11th Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara

Meeting of the Dynamic coalition on the Internet of Things at the 11th Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara, Mexico
Meeting report

 

Thursday 5 December 2016, 09:45 – 11:15

 

Since the 3rd Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Hyderabad (2008), IoT has been on the agenda for multi-stakeholder discussions of all IGFs. We came to understand that a common understanding of good practice from a global, multistakeholder perspective includes recognition of the need to take ethical considerations into account from the outset, in the development, deployment and use phases of the life cycle, to find a sustainable way ahead using IoT helping to create a free, secure and enabling rights based environment. In 2015, this resulted in a draft Statement of IoT Good Practice that has been put out for public comment during August 2015. This Statement was updated taking into account the DC IoT discussion during the IGF2015 (Joao Pessoa) and subsequent DC IoT meetings during 2016, leading up to an updated paper that can be found at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamiccoalitions/2015-dynamic-coalition-outputs. This paper provided the starting point for the DC IoT workshop during IGF2016 (Guadalajara). Earlier reports on the work can be found the DC IoT website.
 
The DC IoT workshop focused on 5 key ideas reflecting our current thinking behind the IoT good practice paper, aimed at furthering our common global multistakeholder understanding of good practice in IoT. The session recognized the value of IoT and explored the challenges that are becoming clearer as IoT continues to penetrate society more and more.
 
DC IoT Chair: Maarten Botterman
Moderator: Avri Doria
Remote moderator: Sandra Hofenrichter
 
Contributors (in order of speaking):

  • Maarten Botterman, Chairman DC IoT, ICANN Board Director
    Introducing the draft IoT good practice declaration
  • Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Professor Arhus University (civil society)
    History of DC IoT and thoughts on ways forward

Panelists:

  • Karen Rose (Information Society)
  • Olga Cavelli (ITU WS20)
  • Jari Arkko (Ericsson, Chair IETF)
  • Vint Cerf
  • Grace Abuhamed (NTIA)
  • Megan Richards (EU Commission)
  • Max Senges (Google)
  • Joseph Alhadef (ORACLE, Chair ICC BASIS)

Summary

With a full room of stakeholders from all sectors and all over the world, the session progressed a global awareness of the need to develop IoT in a healthy way, as IoT can be useful for many purposes, yet we need to do so in full awareness of the challenges that come with a global wide deployment of IoT devices and networks observing, collecting and sharing data, and acting, also in autonomous ways triggered by data, and increasingly self-learning.
 
A number of observations were made across the board, and in particular it was made clear that it is important to distinguish the specific IoT applications, and being more specific than “generic”. IoT applications can vary in terms of:

  • Privacy sensitivity;
  • Security level required, not only for protecting data but also for avoiding unauthorized tampering;
  • Safety level required, much depending on the type of application and sector.

Overall, IoT was seen as “coming” and “promising”, also important to ensure developing countries can and will benefit from IoT applications, such as in agriculture and disaster warning systems. It was proposed to develop an annex to the declaration with examples of good practice in a variety of applications.
 
Key takeaways:

  1. Application of IoT in developing countries: it is noted that low bandwidth solutions can already help a lot. Examples in agriculture were given. Shared issues with developed world is intense use in cities where IoT can help better manage scarcity and ensure safety. (Local) capacity building is important as the best solutions can be found be capable people that are nearest to the issues to be addressed. Support for capacity building activities such as those from ICTP (International Centre for Theoretical Physics) is invited;
  2. Safety in devices is a priority, and should be enabled by suppliers but necessarily include the user taking responsibility. So this should be enabled, and users should be aware how to do it. It was noted that getting users to take their responsibility will take time and awareness raising activities. This calls for a Code of Conduct based on a global understanding) rather than legislation (different per nation state). A consideration from the technical perspective is to agree (i.e. develop an RFC within IETF) on not deploying devices with default passwords;
  3. The aim to further insight in “Global Good Practice in IoT from a multistakeholder perspective” is very useful. In order to progress the joint understanding, and make other players in the world more aware requires stepping up the committed efforts to IGF DC IoT. People and organisations are called to step forward and actively contribute to this. Joint development of “balanced briefing papers” can help. Google, ICC Basis, and NTIA have committed to explore ways to step up. IETF has set up multiple working groups and IAB efforts on IoT. Individuals from the IEF also continue to contribute actively to the work of the DC. The current leadership in IGF DC IoT is very open towards new committed contributors that are willing to invest time over the year, and is grateful for all the contributions made during the workshops.

Overall, all participants recognise that IoT is coming, and that law alone will not be sufficient to “guide” responsible development of IoT products and services. It will need action from all stakeholders, and the dialogue facilitated by the dynamic coalition will help find a way forward that will help create “a future we want”. We call upon all to continue to provide feedback and insights on the commonly developed Global Good Practice paper on the Internet of Things from a multistakeholder perspective, that can be found at http://www.iot-dynamic-coalition.org/.
 

Panel – issues discussed

Please find below the transcript of the session, edited for readability and to correct mistakes by the transcribers. The original text of the transcript and the full video of the session is available from the IGF Secretariat’s website here: http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2016-day-1-room-6-dc-on-the-internet-of-things.
 
>> Maarten Botterman (CHAIR): Good morning, everybody. Welcome. I am very happy to see many familiar faces that have contributed to the work of DC IoT over the years, as well as many new faces which is a good demonstration of increasing interest in the topic that we have brought to the table of the IGF since the IGF in Hyderabad (2008).
The Internet of Things is something that brings many good things as well as challenges. We can see that in this world today, which is intensely used, it will be impossible to continue without good use of technologies. A good example is the sustainable development goals. Many of them require technology to help achieving them, ranging from things to monitor the environment to better crop management etc. There’s many applications out there ranging from those that make our life a bit easier such as fitness trackers to those that can be lifesaving such as Tsunami buoy networks.
So this is the need to develop and deploy IoT as well as the need to “get it right”. IoT is an aspect of the Internet rather than something separate or different, but it has specific characteristics dealing with a lot of data collected by sensors as well as actuators (IoT devices and environments that act triggered by sensored data and machine code, possibly enhanced by machine learning and artificial intelligence).
The Dynamic Coalition aims to develop a shared understanding across stakeholder groups with regards to global good practice from a multistakeholder perspective. Whereas there are many meetings, conferences and workshops around the world on the subject of IoT, DC IoT is the only place where stakeholders from all over the world meet at equal terms. We have developed a good practice principle, and it’s published on the website. It is basically about taking ethical considerations into account from the outset, and justify an ethical, sustainable way ahead in the support of creating a free, secure and enabling rights based environment, a future we want. The current declaration focused at achieves reasonable trust through dividing together meaning transparency to users, user controlled data, education, security, privacy and a commitment from stakeholders to take this into account from the outset in whatever role they play in this environment.
The focus of today’s session is on:

