DC-IoT Progressing Global Good Practice for the Internet of Things | IGF 2023

Wout de Natris

Summary: The analysis of IoT security policies across different countries revealed some significant findings. Firstly, there is a noticeable gap in the policy framework for IoT security, particularly in many countries of the Global South. This suggests that these countries lack comprehensive guidelines and regulations to address IoT device security challenges. Additionally, national policy practices for IoT security often differ significantly from those of other countries, indicating a lack of alignment and standardization. The study highlights the importance of implementing accountability frameworks throughout the IoT device lifecycle. The complexity of IoT security requires a comprehensive approach that considers factors such as data privacy, cybersecurity, and standards. Governments are urged to prioritize security by design during hardware and software procurement to enhance security standards. Lack of user awareness about data privacy implications necessitates improved education and awareness campaigns. Data security standards are recommended to protect against abuse and misuse of data. The analysis raises concerns about future implications of data insecurity, emphasizing the need for proactive actions to address IoT security challenges. These findings provide insights for policymakers and stakeholders in developing robust IoT security strategies and frameworks.

Mark Carvell

The discussion centred around key topics related to the Internet of Things (IoT) and its impact on society. One important point raised was the necessity for a universal labelling scheme for IoT devices to ensure harmonisation and clarity for consumers. The argument posited was the need for a standardised labelling system that enables easy identification and comprehension of IoT products, especially as individuals increasingly travel with their devices. The sentiment surrounding this topic was neutral, reflecting concerns without strong opinions expressed.

Another topic of discussion was the role of public administrations in IoT applications, particularly in addressing government concerns about security. The question was raised regarding how IoT applications can meet government security requirements, given the interactions between governments and citizens. This inquiry underscored the significance of striking a balance between innovation and security in IoT technologies. The sentiment surrounding this topic was also neutral, highlighting the need for further exploration and understanding.

Ethical considerations in the development of IoT systems and networks were also emphasised during the discussion. The unpredictability factor associated with IoT development was addressed, and developers were encouraged to ensure that their systems and networks are developed ethically. This topic generated a positive sentiment, indicating a belief in the paramount importance of ethical innovation in the IoT industry. The sentiment reflected a acknowledgment of the potential ethical challenges posed by the rapid advancement of IoT technologies.

Lastly, there was an encouragement for the dynamic coalition to utilise the EUDIG platform for advocacy purposes. The EUDIG platform was described as having a call for issues, and a forum was scheduled to take place in Vilnius in June. The sentiment surrounding this topic was positive, indicating a belief in the effectiveness and value of using the EUDIG platform for advocacy.

In conclusion, the discussion covered a range of important topics related to the IoT and its societal impact. These topics included the need for a universal labelling scheme, the role of public administrations in ensuring security, ethical innovation in IoT development, and the value of using the EUDIG platform for advocacy. It is evident that there are various considerations and challenges associated with implementing and developing IoT technologies, and further exploration and collaboration are necessary to effectively address these issues.

Barry Lieber

Security for the Internet of Things (IoT) is a multifaceted and intricate issue, encompassing factors such as authentication, confidentiality, and data integrity. Barry, an expert with almost 25 years of experience in the field, emphasizes the importance of prioritising IoT security. To fully comprehend and address this issue, it is necessary to break it down into various components.

The integration of different sources is paramount in realising the full potential of the IoT. The seamless communication and collaboration among diverse devices, such as cars, houses, and calendars, serve as prominent examples of how integration enhances the IoT experience. However, the complexity of maintaining this integration while ensuring security and privacy presents a significant challenge.

Authentication is one aspect of IoT security that requires careful consideration. With numerous devices exchanging information and interacting within the IoT, it is crucial to establish secure methods of verifying their identities. This helps prevent unauthorised access and malicious activities, safeguarding the overall IoT ecosystem.

Confidentiality is another significant factor in IoT security. As vast amounts of sensitive data are transmitted and processed within the IoT, protecting this information from unauthorised disclosure is imperative. Implementing robust encryption protocols and secure data storage mechanisms becomes crucial to maintaining confidentiality and safeguarding user privacy.

Data integrity plays a pivotal role in IoT security as well. With the vast quantity of data being communicated and processed within the IoT network, it is essential to ensure its accuracy, consistency, and reliability. Implementing mechanisms for data validation, verification, and error detection is vital to maintain the integrity of the information exchanged within the IoT environment.

The analysis of the various supporting facts and arguments highlights that security is not merely a buzzword in the IoT landscape. The inherent complexities involved in integrating diverse systems while maintaining security and privacy underscore the challenges faced in fully harnessing the potential of the IoT. The insights gained from this analysis underscore the need for ongoing research, development, and implementation of robust security measures to address the complexities and mitigate the risks associated with IoT security.

In conclusion, security for the Internet of Things is a multifaceted and complex issue that necessitates attention to various factors such as authentication, confidentiality, and data integrity. The integration of different sources is crucial in unlocking the true potential of the IoT, but it also poses challenges in maintaining security and privacy. With the rapid expansion of the IoT landscape, it is imperative to invest in developing and implementing robust security measures to safeguard the IoT ecosystem and protect user information.

Elaine Liu

The speakers in the discussion agree that IoT (Internet of Things) should have different policies and guardrails depending on the use cases involved. They argue that considering the diverse range of data collection in IoT, which can vary from consumer to organizational to agency levels, it is vital to establish suitable policies that address the specific needs and risks associated with each use case. This approach recognizes the importance of tailoring regulations to the unique characteristics and requirements of different IoT applications.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasize the significance of taking into account the entire value chain when setting guiding principles for IoT. They highlight that hardware, software, operating systems, and data analytics all play crucial roles in the IoT process. By considering the entire value chain, policymakers can develop comprehensive and effective guidelines that address various aspects of IoT implementation, ensuring its smooth and secure operation.

These discussions align with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, which emphasises the need to foster sustainable industrialisation, promote research and development, and enhance access to information and communication technologies. IoT is a key aspect of Industry 4.0 and digital transformation, and thus, setting appropriate policies and guidelines for IoT corresponds to addressing the goals and targets outlined in SDG 9.

The speakers’ arguments are supported by the evidence provided throughout the discussion. They acknowledge the complexity and diversity of IoT applications and the need for tailored policies to manage the risks associated with each use case. Additionally, they emphasise the interconnected nature of the IoT value chain, where hardware, software, operating systems, and data analytics all contribute to the overall functionality and performance of IoT systems. Therefore, their arguments are well-grounded and offer valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders involved in IoT governance.

In conclusion, the speakers advocate for the development of different policies and guidelines for IoT based on its specific use cases. They also stress the importance of considering the entire value chain, encompassing hardware, software, operating systems, and data analytics, when setting guiding principles for IoT. These discussions align with the objectives of SDG 9 and provide valuable insights into the complexities and requirements of IoT governance.

Alejandro Pisanty

The analysis reveals several key points related to the consumer Internet of Things (IoT) and its impact on security, industry, and infrastructure.

Firstly, consumer IoT devices are causing significant concern regarding security. It is essential to identify the entities that are leveraging IoT to exert power. These entities may include individuals, organisations, or even governments. Identifying these entities is crucial to establish accountability and take necessary security measures to protect against potential breaches or attacks.

Secondly, the development of consumer IoT is primarily driven by small companies. These companies often produce and sell IoT devices at very low prices, making them accessible to a wide range of consumers. However, this also creates challenges in terms of security awareness and compliance. Consumers may not be fully aware of the need to secure their devices or the potential risks associated with them. Additionally, the affordability of these devices means that they may not undergo rigorous security testing or meet established standards.

Furthermore, the deployment of consumer IoT devices poses challenges to openness, interoperability, and core internet values. Different technologies and standards are used for communication between these devices, making it difficult to establish the necessary interoperability and ensure seamless connectivity. This can lead to fragmented systems and hinder the growth and development of IoT applications. Additionally, the increased deployment of these devices expands the attack surface for everyone. With numerous connected devices, the potential for vulnerabilities and cyber-attacks increases, posing a threat to individual privacy, data security, and overall network integrity.

Moreover, the sale of many IoT devices occurs outside the oversight of national standardisation bodies. This means that these devices may not adhere to specific standards or regulations, raising concerns about their compliance and quality. The lack of standardisation can lead to compatibility issues and hinder collaboration and innovation in the broader IoT ecosystem.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the urgent need for enhanced security measures, awareness, and standardisation efforts in the consumer IoT sector. It is vital to address the security concerns surrounding these devices, identify the entities responsible for IoT deployments, and ensure that consumers are informed about the importance of securing their devices. Additionally, industry stakeholders should collaborate to establish common technological standards and guidelines to promote openness, interoperability, and cybersecurity in the consumer IoT realm. By doing so, the potential of IoT can be fully realised while simultaneously safeguarding privacy and ensuring the integrity of connected systems.

Sandoche Balakrichenan

The presentations on IoT emphasized the significance of interoperability, scalability, and zero trust. It was argued that these features are essential for the success of IoT. The domain name system (DNS) was proposed as a potential solution for IoT-based identity and access management in a zero-trust environment. DNS is widely used for communication by internet users and can potentially be used for IoT as well, enabling secure and controlled access to IoT devices and systems.

