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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> - >>> >>> >