[iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Koch
pk at DENIC.DE
Thu May 11 16:33:45 CEST 2017
all, On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 07:28:29PM +0200, Anna Wilson wrote: > Draft: I'd like to thank the volunteers for drafting this. I believe it is a good start, but not yet good enough - and while indeed polishing might be too much, let's take the time to apply emery paper. > The Internet of Things working group will work on the areas of: > - what role do service providers want to play > - what role can service providers play [the session was about security, so what was implicit could be made a bit more explicit here] > - what do we need from manufacturers Really, after enjoying the discussion in a room full of (mostly, no offense) engineers in a state of mutually assured perplexity (fair enough) and thus singing "regulation" in a choir, this > - engaging with governments and regulators gives me grief and dispair. We, RIPE, already have a WG explicitly aimed at interaction with this sphere and so not only should the overlap be seriously clarified, it is also unclear to me how a WG would literally "engag[e] with governments and regulators". > - recommendations for vendors, service providers, end users and relevant stakeholders On the - useful, IMHO - vendor/manufacturer split, I'd like to see an emphasis on bringing together from different communities, given there's little "I" in IoT. -Peter
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]