FUTURE INTERNET PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP · Introduction ... FI-WARE: Core Platform ..... 51 3....

FUTURE INTERNET

PUBLIC PRIVATE

PARTNERSHIP CONCORD DELIVERABLE

D3.4.1 Policy, Regulatory and Governance Recommendations

and Roadmaps – Issue 1

Authors: Hans Schaffers (Aalto University) and Peter Stollenmayer (Eurescom)

With contributions from the PRG Working Group.

Date of Delivery: M28 (31 July 2013)

Version: Final

Contract: 285266

D3.4.1 Policy, Regulatory and Governance Recommendations and Roadmaps – issue 1

2

Document Reference Project Acronym CONCORD

ICT Project Number 285266

Project URL http://www.fi-ppp.eu/projects/concord/

EU Project Officer Ragnar Bergström

Coordinator Ilkka Lakaniemi, Aalto University

Deliverable Name Policy, Regulatory and Governance

Recommendations and Roadmaps – Issue 1

Deliverable No. D3.4.1

Nature Public

Author(s) Hans Schaffers and Peter Stollenmayer

Contributors: PRG Working Group members (see

Annex 1)

Abstract

This deliverable is issue 1 of a series of deliverables, which identify policy, regulatory and governance

(PRG) issues of relevance for the Future Internet Private Public Partnership (FI-PPP) Programme. The

document first presents a PRG landscape analysis. It then identifies PRG issues that are evidently and

directly relevant for FI-PPP in terms of its success and impact, and where FI-PPP has a clear influencing

role. PRG issues are: access to interfaces, access to data, sharing and interoperability of infrastructure,

ownership and IPR, privacy and data protection, platform security, identity management, SME

engagement, micropayment. Follow-up work lies in initiating and influencing discussions and debates, and

is concretised in the form of recommendations which are based on clear insights and concrete cases.

Target Audience

Policy and regulatory stakeholders related to Future Internet activities, as well as activities and projects

within the FI-PPP Programme.

Keywords FI-PPP, Future Internet, Policy, Regulation,

Governance

Date of Delivery M28 (July 2013)

Version Final

Proof Readers for Quality Assurance Cristina Cullell-March (iMINDS)

Revision History Version

No:

Date: Description of Changes: Author(s):

0.1 01/07/2013 Initial input and first draft Peter Stollenmayer

0.2 09/07/2013 Extensions, restructuring, editing Hans Schaffers, Peter

Stollenmayer

0.3 10/07/2013 Final version for Quality Control Hans Schaffers

Final 04/09/2013 Final editing after Quality Control corrections Hans Schaffers


3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Background on FI-PPP ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Policy, Regulation and Governance in FI-PPP ................................................................................... 9

1.3 The FI-PPP Working Group on Policy, Regulation and Governance ................................................ 10

1.4 Structure of this deliverable .............................................................................................................. 11

2. Initial exploration of policy and regulatory issues within FI-PPP ....................................................... 12

2.1 Future internet policy and regulation landscape ............................................................................... 12

2.1.1 General EU policy initiatives and their relation to FI-PPP ........................................................ 12

2.1.2 Future Internet studies related to policy and regulatory change .............................................. 16

2.1.3 Specific initiatives and topics ................................................................................................... 20

2.2 Phase 1 Policy and regulatory challenges ........................................................................................ 21

2.2.1 Identifying Policy and regulatory challenges in Phase 1 projects ............................................ 21

2.2.2 Horizontal challenges .............................................................................................................. 22

2.3 First prioritisation of policy and regulatory challenges for FI-PPP .................................................... 23

2.3.1 PPP as European RDI collaboration model ............................................................................. 23

2.3.2 Smart cities as innovation ecosystems .................................................................................... 24

2.3.3 Future Internet and entrepreneurship stimulation .................................................................... 24

2.3.4 Web Economy and Web Entrepreneurship .............................................................................. 24

2.3.5 Regional innovation ecosystems boosting SMEs .................................................................... 25

2.3.6 Open Data policies .................................................................................................................. 25

2.3.7 Telecommunication networks, services and content policy ..................................................... 25

2.3.8 Distributed Future Internet platform ......................................................................................... 26

2.3.9 Access to data in supply chains ............................................................................................... 26

2.3.10 Policies to exploit the opportunities of the Future Internet ....................................................... 26

2.4 Conclusions at the end of phase 1 ................................................................................................... 27

3. Policy and regulatory challenges in Phase 2 .................................................................................... 29

3.1 Introduction to phase 2 ..................................................................................................................... 29

3.2 Phase 2 projects and their policy and regulatory challenges ............................................................ 29

3.2.1 FI-WARE (http://www.fi-ware.eu/) ............................................................................................ 30

3.2.2 INFINITY (http://www.fi-infinity.eu) ........................................................................................... 30

3.2.3 XIFI (https://fi-xifi.eu/) ............................................................................................................... 31

3.2.4 FITMAN (http://www.fitman-fi.eu/ ) ........................................................................................... 31

3.2.5 FI-CONTENT2 ......................................................................................................................... 31

3.2.6 FI-STAR (http://www.fi-star.eu/) ............................................................................................... 31

3.2.7 FINESCE (www.finesce.eu) ..................................................................................................... 32

3.2.8 FIspace (http://www.fispace.eu) .............................................................................................. 32

3.3 PRG issues identification.................................................................................................................. 33

3.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 33


4

3.3.2 Top-down identification of PRG issues .................................................................................... 34

3.3.3 Bottom-up identification of PRG issues ................................................................................... 35

3.4 PRG issues definition and relevance for FI-PPP .............................................................................. 36

3.4.1 Access to interfaces ................................................................................................................. 36

3.4.2 Access to data ......................................................................................................................... 37

3.4.3 Sharing and interoperability of infrastructure ........................................................................... 37

3.4.4 Ownership and IPR, open business models ............................................................................ 38

3.4.5 Privacy and data protection ..................................................................................................... 38

3.4.6 Security of platforms and infrastructures ................................................................................. 39

3.4.7 Identity management ............................................................................................................... 40

3.4.8 SME engagement .................................................................................................................... 40

3.4.9 Micropayment .......................................................................................................................... 41

3.5 Mapping and prioritisation of PRG topics ......................................................................................... 42

3.6 The short term dilemma.................................................................................................................... 42

4. Conclusions and Way ahead ............................................................................................................ 44

4.1 Main conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 44

4.2 Priorities and plan for 2013 ............................................................................................................... 44

References and Sources ............................................................................................................................... 46

ANNEX 1 Members of PRG WG ................................................................................................................... 50

ANNEX 2: Phase 1 Cases on PRG ISSUES ................................................................................................. 51

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 51

2. FI-WARE: Core Platform .................................................................................................................. 51

3. INFINITY: Infrastructures and Interoperability .................................................................................. 55

4. FI-CONTENT: Media and Content ................................................................................................... 56

5. FINEST: Transport and Logistics ..................................................................................................... 58

6. SMARTAGRIFOOD: Agri-Food Supply Chains ................................................................................ 59

7. OUTSMART: Smart Cities and Innovation Ecosystems ................................................................... 63

8. SAFECITY: Public Safety and Security in Cities .............................................................................. 66

9. ENVIROFI: Environmental Monitoring .............................................................................................. 68

10. FINSENY: Energy Infrastructures and Services ............................................................................... 69

ANNEX 3: WORKSHOP 13 MARCH 2013 .................................................................................................... 72


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Future Internet Public-Private Partnership (FI-PPP) is an industry-led and user-driven innovation

programme, running from 2011 – 1015, with a focus on Europe. It is part of the EU’s Seventh Framework

Programme (FP7) and receives funding by the EC. The total investment by industry and the public sector is

about 600 million euro, including 300 million euro EC contribution.

Policies, regulatory measures and governance structures shape the conditions for success of the FI-PPP.

There is a need to assess how these conditions can help creating the planned impact of FI-PPP. This

deliverable concentrates on policy, regulatory and governance (PRG) issues that are evidently and directly

relevant for FI-PPP in terms of its success and impact, and where the FI-PPP has a clear influencing role.

This influencing role may be to initiate discussions and debates and influence ongoing debates, and is

concretised mostly in the form of making recommendations which are based on insights and clear, concrete

cases.

This work is at the heart of the “PRG Working Group” (PRG WG) initiated within the FI-PPP and facilitated

by CONCORD. The PRG WG consists of representatives of all FI-PPP projects and builds relations with

external experts, platforms and bodies. In terms of planning of PRG WG activities, the phase of making

recommendations will start in the second half of 2013.

In terms of policy we are interested in forward looking and shaping new Internet-related policies and

influencing existing policies both at EC and national / regional levels with a view towards policy instruments

and their effectiveness and relevance for FI-PPP. Policy types of most relevance for FI-PPP include

innovation policies, policies towards SMEs and entrepreneurship stimulation policies. Regarding regulation,

we understand this as a more formal area of rules based on legislation which relates to rights, obligations

and responsibilities (e.g. interconnection, access, privacy). Our role here is to identify FI-PPP issues related

to regulations (e.g. because of market failures or evident societal needs) and communicate and discuss

them at the level of ongoing regulatory activities at EC level. Governance as such is not directly covered in

our work as we consider general governance related issues as beyond FI-PPP. the result of the PRG WG is

to present the cases for identifying and resolving specific PRG issues as clearly as possible, in particular

when such issues affect the success and impact of the FI-PPP, and to prepare recommendations on

resolving them. This could also include some specific governance issues.

The present deliverable (issue 1, M28) summarises and closes the PRG related issues identify in the final

period of phase 1 of FI-PPP, and identified the PRG related issues of phase 2 which just started in April

2013. It is based on two working papers, one developed for Phase 1 and one for Phase 2. The report start

with a landscape analysis of current policy, regulatory and governance issues affecting the FI-PPP. The

landscape analysis covers major European policy initiatives regarding the Future Internet, such as the

Digital Agenda for Europe and Horizon 2020, and specific initiatives in relation to open Internet and net

neutrality, cloud computing and smart cities. It then takes a close look at Phase 1 projects to generate an

overview of relevant PRG challenges, In particular those that are generic and relevant for most projects.

Such generic issues include open access to infrastructures, access to content and privacy data protection,

and other. The analysis is enriched by an overview of “Phase 1 project PRG cases” giving insight in the

PRG concerns within the Phase 1 projects. The Phase 1 work concludes with an initial section of PRG

challenges, which includes entrepreneurship stimulation within FI-PPP, the PPP as a model, smart cities as


6

innovation ecosystems, regional innovation ecosystems boosted by FI-PPP, open data policies, platform

regulation, and other. The Phase 1 work, documented separately in an extended White Paper, should be

considered as exploring the PRG area and finding out what is relevant for FI-PPP.

Within Phase 2, with several new projects entering the FI-PPP and other projects completed, the work

concentrated more on the immediate PRG challenges given the dedicated nature of Phase 2 and 3. The

work was documented in a separate White Paper. Further specification of PRG issues took place on both

top down identification of PRG issues (based on the FI-PPP Work Plan 2011 – 2013) and bottom-up by

identifying and assessing PRG issues within the projects. This resulted in a shortlist of 9 priority PRG

themes:

• Access to data

• Access to interfaces

• SME engagement

• Identity Management

• Sharing and interoperability of infrastructures

• Privacy and data protection

• Security of platforms and infrastructures

• Ownership and IPR, open business models

• Micropayment

Based on FI-PPP projects information, these PRG challenges have been elaborated in terms of their

definition and relevance to FI-PPP. These issues relate to different sets of ambitions, concerns and goals,

and therefore we should be aware of the trade-offs involved in finding solutions.

Follow-up work lies in initiating and influencing discussions and debates, and is concretised in the form of

recommendations which are based on clear insights and concrete cases. A first set of recommendations is

planned in the September – October 2013 timeframe, and will be discussed at an open workshop scheduled

for November 2013.


7

ACRONYMS

EC European Commission

EU European Union

FI-PPP Future Internet Private Public Partnership

FIRE Future Internet Research and Experimentation

FP7 7th Framework Programme

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

PRG WG Policy, Regulatory and Governance Working Group

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

WG Working Group

DAE Digital Agenda for Europe

D3.4.1 Policy, Regulatory and Governance Recommendations and Roadmaps

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND ON FIThe FI-PPP programme is driven by the vision of a sustainable economy and an inclusive society in Europe.

It contributes to the realisation of this vision through the development of innovative Future Internet

technologies for smart infrastructures, business pr

for sustained competitiveness and growth of Europe.

Internet services on consistent and compatible platforms through usage area projects, pr

selection of reusable key technology enablers, called Generic Enablers and validate Generic Enablers via

large-scale service and application use case trials in different business sectors.

led and user-driven innovatio

Programme (FP7) and receives funding by the EC. It is performed in

• Phase 1 from April 2011 architecture and generic and specific enablers and evaluation of test infrastructures

• Phase 2 from April 2013 specific functionalities and runs early trials

• Phase 3 from May 2014 viability of concept through largeecosystem for SME-driven innovation.

Major programme goals are to

Europe, advance the European market for smart infrastructures and increase effectiveness of business

processes through Future Internet technologies.

regulatory and governance condistions have been set in place. This is t


INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND ON FI-PPP PPP programme is driven by the vision of a sustainable economy and an inclusive society in Europe.


technologies for smart infrastructures, business processes, services and applications, which will be the basis

for sustained competitiveness and growth of Europe. Main technological objectives are to deliver validated

Internet services on consistent and compatible platforms through usage area projects, pr


scale service and application use case trials in different business sectors.The FI

driven innovation programme with a focus on Europe. It is part of the EU’s Seventh Framework

Programme (FP7) and receives funding by the EC. It is performed in three phases from 2011 to 2015:

Phase 1 from April 2011 - March 2013 concentrates on usage area requirements, dearchitecture and generic and specific enablers and evaluation of test infrastructures

Phase 2 from April 2013 - March 2015 prepares for early trials, develops core platform and use case specific functionalities and runs early trials

om May 2014 - October 2015 will provide stable infrastructure for largeviability of concept through large-scale trials including innovative SMEs and create a sustainable

driven innovation.

Major programme goals are to accelerate the development and adoption of Future Internet technologies in


processes through Future Internet technologies. These goals only can be realize

regulatory and governance condistions have been set in place. This is the subject of the present deliverable

Figure 1-1: Schedule of the FI-PPP Programme

8

PPP programme is driven by the vision of a sustainable economy and an inclusive society in Europe.


ocesses, services and applications, which will be the basis

Main technological objectives are to deliver validated

Internet services on consistent and compatible platforms through usage area projects, provide a large


The FI-PPP is an industry-

n programme with a focus on Europe. It is part of the EU’s Seventh Framework

three phases from 2011 to 2015:

March 2013 concentrates on usage area requirements, development of architecture and generic and specific enablers and evaluation of test infrastructures

March 2015 prepares for early trials, develops core platform and use case

October 2015 will provide stable infrastructure for large-scale trials, prove scale trials including innovative SMEs and create a sustainable

accelerate the development and adoption of Future Internet technologies in


These goals only can be realized when appropriate policy,

he subject of the present deliverable.


9

1.2 POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE IN FI-PPP The Future Internet gives rise to a wide range of new challenges regarding policy, regulation and

governance. Making FI-PPP, and the Future Internet, to a success requires on the one hand the removal of

policy and regulatory bottlenecks (for example those that hinder innovation), and on the other hand the

creation of new policies and regulatory frameworks as well. Especially at the European level there is

opportunity and need for restructured policy and regulatory frameworks.

Some of the challenges are highly domain-related (e.g. specific Future Internet-related policies and

regulations for sectors like media, logistic supply chains, energy or health). Other challenges are more

horizontal and generic. These horizontal challenges are still quite diverse. They include security and privacy

issues, availability and access to network infrastructure and to critical parts of the infrastructure, the

functioning of entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems etc.

The approach pursued is based on recognizing two complementary roles for Future Internet-related policies

and regulations (opportunities creation and conditions setting), and recognizing the influence of FI-PPP

versus the role of other bodies or initiatives (Table 1-1). The two complementary roles of policies and

regulations are the following:

• Active targeting of new opportunities provided by the Future Internet. In this role, policies actively open up new opportunities for markets, business and society in stimulating innovation, commercialisation and market creation. Innovation policies helps companies and research institutes to innovate better, compete globally, and create jobs and growth.

• Creating favourable enabling conditions. In this role, policies and regulatory frameworks help to establish the framework conditions. Such conditions may include efficient and effective RTD instruments, rules for well-functioning markets, access and interconnection conditions, frameworks for property rights and privacy protection, and well-functioning PPP collaboration models. Such conditions establish level playgrounds for current and potentially new market actors, help avoid market dominance and create the conditions for interoperability of critical infrastructures and components.