  • Statement: the “ethical approach” in IoT should find a balance in being “sufficient” from a civil society point of view, and “do-able” from a business point of view, and sustainable from a technical point of view.
  • Question: do we need A “Principle” on “using the most available technology possible” to stimulate developments to be applicable in more regions around the world?
  • Statement: there is a high need to raise IoT awareness with citizens and consumers. In this, people should not be expected to be technical experts.
  • Question: would there be value in having an ontology for IoT applications on: a. Privacy; b. Security; c. Safety?
  • Statement: Proper security avoiding easy capture of IoT equipment is a necessity. This will need to come with appropriate attribution of responsibility in ensuring this is handled sufficiently.

Having said that, there’s many more questions for tomorrow that you can find on the website as well. The focus will be on the 5 issues mentioned here. In the first place we will have short introductions by the committed speakers, followed by a plenary debate involving all participants in the session. The discussion will be moderated by Avri Doria.
 
>> Wolfgang Kleinwaechter: I was involved from the very early beginning of this Dynamic Coalition, which was established in the year 2007. It was when Internet of Things was still an emerging issue. Today the Internet of Things is the Internet of everything. It’s discussed everywhere and every time, and so we had to be smart and we had tremendous progress by really finding out what this Dynamic Coalition can contribute to the debate. There are a lot of IoT meetings and conferences. My observations are a lot of these meetings are one stakeholder meeting for the technical experts that discuss amongst themselves and government people discuss amongst themselves and business people, or they are isolated in the sectors. We have people discussing smart cities. Transport people discuss it among themselves. The health people discuss among themselves, and I think this multi stakeholder platform is a multisector platform pull people out of their silos and enable a dialogue. I’m very happy that there’s a general agreement that this will concentrate at least for the moment on the dimension of ethics. I remember when Madam Curie discovered radiation there was excitement. I remember the debate whether it’s good or bad to have a nuclear bomb. Is there a good bomb? Is there a bad bomb? Is it good to kill a million people to save our lives or not? I think these are fundamental, ethical questions related to research, and the group around Mr. Oppenheimer had a lot of issues to consider what is right and wrong. We are doing this with the interventions.
In the Internet of Things we are moving on similar in a similar situation where we have freely to rethink how we can get all this channeled in a way that it’s useful for the future of mankind, and therefore I think the ethical dimension is really important. First, we have to know what the implications are, and then we can make decisions. So it’s not to make quick decisions, though we don’t fully understand the implications of all this new technologies, and I stop here just to hope that this discussion here in this year and the years ahead of us will help us to understand this complicated issue a little bit better. Thank you.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you, Wolfgang. Very much appreciate your historical memory and for bringing that up. I also want to thank you because you are the one that basically brought this Dynamic Coalition back to life after it had sort of drifted into inactivity. So now I’d actually like to go back to the speaker order, and the first speaker we have is Karen Rose from the Internet Society. Please go ahead.
 
>> Karen Rose: Thanks a lot, everybody. I’m excited to be here. IoT is something I’m excited about. If we look out to the next five to ten years, this thing we call the Internet of things could really be a fundamental game changer, much more beyond the little interesting gadgets we talk about or even applications from improved health care to cities, agriculture, et cetera. If we really think about it, we are talking about the convergence between the Internet and the physical world. Talking about what it really truly means in the future to live in a hyperconnected world where the Internet is connected to nearly everything around us. I think this could fundamentally change our relationship with the Internet. If you think about it now, erroneously but in many ways the Internet and the worldwide web people think they’re synonymous because so much of our interaction with the Internet is with humans interacting actively with content one way or another. If you think in the context of five to ten years of a hyperconnected world, our relationship with the Internet could fundamentally change to one in which our relationship is a passive interaction with the Internet, whether we drive in smart cities, whether it’s coming into our homes. So I think really fundamental and as we said here, there’s great opportunities. I’m really excited about the potential for the future. There’s also really great challenges as well. We saw what was mentioned some of the challenges coming to life particularly recently, can it seems this year. The DINE attacks from unsecured IoT devices discussed. There was recently an attack a town in Finland where there was an attack on building automation that precluded to be able to control the heat and cooling of this building, which if you’re in Finland and it’s the middle of winter and you can’t control your heat, that’s a potentially life threatening thing. Also, the recent attack in San Francisco on the municipal rail system, which fare payment machines were down because of an attack. We start to see some of the challenging come to life here, and one of the things that’s really different, I think, of a dimension of the challenges is once human lives and assets are at stake because of attacks in security, the stakes go up and governments want to react. In terms of privacy, we see people starting to second guess their relationship with the Internet, including with things like the Internet of Things.
Our vision and the excitement for what we think IoT can accomplish is not going to happen if people are turning away from the Internet or when governments make us do so when they are reacting really strongly because of security issues and other concerns. So in terms of the statement on the ethical approach just thinking about this going back, I think the real key is about trust. Not only trust in terms of security, but about promoting trust in terms of the user perspective as well. Are users going to trust the objects they’re interacting with? This also if we frame it in terms of trust has a relationship with business as well, because from a business perspective IoT is not going to take off if people don’t trust the Internet or trust these IoT objects and if governments don’t truce the security of objects and big restrictions are put on innovation. One of the my suggestions would be that perhaps we really take a look at sort of a multidimensional aspect of trust whether we talk about the ethical approaches, because it’s so fundamental to ensuring that this technology can flourish as well as us thinking about what kinds of practices need to be in place to promote that trust for all stakeholders involved.
In terms of some practical approaches, I think, you know, one of the real challenges in this space is how to get practical about this whole range if we’re really talking about a hyperconnected world. That’s really broad. Without becoming overly prescriptive, because the field is so dynamic, I think some practical principles and voluntary practical principles and best practices really need to be in place, and we really need to think about them.
Now, there’s a lot of best practices that are being developed in different segments of this industry, so one of the keys here is how do we really avoid duplication like things like best practices and make sure they’re spread and in a way that gets implemented. We can develop as many principles as we want or as many practices as we’d like, but if people don’t actually use them and implement them, they’re not much use. So thinking about how we expand and actually get things implemented is important.
For this we need to have more points of engagement and leverage. We’re a lot of Internet people in this room, if we think about the Internet of Things, right? There’s also a lot of the things out there putting this technology into the devices. The people that are making crock pots and coffeepots and, you name it, right? To raise awareness with citizens and consumer, this is absolutely essential, especially from a framework of trust. If people have to be technical experts in order to understand technology, the level of trust in the technology is going to be low so we need to think about ways to allow consumers to have more choice and more simple knowledge of the objects and technology that they’re interacting with. So with that, I will close. Thank you.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. The next person I have is Olga Cavalli, who has worked with the ITU WSIS project. Please go ahead.
 
