIO T&R
To: tony@recode.net
Cc: Stephanie Kost
Subject: FOIA 2017 - 000610 - Romm - Expedited Processing Request
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000610 (Romm) - Expedited Processing Decision.pdf
Dear Mr. Romm,



Thank you,
Christine

Respectfully,

May 17, 2017
Tony Romm
Recode
(
b
)
Via e-mail( to tony@recode.net
Mr. Romm:
Act (FOIA) request seeking documents related to all records related to the suspected cyber
attack targeting the FCC and its comment system. Your request has been assigned FOIA
Control No. FCC-2017-000610.

activity.” You explain that you are a journalist with Recode and that there is an urgency to
inform the public the Commission’s activities on the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing
System.
Sincerely,
Christine Calvosa
DCIO T&R
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Stephanie Kost
Subject: FOIA 2017 - 000612 - Sullivan - Expedited Processing Request
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000612 (Sullivan) - Expedited Processing Decision.pdf
Dear Mr. Sullivan,



Thank you,
Christine

Respectfully,

May 17, 2017
Brian Sullivan
(b) (6)
Via e-mail to (b) (6)

Mr. Sullivan:
Act (FOIA) request seeking documents related to server logs of comment section regarding
DDoS attacks. Your request has been assigned FOIA Control No. FCC-2017-000612.

activity.” In your request, there is no indication that you are primarily engaged in
disseminating information. Therefore, you do not the standard required for a showing of a
“compelling need” under the Commission’s rules. Your request for expedited processing is,
therefore, denied.
You may seek review of the denial of your request for expedited processing by filing an
application for review with the Office of General Counsel within five (5) working days of the
date of this letter. See 47 C.F.R. § 0.461(h)(4)(ii).
While we deny your request for expedited processing, we will nonetheless commence the
search for records responsive to your request and anticipate responding to you as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Christine Calvosa
DCIO T&R
To: jbrustein@bloomberg.net
Cc: Stephanie Kost
Subject: FOIA 2017- 000628 - Brustein - Expedited Processing Request
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000628 (Brustein) - Expedited Processing Decision.pdf
Dear Mr. Brustein,



Thank you,
Christine

Respectfully,

May 17, 2017
Joshua Brustein
Bloomberg News
731 Lexington Ave
New York, NY 10022
Via e-mail to jbrustein@bloomberg.net
Mr. Brustein:
Act (FOIA) request of May 15, 2017, seeking documents related to “all records related to the
DDoS attack”. Your request has been assigned FOIA Control No. FCC-2017-000628.

activity.” You explain that you are a journalist with Bloomberg News and that there is an
urgency to inform the public the Commission’s activities on the FCC's Electronic Comment
Filing System.
Sincerely,
Christine Calvosa
DCIO T&R
To: Kevin Baker
Subject: Fwd: FOIA Expedited Processing requests
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:46:19 AM
Attachments: FOIA 2017- 000628 - Brustein - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017- 000615 - Boyle - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017 - 000612 - Sullivan - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017 - 000610 - Romm - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017-000605 - Arsenault - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017 - 000603 - Brodkin - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FYI
John P. Skudlarek
Deputy CIO
FCC
From: "Christine Calvosa" <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>

Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:20:07 PM
To: "Stephanie Kost" <Stephanie.Kost@fcc.gov>, "Vanessa Lamb"
<Vanessa.Lamb@fcc.gov>
Cc: "John Skudlarek" <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>, "Tony Summerlin (CTR)"
<Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>, "David Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov>, "Deborah Klein"
<Deborah.Klein@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: FOIA Expedited Processing requests
All,

Attached are all the emails/letters sent to the six people below.

Thank you,
Christine

To: Stephanie Kost <Stephanie.Kost@fcc.gov>
Cc: John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>;
David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Deborah Klein <Deborah.Klein@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Stephanie Kost
To: Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: FOIA Expedited Processing requests

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker
Cc: John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>; Tony
Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Stephanie Kost
<Stephanie.Kost@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein
To: Kevin Baker <Kevin.Baker@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker
To: Deborah Klein <Deborah.Klein@fcc.gov>
Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker
Subject: FOIA Expedited Processing requests

(b) (5)

Kevin P. Baker
Associate CIO, Planning and Performance
445 12th St, SW
Office: (202) 418-2023

To: (b) (6)
Cc: Stephanie Kost
Subject: FOIA 2017- 000615 - Boyle - Expedited Processing Request
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000615 (Boyle) - Expedited Processing Decision.pdf
Dear Mr. Boyle,



Thank you,
Christine

Respectfully,

May 17, 2017
Brendan J. Boyle
(
b
)
(
Mr. Boyle:
Act (FOIA) request seeking documents related to all records related to the Distributed Denial
of Service attack on FCC's ECFS. Your request has been assigned FOIA Control No. FCC-
2017-000615.

activity.”
We are unable to grant your request for expedited processing. We will commence the search
for records responsive to your request and anticipate responding to you as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Christine Calvosa
DCIO T&R
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Stephanie Kost
Subject: FOIA 2017-000605 - Arsenault - Expedited Processing Request
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000605 (Arsenault) - Expedited Processing Decision.pdf
Dear Mr. Arsenault,



Thank you,
Christine

Respectfully,

May 17, 2017
Chad Arsenault
(b) (6)

Mr. Arsenault:
Act (FOIA) request seeking documents related to detailed web server access logs of fcc.gov
and its filings section (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings) between the hours of
12:00AM (00:00) May 07, 2017 and 12:00AM (00:00) May 08, 2017. Your request has been
assigned FOIA Control No. FCC-2017-000605.

activity.” In your request, there is no indication that you are primarily engaged in
disseminating information, nor is there a stated urgency to inform the public about an actual
or alleged federal government activity. Therefore, you do not meet either of the standards
required for a showing of a “compelling need” under the Commission’s rules. Your request
for expedited processing is, therefore, denied.
You may seek review of the denial of your request for expedited processing by filing an
application for review with the Office of General Counsel within five (5) working days of the
date of this letter. See 47 C.F.R. § 0.461(h)(4)(ii).
While we deny your request for expedited processing, we will nonetheless commence the
search for records responsive to your request and anticipate responding to you as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Christine Calvosa
DCIO T&R
From: Kevin Baker
To: John Skudlarek
Subject: Fwd: FOIA Expedited Processing requests
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000605 (Arsenault) - Expedited Processing Decision (RJY Edits....doc
FOIA 2017-000612 (Sullivan) - Expedited Processing Decision (RJY Edits)....doc
FOIA 2017-000603 (Brodkin) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
FOIA 2017-000610 (Romm) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
FOIA 2017-000615 (Boyle) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
FOIA 2017-000628 (Brustein) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
(b) (5)
From: "Kevin Baker" <Kevin.Baker@fcc.gov>

To: "Christine Calvosa" <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
Cc: "John Skudlarek" <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>, "Christine Calvosa"
<Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>, "Tony Summerlin (CTR)" <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>, "David
Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov>, "Stephanie Kost" <Stephanie.Kost@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Kevin P. Baker
445 12th St, SW
Office: (202) 418-2023

To: Stephanie Kost; Vanessa Lamb
Cc: John Skudlarek; Tony Summerlin (CTR); David Bray; Deborah Klein
Attachments: FOIA 2017- 000628 - Brustein - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017- 000615 - Boyle - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017 - 000612 - Sullivan - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017 - 000610 - Romm - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017-000605 - Arsenault - Expedited Processing Request.msg
FOIA 2017 - 000603 - Brodkin - Expedited Processing Request.msg
All,

Attached are all the emails/letters sent to the six people below.

Thank you,
Christine

To: Stephanie Kost <Stephanie.Kost@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)


(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

Kevin P. Baker
445 12th St, SW
Office: (202) 418-2023

Cc: John Skudlarek; Tony Summerlin (CTR); David Bray; Deborah Klein
(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Kevin P. Baker
445 12th St, SW
Office: (202) 418-2023

From: Kevin Baker
Cc: John Skudlarek; Christine Calvosa; Tony Summerlin (CTR); David Bray; Stephanie Kost
(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

Kevin P. Baker
445 12th St, SW
Office: (202) 418-2023

From: Deborah Klein
To: Kevin Baker
Cc: John Skudlarek; Christine Calvosa; Tony Summerlin (CTR); David Bray; Stephanie Kost
(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)

Kevin P. Baker
445 12th St, SW
Office: (202) 418-2023

From: Kevin Baker
To: Deborah Klein
Cc: John Skudlarek; Christine Calvosa; Tony Summerlin (CTR); David Bray
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000612 (Sullivan) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
FOIA 2017-000605 (Arsenault) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
(b) (5)
From: Deborah Klein

(b) (5)

From: Kevin Baker

(b) (5)
(b) (5)

Kevin P. Baker
445 12th St, SW
Office: (202) 418-2023

From: Kevin Baker
To: Deborah Klein
Cc: John Skudlarek; Christine Calvosa; Tony Summerlin (CTR); David Bray
Attachments: FOIA 2017-000603 (Brodkin) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
FOIA 2017-000605 (Arsenault) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
FOIA 2017-000612 (Sullivan) - Expedited Processing Decision.doc
(b) (5)

Kevin P. Baker
445 12th St, SW
Office: (202) 418-2023

From: David Bray
To: Shaun Waterman (FedScoop News)
Subject: Re: Following up from Friday
Many thanks Shaun, I thought they did report to you. I will follow-up with Greg.
More importantly, wishing you a wonderful weekend ahead; with highest regards,
-d.
On May 19, 2017, at 17:53, Shaun Waterman (FedScoop News)

<shaun.waterman@fedscoop.com> wrote:
David: I understand your frustration, but none of these guys report to me and I'm not in
charge.
I spoke with Greg this morning and he said he would speak to you ... I think that's your best
bet. Neither of us would benefit from me trying to get more involved
Shaun
Shaun Waterman
Contributing editor
Scoop News Group
202-841-9017
@WatermanReports
Shaun.Waterman@CyberScoop.com
www.LinkedIn.com/in/shaunwaterman
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:18 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Hi Shaun,
Hope you are doing well. Here is a good article that does get the technical facts correct on
what happened; I wish FedScoop or CyberScoop had also been able to follow-up after we
did take 30 minutes to chat last Friday -- not sure why they did not?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/cio-diary-lessons-from-the-fcc-bot-swarm/
It was misleading to us because Billy had requested the verbal discussion to improve and
clarify the article and it seems like no action has been done?
We appreciate her folks are passionate about the 17-108 proceeding, however is it possible
that unconscious biases about the issue crept into the article that was written and prevent
correcting now?
Thank you.

I'm sorry David, I thinks it's best all around if I stay out of this
Shaun Waterman
FedScoop News
202 841 9017
Shaun.Waterman@FedScoop.com
Sent from a handheld wireless device and typed with thumbs. Please excuse any consequent
typos, contractions or impolite brevity.
On May 16, 2017 2:24 PM, "David Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Hi Shaun,
Happy Tuesday to you – would you have a chance to discuss this sometime (see below). I’m at
(b) (6)
Many thanks,
-d.
From: David Bray
To: Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com>; chris.bing@fedscoop.com
Cc: greg.otto@fedscoop.com; 'Goldy Kamali' <goldy.kamali@fedscoop.com>
Subject: Following up from Friday
Hi Billy and Chris,
Hope you both are doing well. Is there going to be a follow-up from our discussion on
Friday w/ Billy?
For Chris' article, I am concerned that the 'cyber expert' referenced was someone looking
solely on the DarkWeb -- when nowhere in the definition of a DDoS does it say it has to
originate from the DarkWeb. That was misleading to the audience and it would have been
good to question the expert if a DDoS has to originate from infected bots -- it does not.
Also, claiming that our definition differs from other experts was also misleading as what I
shared with you was a definition outside of our agency -- from the top search result if you
ask Google "What is DDoS"? That should be corrected. http://www.digitalattackmap.
com/understanding-ddos/
As mentioned, the Pokemon Go DDoS attack is the best analogy for what happened here -
- in this case using commercial cloud services which made it even harder to address real
comment bots vs. bots just throwing junk data at us.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/pokemon-go-down-
servers-ddos-attack-hackers-poodlecorp-game-unavailable-a7140811.html
Pokemon Go down: Hacking

group claims credit for
taking down servers 'with
DDOS attack'
www.independent.co.uk
A hacking group has claimed responsbility

for taking down the Pokémon Go servers
using a DDOS attack. A cyber collective
known as PoodleCorp announced on
Twitter it ...
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/17/ourmine-attacks-pokemon-go-servers/
Finally, even Brian Krebs when he had his massive DDoS directed at him refrained from
releasing the logs. Off the record we've chatted with him since these events. As discussed
with Billy on Friday, there's way too much private information that folks did not give
permission to FCC to release as well as operationally sensitive info there -- we're not
alone in that position as almost every CIO or CISO would have the same concerns. Off the
record, certain groups have sent tweets that show they're (1) using bots, and (2) that
they're searching for vulnerabilities:
This is an example of a group using bots to submit comments via the API (vs. having
humans go to the website directly) -- and what they're finding is there is a rate limit for
the API as mentioned to Billy on Friday: https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/
861962863245742084
And this is an example of the group either sending junk data to the API or doing recon on
the system to find potential exploits. This was on Thursday, when no one else had issues
and in fact it was the highest day on record ever for the FCC at more than 400,000
comments: https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/862714335075893250
Per one of our internal experts that looked at the screenshot that group sent:
From: Douglas Logan <dlogan@cyberninjas.com>
To: David Bray; Erik Scheibert; Byron Caswell (CTR); Tony Summerlin (CTR)
Subject: RE: Non urgent curiosity
David,
What I can’t tell you is what they did to trigger it. It could be he was throwing junk
data, or trying to find vulnerabilities. That could be why he hit the HTTP 500, when no one else
has and it seems to be working properly. Either that or there is something else “unique” about
what he is submitting that would allow him to throw this error.
Hope this helps,
-d.
From: Mark Wigfield

To: David Bray; Billy Mitchell
Subject: RE: Dr. Bray
Will dial everyone in momentarily
From: David Bray

To: Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>
Works for me if it also works for Mark?

Subject: Re: Dr. Bray
How's 2:30 or so look?
Best,
Billy Mitchell

Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
Update, I see Billy’s tied-up, understand and will stand by. Many thanks.
From: David Bray

To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Billy Mitchell
<billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com>
Now is good.
From: Mark Wigfield
To: Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com>; David Bray
OK, let me know when you’re available.

Sorry Mark,
I was at a lunch. I should be back in office in about 30 mins.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov> wrote:
Billy, are you available to talk to Dr. Bray? He is around right now if
you’re available.
Mark
202-418-0253

To: Shaun Waterman (FedScoop News)
Hi Shaun - as indicated, we are concerned that a less than balanced article was released. We
sent additional details and then we even made time for an in-person interview on Friday with
Billy and there has still be no follow-up. At the time on Friday it did not appear that Billy had
any disagreements with what we raised and the door was open for him to indicate what parts
he wanted to have on the record?
It was misleading to us because Billy had requested the verbal discussion to improve and
clarify the article and it seems like no action has been done?
We appreciate her folks are passionate about the 17-108 proceeding, however is it possible
that unconscious biases about the issue crept into the article that was written and prevent
correcting now?
Thank you.

Shaun Waterman
FedScoop News
202 841 9017
Hi Shaun,
(b) (6)
Many thanks,
-d.

From: David Bray
Hi Billy and Chris,
Hope you both are doing well. Is there going to be a follow-up from our discussion on Friday
w/ Billy?
good to question the expert if a DDoS has to originate from infected bots -- it does not. Also,
claiming that our definition differs from other experts was also misleading as what I shared
with you was a definition outside of our agency -- from the top search result if you ask
Google "What is DDoS"? That should be corrected. http://www.digitalattackmap.
As mentioned, the Pokemon Go DDoS attack is the best analogy for what happened here --
in this case using commercial cloud services which made it even harder to address real

group claims credit for taking
down servers 'with DDOS
attack'
known as PoodleCorp announced on Twitter
it ...
permission to FCC to release as well as operationally sensitive info there -- we're not alone
in that position as almost every CIO or CISO would have the same concerns. Off the record,
certain groups have sent tweets that show they're (1) using bots, and (2) that they're
searching for vulnerabilities:
This is an example of a group using bots to submit comments via the API (vs. having humans
go to the website directly) -- and what they're finding is there is a rate limit for the API as
mentioned to Billy on Friday: https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/
861962863245742084
the system to find potential exploits. This was on Thursday, when no one else had issues and
in fact it was the highest day on record ever for the FCC at more than 400,000 comments:
https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/862714335075893250

David,
What I can’t tell you is what they did to trigger it. It could be he was throwing junk data,
or trying to find vulnerabilities. That could be why he hit the HTTP 500, when no one else has and
it seems to be working properly. Either that or there is something else “unique” about what he is
submitting that would allow him to throw this error.
Hope this helps,
-d.
From: Mark Wigfield

From: David Bray



Best,
Billy Mitchell

Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439

From: David Bray

Now is good.

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>

Sorry Mark,
Sent from my iPhone
Billy, are you available to talk to Dr. Bray? He is around right now if you’re
available.
Mark
202-418-0253

To: Greg Otto
Cc: Billy Mitchell; chris.bing@fedscoop.com; greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali
Subject: RE: Following up from Friday
Hi Greg,

Many thanks. If there are specific quotes that Billy wants to use on the record, OMR left that door
open to identify. Just so you know, the group has been sending not-so-friendly emails and phone
calls to me throughout all of last week because someone opted to post my email and phone number
on Reddit, that’s why we’re also concerned.

It

From: Greg Otto [mailto:greg.otto@cyberscoop.com]
Cc: Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com>; chris.bing@fedscoop.com;
greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali <goldy.kamali@fedscoop.com>
Hi David —
I’m gonna chime in here — apologies for not adding perspective last week, as I was out on
paternity leave.
I appreciate the detail here, so I will address your concerns:
We can remove the DDoS sentence at the end of the story. Really doesn’t add to the story,
regardless of where the definition comes from.
Furthermore, I appreciate the references for how this all played out. We can amend the story at
the bottom to say there are multiple reports out there that say it looks like bots powered by
commercial cloud providers were the cause of the disruption.
I understand the sensitive nature of the story — we wouldn’t ever want you to share PII or
other sensitive IT functions — but I would stress that going on the record about what
happened would be extremely worthwhile.
I would even posit giving you the option to write a first-person article for us on how your IT
shop handled this — or what agencies can do in the future to defend against hacktivism /
DDoS attacks that are motivated by political causes. I truly think thats worthwhile for both
FedScoop and CyberScoop.
Feel free to reach to me at the number below if you have any other questions or concerns.
Regards,
Hi Billy and Chris,
w/ Billy?
Google "What is DDoS"? That should be corrected.
http://www.digitalattackmap.com/understanding-ddos/

attack'

it ...

mentioned to Billy on Friday:


David,

Hope this helps,
-d.
From: Mark Wigfield



From: David Bray

Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
From: David Bray
Now is good.
From: Mark Wigfield


Sorry Mark,
Sent from my iPhone

available.
Mark
202-418-0253
--
Greg Otto
Managing Editor - CyberScoop
Scoop News Group
610.223.4586
Twitter: @gregotto
From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry; Will Wiquist; Mark Wigfield; Brian Hart; Neil Grace
Subject: RE: from Ted
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; David Bray
<David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
(b
)
From: Will Wiquist

To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry
<Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-cio-denial-service-attack-fcc-
comment-system

From: Mark Wigfield
<Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: FW: from Ted
(b) (5)

From: Ted Johnson [mailto:ted.johnson@variety.com]
Subject: from Ted
Hi Mark,
I had two quick questions on the denial of service attacks.
--- This took place last night and earlier this morning, didn't it? I just wanted to make sure.
--- Do you know how many comments have been filed in the net neutrality proceeding in the
past 24 hours, Just trying to track John Oliver's influence.
Thanks,
Ted
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

Subject: from Ted
Hi Mark,
Thanks,
Ted

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

Subject: from Ted

Hi Mark,




Thanks,

Ted

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

Subject: from Ted

Hi Mark,




Thanks,

Ted
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield; Matthew Berry; Brian Hart; Will Wiquist; Neil Grace
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

Subject: from Ted
Hi Mark,
Thanks,
Ted
From: Shaun Waterman (FedScoop News)
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: FW: Following up from Friday
Shaun Waterman
FedScoop News
202 841 9017
Hi Shaun,
(b) (6)
Many thanks,
-d.
From: David Bray

Hi Billy and Chris,
w/ Billy?

Google "What is DDoS"? That should be corrected. http://www.digitalattackmap.

attack'

it ...
mentioned to Billy on Friday: https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/
861962863245742084
the system to find potential exploits. This was on Thursday, when no one else had issues and
in fact it was the highest day on record ever for the FCC at more than 400,000 comments:

David,
Hope this helps,

-d.
From: Mark Wigfield

From: David Bray


Best,
Billy Mitchell

Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439

From: David Bray

Now is good.
From: Mark Wigfield


Sorry Mark,

Sent from my iPhone
available.
Mark
202-418-0253

To: Christine Calvosa; Uttam Kumar
(b) (5)
On 5/12/17, 12:19 PM, someone claiming to be "Christine Calvosa" <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

________________________________________

From: Matthew Berry
Cc: ITleadership

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

________________________________________

From: David Bray
Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

________________________________________

From: Brian Hart
Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

________________________________________

From: Mark Wigfield
Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)


Subject: ECFS

Obviously, it’s down again because I get no hits searching yesterday’s and today’s dates. So we are going to write
about that fact. Can you tell me if it’s due to the DDoS attack or the number of net neutrality
comments?

Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920
www.trdailyonline.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__www.trdailyonline.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=2fIJDJ4pqy-
6Q6sHxEdvdscsL7D4biT86syzgydYRrc&m=-W-
ScwizADmVeotIzD1gEx5_3QnynJw4nVntB6MMQls&s=rhFycGDnqzdwkdsS-
QAEt2qQqqQ_rGmcXjD3omA2GEc&e=>
paul kirby@wolterskluwer.com

From: Uttam Kumar
To: Christine Calvosa; Erik Scheibert
(b) (5)

Uttam Kumar
Associate CIO, Tailored Platforms and Data

Office: (202) 418-2264
uttam.kumar@fcc.gov

To: Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>; Uttam Kumar <Uttam.Kumar@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: FYI TR Daily says ECFS is down

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

Cc: ITleadership

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: David Bray

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)
From: Brian Hart

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Matthew Berry; David Bray; Brian Hart
Cc: ITleadership
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

Cc: ITleadership

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
(b) (5)
From: David Bray

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)
From: Brian Hart

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: David Bray
To: Mark Stephens
Subject: Fw: FYI TR Daily says ECFS is down
From: David Bray

Cc: ITleadership

(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry

Cc: ITleadership

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: David Bray

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)
From: Brian Hart

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: David Bray
Cc: ITleadership
(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry

Cc: ITleadership

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: David Bray

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

(b) (5)
From: Brian Hart

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920
387
From: Michael White
To: Ajit Pai; Mignon Clyburn; Mike ORielly; PRA; webfeedback
Subject: Re: Internet Freedom Docket Comments
Yesterday I sent this email, I doubted if get a response, however you have a clear problem and
I am not the only one to notice. You have a bot submitting random names and random
addresses constantly as a source of feedback. You are not seeing the will of the people through
those comments. You should start over and install some form of captcha in order to reduce the
bitting that is going on.
On Wed, May 10, 2017, 1:23 AM Michael White (b) (6) wrote:
Hi,
I have noticed that there are a ton of comments over support of the docket, but when I
research the names and addresses of those posting the comments, they do not match. I think
someone is falsifying comment postings and hoping that this can investigated for an honest
process.
From: Patrick Webre
To: James Brown; Mark Stone; D"wana Terry
Subject: RE: Is Comcast spamming the FCC?
Thanks for the info James.

From: James Brown
To: Patrick Webre <Patrick.Webre@fcc.gov>; Mark Stone <Mark.Stone@fcc.gov>; D'wana Terry
<Dwana.Terry@fcc.gov>
Subject: Fw: Is Comcast spamming the FCC?
for you consideration.

From: James Brown (b) (6)

To: James Brown
Subject: Fwd: Is Comcast spamming the FCC?

From: Evan at FFTF <team@fightforthefuture.org>
Date: Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:37 PM
Subject: Is Comcast spamming the FCC?
Hi,
Someone has submitted nearly half a million anti-net neutrality comments to the FCC, many of
which appear to be completely fake [1] [2] [3] — using stolen names and addresses. This
needs to be investigated and stopped now.
Help us prove it, and stop them. Use this form to search the FCC for fake comments in
your name.
This search will only yield results if your name was submitted to the FCC alongside a
suspicious anti-net neutrality comment. If you have submitted a comment to the FCC in
defense of net neutrality, your comment will not show up from this search.
If you find a fake comment filed using your name AND address that you are currently or
formerly associated with, email: team@fightforthefuture.org to let us know.
Over 1.5 million comments have been submitted so far on the proposal to repeal net neutrality,
and the vast majority are on our side.
But in recent days, it became clear that there are more comments coming in against net
neutrality than during past public comment periods. That's when people started taking a closer
look.
"No, I did not post this comment. In fact, I disagree with this comment," said Brad Emerick, one
of the people whose name was used to enter a fake comment. [4]
Everyone should check right now to see if this has happened to them.
ISPs have a long track record of fake grassroots campaigning, so it's not out of the question
that this may be a scheme funded by Comcast and their allies. And if that's true, we're talking
about something truly awful: criminal behavior. We need to know the truth--and we need to
make sure that these fake comments aren't influencing FCC's decision-making.
We've seen in the past that millions of comments from people in favor of net neutrality can
have an impact on FCC's decisions. And if fake, bot-generated comments have that kind of
impact, this could be a disaster.
Will you help us get to the bottom of this? Use this form to see if your name and
address were used to submit a shady, bot-generated, fake comment to the FCC.
Thanks for all you do,
Evan at FFTF
P.S. We need to find as many examples of real people whose names and addresses were
used to post these fake anti-net neutrality comments, can you share this on Facebook or
Twitter?

[1] JFoss Blog: http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html
[2] The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/10/15610744/anti-net-neutrality-fake-
comments-identities
[3] Techdirt: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170510/08191137334/bot-is-flooding-fcc-
website-with-fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments-alphabetical-order.shtml
[4] KDVR: http://kdvr.com/2017/05/14/7000-coloradans-names-addresses-used-to-post-fake-
comments-about-government-decision/

Fight for the Future works to protect your rights in the digital age.
Click here to learn more
Donate $3 to keep us going
Click here to receive fewer emails from us
Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from Fight for the Future, please
click here.

From: James Brown
To: James Brown
Subject: Fwd: Is Comcast spamming the FCC?

Date: Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:37 PM
Subject: Is Comcast spamming the FCC?
To: (b) (6)
Hi,
Someone has submitted nearly half a million anti-net neutrality comments to the FCC, many of
which appear to be completely fake [1] [2] [3] — using stolen names and addresses. This
needs to be investigated and stopped now.
Help us prove it, and stop them. Use this form to search the FCC for fake comments in
your name.
This search will only yield results if your name was submitted to the FCC alongside a
suspicious anti-net neutrality comment. If you have submitted a comment to the FCC in
defense of net neutrality, your comment will not show up from this search.
If you find a fake comment filed using your name AND address that you are currently or
formerly associated with, email: team@fightforthefuture.org to let us know.
Over 1.5 million comments have been submitted so far on the proposal to repeal net neutrality,
and the vast majority are on our side.
But in recent days, it became clear that there are more comments coming in against net
neutrality than during past public comment periods. That's when people started taking a closer
look.
"No, I did not post this comment. In fact, I disagree with this comment," said Brad Emerick, one
of the people whose name was used to enter a fake comment. [4]
Everyone should check right now to see if this has happened to them.
ISPs have a long track record of fake grassroots campaigning, so it's not out of the question
that this may be a scheme funded by Comcast and their allies. And if that's true, we're talking
about something truly awful: criminal behavior. We need to know the truth--and we need to
make sure that these fake comments aren't influencing FCC's decision-making.
We've seen in the past that millions of comments from people in favor of net neutrality can
have an impact on FCC's decisions. And if fake, bot-generated comments have that kind of
impact, this could be a disaster.
Will you help us get to the bottom of this? Use this form to see if your name and
address were used to submit a shady, bot-generated, fake comment to the FCC.
Thanks for all you do,
Evan at FFTF
P.S. We need to find as many examples of real people whose names and addresses were
used to post these fake anti-net neutrality comments, can you share this on Facebook or
Twitter?
[1] JFoss Blog: http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html

[2] The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/10/15610744/anti-net-neutrality-fake-
comments-identities
[3] Techdirt: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170510/08191137334/bot-is-flooding-fcc-
website-with-fake-anti-net-neutrality-comments-alphabetical-order.shtml
[4] KDVR: http://kdvr.com/2017/05/14/7000-coloradans-names-addresses-used-to-post-fake-
comments-about-government-decision/

click here.
This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) claimed that it was hit with a
distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that took down their website *at the exact same
time* that massive numbers of people would have been heading there to comment in
support of Title II net neutrality protections following John Oliver’s viral segment on Sunday.
[1]
It’s a bold claim. The media widely reported that the FCC’s site crashed under the weight of
so much feedback from the public, and now they’re blaming a “cyber attack” instead.
Here’s the thing: they have provided zero evidence to support this. [2]
The FCC must be transparent and accountable to the public. Sign the petition telling
them that we want proof!
The FCC won’t give any details about the alleged attack, but there is a variety of evidence
that suggests they are wrong, or being intentionally misleading about what happened.
For example, Fight for the Future’s own logs from BattleForTheNet.com, which submits to
the FCC’s comment system, shows that their servers went down again on Monday night,
right after the John Oliver segment re-aired on HBO. [3]
Their site also went down several times over the past few weeks during periods of much
lower traffic, which suggests it was their outdated system, not an attack, that caused the
outage.
Sign the petition: Tell the FCC to stop hiding the truth and tell us what really
happened.
We have repeatedly called for the FCC to release their logs to an independent security
researcher or major media outlet who can verify their story and inform the public about what
really happened here, but so far they have refused.
Several members of Congress have even weighed in demanding answers, and the FCC has
been silent. [4]
At this point we have to ask: what is the FCC hiding?
Did they invent this story of a DDoS attack to cover up the fact that their rickety website
couldn’t handle a large volume of comments, and likely silenced the voices of thousands of
people attempting to comment in support of net neutrality?
Or, perhaps even more disturbing, do they actually have evidence of a DDoS attack, but
won’t release it because it shows that their site was attacked by someone trying to prevent
net neutrality supporters spurred on by John Oliver from making their voices heard?
Either way, the public has a right to know, and the FCC has a responsibility to
maintain a functioning website to receive feedback from the public about important
issues that impact all of us. Click here to sign our urgent petition demanding
transparency now.
Given that the current FCC chairman is a former top lawyer for Verizon and an open enemy
of net neutrality, and in light of the telecom industry’s long history of astroturfing and paying
shady groups to do their dirty work, we are extremely skeptical of the FCC’s claims.
Cybersecurity experts are skeptical too, and major media outlets like Newsweek, USA
Today, and the Washington Post are questioning the agency’s official line. [5]
Secrecy is the enemy of freedom and democracy. The FCC must immediately address this
situation or it is proving beyond a doubt that it is completely captured by companies like
Comcast and Verizon, and no longer working in the public interest.
Sign the petition now: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/did-the-fcc-make-up-a-fake-

cyber-attack-to-cover-up-the-fact-that-they-lost-comments-from-net-neutrality-support
ers
We’ll keep you posted as things develop.
For the free and open Internet,
-Evan at Fight for the Future
P.S. The person at the FCC responsible for this is their Chief Information Officer, David
Bray. You can call or email him directly and encourage him to release their logs to a security
researcher. Here is is contact info: David.Bray@fcc.gov, 202-418-2020.
[1] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/08/the-

fcc-says-an-attack-not-john-oliver-hampered-its-website/?utm_term=.b4e5f2be495c
[2] NetworkWorld: http://www.networkworld.com/article/3195466/security/fcc-should-

produce-logs-to-prove-multiple-ddos-attacks-stopped-net-neutrality-comments.html
[3] Fight for the Future press release: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-09-the-

evidence-suggests-that-the-fcc-is-likely/
[4] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/09/the-

fcc-says-it-got-attacked-over-net-neutrality-now-these-senators-want-answers/
[5] CyberScoop: https://www.cyberscoop.com/recent-flood-traffic-fccs-website-actually-ddos-

attack/
Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from Fight for the Future,
please click here.
From: David Bray
To: Jeannette
Subject: Re: Is the FCC lying?