Policies and regulatory measures are defined and implemented by dedicated bodies. As Table 1-1

demonstrates, FI-PPP’s role given its mission to create impact is both to clarify and generate awareness

concerning the appropriateness of policies and regulations and to support the identification of new

opportunities. Clearly the FI-PPP aims to contribute to “opportunity creation” as its target impact according to

the Work Programme is to make public service infrastructures and business processes significantly smarter,

to derive innovative business models, and to stimulate the further development of markets for smart

infrastructure. It does so complementary to other initiatives like the FP7-ICT, the Competitiveness and

Innovation Programme, and national Internet research and innovation initiatives. As such, the FI-PPP forms

the implementation of a particular PPP model for the Future Internet. Appropriate policies could further

strengthen that role.

Through its platform, infrastructure and use case projects the FI-PPP also generates insights in which

enabling conditions should be established in order to achieve its targeted impacts. Such conditions may

include regulatory frameworks or accompanying policies. In this context the FI-PPP creates awareness and

proposes building blocks for a comprehensive approach towards FI-PPP related regulatory and policy

issues. In this regard the FI-PPP must connect to actions related to the Digital Agenda for Europe (e.g.

regarding SMEs innovationand web entrepreneurship) and policies and regulations prepared by other

Directorates.


10

FI-PPP vs. other initiatives

Policy and regulation role

FI-PPP role towards new policy and regulatory frameworks

Role of other initiatives or entities creating new policy and regulatory frameworks

Conditions setting • Awareness creation regarding required conditions, instruments, frameworks (e.g. for operating distributed Internet platforms, based on FI-PPP project experiences, or for innovative PPP governance models)

• Proposing building blocks and requirements for comprehensive regulatory and policy frameworks (for operating distributed Internet platforms)

• Existing policy and regulatory frameworks e.g. market regulation, IPR, privacy (etc)

• Digital Agenda initiatives for re-regulation, market stimulation and innovative policy frameworks

• Initiatives and instruments foreseen in the context of Horizon 2020

Opportunity creation

• FI-PPP’s PPP model towards development, validation and valorization of technologies, applications, infrastructure components, business models

• FI-PPP’s entrepreneurial and SME oriented activities

• CIP ICT-PSP: smart city and future internet living lab pilots

• FP7-ICT, Horizon 2020 (longer term research and innovation)

• Digital Agenda (e.g. Web entrepreneurs, SMEs)

• Regional and national initiatives regarding SMEs innovation

Table 1-1: Policy and regulatory emphasis in the FI-PPP

In distinguishing between the roles of conditions setting and opportunity creation, and in identifying the

possibilities of FI-PPP and other initiatives, the complementarities and synergies of the various initiatives

addressing “policy and regulation of the Future Internet” can be further elaborated and clarified.

1.3 THE FI-PPP WORKING GROUP ON POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE

Policy, Regulation and Governance issues are tackled in a specific Working Group within the FI-PPP

Programme: the Policy, Regulation and Governance Working Group (PRG WG). The main purpose of the

PRG WG is to develop recommendations concerning the policy, regulatory and governance issues related to

the impact of the FI-PPP programme. The PRG WG creates awareness of these issues among policy and

industry stakeholders and assesses the policy, regulatory and governance conditions and frameworks that

will affect the projects of the FI-PPP Program in achieving their individual objectives and collectively

maximize the impact of the Program itself.

Members of the PRG WG are one or two representatives from each Phase 2 FI-PPP project. Annex 1

contains a list and contact details of the current members. The PRG WG is chaired and organized by the FI-

PPP facilitation and Support Action CONCORD. CONCORD will plan meetings/workshops and provides

related invitations and agendas. Every member of the working group is invited to provide comments and/or

add to the agendas.

The PRG WG aims to work within a wider community of experts beyond FI-PPP including appropriate

stakeholders and experts external to the FI-PPP projects. This wider community may include experts

representing key European policy and regulatory bodies, such as European Commission, European

Parliament, ENISA, OECD, ETSI, ITU, ISOC, IETF, CEPT, BEREC, national regulatory bodies (OFCOM,

BNA, ARCEP, etc.) as well as academic experts (e.g. within the CPR network and Future Internet Science

Network of Excellence) and policy consultants (e.g. CEPS).


11

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS DELIVERABLE This deliverable is built upon two Working Papers. One Working Paper was issued in April at the end of

Phase 1 (and used as input document for the workshop held in March 2013), and a second Working Paper

was issued in June 2013. The PRG WG has strongly contributed to these Working Papers. Those readers

willing to consult only the recent results of Phase 2 are advised to start with Chapter 3 of the present

deliverable.

Section 2 contains an initial exploration of policy, regulatory and governance issues as relevant for the FI-

PPP programme. This work was carried out within Phase 1, in particular between October 2012 and March

2013. The project cases developed in Phase 1 and identifying the PRG priorities from the perspective of

Phase 1 projects are presented in Annex 2. An open workshop has been organised on March 13th 2013 in

Brussels, in order to present, discuss and validate the findings and recommendations. The workshop

agenda is presented in Annex 3.

Section 3 contains the Policy, Regulation and Governance related considerations and preliminary

recommendations regarding phase 2 of the FI-PPP Programme. The main resut is the overview and

definition of PRG priorities. This work has been carried out at the start of Phase 2, between April 2013 –

June 2013. An open workshop discussing these results and developing recommendations is planned for

November 2013.

Section 4 summarises our analysis and conclusions and provides an outlook to the way ahead as regards

Phase 2.

Annex 1 contains a list of members of the WG PRG for Pjhase 1 and 2. Annex 2 presents project cases

developed in Phase 1. Annex 3 includes the programme of the open workshop held 13 March 2013.


12

2. INITIAL EXPLORATION OF POLICY AND REGULATORY ISSUES WITHIN FI-PPP

2.1 FUTURE INTERNET POLICY AND REGULATION LANDSCAPE This section describes some of the current themes and developments regarding European Future Internet

policy, regulation and governance as far as in the scope of FI-PPP. This overview is based on EU-level

initiatives and instruments as well as on drawing from a wide range of documents and Internet sources. This

section does not pretend to be complete but aims to provide a basic context for the remainder of phase 1.

2.1.1 GENERAL EU POLICY INITIATIVES AND THEIR RELATION TO FI-PPP

Two of the so-called flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy, relevant for the FI-PPP program, are

“Innovation Union”, focusing on a comprehensive research and innovation strategy, and the “Digital Agenda

for Europe” which targets the development and adoption of digital technologies.

The 'Innovation Union' flagship initiative sets out a comprehensive innovation strategy to enhance Europe's

capacity to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Key initiatives in Innovation Union are

addressing education, skills, funding instruments, access to finance, EIT, pre-commercial procurement, and

creation of a single innovation market. Innovation Union also highlights the concept of Smart Specialisation

as a way to achieve these goals. The key objective of the Digital Agenda for Europe flagship initiative is to

stimulate the digital economy and addressing societal challenges through ICT. The priority areas include

creating a new digital single market, creating interoperability and improved standardization, enhancing

Internet trust and security, much faster Internet access, investment in cutting-edge research and innovation

for ICT, enhancing digital skills and inclusion, and applying ICT for the benefit of society. A concrete action

is, for example, the Web Entrepreneurship initiative.

Horizon 2020, the framework programme for research and innovation, is a key instrument for implementing

Innovation Union and Digital Agenda for Europe in addressing grand societal challenges and industry

competitiveness1, and particular relevant for the Future Internet. The FI-PPP’s impact will strongly benefit

from resolving the policy and regulatory bottlenecks and spearheads indentified in the mentioned initiatives.

The FI-PPP also explicitly contributes to achieving several of the goals of these initiatives.

Digital Agenda for Europe and related actions

The over-all aim of the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) flagship initiative (to be partly implemented in

Horizon 2020) is to “deliver sustainable and social benefits from a digital single market based on fast and

ultra-fast internet and interoperable applications”.2 The Digital Agenda recognizes seven major challenges:

1. Fragmented digital markets; 2. Lack of interoperability; 3. Rising cybercrime and low trust; 4. Lack of

investment in networks; 5. Insufficient R&D; 6. Lack of skills; 7. Fragmented answers to societal questions.

The Digital Agenda initiative is highly relevant for the FI-PPP as it deals with multiple policy aspects that are

transversal to the ecosystems of FI-PPP projects. The different pillars address cross-cutting issues of key

1 Also the Structural Funds program contributes, jointly with Horizon 2020 in developing synergies, to

implementing Europe 2020, Innovation Union and Digital Agenda objectives. 2 See: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/digital-agenda-europe


13

importance for FI-PPP, such as e-business, standardization, trust, interoperability, security, privacy and

other.

As a side note we refer to a paper of Oostveen et al. (2012) stating that when these challenges are to be

addressed by the virtuous cycle of innovation and consumption (innovation creates demand – demand

creates innovation etc) the position of users should become more central. The authors also mention that the

understanding of the Digital Agenda among ICT projects in FP7 is low or found less relevant, and that the

Digital Agenda relevance at project level is unclear. The paper observes a gap between high level policies

regarding infrastructure and the needs of users. The impression is that Digital Agenda seems to focus

mostly on big companies and less on people, communities, regions, SMEs. Therefore, the paper

recommends that the Digital Agenda should adapt to wider categories of stakeholders and interests.

As noted, several of these policy and regulatory challenges are very relevant to the core issues worked on in

the FI-PPP which requires such policy and regulatory innovations in order to bring success. In turn, the FI-

PPP generates some specific contributions to resolving these challenges e.g. with respect to SMEs and web

entrepreneurs. The FI-PPP works on technologies and solutions that respond to the issues and bottlenecks

identified in the Digital Agenda, in particular those addressing fragmented digital markets, lack of

interoperability, and missed opportunities in addressing societal challenges. The solutions developed by FI-

PPP in several cases require further policy and regulatory innovations, e.g. with respect to managing access

to data in supply chains, and generally with respect to operating distributed Future Internet platform. The FI-

PPP in itself does not resolve these policy and regulatory challenges; rather it will define them, including the

new challenges ahead, and create awareness with policy makers and standards organizations.

Digital Agenda Action areas Role of FI-PPP (opportunities, conditions)

Opening up access to content FI-PPP has no explicit activities in this domain

Improving ICT standard setting. Enhancing

interoperability.

FI-PPP WG on Standardization aims to identify early

standardization opportunities

Industry-led initiatives for open innovation.

To push new generation of web-based applications

and services (Action 054)

FI-PPP itself is a PPP initiative focusing on open

innovation.

FI-PPP undertakes concrete initiative to push web

entrepreneurs.

ICT for environment, sustainable healthcare,

promoting cultural diversity, eGovernment,

intelligent transport systems and better mobility

FI-PPP use case projects provide development and

validation environments for such domain solutions

based on a common distributed Internet platform

Table 2-1: Role of FI-PPP policy related activities with respect to Digital Agenda actions

Regarding innovation3, the Digital Agenda and Innovation Union initiatives are somehow related with this

topic through the potential collaboration between the FI-PPP programme and the EIT (http://eit.europa.eu/),

in particular the EIT ICT Labs (http://eit.ictlabs.eu/). Very recently it was discussed a new horizon for the

EIT4 and were proposed four new KICs (Knowledge and Innovation Communities), apart from the existing

three KICs on Climate, Sustainable energy, and ICT. These new KICs are for example in the fields of health

and demography and urban mobility, which are of interests from the environmental domain to look for cross-

cutting applications (e.g. health-environment, transport-environment, and energy-environment). During the

3 The suggestions in this paragraph were kindly provided by Mr. Carlos Granell, JRC-EC.

4 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-790_en.htm


14

recent event on “EIT Stakeholders Conference – Addressing Societal Challenges through the EIT"5 strong

emphasis was mad on a strategic innovation agenda in fostering innovation, business models, SME

engagement, attracting private sector for the creation in the end of new business. Finally there are also

important opportunities for FI-PPP to act as an enabler for the Smart Specialisation Platform driving regional

growth and innovation6.

Table 2-2 below identifies other EU-level policies as relevant for the European Union Location Framework,

of which several are relevant to the policy and regulatory issues in the FI-PPP programme.

Action / policy Description of relation

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing

an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the

European Community (INSPIRE)

Legal basis for the study.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 of 19

October 2009 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC

of the European Parliament and of the Council as

regards the Network Services

The study builds on the technical guidance of this

regulation.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 of

23 November 2010 implementing Directive

2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council as regards interoperability of spatial data

sets and services

The study builds on the technical guidance of this

regulation.

Communication from the Commission to the

European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee, and the

Committee of the Regions: A Digital Agenda for

Europe - COM(2010)245 final

DAE Action 21: Propose legislation on ICT

interoperability

Where relevant, the study results will provide

recommendations for the revision of the INSPIRE

Directive and for the Implementing Rules legal acts

still under development.

If successful, the study will clear the ground for a

Commission Decision on the European Union

Location Framework.

Action 22: Promote standard-setting rules

The results of this study will rely, where possible and

feasible, on European and international standards,

and will involve standardization organizations.

Action 23: Provide guidance on ICT standardisation

and public procurement

The resulting framework will contain specifications

and guidelines that facilitate public procurement.

5 http://eit.europa.eu/events/event-information/stakeholders-conference-addressing-societal-challenges-

through-the-eit/ 6 http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home


15

Action / policy Description of relation


European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee, and the

Committee of the Regions - Towards

interoperability for European public services -

COM(2010) 744 final

The study will directly contribute to COM(2010) 744

final by facilitating interoperability for geospatial

components in e-government contexts.

COM(2010)308 final Communication from the

Commission to the Council, the European

Parliament, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions

“Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite

System (GNSS) Applications”

The study will contribute to Action 17:

The European Commission will promote the use of

EGNOS and GALILEO in surveying in the Member

States and third countries. The capabilities of

EGNOS and GALILEO for improving the update of

geographical databases will be explored by such

means as exchanges of best practice and

coordination among Member States.


European Parliament, the Council, and the

European Economic and Social Committee - A

strategic vision for European standards: Moving

forward to enhance and accelerate the

sustainable growth of the European economy by

2020 - COM(2010)0311

The study will directly contribute to the realization of

the objectives of COM(2010)0311


Council, the European Parliament, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions - Towards a Shared

Environmental Information System (SEIS)

COM(2008)0046

SEIS Implementation Plan

The study will contribute to the SEIS Implementation

Plan, in particular in the area of e-Environment

services.

Directive 2010/40/Eu of the European Parliament

and of the Council

of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the

deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in

the field of road transport and for interfaces with

other modes of transport

The EULF will enable location-based services of

relevance to the transport sector.

Table 2-2: Other EU Policies possibly relevant for FI-PPP

Policy aspects of Horizon 20207

Particularly relevant for the FI-PPP is Horizon 2020’ emphasis on innovation ecosystems. Regarding ICT-

based e-infrastructures, “the aim is to achieve by 2020 a single and open European space for online

research where researchers enjoy leading-edge, ubiquitous and reliable services for networking and

computing, and seamless and open access to e-Science environments and global data resources”. Horizon

7 This section benefits from the new AmpliFIRE Support Action (http://www.ict-fire.eu/home/amplifire-

project.html) which addresses the transformation of the Future Internet Research and Experimentation towards 2020.


16

2020 stresses the need to foster the innovation potential of research infrastructures and their human capital.

Innovation should be stimulated, both in the infrastructures themselves and in their supplier and user

industry, by developing R&D partnerships with industry, by stimulating the use of research infrastructure by

industry e.g. as experimental test facilities or knowledge-based centers and by encouraging the integration

of research infrastructures into local, regional and global innovation ecosystems. Also, Horizon 2020

promotes the use of research infrastructures to be leveraged for public services and social innovation.

Throughout the Horizon 2020 there is much emphasis on the demand side, the need to engage users to

create more innovation-friendly markets, and it is stated that the ICT-specific research infrastructures include

living labs for large-scale experimentation and infrastructures for underlying key technologies and their

integration in advanced products and innovative smart systems.

This will require actions aimed at enhancing the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of Future Internet

assets such as testbed facilities, software and technologies8. It will require a sustained effort to articulate

how the technical goals of the present FI-PPP activities can be lifted, channeled, and amplified to support

the societal goals of Horizon 2020.

