Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 2022

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/filesystem/path.php on line 143

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/filesystem/path.php on line 146

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/filesystem/path.php on line 149

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/components/com_fabrik/helpers/string.php on line 264

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/src/User/UserHelper.php on line 621

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/cegcore2/gcloader.php on line 63
 Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs





OCTOBER 23, 2013

2:30 P.M.



*   *   *

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication access realtime translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

*   *   *

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: We are still waiting for three minutes. We are waiting for Maarten Botterman and two or three other people. Then we will start the session.

We are still waiting for one panelist, Maarten Botterman from the Netherlands to make maximum use of our time, let's start and I want introduce myself, my name is Wolfgang Kleinwachter, I'm with the University of Aarhus. I chaired subgroup on the governance of the Internet of Things within the task force which was established by the European Commission, and, you know, around this issues, you know, we had a lot of debate and so far from the European Union, the debate moved into the Internet Governance Forum, already a couple of years ago. It what the first session of Internet of Things on the third Internet Governance pushed by my friend, Francis McGeary of France. Unfortunately, he died a little bit later. We had no sessions in 2008, but on 2009, we had a session on Internet of Things in the IGF. So we continue the debate and circling around this issue to find out what it is.

Before I give a very brief introduction into the subject and what is the purpose of this meeting, let me introduce the panel, because we have some changes here on the panel. We have ‑‑ I start from the left side, we have Nardo. He's have Indonesia, from our host country and as you know, some of the concerns of Internet of things has been raised by civil society groups in particular, as it comes to privacy.

And then we have Jari Arkko and he's the chair of the engineering task force, and they play a tremendous role in doing some protocol work, also with regard to elements of the IGF and I'm very interested to hear what the IGF will do and the IGF field.

And then we have Hosein Badran of Egypt, he's from ISOC Egypt. He will give us a work perspective, he works with an IT agency, which is related to the Egyptian government, and on the right side is Peter Dengate Thrush, who was chair of the IPO for many, many years and because the main names and numbers ‑‑ the main issue of ‑‑ was to manage of ICANN and the domain ‑‑ in the Internet of Things, we are dealing also with names and numbers, more the numbers than just names and though it would be interesting to hear whether there could be any similarity between the management of the DNS and some elements related to the Internet things, which are ONS, the object numbering system.

We have some Sandy Hoferichter here, she's going to manage the remote, she has been the organiser and she will help with the discussion from the floor.

This is really a discussion panel. So we do not have prepared any long statement because the issue of Internet of Things is, as I said, not yet defined. This is Mikhail Komarov, from Moscow. We also have the Russian perspective and as he told us just a couple of months ago, the Internet of Things issue is also growing up in Russia.

Let me give you a little bit of historical background for this debate. It started probably in the early 2000s when the RFID chips became available. With an RFID chip, you can link things to the Internet. It's a little bit more than a bar code, an extended bar code and to combine a known IP address with the RFID it enables that you can link objects to the Internet.

During the work summit on the international society, internet of things didn't play a role. The French government pushed this, whether the Internet of Things needs a special structure there.

Was a huge conference, I think in 2008, in Nice, in France, where a debate was ‑‑ the need for something like an ICANN for the Internet of Things to manage the object numbering system. And the European Commission sponsored a number of things finding out whether a policy is needed for the Internet of Things. The problem started when there was no definition of Internet of Things. Immediately you had two different schools. One school argued that Internet of Things is a special thing that needs special policies and regulations and something like that. And the other argued that Internet of Things is just an application, on top of the Domain Name System, probably, on top of something else. So there's no significant difference from the Internet of Things from the policy's perspective to other applications or services, like search or cloud computing or, you know, social networks or whatever. In particular, you know, issues like privacy was discussed.

Certainly there's a privacy problem in the Internet of Things if the objects meets the subject, and there's an issue. In the Nairobi IGF, we discussed whether there should be special rules for privacy protection and social networks and privacy protections in search engines and privacy protection in Internet of Things, privacy protection in Internet in general. The conclusion is that it makes no sense. We have a privacy challenge in the Internet, but it should not be specific privacy regulation for each of the applications. So probably you can ‑‑ you know in a special application, you have a very special problem with each additional, you know, elements of management or whatever, but there is no need, you know, to create this big thing.

The debate in the European Union continued until the year 2012, Jari was also in the task force and then it ended. It died with no real final conclusion because there no agreement about this. So the European Commission has restructured. I invited a person from the European Commission but for the moment, European Commission has not an expert in this field anymore and said, okay, we have only three persons here in Bali and we cannot send anybody to this workshop. So that means for moment, the European Commission, which was the driver of the debate for a couple of years, though, has stepped aside.

On the other hand, Internet of Things is a big issue. A recent report released by Cisco, said that in the year 2020, there will be around 50 billion objects related to the Internet. And this will be a huge market. A billion dollars market, and just recently, there was a conference in Washington, International Press Club where around 200 people, mainly from the industry came together and said, you know, this could be the next big thing, you know, with all kinds of new opportunities.

So that means what we have here is really a new field that is not yet fully understood, but obviously we see a lot of developments where you see new opportunities to link the 50 billion objects, you know, to the Internet. It's certainly a challenge. It is a big market.

So all efforts to define the Internet of Things so far has failed. So there's no accepted Internet of Things. And so my ‑‑ my ‑‑ to start here would be that I would just ask around and I would welcome Maarten Botterman who is sitting there from the European Commission, he's from the Netherlands and that means I hope that he will participate in the debate very actively. My first question to the panelist, what is your understanding of the Internet of Things? Is this just a nice slogan for something that cannot be defined? Is it operate from the Internet or it just an application like we have hundreds of other applications?

And probably I start with Jari.

>> JARI ARKKO: I am the ITF chair but not talking too much about that role today, mostly because I have some experience in this field with research and being in some businesses of this, in my day job with Ericsson. So my perspective on this question is really that, you know, as was noted before, some years ago there was a lot of the interest on the Internet of Things and was many people looking at it in the angle of it being different and we had, you know, future research projects that had ‑‑ you know, had a program where step one was redesign the Internet.

And I think we have come a long way since then, people are now perhaps more realistic and understand the value of existing networks and how easy it is to deploy an existing networks compared to building something completely new.

So what we by and large see is if we look at the actual products and deployments and what people are building, it's using largely existing techniques, you know, it's IP and web technologies and wireless LAN and all the good things and some optimizations and some new things as well. The ITF is working on some things, optimizing the web stack.