On May 10, 2017, at 16:57, Jeannette (b) (6) wrote:
Dear David,
I received this email (below) a few hours back .. hence forwarding onto you ...
Interesting and intriguiging ..
If anything, please,
What can you apprise me of it ....
Warm Regards,

Jeannette
Street

Date: 10 May 2017 at 22:50
Subject: Is the FCC lying?
To: (b) (6)
Hi, this email is a tiny bit complicated but it’s super important.
If you only have a second and you care at all about government transparency and free
speech: click here to learn more and take action.
This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) claimed that it was hit with a
distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that took down their website *at the exact same
time* that massive numbers of people would have been heading there to comment in support
of Title II net neutrality protections following John Oliver’s viral segment on Sunday. [1]
It’s a bold claim. The media widely reported that the FCC’s site crashed under the weight of so
much feedback from the public, and now they’re blaming a “cyber attack” instead.
Here’s the thing: they have provided zero evidence to support this. [2]
The FCC must remain transparent and accountable. Their website failure means
thousands of comments in support of net neutrality were lost. Will you submit one to
make sure that our voices are still heard?
The FCC won’t give any details about the alleged attack, but there is a variety of evidence that
suggests they are wrong, or being intentionally misleading about what happened.
For example, Fight for the Future’s own logs from BattleForTheNet.com, which submits to the
FCC’s comment system, shows that their servers went down again on Monday night, right after
the John Oliver segment re-aired on HBO. [3]
Their site also went down several times over the past few weeks during periods of much lower
traffic, which suggests it was their outdated system, not an attack, that caused the outage.
The most important thing right now is that we continue flooding the FCC with comments
from REAL people in support of net neutrality. Click here to submit yours!
We have repeatedly called for the FCC to release their logs to an independent security
researcher or major media outlet who can verify their story and inform the public about what
really happened here, but so far they have refused.
Several members of Congress have even weighed in demanding answers, and the FCC has
been silent. [4]
At this point we have to ask: what is the FCC hiding?
Did they invent this story of a DDoS attack to cover up the fact that their rickety website
couldn’t handle a large volume of comments, and likely silenced the voices of thousands of
people attempting to comment in support of net neutrality?
Or, perhaps even more disturbing, do they actually have evidence of a DDoS attack, but won’t
release it because it shows that their site was attacked by someone trying to prevent net
neutrality supporters spurred on by John Oliver from making their voices heard?
Either way, it’s clear our opponents are playing dirty. We need to fight them by making
sure that we keep real comments from the public flowing in.
Will you use our tool to submit a comment with just one click?
Given that the current FCC chairman is a former top lawyer for Verizon and an open enemy of
net neutrality, and in light of the telecom industry’s long history of astroturfing and paying
shady groups to do their dirty work, we are extremely skeptical of the FCC’s claims.
Cybersecurity experts are skeptical too, and major media outlets like Newsweek, USA Today,
and the Washington Post are questioning the agency’s official line. [5]
Secrecy is the enemy of freedom and democracy. The FCC must immediately address this
situation or it is proving beyond a doubt that it is completely captured by companies like
Comcast and Verizon, and no longer working in the public interest.
Take urgent action now!
We’ll keep you posted as things develop.
For the free and open Internet,
-Evan at Fight for the Future
P.S. The person at the FCC responsible for this is their Chief Information Officer, David Bray.
You can call or email him directly and encourage him to release their logs to a security
researcher. Here is is contact info: David.Bray@fcc.gov, 202-418-2020.
[1] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/08/the-fcc-

says-an-attack-not-john-oliver-hampered-its-website/?utm_term=.b4e5f2be495c
[2] NetworkWorld: http://www.networkworld.com/article/3195466/security/fcc-should-produce-

logs-to-prove-multiple-ddos-attacks-stopped-net-neutrality-comments.html
[3] Fight for the Future press release: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-09-the-

evidence-suggests-that-the-fcc-is-likely/
[4] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/09/the-fcc-

says-it-got-attacked-over-net-neutrality-now-these-senators-want-answers/
[5] CyberScoop: https://www.cyberscoop.com/recent-flood-traffic-fccs-website-actually-ddos-

attack/

click here.
From: David Bray
To: Neil Grace
Subject: RE: John Oliver
Terrific and thank you Neil. It’s been quite a full day.

Truly appreciated.

From: Neil Grace
David – David McCabe is on our press list, so he received the comment.

From: David Bray
To: David McCabe <mccabe@axios.com>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
Hi David,

OMR has helped put out this official comment, hope this helps:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-cio-denial-service-attack-fcc-comment-system

From: David Bray
To: 'David McCabe' <mccabe@axios.com>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
Hi David, probably best to route your request through Neil and others at OMR. Off the record ECFS is
and has been running, just some folks are hitting it with high traffic and not with the purpose to file
comments. OMR is on point for queries.

Neil is the best POC.

From: David McCabe [mailto:mccabe@axios.com]
Cc: Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: John Oliver
Hey David and Neil —

Hope all is well. David, we've never worked together before but my editor here is Kim Hart,
and she said you'd worked together at the agency. I was wondering if you had anything you
could share about the issues with ECFS.
I'm also wondering if you had an update on the number of comments you've gotten over the
last 14 hours or so, post the HBO segment.
I'm happy to chat as well, at (b) (6) .
Thanks!
David

Adding Dave Bray and Neil. Is ECFS down?
From: David McCabe
Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 11:48 PM
To: Brian Hart; Mark Wigfield; Will Wiquist
Subject: John Oliver
Hey all — Sorry for the late email. I was wondering if you had any comment on the
segment John Oliver did tonight revisiting net neutrality.
There's speculation online that Oliver's segment also crashed the FCC's online comment
system, and I was wondering if you could confirm.
Thanks!
David
--
David McCabe
Technology Reporter, Axios
mccabe@axios.com | @dmccabe
Cell and Signal: (b) (6)
--
David McCabe
From: David McCabe
To: David Bray
Cc: Neil Grace
Thanks!
Hi David,
OMR has helped put out this official comment, hope this helps:
From: David Bray

To: 'David McCabe' <mccabe@axios.com>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
Hi David, probably best to route your request through Neil and others at OMR. Off the record ECFS
is and has been running, just some folks are hitting it with high traffic and not with the purpose to
file comments. OMR is on point for queries.
Neil is the best POC.
From: David McCabe [mailto:mccabe@axios.com]

Cc: Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>
Hey David and Neil —

Hope all is well. David, we've never worked together before but my editor here is Kim Hart,
and she said you'd worked together at the agency. I was wondering if you had anything you
could share about the issues with ECFS.
I'm also wondering if you had an update on the number of comments you've gotten over the
last 14 hours or so, post the HBO segment.
I'm happy to chat as well, at (b) (6)
Thanks!
David
From: David McCabe
Hey all — Sorry for the late email. I was wondering if you had any comment on the
segment John Oliver did tonight revisiting net neutrality.
Thanks!
David
--
David McCabe
--
David McCabe
--
David McCabe
To: John Skudlarek
(b) (5)
On 5/8/17, 9:34 AM, someone claiming to be "John Skudlarek" <John Skudlarek@fcc gov> wrote:
(b)

(5)

________________________________________

From: "Erik Scheibert" <Erik Scheibert@fcc gov>
Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:32:47 AM
To: "David Bray" <David Bray@fcc gov>, "Venkat Veeramneni (CTR)" <Venkat Veeramneni ctr@fcc gov>, "Uttam Kumar" <Uttam Kumar@fcc gov>,
"Mark Savi" <Mark Savi@fcc gov>, "Christine Calvosa" <Marie Calvosa@fcc gov>, "Aman Sharma (CTR)" <Aman Sharma ctr@fcc gov>, "ITleadership"
<ITleadership@fcc gov>

(b) (5)

On 5/8/17, 9:23 AM, someone claiming to be "David Bray" <David Bray@fcc gov> wrote:

(b) (5)


From: Mark Wigfield <Mark Wigfield@fcc gov>
Date: May 8, 2017 at 07:19:51 EDT
To: Brian Hart <Brian Hart@fcc gov>, Will Wiquist <Will Wiquist@fcc gov>, David Bray <David Bray@fcc gov>, Neil Grace <Neil Grace@fcc gov>

(b) (5)
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David McCabe; Brian Hart; Will Wiquist; David Bray; Neil Grace

Adding Dave Bray and Neil Is ECFS down?
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network
From: David McCabe

Hey all — Sorry for the late email I was wondering if you had any comment on the segment John Oliver did tonight revisiting net neutrality

There's speculation online that Oliver's segment also crashed the FCC's online comment system, and I was wondering if you could confirm

Thanks!
David

--
David McCabe
mccabe@axios com | @dmccabe <https://urldefense proofpoint com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__twitter com_dmccabe&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=2fIJDJ4pqy-
6Q6sHxEdvdscsL7D4biT86syzgydYRrc&m=8VABzLC_4SUHI1yzi4CQLpOLNuQLhyrFurf4eDJiSTw&s=nsK04ptyQ4_MUWoxep38yZyvosoaQfOhMG8327Hnz6U&e=>
Cell and Signal (b) (6)

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

From: David McCabe

Hey all — Sorry for the late email. I was wondering if you had any comment on the segment
John Oliver did tonight revisiting net neutrality.


Thanks!
David

--
David McCabe

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Brian Hart; Will Wiquist; David Bray; Neil Grace
(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

From: David McCabe
Hey all — Sorry for the late email. I was wondering if you had any comment on the segment
John Oliver did tonight revisiting net neutrality.
Thanks!
David
--
David McCabe
From: Ajit Pai
To: Justin Crawford
Subject: RE: Keep fighting the good fight
Thanks a lot, Justin! I really appreciate the support and kind words. I hope you submitted a comment yourself! And on my end, I'll keep on
keeping on, to the best of my ability.
Have a great day!

Ajit
From: Justin Crawford(b) (6)
To: Ajit Pai <Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov>
Subject: Keep fighting the good fight
Wanted to give you a thumbs up amid the influx of hate you are probably receiving today based on the reddit threads I'm seeing. I support all that
you are doing, and hope the rants of a comedian do not interfere with the disentanglement of the internet from the arms of the government.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.reddit.com_r_technology_comments_69y4as_john-5Foliver-5Fis-5Fcalling-5Fon-
5Fyou-5Fto-5Fsave-
5Fnet_&d=DwIBaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=zuHkmYcOLikDapwhFdjSVA&m=jE4VY1q6jJKdHR3xV44i8KcfNxFSnNVq9YXtuQ5-
mFo&s=7DFb_Z_oPsk7n8qRkJpqca6-UTmT_0H1XqUFD_L8mCc&e=
Good thing Title II was around for the creation of such a site, it surely would have been censored and removed without those protections!
Hah.
Keep it up, and thanks for what you are doing!
Justin Crawford
From: David Bray
To: Lerner, Jennifer
Subject: Re: May 17
Date: Saturday, May 13, 2017 9:27:02 PM
Agreed -- I will make the case however they may not do a press release b/c the activists groups
involved want to create a spectacle however we may do something on background for
reporters. The blog post may or may not happen; we'll see.
On May 13, 2017, at 20:13, Lerner, Jennifer <Jennifer_Lerner@hks.harvard.edu> wrote:
Good idea to draft a blog; might also consider a press release.

In order to match your excellent intentions with greatest impact, you might want to simplify the
language and detail. Maybe simply explain that a forum for comments is not meant to symbolize a
forum for votes. It is merely one of the many ways that the FCC welcomes input from the public so
that an ongoing discussion of ideas flows freely.

Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 8:00 PM
To: Lerner, Jennifer <Jennifer Lerner@hks.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: May 17

Yes -- we are a tad in the news a lot lately. Doing my best to provide a calm non-anxious and
non-partisan SES presence in the midst of it all.

What happened earlier this week does raise questions about how we can continue to do public
service and public commenting in an era where anyone can write an automated program (aka,
a bot) that posts pretends to be a human but isn't, or tons of comments that say the same things
over and over, or ties up a website to deny service to others.

The demands to share our logs are a combination of silly (no one does this + they are
massively large) and not recognizing that there are the IP addresses of people and their ISP
providers who filed who did not give permission to have that private information shared. Even
if we spent a whole lot of time scrubbing that data there's still the risk that someone's privacy
could be exposed so of course we can't share (and the protest group insisting on this knows
that).

Below is a draft blog post I have teed up for the new Chairman to see if it will help provide
more details to the public -- he may not choose to share it:

The last few days have placed intense focus on the FCC's commenting process. This post is
intended to share what we can on topics relating to that.

While I am not a lawyer, as I understand it FCC's commenting process is meant to raise legal
issues to the Commissioners to consider in their deliberations. It was never meant to be a vote
or tally of how many comments are for or against a certain proceeding.

Our cloud-based electronic comment filing system is one part of the process which now
receives a bulk of comments vs. mail-based submissions. Folks can submit individual
comments using a full form -- which usually lawyers and other telecom practitioners do
involving multiple pages of legal briefs -- or a "simplified method" for a very quick individual
comment. Before the recent proceeding 17-108 started we also stood up a backup mechanism
using a different commercial cloud system for bulk uploads using a Comma Spreadsheet
Values (CSV) format akin to a spreadsheet which has been done for other high profile
proceedings in the past.

The FCC’s electronic comment filing system also has an Application Programming Interface
(API) for submissions because with the legacy system folks would use automated programs,
"bots", to crawl our webpages and submit or search for comments in an automated fashion. In
the past these bots had benign purposes, such as making a copy of any new comment filed in
the system, alerting the public if a new proceeding was open, and other knowledge discovery
tools.

Before this API existed with the system, the bots that crawled the legacy commenting system
created massive loads on the system compared to a normal user submitting a comment. There
were times when certain bot, either poorly coded or coded to create a large volume of traffic,
would tie up the system and make it appear unavailable for human users. When we were not
cloud-based we would have to stand-up additional servers to address the load. Now that we are
cloud-based this is easier however there are still limits to how quickly the system can index
new comments and scale.

To human users it would look like the website had "crashed" when really they were being
denied service as the old website was too busy responding to the bots. This happened in 2014
though at the time we chose not to talk about the automated programs repeatedly hitting the
FCC website vs. the number of human visitors.

At the FCC, we want to support openness as much as possible, so that anyone can provide
comment on an FCC proceeding. At the same time we were concerned about the increasing
ability of to create a massive bombardment to the commenting system. As such, starting in
2014, we did three actions:

1. We provided an alternative mechanism for folks wanting to file in bulk for high profile-
proceedings, so they did not have to use bots to do this and deny service to individual humans
visiting the website directly.

2. We modernized the legacy commenting system to use an API vs. web-crawling bots. As
mentioned, APIs allow knowledge discovery in an automated form. At the same time, the API
requires users to get a key and all keys have a set rate for the number of requests that can be
done per hour similar to http://Data.gov

3. We moved the legacy commenting system – with new code – to commercial cloud services
so the cloud provider could spin up more servers if there were a lot of humans wanting to
leave comments on a proceeding.

Even with our move to commercial cloud services there are some challenges if we are to
remain 100% open to all in our internet era. For example, if folks wanted to they could request
multiple keys for an API and then use those multiple keys to send high volumes of traffic to
the FCC. If they are using commercial web services it will look legitimate and may in fact be
legitimate except that their technique is denying service to other individuals who want to file a
comment.

In addition, API calls with multiple keys could be written in a way that ties up the system
responding to automated requests and causes the serve to deny other requests – either human
or automated – from providing services, making it look like the system is unavailable.

Lastly, on the human vs. automated question, we considered implementing a test to see if we
were dealing with a human like ReCAPTCHA or NoCAPTCHA however these systems
present challenges to individuals who have different needs visually or otherwise.

In our internet era, bots and API provide openness and knowledge discovery. They also
unfortunately allow folks to either send the same comment over and over again and FCC does
not get into the business of distinguishing if a comment is valid or not.

As mentioned, while I am not a lawyer, the FCC commenting process was never meant to be a
vote or tally of how many comments are for or against a certain proceeding. Bots also can call
the API to file the same comment over and over again at a much faster rate than humans. Bots
and API also can send high volumes of traffic or make a time-consuming API calls that do not
directly file a comment. If done en masse this can result in denial of service to other legitimate
individuals visiting the commenting system to leave a comment via the web interface.

FCC wants to be open to everyone. For 17-108, for those groups that want to leave comments
in bulk, we recommend the CSV upload mechanism that has been available since the start of
the proceeding without interruption. This will allow bulk comments to be received while at the
same time allow individuals to use the website. All comments will be included in the final
record.

Hope this helps and best regards.

Thanks for the update. Best of luck on all these exciting fronts. And then, of course, there is your
ever-in-the-news day job…

J
Jenn

Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: May 17

Sounds like a great discussion Jenn and yes we can try to re-vector for a future date in D.C.

To: Lerner, Jennifer <Jennifer_Lerner@hks.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: May 17

Humbled and many thanks Jenn.

Today we received massive DDoS attacks as a result of the Jon Oliver video last night --
fortunately we were in the cloud.

Alas 17 May in the morning is when I am speaking at American U. followed by chairing a
GSA meeting followed by a discussion at FTC all before 1pm -- is the morning of 18 May
possible to meet for breakfast around 0930?

Best regards,

-d.

Congrats on that award. Great achievement. (b) (6)

(b) (6) Maybe I can re-schedule my
breakfast meeting. Would coming to the (b) (6) area for breakfast be difficult for you?

Jenn

Cc: Agliati, Pia <Pia Agliati@hks.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: May 17

Hi Jenn,

Doing well here. FCC recently had some good news
http://www.nextgov.com/cloud-computing/2017/05/fcc-captures-second-cio-100-
award/137469/
FCC Captures Second CIO 100

Award
www.nextgov.com
“We wanted to operate like internal venture

capitalists,” FCC CIO David Bray said.

... and I also found out I've been accepted as a 2017-2018 German Marshall Memorial Fellow
which involves 24 days of travel to 5 different cities in Europe in March 2018 to focus on
Trans-Atlantic issues of shared concern.

I'd love to meet-up however I'm speaking at American University that day re: the Senior
Executive Service. Any chance you might be able to have dinner that evening downtown
around 6pm or 6:30pm?

I'll keep the evening of 17 May reserved for you in the event that it also works for your
schedule -- my apologies that lunch is already booked.


-d.

From: Lerner, Jennifer <Jennifer Lerner@hks.harvard.edu>

Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 6:51:44 PM
To: David Bray
Cc: Agliati, Pia
Subject: May 17

David,

I hope this message finds you well.

By any chance are you free for lunch on May 17th? I’d be happy to take you to lunch in DC.

Best,
Jenn

Jennifer S. Lerner
Professor, Harvard University
Faculty Chair, Leadership Decision Making Program

Bio: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/jennifer-lerner
Google Scholar page: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZDfRizQAAAAJ&hl=en

Subject: Re: May 17
Yes -- we are a tad in the news a lot lately. Doing my best to provide a calm non-anxious and
non-partisan SES presence in the midst of it all.
What happened earlier this week does raise questions about how we can continue to do public
service and public commenting in an era where anyone can write an automated program (aka,
a bot) that posts pretends to be a human but isn't, or tons of comments that say the same things
over and over, or ties up a website to deny service to others.
The demands to share our logs are a combination of silly (no one does this + they are
massively large) and not recognizing that there are the IP addresses of people and their ISP
providers who filed who did not give permission to have that private information shared. Even
if we spent a whole lot of time scrubbing that data there's still the risk that someone's privacy
could be exposed so of course we can't share (and the protest group insisting on this knows
that).
Below is a draft blog post I have teed up for the new Chairman to see if it will help provide
more details to the public -- he may not choose to share it:
intended to share what we can on topics relating to that.

While I am not a lawyer, as I understand it FCC's commenting process is meant to raise legal
issues to the Commissioners to consider in their deliberations. It was never meant to be a vote
or tally of how many comments are for or against a certain proceeding.

Our cloud-based electronic comment filing system is one part of the process which now
receives a bulk of comments vs. mail-based submissions. Folks can submit individual
comments using a full form -- which usually lawyers and other telecom practitioners do
involving multiple pages of legal briefs -- or a "simplified method" for a very quick individual
comment. Before the recent proceeding 17-108 started we also stood up a backup mechanism
using a different commercial cloud system for bulk uploads using a Comma Spreadsheet
Values (CSV) format akin to a spreadsheet which has been done for other high profile
proceedings in the past.

The FCC’s electronic comment filing system also has an Application Programming Interface
(API) for submissions because with the legacy system folks would use automated programs,
"bots", to crawl our webpages and submit or search for comments in an automated fashion. In
the past these bots had benign purposes, such as making a copy of any new comment filed in
the system, alerting the public if a new proceeding was open, and other knowledge discovery
tools.

Before this API existed with the system, the bots that crawled the legacy commenting system
created massive loads on the system compared to a normal user submitting a comment. There
were times when certain bot, either poorly coded or coded to create a large volume of traffic,
would tie up the system and make it appear unavailable for human users. When we were not
cloud-based we would have to stand-up additional servers to address the load. Now that we are
cloud-based this is easier however there are still limits to how quickly the system can index
new comments and scale.

To human users it would look like the website had "crashed" when really they were being
denied service as the old website was too busy responding to the bots. This happened in 2014
though at the time we chose not to talk about the automated programs repeatedly hitting the
FCC website vs. the number of human visitors.

At the FCC, we want to support openness as much as possible, so that anyone can provide
comment on an FCC proceeding. At the same time we were concerned about the increasing
ability of to create a massive bombardment to the commenting system. As such, starting in
2014, we did three actions:

1. We provided an alternative mechanism for folks wanting to file in bulk for high profile-
proceedings, so they did not have to use bots to do this and deny service to individual humans
visiting the website directly.

2. We modernized the legacy commenting system to use an API vs. web-crawling bots. As
mentioned, APIs allow knowledge discovery in an automated form. At the same time, the API
requires users to get a key and all keys have a set rate for the number of requests that can be
done per hour similar to http://Data.gov

3. We moved the legacy commenting system – with new code – to commercial cloud services
so the cloud provider could spin up more servers if there were a lot of humans wanting to
leave comments on a proceeding.

Even with our move to commercial cloud services there are some challenges if we are to
remain 100% open to all in our internet era. For example, if folks wanted to they could request
multiple keys for an API and then use those multiple keys to send high volumes of traffic to
the FCC. If they are using commercial web services it will look legitimate and may in fact be
legitimate except that their technique is denying service to other individuals who want to file a
comment.

responding to automated requests and causes the serve to deny other requests – either human
or automated – from providing services, making it look like the system is unavailable.

were dealing with a human like ReCAPTCHA or NoCAPTCHA however these systems
present challenges to individuals who have different needs visually or otherwise.

In our internet era, bots and API provide openness and knowledge discovery. They also
unfortunately allow folks to either send the same comment over and over again and FCC does
not get into the business of distinguishing if a comment is valid or not.

As mentioned, while I am not a lawyer, the FCC commenting process was never meant to be a
vote or tally of how many comments are for or against a certain proceeding. Bots also can call
the API to file the same comment over and over again at a much faster rate than humans. Bots
Unfortunately, May 16 doesn’t work. (b) (6)

But I will be back for future trips.

(b) (6)

Best,
Jenn

Subject: Re: May 17

Oh dear. Any availability the day before (16 May?). Sorry the calendar is so full as I definitely
would like to catch-up with you soon.
Drat; I’m sorry that it isn’t working for May 17. (b) (6)

Subject: Re: May 17




Best regards,

-d.


(b) (6)


Jenn

Cc: Agliati, Pia <Pia_Agliati@hks.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: May 17

Hi Jenn,

award/137469/

Award
www.nextgov.com





-d.

From: Lerner, Jennifer <Jennifer_Lerner@hks.harvard.edu>

To: David Bray
Cc: Agliati, Pia
Subject: May 17

David,



Best,
Jenn

Jennifer S. Lerner


(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 17:38
To: Brian Hart; David Bray; Mark Wigfield
Subject: RE: More on DDoS

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: FW: More on DDoS
(b) (5)

From: Margaret McGill [mailto:mmcgill@politico.com]
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: More on DDoS
Hey, is it possible to get this on the record (aka with a name attached)? My editors are
pushing for that.


To: Margaret McGill; Brian Hart

Yes, on background, from an FCC official, there were similar DDoS attacks back in 2014 right after
the Jon Oliver episode and that chart shows it wasn’t because of a “high volume” of comments, it
was because of high traffic to prevent people from filing comments. But a key difference is that that
back in 2014 there were far less options to address the DDoS because we were not cloud-based.

Subject: More on DDoS

Hey all,

I remember during the background press call on the net neutrality NPRM, someone
mentioned that the FCC has been hit with malicious attacks before.

Was there a similar DDoS attack during the last net neutrality debate? Did it also occur after
the Jon Oliver episode in 2014?

I was looking at this chart of comment volume during the last debate, and it doesn't look like
there was a huge surge following the Oliver segment in June 2014 that would have been
enough comments to overwhelm the system.

Please let me know what you can today! I'm doing a short story.

Thanks,
Margaret

Margaret Harding McGill
Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)
mmcgill@politico.com

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry


(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)


pushing for that.





Hey all,





Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry; Brian Hart; Mark Wigfield
Cc: ITleadership
From: David Bray

To: Matthew Berry; Brian Hart; Mark Wigfield
Cc: ITleadership
(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry


(b) (5)
From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)
From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

pushing for that.



Hey all,





Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

From: Matthew Berry
To: David Bray; Mark Wigfield; Brian Hart
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5), (b) (6)

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; David Bray
(b) (5)

Hey all,





Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

From: Brian Hart
To: Matthew Berry; Mark Wigfield; David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

Hey all,





Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

From: Matthew Berry
<Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; ITleadership <ITleadership@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: More website troubles?

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
<Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; ITleadership <ITleadership@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: More website troubles?

(b) (5)
From: David Bray

To: Mark Wigfield; Matthew Berry; Brian Hart; Will Wiquist; ITleadership

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

To: David Bray; Matthew Berry; Brian Hart; Will Wiquist; ITleadership
Subject: FW: More website troubles?

(b) (5)


Hi again. I pointed out to Fight for the Future that the timestamps on their screenshots of the
FCC server logs don't back up their claims that the FCC's servers went down after the John
Oliver segment re-aired at 7 pm last night.

They sent me a new screenshot that shows "server unavailable" messages starting at 8:30 pm
last night (The timestamps are in PDT). I've attached it here.

I'll be writing something about their claims for subscribers, so wanted to reach out again:

Did the FCC experience problems with its servers last night?
Was there another DDoS attack?
How can the agency tell the difference between a malicious attack and legitimate traffic from
users trying to get to the website?

Please let me know what you can!

Thanks,
Margaret

From: Margaret McGill
To: Mark Wigfield; brian.hart@fcc.gov
Subject: More website troubles?

Hi all -- Fight for the Future claims the FCC's servers went down again after John Oliver's
segment re-aired on HBO.


Was there another attack? What was the issue? What is the FCC doing to ensure that
legitimate commenters are not deterred by website problems?

Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield


(b) (5)







Thanks,
Margaret






Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

From: Sam Nevens (b) (6)
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality

Hi David,
Please note that the link you've just provided directs individuals wishing to file a comment to:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108))
Which, when clicking the "+express" link as directed per the previous page, I was unable to fill out the
form via a mobile device and had to use a desktop computer instead. Moreover, I am not part of a "group"
wishing to file a bulk comment. I am an individual.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.

To: Sam Nevens (b) (6)
Hi Sam,
There has always been the option to use this simple option to file comments as
well: https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments
Hope this helps.
On May 9, 2017, at 09:03, Sam Nevens (b) (6) wrote:
Thank you for your response.
Unfortunately, the FCC has made it impossible for a complaint regarding Net Neutrality to be filed on their
website via a mobile device. This, as well as the claim that the FCC was under a DDoS attack, when
likely they were just overwhelmed by the amount of people who wanted to file a complaint, is the reason
you are getting emails from concerned citizens.
If you'd like me to pass the info over to the person directing others to contact you via this email regarding
the issue, I highly suggest first fixing the FCC complaint page to accept mobile users as well as a higher
number of users at one time...
Thank you.