>> Olga Cavalli: Thank you, Avri. Just to clarify my role here, I’m representing the IUT’s study group Internet of Things and its application including smart cities and communities. I’m the rapporteur of Question 6, which is about infrastructure for smart citizens and the communities. This is my role in the working group, and the Chairman asked me if I could give my perspective based on the studies that we are doing at my university with my students at the University of Buenos Aires and my working in the working group. My group is in the Excellence Center from Uruguay where I do some academic work with them, and also they organize the South School of Internet governance. The group started in October 2015, and it has been having meetings in Geneva and other places of the world. I would like to focus a little bit on the ethical aspects of the Internet of Things from a developing country perspective. In Latin America we have big, big cities, so we see an Internet of Things as an major element to improve. We see a major problem with traffic and distribution of water, electricity. So big, big cities are mostly in regions with developing countries, Mexico-city is a big city, Buenos Aires is a big city. The quality of public transportation varies and cities are dense.
The Internet of Things is a necessary element to improve the lives of people living especially in big, urban areas in developing countries. It has to be doable and meaningful: not all the applications may be relevant for developing countries. In order to be sustainable it has to be good for businesses and good for the people for social aspects and also to improve challenges related to developing our economies. There are already very interesting applications in smart agriculture. Smart cities is are not very much developed yet but there is a high need and potential.
I was present in a very interesting seminar in Argentina last week that mentioned many improvements in the use of water, for example. Using it in relation with information from the weather, if it will rain, then you can better use the water. We can learn from experiences in Malaysia and other countries. So we’re trying to improve that.
In smart agriculture and cities, national governments and universities have contributed with knowledge and companies provided the technology and then the users, the agriculture people using that technology to enhance their production and also some people involved in the economy as a general issue for them. So the first successes have been achieved using a holistic approach and learning from others.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you very much, Olga. So the next speaker we have is Jari Arkko, who is from Ericsson and also chair of the IETF. Please go ahead.
 
>> Jari Arkko: Thank you. I do agree with the importance to find the ethical approach, and I agree with the need to educate users and the industry that needs education as well. Definitely I agree with the need for proper security to capture devices.
With regards to stimulating the use of the most available technologies possible, I’m not so totally sold on that yet. It’s driven by need. This is another angle on this. In this whole conference we have talked at length on connecting the people who are not connected yet, and that is, of course, very, very important. Much work remains, but it’s not enough. There’s much more that we need to do, and it’s not just a matter of high speed broadband and a matter of quality and quantity. The open Internet, local content and the ability for everyone to offer new services. On the IoT front what about the fields and farms in the developing world, those are likely to require IOT devices as well, for instance to boost production and ensure safety. Clearly we have lots to do in the developing world even when everybody is connected.
Yet there are also other issues. First: I think we found a good way for the whole world building systems and standards and we have different devices that exist in the same networks. Then those networks are useful for multiple purposes. That’s very important. Unfortunately, we actually have a ways to go when it comes to it at the application level. For instance I want to buy a house with Microsoft light sensors, and I found out I can’t plug in Apple light bulbs. More work is needed.
Second: we have seen recently that the problems into the devices are mounting and the situation is bad and not just about the devices themselves and then being miss used in their purpose, but also being hijacked to cause havoc somewhere else. Work is obviously needed here, and it will need to go into diverse topics inside that particular security issue. It’s not just a technical thing. It’s also a policy thing, a legal thing, a liability thing. So I think that’s a perfect thing for the IGF in general to do and also we could say some more in the Dynamic Coalition about that.
I wonder if we need to write baseline RFC requirements [RFC = request for comments, the IETF way of describing standards] that says you can’t deploy devices with default passwords. That seems like a necessary statement to do at this point. Thank you.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. We have moved from we need to trust to it’s really difficult to have trust with a lot of work being done in between that’s not necessarily helping. The next speaker is Vint Cerf.
 
>> Vint Cerf: I will begin speaking to remind you if we have a big Internet of Things, it would be good to have a big address base. For this we need IPv6. I want to focus on a couple of things, particularly safety. We had a discussion in the previous session talking about Core Internet Principles, and I took the view in the principles discussion that safety ought to be high on the list of things that the technical community attends to in the creation and operation of devices in this Internet of Things space.
Safety is a very broad term. You don’t want the device itself to malfunction. You also don’t want the device to be used for other purposes that create havoc to use an appropriate term. That gets back to what I would say is fundamentally access control. So I start from the view that the Internet as a network of networks is the kind of neutral platform on top of which we’re going to attach or to which we will attach all these billions of devices. The idea here is that we want the people who use the devices as well as the people who make the devices to be attentive to the safety of these things attached to this neutral communication system. In theory, we want every device to communicate with every other one. However, for the most part we would never want a device to be able to communicate with all of the devices. You want to constrain this and that’s what the access control question is about.
The task here is not solely in the hands of the programmers and the producers of the equipment. The users themselves have some responsibility as well. Suppose, for example, that you chose to acquire a collection of devices, and for your convenience you decide to put no access control on them at all. Well, you may be creating a hazard for other people, even though your devices may not harm you. They may be used to harm others. So in some sense there’s a responsibility on the user side, which will not be exercised unless the users actually understand and appreciate what their responsibilities are and how they can execute them. So it’s really an amazingly broad area in which to opine, because many different parties have some responsibility to achieve the outcome, which is a safe Internet of Things environment.
Actually, I think I want to stop there. I realize I have more time, but I’d much rather get into interactive discussions than just preaching at you, which is what Internet evangelists tend to do. So I’ll stop there.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you for mentioning the user responsibility. One of the things that comes up is then again ask a question for later is it really possible to make sure in the Internet of Things everyone will actually know what they’re supposed to do, but I’ll leave that on the table for now because that informed consent and informed user is a very difficult concept. Next we have Grace Abuhamed from NTIA who will make a comment.
 