So at least from a governance and administration, regulation perspective, I think that follows largely the technical situation as well. So we, for the existing technologies we have lots of mechanisms for governing, addressing, MAC addresses and data protection and like that. And so on. Many different types of mechanisms that are generally applicable at least from my perspective. But those probably apply here as well. So the Internet of Things is something special. It's already out there. It works in the current environment.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, Michael.

What happened in Russia since our last discussion?

>> MIKHAIL KOMAROV: Thank you very much, Wolfgang. So I'm not sure that happened much since last meeting, but anyway, in terms of understanding things, our region absolutely agree with Jari. Internet of Things as a concept already exists as a combination of policy issues and technologies, it doesn't. As we do have only technological side developed but we don't have, let's say, soft side developed at the moment, and that's, I guess ‑‑ that's the reason why we are discussing it here today.

Yeah. So thank you.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Okay. By the way, I welcome Christoph Steck from Telefonica. We have a limited number of chairs here and I welcome also Michael Nelson from Georgetown University and Microsoft who was recently in the Internet of Things conference in Washington. Michael, what is your understanding of the things but before I ask you in the audience, then I ask our friend from Indonesia, from the civil society perspective, Nardo. Is Internet of Things something special for you?

>> NARDO: Actually, I'm not an engineer for my answer will be very quick. I would say, it's not only an application, but more technological approach. The way we see things and IOT point of view is a lot of things can be mobilized with the help of the Internet. That's all my thought.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: This sounds very reasonable that it gives us more opportunities.

So I turn to my right. Hosein, your first definition of the Internet of Things.

>> HOSEIN BADRAN: Thank you, Wolfgang, for the kind invitation to join this panel. Certainly Internet of Things is, from my point of view an expansion to the current Internet, because of technology, and the volume, and potentials of ‑‑ as we mentioned, also in terms of privacy.

>> I'm sorry, could you speak next to the microphone. We are not hearing you in the back?

>> HOSEIN BADRAN: I have to speak close to the Mike. I repeat quickly what I said. We see Internet of Things as an expansion to the current Internet, posing challenges in terms of much more increased traffic volume. We heard a number of devices that would be connected. We are talking billions of devices versus smaller number of inhabitants on earth and we talk about track volume increase, the calls for service, as well as issues of privacy information.

The interest that I come from my part of the world where I live in Egypt, and developing countries in general, is really the use of Internet of Things not so much to better the quality of life of individuals but more to address the economic and social issues and these are the challenges that we see technology and that realizing the machine‑to‑machine communication as Internet of Things can help countries like ours develop solutions and approaches that can address technology challenges. We can speak to these more during the course of the session.

But we see Internet of Things really as an opportunity to help resolve economic and social ‑‑ more economic issues that we have.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much. You gave us the key word, "opportunity." But I will ask Peter, what is your understanding of this beast, Internet of Things?

>> PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. I'm the south Pacific on a very international panel, well don't putting together a complete range of continents in discussing this, as Wolfgang said, I'm the former chairman of ICANN. So I'm privacy protectioning a perspective about the management of names and numbers to this. And I'm going to take the same position that my colleague from the IET has taken.

It's no doubt that this was a very intellectually stimulating prospect. It continues to be an incredible application and use of the Internet that's going to lead to enormous differences in the way we live, our cars will be connected, our ‑‑ even our gardens will be connected, our refrigerators and trees will talk to each other and this will go across the entire planet eventually it will become interplanetary. And we are looking at an incredible expansion of the Internet as a concept.

But the question is: Does it lead to different governance structures or different rulemaking. I think that's what you are asking us to cover today, Wolfgang and the answer for me is, well, no, it doesn't. It does have issues of volume and traffic, et cetera, but we are still talking about a Domain Name System. We are still ‑‑ which is a mapping between an alpha numeric previously man readable system into the IP addressing system, and we may see less of that in terms of human readable. There's no reason why the domains that are going to be used need to be readable by humans but there will still be a mapping to the IP addressing system.

Is there anything in the addressing system that needs to be changed? Well, know, if we move to IPv6, we have to have 70 trillion, trillion, trillion, addresses more than there are atoms in the known universe. So we won't run out of IP addresses. All of these items and objects will be able to be connected, not a connectivity problem.

So I will probably stop there, Wolfgang. It seems in terms of what we have got in terms of current systems, but they are the same that come up with other applications, that there will be privacy issues. There's going to be hacking issues, if it's being driven by the IP addresses, the risk of going somewhere you don't want to go or someone hacking into your system. But that's something that we face with other applications. Thanks.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much and may I ask some of the experts in the room, who has been invited before the panel just to give their perspective before we move into the further diss discussion. Christoph, probably you can say a little words.

>> CHRISTOPH STECK: Yes, thank you. Thank you for the chance to say something from Telefonica's perspective. I would mirror what was said earlier, we see it more as a chance, an opportunity than as a risk, as a starting point. And I think we also can live with the current frameworks we have on the policy sides to deal with that issue, given the fact that most of these issues will be around privacy and security, and as long as the privacy security frameworks are up to the challenge, obviously.

I think we can go on a case‑by‑case basis, regarding the products. We are speaking about the challenges, just the example we talked about connected cars. I suppose that connected cars, thinking about privacy and location data is a different issue than the smart meter, which is located always in the same place, which is basically your house. So there might not be the same sensibility on some of these issues and some of the products as in others.

So this is why we believe it has to be more case‑by‑case basis, regarding the application. And we are just at the beginning of seeing these. We are just at the beginning. My company just won the first contract in the UK to equip all the houses with the smart meters to become smart electricity. So this, is I think, very important.

I think, talking about one challenge, the challenge is these are global product, okay? We are not speaking national. We are not even speaking, let's say US, Europe or something like that. We are speaking global product, and so we need to have some form of global system to deal with that. These devices will be moved around the world. We are in a globalized world as you know and so we will have a challenge maybe on the international side of this framework.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, Christoph. You said a very important word which was case by case. So even if you see a smart car, it's one device but, you know, it has different elements and probably if you link the whole car to the net, it could raise the risk very high and within the car, you have non‑risk parts, and the engine is a risk part and the audio system is a non‑risk part. When you are driving and your entertainment system collapses, this could be repaired on the fly, but if somebody hacks in your engine, it could create a high risk and so far we should probably, if we tried to define the Internet of Things, you know, have an understanding, we should really broaden our understanding.T. not be just ‑‑ it's objects. So it means different categories of objects and we will need a special ‑‑ I would not say treatment, but a special approach, and I think this is probably also the part what we are discussing in new European Commission project that Maarten has ‑‑ probably Maarten Botterman, you can give us your perspective.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Yes, certainly. I was also part of the Rencor governance of internet of things and how to move on with it, recognizing first that it is not an area where you have specific regulation needed as Wolfgang said. I think they have moved on and understand it. Second, it is very a very important focus on some of the frameworks that we have in place for competition, but also for the privacy and obviously for security. I think several examples were given already, the most recent news was that apparently John Kerry disconnected his pacemaker from the Internet for obvious reasons considering him to be part of the Internet of Things was a novel concept, but he stepped back from that.