LoRaWAN, regarded as one of the most constrained networks in IoT, was highlighted as an ideal testing ground for the concept of interoperability, scalability, and zero trust. The successful implementation of this concept with LoRaWAN could potentially be applied to other IoT networks and devices.

AFNIC, a prominent organisation, is developing a dynamic identity management system based on DNS. The aim of this system is to enable interoperability among various types of identifiers such as RFID and barcodes, facilitating efficient and effective management of identities within the IoT ecosystem.

The use of DNS and DANE (DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities) was discussed as a way to eliminate the need for a certificate authority ecosystem. This approach, combined with the successful tests of TLS 1.3 and ongoing efforts to add privacy features, highlights the potential of DNS and DANE to achieve dynamic, scalable, and zero trust capability in IoT.

The presentations also touched upon the collaboration between the supply chain industry and IoT, particularly in relation to GS1 devices such as barcodes and RFID. This collaboration highlights the integration of technology systems with the supply chain industry, fostering innovation and enhancing efficiency.

Furthermore, the speaker mentioned the use of LoRaWAN with MAC IDs, showcasing an alternative approach to identification beyond traditional names and IP addresses. This demonstrates that concerns in IoT extend beyond conventional methods and require exploration of new and diverse approaches.

In conclusion, the presentations underscored the importance of interoperability, scalability, and zero trust in IoT. The potential application of DNS for IoT-based identity and access management, the development of a dynamic identity management system by AFNIC, and the use of DNS and DANE to eliminate the need for a certificate authority ecosystem were notable insights. The collaboration between the supply chain industry and IoT, as well as the exploration of alternative identification methods such as LoRaWAN with MAC IDs, further exemplify the dynamic nature of IoT and the need for innovative solutions.

Dan Caprio

In a recent discussion on the Internet of Things (IoT), it was highlighted that there is a significant power asymmetry between consumers and their understanding of IoT. This issue has been observed not only in the United States but also in other parts of the world.

To address this, the US government has launched an ongoing effort aimed at bringing consumer labelling to the IoT. This initiative is being carried out through a public-private partnership, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) being responsible in the US. The aim is to ensure responsible consumption and production in the IoT sector, in line with SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.

This labelling scheme would involve putting labels on IoT device packaging, providing consumers with information about the level of security offered. This proposed labelling system is seen as a means to empower consumers by giving them the necessary information to make informed choices and protect themselves in the rapidly growing IoT landscape.

Furthermore, having consumer labels on IoT devices could also facilitate international harmonisation. The idea is that these labels could pave the way for global standards and interoperability in the IoT industry. This notion aligns with Vint Cerf’s view on the importance of standards and interoperability in the IoT ecosystem.

However, it is important to note that the US consumer label for IoT is still in its early stages. The FCC announced this initiative in August, but it will not take effect until at least the end of next year. Therefore, additional work is required to develop and implement a comprehensive labelling system that effectively serves the needs of consumers.

During the discussion, it was suggested that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should play an active role in addressing this issue. It was acknowledged that raising awareness and fostering dialogue around consumer labelling in the IoT is a crucial step towards ensuring responsible and secure IoT adoption. It was proposed that the IGF, along with regional IGFs, should include this topic in their agendas and actively engage stakeholders in finding effective solutions.

Overall, the discussion emphasized the need for consumer empowerment and protection in the IoT sector. The ongoing efforts in the US to introduce consumer labelling and the potential for international harmonisation through such initiatives are promising steps in the right direction. However, more work needs to be done to ensure that a comprehensive and effective labelling system is developed and implemented. The active involvement of the IGF and its regional counterparts can significantly contribute to addressing this issue and promoting responsible IoT practices.

Vint Cerf

The speakers in the analysis delve into various crucial aspects of the Internet of Things (IoT). They highlight the importance of standards and interoperability in order to ensure that devices from multiple manufacturers can effectively work together. This is crucial for the IoT to reach its full potential as it allows for seamless communication and integration between devices. It also enables consumers to configure their IoT devices in a way that is useful and tailored to their specific needs. The argument put forth is that without standards and interoperability, the IoT ecosystem would be fragmented and hindered by compatibility issues.

Another key point discussed is the need for secure and upgradeable operating systems for IoT devices. The speakers emphasise that every IoT device will require an operating system, and with that comes the need for regular updates and bug fixes. The argument is made that these updates are necessary to address vulnerabilities and ensure the overall security of the devices. Without secure and upgradeable operating systems, IoT devices are at risk of exploitation by malicious actors.

The speakers also stress the significance of strong authentication, cryptography, and digital signatures in the context of IoT devices. They argue that these measures are crucial for ensuring trusted communication between devices. The speakers assert that IoT devices need to have a strongly authenticated identity and must also be aware of what other devices they are allowed to communicate with. By implementing cryptography and digital signatures, IoT devices can authenticate and verify the integrity of the data being exchanged, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or tampering.

Additionally, the scalability of configuration management and control for IoT devices is highlighted. The speakers note that in residential settings, the number of devices could easily reach the hundreds, while in industrial settings, it could be in the thousands. They argue that effective configuration management and control systems need to be in place to handle the sheer volume of devices and ensure efficient and reliable operation.

However, one speaker expresses a negative sentiment towards voice recognition as a control method for IoT devices. They highlight concerns regarding the reliability of voice recognition technology, as it is not 100% accurate and can lead to frustration for users. Moreover, there is the possibility of misuse, where unauthorized individuals could gain access to IoT devices by mimicking the owner’s voice. This raises security concerns and questions the reliability of voice recognition as a viable control method for the IoT.

In a somewhat unrelated observation, the analysis briefly mentions Vint Cerf’s extensive wine collection in his house, with approximately 3,000 bottles. It is suggested that the next owner of his house will have the responsibility of managing this impressive collection.

In conclusion, the speakers emphasize the importance of standards, interoperability, secure operating systems, strong authentication, cryptography, and digital signatures in the world of IoT. These elements are seen as crucial for the successful deployment and operation of IoT devices. Additionally, the scalability of configuration management and control systems is acknowledged as a critical factor in managing a large number of IoT devices. It is important to carefully consider the control methods used for IoT devices, as voice recognition may not be the most reliable option due to its limitations and potential for misuse.

Hiroshi Esaki

According to experts, the correct functioning of artificial intelligence (AI) relies heavily on trustworthy data. AI does not have its own algorithm; instead, it requires reliable data to provide accurate and insightful results. This emphasizes the importance of data quality and integrity in AI systems.

In the business field, IoT devices are increasingly prevalent across various industries, including agriculture. These devices offer numerous benefits, such as improved efficiency, increased productivity, and enhanced decision-making. However, to fully leverage the potential of IoT, there is a need for good ownership, responsibility, and authentication. This ensures that the devices are used ethically and securely, protecting sensitive data and mitigating potential risks.

The evolution of IoT into the Internet of Functions (IOF) brings a paradigm shift from traditional cloud computing systems. With IOF, functions can be transferred and executed anywhere over the internet. This opens up new possibilities for decentralized and distributed systems, enabling greater flexibility and scalability in IoT networks.

One critical aspect of the IoT ecosystem is the security of devices. To ensure secure and safe IoT deployment, scalable systems for labeling or certification are needed. This helps in identifying and verifying the authenticity and integrity of IoT devices, making it easier for users to trust and rely on them.

A noteworthy observation is the increasing importance of zero-trust capability in IoT devices. This means that every single device must have built-in security measures that continuously verify and authenticate network connections. By adopting a zero-trust approach, the IoT ecosystem can provide a higher level of security, protecting sensitive data and preventing unauthorized access.

Furthermore, IoT devices and the data they produce can make a significant contribution to carbon neutrality and decarbonization efforts. These devices, along with the concept of digital twins, enable better monitoring and management of resources, leading to more sustainable practices and reduced environmental impact.

Additionally, internet security is a crucial element that should be considered in the IoT ecosystem. It should be end-to-end, starting with individual users taking responsibility for protecting their network. Traceability and interoperability play a vital role in ensuring secure internet operation, and efforts are being made worldwide, including in Japan, to provide users with traceability features.

In conclusion, the future use of IoT devices is expected to evolve beyond their original purposes. These devices have the potential to transform industries, improve efficiency, and enable innovative applications. However, realizing the full potential of IoT requires addressing critical areas such as data quality, device security, and internet security. By doing so, we can create a more reliable, secure, and sustainable IoT ecosystem.

Jonathan Cave

The Internet of Things (IoT) is described as a complex adaptive system that produces things that are yet to be imagined. This system consists of connected devices that work together to create complex functions, even though these functions may not have well-defined or objectively defined definitions. The IoT has the potential to revolutionize various industries and aspects of our lives through its interconnectedness.

However, privacy concerns arise when it comes to the IoT. These devices have the ability to collect vast amounts of personal and private information from their users, regardless of whether it is relevant to their nominal functioning or design. The collection of such data raises questions about the privacy of data, devices, and their functions within the IoT context.

Another aspect to consider is the impact of IoT devices on human behavior. For instance, when people use smart speakers, they begin to trust them to deliver content, thereby giving these devices a power they did not originally have. This trust implies that IoT devices are not just sensors but also actuators, with the ability to reprogram their users’ behavior, understanding, and attention.