>> Grace Abuhamed: NTIA is the executive branch agency in the U.S. government primarily responsible for advising the president on telecommunications and information policy issues. Like many of us have said already in this session, he department of commerce has also recognized Internet of Things as an emerging technology trend, not necessarily different from the Internet or from the policy issues we face with the Internet today. We’re excited about the opportunities. We’re also aware of the challenges. We recognize that there’s a difference here with the scope and the scale of the effects that a policy could have on the Internet of Things, so we take the question of the policy issues very seriously.
We have launched a request for comments in the Spring. We received 130 comments, many of you in the room did submit comments, so thank you. We’re assessing the comments to better understand what our stakeholder community wants us to do in terms of Internet policy and assessing role of the government in the Internet of Things. We held a workshop in September to further discuss some questions raise in the comments, and we’re going to issues a Policy paper at the end of the year.
The Policy paper will focus on the technical aspects, the potential role of government and benefits and challenges that we see that we collected from stakeholders. Another thing that we’ve started working on is the multistakeholder model. We launched the sixth multi stakeholder process. In one in particular is focused on IoT patchability and devices. The multi stakeholder process launched in October. They split into five subgroups and are working through the different issues. Like Assistant Secretary Strickland said yesterday, we believe very strongly that when you focus a multi stakeholder process on a specific issue, you get the best outcomes. So this is what NTIA is doing and the department of commerce at large. We were very excited to work with our stakeholders around the world and in the United States to make sure that we get the policy questions right for the Internet of Things. So thank you.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you very much, Grace. The next speaker in order of the agenda is Megan Richards. Please go ahead.
 
>> Megan Richards: Thank you very much. From a European Commission perspective, we have been very much involved in the research and innovation aspects of Internet of Things for a number of years, and also the commission launched something called the Alliance of Internet of Things Initiative. It’s a multi stakeholder group that brings together industry, government, and other interested actors to look at implications of Internet of Things. It covers a whole series of issues relate to the Internet of Things which includes ethics, standards, research activities and innovation and the way all the different actors work together. There are a number of members of the European parliament here, so they can give you also a perspective from European citizens’ points of view I’m sure.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. And next we have Max Senges from Google.
 
>> Max Senges: Good morning. Thanks for inviting me. I’m from how Google is thinking about the Internet of Things, thereby connecting with ethical questions that, in fact, myself and Vint Cerf are thinking about when we make a paper we can discuss with the community when it’s ready. Before I get to that, I wanted to reiterate the point we have education mentioned in the DC IoT god practice paper, already. Informed users is what we want, and the whole notion of a shared responsibility might be something that can be more explicitly addressed in the paper and teased out in order to hopefully encourage work in curating and thinking about the various responsibilities of the different stakeholders and how they come together.
At Google interoperationability is clearly one of the key enablers for the Internet of Things. We started to work with a number of colleagues on extending skimat.org, which is one of the most successful efforts to bring semantic interoperability to the worldwide web. It makes sense to explore if we can build on top that rather than reinventing the wheel and finding another semantics base for IoT. The approach is not to say this is the standard, but to bring together a variety of schemas from the various stakeholders and see what is distilled on a level higher so we actually understand each other. You can have a look at the initial information. The project just got started, but everybody is welcome to contribute.
Importantly interoperability is not only a technical goal. It has the goal to collect and connect the different devices and elements in the Internet of Things to create ensembles or capabilities that go beyond any individual devices. I think that’s a very interesting environment, because it brings new responsibilities and complexities in the environments we see. The other element that Google has is machine learning in the context of IoTs specifically. It is on how the learning is happening on devices in home environments or local cloud environments and then in the cloud. There are interesting ethical questions that come with that that probably deserve a whole separate conversation but that are also relevant in the context of IoT. Privacy, security and safety is very high on our list of activities. We like to frame it as an opportunity for Google to show that we’re actually a progressive player and helping to provide privacy solution for the space rather than causing the problem.
Anybody who was interested in our activities is welcome to come up and talk to me after the session and see how we can collaborate. Clearly, the assistant and machine learning provide a new surface, a new interface for IoT and other environments, and we think that might be a real important driver of IoT adoption and development.
My personal work is in the research arm of Google, and I’d like to invite everybody to speak with me about collaborating on research and open innovation efforts both from the academic community as well as the private community, and if there’s public/private partnerships or governments, we’re interested to do R and D with them, too.
The last comment or proposal I wanted to bring to the coalition was to explore if we want to follow an approach that I’ve learned from the colleagues, professor Jim Fishkin from Stanford is here today. He developed a method called “deliberative polling”. There are several elements of that. One in particular could be use for this emergent field of policy making, and that’s the development of balance briefing materials. In that approach you basically identify what the policy changes are, and then you list the different options and proposals. Almost like a Wikipedia article. What results is a neutral point of view description of what’s going on. If we think that the issues that we’re discussing should be in the briefing folders of a lot of stakeholders and policymakers, that might be a good way to ensure that the people are actually receiving balanced briefing materials and we’d like to discuss that with the group. Thank you.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. And our last speaker before we get to open it to up to the whole room and those who are participating remotely is Joseph Alhadef from Oracle and Chairperson of ICC BASIS. Please.
 