So that's first and all. I think if you look to the real issues that are mostly affected, it's privacy, big data, various ‑‑ we've had a lot of web applications where you could opt out if you don't want to be part of it. How are you going to opt out of this environment with Internet of Things? How will you deal with this kind of stuff? You need to have a discussion on that.

Saying, well, let's not have it is not good enough. There's a lot of good in it as well. And the discussion needs to be hit head on and I think that that will be the things that we will talk about over the coming years.

For the industry, I think the opportunity lies very much in designing in privacy, designing in data protection, making sure that sharing is only happening in the phase or not, things like.

That I think this is a big area.

And the other one, of course is the realization that we don't only talk about observations but also about actuation, things doing things. So if something does something who is responsible for it and how are we going to deal with that in society? That's also, I think, another subject for the coming years to answer.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: And thank you, may I ask Michael Nelson because the Federal Trade Commission in the US will organise a big conference at the end of November on the Internet of Things. I remember discussions with the Department of Commerce and, in particular, Fiona always argued the other day, it's no Internet of Things. It's just the Internet. So I invited Fiona, but unfortunately, she couldn't make it to come to this panel.

But, Michael, can you give us a little background, what is the ‑‑ why we see not a new wave of Internet of Things debate in the US?

>> MICHAEL NELSON: Just real quickly, I'm going to approach this from two different perspectives. For the last five years I have been teaching at Georgetown University in the communications culture and technology program. I was teaching technology but I learned a lot about communication. And I think what we have with the term "Internet of Things," is a total communication failure. It's exactly the wrong term to use. The only thing worse was ubiquitous computing, both of them violate Nelson's use of buzz words which is you only get three or four syllables. So my preferred phrase is" cloud of things "because that incorporated what we are interested, in lots of things connected to the computing power to make those things really use full.

And as a very new Microsoft employee, I just joined two months ago, I'm concerned about that cloud of things because we are not a software company now. We are a device and services company. Particularly as we go you through the process of buying Nokia, we will be building lots more devices. We have to think of this whole thing as an integrated whole and we have to think of it in personal terms as well. We have to start communicating to people that they are going to have 100 devices in their life that are permanently connected to the net. And over the course of the year, they might use a thousand things that have some temporary interaction with the net.

And they are not just going to be sensitive, as you said for the actuators, there will be cameras, there will be sophisticated $100 devices and 5‑cent devices.

Just to finish, I have one very big concern besides our failure to communicate and that's our failure to think globally. Every discussion of the cloud talks about the need to build a global cloud and make sure your data throws freely. We are not paying enough attention to the barriers that could prohibit us from having a global cloud of things. I'm very worried that we will have national boundaries and national barriers to letting these things move across borders and work everywhere. That's one of our challenges, whether it's spectrum or standards or privacy rules. We will have to make sure these things have a passport to the world.

So, just my thoughts. Thank you very much for calling on me. I wasn't expecting it.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: But let's come back to this issue, you know, whether global or local and boundaries and serenity question and all of this which is involved and a long list of issues but Peter wanted to react and then I ask people from the floor, you know, to make some questions, contributions or statements.

>> PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Wolfgang. I wanted to respond to all of those speakers because they all raised interesting issues. I think working backwards from Michael, I think "the cloud of things" is just as dangerous as Internet of things. That is the same problem. We are not talking about something new. We are just talking about a change of degree. Sure, we are going to go from having three or four items connected to 50 to 100, but the issues, there's just more of the same kind of issues. It doesn't need a new system to operate. And coming back, agreeing with Chris about the jurisdiction is the big problem, but it's the same problem we face that the Internet introduced 20 years ago.

And I just come to that with a reasonable sense of optimism, because we have solved tease problems before, with air travel was invented we suddenly had the problem of who was the nationality of a child important on an airplane flying from country A to country B and crimes that occurred on ships on the high seas and we have developed legal rules to solve those and were working our way to develop legal rules to solve what will happen, as Maarten said, the actuation, versus observation is a serious problem, but, again, the law in my country has already solved a kind of version of that, which was would is the copyright author when a computer program writes something?

We already dealt with the situation where the machine, if you like is taking. The author is the person who does the programming that does the writing. We have found someone to fasten that on to.

So my position is that these are all the same kind of issues, just larger, and that means we don't have to have a separate ICANN, for example, to make name allocation rules and we don't need a separate set of IRIs to manage the addresses that are going to be used for that, nor do we need to go and create a wholly different legal concepts. We will be dealing with these as we go through. So I see this as a relatively closed issue. Tremendously exciting technically but not raising too many new policy or legal issues.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: It's very good that we entered into dialogue, but Jari, we want to go to you and then I have one or two ‑‑ four.

>> So I agree with Peter, of course, but I want to touch on the question of the ‑‑ the cloud of things or the national border problem and that's actually in terms of a larger issue, which is that we don't just have devices but we also have, you know, the cloud or the infrastructure and everything else that the device needs in order to be functional and that creates dependencies and those dependencies have an issue in terms of can I communicate with, you know, the ‑‑ you know, the thing on the other country maybe and that would be a bad thing if we can do that.

So there are other kinds of dependencies. One of the things that we struggle that we install, let's say an automated meter thing, and it needs to sit there in someone's home for 15 years and not be touched by anyone. Because if you send a technician there, it will do something. That device needs to work for a long time, needs to ‑‑ if it's cellular communication, you have a sim card and we have a negotiation issue with the operator that provides the services and then we may actually have to go in and replace the sim card. That's one example of a thing that can cause trouble.

The other example is you buy something that's supposed to last a long time, let's say a car and then it needs to go to seven different services on the Internet, and is it available throughout the Internet for the next seven years. I drive a 23‑year‑old car. I don't think we can do that in the future.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, Michael.

>> Just a quick response to Peter. The reason I say that cloud of things is a better term. When you say Internet of Things and a policymakers hears about a problem with the Internet of Things, they try to solve it by looking at the things or by looking at the Internet. When actuality, the solution is probably by doing something different in the cloud. With regard to privacy we have the Europeans talking about the right to the silence of the chips as if the right is something you do to the actual devices and we will have regulators designing little devices, the $100 billion little devices, actual, it's much better to do something in the cloud where all the data will be lived and processed and stores and hopefully be protected.