Thank you for your note and it would be best if you contact the Office of Media
Relations. Whomever is suggesting you email this address has the incorrect POC.
Keep the net neutral....
KEEP THE NET NEUTRAL.
I'm calling for the FCC to release its logs to independent security analysts regarding the alleged DDoS
attack. If you guys had any sense at all you may realize that either....
1) The FCC is being intentionally misleading, and trying to claim that the surge in traffic from large
numbers of people attempting to access their site through John Oliver’s GoFCCYourself.com redirect
amounts to a “DDoS” attack, to let themselves off the hook for essentially silencing large numbers of
people by not having a properly functioning site to receive comments from the public about an important
issue, or—worst case—is preparing a bogus legal argument that somehow John Oliver’s show itself was
the DDoS attack.
2) Someone actually did DDoS the FCC’s site at the exact same time as John Oliver’s segment, in order
to actively prevent people from being able to comment in support of keeping the Title II net neutrality rules
many of us fought for in 2015.
Do you really want your children to grow up in a world where they can't access information someone else
determined isn't useful or vital or equal?
From: Joe Sak
Subject: Net Neutrality and the DDos Attack Claim
Hello,
The FCC is not under a DDos attack, there has been a legitimate call to arms being made by
actual people thanks to your views on Net Neutrality. You and your agency opened a public
forum in which you requested that people leave their thoughts and comment on the subject.
People are commenting and leaving their thoughts and you claim this to be an attack. This is
an illegitimate and underhanded move to block peoples speech. You and your agency are
receiving the exact feedback you requested, and have now shut it down. This is not a DDos
attack, this is people speaking up about problems we see with your policies. Net Neutrality
and Title II should remain in place and are forces of good.
I am extremely disappointed in your handling of negative criticism and in the way you treat
people who are giving fair and valid commentary on a topic you asked them to comment on.
Joseph Walter Sak

From: David Bray
To: Brandon Bristow
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality Comments DDoS

https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from should you find the
From: Brandon Bristow(b) (6)

To: David Bray
Subject: Net Neutrality Comments DDoS

Hello David,
I am contacting you today because of a reason you've likely been in contact with many other
concerned citizens about already. Like countless others, I was never able to leave my
comment about the new net neutrality on the fcc's comment board due to these DDoS
attacks. I'm here asking the FCC to pass along their logs to private investigators to indeed
prove there were DDoS attacks preventing the comments. Net Neutrality is a serious issue
many feel strongly about, and the one place their voice may have been heard was
inaccessible. It only makes sense to prove to the concerned public you were DDoS'd at this
point- especially such an easy task of providing your logs.
Thanks,
Brandon Bristow
From: David Bray
To: Scott Gillies
Cc: ECFSHelp
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality Proceedings 17-108 / Release Logs
Thank you for your note Scott and it would be best if you file your comment either
using www.fcc.gov/ECFS which should be available or there has always been an alternative
easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from
should you find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. We have noticed some bulk
filers of lots of comments are using the individual mechanism (ECFS) to file comments in
bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for individuals to file.
On May 10, 2017, at 15:55, Scott Gillies (b) (6) wrote:
I had tried to submit this via the form on your website, but every time I click "Submit" it does
nothing (in two different web browsers). Not sure if it is because your website is still having
issues (and while I'm at it, please release the logs to the public so we can verify your claims
that your site went down because of a DDoS attack...), but here are my thoughts on the matter:
The internet is a great equalizer. It allows people without tons of money and/or political
backing to spread their ideas cheaply and effectively and translate them into action. We
absolutely, 100%, no question NEED to keep it this way. Corporations already control too
much in our country and our world. The internet seems like the last frontier where the little
guy has a chance to succeed and I would be very saddened to see this change.
To quote an email I received today from Win Without War, "Net neutrality allows all of us to
speak truth to power. It allows us to throw light on injustice, and to coordinate, organize, and
support each other’s struggles. Net neutrality helps preserve equal access to the most
important currency in our democracy, ideas."
It seems to be getting harder and harder to speak truth to power without getting drowned out.
Please do not take away one of our best tools to do so. Please preserve Net Neutrality and Title
II.
Thank you,
Scott Gillies
US Citizen
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield
Subject: Fwd: one other IE prob for ECFS
FYI -- a lot of Jonathan Make's issues appear to be on his machine with a plugin he is using...
From: "Andrew Nebus (CTR)" <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>

Date: May 18, 2017 at 15:17:09 EDT
To: "Make, Jonathan" <jmake@warren-news.com>
Subject: Re: one other IE prob for ECFS
Thank you Jonathan… The reason this only happens in Internet Explorer is because PDF
Complete is hooking into IE, but not other browsers. PDF Complete if I recall correctly is a
Windows based software similar to Adobe Acrobat. You could try disabling this plug in in IE
and see if your errors continue.
On May 17, 2017, at 6:56 PM, Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>

wrote:
I also get this error message a fair bit but only in IE when trying to open filings

<image001.png>

Cc: David Bray
Subject: RE: ECFS

One issue is I often have to wait a bit before I can execute certain commands in ECFS in
IE.
Like, moving from the 25 filings/screen to another page view.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/18/2017-09885/promoting-
technological-solutions-to-combat-contraband-wireless-device-use-in-correctional

Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS

Sure.
For the first time since two Sundays ago,
this afternoon, it worked OK in IE.

From: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>

To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS

Indeed, I am keen to reproduce issues so that we can debug them.

General stability of your Internet Explorer is harder to trace to ECFS without more
details, so if you can grab them (a screen shot, error messages, etc) when they
occur it might help.

Andrew

news.com> wrote:

Not sure on IE. Quite possibly. It apparently is an issue that IE has
generally with ECFS.
It takes a lot of time to do any particular function. And it crashes often. I
could probably send specific issues as they occur.
To: Make, Jonathan
Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: ECFS

I understand. When you say not that stable, are there reproducible
issues I can have the team look into when using Internet Explorer, or
more along the lines of usability feedback (also welcome, but
prioritized differently of course)?

Once I have confirmed this is pushed to production and I can verify
the fix, I’ll let you know.

Andrew

On May 16, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Make, Jonathan
<jmake@warren-news.com> wrote:


I think that is it.

I have not yet been able to use consistently Firefox to access
ECFS.
Which is not that stable, either, for that application, but it
does have more functionality.

Would you be able to please let me know once the Firefox
functionality is fully restored?

Jonathan

[mailto:Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov]
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Jonathan,

Big thanks again for reporting and detailing the issue so
well with Firefox. The team is testing a fix for this that
should deploy later this week.

Beyond the numbering and pagination issues (and the
missing RSS feed) on Firefox, I wanted to follow up if
you had identified any other issues.

Andrew


Many thanks. Beyond the numbering issue,
Jonathan send any screenshots + URL of other
issues you’re having or if the issues are
happening on a browser other than Firefox.

Thank you.

To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Make,
Jonathan <jmake@warren-news.com>
Subject: RE: ECFS

I am looking into this. My last status update on
this was that we had a fix for the numbering
issue in the works that had to be tested. I will
check if it made its way to production.

From: David Bray
To: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-
news.com>; Andrew Nebus (CTR)
Subject: RE: ECFS

If it is still not working for you, yes and please
send a screenshot + the URL you are trying to
access and send to Andrew – you can cc me.

Andrew – can you look into this today? Thank
you.

We are aware that some versions of Firefox
have bugs and are trying to identify a fix.
Other browsers should work fine.

news.com]
Subject: RE: ECFS

Do you want me to take some screenshots
now?

Subject: RE: ECFS

It could be a new Firefox version has bugs – in
the future please send us URLs and
screenshots.

Same with IE. On our end and with several
others it has been working too. The challenge
with IT for websites is isolating whether it’s the
system that is delivering the information or the
browser (on the user’s end) that is showing it
or some combination. If other folks had the
same plug-in or browser version that could
have been an issue.

If your browser was cached that could have
also been an issue. Lots of different variables.

We strive to help as much as possible, so
screenshots and URLs will help Andrew (copied
here) at the Team “sleuth” what’s going on
either at the server end or the web browser
end.

Best regards,

-d.

news.com]
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Andrew
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks again.

Just based on what others have said outside
this organization, I don’t think this is limited to
only my computer.

Firefox will not show most filings made at any
time.
IE as of today is showing them (except
obviously today and yesterday which have not
yet been posted at all). But IE before today I do
not think was showing them, either.
Subject: RE: ECFS

The Firefox issue makes me wonder Jonathan if
you have a plug-in or antivirus too that’s
causing the issue as we’re simply not seeing it
here – I use Firefox and haven’t had an issue
nor have other folks.

Sometimes browsers do become corrupted on
local machines. Andrew Nebus copied here,
and again off the record as we’re trying to
provide IT assistance can help, can work with
you if it arises. In the future if you send Andrew
URLs that you think are not working, we can
trying them ourselves and see if we see the
same result.

Also to be clear, when you say on IE could case
see all filings made before Thursday on IE, did
you try IE on Tuesday as well or just Firefox?

Hope this helps.

news.com]
Subject: RE: ECFS

Thanks, David.

I believe I am going to speak with someone @
OMR later today, for that part, and to ensure
we’re all on the same page.

ECFS all this week has been barely working on
Firefox. Not just the page number issue, which
began last week, but many if not most filings
from any time period do not display using
Firefox. Right now, I am pleased to say, I can
see all filings made before Thursday on IE. That
was not happening earlier this week, but it is
now.

Cheers.
To: Make, Jonathan
Subject: Re: ECFS

Hi Jonathan,

All off the record as I am trying to provide
you IT help, not a media comment:

When you say ECFS is not entirely working
now on Firefox -- do you mean that it's not
working at all, or it's not working fully (as in
the numbers at the top of a search aren't
working) however that it does work in IE and
Chrome? We are aware that some versions
of Firefox have bugs and are trying to
identify a fix. Other browsers should work
fine.

You are correct that the auto-dissemination
has not happened for yesterday and today.
We have turned it off until we can also bring
in the filings done via the bulk filing
mechanism this weekend, that way they're
all there at the same time together.

Yesterday we didn't receive reports of issues
and that was unofficially the highest day
ever for comments received by the FCC ever
(you'd have to ask OMR for details). Monday
you already know what that was. Tuesday
was fine. Off the record, Wednesday
afternoon there was an issue where some
entities were using the RSS feeds to create
excessive loads on the search function of
ECFS with massive queries that was address
that evening.


-d.

From: Make, Jonathan <jmake@warren-

news.com>
To: David Bray
Subject: ECFS

Hi David.

Here is my understanding of where things
stand with ECFS, from talking with a
programmer and an ECFS help desk person
today and from talking to others in our
newsroom and among the communications bar
all this week. Would you mind letting me know
if I am missing anything or if the ECFS folks do
not know any of this, so I can communicate it
to them? I am also trying to communicate this
to the FCC PR people, so that everyone is on
the same page there. I am just relating this to
you as a courtesy.

ECFS is not entirely working now on Firefox, so
it’s recommended that folks use a different
browser.

ECFS later today will post all filings made today
and yesterday, none of which have been
posted yet.

ECFS has experienced various periods of down
time this week. This is due to receiving a high
volume of filings this week. For all day so far
today, ECFS has been fully up. The issues we &
others have encountered with ECFS this week
(in multiple browsers, not just in Firefox) are
related to ECFS being overwhelmed with
comments. None of this is related to the
previous and recent DDoS attacks.

Thanks.
Jonathan
202-552-8200
From: David Bray
To: Sean Kvarda
Subject: Re: Produce evidence of DDos attacks

On May 9, 2017, at 18:12, Sean Kvarda (b) (6) wrote:
“Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC
was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos)," FCC
chief information officer David Bray said in a statement Monday.
"These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s
comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host."
Where is the evidence of the above? As a citizen of the United States I

request this evidence under the freedom of information act.
From: Sean Kvarda
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Produce evidence of DDos attacks
“Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC
was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos)," FCC
chief information officer David Bray said in a statement Monday.
"These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s
comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host."
Where is the evidence of the above? As a citizen of the United States I

request this evidence under the freedom of information act.
From: Emily Talaga
To: CPWG
Subject: PS Clippings
“Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm.” - Publilius Syrus
CYBER SCOOP: WAS THE RECENT FLOOD OF TRAFFIC TO FCC'S WEBSITE ACTUALLY A DDOS
ATTACK?
It remains possible that the FCC’s website experienced difficulties Sunday night due to a
combination of both a DDoS attack and surge in legitimate users attempting to access the
comment section.
https://www.cyberscoop.com/recent-flood-traffic-fccs-website-actually-ddos-attack/
ARS TECHNICA: MICROSOFT’S RECENT SUCCESS IN BLOCKING IN-THE-WILD ATTACKS IS

EERILY GOOD
Company neutralizes a series of attacks that took control of targeted computers.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/05/microsofts-recent-success-in-blocking-in-the-wild-
attacks-is-eerily-good/
HELP NET SECURITY: CISCO PATCHES LEAKED 0-DAY IN 300+ OF ITS SWITCHES
Cisco has plugged a critical security hole in over 300 of its switches, and is urging users to
apply the patches as soon as possible because an exploit for it has been available for a month
now.
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2017/05/10/cisco-switch-0day-patch/
KREBS ON SECURITY: EMERGENCY FIX FOR WINDOWS ANTI-MALWARE FLAW LEADS MAY’S
PATCH TUESDAY
Microsoft actually released an emergency update on Monday just hours ahead of today’s
regularly scheduled “Patch Tuesday” (the 2nd Tuesday of each month) to fix a dangerous flaw
present in most of Microsoft’s anti-malware technology that’s being called the worst Windows
bug in recent memory.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/05/emergency-fix-for-windows-anti-malware-flaw-leads-
mays-patch-tuesday/
PHYS.ORG: HARNESSING THE POTENTIAL OF BIG DATA TO IMPROVE THE SECURITY OF

INTERNET OF THINGS DEVICES
The new strategy, devised by A*STAR researchers of the Institute for Infocomm Research,
uses the conventional password as first step for authentication, but a second step uses the
whole history of the data exchanged between the IoT device and the server.
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-harnessing-potential-big-internet-devices.html
DARK READING: ANDROID APP PERMISSION IN GOOGLE PLAY CONTAINS SECURITY FLAW
Android's app permission mechanisms could allow malicious apps in Google Play to download
directly onto the device.
http://www.darkreading.com/mobile/android-app-permission-in-google-play-contains-
security-flaw/d/d-id/1328834?
THE HILL: ANDROID FLAW USED IN 74 PERCENT OF RANSOMWARE TO BE FIXED IN AUGUST
A feature in Android used in 74 percent of ransomware will be fixed for the next version of the
Android operating system, Android O, which is expected to begin its roll out in August.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/332699-android-flaw-used-in-74-of-ransomware-to-
be-fixed-in-august-september
GANT DAILY: CLEARFIELD CO. TO IMPLEMENT CODE RED EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION

SYSTEM
According to Spencer, the county’s CodeRED system will disseminate information for
emergencies, such as severe weather, active shooter, utility outages and traffic, missing
persons, be-on-the-look-out and Amber Alerts and shelter locations.
https://gantdaily.com/2017/05/10/clearfield-co-to-implement-codered-emergency-
notification-system/
From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry; Brian Hart
Subject: RE: question for you
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: question for you

From: McKinnon, John [mailto:john.mckinnon@wsj.com]
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>
Subject: question for you
Hi again. I understand that the FCC did an internal analysis of the 4 million comments in the
Open Internet Order proceeding. I think one discovery was that a number of the comments
were probably filed by comment bots. I would really like to get this analysis or at least the
executive summary or the relevant portions. Please let me know if you can share it with me.
I have also asked the public affairs office about this.
Thanks very much,
John McKinnon
The Wall Street Journal
202 862 9217
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry


(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)


pushing for that.





Hey all,





Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

From: David Bray
To: Skeate, Joseph
Subject: Re: Release logs from Sunday, May 7th 2017 to an independent security firm
On May 9, 2017, at 00:20, Skeate, Joseph (b) (6) wrote:
Mr Bray,
It has come to my attention that the FCC claims it was DDOS’d the other evening immediately
following a Public Service Announcement explaining what the current 17-108 filing actually does to
Title II assignments which included how to publicly comment on the filing.
To me it sounds as though two conclusions may be drawn;
either 1. there was a legitimate attack and data would be better handled by an independent
company to pinpoint the origins of the attack.
Or
2. The FCC is actively attempting to cover up a rush to comment on the 17-108 filing in an attempt to
delegitimize comments made during the timespan of the attack.
In either case, it is my opinion that the data logs be handed over to an independent third party for
analysis so the public can get a second opinion.
Best,
Joseph Skeate
From: Anita
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: Release Logs to Security Researcher
Thank you, that's useful! I will share with my colleagues.
Cheers,
Anita

On May 10, 2017, at 19:09, Anita (b) (6) wrote:
Dear Mr. Bray,
As a supporter of Title II based net neutrality protections, I am very concerned about

the FCC's recent claims that it experienced a DDoS attack at a time when many
people would have been attempting to comment. You can't continue making these
claims about strangely timed DDoS attacks without proof. Release your logs to an
independent security researcher or major media outlet who can verify your claims
and inform the public about what really happened.
--
Best regards,
Anita I Kishore, PhD
--
Best regards,
To: Anita

Dear Mr. Bray,

independent security researcher or major media outlet who can verify your claims and
inform the public about what really happened.
--
Best regards,
From: Josh Cohen
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: Release of logs from DDoS attack for independent review
Will do, thanks you.
Regards,
Josh Cohen
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:00 AM David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:

On May 9, 2017, at 02:20, Josh Cohen (b) (6) wrote:
Hello Dr. Bray,
As a US citizen, I am highly alarmed by both the potential of an actual DDoS attack

coordinated with mass citizen use of the FCC comment page and the potential classification
of a grass-roots citizen response to new FCC policy/direction as merely a DDoS attack.
Please release the logs relating to the recent DDoS attack for independent review by security
analysts so that the public can be better informed on what transpired during this specific
event and can better understand the larger forces at play with respect to the ongoing net
neutrality debate.
Thank you,
Josh Cohen
Agility Engineering founder and concerned citizen
To: Josh Cohen
Subject: Re: Release of logs from DDoS attack for independent review
On May 9, 2017, at 02:20, Josh Cohen (b) (6) wrote:
Hello Dr. Bray,
As a US citizen, I am highly alarmed by both the potential of an actual DDoS attack coordinated with mass citizen
use of the FCC comment page and the potential classification of a grass-roots citizen response to new FCC
policy/direction as merely a DDoS attack.
Please release the logs relating to the recent DDoS attack for independent review by security analysts so that the
public can be better informed on what transpired during this specific event and can better understand the larger
forces at play with respect to the ongoing net neutrality debate.
Thank you,
Josh Cohen
Agility Engineering founder and concerned citizen
From: David Bray
To: greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Greg Otto
Subject: FW: Request for comment/interview
Fyi… I made the case to our OMR to go ahead and do this, and so we thought something
would follow-up…

To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray
Hi Mark,
weekend.
Please let me know.
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield
Subject: RE: Request for comment/interview
(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)
From: David Bray

Subject: Re: Request for comment/interview
(b) (5)

To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray
Hi Mark,
weekend.
Please let me know.

From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5)


To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray
Hi Mark,
weekend.
Please let me know.
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray
Hi Mark,
weekend.
Please let me know.
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
telecom industry’s long history of astroturfing and paying shady organizations to influence the
FCC, either of these scenarios should be concerning for anyone who cares about government
transparency, free speech, and the future of the Internet.
To: Erik Scheibert
Subject: RE: Stats -- completely unofficial ones
(b)
(5)
To: Andrew Nebus (CTR) <Andrew.Nebus.ctr@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: Stats -- completely unofficial ones
(b) (5)
On 5/10/17, 11:35 AM, someone claiming to be "Erik Scheibert" <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)

On 5/10/17, 11:31 AM, someone claiming to be "David Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:

(b) (5)

(b)
(5)

To: Erik Scheibert
Cc: ITleadership; Mark Savi; Uttam Kumar
Subject: Re: Stats -- completely unofficial ones
(b) (5)
From: David Bray
To: Chance Snow
Subject: Re: Sunday"s DDoS Attack
Yes individuals should use ECFS. However some groups are using ECFS in bulk vs. the
intended bulk filing mechanism -- making it harder for individuals to use the individual
mechanism. Hope this helps.
On May 10, 2017, at 16:52, Chance Snow (b) (5) wrote:
But that alternative submission system seems designed for the submission of comments in
bulk. From a usability perspective, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the wider public to be
able to submit a CSV file containing individual comments.
Is there no alternative to designed to submit individual comments?


I implore you, the FCC, to release logs to an independent cyber security firm in order to
determine the extent that the purported DDoS attack on Sunday night affected the public's
ability to comment on FCC referenda.
Also, a public organization like this should most definitely felt deploy appropriate
commercial software that absolutely prevents these kinds of attacks in the private sector.
Best,
Chance Snow
To: Chance Snow
Subject: Re: Sunday"s DDoS Attack

I implore you, the FCC, to release logs to an independent cyber security firm in order to
determine the extent that the purported DDoS attack on Sunday night affected the public's
ability to comment on FCC referenda.
Also, a public organization like this should most definitely felt deploy appropriate commercial
software that absolutely prevents these kinds of attacks in the private sector.
Best,
Chance Snow
From: David Bray
To: Michael Conner
Subject: Re: The Alleged DDOS Attack on the FCC
Also back in 2014 after all was finally over we did share comment volume and you'll see
250,000 a day were handled without issue at the end of the proceeding. Hope this helps.
On May 8, 2017, at 22:19, Michael Conner (b) (5) wrote:
As a concerned citizen of these United States. I'm calling for

the FCC to release its logs to independent security analysts so
that we know what actually happened. The public has a right
to know. The FCC must be transparent in this matter.
From: Douglas Logan
To: David Bray
Subject: RE: Two press outlets having ECFS problems
FYI, I can’t currently get into my FCC email. I will hopefully be able to resolve this when I’m back in
DC.

To: Douglas Logan <dlogan@cyberninjas.com>
Subject: Re: Two press outlets having ECFS problems

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
CEO & Principal Consultant
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)

From: Douglas Logan
To: 'David Bray' <David.Bray@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)
On May 11, 2017, at 11:29, Douglas Logan <dlogan@cyberninjas.com> wrote:
(b) (5)

Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)

(b) (5)
(b)
(5),
(b) (6)
Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)

To: Douglas Logan (CTR) <Douglas.Logan.CTR@fcc.gov>; Douglas Logan <dlogan@cyberninjas.com>
Subject: Fwd: Two press outlets having ECFS problems

(b) (5)


Date: May 10, 2017 at 15:37:16 EDT
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>, Brian Hart
<Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>, Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>
Cc: ITleadership <ITleadership@fcc.gov>, Mark Stephens <Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
<Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; Erik Scheibert
<Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>
Cc: John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>; Mark
Stephens <Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>; Venkat Veeramneni (CTR) <Venkat.Veeramneni.ctr@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
<Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Cc: John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>; Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>; Christine
Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>; Mark Stephens <Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: Two press outlets having ECFS problems

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: Two press outlets having ECFS problems

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Subject: still problems with ECFS
Hi gentlemen.

Sorry to keep bothering you about this, but a tech and a PR question.

David, I can go ahead and submit a formal email as you instructed. Just wanted to make sure I should
still do that before doing it.
We are still having the problems I mentioned earlier with ECFS, they have been consistent.
We're not able to see all filings I've been made on ECFS, something about the system seems not to
be working.
And right now, through both Firefox and IE, we cannot even access anything in ECFS. It will not
conduct a search for us along any lines.

So the PR question is, can the FCC say on the record if it is trying to fix this problem, for how long it's
lasted and what is causing it?
We will have a news brief on this in tonight's issue.

Thanks.
Jonathan

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)
(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b)
(5),

(b) (6)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)


Date: May 10, 2017 at 15:37:16 EDT
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5) .

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)

(b)
(5),

(b) (6)
(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)


Date: May 10, 2017 at 15:37:16 EDT
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan

(b)
(5),

(b) (6)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)


Date: May 10, 2017 at 15:37:16 EDT
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)


Date: May 10, 2017 at 15:37:16 EDT
(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
(b) (5)

Thanks,
Doug Logan
Cyber Ninjas
(o) (941)-3-NINJAS
(c) (b) (6)


(b) (5)


Date: May 10, 2017 at 15:37:16 EDT
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

.

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
Cc: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin
(CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>; Will Wiquist
<Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa
<Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>; Mark Stephens <Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>; Venkat Veeramneni (CTR)
<Venkat.Veeramneni.ctr@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
Stephens <Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>; Venkat Veeramneni (CTR)

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian
Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; Erik Scheibert
Stephens <Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>; Venkat Veeramneni (CTR)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Brian
Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Brian
Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


David, I can go ahead and submit a formal email as you instructed. Just wanted to make sure I
should still do that before doing it.
be working.

So the PR question is, can the FCC say on the record if it is trying to fix this problem, for how long
it's lasted and what is causing it?

Thanks.
Jonathan

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)
From: "Matthew Berry" <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>

To: "David Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov>, "Mark Wigfield" <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>,
"Erik Scheibert" <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>
Cc: "Brian Hart" <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>, "Tony Summerlin (CTR)"
<Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>, "Neil Grace" <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>, "Will Wiquist"
<Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>, "John Skudlarek" <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>, "Christine
Calvosa" <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>, "Mark Stephens" <Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>, "Venkat
Veeramneni (CTR)" <Venkat.Veeramneni.ctr@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: Mark Wigfield
Cc: Erik Scheibert; Brian Hart; Tony Summerlin (CTR); Neil Grace; Will Wiquist; John Skudlarek; Christine Calvosa;
Mark Stephens; Venkat Veeramneni (CTR)
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>
Cc: Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR)
<Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>; Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>;
John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>; Mark

(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Cc: Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart
<Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>; Neil Grace
<Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>; Will Wiquist <Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>; John Skudlarek
<John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>; Mark Stephens
<Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>; Venkat Veeramneni (CTR) <Venkat.Veeramneni.ctr@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)


(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: David Bray
To: Erik Scheibert; Tony Summerlin (CTR)
(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>

Date: May 10, 2017 at 17:32:11 EDT
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>, Erik
Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>
Cc: Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>, "Tony Summerlin (CTR)"
<Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>, Neil Grace <Neil.Grace@fcc.gov>, Will Wiquist
<Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov>, John Skudlarek <John.Skudlarek@fcc.gov>, Christine Calvosa
<Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>, Mark Stephens <Mark.Stephens@fcc.gov>, "Venkat Veeramneni
(CTR)" <Venkat.Veeramneni.ctr@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
To: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

.

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry; Mark Wigfield; Brian Hart; Erik Scheibert
Cc: ITleadership; Mark Stephens
Attachments: (b) (5)
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: Matthew Berry
To: David Bray; Mark Wigfield; Brian Hart; Tony Summerlin (CTR); Erik Scheibert
Cc: John Skudlarek; Christine Calvosa; Mark Stephens; Venkat Veeramneni (CTR)
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield; Matthew Berry; Brian Hart; Tony Summerlin (CTR); Erik Scheibert
Cc: John Skudlarek; Christine Calvosa; Mark Stephens; Venkat Veeramneni (CTR)
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: David Bray
To: Matthew Berry; Mark Wigfield; Brian Hart; Tony Summerlin (CTR)
Cc: John Skudlarek; Erik Scheibert; Christine Calvosa; Mark Stephens
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Hi gentlemen.


be working.


Thanks.
Jonathan
From: Spencer Hachmeister
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: What"s up with this?
David,
I'm sorry your job makes you lie to the public. I'm having a hard time handling the
changes in America as it is, and I can only imagine how much worse it would be to
have your job be right in the center of it. Right now, we as a country really need people
like you, with bosses telling you to lie, to stand up for the truth. I don't claim to know
what's keeping you quiet, and that's ok. Just know, my heart goes out to you.
Sincerely,
Spencer Hachmeister
At this point it’s probably best to talk to the Office of Media Relations, as mentioned, I’m focused
on keeping the different mechanisms open as much as possible for anyone and everyone to file.
Any groups concerned with being able to file can also use the bulk mechanism for file uploads that
has always been available at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments which is similar
to what was done in 2014 as well. Hope this helps.
From: Spencer Hachmeister [mailto (b) (6)


Subject: Re: What's up with this?
That is that it was a DDoS attack, correct?
I stand by the public release that OMR shared.
From: Spencer Hachmeister [mailto(b) (6)

Alright, I'll go ahead and contact them. In the mean time, as the CIO, you get a
front and center view of what happened. Do you believe it was a DDoS attack or
that the servers where overwhelmed?
Thanks, again!
Spencer
As you can imagine they’ve got lots of questions on all sides, here’s their contact info:
https://www.fcc.gov/media-relations

David,
Thanks for the quick response. Who should I contact in Media Relations, and
what is their contact information?
Thanks again,
Spencer
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:55 AM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Thank you for your inquiry, the FCC Office of Media Relations would be the best point of
contact. As CIO I’m focused on keeping the different mechanisms open as much as possible
for anyone and everyone to file. We do have a bulk mechanism for file uploads that has
always been available at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments


Subject: What's up with this?
Please explain.
This was taken from: https://www.reddit.com/

r/technology/comments/6a0s25/the_fcc_claims_that_they_
received a ddos attack/
UPDATE: The FCC is now claiming that it was also hit by a DDoS attack back
in 2014, the last time John Oliver did a segment about net neutrality. This
makes me even more skeptical. These are serious claims -- they need to
show us the proof. The only way we'll know what really happened is if the
FCC released their logs to an independent party who can verify their claims.
UPDATE 2: Now we are pretty sure the FCC is lying. Our software dev has
confirmed that the FCC's site went down again last night around 8:30pm
EST, shortly after the John Oliver segment would have aired again on HBO.
He also confirmed that their servers repeatedly fell down under net neutrality
comments coming through BattleForTheNet.com over the last two weeks. It
seems extremely likely the FCC is attempting to cover up the fact that their
comment system simply cannot handle large amounts of feedback from the
public.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just issued a press
release claiming, “Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis
reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service
attacks (DDoS).”
The FCC is saying that the site hosting their comment system was
attacked at the exact same time comments would have started flooding in
from John Oliver’s viral Last Week Tonight segment about net neutrality. The
media widely reported that the surge in comments crashed the FCC’s site.
Disclosure: I am a a net neutrality activist and I work for Fight for the
Future one of the groups behind BattleForTheNet.com. I have been paying
close attention to the issue since 2014, and have been part of efforts
that overwhelmed the FCC’s comment site in the past.
The FCC’s statement today raises two concerns for me. It strikes me that
either:
1. The FCC is being intentionally misleading, and trying to claim that the
surge in traffic from large numbers of people attempting to access their site
through John Oliver’s GoFCCYourself.com redirect amounts to a “DDoS”
attack, to let themselves off the hook for essentially silencing large numbers
of people by not having a properly functioning site to receive comments from
the public about an important issue, or—worst case—is preparing a bogus
legal argument that somehow John Oliver’s show itself was the DDoS attack.
2. Someone actually did DDoS the FCC’s site at the exact same time as John
Oliver’s segment, in order to actively prevent people from being able to
comment in support of keeping the Title II net neutrality rules many of us
fought for in 2015.
Given the current FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s open hostility toward net neutrality,
and the telecom industry’s long history of astroturfing and paying shady
organizations to influence the FCC, either of these scenarios should be
concerning for anyone who cares about government transparency, free
speech, and the future of the Internet.
One thing that we can do right now is call for the FCC to release its logs to
independent security analysts so that we know what actually happened. The
public has a right to know. You can email the FCC’s Chief Information Officer
asking for them to do this at David.Bray@fcc.gov or call 202-418-2020

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Timothy Strachan; Matthew Berry; David Bray
Subject: RE: Wyden, Schatz Ask FCC For Details of Reported Cyberattack
(b)
(5)

From: Timothy Strachan
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov>; Timothy Strachan <Timothy.Strachan@fcc.gov>; David
Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
To: Timothy Strachan <Timothy.Strachan@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>;
David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: Wyden, Schatz Ask FCC For Details of Reported Cyberattack
(b)
(5)

From: Harper Neidig [mailto:hneidig@thehill.com]
Subject: Fwd: Wyden, Schatz Ask FCC For Details of Reported Cyberattack
Any response? Thanks.