The interaction between individuals and IoT devices also calls for a reshaping of ethical frameworks. As the operation of these devices and systems changes people’s behavior, understanding, and attention, there is a need to align our ethical frameworks with the evolving nature of individual and collective psychology in relation to IoT devices.

Additionally, the concept of data ownership is being reconsidered in the context of the IoT. It becomes necessary to resurrect the notion of data ownership so that people can be held responsible for their actions and the functioning of these systems. This is crucial in maintaining accountability and ensuring that individuals take ownership of their data and its usage within the IoT ecosystem.

Furthermore, ethical reflection, consideration, and control are fundamental when it comes to IoT devices. The ethical implications of these devices should be thoroughly assessed and addressed, with due consideration given to the potential consequences on individuals and society as a whole. This involves scrutinizing IoT projects for their ethical considerations and the application of legal mechanisms to make control measures more predictable.

Overall, keeping the conversation open on ethical considerations and control issues is of utmost importance. The emergence of new problems within the IoT ecosystem requires a collaborative approach, as no single party can perceive and address all the challenges alone. Simply ticking the ethical box at the beginning of a project and leaving it to lawyers is not enough. Ongoing ethical reflection and open discussions are essential to ensure that the ethical implications of IoT devices are adequately addressed and controlled.

Sarah T. Kiden

In the realm of the Internet of Things (IoT), power imbalances exist, calling for accountability and responsibility measures. These imbalances may arise during the design or research phase. Concerns are raised about the lack of consumer influence on future IoT deployments, leading to a need for empowering consumers.

To address these issues, collecting user stories on the harms caused by IoT devices can guide the creation of design guidelines and influence policy changes. Organizations like the Algorithmic Justice League, Data & Society, and Amnesty International have begun documenting AI harms, providing evidence to sway policymakers in the right direction.

Overall, the analysis highlights the presence of power asymmetries in the IoT ecosystem and underscores the importance of accountability and responsibility measures. Empowering consumers and involving them in shaping the future of IoT deployments is crucial. Furthermore, gathering user stories and documenting the harms caused by IoT devices can serve as valuable evidence for influencing policy changes and creating design guidelines. This comprehensive summary emphasizes the significance of addressing power imbalances and promoting responsible practices in the IoT industry.

Avri Doria

During the session, it was mentioned that no questions had been received online thus far. However, the speaker kindly invited participants to submit any questions through the chat or QA function. The audience was asked to keep their questions brief since only 15 minutes remained in the session due to the amount of content covered in the first part.

This demonstrates the speaker’s willingness to engage with attendees and provide valuable insights. Despite the lack of questions at that point in the session, it emphasized the importance of participant engagement to enhance the overall learning experience.

In conclusion, the speaker encouraged participation by inviting individuals to submit their questions through the chat or QA function. This call for engagement highlighted the significance of participant interaction in shaping the session and allowing for a more enriching learning experience.

Maarten Botterman

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a global technology that offers new opportunities to address challenges and is adapted and developed globally. It has the potential to revolutionize society by improving efficiency, decision-making, and connectivity through device communication and data exchange. The IoT is seen as a necessary technology with positive sentiment.

The argument for the IoT is that it can ethically address societal challenges by deploying systems in disaster-stricken regions and rural areas. It requires the involvement of all stakeholders and acknowledges the varying challenges across different regions. Sustainability and inclusivity are emphasized, with a focus on creating accountable ecosystems.

However, the adoption of the IoT also presents challenges such as new risks and the potential weaponization of technology. Legal clarity and regulation are necessary for IoT investment and development, and procurement practices can improve security. It is important to take proactive measures and implement self-certification and DNS for enhanced security.

Different networks and the use of DNS for interoperability and scalability are considered. AI also comes with risks, but the potential benefits justify them. Informed consent, labeling, and change management are emphasized to inform people about risks and adapt to the fast pace of change in the IoT space.

In conclusion, the IoT has the potential to address challenges ethically and create sustainable ecosystems. Legal clarity, regulation, and proactive measures are needed to address risks. Different networks and DNS can improve interoperability and scalability. Informed consent, labeling, and change management are important considerations for successful implementation.

Maarten Botterman:
It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s set to launch, but it’s, anyway. Can you put the, ah, yeah, that’s good. And Jonathan is now on the line. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Welcome to this. Good morning. Good morning, Jonathan. Welcome to this session of the Dynamic Coalition for the Internet of Things. I’ll give a short introduction to get us all up to speed on what this is about. And then we’ll, we’ll dive into the panel discussion with a couple of introductions. And everybody’s invited to participate. If you have clarifying questions, we’ll take those earlier and discussion is for after the contributions. So with that, I’d like to see the slides. Please start posting the slides. I need to do it from the slide room? Okay. On the desktop. The blue one here, for me is stretch. Okay. I can see it, yeah, we’re online. So the Internet of Things is talking, the Dynamic Coalition is really talking about how to get to global good practice on the Internet of Things, a development that has been progressing over many years. The Internet of Things, for all clarity, is a technology that we need. And it comes with benefits as well as with challenges, like all new technologies. And it offers opportunities to respond to today’s challenges in ways that were never possible before. Yet it comes with new ones. And just a reminder, preempting any discussion, technologies are not the ones that are good or bad, it’s the way we use them. Particularly, we need them for addressing societal issues also on global level, across borders. And this is a global technology that is adapted globally and is developed globally and adopted locally. So it requires sharing global knowledge about solutions, as well as local knowledge about what needs to happen and action to make things happen, to go beyond talking about it. There’s many different applications. And just to give a little bit impression of the width, the buoy you see is a tsunami buoy and it’s connected and it measures the waves. So this gives the people at the coasts of vulnerable areas just a half hour extra to get away from the coast when necessary. To under that, you see a little sensor that is actually part, can be part of a body, visual sensor, your blood pressure changes and will warn you, well, your blood pressure is going up, maybe lay down and call somebody to rescue you because there may be a heart attack imminent. Just above that is in room, cold monoxide measurer. You can see there’s a lot of different applications, ranging from wildlife tracking to autonomous systems that manage networks of roads around busy cities. I’m going the wrong way. So we talk about a global approach towards IIT at this global IGF. We’ve been talking about it in regional IGFs more focused at the region that has brought a lot of insight also that global solutions aren’t always the best locally or regionally. IIT for us is merely a specific aspect of the internet, just like social media, communication, access to information. And it does link to AI, it does link to big data. It generates data, it uses data. Specific characteristics that co-determine the development of future network include, in particular, the collecting, storing, providing access to many data related to an observation by sensors. It’s autonomous networks with actuators that take action following receipt of specific data on other, on sensors. And to take pre-programmed decision models or learn from it, and AI is a clear component that adds to that development and what it can do. IIT is also, because it’s physical as well, something that you can actually weaponize, whether it’s the MOTIC devices or other IOT devices to attack third parties, and that is something to be aware of. So these specifics make a difference. Dynamic Coalition is set up in 2008, so we celebrate our 15th year and active ever since, also in regional meetings. And as said, the aim is to develop global good practice. And the dialogue is about meeting multi-stakeholders on equal terms at global level. The principle that we currently have, and that’s always subject to review, is taking ethical considerations into account from the outset, and find an ethical, sustainable way ahead using IOT to create a free, secure, and enabling rights-based environment, the future we want. And for the case of time, I would like to introduce our first speaker today. We both grew older. And this is 2016. It relates to the fundaments of the internet. I’m very happy to have Vint Cerf speak here on how that relates to IOT and how that fits into the vision for the future as well.

Vint Cerf:
Well, thank you all very much for the invitation to join you. I will have to scoot very quickly because I have a leadership panel meeting to run at nine o’clock, so my normal one-hour rant will have to be curtailed. The headline that I want to avoid is 100,000 Refrigerators Attack Bank of America. And unfortunately, we’ve already had headlines that are similar to that, the Dyne Corporation attack from webcams is a good example of that. So the first point I want to make is that standards and interoperability are really critical here. We want multiple manufacturers’ devices to interwork, to have compatible kinds of control models. So as consumers of these devices, we can acquire and configure them in a way that’s useful. The second thing is that every one of these devices is gonna have to have an operating system in it. And we had better insist that the operating systems both be as secure as possible and also be updatable because there will be bugs, they need to be corrected. So the device in situ needs to be upgradable to correct for vulnerabilities or to add to new functionality. Strong authentication is absolutely critical for the use of IoT devices. So at the point where you are provisioning the device, putting it into use, it needs to have a strongly authenticated identity which can be validated remotely. It also needs to know what other devices it’s allowed to talk to. And so we should insist that the device be provisioned to know how to validate an incoming query or an incoming command from another device so that it is not subject to takeover by an unauthorized party. Once again, strong authentication and the use of cryptography and digital signatures will be our friend here. The device should have a limited access control list that it will listen to and all it would ignore. There’s a scaling issue here because the number of devices that you might have in a residence could number in the hundreds in the long term if every light bulb has its own control, for example. And in an industrial setting, we could be talking about thousands of these devices. So configuration management and control needs to be scalable. You don’t wanna spend the entire week typing IPv6 addresses into these devices to configure them. So the scaling issue is very important. There’s also a dynamic discovery question for some types of these devices. When something shows up that should become part of the residential network or part of the corporate network or the manufacturing network, you’d like to automatically find a way to configure it, but you clearly don’t want the wrong parties to be automatically configured in. So in a residential setting, you can imagine the service person coming out to do maintenance. They might have a mobile with them. They might have other devices. You might detect their presence, but you have to make the system decide whether or not to incorporate that device into the local control or not. And you might, as the owner of the system, be asked, should I configure the maintenance man’s mobile into the household network or not? So once again, we have to have the capability for doing dynamic addition. If you bought a new IoT device, you’d like to make it easy to add that. There are some discussions about what happens when you sell a house that’s full of IoT devices. What does the recipient of the house do? Do they have to reconfigure everything? How do we make that easy to do? What about voice control? This is increasingly popular. You have lots of devices. Google has the Google Assistant, for example. The problem with voice control, of course, is that there are risks. Who is allowed to control the device? What are they allowed to do with it? And you probably want to distinguish among parties with regard to their capacity for controlling the devices. For example, parents might want to have more control than the kids. Although, if your experience is like mine, the kids know more about how to do this than the parents do. You certainly don’t want the casual robber to walk up to the front door and say, open the door, and have it open the door. So voice recognition, which, as you know, is not 100% reliable, may not be the best way to do this. You may actually have to have some identifier with you that is sensible, so to speak, by the IoT devices that qualify you for certain capabilities. One interesting problem is guests that come to the house, if it’s in the residential setting. How do you train the house to know what the guests are allowed to do, and which guest is it? Do you have to issue little badges to them? If it’s a voice control system, do you have to have them stand in front of a microphone and say a bunch of words so that the system can learn their voice and to correctly interpret that? I mean, it would be kind of a weird thing to invite your guests over for dinner and have them recite in front of a microphone so that they can use the house, get the refrigerator to open, get the toilet to flush, or whatever else that they have to do. Suppose you’re standing in a room like this one with a whole lot of light bulbs. How do you turn one light bulb off or on, or which lights? Do you have to give names, like Frank and George and Eddie, and then teach your guests what the names of the light bulbs are? So we have to find ways of interacting with the system that’s easy to learn. Also, if you give authority to a guest, you don’t want that authority to go on longer than they are still welcome guests. And so when they leave the house, the house should forget their ability to access it. So those are just a list of the various things that come to my mind. And I hope in the course of today’s session that you’ll shed some light on how we achieve some of these objectives of safety and security and reliability and flexibility so that the IoT space turns out to be a useful one, both from the point of view of constructive application, but also a big opportunity for companies to design, build, and sell these devices that tend to work with each other. So Mr. Chairman, I’ll stop there and dash out the door. If these were stupid ideas, I’m sure you’ll document that. But to the extent that it stimulates your thinking, I hope it’s been helpful.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you so much. And I’m curious, too, who would be the next owner of your house and how it would deal with everything you put in place.

Vint Cerf:
They’ll have to deal with the 3,000 bottles in the wine cellar with the little tags on them.

Maarten Botterman:
That will make up for all the other hassle, no doubt. Thank you, Vint, for sharing that. Good. If you can go back to the slides, then allow me to, in a way, put also Vint’s remarks into context. Again, the thinking and summary is to embrace IoT to address societal challenges in an ethical way. And we need IoT to keep this world vengeable. We need it to be inclusive. Deployment needs to be possible where necessary. This also means in areas where, for instance, the tsunami buoys or other agricultural systems, where the economics may not naturally offer a business case for a profit industry to build. The second thing is to create that IoT system that encourages investments. So to do that, you need to involve all stakeholders. There’s no single stakeholder holds the key. Regulation is important, because you need to understand the legal clarity in which you’re going to invest, going to develop your legal mechanisms. And we realize that nothing happens in isolation or in a vacuum. There is legislation. But how do you deal with it specifically when you develop new applications that are IoT-based? Maybe sandboxes, legal sandboxes, is part of the solution there. Create ecosystems that are sustainable and inclusive. Also means understand the issues wherever you go. They may be different. And stimulate awareness and feedback, because developments are nowadays so fast that people don’t know what’s possible until years after sometimes. That’s something that deserves attention, too. So as Vint alluded to, if we develop all this and we are in the process, then it needs to be a trusted IoT environment. So in short, in line with our current good practice document, this means meaningful transparency. And you could think of certifiable labels, understandable risks, and how to deal with devices and bigger systems. Clear accountability. So who is responsible? Not that obvious always. So it’s something that debate needs to progress. And lo and behold, let’s hope there is real choice. No lock-in. And I think that’s a point for discussion, too. So with that, is Orly online? Is Orly online? OK. Orly, if you’re online, unmute, please. Good morning, silly. Then Orly was to talk about the impact of AI and IoT. And the core of her contribution is that AI does come with risks, but sometimes these risks are really worthwhile taking. For instance, in medical applications, where AI help to improve the quality of life, even if they affect the way you move around. And that comes with a lot of ethical aspects as well that are worth thinking about and exploring. But in the end, it’s all about people. And that was the core of her story, too. So with that, Hiroshi, I would love to hear you to talk about IoT deployment and your security perspective in how to make that responsibly happen.

Hiroshi Esaki:
OK. Thank you for the introduction. I’m Hiroshi Saki from WISE Project Japan. First of all, regarding the AI, AI really need a trustable data. Otherwise, the AI is going to do very bad behavior. And also interesting for the AI is AI doesn’t have any algorithm by himself or by herself. Means their algorithm came from data, right? So we need a very trustful data in order to use AI correctly. That’s the single point in the first item. And also I’m working long time regarding the IoT business, say agriculture or the other industries. Then people are now, every single industry going to digital trend based on the transparent, interoperable and trustful data, right? In order to have the trustful data or transparency data, that is really, really important for the governance. How the people using the IoT device or how the IoT device can be manufactured, maintain software and function in it. Therefore we need a good ownership of the data and devices and the responsibility of the devices in the business field, authenticate as well. And also that’s not only on the earth in this day. We are going to include space and moon and Mars. That’s there’s no such a regulation at all at this time. We must have new area to tackle with. Second thing I want to share with you is the IoT gonna mutating into IOF. Things are connected, means data are gonna travel around on the earth. The function is the next one from the data. Means every single function attacks be able to transfer everywhere if we have the internet. That’s a completely different from bare metal computer system to cloud computing. So the function be able to travel around on the globe. That’s a completely different paradigm. Means the certification or control or management or excuse way of the things must be changed to function. Not that purely devices, physical devices, but what kind of process gonna run over any single device. So we must labeling or certificating not device but a function or software running on the hardware device. That is an important thing I believe. And also in order to have a secure or safe operation, we need labeling or certification or authentication. Then scalability is quite important. I always talk with the government. They want to control everything, but that is not scalable. Therefore, we need a very clever scalable system in order to have such a labeling or certification for secure, safe IoT or IRF devices. The third point I wanna share with you is that we have new stakeholder. As Martin mentioned, agriculture people, official people or the other people, they are not came from IT or ICT arena. They completely have a different culture and terminology. When I talk with them, completely different language, completely different structure of the industry, I have to talk with them. That is a new challenge. And also we welcome the new stakeholders come together. That is in principle of the IGF itself. So I really want to say that is a new players gonna come in in our field. The other interesting for this focusing on the IoT, IoT device requires very small latency in many cases. In the case of internet, we allow 100 millisecond, right? In order to see the video, CDN providing you say 10 millisecond. The robot requires microsecond. You must feel speed of lights, size of the earth. In the case of IoT application, it may be called as edge computing. The completely different requirement, they ask to us for the computer system alone. Then IoT went to the IOF, then more zero trust capability is required because every single device be able to travel around over the globe, then air gap or firewall protection provision doesn’t work well. Of course, that is very useful technique. The every single device must have zero trust capability in the future, otherwise we cannot enjoy IoT or IOF. Then the last one would be a IoT device or every single data for the digital twin has a huge contribution to a carbon neutral, decarbonization because we must grasp what’s going on on the earth, what’s going around you. We need a data, it must be trustable, must be transparent, otherwise we cannot live with healthy earth. That’s it, thank you.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much and linking it very much to where we are today, the challenges today. And one would still think whether there’s different levels of devices that have different requirements in terms of both carbon neutrality and security, I would say. But we’ll hear more about it. We’ll also have a contribution later on about LoRa networks and how they can play in. So with that, thank you very much. Sarah Kyden is a researcher who’s been just getting her PhD in design and congratulations with that, Sarah. And really would like to hear about your insights from that perspective on IoT and how to make it deployable wherever it’s needed.

Sarah T. Kiden:
Hi everyone, I hope you can hear me well. Good evening from my end. So my name is Sarah Kyden and I would like to start with two things right now and maybe I’ll add on some more later. The first one is that as we develop guidelines for IoT as a dynamic coalition or really any group that’s developing guidelines, we need to acknowledge that there are power asymmetries in the IoT ecosystem. So if you think about it, there are people who build, who develop the IoT devices, there are people who use these devices in the context of consumer IoT and there are people who are impacted by the devices. So the impact could be positive like what Martin was talking about earlier where your medical IoT device notifies your health practitioner and you’re able to get immediate help or it could be negative in a way that perhaps an IoT device has been used, for example, to facilitate gender-based violence. There’s a group I follow at University College London that’s doing very interesting research about how IoT is being used to facilitate gender-based violence. So these power imbalances could manifest at different stages. So at the design phase or research phase where I am currently, if, for example, I interview participants and I’m analyzing data, the insights that I could draw are based on maybe what I’m interested in or what I see or just acknowledging that as a designer or as a researcher, I come with biases. So things that stand out to me could be underlying infrastructure that supports IoT, access to electricity, access to a network and so on and so forth, but it might be different for someone else. So at that point, it means the designer or engineer has the power to make design decisions. At another point, it could be a funder, for example. So they are giving you money to do particular IoT work and you have obligations for the grant agreement. So that means that the interest now lies with the funder. So I think we need to have some sort of mechanism for accountability and responsibility so that the power is not misused, but to also think about if the consumers have any power at all. If they have it, how are they using it? If not, how can we empower consumers to actually influence future deployments? The second thing I would like to talk about is something I’ve seen happening in the AI space. So organizations like the Algorithmic Justice League, Data & Society and Amnesty International, among others, are now beginning to document AI harms. So they’re actually collecting user stories about a harm that’s happening to them. It could be a hiring decision. It could be maybe they were not considered for a loan or a tenancy application and so on and so forth. It’s something that I think as the IoT, people who are interested in IoT design and deployment, we could think about. And these can serve as evidence. So basically, you can use that to create design guidelines. If I use the previous example where IoT devices are facilitating gender-based violence, if out of 500 reports, 100 are about a particular thing, then you could think about how to implement safety, for example, for smart IoT devices. Or you could nudge policymakers in a particular direction. So you tell them maybe the way the law is written currently, you cannot litigate a particular issue. And maybe we need to amend the law so that we can cover some of the things. So this is the initial thoughts that I have. And I’m happy to add some more later on. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much, Sarah, and also for illustrating the differences and the different requirements in different areas that happen. One of the examples we talked about in the preparation was, for instance, that data protection is legislation existing in many countries, but not in all. Does it mean everything goes in those countries where no data protection legislation is yet in place? It’s one of the things, if you think about it on a global level, is important to address. With that is the next person. Is Alejandro online? OK. Alejandro, you’re online, I hear. Sorry, my computer died because I don’t have electricity on it anymore.

Alejandro Pisanty:
Ouch. So yes, Alejandro Pisanti, present here.

Maarten Botterman:
Yes, please.

Alejandro Pisanty:
Thank you. This is Alejandro Pisanti from the National University of Mexico in Mexico City. Today I am in Washington, DC, and pleased to be with you. First, I would like to very briefly address one point that Sara Kidane has made, which is, who are the entities exerting power through IoT? And I think there’s room for more detailed analysis. We certainly can think, first of all, I think Martin, as we have spoken previously, and others, we have to distinguish between consumer internet of things and industrial internet of things. Consumer internet of things is a major concern for security, for example, as Vint Cerf stated at the beginning of the session, you don’t want your refrigerator to be responsible for launching missiles somewhere, or a DDoS attack on a major government. And the people exerting power in that sphere are not necessarily the ones we think of usually in a north-south divide. It’s more probably a company in a large country, which is not acting all the time in the system of rules. It doesn’t have a large transnational structure, but it’s more likely a lot of small companies making devices that are sold at a very low price to consumers that are not necessarily aware of the need to secure their devices. And devices aren’t even possible to secure, because you don’t have any access to them. You don’t have any access even to passwords, and certainly not, as we mentioned, to their operating systems and other underlying layers. So we’d need to split that kind of analysis into more different categories. Now, the main point for which I was invited to this session is to link with the dynamic collision on core internet values with the question whether the internet of things can have an impact on core internet values, on the way the internet’s core values are deployed, displayed, or challenged. We remember that some of these core internet values are the layered architecture, packet switching, which are sort of underlying assumptions. And then we have the best effort hypothesis or assumption. We have interoperability, openness, and so forth. And what we see first is that the deployment of devices in the consumer internet of things, which do send their packets and data over the open public internet, are a challenge already to openness, sometimes to interoperability. Certainly, they are increasing the load on the systems. And they have increased the attack surface for everybody, as has seen in many examples, where, for example, a specific model of surveillance cameras, standard facilities, CCTVs can be weaponized for denial, distributed denial of service, for example. And we have a further very complex challenge in the standards and layers field, where the standards for communicating the technologies and standards for communicating internet of things devices, both consumer and industrial, use a lot of different technologies. They use, for example, LoRa. They use open Wi-Fi. They use 4G. They will use 5G or even 6G if they come. For different sets or segments of their communications and for backups for some of those, as Hiroshi Esaki has already mentioned, the requirements, for example, may be of micro-sequences. So you may need to have VPNs or dedicated links that subtract bandwidth. Some telcos may decide to sell you bandwidth that’s reserved. That is one of the big discussions around the 6 gigahertz band, for example, how you split it into the open part and into the restricted or registered part. So these are important challenges. And no single manufacturer of these devices will care about these open internet effects or the effects of interoperability as long as their devices work and sell. So we have to find a way to make awareness. And part of this will have to be in consumers. One last point is some of these issues have been set up. And there’s an attempt to address them by, for example, warnings to consumers or registrations or standards bodies. But a lot of these things are sold under the radar of national standardization bodies and of commercial regulations. So people just pick them up in a mobile market and put them into a network without having to comply with any standards of, let’s say, national telecommunications authority or regulator nor anything else. So at least this is a way of making a list and inventory of the challenges and giving them some hierarchy so that we know that some of the solutions proposed may really be very limited in reach or unworkable at all. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much for your perspective, very much informed by the work also of the Dynamic Coalition for Core Internet Values. Really appreciate it. And then can I check with you whether you’re available to speak to labeling and certification? Ben Caprio? You’re unmuted.

Dan Caprio:
Yes, thanks, Martin.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you. Ben is based in Washington, D.C., and he’s been involved in the work of the Dynamic Coalition for a long time. He’s also involved in the White House initiative to look into labeling and certification. So please, Ben, the floor is yours.

Dan Caprio:
Thank you, Martin. I’m trying to find my camera. Is that better?

Maarten Botterman:
We see you.

Dan Caprio:
Yes, thank you. And thanks for pulling this together and for your continued leadership. I think one of the issues that ties a lot of things together quite well that have been mentioned by other speakers, the issue of power asymmetry and how consumers have some idea of what’s happening with the Internet of Things, so their devices, is something that we’ve observed in the United States, and it’s also happening in other parts of the world. But the effort to bring consumer labeling to the Internet of Things. And so there’s been a real push in the United States, a public-private partnership, which was announced by the White House back in the summer, which is being the responsible party in the United States is the Federal Communication Commission, which is sort of our equivalent of the telecom regulator. And the idea is, you know, to have a widely available consumer label on packaging for devices that gives a consumer some sense of, you know, what level of security is offered on the particular device, how to update the security, how to upgrade it, and then how to become more aware. Because I think there’s a growing appetite, especially at the consumer level, for, you know, what is the device that I’m buying, what is the capability. And so, you know, there are other parts of the world and other speakers that are going to speak to this later. I know we had a regional IGF in Australia where this was the topic of discussion. But I think it’s something that’s reflective, the idea of the consumer label is something that’s reflective of the dynamic coalition itself, which is it’s a very positive development. It’s something that we’ve all been working on, working hard on for a very long time. But I think it also, you know, gives the possibility in terms of some of the labeling efforts for international harmonization, which goes to Vint’s point about interoperability and standards. So with the label in the U.S., we’re not talking about creating a standard. It’s a public-private partnership that will be run by the Federal Communication Commission and by, you know, interested stakeholders. So view it as a very positive development and hope that it’s something that we can continue to work on in the dynamic coalition and see it become more globally accepted.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you, Dan, for that. And the U.S. is not the only one, as said. There’s national initiatives. There’s also initiative by IEEE to look into how to do this. We’re currently all very explorative, I would say, but with deep intent. Good morning, Wout. Next speaker, if we can get Sandoz. Can you make Sandoz Balakrishnan co-host? He will speak instead of Lucien Costics.

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Yeah, good morning, Macron. Can you hear me?

Maarten Botterman:
We can hear you very well. And I asked the support, sorry for this very last-minute request. So they made you co-host, so you can also present your slides if you want to. Good morning.

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Yeah, that will be fine. Yep. I have slides, but I will not take much time. I hope you can see my slides.

Maarten Botterman:
We can see your slides in presentation mode.

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Thank you. Thank you, Martin. So, you know, in the opening statement of windsurf, he talked about IoT needing interoperability, scalability, etc. And Professor Isaki also said about the zero trust necessity for IoT. So both these presentations are quite a preamble for this one. So here, you know, we are looking at zero trust from an identity management angle. So to have identity and access management using DNS is a perspective that we are looking at AFNIC. AFNIC is the .FR registry that I am working at. We are based in Paris. So DNS, the domain name system, is a system that is used by most Internet users for Internet communication. And it is, to simplify, it is just mapping human-based names, like domain names, to IP addresses. So most of us, we use DNS for our Internet communication. So what we are trying to have a look is that how to use the same system that has been mostly used in the Internet for IoT-based. So in a zero trust, if we say briefly what NIST proposes is that you can have communication from a device to the network on a case-by-case basis where you can have context, where you can have different administrative access. It is not, and you don’t need to provision early. So we also see that we could do the same with DNS. So this is the use case that we see usually in IoT. The device maker, they provision the devices with some keys, and these keys need to be shared among the stakeholders over the ecosystem. So that’s a huge issue. It’s an operational nightmare. So the use of symmetric key works in IoT, but it doesn’t scale. So that’s a problem that we are trying to solve here. So we try to work with LoRa. LoRa is the long-range wide area network. Why did we try to work with LoRaWAN is that LoRa is concerned with the classification of LPWAN, local wide area networks. It is one of the most constrained networks in IoT. And if our proposition works in LoRaWAN, it will work around the other IoT networks and devices. So we were able to do the communication between the different servers in a LoRaWAN scenario using mutual authentication. When I say mutual authentication, it’s that both the client and server authenticate each other. And this could be done by normal asymmetric keys that we use on the internet, that is public and private keys. And how we do them is that we do with self-signed certificates. And in the self-signed certificates, we are able to do this mutual authentication, even when we don’t have the certificate authority. For example, in the internet, we need to have a certificate authority, and that certificate authority needs to be authorized by the browser vendors. But here we could do that in the DNS without having a certificate authority and having your own self-signed certificate. That is done, I’ll go here, that is done thanks to a technology standardized by the IETF. It’s called DANE, DNS authentication of named entities. And I will not go deep into it, but it just shows that in the DNS, you can provision both the identity resolution, as well as which key you have to authenticate. So here with the help of DNS and DANE and DNSSEC, we don’t need a certificate authority ecosystem. We can use the DNS ecosystem for both identity and access management. So we have tested that with the TLS 1.3. We even did a hackathon at the IETF. So the next step that we are going to do is that so I’m coming back to here is that we have zero trust capability here because we don’t need provisioning a priori by keys or by having a certificate authority. You can do that dynamically. And with the DNS, you have scalability. And you can use the existing identifiers because if you see in the IoT, there are different identification systems like barcode, RFID, NFC, etc. And etc. So all these different types of identifications could interoperate with each other. We have worked with the supply chain GS1 standards also. So we tested with them also. So at AFNIC, we are building on a dynamic identity management system based on DNS and we have built blocks by blocks on different projects that we have. As you can see in the slides, it’s like a lego block. We started with whether to see whether we could provision different identifiers in the DNS. When I say different identifiers, it could be a digital object identifier. It could be an object identifier. It could be an RFID. It could be a barcode. It could be domain name, etc. URI, etc. So that works. We work with the supply chain industry. Then we see whether all these identifiers could resolve with the different ecosystems. That also works. Now with the security, we have added one more layer. And we are now working on another project called Pivot where we want to add privacy features based on DNS. So that’s how we plan to do that. And I hope we could also work with the Dynamic Coalition on adding this thing here. For information, there are different standardization organizations like the IETF, the ITU, all working in the same scenario, looking at DNS for resolving the issues that we see in the IoT. Thank you. If you have any questions, I’m ready to answer.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you, Sandor, for that. We saw startup organizations like ITU. I’m not sure ITU qualifies as a startup organization. But thanks for what you do. Because basically what also Sandor brings in is the fact that what is IoT? Is it a device? Is it a cyber physical system which brings together a couple of devices? Or is it an ecosystem of application, a coherent one, in which the self-certification may be quite part of the solution to make sure it’s a secure system? The other element is also with the LoRa networks is that whereas IoT is an extension of the Internet, it doesn’t mean that every IoT application needs streaming video capabilities. Sometimes it’s enough to ping once every five minutes or even once every hour. What’s happening? With that, Lucia also, sorry, Sandor’s presentation can be shared as well, right?

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Yeah, it can be shared, yeah.

Maarten Botterman:
Super. So come to me after the meeting if you want, and I’ll send it by email. And we’ll also make sure that with the report, that will be very clear where you can find the presentations later on. Thanks for bringing this aspect. Zero trust. Self-signed certification is part of the solution. And the awareness that, yeah, different networks will facilitate IoT systems in different environments.

Hiroshi Esaki:
That is one of the technical components. But also we need another, you know, more wider thing. Otherwise, you know, not only the name domain or IP address, but the other part we need.

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Just to answer to Professor Isaki, you know, we did work with the supply chain industry on GS1 type of device. When I say GS1, it is barcode and RFID. And if you see with the LoRaWAN, we are working with MAC IDs. So it’s not just names and IP addresses here.

Maarten Botterman:
So how to also deal with, and what you said also, to deal with privacy issues in systems that have very little extra capability of sharing data. Thanks for that. With us also, Wouter Natris, he’s coordinator of the IS3C Dynamic Coalition. And that coalition has done research into legislation and policy initiatives in IoT and has recently launched a report, or yesterday launched a report on findings and commonalities with that, and even has some recommendations. Wouter, would you be willing to share?

Wout de Natris:
Be glad to, Martin. Thank you. My name is Wouter Natris, and I’m a consultant in the Netherlands. And as such, coordinator of a dynamic coalition called Internet Standard Security and Safety Coalition within the IGF. As Martin said, we had our session yesterday and published two reports and launched a toolkit for Internet Standard Deployment. I was late here because I was in another session on IoT presenting on our work and then got a ping for Martin to come here. The chair of the working group is presenting as we speak in that session, so that I’m taking his place basically here to share his results. Very short, what is IS3C? We started this dynamic coalition in 2020 with the idea to get the Internet standards that are out there for sometimes decades and would make the Internet far more secure and safer if they were massively deployed by industry, most of the time by industry. And for some reason, that is not happening. So how can we make the world more secure and safer? That is by incentivizing organizations to deploy these existing standards. And that is what we do our work on. So we have several working groups, and then I’ll get to the IoT part. But we do work on security by design Internet of Things. We do work on education and skills, on tertiary education, whether they teach these standards, how the Internet works, et cetera. There’s a huge gap there. Procurement by government and industries, are they demanding these Internet standards? We have a working group on emerging technologies, which will probably start in 2024. And we have a working group on the deployment of RPKI and DNSSEC. And not because the technical problems they have, but how can we change the narrative so that when a CEO or a CFO or a Secretary General has to make a decision within his organization, that he understands why he has to go for security and not because of the technique, whether it’s political or economical or social or security motivation. So we have a working group. group that’s going to start in November. Sorry, in December. We are in October. I forgot where we are. It’s going to start in November. And hopefully we’ll have a result there early next year. So what did we do with IoT? Because that’s the reason why I’m sitting here. We came up with a plan to do research into policy documents that are findable on the Internet and to do a comparison. And as I understand, they found documents from 18 countries, a total of 30 documents in 18 countries, mostly from the global north, with 442 different practices in them. So between 18 countries, there were 442 practices. And do they align? Sometimes the terminology is even explained in a different way. So there’s no coherence between these policy documents. And that is, I think, the first thing that I want to say. I’m going to put on my glasses, because it reads a little bit easier. But what they did is they studied it from four categories. They looked at it from data privacy and confidentiality. They looked at secure updating. They looked at user empowerment and operational resilience. And from those four categories, they had five research questions. And the first one is, what are the recommended best practices for setting out the responsibilities of all stakeholders involved in IoT security, including manufacturers, providers, and users? The second question is, what policy and regulatory measures can be identified for promoting IoT security by design, and specifically with regard to ensuring device resilience against crashes, power shortages, and outages? Three, what policy and regulatory guidelines can be identified to promote user empowerment in IoT security, and what are the recommended best practices for implementing vulnerability disclosure mechanisms? Four, through what mechanisms are regulators and policymakers enforcing compliance with established IoT security standards and encouraging manufacturers to adopt the recommended best practices? And five, how do policy and regulatory documents relate security updates with warranty policies for IoT devices and services? So there’s a lot of questions that they put out on these 30 different documents. They found a lot of things, but when they started grouping them, things became quite clear very soon. So what were the main conclusions to be drawn? That one, IoT security is complex and multi-faced. Issues require a comprehensive approach. Many countries, including the whole of the Global South, lack any policy framework for IoT security, and that is almost. There are a few exceptions. Many of the national practices identified did not match other countries’ policies, and there are many differences in taxonomy. Many of the practices are voluntary guidelines without effective accountability and consequences for non-deployment. National administrations rarely require or specify security by design in the hardware and software that they procure, and this would drive and increase the deployment of security-related standards. The standards that form the public core of the Internet, which is basically software, and on which the Internet runs, are not formally recognized as such by governments, and are usually absent in all policy documents such as analyzed in this research. Specifying links between security flaws and device integrity is a strong basis for security updates. So that is the findings, and as you can see, there are huge gaps between when we talk about cybersecurity and what is actually being addressed by these governments, and that leads to a certain set of recommendations, and the first one is accountability frameworks from the design stage through to use. Two, strategies for countering unauthenticated vulnerabilities such as denial-of-service attacks. Three, stakeholder cooperation on coordinating vulnerability disclosure. Four, endorsing global implementation of open standards. Five, the integration of security updates and warranty policies. And finally, governments get your act together and agree on what a term and a definition is of a specific piece of IoT. So can we actually change this situation? And if I look back at the whole dynamic coalition, in all other studies that we found, as I said, already said, the public core of the Internet is something governments discuss, and they think that it should be protected and it should not be attacked. And my idea is that my personal idea from reading the different reports we’re producing is that governments think of the cables of the server parks, they think of the undersea cables that they have to be protected, and what they forget is what makes the Internet actually function and work as it does. So if governments don’t recognize it, it will also mean that they won’t procure it. So what would make the IoT or other functionings of the Internet more secure is when a government starts putting its money where its mouth is. In other words, if you want cybersecurity, you will have to demand certain standards to be built in the product that you are actually procuring. So if you do not demand it up front, in some cases you can’t even get it afterwards after you discover the vulnerabilities, because they can’t be mended or they don’t do it, or because it’s an end-of-life cycle for them. So in other words, you have to consider these standards up front. And so only when bigger organizations, public and private, start demanding security by design when procuring, that is the moment that things will change in the world. And that will also mean that for us as individual users, they’re not going to produce two sort of coffee machines that connect with the Internet. They will all be secure from that moment onwards, because they won’t sell secure things to the government that are insecure to us. If consumer organizations will start testing these devices, also on the IoT component, also that would prove a lot of things. So that is where we try to work with this IS3C. But when all else fails, then I’m convinced that there will be only one solution, and that is that they’re going to regulate it and legislate it. And if that is a desirable thing to happen, I’m not so certain about that, but it will happen between now and five to six years. So it’s time to get our act together. And that act can be by deploying what is out there and can’t be that difficult, I’m told. So let me stop there, Maarten, and happy to answer any questions later.

Maarten Botterman:
Yes, thank you for that, Wout. What we see is the rapid developments make it more and more difficult also for governments to keep up with what they should do. And legislation is just one of the last resort, one would say. I very much appreciate the concept that comes forward, that procurement might be a way in. If governments know how to procure for safe, secure IoT devices, they may also better know how to propose legislation or guidelines to the rest of the public. Thank you, thank you for that insight. And I also heard you having listened to Vint. Let’s think about the world we want, but also act, otherwise we may end up with the world we deserve. And we may not like that. I loved that quote. The last element I really would like to bring in and to emphasise further, because it’s a key element, not only of the society we live in, but also specifically for IoT, is how to deal with privacy and data protection. And for that, I have my friend and colleague Jonathan Cave online, who also volunteered to be our rapporteur for this session. But he’s an expert with a policy background, regulatory background, and a micro economist and game theorist. Jonathan.

Jonathan Cave:
Okay, thank you, Martin. Thank you, everybody. It’s coming up on two o’clock in the morning here. So I will attempt to be coherent. There were a couple of, not to preempt the discussion, I think it’s useful if we get quickly into the main issues. But there are a few things I wanted to say in relation to privacy. I think, from the perspective of the economics of privacy, from the perspective of the ethical aspect, and certainly from the legal perspective, one of the questions that keeps coming up through this discussion is whether the things that we’re talking about, and I include privacy in this, but also things we’ve talked about today, like security, transparency, and accountability, are meant to be principles that we adhere to or espouse when we get a chance, or are meant to be mechanisms that produce a result. Because the Internet of Things, linked into the Internet of People, is a complex adaptive system. It produces things that we can’t yet imagine. And so the engineering perspective of designing things which have specific characteristics and functions and so on, and then you turn them loose and judge them according to how well they do those things, for users who are deemed to have fixed characteristics, may not be the most useful perspective. So I just wanted to flag up this sort of game-theoretic view that all the things we’re talking about are mechanisms, and then make a few observations that are relevant, I think, to the Internet of Things. Some of these are things that have been said before. For example, we know we need to have multiple stakeholders, but it’s important to be quite clear on who those stakeholders are, what kind of voice we want them to have, and what sort of decisions we involve them in. One of the problems that’s come up, particularly with the use of AI in relation to the Internet of Things, is the question of whether agency is still a useful concept in the sense that we had it before, where we can base an entire system of markets, engineering, and laws on the idea of people being told what they can do, and then being held responsible for how they do it. Now, in this respect, I think one of the elements here is the privacy element, and I’ll just sort of round in on that, and we can discuss other things later on. When we talk about privacy, the central question is privacy of what, and why is this a useful idea? In most cases, we start from the perspective of the privacy of data. But we’ve heard all the way through, it was hinted at by Vint, and certainly picked up quite strongly by Hiroshi and everybody who spoke later, that when we talk about the Internet of Things, we’re probably talking about the data plane, certainly when AI comes in there, because you can’t understand what these things or complex assemblages of these things do without understanding how they learned, how they were trained, what data they were trained on. Then there are the devices themselves. Are they secure? Do they fit certain characteristics? Can they be updated and so on? That’s the hardware, and it includes the software as it changes over time. Then there are the functions. But because the Internet of Things contains things that are connected to each other, those functions may not be well or objectively defined. What I use the device for is not necessarily the function that you see. The function that you see may be entirely different. For example, these IoT devices that harvest vast amounts of personal, private information from their users, even when that has no connection to the nominal functioning or design of the device or its operation. The cars that observe whether we’re sleepy or whether we’re behaving well, that kind of thing. So as we move up the plane, away from the data plane and the device plane, things become, as it were, more complicated. And that produces a changing surface, not just an attack surface for cybersecurity, but a surface for, let’s call it, ethical concerns. Now, so that’s item one, which is the complexity of the things. We can engage with these things at certain levels, but they have implications at other levels. Now, I think this is important in terms of the good practice elements of what we want to see for the IoT. Many of us come from engineering or analytical backgrounds, but as many others have pointed out, a lot of the people making decisions here may not share those perspectives. And that’s not just something we have to patch together as a kind of human interoperability, but it’s part of the richness and resilience of the system that we have and give expression to those different perspectives. But that brings me to the second aspect of the privacy, which is the privacy of action and intention. When people use these devices, they develop relationships with them and through them, different relationships with each other. When people use a smart speaker, for example, they begin to trust it in certain ways. Now, partially, that gives the speaker or the people feeding data and instructions to the speaker a power that they didn’t have originally. They move from being sensors, as it were, or deliverers of content, to being actuators, to reprogramming their users. And that perfectly innocent function has really profound implications for who gets held responsible for these things. Now, another small comment I wanted to make that came up early on in the conversation was the question of how we control and own the data. For a long time, we’ve been told that you can’t own data and can’t own personal data. But, of course, now we learn that in order to make these systems function, we have to resurrect the notion of the ownership of data, simply so that we can hold people responsible. Then the final thing I wanted to talk about was the nature of our ethical engagement. We can do certain things with law, certain things with standards and certification, but behind that there needs to be an appropriate ethical framework. Most of our frameworks are based on what Martin called, at the very beginning, respect for the individual. But what we’re beginning to learn is that the individual, at least as they interact with the world, is not a kind of fixed entity. It’s not an anchor point for ethical reflection. So if I give you voice and if I give you respect, am I doing it for you right now or the you that you will become when you interact with these systems? And if it is the latter, how do we take account of the fact that the way the systems operate changes the way people use them, changes the way people understand them? Now, as an economist, I believe that this richness of perspectives is not something that we can resolve or standardize, but is instead a source of resilient interaction that helps us to understand the kinds of things that we see. So in that respect, I’ll close at this point simply by saying that I think that we need to work on the ethical dimension to understand whether concepts like privacy still serve us as useful principles or need to be modified, particularly in light of the fact that we now have different understanding of how our individual and collective psychology is affected by interacting with devices, which at the one time are mechanical devices, but at the same time are AI-empowered entities with whom we form relationships, who change our behavior, our understanding, and the things that we pay attention to.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you so much, Jonathan, for sharing your insights on this journey. Basically, it’s also amazing how quickly our insights and what good practice should be like is evolving. And then we know the next step is to implement it in society. But also walking around in this IGF, I heard a lot of things I thought are really, truly getting us to next levels of understanding of how to deal with systems. For the sake of time, I first would like to ask Avri, is there any questions online?

Avri Doria:
No, there haven’t been any questions online unless one just came in. But, so please, if anybody wants to put one in the chat or the QA, I can read it. And please be short, because we only have 15 minutes left because we put so much content in the first part. But if anybody puts anything in chat, I’ll read it.

Maarten Botterman:
Okay, the content was based on interactions in several regional events. So in that way, the voice of people has been heard and reflected. But we look forward to the voices here in the room. Barry, please, please introduce yourself.

Barry Lieber:
Yes, this is Barry Lieber. I’ve been working on some Internet of Things related stuff for almost 25 years now, from before we called it Internet of Things. And so I’ve got a lot of thoughts on it. I’ll try to condense it to two points that I wanna make. We talk about security, and I don’t like using that term as a buzzword. It’s much more complex. And I think we need to think about it broken down into different aspects, authentication, authorization, confidentiality, data integrity, all those sorts of things. Because putting that all together makes a much more complicated picture, especially when we go to the second point I wanna make, that when we talk about turning on lights with our voice or even something that’s more dear to me as I age of the example you gave of Martin, of monitoring my blood pressure or my heart rhythm or something like that, it’s still just something we’ve been able to do for a long, long time. But now it communicates over the Internet. To me, that’s not the Internet of Things in its full potential. What I think of as Internet of Things is different sources all working together. My car and my house and my calendar, and my calendar resets my alarm clock and makes coffee earlier and tells my car where to go in the morning and that kind of stuff. And that really makes the security, all those different aspects of it, very complicated to put together. And as we think about making a secure Internet of Things and a private and a confidential and whatever Internet of Things, we really need to think about the real robust scenarios and the complexity that that puts into it of how to secure all these different pieces and make sure that the data doesn’t leak and all of that sort of thing.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much, Barry. Hiroshi, please.

Hiroshi Esaki:
Yes, I think the core part of the Internet on the end should be the same, end to end. I mean, the end to end means protect yourself first by yourself, community second. The last one is public health. So the core part of the Internet, try to making a secure, good operation as a backbone network, then end station must have their own protection first. Then that is a really, really good thing for we need a traceability or interoperability. The meaning of interoperability is user must have such a capability, that education or capacity building or literacy building up. Then one of the action we are doing in Japan is the providing traceability to user, not all. But people can have a traceability function, then how many person are gonna use? That really depends on the technology usable and how we deploy or how to advocate these technologies. Then, again, end to end is very powerful, the scalability. So that’s the way we should do.

Maarten Botterman:
Loud, please.

Wout de Natris:
Thank you, Barry, for the question. I think it shows how complex our life is going to be. It’s gonna be much worse than this probably not too long from now. But the question is where do we put the accountability basically or the responsibility? And despite that the end user has a role to play here, we can be 100% certain that 99% of the people won’t even know how to protect themselves because they think this device works. My car drives and that 170 machines just like E.T. phone home in that car the whole time. You have no clue that it’s happening except when you get a very strange message all of a sudden in your car saying, what do I have to do? But that shows what happens today and it’s all about the companies gathering the data. And because of that it’s insecure because otherwise it’s probably harder to get the data for them. But we have to work or as a society we have to work a way around that somehow because otherwise we’ll probably lost forever where from a privacy point of view but also from the attack factor point of view because that is the other side, the dark side can abuse this 24 seven hours a day. Sorry, 24 seven, you know what I mean. So I think that that is why it’s so important to make sure that standards are installed at the outset and otherwise it will probably never happen and we have to start working to make that happen. Thanks.

Maarten Botterman:
Thanks for that very much. Mark, please.

Mark Carvell:
Thank you, Martin. Mark Carvell, I’m a member of Eurodig which is the European Regional Internet Governance Forum. I’m also an advisor to the IS3C coalition on standards, security and safety. So a colleague of Bart DeNatris on the panel. And first of all, thanks very much for a very interesting and wide ranging discussion. A couple of points sprang to mind. And first of all, a quick question to Dan about labeling schemes and harmonization. Where does he think the best platform is for developing harmonization given that people are gonna be traveling around the world with devices and they need to be able to understand a coherent universal labeling scheme. So where is the platform best placed for that? I did bump into somebody from the FCC on Sunday, I think it was. So there is, and I noted what Dan said about FCC involvement in the US public-private partnership. So maybe if I’d known about this, I would have asked him, perhaps if the FCC had some thinking about this and maybe that’s one of the reasons why he’s here, that particular person. So that was a first point. Now, procurement about described as a driver. But I mean, we’ve heard about consumer IoT and industrial IoT. And speaking as a former UK government official, I just wonder where we are in terms of IoT applications in public administrations generally. How can these applications be developed to meet in particular government concerns about security given that this could be a revolution in the interface between governments and citizens? So are you as a dynamic coalition looking at that particular aspect and talking to governments know what they need assurance about in terms of IoT applications? Thirdly, on Jonathan’s point about innovation, I was at an interesting session about ethical development of technologies, ethical innovation yesterday evening. Martin, you were there as well, I think. And the point I made there was that you can strive to innovate ethically, but of course, what direction does IoT, for example, take? It’s very difficult to predict, the unforeseen consequences and applications may be positive, may be negative. So how are IoT developers really approaching ethics in a way that’s going to ensure that these systems and networks are going to be developed with a degree of confidence given the unpredictability factor? Final point, as I said, I’m a member of EUDIG. So EUDIG has a call for issues. I really urge the dynamic coalition to consider using the EUDIG platform forum next June in Vilnius as an opportunity to advocate the work, the valuable work you’re doing. So the call for issues is out now. Okay, thank you. I’ll stop there.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much. For sure, like any dynamic coalition, I think we also think in different messages to different stakeholder groups of their specific role. So that’s a key element. Dan, just checking, I realize it’s a different part of their view, but can you come back on the question from Mark and maybe also the remark from Jonathan in the chat? Okay.

Dan Caprio:
Am I unmuted?

Maarten Botterman:
You are.

Dan Caprio:
Yeah, yes. Yes. In terms of the US consumer label, it’s early days. The FCC just put their notice out back in August. So in the US, this is not gonna take effect until the end of next year at the earliest. And so I’m happy to get back with you with more specific information. There is some discussion in the rule that the FCC put out about international harmonization and also working hand in hand with the White House and with the State Department. But I would imagine that I’m glad you asked the question that this is something that IGF can take a very active role in, because this is something, I mean, with the Internet of Things, something that we’ve all been working on for a very, very long time. So I’d like to see IGF and the regional IGFs, I mean, sort of begin to take this issue up. But in terms of what’s the exact platform or how do you do all this? I mean, that’s to be determined.

Maarten Botterman:
Yes, thank you for that. Any last questions in the Zoom room? Okay.

Jonathan Cave:
In the interim, could I make a very small brief response?

Maarten Botterman:
And then we have the last question in the room and then time is flying.

Jonathan Cave:
It’s very quick on the issue of the ethical reflection, ethical consideration and control of these IoT devices. This is something, and in particular, there are consequences once unleashed. This is a particular concern of many organizations. At the Turing Institute, I’m part of a group called T-REX, Turing Research Ethics, that scrutinizes the Turing Institute’s projects for their ethical considerations. Part of this is, of course, making people think about what will happen when these things are turned up. In some cases, you can do this with things like behavioral or psychological or sociological analysis. You can control it and help to make it more predictable with legal mechanisms. But in general, the answer is usually to keep the conversation open, not to tick the ethical box at the beginning of the project and then turn it over to the lawyers to manage the liability, but to keep the information flying because the problems that we’re thinking about are emergent problems. No single party can possibly perceive them, nor can they be analyzed by considering just one layer of this internet. So really, the only thing to do is attention must be paid and continue to be paid. So I just wanted to make that small remark.

Maarten Botterman:
Very clear point. Can I invite you to introduce yourself?

Elaine Liu:
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Elaine Liu. I’m from Singapore. I came to this IGF as an individual learner, not related to work, so I took time off. So relating to the IoT, I personally feel three points I’d like to share and seek your guidance. First is IoT to me is like an edge devices, data collection devices. It’s all about collecting certain data. It can be text, images, and all. I feel that in setting up policies or guardrails, it all depends on the use cases, right? We talk about IoT that’s for consumer, IoT that’s led to organization, IoT that’s a higher level for agency or certain operational resilience, situational awareness, and all. So I think does it make sense to have different policy and guardrails depending on the use cases? So that’s the first point. The second point is we all know that with hardware, there’s software, there’s operating system, and at the end of the day, the data analytics that comes out of it. So I think in setting up any guiding principle, we will look at the whole value chain because looking at just the edge or the IoT part, it’s just the beginning of it or the starting point. But how it’s being consumed and distributed, that’s related as well. So I think that’s the two points I’d like to share.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your observations. Indeed, as it is time, I will round off if that’s okay.

Hiroshi Esaki:
Very quickly regarding the use case, regarding the IoT device or any single devices, right now we have multiple use. Future use is gonna come out. So even though you have a single device, that have the original usage first, that’s gonna be used to the other purposes. So we have to think about that. That is the use of the devices gonna happen every day. That’s we experience in the internet.

Maarten Botterman:
Yes, thank you. And just to, at this point to say, indeed we do, we are very conscious that it’s data, that it’s about, that there’s different applications. I think everything we say is about also the use of IoT in context, whether it’s device or a combination of devices or a service or ecosystem, all with different requirements, all with different returns, different risks. And one of the key things that has become more and more visible and is high in the interest also in Singapore, I’m aware, is labeling, informing people about what the risks are they’re dealing with, with the stuff they’re confronted with. All the information is to be found also on the DC IoT site. I invite you all to also participate to subscribe to the list from the Dynamic Coalition on IoT, where we will release main news, where you can also raise questions or issues, if that’s what you like. And we’re also very happy with the support of Medianstat that allows us to have supports, a specific website where we can also have discussions, where we can also share some of the presentations we have. And all the reports are available through that as well. This is an iterative process, so much is clear. The space of change is fast and we’re on it because we’re aware we need it and we want it to serve us in a way that it serves us more as a benefit than as a threat. But in the end, it’s all risk management as well. So thank you all for your interest and the speakers for your contributions. I hope to see you in the future, either in a regional event or next year in Riyadh, right? So thank you all very much. This meeting is closed. Thank you.