I think the frame is what we need. We need to look at the whole system to get the right solution, rather than saying Internet of Things and getting people all focused at half the problem.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Sometimes we have to live with words that are created and misleading but they are there. And the same was with the digital divide, which was a bad terminology, but it has survived and so has the terminology, the Internet of things will survive.

And if there is a workshop organised on the Internet of Things, then it's very difficult to remove this terminology.

>> Ubiquitous computing went away.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: You wanted to respond and then Isimi Iso. Now I need a list. Yeah.

>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you, Wolfgang.


>> My name is Isimi iso from Tokyo. I'm afraid I may throw some different, some very different views. To me, the Internet of Things sounded like, just looking at the devices or maybe objects connected to the Internet, but as I agree with Mike that the word "things" is bothering, that they don't look at the human dimensions.

The beauty of the Internet to me, for us, has been that people. They do in part things. And while I don't know how many people are interested in some phenomenon called personal fabrication of fab labs. How many of you have heard "fab labs"? Not too many.

How about 3d printing, or 3d printers? How many of you have 3d printers at home now?

In five years maybe about 20% of you guys, of us will have these. And to me, this started from MIT's center for connecting atoms with these machines, which impart people to make things that they like. And there's a whole change of the community of people. It's happening now. We are setting up a new fab lab under my institution next month. And that changed the game.

I'm not going to go into the details because it's too early, perhaps, in this debate but, yes, the concept to interpret things wrong. Now the human will be more in part because they have more digital tools and machines, digital cutting machines and sharing data and 3D scanner. So we can just scan this object and produce, reproduce it and modify it, and whose copyright is it? Taking open source ideas into the hardware world and we call it a social fabrication, the next big thing to the Internet as a whole. I will start here for a bit.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you. Gentlemen in the back. The lady in the back, she was first.

>> PARTICIPANT: Hello. My name is Allison Powell and I'm from the London School of Economics. And I have ‑‑ I would like to connect with what the previous speaker was pointing out about kind of missing the point. I think that there are maybe several dimensions along which we would like to clarify what we are actually talking about when we are talking about the Internet of Things.

I think the idea of Internet of Things is not representative of the general transformation towards moving bits into atoms as was pointed out by the previous speaker but there's the element we have not considered as of yet in this discussion is the element of the experience of the people who are creating all of not just the atoms from bits but all of the bits themselves and as there are more devices interconnected, there's more personal data being produced, and there are more opportunities to correlate and aggregate that personal data and to create different portraits of individuals within that ecosystem.

And so from those two perspectives, I think I must disagree with this perspective that we don't have to invent any new governance structure because, in fact, we have a problem of an increasing amount of data that is generated by whatever this cloud of things, internet of things, network ‑‑ real network of networks is actually producing and I think that is the point at which we do need to have some new discussions about governance and that those new discussions need to include changes and an understanding of copy right and intellectual property on the production side, but also other understandings of privacy, security, safety, inter‑relational context because all of this data with be interrelated. I wanted to add that.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you. The panelists will get a chance to reply to this. We will collect a little more. The gentleman in the front row.

>> PARTICIPANT: Ian Fish. I was really interested to hear what Michael had to say and now Allison and Isimi had to say. I have been puzzling about this for sometime. I should have realized that what we are really talking about is complex systems of systems which is somewhat different from the Internet as it is currently thought about. And bringing the human into it is a very important part of the systems thinking, but I'm very pleased, as I just said.

I would like to pick up on one particular instance that I realized when Jari talked about the business case, something that has to be left alone for 15 years in order for a business case to work, that made me worry extremely about security, for example. Because that's going to be a different security paradigm if that's going to remain secure for 15 years given the rate of update in security terms that we do these days. I don't know if we can think about that. Thank you.


>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you. I'm in a funny position. I started out believing what many of the panelists said, believing that there was nothing new, believing that Internet of Things was an inappropriate name, believing that IPv6 numbering or something like that would do, believing that we didn't need new governance systems. And I spent a fair amount of time over the last two years trying to defend that position.

And as I have moved on, I have come to realize that sure, the current method of governance is good enough for Internet of Things 0.1. Sure, our naming is probably good enough. Sure, IPv6 addresses are probably good enough to get us started and off the ground.

But when you look at the notion of what these objects are, the sizes of stack and data that they can afford, some of the issues that other people have brought up in terms of the additional problems in terms of data governance and the privacy aspects, and the fact of the additional problems that these things bring in terms of the big data and such, it occurs to me that ‑‑ and that A, Internet of Things is, actually, a beautiful name for it. It is actually the right name and whoever came up with was really quite clever because they saw beyond sort of this first thing, but, no, it's just stuff on the Internet like anything else. But, no, we go figure them into our normal governance. So to call it an Internet of Things is really just an exaggeration.

But when you start thinking, two, three generations down the line these ubiquitous ‑‑ I love that word ‑‑ ubiquitous objects throughout the world and perhaps beyond our narrow atmosphere, all in communication, all being tracked, all having data all having governance problems of some sort, yes, we may not need to create new law. There's more than enough law to last us for the next several centuries but in terms of actually dealing with the problems that will emerge out of this new way of dealing with objects, in a communicated path, I have actually come to believe that for the Internet of Things 1.0, as opposed to the Internet of Things 0.1, there's a lot that needs to be done in terms of naming, in terms of numbering, in terms of governance, just about ‑‑ in terms of privacy, et cetera.

Just about every aspect we can think of, I think it's going to impose new problems that do require new solutions and that we'll have at the end is something that is certainly gated and connected to the Internet, but it is also, in some sense an Internet of Things is a thing in itself. Thank you.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much.

By the way, we have also a Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things and the Dynamic Coalition will meet tomorrow afternoon where we want to discuss a work plan. So what has to be done, I think Ali has give on us a list for the next ten years.

Michael wanted to react from the lady from the London School of Economics and then it's you and Janetta and the lady here in the front.

>> MIKHAIL KOMAROV: It doesn't matter whether we are talking about Internet of Things or cloud of things, if we are not considering, you know, a number of devices and globalization, you know, process itself because I guess that's why we have Internet of Things as our just good example of globalization, let's say so.

Another thing is that I absolutely agree with Abry, where version 1, and version 2. We are trying to understand IoT. Is unless we don't have ‑‑ until we don't have our huge social network of things, you know, we wouldn't probably speed up the process because that's what happened with social networking, and I'm still trying to ‑‑ to be on the side of web 3 of the Internet of Things.

