Jari Arkko's comments in the IGF 2016 "Finding the Internet in IOT" workshop session, December 6, 2016. This comments are a part of a discussion in the panel. ---- Thank you. First, I wanted to respond on the host requirements questions. And it's starting to look like we actually need to write a document somewhere that says obvious things like you should not deploy millions of devices with default passwords. Maybe useful not for the sake of anybody in this room being surprised. But it might be useful to say that the best current practice for doing IoT devices is this. That you at least have to fill these kinds of requirements, that may provide some leverage on who's doing things correctly and if you misbehave then perhaps that can be considered as well. I also wanted to follow up just a little on this general concept of IoT versus the rest of the Internet. I agree with my colleague here that the IoT is just really a further evolution of the Internet. And a part of that that needs to be administered as part of that. And of course there's many further challenges there. But just to provide one further reason why we need to consider IoT as part of the Internet and more of the same kind of thing is that the IoT, don't think of the IoT as gadgets. Those are the easily seen things and it's kind of tangible. It's not the whole thing. It's usually a SYSTEM that you have, the cloud handles the data, you have a user interface on your device. You have some web interface. You have interface some other systems billing or whatever and you have the gadget and it's the whole system that needs to work across the Internet and usually does on diverse locations. So that's my definition of the Internet of Things. And that's important that we cover that. Thank you. ---- Thank you. And very much with what Uta said. The fundamental issue is that the Internet allows the creation of new technology, new applications, new spaces basically without any limits. It's sort of infinite creation space. Anybody can do that and they get to decide how open their new things are and how they're administered or not. And that's actually a feature that the Internet allows this. But of course when something gets very big and widely deployed and has a big impact on the society, we start thinking about how well this is done and if there are areas where we could do better. I think around the table we have already found some consensus that we need more interoperability at all levels, not just being able to put them in the same mobile network or same Internet, but also at semantic interoperability level, Internet architecture board did a workshop earlier this year on this exact topic and it was start of some of this collaborations going on in the world today. But it's really sort of a tussle and we're going back and forth in this battle of how far we have standardized things or not. And the basic example of that is that you buy a house with Microsoft light switches and you can't use the Apple light bulbs in the house. That's bad. That's bad for society. It might be good for some particular vendor in a very limited sense but we all win more if this thing is more widely interoperable or more widely useable. We who provide the networks can sell more networks and data gets transferred when this works better. So it is to our benefit to try and push this further in the standardization space. And I'm very much a believer in informal collaboration and I just wanted to bring up the point that at the fundamental level, we can't around this table decide what particular application. We have to give them incentives to do that.