From: Chu, Keith (Wyden) <Keith_Chu@wyden.senate.gov>
Date: Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:19 PM
Subject: Wyden, Schatz Ask FCC For Details of Reported Cyberattack
To: "Chu, Keith (Wyden)" <Keith_Chu@wyden.senate.gov>
Cc: "Inacay, Michael (Schatz)" <michael_inacay@schatz.senate.gov>
For Immediate Release: May 9, 2017
Contact: Keith Chu (Wyden), 202.224.0537
Michael Incay (Schatz), 202.224.3123
Wyden, Schatz Ask FCC For Details of Reported

Cyberattack
Following a report of a DDoS attack on the FCC’s website, Senators Wyden and Schatz are
asking Chairman Pai to answer questions on the ability of the FCC to mitigate such cyber-
attacks.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-
Hawaii, today asked Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Ajit Pai,
to explain in more detail the nature of a reported cyberattack on May 8, including
how it impacted the public’s ability to comment on a proposal to roll back net
neutrality protections.

In their letter, the senators asked Chairman Pai if the FCC was prepared to defend
against such distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, should they happen again.
Distributed denial-of-service-attacks involve bad actors flooding a given website with
more online traffic than it is prepared to handle in an effort to crash the site. The
senators also asked Chairman Pai to make alternative ways available for the public to
comment; for example a dedicated email account on the net neutrality proceeding as
was done in 2014.

“DDoS attacks against federal agencies are serious - and doubly so if the attack
may have prevented Americans from being able to weigh in on your proposal to
roll back net neutrality protections,” Wyden and Schatz wrote. “Any potentially
hostile cyber activities that prevent Americans from being able to participate in a
fair and transparent process must be treated as a serious issue.”

Read the letter here.

Specifically, Wyden and Schatz asked:
1. Please provide details as to the nature of the DDoS attacks, including

when the attacks began, when they ended, the amount of malicious traffic your
network received, and an estimate of the number of devices that were sending
malicious traffic to the FCC. To the extent that the FCC already has evidence
suggesting which actor(s) may have been responsible for the attacks, please
provide that in your response.
2. Has the FCC sought assistance from other federal agencies in

investigating and responding to these attacks? Which agencies have you
sought assistance from? Have you received all of the help you have requested?
3. Several federal agencies utilize commercial services to protect their

websites from DDoS attacks. Does the FCC use a commercial DDoS protection
service? If not, why not? To the extent that the FCC utilizes commercial DDoS
protection products, did these work as expected? If not, why not?
4. How many concurrent visitors is the FCC’s website designed to be able

to handle? Has the FCC performed stress testing of its own website to ensure
that it can cope as intended? Has the FCC identified which elements of its
website are performance bottlenecks that limit the number of maximum
concurrent visitors? Has the FCC sought to mitigate these bottlenecks? If not,
why not?
5. Did the DDoS attacks prevent the public from being able to submit
comments through the FCC’s website? If so, do you have an estimate of how
many individuals were unable to access the FCC website or submit comments
during the attacks? Were any comments lost or otherwise affected?
6. Will commenters who successfully submitted a comment—but did not

receive a response, as your press release indicates—receive a response once
your staff have addressed the DDoS and related technical issues?
7. Does the FCC have all of the resources and expertise it needs in order
to combat attacks like those that occurred on May 8?

###
--
Harper Neidig
Staff Writer
The Hill
Office: 202.628.8526
Cell: (b) (6)
From: David A. Bray
Cc: David Bray
Subject: Re: Zack from ZDnet
10-4 and many thanks Michael. The last hour's exchange was interesting -- I agree with you
100% that they're blowing smoke and then rushing to claim fire where there is none.
I'm striving my best to stay away from the policy/politics and remain non-partisan. Contrary to
that one person's perceptions, I think most of the public would want their IT to be intentionally
non-partisan here.
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:
I would get Mark to send him an email saying he wants to review factual issues with Zack,
which Zack will definitely resist. In addition, I would say that the innuendo also implies
dimensions to the attack that simply do not exist. If Zack refuses to write a correction, then I
would send an email to Larry Dignan. Mark should also say something to the effect that his
falls below the standard of factual reporting we expect from ZDNet and that, as a whole, it
creates a misleading impression.
Yes, he asked for my notes, but I do not think there was anything confidential in my notes.
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:12 PM, David A. Bray <david.a.bray@gmail.com> wrote:
1. Opening statement: "critics say prevented a flood of people from leaving
messages on the agency's support of net neutrality." As you know and I know this
was between 1am-8:45am ET Monday morning. And there was the bulk upload
mechanism that was always available for individuals too. So the first statement is
dubious. It also misses that we did successfully receive 2 million+ comments in 10
days vs. 2 million+ in 110 days back in 2014.
2. Then he says: "In unprinted remarks, he said that the logs amounted to about 1
gigabyte per hour during the alleged attack." -- was that him using what you
shared? Did he reuse your notes?
3. He references FftF, a pro net neutrality group saying ""If the fake comments --
many of which are using real people's names and addresses without their
permission -- were submitted using the FCC's API, that means they should
absolutely have information about who is committing this act of fraud" -- when (1)
nothing in ECFS asks to verify identify, (2) they seem to still be referencing the
2014 not cloud-based site, and (3) pro-neutrality groups also did bulk 105,000+
comments in 2014 http://blog.texifter.com/index.php/2014/08/06/open-data-on-net-
neutrality-help-crowd-source-analysis-of-comments-to-the-fcc/
The FftF group he quotes extensively also apparently think it is perfectly okay to
bombard people's real life neighborhoods *too* https://www.theverge.com
/platform/amp/2017/5/8/15577988/ajit-pai-protest-door-hangers-fcc-net-neutrality-
proposal
From: Gabe Strenke
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Net Neutrality
Hello, firstly I would just like to say, Congrats on becoming the first Indian American FCC
chairman! Secondly, why are you trying to destroy net neutrality? No one, except people who
are confused as to if net neutrality is good or bad, thinks that killing net neutrality is a good
idea. There are far too many cons to getting rid of net neutrality then keeping it. Also, I don't
believe for a second that someone DDoS attacked you, because there has still yet to be any
evidence of that, probably because you guys hope that comment will be swept under the rug,
but this whole administration is full of liars and It's gotten to the point where I can't even trust
random politicians that I heard about watching YT (like you). I hope you reverse your decision
and decide to keep net neutrality because for years my family and I have been put through hell
with our ISP. We get throttled every so often, they then claim we aren't, we get charged for a
full month of service, even if we only had internet access for 20/30 days, even if it was 100%
their fault, we still 100% of the money for 60% of the product. So many American's,
especially older generations, have basically no knowledge on current technology and many of
them hang on every word you guys say. So when you blatantly lie to American's by trying to
say that getting rid of net neutrality is somehow a good thing for consumers (which everyone
knows it isn't), I get angry and I sometimes vent online, normally unproductively, but I do
hope that either you personally or an unpaid intern reads this because this is one of the most
important issues right now, but it's being shadowed by the orangutang in the big house. I know
I will probably just get some standard email back, I probably won't even get one actually, but I
believe this issue worth my time of writing this and I hope something comes from it. I really
hope you don't just disregard this whole thing because of what I'm about to say, but this is
American and I will say whatever I want to you. I don't like you, you're clearly doing this for
money, no one that is against net neutrality is doing it because they think net neutrality is
horrible for the American people, it's always money. I know you say it's because you think the
current regulations are somehow "too" constraining on ISPs, are you joking? I honestly almost
laughed at that comment when I heard it, and you, like every other anti-net neutrality person,
you really really struggle to find pros for getting rid of net neutrality, because the cons far
outweigh the pros, mid-argument I've seen anti-net neutrality people say something beneficial
about keeping it, and they immediately retract their statement. Please, I'm begging you, the
FCC, whoever is listening/reading this, stop this BS.
From: Jake K
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Questions
I gotta ask Ajit, first and foremost: are you as big of a stupid baby as you seem? Last time the
FCC tried to hand over the internet to corporations, they got millions of calls and emails. Yet
you think THIS time when you do it, its a "DDoS?" You're either a liar or you should resign
right now, because you're obviously too stupid to put 2 and 2 together and therefore shouldn't
be in charge of ANYTHING. WE THE PEOPLE want you to stop selling out to corporations.
Your bullshit fake rhetoric isn't working.
Your stupid arguments about "reversing Obama's decisions" aren't working - we all know
Obama's decision was to STOP THIS EXACT THING FROM HAPPENING. You know,
since, AGAIN, the last time this happened under the last corporate bitch that had your
position, we showed how angry we were at it. So even Barack "literally picked my cabinet
based on Citigroup recommendations" Obama had to go against the corporations for once -
and you think its a SMART argument to be proud about reversing the decision we demanded?
You're an idiot Ajit. Whether you're lying or not, that much is clear, a smart man wouldn't
have made the arguments you've made, or even attempted to sell the internet to the highest
bidder again.
From: Tim Lawrence
To: Ajit Pai
Good afternoon Mr. Pai,
I'm Tim Lawrence, a registered voter in the state of Utah who is in support of keeping net
neutrality, which you are ceaselessly trying to attack and repeal for your own gains. As one of
the vast majority that wishes to keep net neutrality intact, I implore you to reconsider your
decision to exploit your power and not listen to the people of this great nation. This is not
Dancing with the Stars, you are correct. This is the United States of America, a country built
on freedom and the voices of people within it. I do not know of a single person who supports
doing away with Net Neutrality, aside from the politicians who are continuously returning to
the fight against net neutrality, against freedom, and against the American people. We will not
sit idly by while you take the fate of our internet into your own dictatorial hands. Please,
during this 4 month 'comment period', actually read through some of the thousands of
comments that I'm sure are already flooding your inboxes, voicemails, etc., and realize that we
are NOT bots, we are NOT a DDOS attack. We are the American people, and we love the
internet and we will fight for it every day, every hour, every waking moment to keep it from
becoming even more of a corporate oligopoly controlling politics for selfish gains. We will
not back down. Net neutrality will continue on. Not just for the American people, but for all
the people of the world demanding the United States not make a fool of themselves again in
their political choices.
If you have actually read my messages, thank you for your time, Mr. Pai. Again, I implore
you to reconsider the decisions made today. Otherwise it will be a long winter in Washington.
Regards,
Timothy Lawrence
allegations being made that you are hiding important details from the public in an attempt to
make the FCC be looked at as a victim, or that someone executed this Ddos attack in an
attempt to silence the voices of those who sent messages in favor of net neutrality.
If you release these logs, and if no evidence is found of any form of dishonesty or trickery,
all of this trouble could vanish. On the other hand, if you continue to be dishonest to the
public in this way, distrust will grow. People will assume negative things about the FCC,
and even about your personal business practices. This is in no way a threat, but just an idle
observation of how the human mind works. We, as a species, crave information. When we
don't have that information, many will tend to fill in the blank with something that may not
be exactly true.
If people know the truth, all of these assumptions could stop. If you're innocent, all of this
can blow over. If you're guilty of some sort of trickery on the public, I think we all know
you wouldn't want people to know that, so what you do right now answers our question for
us. If you refuse, everyone will know that there is, in fact, something that the FCC has done
that is not for the good of the people, and that all of you have been incredibly 'shady' these
past few weeks in your practices.
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield; Mark Stephens; Brian Hart
Subject: Fwd: FCC Integrity Concerns
A sign that if you provide some basic facts, you might not win them all however you will
defuse some.
From: Jessi Johnson (b) (6)

Date: May 14, 2017 at 22:17:45 EDT
Subject: Re: FCC Integrity Concerns
Thanks for your time. My apologies for coming off a bit rough, but the situation seemed a bit
different with the somewhat limited knowledge I had at the time. This cleared up a lot of
misconceptions that I had about the situation. Again, my apologies for being so rude when all I
had to do was conduct a bit more research beforehand.
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:28 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
The logs have massive amounts of personal IP addresses associated with the comments filed
making it difficult for individuals to file. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-
service-are-latest-weapons-in-net-neutrality-battle-1494533379
Hope this helps.
On May 13, 2017, at 15:05, Jessi Johnson (b) (6) wrote:
Hello, Mr. Bray,

I believe that, logically speaking, it would be in the best interest of everyone for you
to release the logs of a recent Ddos event to a security researcher. I say this because there are
be exactly true.
From: David Bray
To: Greg Otto; greg.otto@fedscoop.com
Subject: FW: FCC claims DDoS attacks after HBO show calls out net neutrality rollbacks, and more.

OK, I'll do that.
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
Yes it might be good to ask again now as everyone has more bandwidth... folks were busy here.
Offer to do it on background as a phone call and you can indicate that you and I have worked together in the past. If
you want, you can even send a separate email to Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov and cc me (separate title, etc.) and I can
provide chime in that this would be good for the public. Hope this helps.

To: David Bray

Hi David,
We did quite early on and received a "decline to comment," which our story reflects.
Thanks,
Billy
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
Hi Billy, have you contacted our Office of Media Relations/Mark Wigfield? That would be the best path to first try
for an on the record or even a background?
Hope this helps,
-d.

To: David Bray
Hey David,
Thanks for sticking with us through this. We want to be as fair as possible with all this, and would love to get
something on the record, or at least on the record but not for direct attribution to tell FCC's side of it. To this point,
though, we haven't been able to.
If you want, I'm happy to jump on a call.
Just let me know.
Best,
Billy
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
1494533379
Best regards,
-d.
If needed, my cell is (b) (6) hope this helps.
From: David Bray

To: Billy Mitchell
Hope this helps.

To: David Bray
Hi David,
Thanks!
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
Hope this helps.
Hi David,
Best,
Billy
Hi Billy and Greg,
here https://www fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2014/09/17/update-volume-open-internet-comments-
submitted-fcc
claims.
Best regards,
-d.
Lawmakers have an idea for how OPM can hire more cybersecurity pros.

From: David Bray
To: greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Greg Otto
Subject: FW: Request for comment/interview
Fyi… I made the case to our OMR to go ahead and do this, and so we thought something
would follow-up…


To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray
Hi Mark,
weekend.
Please let me know.
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
To: Greg Otto
Cc: Billy Mitchell; chris.bing@fedscoop.com; greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali
Subject: RE: Following up from Friday
Hi Greg,

Many thanks. If there are specific quotes that Billy wants to use on the record, OMR left that door
open to identify. Just so you know, the group has been sending not-so-friendly emails and phone
calls to me throughout all of last week because someone opted to post my email and phone number
on Reddit, that’s why we’re also concerned.

It

From: Greg Otto [mailto:greg.otto@cyberscoop.com]
Cc: Billy Mitchell <billy.mitchell@fedscoop.com>; chris.bing@fedscoop.com;
greg.otto@fedscoop.com; Goldy Kamali <goldy.kamali@fedscoop.com>
Hi David —
I’m gonna chime in here — apologies for not adding perspective last week, as I was out on
paternity leave.
I appreciate the detail here, so I will address your concerns:
We can remove the DDoS sentence at the end of the story. Really doesn’t add to the story,
regardless of where the definition comes from.
Furthermore, I appreciate the references for how this all played out. We can amend the story at
the bottom to say there are multiple reports out there that say it looks like bots powered by
commercial cloud providers were the cause of the disruption.
I understand the sensitive nature of the story — we wouldn’t ever want you to share PII or
other sensitive IT functions — but I would stress that going on the record about what
happened would be extremely worthwhile.
I would even posit giving you the option to write a first-person article for us on how your IT
shop handled this — or what agencies can do in the future to defend against hacktivism /
DDoS attacks that are motivated by political causes. I truly think thats worthwhile for both
FedScoop and CyberScoop.
Feel free to reach to me at the number below if you have any other questions or concerns.
Regards,
Hi Billy and Chris,
w/ Billy?
Google "What is DDoS"? That should be corrected.
http://www.digitalattackmap.com/understanding-ddos/

attack'

it ...

mentioned to Billy on Friday:


David,

Hope this helps,
-d.
From: Mark Wigfield



From: David Bray

Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
From: David Bray
Now is good.
From: Mark Wigfield


Sorry Mark,
Sent from my iPhone

available.
Mark
202-418-0253
--
Greg Otto
Managing Editor - CyberScoop
Scoop News Group
610.223.4586
Twitter: @gregotto
From: Frank Konkel
To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Thanks David.
One question: Any idea and how much bandwidth the attackers used to paralyze the site? I've
seen estimates of other attacks in the hundreds of megs/sec range, but any idea here?
My apologies Mark, sorry I just got this message -- Frank asked for the link to the bulk
upload solution, here it is: https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments
Also Frank, on background here is the link to info on the Pokémon Go DDoS attacks: Akin
to the Pokemon attack: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/
gaming/pokemon-go-down-servers-ddos-attack-hackers-poodlecorp-game-unavailable-
wasn't using DarkWeb bots this was using commercial cloud services to host the bots
causing the denial of service which made it harder to remedy.
As noted on the call for those members of the public who are concerned: One, the site did
not go down, it was unavailable for everyone to access. Two, there has always been an
alternative easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file
comments if groups happen to find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Three, we
have noticed some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual mechanism
(ECFS) to file comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it
difficult for individuals to file.
which shows when there aren't additional variables present the cloud based system can scale
to receive them all.
-d.
I just accidentally cut myself off – David can patch me back in unless I cut you both off already.
418-0253
From: David Bray

Talk soon

1210 works!
Let me know!
Many thanks.

Hey Mark & David,
-Frank

Mark & David,
Frank Konkel here at Government Executive. Thought I'd reach out to see about
setting up a background chat with David to discuss the FCC's response to the DDoS
attacks earlier this week.
We've been getting a series of statements from organizations calling for FCC to
release activity logs and other such information to prove the validity of said attacks,
and we've been reluctant to run any of those. I'd rather see what the real story is, and
perhaps some details can shed light on what really happened here and how you might
try to mitigate similar issues in the future.
-Frank

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
Twitter | @Frank_Konkel
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield; Frank Konkel
My apologies Mark, sorry I just got this message -- Frank asked for the link to the bulk upload
solution, here it is: https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments
Also Frank, on background here is the link to info on the Pokémon Go DDoS attacks: Akin to
the Pokemon attack: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/gaming/pokemon-go-down-servers-ddos-attack-hackers-poodlecorp-game-unavailable-
wasn't using DarkWeb bots this was using commercial cloud services to host the bots causing
the denial of service which made it harder to remedy.
As noted on the call for those members of the public who are concerned: One, the site did not
go down, it was unavailable for everyone to access. Two, there has always been an alternative
easy to use website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments if
groups happen to find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Three, we have noticed
some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual mechanism (ECFS) to file
comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for individuals
to file.
which shows when there aren't additional variables present the cloud based system can scale to
receive them all.
-d.
I just accidentally cut myself off – David can patch me back in unless I cut you both off already. 418-
0253

From: David Bray


Talk soon



1210 works!
Let me know!


Many thanks.
Hey Mark & David,

-Frank



Mark & David,
Frank Konkel here at Government Executive. Thought I'd reach out to see about setting
up a background chat with David to discuss the FCC's response to the DDoS attacks
earlier this week.

We've been getting a series of statements from organizations calling for FCC to release
activity logs and other such information to prove the validity of said attacks, and we've
been reluctant to run any of those. I'd rather see what the real story is, and perhaps
some details can shed light on what really happened here and how you might try to
mitigate similar issues in the future.


-Frank

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray; Frank Konkel
Subject: RE: Background chat on FCC website issues?
I just accidentally cut myself off – David can patch me back in unless I cut you both off already. 418-
0253

From: David Bray

Talk soon

1210 works!
Let me know!
Many thanks.
Hey Mark & David,

-Frank
(I'll be at home office this morning at(b) (6) if you have any questions)

Mark & David,

earlier this week.
been reluctant to run any of those. I'd rather see what the real story is, and perhaps
some details can shed light on what really happened here and how you might try to
mitigate similar issues in the future.

-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile:(b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: David Bray
To: Frank Konkel
Cc: Mark Wigfield

Talk soon

1210 works!
Let me know!
Many thanks.
Hey Mark & David,

-Frank
(I'll be at home office this morning at 231 519 0684 if you have any questions)

Mark & David,
earlier this week.
been reluctant to run any of those. I'd rather see what the real story is, and perhaps some
details can shed light on what really happened here and how you might try to mitigate
similar issues in the future.
-Frank

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: Frank Konkel
To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray

Talk soon

1210 works!
Let me know!
Many thanks.
Hey Mark & David,
-Frank

Mark & David,
earlier this week.
-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile:(b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: Mark Wigfield
To: Frank Konkel; David Bray

1210 works!
Let me know!
Many thanks.
Hey Mark & David,

Sorry about that, I was on the road already when it looks like Mark called my office phone
Friday. Can we set something up for today or tomorrow?
-Frank

Mark & David,

earlier this week.

-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: Frank Konkel
To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
1210 works!
Let me know!
Many thanks.
Hey Mark & David,

-Frank

Mark & David,
Frank Konkel here at Government Executive. Thought I'd reach out to see about setting up
a background chat with David to discuss the FCC's response to the DDoS attacks earlier
this week.
-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: David Bray
To: Frank Konkel
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Completely understand and I could do 1210pm-1230pm today if that works for Mark as well?
Or later this afternoon after 4:30pm?
Many thanks.
Hey Mark & David,

-Frank

Mark & David,
Frank Konkel here at Government Executive. Thought I'd reach out to see about setting up a
background chat with David to discuss the FCC's response to the DDoS attacks earlier this
week.
activity logs and other such information to prove the validity of said attacks, and we've been
reluctant to run any of those. I'd rather see what the real story is, and perhaps some details
can shed light on what really happened here and how you might try to mitigate similar issues
in the future.

-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile:(b) (6)
From: Frank Konkel
To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray
Hey Mark & David,

-Frank

Mark & David,
week.
reluctant to run any of those. I'd rather see what the real story is, and perhaps some details
can shed light on what really happened here and how you might try to mitigate similar issues
in the future.
-Frank

--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: David Bray
Subject: Testimony on the importance of communication...
Testimony to if you do communicate in the long-run there is the opportunity for better
understanding.
From: David Bray

Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 22:20
To: Jessi Johnson

Hi Jessi,
No worries and always happy to help. I wish I could do more to help get the word
out within the limits of my public service role -- and I'm also happy to help when
anyone asks a question.
Wishing you a wonderful week ahead,
-d.

Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 10:17:45 PM
To: David Bray

Thanks for your time. My apologies for coming off a bit rough, but the situation
seemed a bit different with the somewhat limited knowledge I had at the time.
This cleared up a lot of misconceptions that I had about the situation. Again, my
apologies for being so rude when all I had to do was conduct a bit more research
beforehand.
Relations. The logs have massive amounts of personal IP addresses associated
with the comments filed that the public did not give consent to share publicly
and even if we do our best to scrub there still might be something there that
someone did not agree to have shared.
One, the site did not go down, it was unavailable for everyone to access. Two,
there has always been an alternative easy to use website
at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from
should you find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Three, we have
noticed some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual
mechanism (ECFS) to file comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above,
potentially making it difficult for individuals to file. https://www.wsj.com/
articles/bots-denial-of-service-are-latest-weapons-in-net-neutrality-battle-
1494533379
Hope this helps.
Hello, Mr. Bray,

I believe that, logically speaking, it would be in the best interest of
everyone for you to release the logs of a recent Ddos event to a security
researcher. I say this because there are allegations being made that you are
hiding important details from the public in an attempt to make the FCC be
looked at as a victim, or that someone executed this Ddos attack in an attempt
to silence the voices of those who sent messages in favor of net neutrality.
If you release these logs, and if no evidence is found of any form of dishonesty
or trickery, all of this trouble could vanish. On the other hand, if you continue to
be dishonest to the public in this way, distrust will grow. People will assume
negative things about the FCC, and even about your personal business
practices. This is in no way a threat, but just an idle observation of how the
human mind works. We, as a species, crave information. When we don't have
that information, many will tend to fill in the blank with something that may not
be exactly true.
If people know the truth, all of these assumptions could stop. If you're
innocent, all of this can blow over. If you're guilty of some sort of trickery on
the public, I think we all know you wouldn't want people to know that, so what
you do right now answers our question for us. If you refuse, everyone will know
that there is, in fact, something that the FCC has done that is not for the good
of the people, and that all of you have been incredibly 'shady' these past few
weeks in your practices.
From: Benn Konsynski
To: David Bray
Cc: (b) (6) Lerner, Jennifer
Subject: Re: A good ending...
This one was reasoned on reflection.
I don't expect they all are so thoughtful.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 14, 2017, at 10:24 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Testimony to if you do communicate in the long-run there is the opportunity for

better understanding.
From: David Bray

To: Jessi Johnson
Hi Jessi,
No worries and always happy to help. I wish I could do more to help get the word
out within the limits of my public service role -- and I'm also happy to help when
anyone asks a question.
-d.

To: David Bray

Thanks for your time. My apologies for coming off a bit rough, but the situation
seemed a bit different with the somewhat limited knowledge I had at the time.
This cleared up a lot of misconceptions that I had about the situation. Again, my
apologies for being so rude when all I had to do was conduct a bit more research
beforehand.
with the comments filed that the public did not give consent to share publicly
and even if we do our best to scrub there still might be something there that
someone did not agree to have shared.
at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from
should you find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Three, we have
noticed some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual
mechanism (ECFS) to file comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above,
potentially making it difficult for individuals to file. https://www.wsj.com/
articles/bots-denial-of-service-are-latest-weapons-in-net-neutrality-battle-
1494533379
Hope this helps.
Hello, Mr. Bray,

I believe that, logically speaking, it would be in the best interest of
everyone for you to release the logs of a recent Ddos event to a security
researcher. I say this because there are allegations being made that you are
hiding important details from the public in an attempt to make the FCC be
looked at as a victim, or that someone executed this Ddos attack in an attempt
to silence the voices of those who sent messages in favor of net neutrality.
If you release these logs, and if no evidence is found of any form of dishonesty
or trickery, all of this trouble could vanish. On the other hand, if you continue to
be dishonest to the public in this way, distrust will grow. People will assume
negative things about the FCC, and even about your personal business
practices. This is in no way a threat, but just an idle observation of how the
human mind works. We, as a species, crave information. When we don't have
that information, many will tend to fill in the blank with something that may not
be exactly true.
If people know the truth, all of these assumptions could stop. If you're
innocent, all of this can blow over. If you're guilty of some sort of trickery on
the public, I think we all know you wouldn't want people to know that, so what
you do right now answers our question for us. If you refuse, everyone will know
that there is, in fact, something that the FCC has done that is not for the good
of the people, and that all of you have been incredibly 'shady' these past few
From: Diane Morrison
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: A good ending...
yay!
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:24 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
Testimony to if you do communicate in the long-run there is the opportunity for better
understanding.
From: David Bray

To: Jessi Johnson

Hi Jessi,
No worries and always happy to help. I wish I could do more to help get the word out within
the limits of my public service role -- and I'm also happy to help when anyone asks a
question.
-d.

To: David Bray

misconceptions that I had about the situation. Again, my apologies for being so rude when
all I had to do was conduct a bit more research beforehand.
The logs have massive amounts of personal IP addresses associated with the comments
filed that the public did not give consent to share publicly and even if we do our best to
scrub there still might be something there that someone did not agree to have shared.
traffic. Three, we have noticed some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the
individual mechanism (ECFS) to file comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above,
potentially making it difficult for individuals to file. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-
denial-of-service-are-latest-weapons-in-net-neutrality-battle-1494533379
Hope this helps.
Hello, Mr. Bray,

to release the logs of a recent Ddos event to a security researcher. I say this because there
are allegations being made that you are hiding important details from the public in an
attempt to make the FCC be looked at as a victim, or that someone executed this Ddos
attack in an attempt to silence the voices of those who sent messages in favor of net
neutrality.
If you release these logs, and if no evidence is found of any form of dishonesty or
trickery, all of this trouble could vanish. On the other hand, if you continue to be
dishonest to the public in this way, distrust will grow. People will assume negative things
about the FCC, and even about your personal business practices. This is in no way a
threat, but just an idle observation of how the human mind works. We, as a species, crave
information. When we don't have that information, many will tend to fill in the blank with
something that may not be exactly true.
If people know the truth, all of these assumptions could stop. If you're innocent, all of
this can blow over. If you're guilty of some sort of trickery on the public, I think we all
know you wouldn't want people to know that, so what you do right now answers our
question for us. If you refuse, everyone will know that there is, in fact, something that the
FCC has done that is not for the good of the people, and that all of you have been
incredibly 'shady' these past few weeks in your practices.
From: David Bray
To: Jessi Johnson
Hi Jessi,
No worries and always happy to help. I wish I could do more to help get the word out within
the limits of my public service role -- and I'm also happy to help when anyone asks a question.
-d.