And all we know yet, one, we are just observing, getting information. Web two, creating information and web three is probably Internet of Things but in terms of these descriptions so IoT is looking for the things around their world, just, you know, at least one down or database, whatever. And IoT version 2 is where things would probably change data under our control. That's where human beings should be introduced in terms of regulating data exchange between things, right? Because it's not about physical things connected to the Internet, but it's about data which is generated by things.

And so I guess it's ‑‑ it's about focusing on the data generated by things, rather than focusing on any hardware or software platforms for that.

Thank you very much.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Okay thank you. Jari wants to respond to something.

>> JARI ARKKO: So the question is whether everything we have is enough. I think with IPv6, the Internet gives us an ability to create new space very, very easily, so, I mean, we create these new identifier spaces all the time, basically for every application and then you mentioned the size of stacks. I actually personally think that's really not a big issue I have seen examples of people doing wonderful things with small amounts in memory and more importantly, the world is moving to more powerful devices, even though there's more, it just makes economic sense.

But my larger point is that I actually agree with you, that there's a lot to be done. I agree, you know, you design a transport application or, in a car or something, you will have to decide about stuff, like, does this car have a roaming agreement so that you can actually drive from Finland to Sweden? You know, normally ‑‑ I mean, previously my car can actually go, but I don't know about the future cars.

And my other point is that this is not necessarily so dissimilar to what is already happening on the Internet on applications. Look at, you know, some example, the applications such as Facebook. Facebook did not need any new governance on the internet technology side or the platform that it runs on, but, of course, it has lots of internal things that we all debate and worry about. But I think it's part of the Internet of things.


>> PARTICIPANT: My name is Anthony Bouch, I'm working with Internews in Thailand. I think in terms of the terminology, I think we are talking about the expansion of Internet. I think it raises the same issues of privacy or security, but I would like to ask the participants about the concept of property and ownership and whether there might be governance issues associated with property.

For example, not that long ago, I bought a mouse and, okay, mice might fall under the broad umbrella of technology, and software that's required to run technology and the issues of intellectual property and copyright associated with the software. In order to turn on a light under the wheel of my mouse, I had to register with the manufacturer and I had to download the manufacturer's software in order to enable a part of the mouse that I thought belonged to me. I thought that a fair exchange for value that, I was the bona fide purchaser of that mouse and it was now my property and yet I was being denied access to a part of it.

What happens if extend that activation to a fridge or an oven? Will my fridge be subject to terms and conditions of use and an activation request? And how much of my fridge will I actually own or belong to me and could I sell my fridge to someone else after I purchase it?

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: That's a good question. We are becoming integrated and we lose control part of ourself. That's one of the interesting philosophical or social side effects.

So Maarten and Christoph wanted to respond. First I want to ask Jeannette and probably you can go to the mic and then Christoph and Maarten.

>> This is not a new problem. When I started as a lawyer, I could pay $500, for example, and buy a set of books and everybody in my chambers could come and pick up those books an use them and I had to buy an electronic service for those same books for $500 and I couldn't lend them to anyone else in my chambers. So we had to buy a commercial license. We see the development of economic models and people taking advantage of these things. No one is not saying that it won't be full of interesting challenges. The question is: Are they so different that we need to set up a separate working group at the IGF to deal with them and the separate things to look at the, you know, naming system. My point is that the future will be full of fun challenges and that's why I'm confident we will be dealing with them. We have already dealt with them as they have begun to emerge.

>> PARTICIPANT: I have a question for Jari. Picking up to what Jari said with car‑to‑car communication. The next generation of cars, at least sort of upper ranked ones will, indeed talk to each other and my question is: What kind of network will that be? You started out by saying that more and more actors recognize the existing infrastructure is not that bad. Does that mean this will be your regular IP infrastructure that will connect cars? Will there be more security, privacy and if so, there must have been a debate about that. I can't imagine that all players were sort of the same opinion.

>> JARI ARKKO: I haven't been working in the car industry to understand what to do. I have a vague understanding of what they are actually doing. My understanding is that there are different types of solutions and proposals and, I mean, we yet know what will win and take over the market or what kinds of solutions and maybe there's multiple. Certainly people have talked about car‑to‑car and sort of automobiles, self‑sufficient communication tools and you can add in some applications where that will be used for. And certainly people have talked about and deployed also solutions where there's sort of Internet connectivity for everything and when you go through the cloud to do other things. And those have different implications but, I mean, it's not ‑‑ it's not necessarily one size fits all answers. I think we need to take those debates one by one. I'm sorry, I don't have the full background on all of those situations as they are coming.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: This brings us back to the case‑by‑case approach, but I have now three ‑‑

>> PARTICIPANT: Can I just ask one follow‑up question. So this is negotiated outside of the ITF?

>> JARI ARKKO: The ITF develops Internet technology and other people use that for various purposes.

It would not scale for any one organisation to figure out how to do, you know, Internet for the toasters and the cars and whatever else. So, I mean, it's people ‑‑ it's industries and specific industries like transporting. They do have their own forums where they talk about things, like, how do we use, you know, networking within the call, networking out of the car.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: By the way, that's an interesting point. Probably the Internet Governance equisystem gets bigger and bigger, by bringing outsiders that are dealing with the Internet, the auto industry and the toaster community, yes. But I apologize for the lady in the front. Maarten, Christoph and then we'll go back to you and you.

>> PARTICIPANT: I was triggered by the comment that Peter made in Australia, but it's the fab lab concept. And basically maybe this whole better will explain also where I think the commission is thinking. It's what Abry has said, the Internet of Things will change it. Partly we already know and partly we can go with that. It's very little with special legislation. It's new frameworks.

Peter said, well, we know who is responsible for what this thing does because it has software and the person is responsible with the software, right? And there is somebody would buys it and is responsible for the buyer but the thing that the Internet of Things is there's also reactions, autonomous reactions triggered by impulses that can be given and I have nothing to do with what you both ‑‑ or what you made can generate impulses. So who has done it then this it makes it more complex.

And the system that Abry was talking about, consumer protection. If you don't know what you are doing when you buy a device, it's a consumer protection issue that needs to be extended not so much Internet of Things issue.

So having said that, I think the concept of fab labs, that was raised, is a very good example. It's discovering together how things work, how we can make things work, how we overcome issues, and which issues arise, that then will be addressed not only in a technical way but also in a social way and sometimes in the legislative way.

>> PARTICIPANT: There was a little pushback around the original concept that there's no need for new ‑‑ I still think this is right. I think the scale of what some privacy problem must increase and we have even more information about the privacy, as it becomes bigger and bigger, and that's why we have privacy issues everywhere.

And I think that I will have a thesis here, maybe it's relevant, but maybe the Internet of Things ‑‑ and I would like to explain that. What we currently see, is, you know, devices are produced in China and they have a sim card and this device is then sold across the world. That's why I think it's a global issue.

