Hi Sam,

If I get you right, are you basically saying that the MIN is what will
enable connectivity in future? I guess that would remove the purpose of
RIRs/IETF since connectivity as we know it today is built on IP (Internet
protocol) and it's address(numbers).

I think what we should worry about (which has noting to do with ICANN) is
unauthorised transfer/access of data. That is happening already; an example
is the Samsung smart TV that sends unauthorised voice recordings.

Ultimately, present/future internet users requires improve
awareness/education about this great tool called "internet"

Getting ICANN to improve it's contribution to such effort could be a
welcome idea

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 27 Mar 2015 13:55, "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Seun & Stephanie,
>
> You will not have to add a domain name to your vehicle for it to be
> accessed. Your vehicle will have an Internet identity independent of
> anything you do. Mobil devices, e.g. cell phones, have unique mobile
> identification numbers (MIN), and so will your car. Vehicles have in-car
> diagnostic networks, and increasingly come with standard factory installed
> features that use cell technology to link to the Internet. The data privacy
> issues here are the same as in other areas. Who owns the data? Who has
> access to it? -and- What is it used for?
> Sam L
>
> On 27/03/2015 4:28 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Replying to your question (re: who owns domain of your car), first I like
> to say there is practically no way your Honda will be accessible by domain
> without the domain being added in the first place so you will be making an
> informed decision by adding the domain. However if there arise a technology
> that hard-codes domain on your Honda, you will also need to make decision
> to connect device on the network with an IP address before the domain can
> be reachable publicly.
> So the question would be, how informed will users be by then. I don't
> really think domain registration would be a big concern by then.
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>  On 27 Mar 2015 06:47, "Stephanie Perrin" <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I certainly am.  I am curious to know whether domains are going to be
>> involved, and if so who will register them (i.e. will Steph's Honda, and
>> all the tattle tale devices in it be accessible on a domain, and if so who
>> owns the domain....Honda, my insurance company, the device companies, the
>> apps, or me???)
>> SP
>>
>> On 2015-03-27 0:37, James Gannon wrote:
>>
>>> I do some work and research in this area, if someone reminds me next
>>> week after Im back from the CWG F2F i can do up some info on this for the
>>> group if anyone is interested?
>>>
>>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 02:59, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Stephanie,
>>>>
>>>> This has been on the agenda and worried about for some time. The
>>>> "connected-car" is but one data source in the Internet of Things (IoT).
>>>> Everything written in this piece will apply to your IoT stove, frig,
>>>> children's coat, garage door, furnace, light switch....you name it. One
>>>> approach is to say all data is privately owned and that the data miners
>>>> have to negotiate for what they have access to within the privately owned
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> Sam L.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26/03/2015 4:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks interested in privacy may find this report on the connected car
>>>>> interesting, if alarming.  The report was written by Philippa Lawson, a
>>>>> well known Canadian privacy lawyer who was for several years heading up
>>>>> CIPPIC in Ottawa.  This privacy research was funded under the Canadian
>>>>> Privacy Commissioner's grants and contributions program.
>>>>> https://fipa.bc.ca/connected-car/
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>
>>>
>