To: David Bray
misconceptions that I had about the situation. Again, my apologies for being so rude when all I
had to do was conduct a bit more research beforehand.
making it difficult for individuals to file. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-
Hope this helps.
Hello, Mr. Bray,
to release the logs of a recent Ddos event to a security researcher. I say this because there are
be exactly true.
From: Dave Sibley
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Internet neutrality
It sickens me how much your opinion changed between 2014 and this year. It's obvious you
have no interest currently with how the country and it's citizens feel regarding this issue. No
one could logically arrive at your current position on net neutrality from where you were
unless outside forces influenced you.
You went from wanting "a series of hearings" on net neutrality to having no hearings this year.
You recommended "the commission seek guidance from Congress instead of plowing ahead"
to seeking no outside guidance. You went from requesting to "ask ten distinguished
economists from across the country" to asking no one. I could keep quoting you from 2014 but
I assume you remember your own words well enough. You are probably just actively choosing
to ignore yourself. You've made it clear you are actively ignoring a growing population of
people who support net neutrality. You're actively pretending the US hasn't told you directly
that the FCC should support net neutrality by saying the FCC website was under DDoS attack
when evidence points to the majority of the anti-net neutrality arguments are spam.
http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html
Your ignorant position will damage the internet as we currently understand. It will limit
competition. It will only benefit the currently in place wealthy elite instead of actually being
an open internet.

Subject: Re: May 17




Best regards,

-d.



Jenn

Subject: Re: May 17

Hi Jenn,

award/137469/


To: Jessi Johnson
that the public did not give consent to share publicly and even if we do our best to scrub there
still might be something there that someone did not agree to have shared.
Hope this helps.
On May 13, 2017, at 15:05, Jessi Johnson(b) (6) wrote:
Hello, Mr. Bray,

I believe that, logically speaking, it would be in the best interest of everyone for you to
release the logs of a recent Ddos event to a security researcher. I say this because there are
all of this trouble could vanish. On the other hand, if you continue to be dishonest to the public
in this way, distrust will grow. People will assume negative things about the FCC, and even
about your personal business practices. This is in no way a threat, but just an idle observation
of how the human mind works. We, as a species, crave information. When we don't have that
information, many will tend to fill in the blank with something that may not be exactly true.
can blow over. If you're guilty of some sort of trickery on the public, I think we all know you
wouldn't want people to know that, so what you do right now answers our question for us. If
you refuse, everyone will know that there is, in fact, something that the FCC has done that is
not for the good of the people, and that all of you have been incredibly 'shady' these past few
From: Andrew McWhinney
Subject: FCC Proposal 17-108 "reflection period"
Good morning,
To begin, I am neither a robot, a "fake" commenter, nor a supposed DDoS attack. In addition,
I do not feel inhibited by arcane procedural rules defining when I may comment on the
function of democracy.
Proposal 17-108 to move regulation of ISPs from Title II back to Title I would cause
tremendous harm to US consumers. ISPs have stated, including Mr. Pai's former employee
Verzion, that Title II regulation has had no effect on infrastructure development or company
operations. Deregulation of ISPs under Title I would allow ISPs to prioritize their own
products and therefore destroy the competitive, egalitarian nature of our society.
I do not support regulation of ISPs under Title I.

Title II regulation of ISPs as a public utility is the bare minimum needed to protect
consumers.
Thank you for your time. I hope that you listen to the citizens of our democracy rather than the
corporate interested that have poisoned our government.
Sincerely,
Andrew McWhinney
From: Nathan Korth
Subject: In support of net neutrality
Maybe you can't see it through your greed and corruption, but Net Neutrality is what the
American public wants. It's not some kind of "onerous regulation on industry" - it's simply
about protecting everyone's freedom to communicate in the modern world.
Additionally, the recent failure of the FCC to receive public comments is completely
unacceptable, and I will be contacting my representatives to make sure it is thoroughly
investigated. When viewed alongside the flood of automated anti-NN comments, the
shutdown of the comment system (along with the unsubstantiated claims of DDoS) looks a lot
like censorship.
Nathan Korth
Ann Arbor, Michigan
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: FW: Background chat on FCC website issues?
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: FW: Background chat on FCC website issues?
(b) (5)

Mark & David,

week.
reluctant to run any of those. I'd rather see what the real story is, and perhaps some details can
shed light on what really happened here and how you might try to mitigate similar issues in
the future.

-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: Mark Wigfield
To: Frank Konkel; David Bray

Mark & David,

week.
the future.

-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)
From: Frank Konkel
Mark & David,

week.
the future.

-Frank
--
Frank Konkel
Office: 202-266-7528
Mobile: (b) (6)

Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

To: Uttam Kumar
Cc: Christine Calvosa
(b) (5)
On 5/12/17, 11:28 AM, someone claiming to be "David Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)

________________________________________
From: Uttam Kumar
To: David Bray; Erik Scheibert; Christine Calvosa; Tony Summerlin (CTR)

(b) (5)

Uttam Kumar

Office: (202) 418-2264
uttam kumar@fcc.gov

From: David Bray
To: Erik Scheibert <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>; Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>; Uttam Kumar
<Uttam.Kumar@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

________________________________________

To: Christine Calvosa; Uttam Kumar; David Bray; Tony Summerlin (CTR)

(b) (5)

________________________________________

Cc: Matthew Berry; Erik Scheibert; Uttam Kumar; Tony Summerlin (CTR)

(b) (5)

Thank you,
Christine
Date: Fri, May 12, 2017, 10:43
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>,Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
CC: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)


Subject: ECFS

Obviously, it’s down again because I get no hits searching yesterday’s and today’s dates. So we are going to write
about that fact. Can you tell me if it’s due to the DDoS attack or the number of net neutrality
comments?

Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920
www.trdailyonline.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__www.trdailyonline.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=2fIJDJ4pqy-
6Q6sHxEdvdscsL7D4biT86syzgydYRrc&m=-W-
ScwizADmVeotIzD1gEx5_3QnynJw4nVntB6MMQls&s=rhFycGDnqzdwkdsS-
QAEt2qQqqQ_rGmcXjD3omA2GEc&e=>
paul kirby@wolterskluwer.com

From: David Bray
To: Tony Summerlin (CTR)
(b) (5)

To: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: "David Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov>

Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 11:28:40 AM
To: "Uttam Kumar" <Uttam.Kumar@fcc.gov>, "Erik Scheibert" <Erik.Scheibert@fcc.gov>,
"Christine Calvosa" <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>, "Tony Summerlin (CTR)"
<Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)
From: Uttam Kumar

To: David Bray; Erik Scheibert; Christine Calvosa; Tony Summerlin (CTR)

(b) (5)

Date: Fri, May 12, 2017, 10:43
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>,Christine Calvosa <Marie.Calvosa@fcc.gov>
CC: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>
(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray; Brian Hart; Matthew Berry
Cc: ITleadership
(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: David Bray
Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)
From: Brian Hart

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield
(b) (5)

To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray
Hi Mark,
weekend.
Please let me know.
Best,
Billy Mitchell
Scoop News Group
P: 757.880.7439
(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

To: David Bray; Christine Calvosa; Brian Hart
Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

Cc: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: Matthew Berry
To: Mark Wigfield; David Bray; Christine Calvosa; Brian Hart
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield

Cc: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield; Christine Calvosa; ITleadership; Erik Scheibert; Uttam Kumar
Cc: Matthew Berry
Attachments: pastedImage.png
pastedImage.png
(b) (5)
From: David Bray

To: Mark Wigfield; Christine Calvosa
Cc: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

Cc: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

Subject: ECFS


Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920

From: Matthew Domurat
To: David Bray
Subject: Clear Transparency on alleged DDOS attack
David,
The FCC must provide evidence that the downtime of the website was indeed a DDOS attack,
and not traffic from people outraged by the proposed changes to how the internet is operated
and governed.
Sincerely,
Matt
To: Aidan Doherty
Subject: Re: Request for evidence

On May 11, 2017, at 13:14, Aidan Doherty (b) (6) wrote:
Please release your server logs to an independent security researcher, so the public can
determine whether the FCCs claim of being hit with a recent DDoS attack is true.
Thanks!
A US taxpayer
From: David Bray
To: Ron Cully
Subject: Re: Release the logs David

On May 11, 2017, at 11:31, Ron Cully (b) (6) wrote:
We don't buy the DDoS attacks. Stop hiding what happened.

Sent from a phone. Please excuse any typos and autocorruption.

From: David Bray
To: Ehren Bollenbacher
Subject: Re: Confirmation of DDoS Attack Needed

On May 11, 2017, at 10:55, Ehren Bollenbacher (b) (6) wrote:
David,
I urge you to make records pertaining to the alleged DDoS attack during a period of high
volume commenting by net neutrality supporters available to independent security annalists.
It is the only way trust can be restored in the relationship between the FCC and the public it is
supposed to be serving,
Yours cordially,
Ehren Bollenbacher
Of San Diego
From: David Bray
To: Scott Gillies
Cc: ECFSHelp
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality Proceedings 17-108 / Release Logs
Thank you for your note Scott and it would be best if you file your comment either
using www.fcc.gov/ECFS which should be available or there has always been an alternative
bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for individuals to file.
On May 10, 2017, at 15:55, Scott Gillies (b) (6) wrote:
I had tried to submit this via the form on your website, but every time I click "Submit" it does
nothing (in two different web browsers). Not sure if it is because your website is still having
issues (and while I'm at it, please release the logs to the public so we can verify your claims
that your site went down because of a DDoS attack...), but here are my thoughts on the matter:
The internet is a great equalizer. It allows people without tons of money and/or political
backing to spread their ideas cheaply and effectively and translate them into action. We
absolutely, 100%, no question NEED to keep it this way. Corporations already control too
much in our country and our world. The internet seems like the last frontier where the little
guy has a chance to succeed and I would be very saddened to see this change.
To quote an email I received today from Win Without War, "Net neutrality allows all of us to
speak truth to power. It allows us to throw light on injustice, and to coordinate, organize, and
support each other’s struggles. Net neutrality helps preserve equal access to the most
important currency in our democracy, ideas."
It seems to be getting harder and harder to speak truth to power without getting drowned out.
Please do not take away one of our best tools to do so. Please preserve Net Neutrality and Title
II.
Thank you,
Scott Gillies
US Citizen
From: David Bray
To: Paul Ross
Subject: Re: Re DDOS Attack Logs

On May 10, 2017, at 16:58, Paul Ross (b) (6) wrote:
Hi David

Why won’t you release the logs proving there was a DDOS attack? What are FCC trying to hide, or
prevent?

You have a duty to the people of the USA to provide transparency and honesty.

Regards
Paul
From: David Bray
To: Buck Field
Subject: Re: DDoS Attack

On May 10, 2017, at 17:32, Buck Field (b) (6) wrote:
Dear Mr. Bray,

I’m writing to express my encouragement for you to release the FCC logs to a security
researcher for independent verification.

Sincere thanks.

<image001.jpg>

To: Anita

Dear Mr. Bray,

independent security researcher or major media outlet who can verify your claims and
inform the public about what really happened.
--
Best regards,
From: Erin McAuliff
To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield
Subject: Re: Net neutrality and alleged DDoS attack
Thank you for your quick response. Based on the FCC phonebook directory, I have copied
Mark Wigfield from the Media Relations office. If he is not the correct contact, I would
appreciate your assistance in forwarding my note to the appropriate party.

On May 10, 2017, at 16:48, Erin McAuliff (b) (6) wrote:
Dear Mr. Bray,
As a public agency, the FCC has a responsibility to maintain a functioning website to

receive feedback from the public about important issues that impact all of us -- especially
net neutrality. The FCC's allegations of a DDoS attack on the website are alarming. If true,
the attack likely prevented many people from expressing their support of Title II net
neutrality protections.
In light of this allegation, the FCC should release its logs to an independent security
researcher who can verify this story and inform the public about what really
happened.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Erin McAuliff
To: Erin McAuliff
Subject: Re: Net neutrality and alleged DDoS attack

On May 10, 2017, at 16:48, Erin McAuliff (b) (6) wrote:
Dear Mr. Bray,
As a public agency, the FCC has a responsibility to maintain a functioning website to receive
feedback from the public about important issues that impact all of us -- especially net
neutrality. The FCC's allegations of a DDoS attack on the website are alarming. If true, the
attack likely prevented many people from expressing their support of Title II net neutrality
protections.
In light of this allegation, the FCC should release its logs to an independent security
researcher who can verify this story and inform the public about what really happened.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Erin McAuliff
From: David Bray
To: Ian James
Subject: Re: please release your logs for confirmation of claims

On May 10, 2017, at 16:48, Ian James (b) (6) wrote:
Dear David,
I find it important that the FCC provide evidence of its claims, that a DDoS attack is the
cause of the system crash on Sunday night. It seems that the evidence provided to the public
thus far, leads us to believe these claims are not true. If they are true, please help in the
discussion of finding that out. please play a role of responsibility, empowered by the people,
acting for the people. It’s the right thing to do, and it’s what was implied when you were
given the responsibility of wielding, our power. i promise, you will have much company in
your service of the people, if you stand with the people.
Please provide evidence of the DDoS attacks.
regards,
Ian James
From: David Bray
To: Lilia Manguy
Subject: Re: Please Release the FCC"s DDoS Attack Logs

On May 10, 2017, at 15:50, Lilia Manguy (b) (6) > wrote:
The public has the right to see proof of the FCC's claims of DDoS attacks on the FCC website
when people were trying to leave comments in support of Title II net neutrality protections.
The FCC has the responsibility of being transparent and accountable to the public.
What are you hiding? Seeing as the current FCC chairman is a former top lawyer for Verizon,
your transparency will go a long way towards reassuring the public that there is no foul play.
I demand that you please release your logs to an independent security researcher or major
media outlet who can verify the DDoS attacks.
Thank you.
Lilia Manguy
Richmond, CA 94804
To: pamela worth

Mr. Bray--I think the public, myself included, has a right to know about what really happened
with your alleged DDOS attacks this week, just as many thousands of people were gearing up
to comment publicly about net neutrality on the FCC's website. Please make your logs public.
(And for the love of the internet, please do what you can to preserve net neutrality!)
Sincerely,
Pamela Worth
From: David Bray
To: fbliek@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Net neutrality

On May 10, 2017, at 16:41, Frank Bliek (b) (6) wrote:
Dear Sir,
I am asking you to please release the logs of your so called DDoS attack that resulted in a
inability for net neutrality supporters to voice their concerns following a segment on the John
Oliver show. A independent security advisor could determine the cause behind it and allow
you to fairly determine the American people's view on a open, unrestrained internet as
opposed to a service providers view of a 'milk it for all we can' internet. Please do the right
thing for current and future users of the world wide web.
Thank you
Frank Bliek
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Settings | Help | Unsubscribe
We sent this email to @cyber_diplomat
Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94103
From: David Modersbach
To: David Bray
Subject: Internet Equality & Transparency
This is not a robo-email or part of a DDOS, it is a real communication from a concerned citizen.
My name is David.
I am concerned that the FCC is not playing fair.
There has been so much response to the questions that FCC is setting to dismantle net neutrality to favor big
corporations and raise costs and deny services to internet users, that it appears that this response overwhelmed FCC
servers.
But it has been called a DDOS attack.
Please provide evidence of such.
And please do not follow through with the dismantling of net neutrality.
Signed,
David Modersbach
Oakland CA
From: Whiting, Michael
To: Mark Stone
Subject: RE: eRulemaking
(b) (5)
Mike Whiting CISM, CISSP

IT Lead/Operations Manager
eRulemaking and FOIAOnline
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
o- 919-541-1125
c- (b) (6)
From: Mark Stone [mailto:Mark.Stone@fcc.gov]

Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:49 AM
To: Whiting, Michael <Whiting.Mike@epa.gov>
Cc: Micah Caldwell <Micah.Caldwell@fcc.gov>; Melissa Droller Kirkel <Melissa.Kirkel@fcc.gov>
Subject: RE: eRulemaking
(b) (5)
From: Whiting, Michael [mailto:Whiting.Mike@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:32 AM
To: Mark Stone <Mark.Stone@fcc.gov>
From: Nicholson David
To: David Bray
Cc: Tony Summerlin (CTR)
Subject: RE: David Bray Referred Me to You - Verisign DDoS
Attachments: VRSN 300 Gbps Attack.pdf
I should have sent you attached case study earlier
91 million packets per second, 300 GBPS, multi-vectored (TCP & UDP)
DDoS protection really comes down to 2 things - countermeasures and operational expertise
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
www verisign com
To: Nicholson, David
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: David Bray Referred Me to You - Verisign DDoS
Many thanks and our Team is scanning for side attacks Of the record, our rate is about 3,000,000 requests/hour Tony can discuss with you further
Best regards,
-d
On May 8, 2017, at 19:58, Nicholson, David <dbnicholson@verisign com> wrote:
David and Tony,
The trend we are seeing is that approximately half of the time they are launching DDoS attacks it’s a diversionary technique for a breach (this dates back to Stuxnet,
Sony, etc )
I recommend you push your outbound DNS queries through our Recursive DNS firewall to prevent data exfiltration (overview attached)
We did this for a manufacturing company that was being targeted by a hactivist group protesting the Dakota Pipeline (OpNoDAPL) We blocked over 1100 requests in
3 days
Thoughts???
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
www verisign com<https://urldefense proofpoint com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www verisign com_&d=DwMFAg&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=4wa-
nffQIhGGaGbd-
1xg_wxrLvEK0xBszrTCkKXXWTI&m=3MOJtyXX65NXIOYJnXtNVq2MFuJ0trPhYkEvI2BdTOs&s=hN3nHDppCXyylWtIG6YBipglbZMdh5xBjaFAeKt8CIo&e=>
From: Nicholson, David

To: 'tony summerlin@fcc gov'
Cc: 'david bray@fcc gov'
Subject: David Bray Referred Me to You - Verisign DDoS
Tony,
As the operator of the gov registry Verisign is reaching out as a courtesy
Verisign has protected two root servers (A&J) and 20 TLDs from Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks for the past 19 years with 100% documented uptime
When would be some good time(s) to speak via phone?
Thanks,
David
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
nffQIhGGaGbd-
<Verisign Recursive DNS Firewall pdf>

From: Joie Puckett
To: David Bray
Subject: Release the Logs, Please.
I call for the FCC to release its logs to independent security analysts
so that we know what actually happened. The public has a right to know
re: FCC DDoS attack.
jp
From: David Bray
To: Kathi Mostefai
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality Comments
Thank you for your note and it probably would be best to contact the FCC Office of Media
Relations.
On May 10, 2017, at 03:51, Kathi Mostefai (b) (6) wrote:
I am tired of Ajit Pai and others in the Trump administration introducing

alternative facts in order to get Americans to support an agenda that is
against their own self interest. ISPs have proven themselves to be
untrustworthy and will use the lack of regulation to support the agenda of
the highest bidder. You have claimed that there was a DDoS attack at the
exact same time people found out there was a link for leaving comments
on this regulation. We believe this to be another alternative fact, when
actually your website was not prepared for the amount of comments it was
receiving. Why don't you release your logs for independent review if you
were indeed "attacked".
Speaking of being attacked, you must think Americans are completely

stupid. I browsed the comments on your site, and found that the ones
supporting Net Neutrality were from various people, and not in any
particular alphabetical order. Some were using the exact same text, but
many had added their own comments as well. All the comments I saw
against Net Neutrality were EXACTLY the same text, and all the names
started with the letter B. In fact there were about 4 "Brittany"s in a row. I
highly suspect this was done by a BOT and would not put it past this
administration to have directed someone to drive that BOT to post those
favorable comments.
Kathi R. Mostefai
Retired IT Engineer and Manager
To: Hall, John; David Bray
Cc: DeBoissiere, Andrew; Hayman, Denise
Subject: RE: DDoS Mitigation / Neustar
John,
I would be more than happy to engage and understand what Neustar provides which could be of
benefit to the FCC. I could make some time available at 2:30pm tomorrow.
Regards,
Tony

From: Hall, John [mailto:John.Hall@neustar.biz]
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Cc: DeBoissiere, Andrew <Andrew.DeBoissiere@neustar.biz>; Hayman, Denise
<Denise.Hayman@neustar.biz>
Subject: Re: DDoS Mitigation / Neustar
Thank You David.

Tony, I’m available at your convenience. The Post article was discussed among Neustar Exec staff, and
we’ve got a sincere desire to help in any way that we can.

Respectfully,
John W Hall
Neustar, Inc. / Sr. Director – Federal Business
[ T ] (571) 246-2407 [ E ] john.hall@neustar.biz
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error
and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message
____________________________________________________________

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 10:47 AM
To: John Hall <john.hall@neustar.biz>, "Tony Summerlin (CTR)" <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Cc: Andrew DeBoissiere <andrew.deboissiere@neustar.biz>, "Hayman, Denise"
<Denise.Hayman@neustar.biz>
Subject: Re: DDoS Mitigation / Neustar
Hi John,
Thank you for your note and FCC Senior Advisor Tony Summerlin would be the best point of
contact to explore what's possible and needed in this area. I've cc'ed him here.
-d.
From: Hall, John <John.Hall@neustar.biz>

To: David Bray
Cc: DeBoissiere, Andrew; Hayman, Denise
Subject: DDoS Mitigation / Neustar
Mr Bray,
I’m reaching out because I read the Washington Post article regarding your Agencies recent
DDoS attack. Neustar owns and operates the most advanced and resilient DDoS Mitigation
Network in existence. I would welcome / appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a
technical brief, and talk through our competitive differentiation. I’m including a link (below)
that will take you to our “SiteProtect” solution page, but please don’t hesitate to reach out to
arrange a phone or face to face discussion.
https://www.neustar.biz/security/ddos-protection
John W Hall
Neustar, Inc. / Sr. Director – Federal Business
[ T ] (571) 246-2407 [ E ] john.hall@neustar.biz
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error
and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message
____________________________________________________________
From: David Bray
To: Mark Wigfield; Matthew Berry; Brian Hart; Will Wiquist; ITleadership
From: Mark Wigfield

(b) (5)

Thanks,
Margaret

Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)
From: Mark Wigfield
Attachments: FCC screenshot May 8 2017.png
(b) (5)






Thanks,
Margaret






Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

From: David Bray
To: Andrew Spoelstra
Subject: Re: Supposed DDoS
From: Andrew Spoelstra (b) (6)

To: David Bray
Subject: Supposed DDoS
Either prove that it was a DDoS attack, and fund whoever did it, or admit that the FCC did it, and have Pai resign.
Sent from my iPhone

From: Ed Vargas
To: David Bray
Subject: FW: CIO Perspectives Virginia
Hi David –

I hope all is well… I was recently asked to jump in get back to you around your question below.
I spoke with Maryfran who said she was bringing in speakers that haven’t been on the agenda in past year or so –
hence why she hasn’t reached out to you for this year’s program.

However please do let us (on the Council side) of the business know if you will be attending, as it will be nice to
connect with you and discuss ways we can leverage each other support. Our role as an advisory services group is
to drive peer connections that become mutually beneficial in tackling challenges for all CIO’s involved. However I
see a bigger opportunity in leveraging Brand Management Team to promote you as possible speaker and panelists
at some of the national and global events we connect with though partner arrangements.

I saw the article below and realize you have your hands full right now, but let me know if we can meet at the event
in June or setup time for a call to discuss the benefits the CIO Executive Council can offer…

Thanks in advance
Ed V.

PS: as a CIO you did a nice job addressing the public attention to this…

FCC suffers DDoS attacks against public comments website
http://bit.ly/2qYBemI

Edwin Vargas
Director
CIO Executive Council from IDG
O +1.508.766.5420 | C +(b) (6) | CEC

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Steve Ka <ska@cio.com>
Many thanks Steve, I think Maryfran was planning to have me be a speaker at this event? Do you have a
draft agenda?
Should you be interested,

From: David Bray
To: Chris Boustead
Subject: Re: FCC DDOS Logs

From: Chris Boustead (b) (6)

To: David Bray
Subject: FCC DDOS Logs

Hi David,
I am writing in response to the FCC's statement that their site encountered a DDOS attack.
I am requesting that you release the logs suggesting this evidence to independent security
experts. This is an important public matter which is currently preventing citizens from voicing
their support for the title 2 rules supporting an open and free internet.
Thank you,
Chris Boustead
From: David Bray
To: Sinai, Nick; Eaves, David
Subject: Re: David Eaves <> David Bray
Great to connect David E. and many thanks for the introduction Nick.
Happy to chat about how other agencies can move off of legacy IT and adopt modern cloud
services with speed; fortunately we did so at the FCC when we had the recent DDoS events
yesterday combined with the increased interest in filing comments for proceeding 17-108
https://fcw.com/blogs/fcw-insider/2017/05/fcc-cloud.aspx
FCC honored again for cloud

embrace -- FCW
fcw.com
The Federal Communications Commission's

tech policy moves may be sparking
controversy, but the agency's own IT
operations continue to draw praise from both
the public ...
award/137469/

Award - Nextgov.com
www.nextgov.com
The Federal Communications Commission’s

innovative IT efforts are not just saving
taxpayer dollars; they’re turning heads
worldwide. On Monday, FCC was selected ...
-d.
From: Sinai, Nick <Nick_Sinai@hks.harvard.edu>

To: Eaves, David; David Bray
Subject: David Eaves <> David Bray
David Eaves is a professor here at HKS and director of the new Digital HKS program
David Bray is the CIO of the FCC, and leader in getting government to move to cloud apps
I think you’d enjoy talking/collaborating on a number of fronts…..
Nick Sinai
Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
Cell: (b) (6)
DPI 663 website, course listing & syllabus; faculty page
Course Assistants: Angel Quicksey, Chante Lantos-Sweet
Faculty Assistant: Jessica Colarossi
Security at the Pace of Commercial Innovation
Securing the Smart Grid
President Obama’s Last Official Act
Will Trump’s Procurement Reform Work?
Venture Investing in the Public Sector
The Untold Story of VA Leadership
The U.S Digital Service comes to Harvard
From: David Bray
To: DT
Subject: Re: Sunday Night DDOS - Net Neutrality
Thank you for your note and it would be best if you contact the Office of Media Relations. Whomever is suggesting
you email this address has the incorrect POC.
On May 9, 2017, at 08:40, D T <(b) (6) wrote:
Mr. Bray,
As a tax-paying American citizen who works in the telecommunications industry, it's extremely concerning to see
that an attack on your website may have prevented the voice of thousands of concerned citizens voicing their
opinion on Net Neutrality. Your chairman's hostility to an open internet presents an interesting conundrum, which
could be seen as our government working for big telecom and other lobbyists and not the citizens. With this being
said, the logs from the event Sunday night should be released to an independent security auditor, so that the public
may know the truth. Please remember who this government works for, it's not corporations.
Sincerely,
David A Vaughn
From: Kartikeya Iyer
To: David Bray
Subject: About the CIO statement on the FCC being the victims of an alleged DDoS attack
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just issued a press release

(https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.pdf) claiming, “Beginning on
Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed
denial-of-service attacks (DDoS).”
The FCC is saying that the site hosting their comment system was attacked at the exact same
time comments would have started flooding in from John Oliver’s viral "Last Week Tonight"
segment about net neutrality. The media widely reported that the surge in comments crashed
the FCC’s site.
The FCC’s statement today raises two concerns:
- The FCC is being intentionally misleading, and trying to claim that the surge in traffic
from large numbers of people attempting to access their site through John Oliver’s
GoFCCYourself.com redirect amounts to a “DDoS” attack, to let themselves off the hook for
essentially silencing large numbers of people by not having a properly functioning site to
receive comments from the public about an important issue, or—worst case—is preparing a
bogus legal argument that somehow John Oliver’s show itself was the DDoS attack.
- Someone actually did DDoS the FCC’s site at the exact same time as John Oliver’s
segment, in order to actively prevent people from being able to comment in support of keeping
the Title II net neutrality rules many of us fought for in 2015.
Given the current FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s open hostility ( https://www.theguardian.com/
technology/2017/apr/26/trump-overturn-net-neutrality-rules-resistance ) towards real net
neutrality (notwithstanding the blatant sham that is the laughably-titled "Restoring Internet
Freedom"), and the telecom industry’s long history of astroturfing (
https://news.vice.com/article/cable-companies-are-astroturfing-fake-consumer-support-to-end-
net-neutrality ) and paying shady organizations ( https://motherboard.vice.com/
en_us/article/shady-conservative-group-is-flooding-the-fcc-with-anti-net-neutrality-comments
) to influence the FCC, either of these scenarios should be concerning for anyone who cares
about government transparency, free speech, and the future of the Internet.
To validate the claims of being "DDoS"ed, The FCC should release original untampered
server logs to qualified independent & unaffiliated security researchers. Not doing this will
merely lend credence and substantiation to claims that the FCC is being less-than-truthful
about this matter, and in fact is actively preventing members of the public from expressing
and/or formally registering their views on the very important matter of a free and open
Internet.
Thank you,
Kartikeya IYER
Subject: Re: May 17
Oh dear. Any availability the day before (16 May?). Sorry the calendar is so full as I definitely
would like to catch-up with you soon.

Subject: Re: May 17




Best regards,

-d.



Jenn

Subject: Re: May 17

Hi Jenn,

award/137469/

Award
www.nextgov.com





-d.

From: Lerner, Jennifer <Jennifer Lerner@hks.harvard.edu>

To: David Bray
Cc: Agliati, Pia
Subject: May 17

David,



Best,
Jenn

Jennifer S. Lerner


From: David Bray
To: Richard Duerr
Subject: Re: Logs of ddos attack
Thank you for your note and it probably is best to inquire with our Office of Media Relations.
On May 8, 2017, at 21:05, Richard Duerr (b) (6) wrote:
I am a professional developer and am curious to see system logs of traffic during John Oliver's show. I believe your
system wasn't ddos'd and want to investigate to prove if it really was, or if it wasn't. These logs shouldn't be of any
security concern, and any sensitive data can be randomized (such as ips or other info).
Subject: Re: May 17

Best regards,
-d.