These devices will comply with the privacy standards across the world, basically, however, in many parts of the world, there's no privacy protection, no data protection, in Europe, yesterday, in the parliament, we enhanced the privacy. It might be a much higher standard and so the issue will be that you will have to build these devices to comply with that.

And so it might be that they have the highest ‑‑ thematic solution or on the Fiji Islands. So I think, you know, think about it also that way. Of course, this will be one of the challenges.

And I would just like to say that obviously, the best approach to privacy from our point of view will be risk based. What I do mean by that? If you are having part devices in the health sector, for example, the information collected about you might be much more sensible than, for example, a smart unit.

So put it in a nut shell, that you do not use energy at 3:00 in the morning, well, maybe not such sensitive information about your blood pressure measures. So there might be different aspects of the data collected by these devices which may subside to the protection and you can, I think ‑‑ it would be wrong to say, that you know, this information has different scales.

So based on, that you know, things like do not harm, for instance, you need to build these devices with the privacy aspect in mind. A lot of these things that we build already in a way, it will be, of course, key for this.

So this is, I think, very important when you debate it, that, you know, the issue that needs to be done by new laws doesn't mean you don't need to protect privacy. Of course you do. It's a key issue. Otherwise people would not like to have these devices.

And just the very final point. The bigger challenge for us, and we are already including these devices is very simple issues, they have become very, very complex. For example, that there's regulation in the world in couldn't tries that would not allow devices to roam permanently through their country.

You do not know when you put the devices in China and Brazil or the United States or wherever. So it can be that they stay permanently in one country. Otherwise these products would not be useful.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much. Now the lady here and then ‑‑ and Hosein. First Hosein, he was expected and then you. You are sitting in my shadow there.

>> HOSEIN BADRAN: Thank you very much, actually, I wanted to address the point that was raised about having global solutions and to address the Internet of Things issue. Certainly, we can help address cases but I believe more local and regional‑based issues will be needed.

The closer we get to the end consumer, the human being, the more fine tune this has to be. The more we go to the network, perhaps vanilla solutions, Internet solutions are the same everywhere you go to the wireless network or the network.

So here the habits of the user needs to be taken into consideration, and a case that can be made, either with transportation or sector of agriculture or the documentation, and the health services, for example, the area of transportation, we see in some countries, at least in Europe that petroleum usage, the subsidy to import oil, is 70 billion. We buy diesel at $1 and we sell it subsidized to the Egyptian consumers at one‑seventh the subsidy. This is targeted that the individual really needs a subsidy and it's not stolen and transported outside the country.

So these solution in the solution chain and the car, the transportation system, are ‑‑ yeah, need to be catered to the environment and the scale, the number of cars, driving habits, the type of roads that are used. It's good we can utilize globally‑based solutions but I think the work that needs to be done is like you.

I see this as an opportunity to help develop technology and solutions that are local we need to look at the mobile paradigm, where it's mobile apps and SmartPhones exit you are in the world. They can recognize that they can be tested and then adopted by the giants of the mobile devices. I think the next challenge will be developing applications for better systems and framework that can be utilized by these smart devices and over these networks.

Another application, agriculture and water and water usage. We have a huge challenge of water consumption in different parts of world, going back to Egypt, it's an issue that we all know, water consumption is on the rise and there's an influx from other parts of Africa is being lowered. So the utilization of water in the most optimal sense is mandatory now. It's a life and death issue, but the farmer has the habit of using water and is using this forever. So here mechanisms that have to consider the farmer's habits. Again, a local situation is best using a modular approach, and locally developed in country for the medium term is a must. And we see it then as an opportunity to help develop technology at a faster pace.

I agree, and maybe the last point is that the challenges of ‑‑ particularly on the privacy and the data will be much larger than we have seen in the social media, by the sheer number of volume of devices and the sheer number of users and the habits that will be there and I think this will have an impact on the policy issues that relate particularly to privacy and information, much more than we are seeing today.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Okay. Thank you. Before I give the floor back to Michael, because he wanted to react to this. You have the floor and you have the floor and then Michael can react.

>> PARTICIPANT: Yes, one and a half minute. I wanted to continue from the sense point, there were services right, there right? And so that's actually how it works, you know, in these little things. The things provide data and actually our data ‑‑ so they should utilize the data properly according to some regulations which you should think about to provide services and which should be studied case by case.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Yes, thank you. It's up to you and you.

>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you very much, Maria Redia. I come from Barcelona, Spain. I was the Rapporteur for the Internet of Things for the IGF in 2009. I want to underline what has been said in previous interventions the way of the involvement of the individuals and the citizens.

I think we shouldn't talk more just only internet of things as a relation machine‑to‑machine or object‑to‑object. I think we have to introduce people‑to‑people, because it is ‑‑ this is something on humans and something that, of course, this is a magnificent research that affects the human being's life and is, in fact, working very, very well for many issues, making life easy.

But I think we have not forget that it's not just a machine. It's not just privacy. It's just about humans and that humans and individuals, not just using this, but playing positive role with them.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much. It's good reminder not to forget about, you know, that all things at the end up with people.


>> PARTICIPANT: Okay, I'm just trying to pick up I'm Rafida Mack. Why do we need a new term for the concept of Internet of Things or ubiquitous computing. It can be confusing as we discuss the Internet of Things.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Are there more questions from the remote participation?

>> That is the only one.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Yeah, then we have three more from the floor. You, you and, okay, you.

>> PARTICIPANT: Excuse me.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: I was looking on the right side. First, you have raised your hand a couple of times.

>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you, Joseph Alhadeff with Oracle. I think I wanted to build on the last comment that was made in the room, because I think the misnomer is that we are forgetting to think about the eco of things. The internet of things. Objects interact with objects. And objects interact with people and people interact with people and computer aware environments where they are able to make use of cloud services that are subjected to a higher level of analytics and supported by them, and that's really the environment we are living in.

And if you focus only on any one element, you are missing the greater impact on the ecosystem as a whole. It has to be thinking about it in the context of this ecosystem and within that ecosystem, we also sometimes fall into the trap of presuming that every object communicates directly to the Internet. When the likely scenario is many of the objects communicate to a local area network which actually gives us a control point for governance. And that ‑‑ you know, the refrigerator may be speaking to the house. It may not be speaking to the Internet and the house may be speaking to the Internet. The Coke can is speaking to the Coke machine or maybe to the sustainable consumption system at the trash collection site but is not proudly broadcasting to the Internet. We have to make sure we are putting those concepts in context.