>> Joseph Alhadef: Sufficient and do able and sustainable is important. Yet currently the paper is missing an explicit societal dimension. Do we want to make the maximum use of technology, or are we using technology to the maximum utility for the social benefit it can create? That’s what’s left off the table when you look at sufficient do able and sustainable, because that focuses just on the individual as opposed to the societal issue. The societal issue goes in many ways to the eco system concept. Not what is the sensor do but what can you do with the information the sensor collected in order to create that societal benefit? Whether it’s in medicine or logistics and traffic management for a city, whether it’s in urban planning, sustainable consumption. That’s really a focus issue where there is a huge opportunity cost created by riddance risk. People don’t do as much as they can, and the question is because often they’re looking at what is a formula check box of “What do I need to do to comply?” And they don’t understand how to put that risk in context.
Therefore, they don’t use what they can in the technology that exists or the data that is available. So the question is: how do we get away from the check box issue to make its implementation flexible and appropriate for the level of technology we’re at. Something that was drafted even currently may not be able to keep up with the pace of change of technology. So that’s one of the things that we need to think about. We need to recognize there’s an opportunity cost to not using these technologies, not that they should be used for the purpose of using technology itself. Using technology for the sake of technology is never a good idea. Using technology to accomplish a useful end is.
The other thing Olga Cavalli raised was the concept of “what we mean”. Occasionally we focus on high tech. In many developing countries there are low tech solutions that help food safety and security. A sensor text based message and university’s database might be all you need to dramatic improve agriculture or lives or schedule a bus route so someone who has a bus that comes once a week they aren’t waiting two days because it doesn’t come with regularity. That gets us to the education part. There was a young man at the meeting we had, and he did not see himself in any of our conversation. It took creating an example of agriculture, we put sensors in the ground and we understand what the flow rate of the river is. We match it to weather patterns and look at the soil composition and use a local university to do an analysis. All of a sudden a farmer gets a road map as to what is best grow and what might be most available in other markets and what he should think about growing. So that story allowed him to understand a utility that made sense to him. It’s also important to have that kind of education for consumers.
It is impossible for them to understand risks when you talk to them about theory. They have to understand the risks and applications, and risks vary across applications. Understanding the contextual application including the benefit allows them to do some evaluation of the risk. That doesn’t mean that the people that develop systems don’t think about risk or address it. You want a consumer to have some information based on which they can make decisions on what they use and how to use it. And understanding the contextual application both benefit and risk allows them to be better informed in making that decision.
The last thing I wanted to talk about is the ecosystem. We have to remember that a lot of sensors get connected through local area networks. That might be one of the places where we stress putting the intelligence. Yes, we’d like your apple light bulb to talk to your Microsoft or Google Home, but we want to make sure that they can receive instructions from it. You don’t want the individual to have to go to every single device they own to program every single device for a preference. You’d like them to use a local area network with a smart house, and from an Oracle perspective when we think of a smart city, we think of a nervous system. We don’t think of a bunch of connected sensors. We think of the back end connecting to the details and the decision making apparatus with it. So perhaps we can think about houses in that way, too.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. I’d like to thank all the speakers and especially for not only the great content but also for all keeping to time, which was really wonderful. I’d like to open up the discussion broader. I already had one person that I put on hold before, and then I’ll start collecting names. So please go ahead.
 
>> AUDIENCE: I’m from the European parliament, and thank you very much for your inspiring presentations. I think that some issues are very important. Three points:

  1. First is that we need to raise the awareness of the problem and disseminate that. We need to have users with much more responsibility and deeper understanding of all problems related to Internet of Things. This is very important in response to the common road between humans and learning machines. There will be completely new interactions, and we need to prepare people to cooperate with all of those devices, especially with artificial intelligence.
  2. Secondly, I think an ethical approach is very important and we need to talk about security, safety and privacy but also to ensure that the model of choice is for consumers. We will have devices that will be able to communicate among themselves, so it’s a completely new situation for humans living among those devices.
  3. The third point, the legislation. I think that we need to be very cautious and rather use a Code of Conduct than legislation. Invite all stakeholders to discuss how to use those new things, and not to start with strong regulation.

Thank you again.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): I’ll come to you next. I have one person there with the microphone, and then I’ll come to you. Is that okay to let the woman who needs to okay. Thank you. Please use the microphone and introduce yourself.
 
>> AUDIENCE: I’m a member of the European parliament, too. I would like to insist on one idea related to consumers. There is a responsibility in the user side. I think it’s nothing different from the physical world. Yet this has to become routine. This will take two generations. So I think it’s a key point in order to have such trust we need responsibility taken by the user, too. I mean, we can use this Beatles song “all you need is love.” All you need is trust from what we have here. This is very clear. The Internet of Things development, and in that context and (inaudible) and I think proactive users is absolutely a key point to get that.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Okay. Thank you. Sorry I made you wait so long to get your comments in. Please. The gentleman in the back with the microphone. Please introduce yourself. I’m trying to do from side to side.
 
>> AUDIENCE: I just wanted to point out to folks that the WSIS is starting a new web of things working group. We call it the web of things not because it’s different, but we look at the applications of IoT at the web level. Indeed, that group is trying to develop open standards for semantic inoperability. If people think it’s important, pass the word around so we get a lot of involvement in that.

>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. I noticed a lot of seats emptied up, so we only have one mic. We only have one microphone, so please pass that microphone down to here, and you can go ahead, yeah. It’s a really hard to tell at this point because so many hands came up. You’re at the table. Please go ahead. While the microphone is passed, can then.
 
>> AUDIENCE: Wolfgang did a great job in keeping the DC IoT alive when is suffers from “too early” syndrome and have a place to be ahead of the time. Now everything is connected to the Internet. Maybe originally we were too Internet centric about thinking about this, as IoT is actually about people. Trust is vital, and maybe accountability for every transaction that happens in realtime might help to adjust this. Looking forward to further exploring that. When Jari was talking about the security of devices and the need to be able patch it that is vital. A number of things at the moment, for example, smart meters have been specified and the contracts have been let by governments not including relevant requirements so they get the lowest option as cheapest offer. Maybe governments will rethink how they tender for smart devices. Thank you.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. We have someone with a microphone now, go ahead.
 
>> AUDIENCE: James Fishkin, from Stanford University. I wanted to follow up on Max’s comment. I think the Internet of Things over time is likely to transform life as we know it. That has many social implications. That will pose ethical dilemmas, trade-offs, only some of which we can now anticipate. We cannot hope to have a positive impact on that just through general, ethical guidelines and principles. They’re specific dilemmas posing trade-offs. There ought to be a series of representative and thoughtful consultations with the people who are going to have to live with this new world that is emerging in order to get their feedback in a thoughtful and representative way about some of these dilemmas. I’m not sure the exact context, but I think there ought to be a conversation about that. Thank you.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. Would you please go next. Then I’ll go over to the other side, and we’ll get to as many people as we can in the minutes we have. Please.
 
>> AUDIENCE: I’m Julie Zoller and I work with the U.S. state department. What I hear in my work with other governments is an impulse to regulate and standardize on a world-wide basis the Internet of Things. So what I’m interested in from this community is what work have you done to ensure interoperability, and let the eco system evolve and innovate without that worldwide standardization approach.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): So I’m going to go as many people to speak, and I’ll come back to the panelists in the last 15 minutes. So that gives us another 15 minutes to collect comments from people.
I understand that we have a comment that was remote. Who was here next? You were.
 