Jenn

Subject: Re: May 17
Hi Jenn,

award/137469/

Award
www.nextgov.com

-d.
From: Lerner, Jennifer <Jennifer_Lerner@hks.harvard.edu>

To: David Bray
Cc: Agliati, Pia
Subject: May 17
David,
Best,
Jenn
Jennifer S. Lerner
To: Nicholson David
Subject: Re: David Bray Referred Me to You - Verisign DDoS
Many thanks and our Team is scanning for side attacks Of the record, our rate is about 3,000,000 requests/hour Tony can discuss with you further
Best regards,
-d
On May 8, 2017, at 19:58, Nicholson, David <dbnicholson@verisign com> wrote:
David and Tony,
The trend we are seeing is that approximately half of the time they are launching DDoS attacks it’s a diversionary technique for a breach (this dates back to Stuxnet,
Sony, etc )
I recommend you push your outbound DNS queries through our Recursive DNS firewall to prevent data exfiltration (overview attached)
We did this for a manufacturing company that was being targeted by a hactivist group protesting the Dakota Pipeline (OpNoDAPL) We blocked over 1100 requests in
3 days
Thoughts???
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
nffQIhGGaGbd-

To: 'tony summerlin@fcc gov'
Cc: 'david bray@fcc gov'
Tony,
As the operator of the gov registry Verisign is reaching out as a courtesy
Verisign has protected two root servers (A&J) and 20 TLDs from Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks for the past 19 years with 100% documented uptime
Thanks,
David
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
nffQIhGGaGbd-
<Verisign Recursive DNS Firewall pdf>

To: Tony Summerlin (CTR); David Bray
Subject: RE: David Bray Referred Me to You - Verisign DDoS
Attachments: Verisign Recursive DNS Firewall.pdf
David and Tony,
The trend we are seeing is that approximately half of the time they are launching DDoS attacks it’s a
diversionary technique for a breach (this dates back to Stuxnet, Sony, etc.)
I recommend you push your outbound DNS queries through our Recursive DNS firewall to prevent data
exfiltration (overview attached).
We did this for a manufacturing company that was being targeted by a hactivist group protesting the
Dakota Pipeline (OpNoDAPL). We blocked over 1100 requests in 3 days.
Thoughts???
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc.
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
www.verisign.com

To: 'tony.summerlin@fcc.gov'
Cc: 'david.bray@fcc.gov'
Tony,
As the operator of the .gov registry Verisign is reaching out as a courtesy.
Verisign has protected two root servers (A&J) and 20 TLDs from Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks for the
past 19 years with 100% documented uptime.
Thanks,
David
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc.
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
www.verisign.com
From: David Bray
To: Michael Nelson; John Kaden
Subject: Re: Invitation: David Bray and Cloudflare @ Mon May 8, 2017 9pm - 10pm (David Bray)
I am almost there -- inching in the traffic on 395. A drink will be needed ;-)
Fortunately this time FCC is allowing us to say it was a DDoS just like it was in 2014 hidden within the
normal stream of comments.

From: Michael Nelson [mailto:mnelson@cloudflare.com]
To: David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov>; John Kaden <johnk@cloudflare.com>
Subject: RE: Invitation: David Bray and Cloudflare @ Mon May 8, 2017 9pm - 10pm (David Bray)

Thanks for the update, David. John Oliver can make life interesting.
Mike

Gentlemen, I am inbound to your location. Probably more like 5:30pm if that’s okay. It’s been a
full day at the FCC as you might have gathered.

See you soon.

-----Original Appointment-----
From: Michael Nelson [mailto:mnelson@cloudflare.com]
To: Michael Nelson; jkaden@cloudflare.com; David Bray
Subject: Invitation: David Bray and Cloudflare @ Mon May 8, 2017 9pm - 10pm (David Bray)
When: Monday, May 08, 2017 5:00 PM-6:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Lyon Hall, 3100 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22201, USA

more details »
David Bray and Cloudflare
When Mon May 8, 2017 9pm – 10pm GMT (no daylight saving)
Where Lyon Hall, 3100 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22201, USA (map)
Video call https://plus.google.com/hangouts/ /cloudflare.com/david-bray-and
Calendar David Bray

• Michael Nelson - organizer
• jkaden@cloudflare.com
Who
From: Matthew Berry
To: David Bray; Mark Wigfield; Brian Hart
Cc: ITleadership
Subject: RE: Release your 5-7/5-8 logs for independent review.
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
Subject: FW: Release your 5-7/5-8 logs for independent review.
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
To: 'Sidney Hale (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Release your 5-7/5-8 logs for independent review.
Thank you for note and please contact our Office of Media Relations.

From: Sidney Hale [mailto(b) (6)
Subject: Release your 5-7/5-8 logs for independent review.
You have claimed that there was a DDoS attack at the exact same time people found out there
was an actual link for leaving comments on this BS regulation. We don't believe you. Your
website was not prepared for the amount of comments it was receiving, and that's how the
public will see this regardless of your alternative facts. UNLESS YOU RELEASE THE LOGS
FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW, then you are a liar.
--
Regards,
Sidney I. Hale II
Founding Partner of Isom Ventures LLC
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
(b) (5)

Hey all,





Thanks,
Margaret

Politico Pro Tech
703-842-1799 (w)
(b) (6) (c)

To: David Bray
Subject: Re: David Bray Referred Me to You - Verisign DDoS
(b) (5)
From: "David Bray" <David.Bray@fcc.gov>

Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:38:34 PM
To: "Tony Summerlin (CTR)" <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: David Bray Referred Me to You - Verisign DDoS
(b) (5)
From: Nicholson, David [mailto:dbnicholson@verisign.com]

To: Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Tony,
Thanks,
David
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc.
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
www.verisign.com
From: David Bray
To: Tony Summerlin (Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov)
Subject: FW: David Bray Referred Me to You - Verisign DDoS
Attachments: Verisign DDoS Monitoring & Mitigation Solution.pdf
(b) (5)
From: Nicholson, David [mailto:dbnicholson@verisign.com]

To: Tony Summerlin (CTR) <Tony.Summerlin@fcc.gov>
Tony,
Thanks,
David
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc.
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
www.verisign.com
From: David Bray
To: Carla Rudder
Cc: ghamilton
Subject: RE: Your Q&A on the CCOE is live!
Terrific Carla and many thanks. It’s a good timing as today we’re being hit by DDoS attacks
associated with the 17-108 (“Net neutrality”) proceeding that we’re only able to keep up with
because we’re cloud-based.
From: Carla Rudder [mailto:crudder@redhat.com]

Cc: ghamilton <ghamilton@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Your Q&A on the CCOE is live!
Hi David,
We can certainly adjust the headline! How about the below? We like your suggestion but
tweaked it a bit to keep it concise.
FCC CIO: How the federal government can adopt cloud with speed
Thanks,
Carla
Many thanks Carla, truly appreciated. One question – would it be possible to update the title as
it’s not necessarily “my” center of excellence, it’s one for the entire U.S. government. Could we
use:
“Lessons from the FCC CIO: How all of Public Service Can Adopt Cloud With Speed”
Or something similar? Many thanks.
From: Carla Rudder [mailto:crudder@redhat.com]

Cc: ghamilton <ghamilton@redhat.com>
Subject: Your Q&A on the CCOE is live!
Hi David,
Just wanted to make sure you saw that your Q&A on the cloud center of excellence is live
on our site this morning. Below is a link. We also shared via our LinkedIn page and tagged
you there: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-enterprisers-project
Inside FCC CIO's new cloud center of excellence
https://enterprisersproject.com/article/2017/5/inside-fcc-cios-new-cloud-center-excellence
Thanks so much for another wonderful article!

Carla
--
Carla Rudder
Content Manager
The Enterprisers Project
https://enterprisersproject.com/
--
Carla Rudder
Content Manager
The Enterprisers Project
https://enterprisersproject.com/
From: Chris Bing
To: David Bray
Cc: Mark Wigfield; Will Wiquist; Neil Grace
Subject: Re: [FEDSCOOP] - FCC experiences DDoS?
Thanks David.
No problem. Just sent similar questions separately to the general press email.
Hi Chris,
Happy to help – that said, can you route through OMR as they have some answers already
available and then we can go from there? Many thanks.
From: Chris Bing [mailto:chris.bing@fedscoop.com]

Subject: [FEDSCOOP] - FCC experiences DDoS?
Hi David,
My name is Chris Bing, I am a cybersecurity reporter with FedScoop. I am interested in this

statement: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.pdf
My colleague Billy Mitchell sent me your contact information. I am curious about this
DDoS story. I have a few questions -- also available by phone:(b) (6)
1.) Was the DDoS limited to only the comment section of the FCC's website? Were other
services affected? Do you have any idea for why this occurred or who did this attack?
2.) How were you able to confirm this incident was in fact a DDoS rather than pure internet
traffic? How do you define a DDoS attack -- can you provide any additional technical details
like the amount of traffic? For long did the disruption last?

--
Christopher Bing
Scoop News Group
Mobile P: (b) (6)
Office P: 609-747-2321
--
Christopher Bing
Scoop News Group
Mobile P: (b) (6)
Office P: 609-747-2321
To: Tony Summerlin (CTR)
Cc: David Bray
Attachments: Verisign DDoS Monitoring & Mitigation Solution.pdf
Tony,
Thanks,
David
David Nicholson
Verisign Inc.
Security Services
P: 703-948-4263
C: (b) (6)
www.verisign.com
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray; Matthew Berry; Brian Hart; Will Wiquist; Neil Grace
Subject: RE: DDoS clarification
(b) (5)
From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry

(b) (5)

From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

Subject: FW: DDoS clarification
(b) (5)

From: Drew FitzGerald [mailto:andrew.fitzgerald@wsj.com]
Subject: DDoS clarification
Hi Mark,
What type of DDoS attack did you observe last night, and roughly how long did the attack
last? Also, which commercial providers absorbed the attack? Any details would be helpful.
Thanks,
--
Drew FitzGerald | Reporter
The Wall Street Journal.
Office: 212-416-2909
Mobile: (b) (6)
Twitter: @drewfitzgerald
IAPE Local 1096: We Power Dow Jones.

From: Brian Hart
To: David Bray; Mark Wigfield; Matthew Berry; Will Wiquist; Neil Grace
(b) (5)

From: David Bray
(b) (5)

From: Mark Wigfield
Subject: FW: DDoS clarification
(b) (5)

From: Drew FitzGerald [mailto:andrew.fitzgerald@wsj.com]
Subject: DDoS clarification
Hi Mark,
What type of DDoS attack did you observe last night, and roughly how long did the attack
last? Also, which commercial providers absorbed the attack? Any details would be helpful.
Thanks,
--
Drew FitzGerald | Reporter
The Wall Street Journal.
Office: 212-416-2909
Mobile: (b) (6)
Twitter: @drewfitzgerald
IAPE Local 1096: We Power Dow Jones.

To: Jacob Ulrich
Subject: Re: FCC and the role in regulating net neutrality
Thank you for your note. I am not a Commissioner, I am a non-partisan SES member who
served under Chairman Wheeler and now serves under Chairman Pai. My views on the issue
were never consulted and it is not my place to weigh-in as I have not been hired in that
capacity. My mom-partisan role to provide, given the finite resources available, the ability for
the U.S. public to leave their comments with the FCC.
On what is in my purview:
There have been groups claiming the commenting website crashed. One, the site did not go
down, it was unavailable for everyone to access. Two, there has always been an alternative
should you find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Three, we have noticed some
bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual mechanism (ECFS) to file comments
in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for individuals to
file. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-service-are-latest-weapons-in-net-neutrality-
battle-1494533379
Groups have also wanted logs regarding the bots and denial of service. On that topic, the logs
have massive amounts of personal IP addresses associated with the comments filed that the
public did not give consent to share publicly and even if we do our best to scrub there still
might be something there that someone did not agree to have shared.
Again, I am non-partisan and haves under multiple Administrations. My role is to provide,

given the finite resources available, the ability for the U.S. public to leave their comments with
the FCC. Hope this helps.
Ajit, David, Mignon, and Mike,
I watched your vote on Net Neutrality legislation today and it is clear to me that the FCC is
nothing but a shill for internet service providers. Your dismissal of the views of the American
people is what troubles me the most. I will do my part to spread the truth about the FCC and
it's role in what will ultimately result in a further increase in broadband pricing. In a time
where corporations have unlimited power over the American people, some of the biggest
corporations in existence were just handed even more. This is your legacy.
Sincerely,
Jacob Ulrich
From: David Bray
To: Robert Boler
Subject: Re: Release FCC site logs to an independent security researcher
No worries, always happy to help and here to serve. Wishing you a great weekend ahead,
-d.
On May 12, 2017, at 22:53, Robert Boler (b) (6) wrote:
Thanks David! That does help.

(Apologies for the late email, I assumed this would be seen on Monday. Have a great
weekend.)
Robert
with the comments filed that the public did not give consent to share publicly and
even if we do our best to scrub there still might be something there that someone
did not agree to have shared.
at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from should
you find the ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. Three, we have noticed
some bulk filers of lots of comments are using the individual mechanism (ECFS)
to file comments in bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it
difficult for individuals to file. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-
Hope this helps.
On May 12, 2017, at 22:00, Robert Boler (b) (6) wrote:
Mr. David Bray,
I am a strong supporter of the FCC, of strong regulation of ISPs under Title 2, and
a level playing field on the internet for all companies.
The ambiguity around the reported attack on the FCC site is calling into question
the legitimacy of the essential public commenting system.
Please release the site logs to an independent security research firm, so they can
clarify what happened to the site and provide recommendations for it to be
reliably functional during this important time.
Thank you,
Robert Boler
Austin, TX 78751
To: Robert Boler
Subject: Re: Release FCC site logs to an independent security researcher
that the public did not give consent to share publicly and even if we do our best to scrub there
still might be something there that someone did not agree to have shared.
Hope this helps.
On May 12, 2017, at 22:00, Robert Boler(b) (6) wrote:
Mr. David Bray,
I am a strong supporter of the FCC, of strong regulation of ISPs under Title 2, and a level
playing field on the internet for all companies.
The ambiguity around the reported attack on the FCC site is calling into question the
legitimacy of the essential public commenting system.
Please release the site logs to an independent security research firm, so they can clarify what
happened to the site and provide recommendations for it to be reliably functional during this
important time.
Thank you,
Robert Boler
Austin, TX 78751
From: Mark Wigfield
To: David Bray
(b) (5)
From: David Bray

(b) (5)
From: Mark Wigfield

Subject: FW: can you ask him if this is accurate? thanks.
(b) (5)

Subject: can you ask him if this is accurate? thanks.
The FCC this week delayed posting comments in the electronic comment filing
system (ECFS), while it modifies the posting schedule in the wake of a huge
number of comments in its open Internet proceeding, an FCC official told TR
Daily today.
Currently, comments filed to ECFS are posted on weekdays at 11 a.m. and 1, 3,

and 5 p.m. but not on weekends. Under the new process, comments can be
posted whenever leadership decides they should be, which could allow them to
posted by the FCC more frequently and reduce backlogs, the official said. The
plan is for comments to now be posted on weekends as well, the official said.
Coding is being tested both for the “on demand” function as well as to enable
comments filed in the open Internet proceeding in WC docket 17-08 via an
electronic inbox established for the docket (TR Daily, April 27) to be pulled into
ECFS. However, additional manual work on those submissions is necessary
before they can be posted so they would not be posted with the “on demand”
function, the official said.
The decision to delay posting comments filed in ECFS took effect the afternoon
of May 10, said the official, adding that some comments would be posted today
and all of them should be posted by the end of this weekend.
Earlier this week, FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray said that delays
experienced by parties attempting to file comments through ECFS were caused
by multiple distributed denial-of service attacks (DDoS), not by a large number
of parties trying to file comments (TR Daily May 8). That problem is not related
to the ECFS posting changes that are being made, a spokesman said.- Paul
Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com
Paul Kirby
Senior Editor
TRDaily
202-842-8920
From: David Bray
To: Ben Ransford
Subject: Re: Volunteering to analyze denial of service logs
Many thanks however there is both sensitive and private information included on the logs that
are massive. If you are curious about what is happening, there has always been an alternative
bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for individuals to
battle-1494533379
Hope this helps.
On May 11, 2017, at 13:48, Ben Ransford (b) (6) wrote:
Dear David,
My team and I would like to volunteer to analyze logs from the denial of service you suffered
on May 7 and thereabouts. We are a team of Ph.D.'s in computer science affiliated with the
University of Washington and would be proud to help FCC with evidentiary claims about this
event.
Let me know if I can help.
-Ben Ransford, Ph.D.

(b) (6)
From: Yvan Beaulieu
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: A message to keep the Internet neutral
Dear M. Pai,
what the FCC experienced recently is not a denial of service attack.

It's just a message from concerned citizens about Net neutrality.
It's worth listening to.
Regards,
Yvan Beaulieu
--
Yvan Beaulieu PhD
Président, CryptoSémio Inc.
Analyste (informatique, sécurité et sémiotique)
Analyst (IT, security and semiotics)
PhD (Sémiotique de la cryptologie/Semiotics and cryptology)
Membre de l'AQIII
+++++++++++++
CryptoSémio :
There is more to information security than computer security. (c)
La sécurité de l'information c'est plus que la sécurité de
l'informatique. (c)
+++++++++++++
--
Yvan Beaulieu PhD
Président, CryptoSémio Inc.
Conseiller (sécurité de l'information, gouvernance et sémiotique)
Advisor (information security, governance and semiotics)
PhD (Sémiotique de la cryptologie/Semiotics and cryptology)
Membre de l'AQIII
+++++++++++++
CryptoSémio :
There is more to information security than computer security. (c)
La sécurité de l'information c'est plus que la sécurité de l'informatique. (c)
+++++++++++++
To: Kayleen Reynolds
Subject: Re: 17-108 Denial of Service attack

On May 8, 2017, at 22:55, Kayleen Reynolds(b) (6) wrote:
Dear Sir,
I would like to encourage you to release your logs to an independent security expert so it can
be ascertained who or what slowed down your site Sunday May 7th. I personally had to try for
12 hours before my objection to these changes were registered.
An independent agent needs to look at this situation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kayleen Reynolds
From: Diane Morrison
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: WSJ article on ECFS
thanks for sharing
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-service-are-latest-weapons-in-net-neutrality-battle-1494533379
Bots, Denial of Service Are Latest Weapons in Net

Neutrality Battle
Dirty tricks partly blamed for disruptions to regulator’s comments
system
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed paring back or eliminating many Obama-era net neutrality rules. Photo:
Pau Barrena/Bloomberg News
By
John D. McKinnon
May 11, 2017 4:09 p.m. ET
42 COMMENTS
COMMUNICATIONS DAILY
From: Brian Hart
To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani
Subject: RE: CQ Researcher internet/technology article
(b) (5)

From: Ajit Pai
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Nicholas Degani <Nicholas.Degani@fcc.gov>; Brian

(b)
(5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: Ajit Pai <Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov>; Nicholas Degani <Nicholas.Degani@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Ajit Pai
To: Nicholas Degani <Nicholas.Degani@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian

(b) (5)

From: Nicholas Degani
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Ajit Pai
<Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: CQ Researcher internet/technology article

(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry

To: Brian Hart; Ajit Pai
Cc: Nicholas Degani
(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart
Cc: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Nicholas Degani <Nicholas.Degani@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Ajit Pai
To: Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Ajit Pai
Subject: FW: CQ Researcher internet/technology article

From: Anika Reed [mailto:Anika.Reed@sagepub.com]
Subject: CQ Researcher internet/technology article

Good morning Chairman Pai,

My name is Anika Reed, and I’m an editorial assistant with CQ Researcher, a weekly print and online
periodical that covers timely topics in longform reports. I’m working on a shorter report for CQR
about the latest updates and possible future changes in ISP regulations, net neutrality and
telecommunications mergers. I think your voice would be an expert opinion to hear on in this story,
and I am interested in interviewing you. I’m working on deadline for this story, so please get back to
me at your earliest convenience and let me know if you have time for a brief interview this week.

Best regards,
Anika

--
Anika Reed
Editorial Assistant
CQ Researcher and SAGE Business Researcher
SAGE Publishing
2600 Virginia Ave NW, Suite 600
USA

T: 202-729-1438
www.sagepublishing.com
www.cqpress.com

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi
Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

From: Brian Hart
To: Matthew Berry; Ajit Pai; Nicholas Degani
(b) (5)

From: Matthew Berry
To: Ajit Pai <Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov>; Nicholas Degani <Nicholas.Degani@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Ajit Pai
To: Nicholas Degani <Nicholas.Degani@fcc.gov>; Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian

(b) (5)

From: Nicholas Degani
To: Matthew Berry <Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov>; Brian Hart <Brian.Hart@fcc.gov>; Ajit Pai
<Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov>
Subject: Re: CQ Researcher internet/technology article

(b) (5)
From: Matthew Berry

To: Brian Hart; Ajit Pai
Cc: Nicholas Degani
(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Ajit Pai

(b) (5)

From: Brian Hart

(b) (5)

From: Ajit Pai
Subject: FW: CQ Researcher internet/technology article

From: Anika Reed [mailto:Anika.Reed@sagepub.com]
Subject: CQ Researcher internet/technology article

Good morning Chairman Pai,

My name is Anika Reed, and I’m an editorial assistant with CQ Researcher, a weekly print and online
periodical that covers timely topics in longform reports. I’m working on a shorter report for CQR
about the latest updates and possible future changes in ISP regulations, net neutrality and
telecommunications mergers. I think your voice would be an expert opinion to hear on in this story,
and I am interested in interviewing you. I’m working on deadline for this story, so please get back to
me at your earliest convenience and let me know if you have time for a brief interview this week.

Best regards,
Anika

--
Anika Reed
Editorial Assistant
CQ Researcher and SAGE Business Researcher
SAGE Publishing
2600 Virginia Ave NW, Suite 600
USA

T: 202-729-1438
www.sagepublishing.com
www.cqpress.com

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi
Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

From: David Bray
To: John Ackerly
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Discovery call / Customer Advisory Board / Verizon
(b) (6)
Should you be interested, here's a draft blog post/press release I've prepped for Chairman and
his office should they want to share more details on the interesting events of the last week.
Please keep close hold for now.
Many thanks.
Draft Title: The FCC's Commenting Process in our Digital Era

Draft Post:

intended to share what we can on topics relating to that. First, some background on how the
system works.

Our electronic comment filing system has largely replaced mail-based submissions. Folks can
submit individual comments with an attachment – typically used by practitioners filing lengthy
briefs – or an “express reply” for a very quick individual comment. Before the recent Internet
Freedom proceeding 17-108 started, we also stood up a backup mechanism for bulk uploads
using a Comma Spreadsheet Values (CSV) format akin to a spreadsheet which has been done
for other high profile proceedings in the past. This mechanism was intentionally established
for bulk submission of comments back in 2014 and again this year, whereas the electronic
comment filing system was intended for individual filers.

The FCC’s electronic comment filing system have is hosted by commercial cloud services so
the cloud provider could spin up more servers if necessary. The system also has an Application
Programming Interface (API) for submissions. This avoids the problems faced by our legacy
system, when users deployed automated programs, or bots, to crawl our webpages and
submit or search for comments.

In the past these bots had benign purposes, such as making a copy of any new comment filed
in the system, alerting the public if a new proceeding was open, and other knowledge
discovery tools. Yet the bots crawling the legacy commenting system, over time, created
massive loads on the system. There were times when a certain bot, either poorly coded or
coded to create a large volume of traffic, would tie up the system and make it appear
unavailable for human users.

When we were not cloud-based we would have to stand up additional servers to address the
load. Now that we are cloud-based, it is easier to scale up to high volume events. Yet there still
are limits to how quickly the system can index new comments and scale. To human users, it
would look like the website had "crashed" when really the humans were being denied service
as the old website was too busy responding to the bots. This happened in 2014, though at the
time we chose not to talk about the automated programs denying service to the commenting
system since we didn’t want to invite copycats.

In 2015 and 2016 we made upgrades to new code and cloud-based servers for the
commenting system. We also opted for the use of APIs instead of vs. web-crawling bots to
reduce the system load. For example, “calling” the API requires all users to get a digital key
and all keys have a set rate for the number of requests that can be done per hour, similar to
Data.gov, to avoid any one API call from overwhelming the system.

Yet some challenges remain. For example, bulk users could request multiple keys for an API
and then use those multiple keys to send streams of high volumes of traffic to the FCC. If they
are using commercial web services it will look legitimate and may in fact be legitimate –
except that their technique is denying service to other individuals who want to file a
comment.

responding to automated requests and thus causes the server to deny other requests – either
human or automated – from providing services, making it look like the system is unavailable to
human users.

were dealing with a human like ReCAPTCHA or NoCAPTCHA, however these systems present
challenges to individuals who have different needs visually or otherwise.

In our internet era, bots and API provide openness and knowledge discovery. Automated
programs also can call the API to file the same comment over and over again and at a much
faster rate than humans. Bots and API also can send high volumes of traffic or make a time-
consuming API calls that do not directly file a comment. If done in large volume at a specific
time this can result in denial of service to other legitimate individuals visiting the commenting
system to leave a comment via the web interface.

FCC wants to be open to everyone. For groups that want to leave comments in bulk in any
docket, we recommend the CSV upload mechanism that has been available since the start of
proceeding 17-108 without interruption. This will allow bulk comments to be received while at
the same time allow individuals to use the website. All comments will be included in the final
record.


From: John Ackerly <jackerly@virtru.com>

To: David Bray
Cc: (b) (5)
Subject: Re: Discovery call / Customer Advisory Board / Verizon

That is great David. Thank you! I know how busy you are.
(b) (6)
Sent from my wireless device
Hi John,
Happy to help -- the next few weeks have the FCC in a period of intense media
focus, perhaps we could aim for around 3:30 or 4pm to chat re: the Discovery call
phone on Thursday, 01 June? Would that work for you?
(b) (6)
-d.
From: John Ackerly <jackerly@virtru.com>

To: David Bray
Subject: Discovery call / Customer Advisory Board / Verizon

David
hope this note finds you well.
Would you be willing to spend 15 minutes on the phone with a consulting firm doing a "voice of the
customer" market study for us?
Your guidance on our roadmap has been invaluable -- especially thinking around leveraging attribute based
access control inherent in the TDF, and framing our differentiators around "last mile" data control, and data
classification.
(b) (6)
Anyway, thanks very much for all your support over the past few years!
John
(b) (6)
John Maxon Ackerly

Chief Executive Officer
202.549.3328 | www.virtru.com
From: Varsha Maheshwari (CTR)
To: Erik Scheibert
Subject: FW: Draft Communique for TRM
Attachments: (b) (6)
(b) (5)
From: Varsha Maheshwari (CTR)

Subject: Draft Communique for TRM
(b) (5)
Varsha Maheshwari (Contractor)

Senior Consultant
Information Technology Center
Office: 202-418-0887
Cell: (b) (6)
From: Bruce Kline
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Individual comment page for net neutrality - broken ?
Ajit Pai,
This is disappointing to see.
I was not able to post to the FCC website because the URL is broken or
not work or offline so please find my individual comment on net
neutrality below.
Please fix the webpage and then notify me so I can go through all that
inconvenient stuff designed to keep citizens comments to a minimum and
make a comment in support of maintaining strong net neutrality. It
would be polite to also apologize to everyone for inconveniencing
them. And how about making it simpler?
Here is what that comment would be.
'' Ajit Pi - I specifically support strong net neutrality backed by

Title II oversight of ISPs. Do not allow ISPs to manipulate the
Internet stream - period. ''
So, basically I agree with John Oliver on Last Week Tonight tonight.
Sincerely
Bruce Kline
(b) (6)
This email was sent to brian.hart@fcc.gov by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA, 22209, USA
From: Matt Green
Subject: Net Neutrality Title II must stay.
I wrote to you last week letting you know of my strong feelings to keep the current Title II
regulations on ISPs. I'm writing again as I was very disappointed to read you've voted at
currently rolling back these regulations, though it may take some time.
Overwhemingly, the public comments support the current regulations. Despite ISPs using
BOTs to SPAM comments in their favor. (That should be an indication of their intentions.)
Title II keeps the power in the hands of the people and the internet open and free to everyone.
I wish I could understand the logic in blindly trusting the ISPs to do the right thing if the
regulation is removed...I promise you they won't.
Please reconsider. The public is asking. I am asking.
Matthew Green
(b) (6)
I am a person. Please feel free to call and check.

To: Venkat Veeramneni (CTR)
Subject: FW: Nice Work at the FCC
On 5/17/17, 12:51 PM, someone claiming to be "Uttam Kumar" <Uttam.Kumar@fcc.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)

Uttam Kumar

Office: (202) 418-2264
uttam.kumar@fcc.gov

From: Chad DiMarzo [mailto:cdimarzo@redhat.com]

To: Uttam Kumar <Uttam.Kumar@fcc.gov>
Cc: Byron Caswell (CTR) <Byron.Caswell.CTR@fcc.gov>; Drew Ramsey <dramsey@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Nice Work at the FCC

Uttam and Byron,

I wanted to follow up on the email below from David Bray and myself.

How does Wednesday, May 31st work for us to come in and have a discussion around the topics below. My Container
Platform Engineer is also available that day.

Please advise either way.

Cheers,

Chad
DiMarzo
Hybrid Cloud Strategist - Federal Civilian Agencies
Red Hat, Inc - Public Sector
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
www.linkedin.com/in/chaddimarzo <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__www.linkedin.com_in_chaddimarzo&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=N2_1II7TQqlHhw6a4GEQoAYyLcloXPAi261nkZzt8Ks&e=>
What
is your Docker Container Strategy? <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__tracking.cirrusinsight.com_544f3f29-2D4e4a-2D4353-2D9ad7-2D73cfde90f972_youtube-2Dcom-
2Dwatch&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=jweRGuDWH6eSwbwGPlohq1JvQXqJEePybBV1eTKXF4c&e=>
Containers
are Linux- Must Read <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tracking.cirrusinsight.com_544f3f29-
2D4e4a-2D4353-2D9ad7-2D73cfde90f972_redhat-2Dcom-2Den-2Dabout-2Dblog-2Dcontainers-2Dare-
2Dlinux&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=XB9fxzLUqbxdXdlMy-Q-
yTme-mxATTchZPnDpTuqR20&e=>

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Chad DiMarzo <cdimarzo@redhat.com> wrote:

David,

Thanks for the introduction.

