 We don't have a lot of time. We've saved the best for the last. And I want to move this right along. We have two great final panelists, and then we'll open it up again to conversation as we were at the end of the last panel. I'm going to get very brief introductions. Paul or Kyle, we've heard from already. Today, he was recently confirmed to lead the administrative conference of the United States, which advises federal agencies on ways to approve efficiency and fairness in the way they conduct regulatory programs that administer grants and benefits, amongst other responsibilities. I was on the administrative conference before it ceased to function for 15 years or so, Paul. So we're really glad that you've taken on those duties. He's also served on the law faculty of the University of North Carolina as the dean of Tulane Law School and Cardozo School of Law as president of the College of William & Mary and as president and CEO of the American Automobile Association. He's currently on the faculty at Cardozo. He's a lifetime fellow of the American Bar Foundation, American Law Institute. Carolyn Fredrickson became the executive director of the American Constitution Society, our neighbor upstairs, in July 2009 and previously served as the director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office and general counsel and legal director of NAIRAL pro-choice America. Caroline served with me in the Clinton administration as special assistant to president for legislative affairs and has also worked as chief of staff to Senator Maria Cantwell and deputy chief of staff to Senator Tom Daschle. I think I'm going to start by asking you, Paul, to reflect just on the last series of presentations. I think one of the things that was interesting, particularly in Tim's opening comments on the last panel, was that platforms need to be relatively simple. And this idea that we could actually apply engineering practices from software to the law, is that a mission that the administrative conference could think of itself as carrying out, which is to actually simplify the platform that is the law, particularly on the federal government side. Yeah, I mean, that would be a very ambitious undertaking indeed. And I'm fascinated by the challenge that it presents, John. But I think for us, just getting started back in place and getting ourself in good stead is the first duty. I should just say briefly, the administrative conference of the United States was started really by President Kennedy by executive order and then by statute by President Johnson. And in 95, we fell victim to the contract with America period when, ironically, the one agency that was trying to make government work better was zeroed out. And so we, and John had that experience, but now we've been brought back. And it's a little bit like Rip Van Winkle. We wake up, and all of a sudden the world has changed. And I think I have to say the world has changed because when we went to sleep, you know what happened to Rip, I mean, he woke up and he still thought King George was. King, this was in 17. He woke up after 1776. So we woke up and the internet has hit, really. Truly, we didn't even have web addresses in those days. So that's one thing. And the second thing, of course, is I think 9-11, which has profoundly changed America in those last 15 years. In ways I do think bear some connection to what's going on in the internet, national security, and privacy, and other things are really at stake. So with those two thoughts as background, how do we get back and how do we make ourselves relevant? I really very much believe we have to be in the middle of this open government movement. And I'm trying to structure it so that we will have the kind of capacity that we need to participate with all the wonderful people who are working in the White House and elsewhere from whom you've heard today. As an agency that tries to improve the performance of agencies, we should look at some of the basic statutes to begin with. And for us, those are like the process-oriented statutes. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, does it make sense, as we are an advisory committee, how they're currently structured? Should we limit the number of advisory committees? Should we have membership only determined by those who show up for meetings? Or should we have open membership, for example, which would be a fascinating way to build it out? We've got the Paperwork Reduction Act. These are probably in-group statutes. I hope they don't find you to, you put you to sleep. But the Paperwork Reduction Act was passed in 1980 before all this was going on. And its purpose was to limit the amount of paper that government could produce, paper. And so it designed, it was restraining agencies from asking questions of the public. And now, I think we've turned it on our head. We'd love for agencies to get information from the public and vice versa in order to make better decisions. So that's another statute. FOIA itself, the Freedom of Information Act, its purposes have changed dramatically over the years. Regulatory negotiation, a statute that actually the conference had passed in its earlier existence. Should we try and build on regulatory negotiation? Should we solve problems by bringing in the private sector where possible for rulemaking? And help them negotiate it out and avoid a lot of contention and maybe judicial intervention. Same for ADR, which is a very alternative dispute, alternative suggestions to litigation. The whole idea of rulemaking, how do we make rules? Should we be limited to the standard practice now, which is very much an artificial way of gaining information? The agency pretty much makes up its mind, posts a notice of proposed rulemaking, and then there's this formal process and comments are submitted and 60 days or 90 days goes by and the agency goes ahead. It's required to read the comments quote on quote, but they're usually stilted limited by, though interested parties. There's very little public input. There's the real hope now that we could have through the government movement, true interaction and make better rules and maybe don't start with the solution. Maybe start with the question, which is really what government should do is start with, and I think some of the earlier comments have been directed at this. Let's start with questions rather than have proposed answers. All of that I think is within our realm. How we get to this overarching question of whether law itself, we can test its effectiveness is one that I'd love to work on. And I do think there are answers that we can gain and will gain in due course by just seeing more of what's going on and by testing this notion of the wisdom of the crowd in more effective ways.