>> AUDIENCE: Yes. Somebody sent me a message on messenger, and I love the Internet. This is from Tunisia who followed the discussion and she asks and anybody who wants to answer, what are the difference between policy priorities for the Global South as opposed to the north when it comes to the Internet of Things, and what are the primary I go regularities with bodies of government and in some cases historical abuse of personal data. Who is going to set the rules?
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): I think it’s an excellent question by the way.
 
>> AUDIENCE: Hello. I’m a project manager in legal and policy research in New Delhi. We’ve been engaging in these policy processes and, in fact, the government only this year brought out a draft policy on the Internet of Things, which is really ambitious. On certain applications and in terms of climate change and manners of things really, but clearly lacking in any sort of government framework. This is important because we don’t have a law, and we don’t have a constitutional right to privacy if some people have their way. In context my question is really to the gentleman from the industry from Google. In this context with jurisdictions and there is needed protection there are privacy laws, and yet the Internet of Things continues to have these applications and continue to build these. Can you hope that these parties will engage proactively with these governments to ensure the data protection remains important and amicable?
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Would you like to go next? Please introduce yourself.
 
>> AUDIENCE: I’m from the Philippines and I work for a technology consulting organisation in the Philippines. I specialize in the area of human resources as it relates to technology. With the discussions it reminds me with the conversation with a client where the HR head said how do I use the Internet of Things to improve the wellness programs of my company? They were talking about using things like FitBit and gathering data and how long you’ve been sitting if you’ve done exercise the past week and using them to design the wellness programs. This amplifies two points today. First off is from the gentleman from Oracle saying that maximizing the use of technology but not to look at the benefits to the individual but the bigger group. Secondly, I think the conversation that we had amplified t wasn’t really the technology issues we struggle with. The medical technology is huge in the Philippines. Most of the discussions revolve around the business and consumer, but some of us forget the users of the IoT goes to the smaller scale representations. That’s what I wanted to share on this forum.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Go ahead, please.
 
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. I’m Larry Magid with connectsafely.org, a Silicon Valley security nonprofit and NGO. I want to pit up on what Vint said about user responsibility. I don’t know whether or not we can educate people. And I think the answer is yes and no. The answer is yes we can educate people and we can’t assume in the near term we educate the entire population. If you look at the history and of the app world we lived in over the last 20 or so years, many attacks have to do with social engineering or simply human error or bad password management and things of that nature. I think the same is true with Internet of Things. User education is important. I have pledged connectsafely.org to do all we can with others in the room to promote it for children and adults as well. I want to tell a story how I had to do research. I have a system that can open my garage door. The poor design of the app is if I put the phone in my pocket while the app is running, it’s quite possible I will pocket dial the object garage door command. This has happened three times until I finally learned to always close the app before putting the phone in my pocket. No, that’s actually bad software design, but it is also user education, and there’s a tremendous amount we have to learn as I at least close to what struggles with a home safer as opposed to less safe, and it’s a little of both. I think Vint’s proposal is absolutely essential to provide good consumer education.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you.
 
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I’m Paul Wilson from APNIC. I came from another workshop called The Network of Networked Things: Finding the Internet in IoT. I think it should have been Finding the IoT in the Internet I think it’s damaging and risky to be referring to the IoT about being clear what it is or isn’t, because it is not something that is identifiable or distinguishable or partitionable from the Internet. IoT might be new word for the Internet itself. In that case, it’s fine. If we regulate the IoT, we try to do something that is a losing activity, I think. We’ve been connecting things to the Internet for a very long time, and over the years they have become more numerous. They’ve become more importantly much more diverse in terms of the models and the manufacturers involved. But what we see today are really the same issues of software, security, device security that we have seen with laptops and operating systems and phones and apps and all sorts of devices over many, many years. Something is changing now is not just the numbers but the pressure on time to market, which is kind of a curse. It has been for Microsoft if we remember some of the software releases over the years, but it also goes back to car manufacturering and all sorts of stuff. That’s not new either. We talk in the IoT about interoperability and rights and data protection and many things that we should recognize or at the application and usage layers in the Internet model. Of course, it’s important to establish standards for those things gut again not to see them as new special needs of the so called IoT. These are challenges that existed for many years, and organizations like W3C absolutely needs to be recognized for the work that they’re doing and now collaborating and linking in with the IoT concept. They’re working on payment systems and accessibility in media and encryption and things for many years. The risk of not seeing this is manufacturers want to become IoT companies and may not understand that they may need to become Internet companies before hand or at the same time. They don’t have to see themselves that way, but there are actually huge benefits in looking at what is going on before over many, many years of Internet evolution because there is an ecosystem they’re entering and there needs to be a merger or Harmonization between the eco system and the existing manufacturing eco systems to make sure they can take advantage respectively of what’s going on before. There’s one important subset of the eco system, which is the security which itself is something that Internet companies need to understand and enter, you know, with eyes open seriously. The last workshop spoke about where we could see the multistakeholder aspects of the IoT. I don’t think we need to ask the question if we say it’s an inseparable subset of the Internet itself. We all understand and agree that the Internet is a multistakeholder ecosystem and we don’t have to have a new argument to reinvent that wheel as a special move for the IoT. Thanks for that.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): One more speaker here and then there’s two in the back there and then I return to the panel for some responses.
 
>> AUDIENCE: (Inaudible). I wanted to address three things rapid fire. First one we’ve discussed way too long Internet of Things without discussing in parallel the immersion of artificial intelligence in it in much greater depth. Second, in being careful not to go against one of the architects of the Internet, but I would I’m worried if such a figure and Google itself would think that the responsibility for this thing should be on the consumer level. I think that, you know, it’s like opening up the floodgates and, you know, saying that, you know, it’s your responsibility to swim. I think this is such a huge thing opening up that the responsibility should be at a different level. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it set it. A few people have said it like that.
In view of that, I think Joe Aldahef mentions the concentrating on the long level. I would like to hear more about that, because I think creating like 3D intelligence on the Internet of Things at that level has some depth, and we should explore it more in this workshop. Thanks.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. I’m going to collect two more comments and go back to want panel. I think it’s been an excellent set of comments.
 