Uttam and Byron- Nice to meet you. I wanted to discuss with you the ECFS Application. I hope everything is okay
after the DDoS incidents.

I would like to meet with you both and discuss how Red Hat can help the FCC Optimize the ECFS. I am hearing that
ECFS is deployed using docker containers on Red Hat Servers. Red Hat has a technology related to docker containers that
allow
the FCC to further increase optimization (operations and cost). It also allows "running your containers at scale", and
under security "patching hundreds to thousands of containers when vulnerabilities hit", along with running your CI/CD
pipelines within containers.

Below would be the proposed agenda for the meeting:
Demo:

1.) Ease of deployment ( Preventing duplicated work and deployment failures)**

2.) Responding to business needs and requirements faster
3.) Security around Linux Based containers in the cloud

I
will be at the FCC next Monday afternoon 5/15 meeting with the operations folks who run Red Hat on the
infrastructure side of the house. What does your schedule look like before 1:30pm or after 2:30pm.

I look forward to your response.

Cheers,

Chad DiMarzo

Direct (703)748-4458 <tel:%28703%29748-4458>
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
www.linkedin.com/in/chaddimarzo <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__www.linkedin.com_in_chaddimarzo&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=N2_1II7TQqlHhw6a4GEQoAYyLcloXPAi261nkZzt8Ks&e=>
What
3A__tracking.cirrusinsight.com_88de4273-2D3887-2D4799-2D805f-2Dc4f0d959c49f_youtube-2Dcom-
2Dwatch&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=9Jq5N5Q_fjBCdcoS-
mq17Bjne47jPzaokaq6hWy-xVc&e=>
Containers
are Linux- Must Read <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tracking.cirrusinsight.com_88de4273-
2D3887-2D4799-2D805f-2Dc4f0d959c49f_redhat-2Dcom-2Den-2Dabout-2Dblog-2Dcontainers-2Dare-
2Dlinux&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=155pVZvBm2kX5Q7LDv_KEdNrOgyTvFL3IUuiOViqYXA&e=>

Hi Chad,
Certainly on ECFS the two best #ChangeAgents to discuss this with would be ACIO for Tailored Platforms Uttam
Kumar and Senior Advisor Byron Caswell, both cc'ed. Share your proposal and see what they think as possible next steps.
Many thanks,
-d:
On May 5, 2017, at 14:28, Chad DiMarzo <cdimarzo@redhat.com> wrote:
David,
This is great advice. One of the many reasons I like supporting the FCC, is all of the content you mentioned that I can
soak up regarding technology initiatives.
I have done some homework over the last few weeks concerning the ECFS Application.
I would like to meet with her to discuss how Red Hat can help the FCC Optimize ECFS. I am hearing that ECFS is
deployed in docker containers on Red Hat Servers. Red Hat has a technology related to docker containers that allow the
FCC to
further increase optimization (operations and cost). It also increases security while optimizing the application
environment. Below would be the proposed agenda for the meeting:
Demo:


This is one example of ways I try to add value around the Federal Government. Government Leadership as you
mentioned, does not have time to tell industry what they are doing. It is my job to find out.

Chad DiMarzo

Direct (703)748-4458 <tel:%28703%29748-4458>
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
www.linkedin.com/in/chaddimarzo <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__tracking.cirrusinsight.com_88de4273-2D3887-2D4799-2D805f-2Dc4f0d959c49f_urldefense-2Dproofpoint-2Dcom-
2Dv2-2Durl&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=lFmQ7QZtypVhg1DBsaPknW7JMzm3_A3wgIBFzyJLewU&e=>
What
2Dv2-2Durl1&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=I2AjwJ0yev41U_Pz4BdGzw9x8hmLZUR71mi6dFWBQI4&e=>
Containers
2D3887-2D4799-2D805f-2Dc4f0d959c49f_urldefense-2Dproofpoint-2Dcom-2Dv2-
2Durl2&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=Iuthe89diF-
vK5ATA5Jc7CY4XQcWpdl9pUM4cejWEdQ&e=>

My advice:
* Read more about what we're doing and our strategy, hear some of our folks speak at different events, get to
understand what you can from the open (and we have a lot in the open) about what we're
doing and our challenges
* Then come with a specific pitch to show a solution that could address those specific challenges via a demo in our
Technology Experience Center. Show, like you would to a VC, what value could be
provided.
* Then we'll make our time -- otherwise we get 60-70 cold call emails + 10-12 voice calls a day, especially right about
now w/ Congress finally approving a budget. What we're looking for is not someone
that wants us to make time to explain what we're doing to them -- rather someone who can research and learn what
we're doing and make a specific pitch based on what's out there from events we've spoken at and shared our challenges.
Hope this helps,
-d.
________________________________________
From: Chad DiMarzo <cdimarzo@redhat.com>

To: David Bray
David,
No worries, I know it is short notice.
I know you contributed to our Government Symposium last year, so it would be great to get you involved sometime
soon with all of the events we have coming up. I have a few things in mind and will get back to
you with some ideas.
In the meantime as long as you're okay with it, I plan to reach out to your
Deputy CIO for Tech Christine Calvosa in hopes of discussing Multi-Cloud and Open Source strategies. Any advice
you could share around engaging with her would be greatly appreciated.
Have a great weekend and thanks again for the responses.
Cheers,
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458 <tel:%28703%29748-4458>

(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=FNFYbiynllgYX748Avz8uCy6KoVfyvEEYgWkqEZHwuQ&e=>
What
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=pL4TnztN_QAOP4eKFAl6qjuJl6ifavktS4a3jcyBmrE&e=>
Containers
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=7NfGleoXvnNyF2AawdXy2CodpvuolBK3yt3ddITn0y4&e=>


I'd love to chat however I'm booked for that Friday -- perhaps in the future?

Best regards.

________________________________________
To: David Bray
David,
Thanks for the response.
I definitely understand your point, and have an idea.
I might have a great opportunity to share in a public venue, with Red Hat, industry, and with a few of your government
peers.
I should have offered this to you earlier, but here are the details:
MeriTalk is hosting a Federal Executive round table on the morning of
Friday, May 19th from

8:00am-10:00am. Arun Oberoi, the VP of all sales and services for Red Hat will be a participant at this breakfast
roundtable and it would be great for you to participate in conversations with other thought leaders in relation to
Innovation, Open Source
and Open Government.
Can I extend you an invite for this event?
Location: 1777 F Street, NW, Washington DC 20006
Time:
8:00am - 10:00am
What: Discussions around Emerging IT Modernization efforts of the new administration and how the proposed
Management Government Technology (MGT) Act can move us forward.
Please let me know as we would love to see you participate
I look forward to
your response.
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458 <tel:%28703%29748-4458>

(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=MN65_WACcW3zekS88nUEdWV-CkT2cRWuDhDuhJlMP4w&e=>
What
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=uQPL5WoJzz9uchufl-
pT6NCZ_TqoZlGIqU6Qr243xvo&e=>
Containers
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=PfFEFHE2-
62KevaG4HDodVaO1zzUzaWdSpAejV5p_jg&e=>


Hi Chad,

I have to be cautious about giving advice that isn't public or shared with other vendors. Perhaps we could meet at a
future public event?

Best regards,
-d.
________________________________________

Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 1:26:44 PM
To: David Bray
Hi David,
I wanted to follow up on the email below and see if either of those times worked for you, I tentatively blocked them off
if they do.
Cheers,
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458 <tel:%28703%29748-4458>

(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=CUp8r6V8hL9HI7__j6nflj7x_Aki35t6XOhHl_nsfhk&e=>
What
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=x8Ke7DEXurdMt-
dVeQQxfnJg9ih0Ts_hLGwYn7l5fl0&e=>
Containers
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=_q4e86w3qDthQ6IsImqfJhufn5dZJinfxbBc6G6ZQcg&e=>
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Chad DiMarzo <cdimarzo@redhat.com> wrote:
Good Morning David,
I wanted to see if I could grab 30-45 minutes from you either the week of May 15th or May 22nd. Like yourself, I am
trying to change the Federal Mindset when it comes to building, deploying and managing software.
I hope you can understand my persistence. Open Source software is changing the world :)
Cheers,
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458 <tel:%28703%29748-4458>
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=OzMgdmQDuWxn-
IN1jRuRUJyiMCb1NTgLRWXuvqOkgcI&e=>
What
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=J-
EqLUYxhM302GL0CMz8MPVNB1j_G2pbjCGv7Wp4cwY&e=>
Containers
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=BskOahktPQSCN6RQmlReOz4YGqd6TOWnh-JiqaoDlH8&e=>
David,
The article below from
Nextgov.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__Nextgov.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=TiFajvzHRy70agrmP8N9c-
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=-
pR02a_c0RUEiO8VCa7XsAAeNpqo8NAQFs2llCgklKA&e=> truly shows the hard work and dedication you have put in
place at the FCC around cutting cost and modernizing. I wanted to see if we could set aside some time to discuss your
plans to maximize your Cloud Investment through automation and building
a "Multi-Cloud" strategy. Take a look at the article below where NASA uses an automation tool to maximize their
AWS investment.

http://www.nextgov.com/cloud-computing/2017/03/its-possible-cut-legacy-spending-heres-fcc-did-it/136268/
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tracking.cirrusinsight.com_88de4273-2D3887-2D4799-2D805f-
2Dc4f0d959c49f_urldefense-2Dproofpoint-2Dcom-2Dv2-
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=6CLt-
0fdpnXvNeExltyfNDTiQuq0t_SkQp-JlTpuPKg&e=>

NASA INCREASING CLOUD EFFICIENCY WITH ANSIBLE TOWER:

https://www.ansible.com/hubfs/pdf/Ansible-Case-Study-NASA.pdf?t=1491938374901
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tracking.cirrusinsight.com_88de4273-2D3887-2D4799-2D805f-
2Dc4f0d959c49f_urldefense-2Dproofpoint-2Dcom-2Dv2-
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=lsKHVCqdgYE5kTToT0P7A96BhBWLUQqhE3kQzwf1ahQ&e=>

How does the afternoon of 4/24 or 4/25 look?

Let me know either way.

Thanks,

Chad DiMarzo
Account Executive- Federal Civilian Agencies

Direct (703)748-4458 <tel:%28703%29748-4458>
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=UPYCwzk4cGKR_QhAf47q11IOHRdzYqz_0foNkYXODuQ&e=>

What
637_VamityuwkjVdY_OXE&m=6tkhbGAXzJjFsEqMq-jWKRBatJ1FV-cFJjS9rSKkN1E&s=3mOXrh0luPmJ-
Y0kLBLQCT_HVcITicoYQFj7SMqCpMg&e=>

From: Chad DiMarzo
To: David Bray
David,
Have you seen the invite for DevNation? Figured I could use this as an opportunity to share with you and
maybe you can pass along to your #ChangeAgents so they can take advantage of the event as well.
Who is running Docker Containers in the Federal Government? Join us on Thursday, June 8th in
Washington, DC for DevNation. USCIS Director of Dev Rob Brown, Director of Security Adrian Monza
and Director of Ops Steve Grunch will be co-presenting at DevNation on their story with DevOpSec and
their deployment of Docker with OpenShift.
This is an opportunity for you to learn from:
Teams in federal government using open source technology today

Innovators in the private sector
Industry leaders talking about the business transformation that has revolved around the use of
open source technologies
Hands-on workshops and labs
http://devnationfederal.org/#welcome
Hope to see you there!
Chad DiMarzo
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
www.linkedin.com/in/chaddimarzo
What is your Docker Container Strategy?
Containers are Linux- Must Read
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Chad DiMarzo <cdimarzo@redhat.com> wrote:

David,
Thanks for the introduction.
Uttam and Byron- Nice to meet you. I wanted to discuss with you the ECFS Application. I
hope everything is okay after the DDoS incidents.
I would like to meet with you both and discuss how Red Hat can help the FCC Optimize the
ECFS. I am hearing that ECFS is deployed using docker containers on Red Hat Servers. Red
Hat has a technology related to docker containers that allow the FCC to further increase
optimization (operations and cost). It also allows "running your containers at scale", and
under security "patching hundreds to thousands of containers when vulnerabilities hit",
along with running your CI/CD pipelines within containers.
Below would be the proposed agenda for the meeting:

Demo:
I will be at the FCC next Monday afternoon 5/15 meeting with the operations folks who run
Red Hat on the infrastructure side of the house. What does your schedule look like before
1:30pm or after 2:30pm.
Cheers,
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com

Hi Chad,
Certainly on ECFS the two best #ChangeAgents to discuss this with would be ACIO for
Tailored Platforms Uttam Kumar and Senior Advisor Byron Caswell, both cc'ed. Share
your proposal and see what they think as possible next steps.
Many thanks,
-d:
On May 5, 2017, at 14:28, Chad DiMarzo <cdimarzo@redhat.com> wrote:
David,
This is great advice. One of the many reasons I like supporting the FCC, is all of the
content you mentioned that I can soak up regarding technology initiatives.
I have done some homework over the last few weeks concerning the ECFS Application.
I would like to meet with her to discuss how Red Hat can help the FCC Optimize ECFS. I
am hearing that ECFS is deployed in docker containers on Red Hat Servers. Red Hat has a
technology related to docker containers that allow the FCC to further increase
optimization (operations and cost). It also increases security while optimizing the
application environment. Below would be the proposed agenda for the meeting:
Demo:
This is one example of ways I try to add value around the Federal Government.
Government Leadership as you mentioned, does not have time to tell industry what they
are doing. It is my job to find out.
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
My advice:
* Read more about what we're doing and our strategy, hear some of our folks speak at
different events, get to understand what you can from the open (and we have a lot in
the open) about what we're doing and our challenges
* Then come with a specific pitch to show a solution that could address those specific
challenges via a demo in our Technology Experience Center. Show, like you would to a
VC, what value could be provided.
* Then we'll make our time -- otherwise we get 60-70 cold call emails + 10-12 voice calls
a day, especially right about now w/ Congress finally approving a budget. What we're
looking for is not someone that wants us to make time to explain what we're doing to
them -- rather someone who can research and learn what we're doing and make a
specific pitch based on what's out there from events we've spoken at and shared our
challenges.
Hope this helps,

-d.

To: David Bray
David,
No worries, I know it is short notice.
I know you contributed to our Government Symposium last year, so it would be great to
get you involved sometime soon with all of the events we have coming up. I have a few
things in mind and will get back to you with some ideas.
In the meantime as long as you're okay with it, I plan to reach out to your Deputy CIO for Tech
Christine Calvosa in hopes of discussing Multi-Cloud and Open Source strategies. Any advice you
could share around engaging with her would be greatly appreciated.
Have a great weekend and thanks again for the responses.
Cheers,
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
I'd love to chat however I'm booked for that Friday -- perhaps in the future?
Best regards.

To: David Bray
David,
Thanks for the response.
I definitely understand your point, and have an idea.
I might have a great opportunity to share in a public venue, with Red Hat, industry,
and with a few of your government peers.
I should have offered this to you earlier, but here are the details:
MeriTalk is hosting a Federal Executive round table on the morning of Friday, May
19th from 8:00am-10:00am. Arun Oberoi, the VP of all sales and services for Red Hat
will be a participant at this breakfast roundtable and it would be great for you to
participate in conversations with other thought leaders in relation to Innovation, Open
Source and Open Government.
Can I extend you an invite for this event?
Location: 1777 F Street, NW, Washington DC 20006
Time: 8:00am - 10:00am
What: Discussions around Emerging IT Modernization efforts of the new

administration and how the proposed Management Government Technology (MGT)
Act can move us forward.
Please let me know as we would love to see you participate
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
Hi Chad,
I have to be cautious about giving advice that isn't public or shared with other
vendors. Perhaps we could meet at a future public event?
Best regards,
-d.

Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 1:26:44 PM
To: David Bray
Hi David,
I wanted to follow up on the email below and see if either of those times worked for
you, I tentatively blocked them off if they do.
Cheers,
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
Good Morning David,
I wanted to see if I could grab 30-45 minutes from you either the week of May
15th or May 22nd. Like yourself, I am trying to change the Federal Mindset when
it comes to building, deploying and managing software.
I hope you can understand my persistence. Open Source software is changing the
world :)
Cheers,
Chad DiMarzo
Direct (703)748-4458
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Chad DiMarzo <cdimarzo@redhat.com>

wrote:
David,
The article below from Nextgov.com truly shows the hard work and dedication
you have put in place at the FCC around cutting cost and modernizing. I wanted
to see if we could set aside some time to discuss your plans to maximize your
Cloud Investment through automation and building a "Multi-Cloud" strategy.
Take a look at the article below where NASA uses an automation tool to
maximize their AWS investment.
http://www.nextgov.com/cloud-computing/2017/03/its-possible-cut-legacy-
spending-heres-fcc-did-it/136268/
NASA INCREASING CLOUD EFFICIENCY WITH ANSIBLE TOWER:
https://www.ansible.com/hubfs/pdf/Ansible-Case-Study-NASA.pdf?
t=1491938374901
How does the afternoon of 4/24 or 4/25 look?
Let me know either way.
Thanks,
Chad DiMarzo
Account Executive- Federal Civilian Agencies
Direct (703)748-4458
(b) (6)
cdimarzo@redhat.com

From: Bob Lefsetz
To: Kurt Schroeder
Subject: The Oliver Paradigm
Me, me, ME!
That's the mantra of the musician.
I'm a nobody on the way to somewhere. I'm big but not big enough. I'm a superstar and I've got a new release and
you've got to HELP ME!
Like me, share my post, listen on Spotify, subjugate your own interests on behalf of mine.
But that's not how John Oliver does it.
Oliver has created a club, a tribe, a group of believers who will follow him anywhere and do anything for him. But
he doesn't ask for anything for himself. Instead, he motivates his people in a cause! And if you know anything about
millennials, you know they're cause-driven. Every business has a charity component. Assets are secondary,
otherwise they'd all be in pursuit of hot iron instead of living in L.A. without cars and taking Uber, unthinkable to
their parents. It's all about meaning and belonging.
And Oliver has tapped into that.
So during the show he's a ringleader. Pointing out the inanities of society. Going into depth on abuses you might be
unaware of. Actually, it's not that different from the Howard Stern paradigm, but Howard keeps himself separate, he
keeps wanting to take himself out of the equation, pointing out problems that piss him off but not imploring his
audience to take action. But when he does...
Stern moves mountains. His fans buy products, he helped Christie Todd Whitman get elected. Stern has a better
bond with his audience than any rock star.
And John Oliver's got that same essence. But his game is to use his power for the common good.
Net neutrality. No one cares anymore. Kind of like privacy. We can't fight the same war over and over and over
again. Hell, Oliver himself has already done a long segment on net neutrality.
Only this time, after pointing out how the government makes it so hard to express your displeasure, he reveals a
shortcut, wherein you can go directly to the site he created, click once and be brought to the page where you can tell
the FCC where to go.
It's ingenious. It's like hanging with your high school buddies and hearing someone reveal a great prank and saying
I'M DOWN WITH THAT, LET'S DO IT!
Yes, there is a sense of humor, which none of those in Washington have whatsoever. We can run rings around them
if we just unite and use our brains.
This is the future of entertainment. It's not about top-down worship.
Hell, look at music festivals. The lineup is announced AFTER tickets go on sale! Proving that the festival itself is a
greater attraction than the talent.
Think about this. You're nothing without your audience, but your audience no longer wants to be passive, and it's
only tweens who pay mindless fealty to entertainers. Whereas modern masters can move mountains and burnish
their own image by focusing on the EXTERNAL!
It's not as simple as donating a dollar a ticket to charity.
It's got to be active. On both sides, both the performer and the audience member.
You're a team, of disrupters. Unite us and we have untold power.
Furthermore, the first time Oliver attacked net neutrality his acolytes crashed the government servers. Which had
them doing dances in their brains, they stuck it to the man, the somnambulant press covered the story. That's right,
the media just reports, WE MAKE THE NEWS!
And you too can make it. If like John Oliver you harness the power of your audience not for yourself, but for good.
Think about it...
"Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver": https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D92vuuZt7wak-26utm-5Fsource-3Dphplist5839-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-
26utm-5Fcontent-3Dtext-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DThe-2BOliver-
2BParadigm&d=DwIBaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=vxwn-
Qb33ct3Pe2mCULdYz12P7TGUx5gEvW1Me8mJOo&m=xpqgf7uEFrwaza45BLbpJTO9-
lu9ucPYL4dHJAeviFE&s=AnheoXD6kNW6FSj-61WixBub3_HAWBgfrLVrGW916iI&e=
You can watch the whole thing, or forward to fifteen minutes in, where he says "So sadly, it seems once more, we
the people must take this matter into our own hands"
P.S. Google News shows over 100,000 links on the search "john oliver net neutrality." Want to reach people? Don't
make it about you, make it about EVERYBODY!
--
Visit the archive: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lefsetz.com_wordpress_-3Futm-5Fsource-
3Dphplist5839-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dtext-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DThe-2BOliver-
lu9ucPYL4dHJAeviFE&s=2_dCOlF9HPj9C8Ot8UL8DMSv4jJkqQ7fqyhJIUXIb0M&e=
--
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_lefsetz-3Futm-5Fsource-3Dphplist5839-
26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dtext-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DThe-2BOliver-
lu9ucPYL4dHJAeviFE&s=5blix0rL4XKGKiCP2fHZs4CQb3hIQsRS0TZOXCoY4H0&e=
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lefsetz.com_lists_-3Fp-3Dsubscribe-26id-3D1-26utm-
5Fsource-3Dphplist5839-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dtext-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DThe-
2BOliver-2BParadigm&d=DwIBaQ&c=y0h0omCe0jAUGr4gAQ02Fw&r=vxwn-
lu9ucPYL4dHJAeviFE&s=f6cuVWadSgaG8c03w9E6j1DJYS4xE9f3v1Gk8lqpBUM&e=
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-

3A__lefsetz.com_lists_-3Fp-3Dunsubscribe-26uid-3D83e5daa32d92bc6c1065e20375f3b859-26utm-5Fsource-
3Dphplist5839-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dtext-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DThe-2BOliver-
lu9ucPYL4dHJAeviFE&s=n_Td-7HUBWV5bdvAD9QxuVfVchzsATUf1sjiBmBdtHY&e=
To change your email address https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lefsetz.com_lists_-3Fp-

3Dpreferences-26uid-3D83e5daa32d92bc6c1065e20375f3b859-26utm-5Fsource-3Dphplist5839-26utm-5Fmedium-
3Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dtext-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DThe-2BOliver-
lu9ucPYL4dHJAeviFE&s=YPpXVZ1IWW4UCqnqysKCUIYRt7JJecyHHDG78bIbvKU&e=
-- powered by phpList, www.phplist.com --

From: Carrie Cuthbert, FreePress.net
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: These are scary times
free press action fund
Please chip in $10 to help save the internet. Every dollar you give gets us closer to our
goal of raising $100K in 100 days for this crucial fight.
Ajit,
You know how FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is plotting to kill Net Neutrality? And how, if he gets away
with it, we’ll lose the most important platform we have for free speech, dissent and resisting
Trump’s authoritarian policies?
That’s why we’re working 24/7 to make sure Pai’s plan fails. The good news is, we just got a big
boost from John Oliver. After the comedian’s segment on Net Neutrality1 aired, so many
people flooded the FCC with comments opposing Pai’s scheme that the agency’s
site crashed.2 And yesterday, a full quarter of the Senate3 signed on to a series of
letters slamming Pai’s plan, including more than a dozen women senators who cited
the crucial importance of Net Neutrality for women organizers and women-owned
businesses.
That’s a great start, but to defeat Pai millions more people will need to speak up in the weeks
ahead. Our organizers are rallying folks across the country to fight back but we need to do more
— and fast — to win. We’re aiming to raise $100K in small donations in the next 100 days to
pump up our defense of Net Neutrality, and need your help to pull it off.
Ajit, please chip in $10 today to help save the internet, free speech and our power to
resist Trump’s dangerous policies.
I don’t have to tell you that these are scary times. The Trump administration is demonizing the
press, cracking down on dissent and — as the firing of FBI Director James Comey shows —
threatening the rights of independent law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations. This
is not what democracy looks like.
We can’t fight any of this without the open internet. Please chip in $10 or more today to
save Net Neutrality.
When people use the open internet to organize, we pose a serious threat to Pai’s agenda —
and he knows it. And the bigger and louder we get, the more we threaten Trump’s agenda —
and he knows it. That’s why Net Neutrality has been among the Trump
administration’s top targets from the get-go.
Don’t let Pai and Trump win: Donate $10 or more to save Net Neutrality.
We’ve won this fight before and with your help, we can do it again. Thanks so much.
Carrie, Candace and the rest of the Free Press Action Fund team
freepress.net
P.S. We don’t take a cent from business, government or political parties.

That’s how we stay independent — and it’s why your gift of $10 today is so
essential. Thank you!
1. "Net Neutrality II," Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, May 7, 2017:
https://act.freepress.net/go/16836?t=8&akid=6394.10676279.SaFSWx
2. "John Oliver Tackles Net Neutrality Again, Crashes FCC Comments Site — Again," Ars
Technica, May 8, 2017: https://act.freepress.net/go/16839?t=10&akid=6394.10676279.SaFSWx
3. "25 Percent of the Senate Speaks Out for Real Net Neutrality," Free Press Action Fund, May
9, 2017: https://act.freepress.net/go/16840?t=12&akid=6394.10676279.SaFSWx
The Free Press Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization fighting for your rights to connect and
communicate. The Free Press Action Fund does not support or oppose any candidate for public
office. Learn more at freepress.net.
Join us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time.

From: Lauren Wilson
To: D"wana Terry; James Brown
Subject: Fw: Tweet by Last Week Tonight on Twitter
FYI John Oliver did a net neutrality segment ‎tonight and urged viewers to comment
From: Lauren Wilson <laurenwilson6@icloud.com>
To: Lauren Wilson
Subject: Tweet by Last Week Tonight on Twitter
Last Week Tonight (@LastWeekTonight)

5/7/17, 11:29 PM
Internet commenters: Visit gofccyourself.com and urge the FCC to keep strong net
neutrality rules backed by Title II.
Download the Twitter app

From: Michael Krigsman
To: Mark Wigfield
Cc: David Bray
Thanks. Actually, I decided the show itself is kind of beside the point for this article. My
perspective is to demonstrate the kind of issues that CIOs face.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak This should be John Oliver’s show from 5/7
From: Michael Krigsman [mailto:mkrigsman@cxotalk.com]

Thanks!
From: David Bray
From: Mark Stone
To: James Brown
Subject: RE: article
(b) (5)
From: James Brown

<Dwana.Terry@fcc.gov>; Lauren Wilson <Lauren.Wilson@fcc.gov>
Subject: article
(b)http://freebeacon.com/issues/john-olivers-net-neutrality-campaign-filled-bots-fake-
(5)
comments-racist-attacks-fcc-chairman/
John Oliver's Net Neutrality

Campaign Filled With Bots,
Fake Comments, Racist Attacks
Against FCC Chairman
freebeacon.com
John Oliver's "grassroots" activism against FCC

Chairman Ajit Pai is full of bot accounts, fake
comments, and death threats against the
chairman.
From: Patrick Webre
To: James Brown
Subject: RE: article
(b) (5)
From: James Brown

<Dwana.Terry@fcc.gov>; Lauren Wilson <Lauren.Wilson@fcc.gov>
Subject: article
(b)http://freebeacon.com/issues/john-olivers-net-neutrality-campaign-filled-bots-fake-
(5)

freebeacon.com

chairman.
From: James Brown
Subject: article
http://freebeacon.com/issues/john-olivers-net-neutrality-campaign-filled-bots-fake-

freebeacon.com

chairman.
From: faheed choudhry
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Bc John Oliver
Please preserve net neutrality and title II. Thanks.