And then finally as we think about governance issues and the challenges, I think I would agree with the speakers would said we probably don't need to think of a new law or a new paradigm, but we have to think about how we apply it to new circumstances and they have to be risk‑based, but we also think about how we have to apply it to the fact that there are information opportunities, whether it be in person lies medicines or other things, where our current governance models may also be a constraint from the productive use of information and where we may have to consider that use based models may in some cases to supplement consent and things of that nature. So I think we have to have a broad ranging look and not only worry about the risk but worry about the lost opportunity as well because both are important factors to consider.

Thank you.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Okay. We will take this to our final report.


>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you very much, my name is Arti Farica, I'm with the Dutch Society of Computer Uses, about 80,000 people. I would like to make a comment on a lot of things that were said today, first of all, I think it's true that the challenges on privacy and big data, they are more or less the same as the challenges we are facing now, only we have to take in mind that the issues only will be bigger. So, yes, nothing is changing over there.

On the other side, the Internet of Things makes the Internet very entangles in our lives, in everything we do and in our lives we have a lot of consumer rights which we had fought for a long time. And I think at this point, consumer rights might be one of the biggest issues for the Internet of Things.

So if you propose, do we have to participate in the IGF? I would say, yes, mostly the Internet of Things are things that are developed in ICT, are technology driven. Something is made from a idea and it will come to the consumer and the consumer will say it is more easy and it they don't think about the consequences or they think about it too late or they do think about the consequences, discussion we had in Holland where the smart meters were actually thrown out because they didn't want it.

So I think we need to discuss this ‑‑ actually, this point of consumer rights in the debates, within the debates for two reasons. First of all, to make sure that those rights are very well interconnected in the Internet of Things but also to make sure that we can go on with technology and that we will not stick with good ideas but which will die in the debate.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much.

And yeah, you.

>> PARTICIPANT: I'm from India. My question is about the cost of the data traffic. So who would be paying that? The end customer would be paying that? Would it be manufacturing be paying that? Or it could be those would will get benefit out of this data that would be generated by these things? So who would be paying the cost data?

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Oh, that's a question. We have around, 10, 15 minutes left. So I would invite now the panel, by looking forward, what would be the two most important things which should be discussed in the next two years if we discussed Internet of things?

And I start from my left side, again, you know, our friend from Indonesia.

>> NARDO: Thank you for the opportunity. I had presented in the civil society in India. We do believe ‑‑ we do believe that the Internet of Things has business policy and technical challenges must be tackled before these systems are widely embraced. Probably they are driven with this model and creates values. Regulators should look at the security. On the technological side, the cost of sensors must fall to the level that will spark wide spread use.

Personally, I myself expecting the discussions will be around IoT as a potential engine for growth and development, but at this point, with regard to the development itself, I'm afraid to say that for us, the developing countries, the IoT applies to middle and upper class only. The ones who gain benefit are the middle and upper classes. As long as the IoT does not move, they will live in the bottom of the pyramid, and I think it will be very problematic. Thank you.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Very good for the IGF which is a global thing and has to take everything ‑‑ it's a good reminder.

I have overseen from the audience and then I come back to the panel.

>> PARTICIPANT: Very good. This is with the home Department of Education from India. I have a few points because I'm dealing with the machine‑to‑machine, IPv6 and this cloud computing services. I have been hearing this panel since more than half an hour and, of course, it's very important for me to understand, but a few remarks to be made. It was for this M2M, first of all, a standards are a must, because until the standards are listed, the communications would come in and, of course, later on the problems of secure, open and interoperability problems, because we are facing these things in India. We do have 15 pilot projects of the smart meters and we have around 34 states in the country. The friend to friend states have to install the meters and they are adopting the friend to friend technologies. So later on, it may be problem of interoperability, what is talking to the meters.

So the standards formulation of M2M will change that and, of course, it may be only IP based and IP bases. And IPv6, it's very, very slow. So I think we must defend, they must increase the adoption of IPv6 worldwide. So that the problems of individual materials like our refrigerator and the friend to friend connected to the net will not be there.

The applications perspective, it's a policy perspective. It was later on the friend to friend, it was the cloud and, of course, these things are being faced in the cloud. So this is also. So the at least, where these things can be discussed and decided globally. Just a few comments. Thank you.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: I would like to give the panel a chance to say. We want to start a preparation for a similar workshop for the next IGF in 2014 in Istanbul. So Mikhail, what are your two main issues for the IoT for 2014?

>> MIKHAIL KOMAROV: I have two issues. One, we are talking about efficient data utilization which leads to services based on IoT, so how is this developed? Who is going to do it and how it's going to be transferred to the citizens, or the people, the human beings.

And second issue, considering, you know, data, generated by in terms of things there will be definitely hot discussions about personal data protection. Actually, probably new definition of personal data considering sensors around us, whether it's personal data, here in the place or it's data for the filing of the services that we are in the place. So there should be some probably new definitions considering this. Thank you.


>> JARI ARKKO: Yes, so it's been a pretty useful discussion, I think. I certainly learned quite a bit. I mean, at least from my perspective, we still seem to be of the opinion that, you know, basic mechanisms in the governance principles don't need to change but there's a lot of work to be done on the application level. So I think that discussion will be useful to have and be able to continue that and I'm not sure I have any more specific items to bring up. I mean, those are the topics we spoke about, I guess.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, Hosein.

>> HOSEIN BADRAN: Thank you very much. I also learned a lot. It's also a very interesting discussion. I just want to echo some of the points that were made and my personal opinion is that the highest priority is to utilize the machine‑to‑machine communication in terms of things to resolve very particular problems that have issues for particular countries. These are relate problems that require solution and the point is that lots of money is being spent on them, and it's being spent to better the quality of life of individuals and here the funding for search research, such fabrication is available. The government prioritization, the government putting it as a priority to address and look at the technologies in house, utilizing knowledge that can be transformed from abroad as well.

The challenge is to address these problems quickly and if the standards do not exist, as was mentioned from India, then what are the proper solutions? So standards development is also very critical. You can't afford waiting 5 to 10 years to look at the stacks and address any new computing protocols that arise in this environment.

And also the privacy side, again, these parts of the world, who have the need for the technical solutions are those who are not following really any privacy ‑‑ privacy regulation. Regularly, even if they exist on paper, they are not being followed. So I think it's quite valuable that we seize this opportunity to materialize and utilize the privacy regulations. If they don't exist, then we must close them, if they do exist, they are written. With the help of the agencies like the session this morning, we had the same discussion, or the big data session earlier in the afternoon. So putting the privacy framework in place for the companies that don't have it and exactly the countries would need to access the technologies much faster than the rest of the world.


>> PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks a lot, I will be the kill joy. I think the Internet of Things should be taken off the agenda of the IGF. You established that there's any such meaning to the term. We had a couple of other terms proposed as alternatives. You have established, I think quite clearly that there's not an Internet issue and certainly not an Internet Governance issue. What you raised and the questions you spoke about are sociological and they are legal and they are text and jurisdiction issue and the last point was standards. Now the IGF for solving, legal, sociological and jurisdiction. So it brings back to the point of the role of IGF.

The IGF ‑‑ yeah, exactly the Internet governance, I think we need to distinguish very carefully when governing Internet and governing the people who use the Internet and governing the use of the Internet in general and this is clearly all about governing the conduct of people using the Internet not governing the Internet. You can't seriously be suggesting that we can go on for years and years bringing up a topic where it's not an Internet Governance, it's a sociological, political problem. In the role of IGF is to service these issues, the solution for the legal and the text issues, there are global bodies set up to solve these. It's not to recycle it again and again. Draw the people together who can solve each of those issues that we have dealt with. Where should the sociological problems be solved?

There will be a place. Where should the criminal problems be solved in dealing with this? Where should the liabilities issue be solved the IGF should be solving those problems as the clearinghouse, not trying to set itself up as writing the law for the kind of things that we have discussed. So that's my conclusion.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much, but by the way, wasn't this a debate that has helped to clear some issues? So was it not exactly what the clearinghouse debate?

>> PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That's the role that I think it should be. Particularly as it disrespects the legal and other institutions set up to solve these. The IGF should be reaching out and coordinating once we surface the issue. If we keep it on our agenda, we will actually solve the jurisdiction problem, and the actuation problem and the text problem and the human problem, that's the insinuation. I don't think that's the issue. I think the IGF should be working on bringing in the experts to solve the problem.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: I think it's clear. You brought some steam to the debate now. Let's hear from Jeannette and Maarten and Christoph and then we have to close the session.

>> PARTICIPANT: Just for the protocol, I would like to note that there's different levels of Internet Governance in this room. There's a broad notion of Internet Governance that includes technical, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects and that we think of internet governance as a sort of broad way of ordering that space with lots of different actors and rationalities playing a role in it.

And I think, especially with the Internet of things it's important to develop such a role, a view on things in order to take notice of all the actors and the various record of devices that play a role.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, Jeannette.


>> Even though Peter didn't agree with my proposal to call it the cloud of things I want to vehemently agree with what you just said about most of what we are talking about here is well beyond the normal definition of Internet Governance. This isn't just mission and creed. This is mission explosion. It's equivalent to talking about Game Box issues and cell phone etiquette but I want to say, this is an incredibly valuable debate. I'm glad we had it.

And I want to put two issues on the agenda, I think there needs to be a lot more work on communicating a clearer vision of the Internet of Things for the average person and it can be vignettes. It can be statistics but there's a clear need to tell people what's coming, so that there's less fear and more excitement about the benefits.

And if you don't like cloud of things I would like to propose the any cloud. Anybody able to connect anything, anywhere, any time. And that does get to this question of where the people are in this network, and it also gets to the other very important point that the gentleman from India raised which is the second item I want to stress, is the interoperability. We don't want a world where one of my cars is on AT&T, and another one of my cars is on Sprint and my garage door opener is on Verizon, and my thermostat is on some other network. I want it all to work together so when the network‑to‑text and I'm driving home, the garage door will open and the thermostat will be reset and all seamlessly work like any cloud should work.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you, Maarten very brief final comment?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you. A little bit longer, indeed, just to point out that the Internet of Things is a lot of things that are happening in the world today. It's happening. Things are entering and becoming more intrusive and more present every day and if you would even count, for instance, mobile phones and the pictures that they can go on Facebook as part of that, you see how it's a game changer. And I think it's very important that we continue to review how we deal with our society in the light of new developments and this is certainly a new development that is a game changer, and that's why I vote for keeping it on the agenda.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Okay. Thank you. Christoph?

>> CHRISTOPH STECK: Yes, just a bit on that.

I think as you can see already, every one of you has a SmartPhone. This is connected to something and these things are very clever, you know? So they can collect a huge amount of information about you. And we have studies that show average persons using SmartPhones several switch them off and it's never further away than 1 meter from the person at any point in time. So it's here. Okay?

Internet of Things is here. It might increase for others but I will go back to the point ‑‑ but I would like to end with a little more positive aspect. I think we haven't talked a lot about opportunities. And it's huge. We know that from the social and economic point of view, having networks and all of these things will help us to really overcome a couple of things. We really have a positive view on these things. Yes, there is. We have to deal with them, especially security and privacy is at the top of the list and the interconnection issue, to be honest, I'm not so much concerned. Because in the end, we have a very nice telephone system, which is connected around the world and standards. There's a very good system that runs the Internet but it's also interconnected on a global level. So I think we have a couple of very good standards and platforms to do it on.


Let me conclude just by summarizing my notes, what I have here. I have seven points which probably could help us to draft the roadmap, the IoT roadmap for 2014 within the IGF. The first thing is there are incredible opportunities but opportunities are not without risks. Second point on my list is the Internet of Things is just an extension of the existing Internet. So it's not a new Internet.

The third thing is there's no need for a clean slate approach. The existing environment enables to do a lot of things that are coming out from the Internet of Things.

Privacy security, and consumer protection ‑‑ consumer rights are probably key policy issue, which are related to the Internet things and has to be handled on a case‑by‑case basis, and in a very general way.

While we see great development on the hard side of the problem, we haven't discussed the soft side of the problem and all the implications and then, you know, what Michael has proposed, we have to really communicate to the public the vision of the IoT, what it is so we move from fears to facts but it means a fact‑based policy is always better than a fears‑based policy.

And the final point is the interoperability that we need, even if you have probably different system for different objects, so at the end of the day from a user perspective, he wants to have just, you know, this one click of all situations. It means probably we have to do something or the background to enable this ubiquitous communication.

I thank very much the panelists and the audience. I apologize for some changes with names in the program, but the good thing with the Internet, it allows all types of flexibility and we have demonstrated that we can react to a changing environment.

I have announced already that we will have teem, the Dynamic Coalition meeting of Internet of Things where we want to specify a little bit more what the roadmap for 2014 could be. You are certainly and cordially invited to follow this and we will manage the email list. And Abry, if you want to talk to them, they are both here in the room and you can meet them tomorrow afternoon. Thank you for coming and enjoy the rest of the IGF.

It's in the program, it's the ‑‑ thanks.


*   *   *

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication access realtime translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

*   *   *