>> AUDIENCE: I’m from Women with Disabilities in Australia. I come from a user group crying out for applications that can be used in the homes, small towns, open and closing occur tunes, doors and garage doors and whatever. They have been very expensive up until now for people with disabilities, very expensive. And this is an opportunity for people to actually use mainstream applications as they come in under smart housing, but there need to be they need to be accessible and they needed to be user friendly. So I implore web designers and all sorts of application designers to consider making these applications user friendly and intuitive. Thanks.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Was there another hand back here? No, there wasn’t. So then I guess you get to be the last commenter, and then we move on back to our speakers.
 
>> Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Thank you very much. I’m the chair of the Dynamic Coalition on values. Before Vint came over to you, he was in the room across the corridor and presented his proposal to us, and that brought lively discussions. I’m not quite sure what discussions were like immediately after your proposal here, Vint, but I can see there’s a lot of movement here and it’s a topic very important. We also had Maarten Botterman with us, and I’d like to take this opportunity to ask whether we could continue collaboration between our Dynamic Coalitions? I think it’s important to coordinate values.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): This time we try and go through reverse order on the speakers. Joseph goes first. A minute or two. We have 15 minutes left to this discussion, and I’d like to give you all a chance to comment. Thanks.
 
>> Joe Alhadeff: I’ll answer the question related to India, because yes, it is a problem if there’s no data protection law. The closest thing in India is the IT act amendments this look at security issues, but it’s a conversation that has to be had a multi stakeholder all across the elements. I wanted to make one comment on Paul, because Paul is more complex than you said. They have to become a telco, because they’re using SIM cards. So there’s a huge complexity to how this happens. Manufacturers are not looking at what that complexity might be, so that’sen issue brought to bear. Lastly, from Vint I think it’s not just the hijacking of the device but the use of the data from the device in the RFID tires that come up.
 
>> Avri Doria (Moderator): Okay. Thank you. Max, any comments on what you’ve heard?
 
>> Max Senges: Yes. Quickly I agree, of course, that the definition for the Internet of Things has an ongoing point, but what we find in our discussions in internally, which are also, you know, different product areas, is the Internet working of these things is what it’s about, and that defines the scope of what we talk whether we talk about IoT. I think in a good way regarding for a coalition here, we couldn’t talk about everything. We can’t boil the ocean. How do we enter connect the things and make them interoperable and work together? I think that’s a useful distinction also for the comment on privacy and IoT. I think it has been said before, but important to reiterate all the existing legislation and regulations on privacy remains, so there’s no need to come up with an IoT privacy law or something like that.
A quick comment on the colleague from the Australian women with disabilities group. I think IoT has enormous potential to transform exactly the lives of people with disabilities and other challenges, and, in fact, accessibility is good design and good IoT accessibility is going to be a great way to promote the use cases and the values of IoT.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. Grace, please, if you have any comments or responses.
 
>> Grace Abuhamed: Thank you. We’ve seen that there’s been a difficulty with incentives for the private sector. In the United States we’ve been proponent of a private sector to lead policies and development of Internet of Things standards and technologies. Part of what commerce is doing it creating multistakeholder processes is to help with fostering an environment that is friendly to the private sector and civil society. We heard a lot of people in the room with different initiatives, and we want to continue to foster the initiatives and work with the Dynamic Coalition to keep this sort of private sector Civil Society led in multi stakeholder led movements. We encourage you to get involved, and you heard about different multistakeholderprocesses today. We encourage you to get involved in different ones, depending on your expertise and as Wolfgang noted earlier, the Internet of Things is multisectoral. If you spread the word and bring more in the community, we develop the best policies bottom up.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. I hope you take this trip of this session and add it to the information that you’re collecting. Okay. Vint, I have you next on the list. Thank you.
 
>> Vint Cerf: First of all, I did not say that the users are solely responsible for safe operation of their devices. What I said is that they have a responsibility so let me make this more plain. From the ethical point of view, we should make devices responsibly so the makers have a responsibility, but we should use them responsibly as well. Second, I’d like to point out that artificial intelligence and machine learning are not the same thing. There’s a lot of machine learning that goes on that’s quite mechanical, and I discovered devices that learned the wrong things. Like my thermostats that figured out I’m never home and keep it very cold in the winter and very hot in the summer. I also wanted to remind people there was a comment about dependability on local area networking and connectivity of devices locally. Very very important. It would not be a good thing to have a house that doesn’t work because it’s not connected to the Internet. I don’t love it that way that my house doesn’t work when it’s not connected. . When we speak of Internet of Things, we actually misrepresent what’s going on. These are programmable devices that are capable of being networked. They don’t have to be on the public Internet to be useful. They may be very useful on the public Internet, but they could be quite dangerous. Let’s be careful with our vocabulary. I think Paul Wilson was right to remind us about that. That may mean using the term Internet of Things is embedded in the vocabulary now. It may draw the wrong picture to what these devices are capable of doing and what we can constrain them to do.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. Jari, I have you next if you have comments and responses to things you heard.
 
>> Jari Arkko: Thank you. I wanted to say quickly on this comment that Joe made about the question regarding areas where you have no regulation on, say, privacy or data protection. I want to add one thing, which is that when the industry or companies create solutions, they usually try to accommodate the whole world. Even if there’s no regulation for a particular thing, it might not be required to use them. They do exist and apply to this discussion between different governments and there being a knee jerk reaction to have more regulation and standards for IoT. I very much agree about the regulation piece but not surprisingly I disagree on the standards piece. Maybe there’s a distinction between mandatory and voluntary standards. I may be more on the camp on voluntary standards. I think so most of the world is. If you like something you find useful, you pick it up and use it. If your customers demand you to do a particular standard, then that’s business as usual. I’d like to point out it creates a new solution and we can’t stop talking about it anyway. You can have standards. I can’t say what the other governments were saying, but we in the industry are calling for sufficient innovation on top of that or for innovation for further variance of standard. I think we currently would have the world benefitting from further standards in the area of IoT, because our solutions are fairly fragments and we could create bigger markets by having more standards and more interoperability that benefits all of us. It’s not about shutting down anybody’s other ideas. Nor could we do that even if we wanted to. Thank you.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you, Jari. Olga. Please, if you have any comments or responses.
 