To: Melissa Kadri
Subject: Re: DDoS Attacks

On May 9, 2017, at 20:26, Melissa Kadri (b) (6) wrote:
Good Afternoon,
My name is Melissa and I am very concerned about the FCC's claims that there was a DDoS
attack around the exact same time John Oliver's segments about net neutrality hit the air. It
seems extremely coincidental. The public deserves to know what happened, and in order for
that to happen, the FCC has to release its logs to independent security analysts so that we
know what actually happened. Otherwise, everyone will believe the FCC and Ajit Pai are
lying about the DDoS attacks.
Thank you.
-Melissa Kadri
From: David Bray
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: DDOS lies, Protect Net Neutrality

From:(
b
To: David Bray
Subject: DDOS lies, Protect Net Neutrality
My Name is Robert Beitner, I live in Chicago IL and am a citizen of the United States. You’re being
intentionally misleading, and trying to claim that the surge in traffic from large numbers of people
attempting to access your site through John Oliver’s GoFCCYourself.com redirect amounts to a
“DDoS” attack, to let yourselves off the hook for essentially silencing large numbers of people by not
having a properly functioning site to receive comments from the public about an important issue. If
you really claim that you were attacked then release your logs for an independent security analysis
or drop this. Its your job to serve the public and we are demanding you keep and protect Obama era
Net Neutrality, it is not something that’s up for discussion. Now do your job and listen to us.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Darcy McCartney
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Do your job!
Mr. Pai..
After seeing a segment about net neutrality on Last Week with John Oliver, I decided I had to
write.
It seems that you are trying to put the policing of the ISP providers in their own hands. Has
that ever worked?
When has an industry ever policed itself when profits are at stake? It seems to me that this is
the reason we have
regulations in the first place!
Preserve Title II !!!!!
Darcy McCartney
Kauai, HI
From: (b) (6)
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Don"t be scared ! # John Oliver
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

From: Lurie, Patricia
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Fault on comment page for title 2
Dear Mr. Pai,

I tried to place my opinion on theFCC website via the John Oliver link. It appears to have been set up to limit
submissions due to not accepting "filers" names and therefore preventing submission of my opinion.
I am trying not to be of a conspiratorial mindset, but this is very interesting.
Consequently please ensure my opinion is considered as being against changes in title 2, and to continue in the
regulatory system we exist in today.
Sincerely,
Trish Lurie
This message has been sent from my iPhone, please excuse any voice to type errors.
Patricia Lurie RN, MBA
Director Nursing
Beaumont Health- Royal Oak
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachments is the property of Beaumont Health and is intended for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). It may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message, and reply to
the sender regarding the error in a separate email.
Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is
included in this message.
From: Hilary Sprangers
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: FCC Mission and Values
Good afternoon,
I was just watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and wanted to contact the FCC
about net neutrality rules, as he suggested in his May 7 episode. I understand that the contact
form was flooded with replies, and was removed from the website. I also understand that the
purpose of the contact form, and its replacement with email, is to locate individuals on the
internet that are able to investigate government and corporate actions. Being that the stated
purpose of the FCC is to regulate interstate and international communication by radio,
television, wire, satellite and cable, I'm wondering why the FCC is spending its valuable time
searching for people on the internet that are looking into illegal activities. I'm concerned that
locating these whistle-blowers could put them in danger, and hide the truth of what may be
occurring, which makes it more difficult for the FCC to regulate interstate and international
communication. Thank you for taking the time to read my grievance.
Have a great day,
Hilary Sprangers
From: Ajit Pai
To: R Wolf
Subject: Re: FCC Proceeding 17-108
Thanks!
From: R Wolf
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: FCC Proceeding 17-108
We stand with John Oliver in his exposure of your blatant abuse of your position and
ignorance of this proceeding.
You are a ridiculous human being in all senses and we do not support you.
Your dishonesty goes beyond damaging your reputation and person, but also adds to the
growing proof of the dishonest and shockingly misguided administration you represent.
Regards
The Wolfs

From: Carleton Robinson
To: David Bray
Subject: Re: FCC website brought down by John Oliver"s campaign
Attachments: Logo.png
Absolutely. Thank you very much for that clarification. If we can be of assistance in the
future, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Best,
Carleton Robinson
Regional Director - Enterprise/Federal Sales
Distil Networks
C: (b) (6)
O: 703-910-3516
Video Overview: Learn About Distil Networks In Under Two Minutes
Hi Carleton,
Right now FCC's rules do not include a policy of blocking either duplicate comments or bots.
Nor do we test if someone is a human or not because some groups in the past have claimed
they're filing saved comments on behalf of other humans. It's a legal decision, not an IT one.
Hope this helps,
-d.
From: Carleton Robinson <carleton.robinson@distilnetworks.com>

To: David Bray
Subject: Re: FCC website brought down by John Oliver's campaign
Dr. Bray,
Thanks for the response and clarification. The identical words in many of your comments is
a sign of spam bots leveraged against the FCC. We understand and can fight those bots so
you get a true sense of what the public is trying to communicate to you.
Here are two pieces of information I think you and your team might find helpful.
1) how we help Drupal fight spam bots (since FCC uses Drupal as well):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4-2cJmLyxNRaUw3eVJGMWE2RHc/view?usp=sharing
2) how we help customers manage and secure APIs from overrunning their processes:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1edI4uyV5jipR6f5A1iRgHJaVzMM2M
mlRnVBQcUubZkY/edit#slide=id.g1ca7136d48_0_0
Would it make sense for us to brief you or your Drupal/security team on our solution and
how we can help the FCC fulfill it's mission to receive valid communications with the public?
We'd be happy to give you a 30 minute demo of our solution.
Thanks.
Carleton Robinson
Distil Networks
C: (b) (6)
O: 703-910-3516
Hi Carleston, the website was up -- just that the bombardment denied service to others. If
you are curious as to what is happening, there has always been an alternative easy to use
website at https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments to file comments from
bulk vs. the bulk mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for individuals to
file. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bots-denial-of-service-are-latest-weapons-in-net-
neutrality-battle-1494533379
This is the challenge where you permit APIs. Hope this helps.
On May 11, 2017, at 14:52, Carleton Robinson <carleton.robinson@distilnetworks.com>

wrote:
Dr. Bray,
I understand that John Oliver has turned his fans onto the FCC website to protest proposed changes to Net Neutrality. I
also see from CNBC that these fans may have brought down your site. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/09/fcc-john-
oliver-net-neutrality-plea-may-have-brought-down-fcc-site.html)
I believe we can help you and I am requesting a meeting with you or your team to discuss Distil Networks. Our bot
mitigation solution would help the FCC could fulfill its mission properly by eliminating bot traffic while allowing
legitimate human input to your comments page.
I did some cursory investigation on your comments page (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?

proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC) and clearly 13 out of 25 of the comments were filled out
with form language, which is an indication of bots trying to skew your comments analytics and spamming your website.

Would you be interested in a 15 minute discussion on how Distil Networks could help you identify bots and give you a
true indication of legitimate human comments about your issues.
Please let me know if you're available for a 10-15 minute discussion on bot mitigation this week or there is someone
within the FCC we can present our solution to.
Very respectfully,
Carleton Robinson
Distil Networks
C: (b) (6)
O: 703-910-3516
<Logo.png>
To: Carleton Robinson
Subject: Re: FCC website brought down by John Oliver"s campaign
Hi Carleston, the website was up -- just that the bombardment denied service to others. If you
are curious as to what is happening, there has always been an alternative easy to use website
ECFS site busy responding to high traffic. We have noticed some bulk filers of lots of
comments are using the individual mechanism (ECFS) to file comments in bulk vs. the bulk
mechanism above, potentially making it difficult for individuals to
battle-1494533379
This is the challenge where you permit APIs. Hope this helps.
On May 11, 2017, at 14:52, Carleton Robinson <carleton.robinson@distilnetworks.com>

wrote:
Dr. Bray,
I understand that John Oliver has turned his fans onto the FCC website to protest proposed changes to Net Neutrality. I also
see from CNBC that these fans may have brought down your site. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/09/fcc-john-oliver-net-
neutrality-plea-may-have-brought-down-fcc-site.html)
I believe we can help you and I am requesting a meeting with you or your team to discuss Distil Networks. Our bot
mitigation solution would help the FCC could fulfill its mission properly by eliminating bot traffic while allowing legitimate
human input to your comments page.
I did some cursory investigation on your comments page (https://www fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings name=17-
108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC) and clearly 13 out of 25 of the comments were filled out with form language, which is
an indication of bots trying to skew your comments analytics and spamming your website.
Would you be interested in a 15 minute discussion on how Distil Networks could help you identify bots and give you a true
indication of legitimate human comments about your issues.
Please let me know if you're available for a 10-15 minute discussion on bot mitigation this week or there is someone within
the FCC we can present our solution to.
Very respectfully,
Carleton Robinson
Distil Networks
C: (b) (6)
O: 703-910-3516
<Logo.png>
From: Wilson Vediner
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: I can"t access the proceeding 17-108
Hi,
I've recently watched an episode of John Oliver and his HBO program has alerted me to the
possibility and, given our current administration's penchant for annihilating important populist
protections (eg ACHA, threatened budgetary reductions to the NEA, PBS, Planned
Parenthood, our publicly owned National Park system, etc.) that yourself and perhaps more of
the FCC are willing to reduce protections and regulations for major cable and internet
providers to restrict and reduce the neutrality of the internet and it's content. I can't access the
correct proceeding to complain and so I am sending an email to you directly.
Please. Please leave the internet alone. It's full of awful, deplorable garbage, but it's our
garbage. It's the garbage of democracy. Leave it alone. Leave us all alone in our weird and
necessary self-expression. We the people already lost radio, lost television, and so losing our
likely last mass effort as a species at neutrality against corporations working hard to enthrall
us in a spell of cultural banality is a bridge I think no one on either side of the political
spectrum is willing to cross.
The wealthy have enough. Don't give them this too.
Best,
Wilson Vediner
From: Dorothy Boritz
To: Ajit Pai
I am with John Oliver
Sent from my iPhone

From: J&E
To: Ajit Pai
He seemed to make sense. Please protect MY internet in accordance with the mandate of your job!
Sent from my iPhone

From: Martin Burch
To: Ajit Pai
Hello,
Please preserve Net neutrality and Title II. Thanks, Marty

From: Philip Jurca
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: John oliver will strike again
Gofccyourself.com man
From: Kristen Brannock
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: KEEP NET NEUTRALITY AND SHAME ON YOU
We know what you've done to your website: made the process extremely arduous and now
you've disabled the ability to leave comments. Shame on you. We are watching and you won't
get away with blocking our voices.
Spineless asshole.
And John Oliver's mug is bigger and more famous. You just look like a fucking idiot with
yours.
--
Kristen Brannock, MPH
Sent with Mailtrack

From: Wendy simmons
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Keep net neutrality and title II
Mr. Pai,
What John Oliver said.... Because I agree that companies cannot be trusted to do the right thing!!
Keep net neutrality and Title II!
Sincerely,
Wendy Boswell
Chesapeake, VA
Sent from my iPhone

From: David Shabah
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Keep net neutrality!
Please keep it. We need it. It protects the public. Don't repleal it.
Please watch the new John Oliver video for plenty of information on why we need it:
https://youtu.be/92vuuZt7wak
So I back net neutrality with Title 2 enforcement. Please keep it. Thank you!
From: David Bray
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Links
filers_name=Net%20Neutrality&proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
filers_name=The%20Internet&proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
filers_name=net%20neutrality&proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?filers_name=MyNameJeff&proceedings_name=17-
108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?filers_name=John%20Oliver&proceedings_name=17-
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?filers_name=Title%20II&proceedings_name=17-
From: Keith Chobot
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: More Money? More Control?
Dear Mr Pai:
I have written recently at the request of Mozilla. Now I am writing at the request of of John Oliver.
Equal access to the internet/world wide web for everyone seems fair. Giving large companies the ability to control
access through fees does not seem fair.
Please keep it fair.
Sincerely,
Keith Chobot
From: Bill Mascari
To: Ajit Pai
I support the current net neutrality rules as recently identified by John Oliver!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From: Jill Sanders
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: net neutrality
What John Oliver said!
Sent from my iPhone

From: Deborah Viscomi
To: Ajit Pai
Just to let you know that I am AGAINST Net Neutrality.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to keep up with all of the improprieties that We The People are up against with this
administration and those making decisions for us. I thank goodness for people like John Oliver who keep a
microscope on all of your doings.
We will get "those people” out by using our voices in the best way we can.
What a Mess!
Deborah Viscomi
From: Andrew Galdi
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Net neutrality
President Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, is moving forward with his plan to destroy Obama-era Net Neutrality
regulations. But before the FCC stops regulating internet providers as it does other public utilities — under the Title
II provision of the Telecommunications Act — the agency is soliciting public feedback. YOUR feedback.
Go to gofccyourself.com, set up by John Oliver's Last Week Tonight and let your voice be heard!
Feel free to use my template response if you'd like:
Dear FCC Chairman Ajit Pai,
I fully support the existing Net Neutrality rules, which classify internet service providers under the Title II
provision of the Telecommunications Act. Please DO NOT roll back ANY of these regulations.
I would like to emphasize in particular paragraph 82, which asks for input on whether throttling should be
regulated. In the past ISPs have throttled content based on their own determination of what was lawful or
permissible, and had to be forced to stop in the courts. Isn’t it possible they could do this again? I’m also concerned
by mobile providers who say a plan is “unlimited,” but when you exceed the data cap, only throttle sites and services
that aren’t part of their approved zero-rating network. Thanks for reading my comment.
Best,
Andrew
From: David Bray
To: Collins Walker

From: Collins Walker (b) (6)

To: David Bray

Dear Mr. Bray:
I was upset to read your characterization of attempts by the public to file comments to the FCC, today in the Los
Angeles Times, as denial of service attacks. “'These actors were not attempting to file complains themselves; rather,
they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC,' Bray said.”
This kind of comment might please your bosses but they anger the public. I more imagine that the John Oliver show
“Last Week Tonight,” merely spurred a number of people like me to try and comment at the same time. You
probably realized that also but chose to portray it as some kind of nefarious hacker attack.
On a personal level I would like you to take a moment to consider people, such as yourself, who are in positions of
power, who are allowing themselves to choose party over country, corporations over people and the goals of the
rich over the best interests of the common man. Please try to think morally.
Sincerely,
—Collins Walker
P.S. I do think the FCC also needs to make the comment process easier for the public. Right now it is very hard to
make a comment and even harder to know if you did it correctly and effectively.
To: Sam Nevens
Hi Sam,
There has always been the option to use this simple option to file comments as
well: https://www.fcc.gov/internet-freedom-comments
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your response.
Unfortunately, the FCC has made it impossible for a complaint regarding Net Neutrality to be filed on their
website via a mobile device. This, as well as the claim that the FCC was under a DDoS attack, when
likely they were just overwhelmed by the amount of people who wanted to file a complaint, is the reason
you are getting emails from concerned citizens.
If you'd like me to pass the info over to the person directing others to contact you via this email regarding
the issue, I highly suggest first fixing the FCC complaint page to accept mobile users as well as a higher
number of users at one time...
Thank you.

Relations. Whomever is suggesting you email this address has the incorrect POC.
the DDoS attack.
To: Sam Nevens
Whomever is suggesting you email this address has the incorrect POC.
the DDoS attack.
From: Kathleen Kuhlmann
To: Ajit Pai; Mignon Clyburn; Mike ORielly; Campaignlaw
Subject: NET NEUTRALITY
I AM WRITING TO YOU BECAUSE I want to ensure that Internet service providers

(ISPs) cannot limit, slow down access to, or otherwise manipulate the choices that I
make make online by slowing down access to less popular sites. In short, they have
to treat all websites as equal.
I do not agree with you leading the charge to roll back net neutrality as President
Trump’s new FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, a former lawyer for Verizon. I do not agree with your
suggestion that ISPs could simply promise not to obstruct or slow consumer access
to websites in their terms of services (those long technical rules that no one reads),
and as Jon Oliver noted recently, “That would make net neutrality as binding as a
proposal on The Bachelor.”
The internet needs to stay in the public domain.
Kathleen Kuhlmann
From: Jay Myerson
To: Ajit Pai
I urge you to preserve net neutrality and not cowtow to big business even though you once worked for Verizon.
Alternatively, I urge you to recuse yourself from these deliberations based on conflict of interest.
Jay
By the way, I agree with John Oliver.
Sent from my iPhone

From: metsfanjay
To: Ajit Pai
I agree with John Oliver and he told me to write you to maintain net neutrality. Please don't be
a trump toad. You are better than that and our country deserves better.
Barbara Myerson
From: Winona W. Wendth
To: Ajit Pai
What you are doing (or deciding to do) makes little sense, and where it does, is slimy.
This is yet another way for this administration to make the small businessperson’s life difficult
and squash the hopes of entrepreneurs and start-ups—a rather unAmerican tack to take.
Verizon has stipulated that that this move will not, in fact, hamper infrastructure investment,
but it will allow them to keep citizens from using the internet in a free and open market
(another current administrative strong-arm technique ironically implemented for the sake or
open markets). And that’s just one trans-national big business co-opting everyone else—there
are several.
Better yet: Take a few minutes (if you haven’t, already) to watch what John Oliver has to say
about this. You could use the education.
Do we need to start a petition?
Winona Winkler Wendth / Co-Founder
Seven Bridge Writers’ Collaborative
Lancaster, Massachusetts
“If you would not be forgotten as soon as you are dead, either write something worth
the reading or do things worth the writing.”—Benja. Franklin
From: richard
To: Ajit Pai
Leave the rules alone and keep the internet a level playing field. I am with Senator Al Franken, John
Oliver, and anyone else that believes in playing fair.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Erin Pullum
To: Ajit Pai
Dear Sir:
DO NOT change the laws/rules that govern Net

Neutrality. I am a Verizon and Cox, long time,
customer and I do not want my phone
service/internet slowed down or limited because
something else may be perceived by some as more
important than my content. I pay for fast service
and I expect to get it!! And I would hold YOU
responsible for any changes that occur because
#45 has no idea what net neutrality is.
Extremely Sincerely,
Erin L Pullum, Kira Pullum
PS John Oliver's Reese's Cup is better than your

much smaller cup.
From: Candida Pugh
To: Ajit Pai
Like your president, you seem incapable of telling the truth. As John Oliver points out, your
ties to Verizon belie your commitment to individual Americans using the Internet.
If you imagine that any thinking person buys your insistence that companies will voluntarily
refrain from obstructing content they are competing with, you are a fool. Those rules you are
so eager to gut are in place to protect us, the consumers. The absence of rules you are pursuing
will protect and boost only corporations. Thanks a lot,.
Candida Pugh
From: Tom Allen
To: Ajit Pai
John Oliver is RIGHT. Leave the ISPs under Title

II. Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, should
have fair and unfettered access to the internet.
Thanks.
Tom Allen
Century 21 Olympian
(b) (6)
From: ANTHONY BARTHELEMY
To: Ajit Pai
First let me congratulate you for creating such a difficult site for citizens to use. I used John Oliver’s hand patch,
but I see you have overrode the patch. As a tax paying citizen I want to stress that I am opposed to your effort to
remove the net neutrality regulations currently in place. As a former lawyer for Verizon you seem not to have
successful redirected your energies away from protecting your corporate employer to protecting the nation’s
citizens. As I’m sure you know, when efforts have been made previously to end net neutrality, citizens made their
objections very clear. I continue to object and will continue to object. I will call my senators and my congress
member to ask them to work to protect net neutrality.
Respectfully,
Anthony Barthelemy
From: Eric Romero
To: Ajit Pai
Good day Sir,
I am an avid fan of John Oliver, and heard about your thought on net neutrality. I am looking
to add my comments online; please ensure that your FCC website is back up ASAP.
Shame on you to undo net neutrality!
Sincerely,
Eric Romero
From: John Ogilvie
To: Ajit Pai
Commissioner,
Opening a legal door that permits service providers to favor traffic based on content is not a hypothetical issue. It is
a real problem. Regulations that protect consumers should not be removed, especially not without open public
discussion of the financial interests that stand to gain from having the regulations gutted. Title II protection is
important.
I'm with John Oliver on this issue.
John Ogilvie
Ogilvie Law Firm
801-706-2546
From: Steven Krawiec
To: Ajit Pai
To whom it may concern,
Please do not loosen restrictions on Title 2 of the Communication Act of 1934. Your reasoning of "We don't see it
happening" is unacceptable and just plain wrong. I do not wish for ISPs to have the right to decide what information
is "correct" for me. Also, thanks to John Oliver, the ECFS page has crashed again or you and your cowards have had
the page removed! That is why you are receiving this email personally.
All the best,

A pissed off Tax Payer
Steven K.
From: C
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Net Neutrality -John Oliver is Awesome
Title 2 and we need more not less, keep strict rules!

I am outraged at your disingenuous statements.
Cathleen
Sent from my iPhone

From: Akmaral Bolat
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: NET NEUTRALITY. SHAME ON YOU!
Dear FCC,
this is so coward of you taking down the John Oliver website gofccyoursef.com. You assholes
have no writes to take away our choice of internet websites and apps.
I used to have verizon, now fuck them, i am switching to something that is not that shady!
SHAME ON YOU!
From: Dallin Gilbert
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Net neutrality... And why you are a fucking moron
Just literally look at the fuckery of the past and the fact you are a dingo babysitting a child.
Watch Jon Oliver. Also just resign or not be a fucking idiot.
From: Lloyd Gloekler
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Net Nutrality
Mr Pai,
The truth about you and net neutrality is out thanks to John Oliver. We will communicate his message with or
without access to your web comments page. I have already sent my objections to my representatives at every level
of government and shared it with my contacts.
I say No to the net neutrality act. Republicans have regulatory rollback wrong, most Regulations were put in place to
protect us from greedy people like you and your former employer, not to stifle innovation or competition.
Lloyd "Michael" Gloekler

From: lws music
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Oliver
stopping the petition helps nothing

From: Gloria
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: PLEASE ENACT NET NEUTRALITY
Attachments: untitled-[2]
Without net neutrality, Big Cable would give preferential treatment to big
corporations and stick the rest of us on internet slow lanes.
Please enact Net Neutrality
Gloria Carlton
(b) (6)
From: Louise McAllister
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Preserve
Preserve net neutrality and

Title II.
Louise
In Seattle
for John Oliver
Sent from my iPad

From: Diane Hart
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Preserve Net Neutrality
I am very concerned about the possibility that Net Neutrality might be opened up again. Please note that I want to
preserve Net Neutrality. If the average citizen understood what this means to their access to a free and open internet,
they too would be concerned. Thanks to John Oliver for bringing it to our attention!
-Diane
Sent from my iPhone

From: elaine Oliver
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: preserve net neutrality
Sent from my iPhone

From: (b) (6)
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Protect Net Neutrality and Title II
I saw clips of you attacking net neutrality and Title II on the John Oliver show last night. It's shocking to see
someone who is supposed to be working for the public trust flaunt their responsibility the way you are. You will be
held accountable for your lack of integrity. Do something now to redeem yourself. You look like a stooge to big
business. Is that how you'd like to be thought of? Do the right thing.
Connie Thompson
From: Emily Talaga
To: CPWG
Subject: PS Clippings (aka cyber clippings)
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” - Shakespeare
[cyber clippings is changing its name to PS (public safety) clippings. – et]
THE HILL: FCC SAYS IT WAS VICTIM OF CYBERATTACK AFTER JOHN OLIVER SHOW
The Federal Communications Commission is claiming its website was hit by a cyberattack late
Sunday night.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/332414-fcc-says-it-was-victim-of-cyberattack-after-john-
oliver-show
WASHINGTON POST: NSA DIRECTOR DESCRIBES WORST CASE SCENARIO CYBER ATTACK
FOR U.S.
What happens when non-state actors decide that cyber now is an attractive weapon... (1
minute video)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/nsa-director-describes-worst-case-
scenario-cyber-attack-for-us/2017/05/09/1b81037a-34c8-11e7-ab03-
aa29f656f13e_video.html
NETWORK WORLD: VENDORS APPROVE OF NIST PASSWORD DRAFT
Standards group recommends removing periodic password change requirements
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3195339/security/vendors-approve-of-nist-password-
draft.html
IT PRO PORTAL: GOVERNMENT SECTOR NOW NUMBER ONE TARGET FOR CYBER ATTACKS
The manufacturing sector is now on third place with 13 per cent of all attacks while retail,
which used to be the number one target, fell to fourth place with 11 per cent.
http://www.itproportal.com/news/government-sector-now-number-one-target-for-cyber-
attacks/
TECH REPUBLIC: STUDY FINDS CYBERSECURITY PROS ARE HIDING BREACHES, BYPASSING
PROTOCOLS, AND PAYING RANSOMS
Is something rotten in the state of cybersec?
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/study-finds-cybersecurity-pros-are-hiding-breaches-
bypassing-protocols-and-paying-ransoms/
ARS TECHNICA: MASSIVE VULNERABILITY IN WINDOWS DEFENDER LEAVES MOST

WINDOWS PCS VULNERABLE
PCs can be compromised when Defender scans an e-mail or IM; patch has been issued.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/windows-defender-nscript-remote-
vulnerability/
From: Høgni Petersen
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Regarding net neutrality.
Dear Ajit,
I saw John Oliver's segment regarding net neutrality today. If what he said is to be believed, and it usually is, you
are a dishonest and unsavory individual.
Vh.
Høgni
From: Jessica Egbert
To: David Bray
Subject: Release your logs to a security researcher
David,
What the FCC is doing to Net Neutrality is criminal, and the idea that you had a cyber security
attack on your site at the exact moment that you were likely to experience a high volume of
web traffic due to John Oliver revealing your dismantling of net neutrality is laughable it's so
unlikely to be true. Send your undoctored logs at the time of the "cyber attack" to a bipartisan
objective internet security expert and lets see the truth.
A Concerned and PISSED Citizen.
Jessica
From: Mariangeles Sanchez
To: Ajit Pai
Cc: Mignon Clyburn
Subject: Strong neutrality
Yes I watched John Oliver. Yes it's happening again.
In short I support strong neutrality rules and they should not be wiped out by the (lack of)
leadership of this new presidency.
From: Pamela Jones Davidson
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: WE WANT NET NEUTRALITY, AND STEPHEN COLBERT
My, you are truly awful. For one so young and so appealing, you have a devious motivation, probably
from your Verizon yoke.
WE THE CONSUMERS WANT AND DEMAND NET NEUTRALITY, not yours to prefer a tiny group of
investors and company which would, under your misguided and evil idea, occupy the fast lane. THAT
SHOULD BE OURS, THE PUBLIC, AND WE WANT IT, AS WE HAVE HAD IT. WHY TAKE IT AWAY FROM
US??? OTHER THAN GREED AND CORRUPTION PERHAPS?!!
We also love, adore and watch the marvelous, witty, truthful Stephen Colbert, aren’t you the
complete jackass to even suggest the FCC muzzle him? THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALLOWS RUMP AND
HIS TEAM, HIS PRESS SECRETARY TO LIE AND LIE AND LIE so it should easily accommodate a
comedian’s words and material.
Thankful to John Oliver for prompting this email. Glad you’ve been inundated, you should be. But oh,
that would be government agencies who care about PEOPLE, CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS, instead of a
corrupt, conniving, profiteering crazy man and his incompetent, corrupt team and family.
As my Mom always said, “in a small town, all you have is your reputation.” Glad industry will rehire
you for as a public figure, you have shown your partisan, corrupt, evil, misguided hand. I feel so bad
for your parents, for The Man in the Mirror always wins out . . . even beyond a cashbox.
Pamela Jones Davidson, JD
Davidson Gift Design
3940 W. Walcott Lane
Bloomington, IN 47404-9339
(812) 876-8646
To: Jason Broussard
Subject: Re: Your claim of a DDoS attack
On May 9, 2017, at 03:36, Jason Broussard (b) (6) wrote:
As a citizen concerned about net neutrality, I am very skeptical of your recent claim of a DDoS attack on your site at
the exact same time that John Oliver recommended that those of us that stand behind the idea of a free internet voice
our opinions, as we have a right to do.
Therefore, I requesting that you release your logs to an independent security analyst so that we the people may
know the truth about what actually happened.
I will be anxiously awaiting to hear back from you on this very serious matter which, as you are no doubt aware,
plays an important role in our democracy.
Sincerely
Dr. Jason M. Broussard

From: Meggin Sullivan
To: Ajit Pai
Subject: Fw: Your Email Has Exceeded Limit
Hey Ajit, Does this have anything to do with you? I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is a felony. I've sent
this to my Senators, John Oliver and other federal agencies (not the FCC) with everything else.
On Friday, May 12, 2017 6:39 AM, Yahoo E-mail Administrator (b) (6) wrote:
Dear (b) (6) ,
Your account will be terminated after 48 hours,
If you made this request, please ignore this message
If you have not made a request, please click on the following cancellation
Update Now
Enjoy your email and our services.
Email Manager 2017
Kindly follow the above instruction to avoid technical issues on our server and avoid
deactivation of your email account.
Thank You,
Support Team
THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED AND RESTRICTED FOR USE BY %0% ONLY. IT MAY
CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE
UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. IN THE EVENT SOME OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY
RECEIVES THIS TRANSMISSION, SAID RECIPIENT IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR DUPLICATION OF THIS TRANSMISSION OR ITS
CONTENTS IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU SHOULD RECEIVE THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR,
PLEASE DELETE THE FILE FROM YOUR SYSTEM, AND DESTROY ANY HARD COPIES OF THIS
TRANSMISSION. THANK YOU.

AO FCC OnlineComments Emails 201805 (1) Redacted

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AO FCC OnlineComments Emails 201805 (1) Redacted

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

From: Chris Bing

To: David Bray

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:24 PM, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:

From: Chris Bing [mailto:chris.bing@fedscoop.com]

My name is Chris Bing, I am a cybersecurity reporter with FedScoop. I am interested in this

On May 9, 2017, at 00:24, Kartikeya Iyer (b) (6) wrote:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just issued a press release

The FCC’s statement today raises two concerns:

For Immediate Release

FCC CIO STATEMENT ON DISTRIBUTED DENIAL-OF-SERVICE

WASHINGTON, May 8, 2017 – Federal Communications Commission Chief Information

Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500

From: FCC Office of Media Relations

For Immediate Release

FCC CIO STATEMENT ON DISTRIBUTED DENIAL-OF-SERVICE

WASHINGTON, May 8, 2017 – Federal Communications Commission Chief Information

Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500

From: Kirby, Paul [mailto:paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com]

From: Mark Wigfield [mailto:Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov]

Still no comment. Thanks

From: Kirby, Paul [mailto:paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com]

FCC: NO COMMENT ON REPORTS OF FALSE COMMENTS FILED BY

FCC: NO COMMENT ON REPORTS OF FALSE COMMENTS FILED BY

From: Mark Wigfield [mailto:Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov]

Sorry, wchih reports?

From: Kirby, Paul [mailto:paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com]

From: Mark Stone

From: POLITICO Pro Technology Whiteboard [mailto:politicoemail@politicopro.com]

<< FCC coverage 202 807-2075 >>

<< FCC coverage 202 807-2075 >>

Sure makes sense

On May 18, 2017, at 18:59, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:

Here is my working title at the moment:

CIO Diary: Bot-attack at the Federal Communications Commission

I am taking a CIO-centric perspective since that plays to my personal strengths.

On May 18, 2017, at 18:51, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:

Actually, I realized the video is kind of beside the point.

On May 18, 2017, at 18:39, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com>

Here’s the ECFS home page https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/

From: David Bray

Great to chat today; here is the link:

On May 18, 2017, at 18:59, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:

Here is my working title at the moment:

CIO Diary: Bot-attack at the Federal Communications Commission

I am taking a CIO-centric perspective since that plays to my personal strengths.

On May 18, 2017, at 18:51, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:

Actually, I realized the video is kind of beside the point.

On May 18, 2017, at 18:39, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:

On May 18, 2017, at 18:01, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov> wrote:

Here’s the ECFS home page https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/

From: David Bray

Great to chat today; here is the link:

On May 18, 2017, at 18:54, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:

Happy to help. I would suggest:

On May 18, 2017, at 18:56, David Bray <David.Bray@fcc.gov> wrote:

On May 18, 2017, at 18:51, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:

Actually, I realized the video is kind of beside the point.

On May 18, 2017, at 18:39, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote:

On May 18, 2017, at 18:01, Mark Wigfield <Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov> wrote:

Here’s the ECFS home page https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/

From: David Bray

Great to chat today; here is the link:

On May 18, 2017, at 18:51, Michael Krigsman <mkrigsman@cxotalk.com> wrote: