| APrIGF 2023 Session Proposal Submission Form | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1 - Lead Organizer | |||||||||||||||||
| Contact Person | |||||||||||||||||
| Mr. Maarten Botterman | |||||||||||||||||
| Organization / Affiliation (Please state "Individual" if appropriate) * | |||||||||||||||||
| IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things (DC-IoT) | |||||||||||||||||
| Designation | |||||||||||||||||
| Chair of the DC | |||||||||||||||||
| Gender | |||||||||||||||||
| Male | |||||||||||||||||
| Economy of Residence | |||||||||||||||||
| Netherlands | |||||||||||||||||
| Primary Stakeholder Group | |||||||||||||||||
| multistakeholder | |||||||||||||||||
| List Your Organizing Partners (if any) | |||||||||||||||||
| Maarten Botterman, Chair IGF DC-IoT, GNKS Consult BV, maarten@gnksconsult.com Dan Caprio, Providence Group, dcaprio@providencegroupdc.com Olivier Crepin Leblond, Chair IGF DC-CIV, ocl@gih.com Avri Doria, Technicalities, avri@doria.org Hiroshi Esaki, University of Tokyo, hiroshi@wide.ad.jp Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, University of Aarhus, Denmark, wolfgang@kleinwaechter.in Shane Tews, Logan Circle Strategies, sjtews@gmail.com Narelle Clark, narelle.clark@internet.asn.au |
|||||||||||||||||
| Part 2 - Session Proposal | |||||||||||||||||
| Session Title | |||||||||||||||||
| Progressing Core Internet Values and Global Good Practice for the Internet of Things: impact on sustainability | |||||||||||||||||
| Session Format | |||||||||||||||||
| Roundtable | |||||||||||||||||
| Where do you plan to organize your session? | |||||||||||||||||
| Onsite at the venue (with online moderator for questions and comments from remote participants) | |||||||||||||||||
| Specific Issues for Discussion | |||||||||||||||||
| The Internet of Things (IoT) has become an integral part of many infrastructure ‘operating’ systems of most people’s everyday life including: industrial and work sites, homes and cities. In order to guide the global roll-out of IoT in a way that serves the people, the DC on the Internet of Things (DC IoT) has facilitated a debate since its inception in 2008, which led to the IoT Global Good Practice paper presented to the IGF in 2018. Since then, a number of changes have occurred in this realm that should be addressed. Together with the DC on Core Internet Values (DC-CIV), the DC_IoT aims to prepare its input to the High Level Expert group - and ultimately to the World Summit on Global Digital Compact in September 2024 – with a specific focus on: (a) ensuring access to IoT devices and services for all those: 1- The present and future roll-out of IoT: challenges and opportunities: an exploration of the world of IoT today: where are we. 2- IoT regulatory update: an overview of different regulatory initiatives in 20 countries and lessons learned, building on the work of the Dynamic Coalition IS3C. 3- The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML):Very fast developing is how AI/ML manage IoT enable environments. An exploration, both from policy initiatives around the world, and from the world of practice. 4- IoT and our ecological footprint: A specific focus is on (1) the potential contribution from IoT to better manage our ecological footprint, as well as (2) the ecological footprint of the millions of devices themselves, relating to material use, energy use and waste. 5- Deployment in underserved regions: how to ensure IoT “for the good” to be available for all. The APrIGF roundtable will focus on the contribution of IoT ecosystems to sustainable development, and the ecological footprint of IoT. In addition, we will look at labeling and certification of IoT devices. Participation is open to all |
|||||||||||||||||
| Describe the Relevance of Your Session to APrIGF | |||||||||||||||||
| IoT governance is high on the agenda throughout the region. While "how to deal with IoT" is an important consideration for policy makers, practitioners continue to develop and deploy new systems and services "for the good". As IoT is everywhere, and is increasingly part of critical processes and infrastructures, it will be key that IoT devices in themselves are (1) bringing more value than burden to the environment; (2) are protected against tampering or unauthorized use; and (3) are available where they are needed. Together with the DC CIV, the DC IoT aims to prepare its input to the High Level Expert group - and ultimately to the World Summit on Global Digital Compact in September 2024 – with a specific focus on: (a) ensuring access to IoT devices and services for all those who need them; (b) identifying and encouraging good practice in terms of universal deployment of IoT devices and services; (c) while maintaining a global, multistakeholder perspective, and (d) respecting Core Internet Values. APrIGF, as a multistakeholder event, provides excellent opportunities for both policy makers, practitioners, providers and users to meet and share their thinking about the way forward. By having this discussion in the region, DC IoT and DC CIV can help make sure the perspectives from their members, and others that decide to contribute to the sessions in the region are brought in to the global IGF 2023 in Kobe. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Methodology / Agenda (Please add rows by clicking "+" on the right) | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| Moderators & Speakers Info (Please complete where possible) | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| Please explain the rationale for choosing each of the above contributors to the session. | |||||||||||||||||
| Raj (in the room) and Avri (remote) will moderate the session. Maarten (remote) will introduce the topic. Hiroshi Esaki (in the room) is both a researcher and practitioner in IoT and will be able to provide an overview of cutting edge developments, both from a research and practice perspective. Narelle Clark (in the room) is CEO of Internet Australia and will introduce the topic of labeling and certification - key if we want to better understand the devices we are using in our home, offices and wider environments. At most one more input provider will be sought to complement the above - and experience says that a solid introduction of the topic, with good framing, as well as one inspiring introduction by a speaker will be a good use of time - also because we expect participation of many with an interest in the topic and this allows the session to get the best out of the audience. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Please declare if you have any potential conflict of interest with the Program Committee 2023. | |||||||||||||||||
| No | |||||||||||||||||
| Are you or other session contributors planning to apply for the APrIGF Fellowship Program 2023? | |||||||||||||||||
| No | |||||||||||||||||
| APrIGF offers live transcript in English for all sessions. Do you need any other translation support or any disability related requests for your session? APrIGF makes every effort to be a fully inclusive and accessible event, and will do the best to fulfill your needs. | |||||||||||||||||
| No | |||||||||||||||||
| Brief Summary of Your Session | |||||||||||||||||
| This session aimed to contribute to evolve our vision on Global Good Practice for IoT towards 2030. Key is to further develop the concept of what it means to have “meaningful transparency” to all stakeholders in the chain, and “real accountability” to those stakeholders that can reasonably expected to bear that responsibility. Specific focus was on (1) introduction of global good practice in IoT; (2) Explanation why approaching it as “Internet of Functions” can help; and (3) focus on the need for labeling (and thus certification) to help consumers to be able to take their responsibility, There's many different applications using IoT devices and services, ranging from networks of tsunami warning buoys to blood pressure change detectors, air quality sniffers to security cameras, etc. In all this it is important to appreciate that IoT devices are used around the world, from around the world. Thus considering global good practice requires mutual respect, open minds, and a truly global dialogue. When considering the Internet as a network of networks, which must be interoperable through the Internet Protocol (IP), cybersecurity is a first “must” to be able to use it responsibly. Adding the Internet of Things is a step towards an Internet of Functions – functions that also determine the needed level of cybersecurity. When doing so on a global level, it is key to adopt an approach of “zero trust”. With regards to security, zero trust is needed. (1) independency of apps from hardware (Internet of Functions); (2) a data centric approach with transparency for Who and How to use the data; (3) and integration of Interoperability at the technical level with legacy systems. Security by design, zero trust, and identification as the order of self/group/public help for cyber security is a mandatory requirement to make this work around the world. When one want to purchase IoT devices today in the shop, very few have anything on its cover to indicate (1) where data would be send (or not); (2) level of security, and options how to secure. Currently, no legal nor self-regulatory actions have been taken in this respect yet, but initiatives are on their way. Already in 2019 the FVEY nations - US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand issued a Statement of Intent regarding the security of the Internet of Things, and it was recognised that this issue is truly global, however the FVEY nations release draws a line in the sand and it put connected device manufacturers on notice. Multiple countries are currently looking into this, and in Europe the Cyber Resilience Act looks into this. In the US, the Biden administration recently introduced a new initiative to empower consumers to make decisions about the security of Internet of Things (IoT) devices. The US Cyber Trust Mark is a voluntary public/private partnership enabling manufacturers to self-certify that their products meet essential cybersecurity standards. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Substantive Summary of the Key Issues Raised and the Discussion | |||||||||||||||||
| During the discussion, it became clear that not much is done yet on ensuring a safe embedding of IoT systems and service in society. Much is still in the “innovation” space, and little has been “regulated” by governments, as we speak. Also industry has not self-regulated forms of disclosure etc yet. Today, on consumer devices very little information can be found on the risks, and how to handle those, safely. At the same time, awareness that this may go at cost of security and privacy is rising, and a call for better support is made by consumers, global organizations such as World Economic Forum, ETSI, IEEE, etc., as well as by multiple countries and economies. And this is needed – as we need to be able to make best use of these devices – not only to make economic benefits, but also to be able to address societal challenges ranging from improving use of our precious resources to warning systems for extreme weather, air and water quality, etc. The audience interaction was good - the fact that we paused after each speaker allowed greater audience interaction. Overall there were a number of questions and comments from the audience that led to a richer discussion and the substantive Summary of Key Issues mentioned above. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Conclusions and Suggestions of Way Forward | |||||||||||||||||
| Our believe continues to be that we have to embrace IoT to address societal challenges in an ethical way, in a way that encourages investments, and in a way that it is accessible for all that need IoT enabled solutions to deal with societal challenges as well as business opportunities. Following the presentations and discussions, all were thanked for their contributions. The conclusion was drawn that both the conceptual approach as shared (considering an Internet of Functions, and develop a zero-trust approach) as well as the practical call to ensure labeling, and thus certification – is to be put in global context – and is important input to the IGF DC IoT for further discussion during this year’s IGF meeting in Kyoto. Following this, the IGF DC IoT will publish an updated “Global Good Practice for IoT” paper to take forward in the dialogue in the years to come. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Number of Attendees (Please fill in numbers) | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| Gender Balance in Moderators/Speakers (Please fill in numbers) | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| How were gender perspectives, equality, inclusion or empowerment discussed? Please provide details and context. | |||||||||||||||||
| There was no specific attention to gender perspectives. Inclusion was mentioned, as relating to the need to make IoT systems and services also available where needed but where not a business case for investment by for profit companies exists, but where the societal "profit" to be gained from implementing IoT enabled systems may justify a public money investment. "Empowerment" of consumers in particular i the intent of labeling (and thus certification). Clear labels should help consumers be more aware of the risks of using certain IoT devices, and what to do best to mitigate those. |
|||||||||||||||||
| Consent | |||||||||||||||||
 I agree that my data can be submitted to forms.for.asia and processed by APrIGF organizers for the program selection of APrIGF 2023. |
|||||||||||||||||