>> Olga Cavalli: Thank you. Again, I’m trying to bring some perspective from the developing countries. I do agree with Vint Cerf that IPV6 is a big issue in developing economies. I think RIRs and ISPs are doing the best they can. There’s still a way to go on. There are policy challenges, and the thing with developing economies is that the priorities are always others. So we’re involved in this discussion and they’re the ones to bring this issue to the local authorities so to avoid future captures or security and privacy implications. I like the idea of the neutral point of view briefing papers. We have a language issue, so if we can help in translating those documents that can be very useful at the local level, and then to the private sector, I think I also captured my idea of doing simple things with simple technology may change a lot at the local level. And then it can be enhanced with other layers of complex technology, but that could be the starting point. Thank you very much.
 
>> Avri Doria (MODERATOR): Thank you. And very much preached the conversation, the brevity with which people made their comments and the multi variant picture built of this problem space that we’re working on here. So very much appreciate that. Before passing the microphone back to the chair of the Dynamic Coalition, I want to remind you that the Dynamic Coalitions, all of them, have put forth a bunch of different questions. There’s a Dynamic Coalitions booth in the booth city where these questions and there is a survey on them. So I’d really appreciate it if all of you, since we all pass through the area several times, to stop at the Dynamic Coalition booth, check out the questions for this Dynamic Coalition as well as some of the others, because getting those survey questions answered would be useful for the Dynamic Coalitions in general, which as a member I’m trying to help coordinate. Thank you very much for that. It’s yours.
 
>> Maarten Botterman (CHAIR): Thanks again. The 5 questions that were at the core of our session today, as well as the more future oriented questions are also online. This is the Internet. I want to thank you all for your active participation and for your interest. We did have a good session, which brought us further on multiple perspectives regarding global good practice in IoT. IoT is hot, and we’re in the middle of it. I think there is a need to have even more people be aware and not only to tell us what they want but also to be responsible players in this on all levels. This is important from the user up to supplier up to network provider up to platform provider.
In that indeed the call for open platforms is strong, and there is not one winner, although there are several promising examples. It is unlikely we end up with just one single platform, and we don’t need that, either, yet at least there needs to be interoperability at user level. As said: we need it to be possible to have Apple lightbulb to work in a Microsoft house, etc. This is very important.
During this session there was a clear emphasis on application in developing countries: more needs to be done. On a basic level these technologies can already bring a lot in areas where it is really needed. Earlier this year I’ve been privileged to be part of a course at the ICTP – International Centre for Theoretical Physics). The Institute brings in young people from Africa to learn. They come in with a scholarship for six to twelve weeks and learn everything about certain subjects from connecting the bits to the wires to the wireless to how you go about it with governance in a country with connected technologies. So initiatives like that, capacity building around world is important. By creating the capacity to benefit from those technologies close to where they are needed, effective use comes quickly within reach.
Privacy and data protection will continue to be an issue that needs to be addressed. And that is a good thing: otherwise you end up in a world that we don’t want to be in anymore or we don’t want our children to be in.
Questions that will come up in the future merit already some thinking today. And whereas we cannot predict the future, we together can influence how it will unfold. So I would like to draw your attention to the following:
First, complexity will continue to go up, and I think we will need to increasingly use technology to deal with complexity. This is also something I’d like to take out there. Algorithms, maybe they should be ethical, too. I’ll leave it there, because we don’t have time for a discussion on it. Blockchain and fintech are other promising terms we will need to be realistic about it and see where these technologies can help. That’s the complexity dealing with complexity.
Second: Imagine an environment that is totally arranging our lives around us, or that of our parents who cannot take care fully of themselves anymore. What happens if these environments take the decisions on what is best for those people that they care for? Basically in that way the environment acts like a robots, and obviously my best insight in is that is coming from Asimov and his three Laws to protect human beings – we may need to find and implement basic rules to ensure that these environments, initially driven by machine learning and ultimately by artificial intelligence, will continue to serve us rather than become a threat for humanity.
 
>> Vint Cerf: There are four laws and not three. They found that the Zero Law had to do with “not harming humanity”.
 
>> Maarten Botterman (CHAIR): Thanks … and that indeed is a tricky one. Merits more attention and deliberation.
Third: data protection and privacy concerns will stay with us. We see new business models build on a perception of data ownership being a liability. Wouldn’t be great to use data to the good in this world? Let’s keep that balance in mind as well.
These subjects might be on the agenda in the future. We will make a report on the session. The transcript provided is very useful in this and accessible to all who cannot wait for the report. The next step is to integrate the new insights in the Global Good Practice in IoT paper that will continue to be online – input/feedback is always welcome.
Last but not least is a call for you to get involved in the DC IoT work, also between IGFs. This work is done with volunteers for more than 8 years now. I’m impressed by the work and the support I get and we can always use more. We always find good interest and high quality sessions at IGF and in between. Maybe there’s benefit in other organizations and sponsorship to come in and get real work done in this same fashion of independent global level multi stakeholder approach. If you have ideas to make it more sustainable or more impactful in that way, I’d be interested to hear from you.
So speakers, thank you very much for your excellent contributions. Avri, impressive moderatorship, as always. Thank you all very much for your attentive interest, and I look forward to hearing more from you.
 
(Applause)
 
 

This picture above came with the announcement of the IoT workshop organized by the Internet Architecture Board in March 2016. In his blog encouraging IETF participation Jari Arkko writes “One common problem is the lack of an encoding-independent standardization of the information, the so-called information model. Another problem is the strong relationship with the underlying communication architecture, such as an RPC or a RESTful design. Furthermore, different groups develop similar concepts that only differ slightly, leading to interoperability problems. Finally, some groups favor different encodings for use with various application layer protocols.” (see https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/01/an-interoperable-internet-of-things/)
 
As a result, IETF set up the Thing-to-Thing Research Group (T2TRG) with the Charter to “investigate open research issues in turning a true “Internet of Things” into reality, an Internet where low-resource nodes (“things”, “constrained nodes”) can communicate among themselves and with the wider Internet, in order to partake in permissionless innovation. The focus of the T2TRG are on issues that touch opportunities for standardization in the IETF, i.e., it will start at the adaptation layer connecting devices to IP, and end at the application layer with architectures and APIs for communicating and making data and management functions (including security functions) available.” (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/t2trg/charter/)
 

Participate to the DC IoT

The Dynamic Coalition welcomes all that have an interest to help develop an IoT Good Practice document that would benefit from “rough consensus” from all stakeholders. Please sign up to the DC IoT mailing list, register for DC IoT meetings, or contact Maarten Botterman (maarten@gnksconsult.com) or Wolfgang Kleinwaechter (wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de) with ideas or suggestions, or if you would like to facilitate a DC IoT gathering.

 

top