Particular relevant for FI-PPP, the perceived gap between future internet technology push and the demand

pull of user empowered and open innovation actually points to the importance of value networks as

ecosystems within the Future Internet. Their emergence may considerably accelerate the exploitation and

sustainability opportunities of future internet facilities as developed by FI-PPP (and FIRE). Enhancing the

role of user involvement in relation to both Future Internet experimental research (FIRE) and Future Internet

Use Cases (FI-PPP) is one challenge for the years to come. Projects building on Future Internet and Internet

of Things technologies are already taking this up. New models of collaboration and synergy between future

internet facilities and use case oriented projects in open innovation settings should therefore be further

developed and some good examples already exist.

Related policy challenges of relevance for FI-PPP addressed later in this paper include smart cities and

regions (smart specialization), as well as boosting business impact and entrepreneurship. FI-PPP (and also

FIRE) will need to engage industrial actors and SMEs into the development of technologies and facilities, in

order to tackle the identified challenges of knowledge transfer from research to business and research

based entrepreneurship. This requires new forms of partnerships and concrete business models ensuring

future sustainability.

2.1.2 FUTURE INTERNET STUDIES RELATED TO POLICY AND REGULATORY CHANGE

The Future Internet forms a rich environment for policy and regulation studies. Several studies have been

carried out to explore the implications of the Future Internet in terms of policy and regulatory frameworks.

Below we briefly summarize a few important studies as far as relevant for the FI-PPP.

Future Internet technological, social and economic trends

Oxford Internet Institute (2010) studied the interrelations between technological, social and economic trends

regarding the Future Internet. The increasingly important role of the Internet has led to an increasing

8 The FIRE programme considers comparable issues. The gaps between the technologies presently offered

in FIRE as testbeds, and the gaps between the layers in which its communities have formed are large. For example, the gaps between wired and wireless networking, between networking researchers and cloud application developers, and between both sorts of developers and end user input all require bridges that do not exist today, and scenarios and user requirements to shape and drive those bridging activities.


17

dependency which also breeds deep potential vulnerabilities. These are both technical (e.g. security and

resilience) and legal, (e.g. privacy and trust). This brings in focus the role of governance and regulation. On

the other hand, the internet’s bottom-up evolutionary development and relative lack of regulation has made

possible the flourishing of innovative applications. The report develops ten guiding principles for a needs-

based future internet and looks into the functionalities realizing these principles. Finally, guidelines and

future research for policy and regulation is proposed. Some of the conclusions and recommendations are, in

summary:

• A stronger link will be necessary across policy instruments e.g. R&D support, standardization, procurement and regulation; regions and sectors; government levels; stakeholder domains. Internet governance should consist of a range of technical, economic, legal and societal rules and instruments, set in a clear framework, which should encompass the transfer of useful inherited principles from other sectors into the Internet domain.

• Regulation is to be based on key principles: smart regulation, openness and transparency, Innovation-friendliness, leadership.

Future Internet Public Private Partnership study (FI3P)

The FI3P study (Rand Europe, 2012) was set up to estimate the potential economic and societal

contributions of the European Internet industry as well as the impacts of EU support for a Future Internet

Public Private Partnership (PPP). The FI3P project provides an analysis of the European Internet sector and

its evolution in the period 2012-2014. The report analyses the main actors, among which the traditional

actors in the telecommunications, IT and software sectors as well as the emerging sectors in the “Web

Ecosystem”. One of the conclusions is that in order to gain competitiveness in the Web ecosystem, EU

actors need to overcome current bottlenecks and exploit web-based innovation, launch new services and

applications and expand in new markets. The EC might help in supporting the development of open web

platforms and removing regulatory barriers to new applications and services. The report’s general

conclusion is that the interaction between technology innovation and demand evolution will be the major

factor shaping take-up and adoption of the Future Internet.

The report describes how the balance between stakeholders governing the Internet is shifting and how this

may have unforeseen consequences. Commercial players and users will have a much greater say in the

governance of the Internet, while the small community of developers will see its influence reduced. A

possible consequence of greater influence of commercial players can be seen in the debate around Net

Neutrality, which may result in tiered fees structures for Internet traffic, privileging business traffic. But also

the growing attempts my many governments to build fences and barriers around parts of the Internet may

put at risk the openness and universality of the current Internet environments.

Interestingly, the report mentions that an equivalent stimulus in the US and Japan would have larger effects

on their GDP. This probably reflects Europe’s relatively more fragmented and rigid markets, as well as

barriers to innovation and to the adoption and diffusion of ICT-related goods and services. The results

suggest that Europe is less able to convert R&D to productive ICT innovation (which is also one of the

challenges defined in the Digital Agenda).

The FI3P study identifies and analyses a wide range of barriers to international competitiveness that can be

subject to enhanced policies and regulations. These barriers are related to input factors, innovation, internal

market functioning, and to policy fragmentation.


18

Policies for the Future Internet Economy

The OECD (2008) study on “Shaping Policies for the Future of the Internet Economy” addresses a wide

range of challenges and correspondingly a wide range of policy challenges and provides guideposts for

shaping policies, identifying linkages and gaps in policy domains. A selection of recommended policy

objectives as far as they are more or less related to the FI-PPP initiative is the following:

• Ensure that market structures allow for developing broadband infrastructures that deliver high quality services at competitive prices with a broad range of user choice.

• Ensure that policies promote innovation in new broadband networks, applications and services through support for R&D.

• Encourage policy coordination among agencies, ministries and the private sector for the deployment of advanced broadband applications in vital sectors such as health, education, the environment, transport.

• Regarding convergence, to reassess existing regulation to encourage investment by the private sector and competitive choice in the marketplace and not acting as barrier to convergence. At the same time ensure that advanced technologies do not result in new dominant market positions in the value chain.

• Encourage development of technology neutral regulation where appropriate to ensure fair competition and the development of a level playing field. This would include interoperability, interconnection, spectrum management, emergency services, number portability, security and integrity of networks, and consumer protection and information.

• Reviewing existing rules in light of the convergence of telecommunication and broadcasting, and developing cross-media policies for a multi-platform environment.

• Regarding sensor-based environments and ubiquitous networks, to address the concerns related to the invisibility of data collection by RFID devices, and to the ability to trace and profile individuals.

• Encourage the development and adoption of open global standards and their harmonisation within and across sectors, as far as possible trough market mechanisms and involving all stakeholders.

• Regarding the creation, access to and use of digital content, to provide incentives for creation, dissemination and preservation of digital content, e.g. open innovation strategies. Facilitate global access to content. Encourage technology-neutral approaches. Recognize rights and interests of creators and users.

• Maximise the availability of public sector information for use and re-use based upon the presumption of openness as the default rule.

• Support the evolution of communication platforms towards next generation networks, the shift in access to mobile hand-held devices, the advent of sensor-based networks that create demand for infrastructure capacity, change the nature of monitoring and controlling production and distribution, and raise issues of privacy and security.

The future of the Internet Economy

The OECD has addressed the future of the Internet economy in a series of studies. The OECD Policy Brief

on the Future of the Internet Economy (2011) addresses the role of convergence on regulatory challenges.

As convergence of network platforms, content and business models proceeds, regulatory challenges

associated with convergence are significant, e.g. networks can handle many types of converged services

which means a shift in the way broadcasting and telecommunications is regulated. Emphasis of regulation is

on stimulation of competitiveness. Insight is needed into the impact of convergence on competition, the

regulatory and policy issues of network infrastructure and services, the promise of multi-platform

competition, and the implications of greater connectivity, pricing, sustainable competition, investment and

innovation. The Policy Brief is also explaining how the Internet drives innovation and business models: the

Internet is transforming platforms for delivering content e.g. changing towards participative networks. The

policy challenge is to encourage innovation, growth and change and develop governance that does not stifle


19

creativity or affect openness of the Internet as dynamic platform for innovation. Preventing cyber-criminality

and protecting privacy are important concerns. The report concludes that in this context there is a need for

policies that address abuse of data collection (Internet of Things), stimulate the Internet in driving

productivity and act as platform for innovation.

The OECD High-level meeting on “The Internet Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth” (2011)

emphasizes that “the strength and dynamism of the Internet depends on its ease of access to high speed

networking, openness, and on user confidence”. “Ubiquitous access to and use of broadband internet

networks, available in a competitive market and at affordable prices, will help foster innovation and drive the

growth of the Internet economy and of the economy in general” (OECD, 2011). Among the list of general

policy making principles proposed are the following that seem relevant for FI-PPP:

• Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet.

• Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services.

• Promote and enable cross-border delivery of services.

• Ensure transparency, fair process and accountability.

• Promote creativity and innovation.

• Encourage co-operation to promote Internet security.

The OECD study on “Laying the Foundation for the Internet Economy” (2012) focuses mostly on access to

the Internet via a high-speed infrastructure and the regulatory environment fostering competition in a setting

of next generation access networks and converged services. Probably the most of relevance for FI-PPP is

how to benefit from convergence and at the same time ensure that competition is fostered increasing the

transparency of bundled offers and avoiding customer lock-in and abuse of market power by large

operators.

Network development, innovation and user needs

The OECD Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Services Policy (2009) analyses network

developments in support of innovation and user needs. It makes a case for investment in a competitive,

open-access national fibre-to-the-home network rollout based on potential spillovers in key sectors of the

economy. Policy implications are discussed, including taking into account potential spillovers when

considering public investment in new networks and when assessing potential regulatory requirements on

next-generation networks. Also government should promote network technologies and topologies which are

the most flexible, create the most opportunities for competition, offer the highest potential for innovation, and

provide the most bandwidth in the future.

Smart Networks and Policy Challenges

A recent study of the OECD (2013) investigates the development of smart networks and services and

explores some of the implications for policy and regulation, which is of particular relevance for the FI-PPP

mission. The study elaborates on the different aspects of ”smart networks” and on technical possibilities,

including big data and cloud services, and concludes with identifying ”challenges to smarter networks”. The

challenges identified in this OECD report include human, lifecycle, business and regulatory challenges.

From this working paper perspective the identified business and regulatory challenges ar the most relevant.

The identified business challenges of smarter networks are related to several areas such as the low level of

competition as regards M2M services (like in health and transport), the complexity of smarter networks due


20

to the number of parties involved, and the evolution of horizontal and vertical separation of the market. As

regards the latter, new business models will evolve taking into account the business strategies to move up

higher in the stack while at the same time private virtual network operation enables companies to move

down. In this development openness and competition is crucial for future market development and

innovation. This also leads to some regulatory challenges in terms of achieving the benefits of smart

networks and services. The study refers to health, transport, energy and communications markets that will

be transformed by smarter networks requiring policies that embed the use of M2M, Big Data and cloud

computing into these areas. It identifies several ways public policy and regulation will be influenced. Some of

the examples mentioned:

• For what purposes could data from smart systems such as transport of communication be used or not used, from privacy perspective.

• How to address security concerns related to smart systems.

• How to address the competition implications of smarter networks, im particular related to cross-border services to be provided by emerging competitors like insurance companies and energy companies.

• How to regulate the open access to data where public as well as private parties are involved.

2.1.3 SPECIFIC INITIATIVES AND TOPICS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Open Internet and Net Neutrality. A recent European Commission communication addresses the Open

Internet and net neutrality in Europe. (European Commission, 2011). Net neutrality concerns how best to

preserve the openness of the Internet platform. Much of the debate centers around traffic management,

used by network operators to ensure efficient use of their network and high quality of service. This also may

give rise to blocking or degrading legal services which compete to their own services. The Commission has

set in place a framework of principles for net neutrality. A revised EU electronic communications framework

has been developed which is transposed into national law, but more stringent measures could be taken.

Cloud Computing. One of the areas of high importance in the Digital Agenda is cloud computing. The

Digital Agenda aims to promote the right conditions for citizens and businesses to benefit from this. An

online consultation has been running in 2011 and feeds the European Cloud Computing Strategy (2012).

The survey also seeks feedback on policy issues such as data protection and liability (in particular in cross-

border situations), legal and technical barriers, standardization and interoperability solutions, uptake of cloud

services. The recently published Cloud strategy includes three key actions: standards, contract terms and

conditions, and European Cloud partnership as well as a number of flanking actions.

Smart Cities and the Digital Agenda. Smart Cities are considered as open innovation ecosystems and

playgrounds to exploit the opportunities of the Future Internet9. Cities and urban areas in general are also

considered as critical for getting the Digital Agenda up and running. They have both critical mass and local

engagement that is important in getting pilot projects running. The Internet provides platforms and tools that

facilitate the engagement of citizens to shape their city. The role of cities as innovation ecosystems has

been underlined in several CIP ICT-PSP projects, FP7 projects such as SmartSantander, as well as in

FIREBALL support action and also in the FI-PPP. See also the Commission communication on Cities and

the Digital Agenda (Kroes, 2010).

9 The FIREBALL Support Action (www.fireball4smartcities.eu) has explored this area of Smart Cities, Future

Internet and Living labs. See: http://www.fireball4smartcities.eu/ where a White Paper on Smart Cities as Innovation Ecosystems Sustained by the Future Internet (2012) can be downloaded.


21

2.2 PHASE 1 POLICY AND REGULATORY CHALLENGES After having provided some background, this section looks in more detail into the FI-PPP from two

perspectives mentioned: (1) what are the policy and regulatory issues emerging in FI-PPP projects to be

made aware of towards policy makers, and (2) how does the FI-PPP, in implementing the PPP model,

contribute to policy and regulatory solutions and market, business and societal opportunities.

2.2.1 IDENTIFYING POLICY AND REGULATORY CHALLENGES IN PHASE 1 PROJECTS

The FI-PPP programme consists of a portfolio of projects that include “Future Internet Use Case” projects

addressing specific sector domains, and horizontal projects addressing Future Internet infrastructure and

platforms. Based on a scan of these projects the following Table 4 presents an overview of policy and

regulatory issues. This overview is currently in validation with the FI-PPP projects concerned (see Section 5

Case studies for details). A key policy issue concerning FI-PPP is related to the regulatory conditions to

enable European-wide distributed Internet platforms. In particular this addresses interoperability with and

access to components and platforms, openness of standards, regulation of ownership and property rights,

and avoidance of market dominance. As such this issue has not yet been elaborated but it will be part of

next phase of work to do so. In follow-up work, the Table 2-3 will be related more closely to specific topics

and priorities as covered by the Digital Agenda for Europe.

Project / domain Issues and challenges that may demand for initiatives for policy,

regulation, governance (examples)

FI-WARE (Future Internet

platform)

Open access regulation, open access to interfaces, market structure and

competition, security, privacy. Net neutrality issues.

INFINITY Open access regulation, open access to interfaces, market structure,

competition, security, privacy. Net neutrality issues.

ENVIROFI (environment) Use of information and data originating from people’s and organisations

behavior. Disclosure (mandatory) of energy-related information vs. market

incentives.

FI-Content (media and

content)

Access to content, use of content, personalized content, privacy protection

FINEST (transport and

logistics)

Issues related to free flow of and access to data for managing global

logistics supply chains -> to be analyzed. Competition and access

regulation issues, also security and privacy might be involved.

FINSENY (energy) Access regulation and competition enhancement of energy networks and

network segments (infrastructure, services, management). Data access,

privacy, security.

INSTANT MOBILITY

(transport and mobility)

Open access to platform / infrastructure. Competition regulation. Access to

information flows.

OUTSMART (Smart cities) Open access to services, resources, interfaces

SAFECITY (Public security

and safety)

Access to data related to security and safety, privacy issues, security

SMARTAGRIFOOD

(agriculture and food)

Sustainability, access to data in logistic and food supply chains, access to

interfaces, mandatory disclosure of data / information (for tracking / tracing,

food safety, logistics management etc)

Table 2-3: Policy and regulatory challenges emerging in FI-PPP projects


22

The issues and challenges partly represent domain-specific challenges; partly they reflect broader and more

generic issues. Sometimes the difference between both is difficult to make as even domain-specific issues

reflect topics of wider relevance, just becoming more apparent in the sector domain context. As a first

conclusion, it can be said that all FI-PPP projects demonstrate emerging policy, regulatory and policy issues

that need further examination and elaboration. As a first step, the Section 5 in this working paper describes

policy and regulatory challenges for each of the projects in more detail.

2.2.2 HORIZONTAL CHALLENGES

Given the initial project-specific identification of issues in Table 2-3, we may indentify the generic,

overarching issues. These generic issues are relevant for multiple projects and constitute a linkage to

current concerns of policy makers and regulatory agencies at various levels (EC, national regional etc). A

first and very initial overview in Table 2-4 identifies some clustered themes and identifies “how to” questions

related to change of policy, regulation and governance systems. Here we should keep in mind the cross-

relations between themes. Behind the themes are actors and interests (telecom and ICT industry, software,

ICT user industries, society at large).

Themes relevant

for PRG actions

“How to” Issues for PRG change, related to the clusters

(further to be elaborated)

FI-PPP relevance

Open distributed

Internet platforms

• How to achieve open access, open standards and open interfaces while preserving innovation and competition and avoiding market dominance

FI-WARE

INFINITY

Internet security • How to ensure cyber security

• How to preserve privacy

FI-WARE

Legal issues in

using the Internet

• How to preserve copyrights

• How to contain cybercrime

• How to ensure privacy

• How to ensure data protection

• How to address on-line identity, digital presence

• How to address liability and traceability in complex information products

ENVIROFI

SAFECITY

FICONTENT

SMARTAGRIFOOD

Internet and

Economic /

Business

Development

• How to address taxation of internet commerce

• How to ensure secure Internet transactions

• Trust and inter-dependency between organisations

SMARTAGRIFOOD

INSTANTMOBILITY

FINSENY

Internet and

Sustainable

development

• How to reduce carbon footprint of the ICT sector, how to realize energy efficiency

• Interdependencies across environment, energy and sustainable development

FINSENY

FINEST

Internet and

competition,

innovation

• How to ensure access to Internet resources: infrastructure, platforms, services, data

• How to maximize net-neutrality and minimize commercial fragmentation of the Internet

FIWARE

INSTANT

MOBILITY


23

Internet and social

Development

• How to stimulate adoption, education and skills development

• How to ensure universal access to the Internet, e.g. in terms of demography and minorities

• How to accelerate urban and regional development (smart specialization, smarter cities)

OUTSMART

EU Digital Agenda

Socio-cultural

development

• How to ensure freedom of expression, privacy protection, cultural diversity, child safety etc.

• How to ensure e-democracy, including transparency, open government, and empowered citizenship

EU Digital Agenda

Table 2-4: Clustered Policy and regulatory Themes in FI-PPP

Apart from these general themes, the FI-PPP projects demonstrate that a number of over-arching issues

emerge that are linked to national and EU level policy and regulatory frameworks. This is definitely to be

analyzed in more detail and the following Table 2-5 only intends to provide an initial set up, suggesting to

identify the overarching issues, their origins as regards to FI-PPP projects, their relevance to the FI-PPP

programme and relevance for wider EU policy objectives.

Overarching issues Linked to FI-PPP

projects

Relevance for FI-PPP

programme

Relevant for EU Policy

Objectives

Net-neutrality and

competition

Infinity, FIWARE (to be

clarified)

To be analysed To be analysed

Access to and use of

personal and business

data in networks

SmartAGriFood

ENVIROFI

FINEST

To be analysed To be analysed

Access to personal

data, privacy issues

SAFECITY To be analysed To be analysed

Table 2-5: Over-arching policy and regulatory challenges in the FI-PPP (initial setup)

Based on initial analysis, some FI-PPP project cases (Annex 2) could be further elaborated to provide more

specific detail, and enable an analytical framework to be based on facts and observations.

2.3 FIRST PRIORITISATION OF POLICY AND REGULATORY CHALLENGES FOR FI-PPP

The present paper is concluded in this section with a short elaboration or outlook on specific policy and

regulatory challenges to be covered by the FI-PPP.

2.3.1 PPP AS EUROPEAN RDI COLLABORATION MODEL

FI-PPP will need to address some fundamental policy issues such as the public-private partnership model

itself. During the last years both at national and EU levels experience has accumulated with different types

of PPP models. Examples at the EU level include, besides the PPP programmes, the Pre-Commercial

Procurement (PCP) model as well as PPP models sometimes used in living Lab programmes. For FI-PPP

the PPP model requires also implementation of “good governance” principles which defines the different

entities, their roles and responsibilities and might conflict with Collaboration Agreements between actual

project participants. Whereas the Programme level requires attention to good governance and sustainability


24

on the longer term, in the current PPP at project level diverging interests of project participants come in.

Clear separation of project and programme interest and the ability to create flexibility and change in the

programme and project portfolio is mandatory for PPP success.

2.3.2 SMART CITIES AS INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS

Smart cities are increasingly considered as user driven innovation environments, providing opportunities for

testing Future Internet technologies in living lab settings. The FIREBALL Support Action

(www.fireball4smartcities.eu) has promoted Smart Cities as innovation ecosystems for future internet

research, bringing together the communities of future internet, living labs and smart cities. In addition, the

concept of smart regions gains importance in smart specialization strategies. This illustrates the importance

of future internet experimentation and use case projects within the context of innovation policy for achieving

synergies and impact through collaboration across regional and national boundaries and through

transnational approaches. Maybe less focusing on cities FI-PPP might emphasize “smart connectedness” in

business and societal networks of all kinds. An issue is how this fits in current policies regarding smart cities

and regional specialization and if there would be a need for a more diverse set of policies.

2.3.3 FUTURE INTERNET AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP STIMULATION

A priority challenge is the need to link promising future internet enabled platforms and commercial potential

in order to create business impact and entrepreneurship. Some interesting examples exist abroad. The NSF

I-Corps program brings together the technological, entrepreneurial and business know-how to accelerate the

exploitation of technologies. Another recent initiative is the Canadian Digital Accelerator for Innovation and

Research (DAIR), initiated by CANARIE, which is a “digital sandbox” where high-tech innovators – SMEs -

can rapidly design, validate, prototype and demonstrate new technologies for world markets10. FI-PPP (and

also FIRE) will need to increasingly engage industrial actors and SMEs into the development of technologies

and facilities, in order to tackle the identified challenges of knowledge transfer from research to business

and research based entrepreneurship. This requires new forms of partnerships and concrete business

models ensuring future sustainability.

2.3.4 WEB ECONOMY AND WEB ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Action 54 of the Digital Agenda is to Develop a new generation of web-based applications and services. The

main problem is that Europe counts much fewer start ups founded by web entrepreneurs and the ones that

are created rarely grow to global leaders. During 2012, a number of targeted actions have been undertaken

to address this issue, e.g. TechAllStars campaign, OpenIdeo, Awards. However more needs to be done in

terms of promotion of web entrepreneurship, strengthen the web start-up ecosystem and bring stakeholders

together to pool resources. Regarding FI-PPP, it is planned that Call 3 (open 16 May 2013 and closed 10

December 2013) will provide opportunities for small and innovative tech start-ups to develop new web-based

services and applications. Besides, there is a need to enhance the innovation ecosystem at local and

regional level for such web entrepreneurs including a role for venture capital. The new Horizon 2020

program will stimulate innovative SMEs, including Web entrepreneurs buy facilitating access top risk capital

or specific pilot projects and prizes and the sue of the SME instrument for support to promising start-ups.

The staff working paper “Strengthening the Competitiveness of the EU Web Economy” (concept, June 2012)

identifies some bottlenecks e.g. EU funding instruments are too slow and EU-wide platforms for grassroots

collaboration (such as Entrepreneurship hubs) is missing. Also the current innovation ecosystems suffer

10

See: www.canarie.ca/en/dair. This program has started December 2011.


25

from fragmentation. The paper proposes an EU framework which includes several pillars such as 1.

Catalyst/networking activities (networks of hubs, open collaboration spaces), 2. Awareness creation

activities, 3. Training and education developing close links between entrepreneurs and universities.

Recently, the EC launched a consultation for Web Entrepreneurship Support Actions closing December

2012.

The role of FI-PPP, facilitated by CONCORD, in this respect could be in a number of steps and activities

which relate to SMEs innovation ecosystems and initiating Web entrepreneurship actions based on FI-PPP

assets. These assets include: use of FI-PPP testbed facilities, FI-PPP project networks, and knowledge &

technology assets such as open source software components. See next section.

2.3.5 REGIONAL INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS BOOSTING SMES

The more general issue is to strengthen regional innovation ecosystems. One action for FI-PPP is to

establish and strengthen the (cross-) regional innovation ecosystems around FI-PPP projects towards longer

term sustainability. FI-PPP Call 1 and 2 projects should mature into networks or clusters of companies,

SMEs and academic institutes in cities and regions acting as breeding grounds for SMEs and web

entrepreneur iniiatives. Access to infrastructure, platforms, software components and knowledge generated

by FI-PPP projects should be easily available. Regional and national initiatives regarding entrepreneurship

and innovation should be inegraed with FI-PPP key project clusters.

Second and elaborating on the former is to establish collaboration based on FI-PPP assets with existing,

promising regional entrepreneurship activities around innovation centres, science parks, venture labs and

comparable business creation activities. Local collaboration agreements can be created that provide the

open access to and use of FI-PPP assets to start-ups who in turn may contribute to these assets e.g.

developing advanced software components or technologies, or using FI-PPP assets in commercialised

products and services. Such collaboration can be facilitated with EIT ICT-Labs activities or with local /

regional entities (CONCORD is arranging cooperation with EIT ICT-Labs). In terms of funding such

collaboration, different sources of public and private funding can be combined (public funding at national,

regional, EU-level and also Structural Funds).

Third, and related to the former, FI-PPP Call 3 opening in May 2013 is expected to provide opportunities for

small and innovative tech startups to develop new web based services and applications.

2.3.6 OPEN DATA POLICIES

Open Data is a relatively new development but has received a lot of bottom-up as well as policy interest.

Many initiatives have been launched by cities and national governments. The UK open data white paper

stresses the importance of open data (e.g. geo-data, environmental data, health-related data) for

development of innovative products and services in a wide range of domains. However there still appear to

be barriers and drivers of open data policy implementation (Huijboom and Van den Broek, 2011). One of the

bottlenecks is governments’ reluctance to adopt open data strategies. FI-PPP could help developing

effective open data strategies however the thematic of open data then should more explicitly be part of the

next FI-PPP phases 2 and 3.

2.3.7 TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS, SERVICES AND CONTENT POLICY

During the nineties, telecommunication policy and regulation has emerged as a highly important area at

national and European level, addressing key issues in competition and market dominance, access and


26

interconnection, privatisation and ownership as related to fixed and wireless telecommunications networks.

The Internet and related industry and market transformation has added a new wave of discussions regarding

broadband stimulation, privacy, security, property rights whereas at the same time competition and market

dominance issues remain of importance. An area of particular importance is open internet and net neutrality.

A key issue here is the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and

services of their choice, to preserve the openness of the Internet as platform. A European Commission

communication on “The Open Internet and Net Neutrality in Europe” (2011) further elaborates the different

policy directions addressing competition, traffic management, consumer protection and other. While the

topic is not of direct relevance to FI-PPP it may have some relevance in relation to the FI-PPP core platform

activity, this needs further study.

2.3.8 DISTRIBUTED FUTURE INTERNET PLATFORM

In relation to FI-PPP, a main issue here is what the necessary regulatory evolution is to make possible to

operate a distributed Future Internet platform across Europe, with a perspective of an internal market for

trusted and secure e-services (stated in the FI-PPP Work Programme). The Core Platform is conceived as

an open network and service platform as specification of API’s supported by Generic Enablers (software

components) will be open and royalty-free. Access Rights to Foreground, and for Background and

Sideground needed for the use of any Foreground, outside FI-PPP program activities will be granted on Fair

and Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Conditions. Issues that may potentially be addressed in

terms for regulation and policy include the role of core platforms in competition, access conditions to critical

components and interfaces, and business model aspects of exploitation of the core platform. Could such

publicly-funded core platforms distort competition? Does it create lock-in conditions?

2.3.9 ACCESS TO DATA IN SUPPLY CHAINS

FI-PPP projects SmartAgriFood, FI-CONTENT, FINEST and others demonstrate the importance of the topic

of access to data in logistics and supply chains from policy and regulatory point of view. This includes

competion, privacy and public security issues. Nowadays regulatory framework are different across

countries and are in need of harmonisation.

2.3.10 POLICIES TO EXPLOIT THE OPPORTUNITIES OF THE FUTURE INTERNET

The FI3P report (2012) estimates the potential economic benefits of the FI-PPP programme, which are

potentially limited by barriers to competitiveness, most of them relevant to SMEs and startups. The report

identifies a number of specific barriers to achieving the benefits and links them to FI-PPP. Barriers identified

in the different sectors include insufficient access to inputs, obstacles to innovation, barriers to market

competition and cooperation (economic, cultural, legal):

• Insufficient access to financial capital;

• Insufficient investment in innovation;

• Limitations regarding the size of a company and its home market;

• Impediments regarding the cooperation of the Internet industry with other industries;

• Economic barriers regarding entry and interoperability; and

• Demand-side barriers, notably lock-in, attitudes to new technology and trust.

Measures are proposed to overcome barriers to really achieve the potential benefits. Some of these policy

recommendations include the following:


27

• Emphasis on SMEs and startups.

• New assets and financial partnership models are needed to support the transformation of Europe into a leading competitive player in the emerging, Internet- and service-based global economy.

• National and European infrastructure initiatives must be “joined up” to produce effective complementarity and to encourage pro-innovation and pro-competition investment and growth by all sizes of firm and all sectors of the European Internet economy.

• Europe’s competitiveness may hinge on near-universal access to advanced communications and computing services as well as to high-speed broadband.

• Dynamic and diverse Future Internet businesses need new forms of legal identity.

• To succeed in the global Internet Economy, Europe's Digital Single Market needs internal defragmentation in legal and regulatory terms.

The report does not explicitly address the relevance of FI-PPP technologies in relation to current policy and

regulatory debates e.g. net neutrality or access to critical infrastructure.

2.4 CONCLUSIONS AT THE END OF PHASE 1 Whereas FI-PPP Phase 1 (2011-2012) has created the technical conditions (architecture, platform, use case

projects) for phase 2 and 3 it will be important to get SMEs and startups involved in the envisaged pilots.

The FI-PPP Work Programme states that phase 2 prepares large-scale trials in terms of SME participation

as application and service providers and infrastructure integration across Europe, and Phase 3 runs these

large-scale trials involving SMEs. Over-all FI-PPP envisaged impacts which are most relevant from the

perspective of policies and regulatory issues include [FI-PPP Work Programme 2011-2013]:

• Operation of a distributed Future Internet platform across Europe, supporting applications in a wide range of sectors.

• Creation of European-scale markets for smart infrastructures with integrated communications functionality contributing to economic growth.

• New business models based on cross-sector industrial partnerships built around Future Internet value chains providing SME players with opportunities to offer new products and services.

In this respect we also should take into account the mission of policy and regulation related activities within

FI-PPP: “Developing a comprehensive approach towards regulatory and policy issues such as

interoperability, openness, standards, data security and privacy within the context of the Future Internet

complex and ‘smart’ usage scenarios. This may also address the required methodologies, procedures and

best practice needed to address transnational aspects where a high degree of public-private co-operation is

needed. Participation of the public sector in the FI-PPP will be a key asset to progress in these non-

technological issues”.

Priorities

Based on these envisaged FI-PPP impacts the following three priorities to be worked on within FI-PPP in the

domain of policy and regulation can be identified.

• Markets for smart infrastructures: emerging frameworks for policy and regulatory conditions such as interoperability, openness, standards, security and privacy. Which business models are emerging based on FI-PPP innovations in service platforms, and how are these models constrained by existing regulations and policies?

• Policy and regulatory issues affecting the success of Future Internet enabled networked applications. Which policies and regulations affect the access to data in supply chains? Which policies and regulations may support the use of data in smart networks in relation to privacy and security concerns?


28

• Ensuring the impact of FI-PPP: shaping SME involvement, entrepreneurship and incubation activities. Support FI-PPP projects to engage SMEs as partners in FI-PPP projects in Phase II, III. Develop approaches and policies to stimulate web-entrepreneurs, working with the web-entrepreneurship initiative.

The work of the WG-PRG will be to initiate debates, raise awareness and develop recommendations. The

WG-PRG aims to collaborate and exchange with key organizations and stakeholders, such as European

Commission, national governments, Internet-related policy organizations, OECD, ITU, academic networks

(CPR, Internet Science) and other channels. Activities may include:

• Organise regular FI-PPP Policy workshops e.g. bi-annual. The next workshop possibly held September 2013 could target policy makers in particular.

• Develop short position papers on clearly delineated policy topics based on experiences and progress in FI-PPP projects.

• Invite policy specialists and academics to analyse potential policy and regulatory bottlenecks and providing recommendations, e.g. through dedicated calls.


29

3. POLICY AND REGULATORY CHALLENGES IN PHASE 2

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO PHASE 2 This section identifies policy, regulatory and governance (PRG) issues of relevance for FI-PPP within Phase

2. Its content is based on interviews with the Phase 2 projects, background documents analysis, and results

of discussions in the PRG WG the PRG WG meeting on 19 and 20 June 2013, Brussels. The objective of

this document is to: (1) identify the PRG issues for FI-PPP Phase 2 projects; (2) present an initial analysis of

these issues; (3) prepare the next steps.

The section concentrates on PRG issues that are evidently and directly relevant for FI-PPP in terms of its

success and impact, and where FI-PPP can have a clear influencing role. This influencing role may be to

initiate discussions and debates and influence ongoing debates, and is mostly in the form of making

recommendations. Making recommendations should be based on insights and clear, concrete cases. This

work is at the heart of the PRG WG where we also will connect with external experts and bodies. In terms of

planning our activities we aim to enter the phase of making recommendations in the second half of 2013.

In terms of policy we are interested in forward looking and shaping new Internet-related policies and

influencing existing policies both at EC and national / regional levels with a view towards policy instruments

and their effectiveness and relevance for FI-PPP. Policy types of most relevance for FI-PPP include

innovation policies, policies towards SMEs and entrepreneurship stimulation policies.

Regarding regulation, we understand this as a more formal area of rules based on legislation which relates

to rights, obligations and responsibilities (e.g. interconnection, access, privacy). Our role here is to identify

FI-PPP issues related to regulations (e.g. because of market failures or evident societal needs) and

communicate and discuss them at the level of ongoing regulatory activities at EC level.

Governance as such is not directly covered in our work as we consider general governance related issues

as beyond FI-PPP. In any case, the result of the PRG WG is to present the cases for PRG issues as clearly

as possible, in particular when issues affect the success of FI-PPP, and prepare recommendations on

resolving them. This could also include some specific governance issues.

Section 3.2 provides a short summary of all Phase 2 projects as background and identifies already the

expected PRG themes. Section 3.3 identifies the PRG issues in more detail and presents a selection. A

mapping and categorization of the issues is presented in section 3.4. Section 3.5 analyses the selected set

of issues and extracts cross-project issues. Finally section 3.6 discusses the further approach in the

timeframe July – December 2013.

3.2 PHASE 2 PROJECTS AND THEIR POLICY AND REGULATORY CHALLENGES

Phase 2 of the FI-PPP Programme has started April 2013. Phase 2 will mainly develop the core platform

focusing on use case specific functionalities, and prepare and run early use case trials. Phase 2 comprises 5

use case specific projects, a capacity building project and a project responsible to provide the technical

enablers. This chapter will summarise briefly what the phase 2 projects are about and identifies the type of

relevant policy, regulation and governance issues.


3.2.1 FI-WARE (HTTP://WWW.FI

FI-WARE will deliver a novel service infrastructure, building upon elements (called Generic Enablers) which

offer reusable and commonly shared functions making it easier to develop Future Internet

multiple sectors – building a true foundation for the Future Internet. The project will develop public and

royalty-free Open Specifications of Generic Enablers, together with a reference implementation of them

available for testing. This w

standards. FI-WARE is the cornerstone of the Future Internet Public Private Partnership (PPP) Programme.

PRG challenges: Given the nature of FI

regulation, infrastructure sharing, and competition in terms of access to its software interfaces. In relation to

the domain applications represented by the use case pilot projects we may expect various issues in the

sphere of data protection, security and trust, and other. This will also come back in discussing the domain

use case pilots.

3.2.2 INFINITY (HTTP://WWW.FI

The main challenge for INFINITY as a Support Action is to establ

with infrastructure owners and application developers Europe

data, information, projects and programmes, to create a new, useful and valuable repository of infrastructure

capability and capacity that relates need to opportunity and facilitates the creation of an international

community that can collaborate to deliver the Future Internet.

PRG challenges: The role of Infinity regarding infrastructure capabilities brings it

and FI-WARE. Interoperability of platforms and infrastructures, and opening up infrastructures for use by the


Fig. 3-1: Phasing of FI-PPP projects

HTTP://WWW.FI-WARE.EU/)

WARE will deliver a novel service infrastructure, building upon elements (called Generic Enablers) which

offer reusable and commonly shared functions making it easier to develop Future Internet

building a true foundation for the Future Internet. The project will develop public and

free Open Specifications of Generic Enablers, together with a reference implementation of them

available for testing. This way, it is aimed to develop working specifications that influe

WARE is the cornerstone of the Future Internet Public Private Partnership (PPP) Programme.

Given the nature of FI-WARE, we may expect PRG issues in the sphere of platform



ata protection, security and trust, and other. This will also come back in discussing the domain

HTTP://WWW.FI-INFINITY.EU)

The main challenge for INFINITY as a Support Action is to establish an approach that can quickly engage

with infrastructure owners and application developers Europe-wide, building as far as possible on existing



community that can collaborate to deliver the Future Internet.

The role of Infinity regarding infrastructure capabilities brings it

WARE. Interoperability of platforms and infrastructures, and opening up infrastructures for use by the

30

WARE will deliver a novel service infrastructure, building upon elements (called Generic Enablers) which

offer reusable and commonly shared functions making it easier to develop Future Internet Applications in

building a true foundation for the Future Internet. The project will develop public and

free Open Specifications of Generic Enablers, together with a reference implementation of them

ay, it is aimed to develop working specifications that influence Future Internet

WARE is the cornerstone of the Future Internet Public Private Partnership (PPP) Programme.

s in the sphere of platform



ata protection, security and trust, and other. This will also come back in discussing the domain

ish an approach that can quickly engage

wide, building as far as possible on existing



The role of Infinity regarding infrastructure capabilities brings it in the same area as XIFI

WARE. Interoperability of platforms and infrastructures, and opening up infrastructures for use by the


31

use case projects, and ensuring that infrastructures support standards and provide access to data are

important PRG concerns.

3.2.3 XIFI (HTTPS://FI-XIFI.EU/)

XIFI is the project responsible for the capacity building part of the FI-PPP programme.

The XIFI Integrating Project aims to support advanced experiments on the FI-PPP core platform in order to

leverage existing public investments in advanced infrastructures. In particular, XIFI is establishing a

marketplace for test infrastructures and Future Internet services to cope with large trial deployments

involving users. This is being achieved through a core federation of test infrastructures, and by coordinating

efforts with ongoing FI infrastructures and pilots (FIRE, EIT ICT Labs, CIP pilots, Living Labs) assisted by

investments in pan - European infrastructures such as GÉANT.

PRG challenges: Like INFINITY and FI-WARE the PRG concerns of XIFI are very much in topics such as

provision of open access to interfaces, ensuring access to data; supporting security and data protection

levels etc. A topic of particular interest is shared use of infrastructures under different constellations of

national regulatory and legal arrangements.

3.2.4 FITMAN (HTTP://WWW.FITMAN-FI.EU/ )

FITMAN aims to provide industry-led use case trials in the domain of smart, digital and virtual factories of the

future. The trials will test and assess the suitability, openness and flexibility of FI-WARE’s Generic Enablers

while contributing to the sustainability of EU manufacturing industries. The goal of FITMAN is twofold: (1) to

test the Generic Enablers and (2) to prove the performance of manufacturing systems (i.e. business

consequences). The project is well linked to SMEs and has local support for them. It also has regional

relationships.

PRG challenges: Given the nature of FITMAN and its creation of local ecosystems its embedding in

regional innovation instruments is point of attention. Its reliance on FI-WARE Generic Enablers (GEs) also

brings up the issue of openness of GEs after the end of FI-PPP, which is an issue for all FI-PPP use case

projects. Given the focus on business applications we expect the importance of interoperability, access to

data, data quality and integrity etc.

3.2.5 FI-CONTENT2

FI-CONTENT 2 will establish the foundation of a European infrastructure promoting and testing novel uses

of AV content on connected devices. It will develop and deploy advanced platforms for Social Connected

TV, Mobile Smart City services, and Gaming / Virtual worlds.

PRG challenges: The key PRG issues include personal data protection (including privacy), and content

protection (IP, DRM). Also open access to data and secure micropayment approaches are an important

topic. Of course also SME engagement is an important issue as for all FI-PPP projects running open calls in

phase 2 and moving towards phase 3 for commercial exploitation.

3.2.6 FI-STAR (HTTP://WWW.FI-STAR.EU/)

FI-STAR will establish early trials in the Health Care domain building on Future Internet (FI) technology

leveraging on the outcomes of FI-PPP Phase 1. It will become self-sufficient after the end of the project and

will continue on a sustainable business model by several partners. In order to meet the requirements of a

global health industry FI-STAR will use a fundamentally different, “reverse” cloud approach. It will bring the


32

software to the data, rather than bringing the data to the software. FI-STAR will create a robust framework

based on the “software to data” paradigm. A sustainable value chain following the life cycle of the Generic

Enablers (GEs) will enable FI-STAR to grow beyond the lifetime of the project. FI-STAR will build a vertical

community in order to create a sustainable ecosystem for all user groups in the global health care and

adjacent markets based on FI-PPP specifications. FI-STAR will deploy and execute 7 early trials across

Europe, serving more than 4 million people. Through the trials FI-STAR will validate the FI-PPP core

platform concept by using GEs to build its framework and will introduce ultra-light interactive applications for

user functionality. It will pro-actively engage with the FI-PPP to propose specifications and standards. FI-

STAR will use the latest digital media technology for community building and will proactively prepare for

Phase 3 through targeted elicitation of new partners using open calls.

PRG challenges: As FI-STAR addresses healthcare, the main issues include IPR, privacy protection and

security in cloud systems (use of patient data), and harmonisation of local health organisations’ procurement

approaches.

3.2.7 FINESCE (WWW.FINESCE.EU)

FINESCE will organise a series of field user trials of Future Internet technologies in the usage area Smart

Energy. It takes the results of FINSENY to practical realisation and extends them to include energy forms

other than electrical power. FINESCE will organize and run such user trials in 7 European countries, building

on public and private investments of billions of euro, addressing the issues of efficient energy usage in

residential and industrial buildings, including a new prosumer energy marketplace, the development of

cross-border private virtual power plants, the use of electric vehicles as an element of demand response

systems enabling energy providers to balance the volatile nature of solar and wind energy and the

associated introduction of communications in the energy networks. The FINESCE trials will prove the

practical applicability of Future Internet technologies, and specifically the Generic Enablers, to the

challenges of the energy sector. We will prepare for the exploitation of the emerging business opportunities

in the energy sector, creating jobs, social impact and economic growth by developing an active community

of innovative SME’s using the Open Call process.

PRG challenges: the main issues would relate to the energy market as network market: access to

bottleneck functions within the network, access to network management information (both to stimulate

competition and service innovation), access to consumer generated energy data etc. Synergies between

telecoms and energy markets is an issue as well, and FINESCE is a project in the core of that topic.

3.2.8 FISPACE (HTTP://WWW.FISPACE.EU)

Experience from industry and insights gained during Phase I of the FI-PPP provide strong evidence for the

need and opportunities of supporting collaborative business networks by means of Future Internet

technology. Such opportunities include the increased efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of business

activities, as well as reduced barriers for business participation of small and medium enterprises. The

objectives of FIspace are to drive the development of an integrated and extensible collaboration service

together with an initial set of domain applications, thereby establishing the standard for supporting and

optimizing inter-organizational business collaboration in global transport, logistics, and agri-food business.

These objectives will be achieved through leveraging and capitalizing on the outcomes of two successful

Phase I use case projects – FInest and SmartAgriFood –, as well as by utilizing the generic enablers

available from the FI-PPP Core Platform (FI-WARE). Successful achievement of these objectives will be


demonstrated through extensive trial experiments in

businesses that comprise diverse trial sites, usage scenarios, and stakeholders.

PRG challenges: we haven’t done yet an interview with FINESCE, however we expect PRG issues in

relation to harmonisation of national legislation (see Phase 1 working paper). These include the free flow of

and access to data for managing global logistics and food supply chains; competition and access regulation

issues; security and privacy, access to interfaces; and the mand

tracking / tracing, food safety, logistics management, etc.).

3.3 PRG ISSUES IDENTIFICATIO

3.3.1 METHODOLOGY

Fig. 3-2 explains the approach to identifying and prioritizing PRG issues. A review of the FI

programme was carried out to identify relevant PRG issues top

of relevant PRG issues. Then we started a bottom

representatives of CONCORD performed interviews with all F

Annex contain all information collected at these interviews for the individual projects. They

description of identified PRG issues, an assessment of their relevance, and initial thoughts about the

possible solutions. We identified between 3

these topics overlap and are manifestations of common underlying issues.

The high level Programme view led

governance issues which:

• Are most relevant for the success of the FIusers to use Future Internet, for developers to exploit the technparticipate in the Use Cases)

• Can be reasonably influenced by the FI

• Are common to most of the individual FI

The top-down view not only leads to identification of a number of PRG

relevance of the PRG issues that were identified “bottom

issues that we consider as the most relevant, most common and most influenceable, providing a mapping

on the mentioned criteria. We will now explain this in a bit more detail.


demonstrated through extensive trial experiments in the domains of agri-food and transport and logistics

businesses that comprise diverse trial sites, usage scenarios, and stakeholders.

we haven’t done yet an interview with FINESCE, however we expect PRG issues in

of national legislation (see Phase 1 working paper). These include the free flow of


issues; security and privacy, access to interfaces; and the mandatory disclosure of data & information (for

tracking / tracing, food safety, logistics management, etc.).

ISSUES IDENTIFICATION

explains the approach to identifying and prioritizing PRG issues. A review of the FI

e was carried out to identify relevant PRG issues top-down and also identify criteria for selection

of relevant PRG issues. Then we started a bottom-up process as during the first half of June 2013

representatives of CONCORD performed interviews with all FI-PPP Phase 2 projects. The tables in the

Annex contain all information collected at these interviews for the individual projects. They


solutions. We identified between 3-10 topics for each of the projects individually. However, many of

these topics overlap and are manifestations of common underlying issues.

Fig. 3-2: Approach to selection of PRG issues

The high level Programme view led us to consider that we have to identify the policy, regulatory and

Are most relevant for the success of the FI-PPP Program (e.g. because they cause barriers for the users to use Future Internet, for developers to exploit the technologies, or discourage SMEs to participate in the Use Cases)

Can be reasonably influenced by the FI-PPP, via the appropriate bodies

Are common to most of the individual FI-PPP projects.

down view not only leads to identification of a number of PRG issues but also gives insight in the

relevance of the PRG issues that were identified “bottom-up”. We were able to select a limited list of PRG


tioned criteria. We will now explain this in a bit more detail.

33

food and transport and logistics

we haven’t done yet an interview with FINESCE, however we expect PRG issues in

of national legislation (see Phase 1 working paper). These include the free flow of


atory disclosure of data & information (for

explains the approach to identifying and prioritizing PRG issues. A review of the FI-PPP work

down and also identify criteria for selection

up process as during the first half of June 2013

PPP Phase 2 projects. The tables in the

Annex contain all information collected at these interviews for the individual projects. They cover a


for each of the projects individually. However, many of

us to consider that we have to identify the policy, regulatory and

PPP Program (e.g. because they cause barriers for the ologies, or discourage SMEs to

issues but also gives insight in the

up”. We were able to select a limited list of PRG



34

3.3.2 TOP-DOWN IDENTIFICATION OF PRG ISSUES

Our point of departure is the question: what are the critical success factors for FI-PPP and individual

projects, and how can PRG actions increase the FI-PPP’s success. Of course the success of FI-PPP is

determined by many factors, PRG is one class of factors among many. Still our mission is to stimulate that

PRG actions create the conditions for FI-PPP success. We need to take into account that our influence on

PRG’s is limited and this also requires further analysis.

The relevant CSF (Critical Success Factors) conditions are those conditions that ensure that FI-PPP

innovations are adopted, used and exploited, particularly after the end of the FI-PPP Programme. Will

innovation not only be stimulated by FI-PPP participants but much wider? Or is it hindered due to missing

rules? Will new markets for smart infrastructures and services emerge and do existing regulatory

bottlenecks prevent that? Will new applications and technologies create new business and will new business

emerge? Answering these questions implies that we need to review the FI-PPP strategic objectives or KPIs

(Key Performance Indicators) identifying the CSFs, and analyse how PRG actions affect these objectives

and KPIs positively through enhancing the CSF related conditions. The following table 3-1 is a high-level

representation (we should understand that the objectives of individual projects not always explicitly realize

these high-level objectives). A general concern of the FI-PPP work programme is “to address regulatory and

policy issues such as interoperability, openness, standards, data security and privacy within the context of

the Future Internet complex and ‘smart’ usage scenarios.”

FI-PPP Work Programme

objectives (related to PRG)

CSFs for realizing FI-PPP

objectives (related to PRG)

PRG areas that influence CSFs

in realizing FI-PPP objectives

“Make public service infrastructures smarter through FI capabilities”

Integration of FI capabilities into existing architectures

Interoperability of FI capabilities and existing systems

Enforcing systems interoperability (technical, standards), openness of functionalities

“Novel approaches to infrastructures and applications”

Create local innovation ecosystems, involve SMEs

Regional innovation instruments and policies; follow-up in Horizon 2020

“Innovative business models in ICT industry, content and other sectors”

Adoption of the business models by key players to transform existing service offering, industry and market structure

Data protection for privacy

Open data integration

IP management

Security

“Novel business models based on cross-industrial partnerships and FI-based value chains”

Enable partnerships without distorting competition and innovation

How to enable partnerships without distorting competition and innovation

“Create new markets for smart infrastructure overcoming fragmentation”

Access to bottleneck components (GEs)

Access, interoperability, interconnection issues, licensing frameworks

Platform regulation (if necessary)

“Evolution of Future internet infrastructure compatible with the emergence of open, secure and trusted service platform for building networked applications that can be leveraged through user-centred open innovation schemes”

Industry-wide adoption of open modular architecture

Open access to bottleneck functionalities to stimulate innovation and competitiveness

IP protection

Table 3-1: Top-down identification of PRG issues based on FI-PPP Work Programme Objectives


35

3.3.3 BOTTOM-UP IDENTIFICATION OF PRG ISSUES

The process sketched before leads to Table 3-2 below, which lists the most relevant PRG issues which are

in addition most common to several individual FI-PPP projects. Bottom-up identification is based on PRG

topics emerging directly from the FI-PPP projects and we take a closer bottom-up look based on insights

collected in interviews with the individual projects. The issues mentioned by most individual projects are

actually “Access to data” and “Ownership and IPR, open business models” (8 individual projects out of 8 in

total), followed by “Privacy and data protection” (7 individual projects), and “Security of platforms and

infrastructures” (6 individual projects). “Micropayment” has only been mentioned by one project, but we still

include this issue because it is probably relevant for other projects as well.

PRG topic Why it is important for FI-PPP’s success (project’s views) Relevant to which project

Access to

interfaces

Access to interfaces is crucial for usage and exploitation of FI-PPP platform and infrastructure, as it is necessary for stimulating innovation and entry of new players. It is highly relevant after FI-PPP is ending, when services become commercial. At this point it is not clear whether new forms of platform regulation will be necessary. The issue has technical and non-technical relevance and is related to issue 3 technically (interoperability, standards) and to issue 4 non-technically (IPR and ownership related issues, business models).

FI-WARE

XiFi

INFINITY

FI-STAR

FI-CONTENT2

Access to data

Public data is an important source for business opportunities. This issue is found relevant for future exploitation and to stimulate further innovation and entrepreneurship. Also personal data are important for business, e.g. in energy and content markets. However trade-offs are to be considered, e.g. the legal situation as regards personal data.

INFINITY

XIFI

FITMAN

FI-CONTENT2

FINESCE

FI-SPACE

FI-STAR

FI-WARE

Sharing and

interoperability

of infrastructures

When using shared infrastructures in cross-border and cross-domain settings it is necessary to satisfy different domain and location specific local and regulatory requirements. This issue includes also interoperability of infrastructures. It is important for removing bottlenecks and improving business cases. Harmonised regulation and rules in Europe are important.

FI-WARE

INFINITY

XIFI

FI-STAR

FINESCE

Ownership and

IPR, open

business models

It is crucial for commercial success that the issues related to ownership, IPRs, and the conditions of use are clarified. It is in particularly important for the time after FI-PPP has ended. It is important that the potential users are informed early and properly about the terms and conditions for use of infrastructures during experiments and after in case of commercial exploitation. Non-harmonized rules will hinder the adoption of services and prevent SMEs from using the platforms and infrastructures.

FI-WARE

INFINITY

XIFI

FITMAN

FI-CONTENT2

FI-STAR

FINESCE

FI-SPACE

Privacy and data

protection

Privacy mechanisms are important for users as It is important to create trust in order to let users feel comfortable regarding privacy. It is essential that platforms and infrastructures adhere to existing privacy laws and regulations. For users it is also important that data is original i.e. not tampered with (data integrity). Protection of personal content is absolutely essential for the users and hence for successful content related services. A specific use case of importance for FI-PPP is content protection. There are many sector specific privacy rules. Particularly in the health sector

FI-WARE

INFINITY

XIFI

FI-CONTENT2

FI-STAR

FI-SPACE


36

PRG topic Why it is important for FI-PPP’s success (project’s views) Relevant to which project

they are very comprehensive and complicated. FINESCE

Security of

platforms and

infrastructures

It is important for platform and infrastructure owners to take adequate security measures (e.g. access control). It is important to create trust for the users based on adequate security mechanisms to use the infrastructure without getting into security, integrity and privacy problems.

A related issue is to provide adequate means for critical infrastructures (assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy, e.g. energy or water supply, financial services, public health).

FI-WARE

INFINITY

XIFI

FI-STAR

FI-SPACE

FINESCE

Identity

Management

Identity management is an important precondition for the trusted use of FI-PPP’s innovations. Systems should comply with existing regulations. Possibly, better harmonized European rules for identity management are necessary. This issue includes both technical aspects as well as policy and regulatory aspects.

INFINITY

XIFI

FINESCE

FI-CONTENT2

SME

engagement

Policies and instruments to foster SMEs engagement must be recommended. It is crucial for SMEs to participate in phase 3 of the FI-PPP Programme, particularly important are paths for SMEs from tests to commercial offers. SMEs should be enabled to benefit from FI-PPP in terms of commercialization and further development and innovation.

INFINITY

FI-CONTENT2

Micropayment

A reliable and easy micropayment process is absolutely essential for the economic success of content related services. Important is to choose one mechanism and to recommend the modernization of regulatory frameworks.

FI-CONTENT2

Table 3-2: Bottom-up selection of key topics by FI-PPP projects

3.4 PRG ISSUES DEFINITION AND RELEVANCE FOR FI-PPP Starting from the RG issues listed in Table 11, we aim to define these issues as further analysis should be

based on a clear definition. At this stage (June 2013) the definition of issues within the PRG WG is

underway and for the purpose of this document we present short descriptions as work in progress. We also

present the argument for these PRG issues being relevant for FI-PPP, trying to answer the question: “Why

should we as PRG WG work on these PRG issues and what should come out of this work”.

In addressing PRG issues, we must follow different perspectives and strategies. For some of the issues

policy and regulatory concerns are relatively new and should be defined and explored. For other issues we

should address compliance to existing regulations at national and European level. Finally for some of the

issues especially when cross-border applications are considered we may address the need for further

harmonization of existing regulations.

3.4.1 ACCESS TO INTERFACES

Description. From the perspective of further development of FI-PPP assets after lifetime it is important that

innovative companies are able to develop software components that can interact with FI-PPP platform

elements. The conditions for getting access to bottleneck assets such as APIs, and ownership of Generic

Enablers are crucial in this respect. So this is an issue for FI-PPP exploitation and sustainability in the first

place, an issue for what can be called the “FI-PPP platform strategy”. However given the key objective of FI-

PPP to create a “market for smart infrastructure” it is also a policy and possibly regulatory issue to realize

this goal. In situations where access can be blocked such market cannot develop as new parties cannot

enter the market and the further innovation process. Or existing partners active in different market segments


37

and types of platforms might have an interest to utilize the platform. This then could be an issue for future

market structure and regulation for smart networks and services. As this issue is relatively new it deserves

some closer attention and discussion with experts. There might also be linkages to the net neutrality debate.

Relevance.“Open access” means non-discriminatory; not necessarily free of charge. This includes avoiding

any non-discriminatory access to the platforms, even if the platform providers have some dominant role in

operating the platform and have to ensure safe operation. A possible future issue is anticompetitive

practices hindering access, involving pricing and cross-subsidy strategies, bundling and other. This is a

matter of future market structure and regulation for smart networks and services. For the experiments during

the FI-PPP phase, it might not be a political or regulatory issue. It will however definitely becomes one for

later commercial services. Not resolving this issue may hinder innovation and entry of new players.

Keywords. Access and ownership, platform control, platform strategy, open innovation

3.4.2 ACCESS TO DATA

Description. FI-PPP exploitation requires access to “data”. These data are of different types. First, data

include public data (such as geographical, environmental, traffic, scientific, etc. data) that should be

accessible to enable FI-PPP applications to make use of them and / or build new applications on basis of

these data. Open data is widely considered as having a lot of potential in this respect. Conditions under

which data are made available for use, however, are still significantly different across states or regions thus

hindering their exploitation. A second type of data is product and service information. Sometimes such

information is blocked because of business strategies to enforce lock-in of customers and prevent

interoperability. Probably we need to distinguish between Open data for applications, and product-service

data as regards interoperability information. Another type of data is personal data, which can be very

important for business. However exploiting personal data has a strong link to privacy and data protection; all

existing rules must be obeyed. The European Parliament has just adopted the communication from the

Commission regarding new EU Open Data rules. However it will take some more years until this will be

transferred into national law of the member states.

Relevance. Access to (open) data will be relevant for future exploitation of FI-PPP and to stimulate

innovation and entrepreneurship.

Keywords: Open data, access conditions, harmonization, privacy.

3.4.3 SHARING AND INTEROPERABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE

Description: The FI-PPP’s exploitation requires setting in place adequate conditions for sharing and

interworking of different infrastructures. This will enable the proposed applications and services and use of

data to interact and integrate, and work across borders. Sharing infrastructures requires interoperability to

satisfy different domain and location-specific local and regulatory requirements, also of cross-border and

cross-domain nature. Interoperability thus is an important condition for infrastructure sharing and cross-

border implementation of services, and for that a European level policy and regulation on interoperability will

be necessary. Aspects of interoperability not only include technical and semantic interoperability but also

legal interoperability in the sense of aligned legislation. It should also be mentioned a relation with topic (1)

in relation to access to interoperability information of products and services.


38

Relevance. Through sharing of infrastructures, competitors are becoming partners in order to lower their

investments. Infrastructure sharing limits duplication and gears investment toward underserved areas,

product innovation, and improved customer service. The degree and method of infrastructure sharing can

vary in each country depending on regulatory and competitive climate. Regulation is very different in

different countries and can be from preventing to enforcing sharing of infrastructure. Rules should be

harmonized in Europe. Possibly rules are to be harmonized however there are trade-offs. It may be difficult

to satisfy different domain and location specific legal and regulatory requirements when using shared

infrastructures (see FI-PPP Architecture Board White Paper of December 2012). This needs some further

analysis. This topic is also related to interoperability of platforms and infrastructures, an absolutely crucial

issue for the success of the offered infrastructures in the FI-PPP Programme. The infrastructures have to

ensure proper interoperability. If necessary they have to promise to provide appropriate means for

interoperability.

Keywords: Interoperability, infrastructure sharing, cross-border, interoperability standards

3.4.4 OWNERSHIP AND IPR, OPEN BUSINESS MODELS

Description. Openness of innovation and business models relates to the arrangements to be made in order

to ensure a continuing development of FI-PPP’s assets after project lifetime. This requires setting in place

policies regarding protection of intellectual property rights and ownership of assets and data. There is a

strong relation with exploitation and sustainability of the FI-PPP, however we focus on policies to create the

conditions for such exploitation. This way we are focusing on the existence and need for improvement of

policies and legal arrangements in cross-border settings. There is a relation with issue (1) Access to

interfaces (3.4.1) as regards access to interoperability information of products of services. Conditions for

using infrastructure and enablers during the FI-PPP test phases are also required, but much simpler to solve

than for the commercial phase afterwards.

Relevance. In the current situation it is still very unclear which degree of openness of the FI-PPP business

models will be necessary or allowed by established parties in order to preserve innovation and competition

and whether that is covered by existing regulatory frameworks. Solutions could be:

• To simplify copyright clearance, management and cross-border licensing.

• To agree on simple and practical license agreements during and after the test phases.To provide a “one stop shopping” contact for all questions regarding licenses and conditions of use.

• To review the Directive on Re-Use of Public Sector Information, notably its scope and principles on charging for access and use.

• To review the EU data protection regulatory framework with a view to enhancing individuals' confidence and strengthening their rights.

It is important that the potential users are informed early and properly about the terms and conditions for use

during experiments and after in case of commercial exploitation. Conditions for experimental phase and

commercial phase are different; at least in the experimental phase the conditions should be very flexible.

Keywords: IPR, ownership, open business model, legal conditions

3.4.5 PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION

Description. This issue relates also to openness of data, however here it is considered predominantly from

the perspective of protection of the users of network infrastructures (including the cloud) and applications in

generating personal data. Examples of relevance in regard to FI-PPP are data on personal health, energy


39

behavior, personal mobility, content use and production, and Internet use in general. Ensuring data privacy

for user forms an important condition for establishing trust in ICT applications and networks. Maintaining

privacy is related to ensuring information security (e.g. defending confidential information to unauthorized

access) and information security has an effect on privacy. There are many sector specific privacy rules.

Particularly in the health sector they are very comprehensive and complicated.

Relevance. User generated content is more and more used by people with the cloud storage services but

no overarching security/privacy service exists. A standardised mandatory security/privacy function is

needed. Currently there are various different national privacy rules; even worse: they are continuously

changing. But we need harmonized privacy rules in Europe at least for the large players like France,

Germany, Spain and Italy. It is important to create sufficient trust for the users in that there are satisfactory

privacy mechanisms for the users to feel comfortable with their privacy. Infrastructure / GE /Use Case

owners have to publish their privacy policy and services. Privacy should include the right for users to erase

their personal data completely.

The main issue related to policy/regulation is probably to adhere to existing privacy laws and regulations. As

regards the current EU situation, there was a speech by Viviane Reding (EU Justice Commissioner) about

the EU's Data Protection rules and Cyber Security Strategy, and how they hang together. Data protection

rules are still based on a document of 1995 (Reding criticized it for having many national differences). The

Commission proposes a reform of the data protection rules. The situation on EU Cyber Security Strategy is

more developed. ENISA and the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) play key roles. Article 29 data

Protection Working Party comes probably closest to the state of the art in European data protection work.

We note that FI-CONTENT2 is working with an external legal advisor on ethical and legal issues concerning

data privacy regulations in Europe for their cross border experimentation sites and planned experiments.

This external legal advisor will also support future SMEs joining the FI-CONTENT2 in phase 2 and 3. So, FI-

CONTENT2 does give legal support to SMEs for these non-harmonized national regulations.

Data integrity is a relevant topic for FI-PPP as different Use Cases exchange and store different more or

less confidential data; this can include very confidential personal data (e.g. in case of health services). Users

must be absolutely ensured and perceive enough trust that the data they want to exchange is treated in a

confidential way and that the received data is original and has not tampered with. This is of particular

importance if Cloud Computing is applied. This is mostly a technical issue, but can be enhanced by policy

and/or regulation. For example there could be legal consequences and liabilities if the measures are not

followed up properly by the infrastructure/ generic enabler / underlying service providers.

Keywords: Privacy, data protection, data integrity, trust, security

3.4.6 SECURITY OF PLATFORMS AND INFRASTRUCTURES

Description: Here we look at security from the perspective of platform and infrastructure owners, but in a

context of openness of the Internet. An important topic in this respect is cloud security. Protection of critical

infrastructures such as IT infrastructures but also energy infrastructures based on smart grid requires

attention to mitigation strategies and their policy and regulatory concerns that require solutions. For

example, as regards energy, regulatory uncertainties may hamper investment in smart grids. Security of IT

systems contributes to data protection and data integrity and thus establishing trusted environment for the

users of these systems. However, trade-offs should be recognized and addressed between security, privacy


40

and economic impact. A related issue is to provide adequate means for critical infrastructures (assets that

are essential for the functioning of a society and economy, e.g. energy or water supply, financial services,

public health).

Relevance. Security in itself has a high relevance for FI-PPP and the FI-WARE project is working on

technical solutions in a dedicated activity. It is also related to privacy and data protection, and data integrity

(see section 4.5). As regards policy and regulation currently there is a lot of attention for this issue in the

context of cyber security. In this context there might be less need for FI-PPP to actively work on solutions.

Keywords: (Cyber-) Security, critical infrastructure, data integrity and protection, trust, privacy protection

3.4.7 IDENTITY MANAGEMENT

Description: Digital identity management includes the management of information about users and their

authentication and authorization, in many cases to protect sensitive business processes (e.g. required by

Sarbanes-Oxley regulation). Services in this domain include user provisioning, access governance,

authentication, single sign on, federated identity and other. As such identity management is part of Security

of IT systems (6) and it also raises important privacy concerns (5). Measures regarding identity management

therefore must be efficient, transparent and secure, and must comply with national and European-level

regulations.

Relevance. Identity management describes the management of individual principals, their authentication,

authorization, and privileges within or across system and enterprise boundaries with the goal of increasing

security and productivity while decreasing cost, downtime and repetitive tasks. "Identity Management" and

"Access and Identity Management" are used interchangeably in the area of Identity access management

while identity management itself falls under the umbrella of IT Security.

In terms of rules, identity management is currently very different in different European countries; harmonized

European rules are necessary. This could be one of the domain agnostic issues, which could be raised. As

we know there are many domain specific issues coming from the use case projects. This is more a

technological issue, not so much a policy or regulatory one. The EU could potentially look at offering some

brokering service between identity management systems.

Keywords: Identity, security, compliance

3.4.8 SME ENGAGEMENT

Description. A key goal of FI-PPP is to involve SMEs as innovators and advanced users. As concerns

policy, attention should be paid to instruments at European, national and regional level to stimulate SMEs to

participate. For that, concerns of SMEs should be addressed such as IP management (see also under 4)

and conditions of using FI-PPP assets such as GEs (see 1). At another level it is also important to consider

the alignment of regional innovation policies and instruments with European level instruments to facilitate

and add synergies to the entry and effective operation of SMEs in large-scale research and innovation

programmes. In this respect it also could be considered instruments to create collaborative innovation

networks at regional and cross-regional level. Furthermore this issue also relates to policies and instruments

stimulating the creation and financing of new businesses.


Relevance for FI-PPP. It is important that FI

other application developers.

therefore it is important that they get the full path from tests to commercial offers. From a legal and liability

point of view things are not clear. There are different rules and laws in d

significant barrier for SMEs to invest in cross

business; they normally don’t have units which can care about much administrative procedures. Therefore

the process for SMEs to participate needs to be simple and light. The simple procedures need to be well

communicated to the potential SMES, etc. Besides SMEs we must not forget “application developers” as a

different community, which probably needs specific treatment

and SMEs that has commenced trading needs to be taken into account; these are different and have

different requirements. There are probably three classifications: developers, start

Keywords: SME innovation, Policy instruments, Cross

3.4.9 MICROPAYMENT

Description: This issue relates to the economic success of content related services and associated

business models and SMEs involvement. While new platforms

services are developing, a challenge is to make micropayment systems workable for content markets. In

terms of policy and regulation the existing frameworks offer poor consumer protection and is also struggling

to cope with changing industry structure due to further integration of content, telecoms and financial sectors.

Micropayment services should be peer

country deliveries and payments.

Relevance. Micropayment can be considered as essential for the success of content related services.

Keywords: Secure payment, consumer protection, converging markets

Fig. 3-3: PRG issues as related to wider ambitions and objectives


It is important that FI-PPP gets sufficient support and participation from SMEs and

other application developers. SMEs need valid business cases and commercial success to survive;


point of view things are not clear. There are different rules and laws in different countries, which is a

significant barrier for SMEs to invest in cross-national service developments. SMEs have to care about their


for SMEs to participate needs to be simple and light. The simple procedures need to be well


different community, which probably needs specific treatment. Also the difference between actual start


different requirements. There are probably three classifications: developers, start-

nnovation, Policy instruments, Cross-border collaboration, IP management, exploitation

This issue relates to the economic success of content related services and associated

business models and SMEs involvement. While new platforms and business models for digital goods and



cope with changing industry structure due to further integration of content, telecoms and financial sectors.

Micropayment services should be peer-to-peer. Issues related to this are also tax regulations and cross

country deliveries and payments.

Micropayment can be considered as essential for the success of content related services.

: Secure payment, consumer protection, converging markets.

: PRG issues as related to wider ambitions and objectives

41

PPP gets sufficient support and participation from SMEs and

SMEs need valid business cases and commercial success to survive;


ifferent countries, which is a

national service developments. SMEs have to care about their


for SMEs to participate needs to be simple and light. The simple procedures need to be well


. Also the difference between actual start-ups


-ups, SMEs.

border collaboration, IP management, exploitation

This issue relates to the economic success of content related services and associated

and business models for digital goods and



cope with changing industry structure due to further integration of content, telecoms and financial sectors.

Issues related to this are also tax regulations and cross-

Micropayment can be considered as essential for the success of content related services.

: PRG issues as related to wider ambitions and objectives


42

Fig. 3-3 visualises the fact that the identified PRG issues relate to wider goals and ambitions, and thus also

may constitute trade-offs as already indicated in the above.

3.5 MAPPING AND PRIORITISATION OF PRG TOPICS We propose two dimensions for mapping the selected PRG issues in order to select those that we should

further study and for which we should develop recommendations:

1) Relevance of the issue to the success of the FI-PPP Programme

2) Likelihood that FI-PPP is able to influence debates regarding the issue.

Only the issues which score at least a “high” and a “medium” will be considered in detail further. However,

this analysis is initial and outcomes could change due to ongoing discussions..

FI-PPP can influence

policy-regulation

debate

Issue relevance to FI-

PPP

Low Medium High

Low

Medium Access to data

Access to interfaces

SME engagement

Identity Management

High

Micropayment

Security

Sharing of

infrastructures

Privacy and data

protection

Ownership and IPR

Table 3-3 initial prioritization of PRG issues

3.6 THE SHORT TERM DILEMMA The FI-PPP Programme will be running until mid-2015. During 2014 and 2015 phase 3 will take place,

where a large number of SMEs, Web developers and other agile companies are supposed to develop

applications and services with a good chance to become a business success after the Programme will have

ended.

One of the first goals of the PRG Working Group is to propose measures to remove obstacles hindering

such commercial success, such as non-harmonized or unclear rules for using the services cross-domain.

The phase 3 participants rightly expect that concrete results are becoming available already during their

experimental phases. Even more, they expect that when they decide to participate and start to invest in

2014, things are clear enough to estimate the chances for commercial success of their contributions.


43

The “short term dilemma” arises from the fact legal processes are slow, particularly if several countries are

involved. We cannot expect that new or amended rules will be available as national rules faster than several

years after they have been brought on their way. Therefore we have to install another mechanism to solve

concrete problems more short term and more customer oriented, even if the solutions are only suboptimal.

We recommend some sort of a “helpdesk function”, which could be established in the individual projects to

help solving short term PRG related issues for phase 3 partners. In addition we could maintain “FAQs”, a

“lessons learnt database” or a “best practices repository” for helping to solve concrete PRG problems.

Examples are:

• FI-CONTENT2’s external ethical advisor. They have a subcontract to an International Law Firm, “BridgehouseLaw”, which provides support on ethical and legal issues concerning data privacy regulations in Europe for their cross border experimentation sites and planned experiments. This external advisor will also support future SMEs joining the FI-CONTENT2 in phase 2 and 3.

• IPR helpdesk (https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/) providing advise for any FP7 related IPR related questions. They maintain FAQs, Newsletters, etc. for more general advise, and they maintain a team of international lawyers to provide individual answers to any individual IPR questions within 3 working days.


44

4. CONCLUSIONS AND WAY AHEAD

4.1 MAIN CONCLUSIONS It became very clear that for the success of the FI-PPP Programme it is important that policy and regulatory

issues get properly tackled. A number of policy and regulatory issues were identified, which could easily

hamper the success of the programme if they don’t get resolved. The issues with the most relevance to the

FI-PPP Programme are:

• Access to data

• Access to interfaces

• SME engagement

• Identity Management

• Sharing and interoperability of infrastructures

• Privacy and data protection

• Security of platforms and infrastructures

• Ownership and IPR, open business models

• Micropayment

There is a certain “short term dilemma”: formal legal and regulatory processes are slow, particularly if

several countries are involved. We cannot expect that new or amended rules will be available as national

rules faster than several years after they have been brought on their way. This is not fast enough for the FI-

PPP related burning issues. Therefore we have to think about running two tracks in parallel:

• Long term formal process: involve policy and regulatory stakeholders and work with them on amending the rules according to the requirements of the programme. One of the largest cross-issue challenge is harmonization of rules within Europe.

• Short term pragmatic process: installing another mechanism to solve concrete problems more short term and more customer oriented, even if the solutions are only suboptimal. We recommend some sort of a “helpdesk function”, which could be established in the individual projects to help solving short term PRG related issues for phase 3 partners. In addition we could maintain “FAQs”, a “lessons learnt database” or a “best practices repository” for helping to solve concrete PRG problems.

4.2 PRIORITIES AND PLAN FOR 2013 For developing PRG-related recommendations it is important to develop a strategy based on analysis of

which PRG related items we want to change and why, based on what is beneficial for FI-PPP’s success and

project priorities. The strategy must be grounded in and enriched by careful analysis and we might need

additional experts’ support.

As a first step we now have identified potential PRG issues and analysed their relevance. This needs to be

elaborated in more detail, discussed with external experts and mapped upon Commission initiatives such as

the Digital Agenda. The PRG Working Group should soon agree on a few selected PRG-issues, define

these issues in precise terms and develop a “case” why resolving these PRG issues is of critical relevance

for FI-PPP’s success. This document is a first step towards that goal. The WG then should start to prepare

recommendations for each PRG priority issue; and here a close alignment with Commission and other

initiatives and actions is needed.


45

This includes in detail:

• Identify what exactly the policy and regulatory changes are that we need for ensuring the success of our Programme and establish success criteria. This would be concluded in the 2013 timeframe.

• Identify the players, stakeholders and platforms involved in the individual issues and establish contacts (building on the Phase 1 activities) enabling FI-PPP to make clear what policy and regulatory changes are proposed. This would start 2013 and continue in 2014.

• Plan a series of activities to discuss the proposed policy and regulatory changes in the different platforms selected and offer recommendations. This would be activities running during 2014 – 2015.

Jointly with the Exploitation and Business Models WG, an open Policy and Regulation Community workshop

will be organized in November 2013 to address selected themes crucial for FI-PPP’s success and impact,

and for this we will connect with relevant policy initiatives, bodies and stakeholders.

In summary the following activities are on our PRG WG agenda for this year:

1. Distribution of this working paper within FI-PPP as draft by end of June 2013.

2. Detailed issue definition and scoping: between July - September 2013.

3. Build community around FI-PPP, relations with Commission: ongoing.

4. Develop detailed cases of the PRG topics identified: before end of September 2013

5. Develop set of initial recommendations: September-October 2013.

6. Discuss recommendations with Steering Board: September - October 2013.

7. Organise a joint workshop on 21 November 2013 in collaboration between EBM WG and PRG WG.

8. Finalise and distribute PRG White Paper including preliminary however discussed Recommendations: November - December 2013.


46

REFERENCES AND SOURCES

Phase 1 (period covered: October 2012 – March 2013)

Digital Agenda: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/

Anne-Marie Oostveen et al. (2012) Cross Disciplinary Lessons for the Future Internet. The Future

Internet, Springer.

Oxford Internet Institute (2010): Towards a Future Internet. Interrelations between technological,

Social and Economic Trends. Report for DG Information Society and Media.

Rand Europe (2012). Towards a competitive European Internet industry. A socio-economic

analysis of the European Internet industry and the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership.

FI3P Final Report

OECD (2008) Shaping Policies for the Future of the Internet Economy. OECD Ministerial Meeting

on the Future of the Internet Economy, 17-18 June 2008, Seoul, Korea.

OECD Policy Brief, The Future of the Internet Economy, June 2008.

Digital Economy papers of the OECD: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-

digital-economy-papers_20716826

OECD, Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making. OECD High-Level Meeting “The

Internet Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth” (28-29 June 2011).

OECD Directorate STI, CICCP (2009): Network Developments in Support of Innovation and User

Needs.

OECD Directorate STI, CICCP (2012) “Laying the Foundation for the Internet Economy: Access

to the Internet via a High-Speed Infrastructure”. OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 201, OECD

Publishing.

OECD Directorate STI, CICCP (2013): Building Blocks for Smart Networks. OECD Digital

Economy papers No. 215, Rudolf van der Berg and Jaesung Song.

European Commission (2011): The Open Internet and Net neutrality in Europe. Communication

COM(2011) 222 final.

Neelie Kroes (2010), The critical role of cities in making the Digital Agenda a Reality.

European Commission, Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe. COM(2012) 529

final, September 2012.

Website on European Web Entrepreneurship Strategy.

http://daa.ec.europa.eu/content/special/towards-european-strategy-web-entrepreneurs

Digital Agenda, website on Strengthening the environment for web entrepreneurs in Europe.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/strengthening-environment-web-entrepreneurs-europe


47

Digital Agenda, Action 54: Develop a new generation of web-based applications and services

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-v-research-and-innovation/action-54-develop-new-

generation-web-based-applications-and

Your voice on Horizon 2020 innovation and financial aspects impacting Web Entrepreneurs

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/your-voice-horizon-2020-innovation-and-financial-

aspects-impacting-web-entrepreneurs

Staff Working Paper on “Strenthening the Competitiveness of the EU Web Economy”. Draft June

2012. http://daa.ec.europa.eu/content/special/towards-european-strategy-web-entrepreneurs

Digital Agenda – Innovation and Entrepreneurs

http://daa.ec.europa.eu/group/8/content

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/08-innovation-and-entrepreneurship

N. Huijboom, T. van den Broek (2011): Open Data: An International Comparison of Strategies.

European Journal of ePractice, 12, March-April. www.epracticejournal.eu

European Commission , “The Open Internet and Net Neutrality in Europe”. COM(2011) 222 final.

Jonathan Cave, Chris Marsden: Net Neutrality : Scoping and Economic Analysis of the European

Debate.

Chris Marsden (2012): Network Neutrality: History, Regulation and Future. In: Monograph” VII

International Conference on Internet, Law and Politics. Net Neutrality and other Challenges for

the Future of the Internet”.

Dirk Grunwald: The Internet Ecosystem – The Potential for Discrimination. Technical report

University of Colorado CU-CS-1062-10 (2010).

Wikipedia for Network Neutrality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wili/Network_neutrality

SESERV website www.seserv.org

Hans Schaffers, Marc Pallot, Nicos Komninos (2012): Smart Cities as Innovation Ecosystems

Sustained by the Future Internet. White Paper. http://www.fireball4smartcities.eu/

Phase 2 (Period covered: April 2013 – June 2013)

Analysys Mason, The Marketplace for and regulation of micropayment services in the UK.

December 2010.

Annabelle Gawer, Michael Cusumano:The Elements of Platform Leadership. MIT Sloan

Management Review, Spring 2002.

BEREC, BEREC Response to the European Commission’s consultation on the open Internet and

net neutrality in Europe, BoR (10) 42, 30 September, 2010


48

Carmen Asero, Interoperability requirements Framework. Presentation, 2nd Helix nebula

Workshop on Interoperablity among e-Infrastructures and Commercial Clouds., 16 january 2013.

Derek Browne, Identity management Basics. The OWASP Foundation, www.owap.org, 2007.

Christine Müller, Advancing regulation with respect to smart grids: pioneering examples from the

United Kingdom and Italy. Fourth annual conference on competition and regulation in network

industries, 25th November 2011.

Digitaleurope, Digitaleurope’s comments on the draft network and information security directive,

13 May 2013.

Eurelectric, Regulation for Smart Grids, 2011.

European Commission, European Interoperability Framework for European Public Services.

COM(2010) 744 final, 2010.

European Commission, Open Data, an Engine for Innovation, Growth and Transparent

Governance. COM(2011) 882 final, 2011.

European Commission, Regulatory Fitness. COM(2012) 746 final, 2012.

European Commission, Draft Commission recommendation on consistent non-discrimination

obligations and costing methodologies to promote competition and enhance the broadband

investment environment, 2012.

European Commission: The Open Internet and Net neutrality in Europe. Communication

COM(2011) 222 final, 2011.

European Commission, Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe. COM(2012) 529

final, September 2012.

European IPR Helpdesk, factsheet IP Joint Ownership, May 2013.

Fatemeh Nikayin, Mark de Reuver, Governance of smart living service platforms, state of the art

and the need for collective action. Paper at the Third International Engineering Systems

Symposium CESUN 2012, Delft University of Technology, 18-20 June 2012.

Giudetta de Prato, Daniel Nepelski, International Patenting Strategies in ICT. IPTS, JRC

Technical Reports, 2013.

Hitachi, Regulatory Compliance. Using Identity Management, 2013.

IBM Global Business Services, Identity management in the 21st Century (2007).

Liam Boogar, Report on how the European Commission can Support Web Entrepreneurship in

Europe. Based on the inputs from the open consultation organized by the European Commission

in November-December 2012 in relation to Horizon 2020. 2013.

Lutz Schubert, Keith Jeffery, Advances in Clouds. Research in Future Cloud Computing. Expert

Group Report, Public version 1.0, Eiuropean Commission, 2012.


49

Michael Cusumano, The Platform Leader’s Dilemma. Communications of the ACM, 54, 10, 2011.

Miiko Huuskonen, The Gap. ICT Revolution’s Challenges to Legal Institutions. Publications office

of the European Union, 2013.

OECD, Cybersecurity Policy making at Turning Point. Analysing a new generation of national

cybersecurity strategies for the Internet Economy (2012).

OECD Directorate STI, CICCP (2013): Building Blocks for Smart Networks. OECD Digital

Economy papers No. 215, Rudolf van der Berg and Jaesung Song.

Oracle, Identity and Access Management: Enabling Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance. Oracle White

Paper, 2010.

Pieter Ballon, E. van Heesvelde, ICT Platforms and Regulatory Concerns in Europe.

Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 702-714.

Pieter Nooren, Andra Leurdijk, Nico van Eijk: Net Neutrality and the Value Chain for Video. EURO

CPR 2012, and published in: info, Vol. 14 Iss: 6, pp.45 – 58, 2012.

Richard Campbell, The Smart Grid and Cybersecurity, Regulatory Policy and Issues.

Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, www.crs.gov, 2011.

Robin Mansell, New Visions, Old Practices: Policy and Regulation in the Internet Era. Continuum,

journal of media & cultural studies 25(1) pp 19-32, 2011.

Websites:

BEREC: http://berec.europa.eu/

Digital Agenda for Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/

Digitaleurope: http://www.digitaleurope.org/

European Web Entrepreneurship Strategy: http://daa.ec.europa.eu/content/special/towards-

european-strategy-web-entrepreneurs

Digital Agenda, website on Strengthening the environment for web entrepreneurs in Europe:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/strengthening-environment-web-entrepreneurs-europe

Digital Agenda, Action 54: Develop a new generation of web-based applications and services:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-v-research-and-innovation/action-54-develop-new-

generation-web-based-applications-and

EU Open Data rules: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/public-sector-information-raw-data-

new-services-and-products


50

ANNEX 1 MEMBERS OF PRG WG

Name: Organisation Project Phase

Roger Duck EUTC FINSENY 1

Roberto Giménez HI-Iberia SAFECITY 1

José Lorenzo ATOS ENVIROFI 1

Leena Norros VTT SmartAgriFood 1

Mirko Presser Alexandra OUTSMART 1

Krijn Poppe LEI Wageningen UR FISPACE, SmartAgriFood 1, 2

Rod Franklin Kuehne und Nagel FISPACE, FINEST 1, 2

Anastasius Gavras Eurescom XIFI 2

Guy Doumeingts INTEROP Vlab FITMAN 2

Cathy Lieu INTEROP Vlab FITMAN 2

Juan Bareño Telefónica FI-WARE 1, 2

Nuria de Lama ATOS FI-WARE 1, 2

Jakob Rasmussen Living Labs Global FI-STAR 2

Eleni Kosta Tilburg University FI-STAR 2

Hans Schaffers Aalto University CONCORD 1, 2

Ilkka Lakaniemi Aalto University CONCORD 1

Takis Damaskopoulos EIIR CONCORD 1

Peter Stollenmayer Eurescom CONCORD 2

Chris Foley TSSG INFINITY 1, 2

Adelheid Weinert QSC FINESCE 2

Ulrich Hacker QSG FINESCE 2

Pierre-Yves Danet Orange FI-CONTENT, FI-CONTENT2 1, 2

Carmen MacWilliams Grassroots FI-CONTENT2 2


51

ANNEX 2: PHASE 1 CASES ON PRG ISSUES

1. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a number of “mini-cases” regarding policy and regulatory challenges as identified in

current FI-PPP projects and authored by PRG WG members. The mini-cases are based on interviews with

project experts and on additional materials, and are structured according to three aspects of policy and

regulatory issues:

• Issue identification. Here we identify and describe the main issues that may require policy and regulatory action in the domain addressed by the project. Such issues may include access to critical services, privacy, access to data, anti-competitive practices.

• Issue relevance. This aspect addresses the reasons why these issues are requiring policy or regulatory action, as regards the societal and business importance of removing policy or regulatory bottlenecks or enhancing the regulatory or policy conditions. For example, it looks into the concrete implications of these issues for the domain the FI-PPP project focuses on. It analyses the implications of taking no action in terms of hindering innovation, increasing the market dominance of actors, loss of competitive position, loss of customer value, and also identifies the implications for effectiveness and impact of the over-all FI-PPP. Thus it looks into potential “market failures” and analyses whether EU or national governments should intervene or whether the issues can be resolved by market actors themselves.

• Issue solutions. Here we address the policy or regulatory actions or measures that can be proposed to create more favorable conditions and increase programme impact.

2. FI-WARE: CORE PLATFORM Authors: Juan Bareño, Nuria de Lama (Atos). The case is based on materials from FI-WARE.

The FI-WARE project develops a platform infrastructure for cost-effective creation and delivery of services,

providing high QoS and security guarantees. Thus, FI-WARE is designed to meet the demands of key

market stakeholders across many different sectors, e.g., healthcare, telecommunications, and environmental

services. The expected result of FI-WARE will be an open architecture and a reference implementation of a

novel service infrastructure, building upon generic and reusable building blocks developed in earlier

research projects. This infrastructure supports emerging Future Internet (FI) services in multiple usage

areas.

Introduction

In the context of the Digital Agenda initiative, there seems to be more attention to regulatory issues of

Internet-based platforms, including access to and interoperability between platforms. New European

interoperability rules are foreseen for the electronic communications industry, based on antitrust rules

related to the abuse of market position. Obligations will be imposed related to licensee interoperability

information, to ensure consumer choice in software as well as hardware.

Traditionally, there have been reasons for regulating some platforms and not others. In electronic

communications, access operators are regulated in an ex ante fashion because they control essential

facilities and because the prospects for competition are regarded as limited. In other parts of the ICT

industry, dominant players are regulated ex post under competition law. Nevertheless, traditional regulatory

analysis is not equipped to deal with platforms activity. Areas that could be relevant for platforms regulation

are pricing and cross-subsidization strategies, bundling strategies and collaboration strategies. However,

any platform regulation should take into account the specific business models employed by those platforms,

as for example indicated by criticisms of EU ruling of Microsoft server case (Pardolesi and Renda, 2004).


52

It should also take into account the full Internet ecosystem. Grunwald (2010), in a discussion of potential

discrimination, states that there is a broad consensus that layers of the Internet ecosystem other than the

access network may impact competition and innovation, however the question remains if new rules are

needed as regulation may hinder innovation.

Issues

In relation to Internet platforms, we identified several potential areas of policy and regulatory issues or

concerns. As already noted, traditional regulatory analysis is not well equipped to address platforms activity.

Issues of relevance in terms of anticompetitive practices include pricing and cross-subsidization

strategies, bundling strategies and collaboration strategies.

There also might be concerns related to entry or interoperation and legal barriers. Relevance for FIWARE

Includes technology, standards, business model, contractual barriers. There may be issues related to legal

or regulatory differences, inefficiencies and ineffectiveness, due to licensing, privacy and security,

standards, or financial regulations. This needs further study.

The wider issue of net-neutrality and quality of service is an interesting issue that requires some study.

Net Neutrality is mainly discussed in http://berec.europa.eu/ and globally can be considered a threat unless

all the technologies for controlling the network behaviour / class of QoS are not encompassed in the mare

'filtering' category. As regards Quality of Service, in several EU countries there is a NGN requirement,

recently regulated by the authorities, called IP-Peering. It is related to the SLA and in particular on the

assured quality inter carrier for voice services that will be migrated to the IP / Internet.

A further topic is privacy in relation to private and sensitive customer data, events and contexts. Sensible

data of citizens and objects has to be stored and managed fulfilling security, integrity and accessibility rules

as established by the concerning authorities. Internet of Things is a dedicated topic for vertical areas where

dominant players impose their views and would not share data. In this context, data property is a major

concern that could provide serious gaps across European countries depending how national regulation

processes would support the deployment of new technologies. For instance, in the collaboration with the

SAFECITY project, a video surveillance related scenario in Spain was affected by the following directive on

protection of personal data11.

A specific privacy concern is with private and sensitive location data of customers. As long as Big Data,

Notifications and Context Events are related to different vertical applications, it comes down to the problem

domain being worked on. E112 rules in Europe will enforce the need of precise positioning provided by

Location Platforms. It is a key enabler for citizen safety by helping emergency services to precisely locate an

end-user using its mobile terminal. As soon as cross-applications between several usage areas would

appear, privacy and risk management would become the most important topic which could aim to a major

risk for Internet of Things: stop the development. Rules and liability regarding the use of data and access to

devices (smart things) should be clarified and well-known from users (people and companies) to support the

emerging wave of Internet of Things. This regulation should not encompass all concerns but deal with the 11

http://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/canaldocumentacion/legislacion/estatal/common/pdfs_ingles/Ley_Orgni

ca_15-99_ingles.pdf


53

most relevant depending of the status of smart things and how data could be shared. This step by step

approach should reassure all actors, supporting Internet of Things development.

Privacy is also an issue in relation to processing of log files containing personal data. This may be subject to

prior authorisation, according to national laws. Stricter privacy regulation, such as the recent EU privacy

regulation, would help to promote the use and adaption of privacy-enhancing technologies.

A related topic is on line identity which concerns, among others, anonimity, digital presence, and right to

delete information.

In case of virtual network provision or cloud computing, routing of connections (and related backup

connections) may be subject to legal restrictions concerning traversal of areas under different laws (with

respect to, for example, privacy, digital rights management, lawful interception, public emergency handling).

These risks call for automated end-to-end security with a heavier emphasis on strong isolation, integrity and

resiliency in order to provide visibility, control and automation across the cloud computing infrastructure

Another topic is cloud computing. This topic includes the risks and benefits of virtual access to information.

Efficiencies which can be delivered with a cloud model can be derailed by regulation and legal constraints,

such as the requirement to keep certain data within certain geographic boundaries (e.g. country). The

heterogeneity of legislation across Europe covering security, privacy, trust, and digital rights is a barrier to

entry for ICT SME.

On-line relationships between customers and suppliers, in particular for ensuring secure on-line

transactions. This would require a reinforced network and information security policy. Existing regulations

are very much dependent upon the service provided online from the supplier to the consumer.

Cybercrime and cyberlaw issues include threats such as phishing, cracking, cyberterrorism. In France, the

accessing or remain fraudulently, in whole or part of a "system of automated data processing" is an offense

punishable by two years imprisonment and a 30,000 euro fine (cp. , s. 323-1, paragraph 1) and any attempt

is punishable in the same (cp., art. 323-7. In Belgium, the parliament has in November 2000 adopted new

articles in the Criminal Code on computer crime, in effect from February 13, 2001 (COMPUTER HACKING -

Article 550(b) of the Criminal Code). In the UK, the Police and Justice Act 2006 Chapter 48 amends the

Computer Misuse Act, see Part 5 sections 35-38. The new amendments came into force on October 1,

2008, and reads as follows: Unauthorised access to computer material and Unauthorised acts with intent to

impair operation of computer.

Analysis and solutions

Regarding issues in the scope of privacy and on-line identity, an important work to be undertaken is the

compilation of the laws in Europe and in each State of European Union. This preliminary work will assess

the efforts needed to harmonize policies and regulations, particularly regarding privacy in electronic

exchanges both for the commercial, industrial, cultural, medical and administrative domains. Directions for

solutions to explore further may include the following:

• Simplify copyright clearance, management and cross-border licensing. Reviewing the Directive on Re-Use of Public Sector Information, notably its scope and principles on charging for access and use” should give impetus to the developments in the chapter “Data/Context Management” in which the availability of advanced platform functionalities dealing with gathering, processing

• Review the EU data protection regulatory framework with a view to enhancing individuals' confidence and strengthening their rights.


54

• The Data Protection Directive (officially Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) is a European Union directive which regulates the processing of personal data within the European Union. This directive could be used or revised to include Internet of Things subject but in the opposite, European Union should be flexible to avoid any breakthrough with regulation on this topic in other areas around the world.

As regards virtual network provision or cloud computing, assessing the risks associated with cloud

computing, such as data integrity, recovery, privacy, and tenant isolation is critical to the adoption of cloud

technologies. These risks call for automated end-to-end security with a heavier emphasis on strong

isolation, integrity and resiliency in order to provide visibility, control and automation across the cloud

computing infrastructure.

In relation to content regulation, as long as Big Data, Notifications and Context Events are related to

different vertical applications, it comes down to the problem domain being worked on. Therefore more

directives might be identified depending on the specific vertical areas and locations of application.

Consumers and suppliers on-line relations. FIWARE and European industrial enterprises should take

initiative in order to develop solutions to ensure secure online transactions. In 2011 Publish Communication

containing the principles for internet resilience and stability at the European and global level. Ensure that the

heads of the respective institutions will sign the agreement to establish the CERT for the EU institutions. In

2012 ensure that the regulations on ENISA will be adopted at the EU level. Make sure that CERT becomes

operational. Additional efforts are to be pursued to ensure secure transactions between customers and

suppliers in online transactions.

Cyber security. It should be ensured an effective cooperation between EU States' authorities, in particular

on preventing cybercrime. In March 2012, the European Commission has proposed creating a dedicated

Cybercrime Centre within Europol. We must to promote the development of specialized EU agencies, such

as Europol, Eurojust and CEPOL. FIWARE and European industrial enterprises must to develop cyber

security solutions and to promote interconnections between Cyber Operational Centres.

Net neutrality and quality of service regulation is an enabler / opportunity for the technologies proposed in

FI-WARE dealing with the QoS and open interfaces (device. network) . If the trend remains the same

probably for data connections to/from OTT demanding premium services shall be regulated in the same

manner.

Regarding regulatory analysis in relation to anti0-competitive practices, a thorough investigation can be

recommended of potential risks as a consequence of multi-sidedness of markets. Such investigation must

lead to a framework to guide NCAs, NRAs, and the EC. It is up to the EC, and in first instance the European

Regulatory Group (ERG) presently called BEREC. Part of this issue is the potential creation of entry barriers

which could be addressed by legislation on ICT interoperability.

In summary FI-WARE proposes to address several issues that relate to the Digital Agenda.

1) Fragmented digital markets:

• Simplify copyright clearance, management and cross-border licensing.. Reviewing the Directive on Re-Use of Public Sector Information, notably its scope and principles on charging for access and use” should give impetus to the developments in the chapter “Data/Context Management” in which the availability of advanced platform functionalities dealing with gathering, processing


55

• Review the EU data protection regulatory framework with a view to enhancing individuals' confidence and strengthening their rights

2) Interoperability and standards:

• As part of the review of EU standardisation policy, propose legal measures on ICT interoperability by 2010 to reform the rules on implementation of ICT standards in Europe to allow use of certain ICT for and consortia standards

• FI-WARE Project partners continually study the current standards and consider when/how to include FIWARE research in new standards/protocols in order to (a) avoid "re-inventing the wheel", (b) make the most efficient use of past developments, and (c) help educate/move technology state-of-the-art towards the advantages inherent in FI-WARE

3) Trust and security:

• Present in 2010 measures aiming at a reinforced and high level Network and Information Security Policy, including legislative initiatives such as a modernised European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), and measures allowing faster reactions in the event of cyber-attacks, including a CERT for the EU institutions

• Present measures, including legislative initiatives, to combat cyber-attacks against information systems by 2010, and related rules on jurisdiction in cyberspace at European and international levels by 2013

3. INFINITY: INFRASTRUCTURES AND INTEROPERABILITY Author: Chris Foley, TSSG. The case refers to materials from INFINITY.

The INFINITY project is a Support Action which will capture and communicate information about available

infrastructures and any interoperability requirements and issues. INFINITY will document any usage-related

operational constraints and seek to identify and foster federation opportunities that could facilitate large

scale experimentation and testing.

Introduction

INFINITY addresses infrastructure including the underlying networks but also facilities such as testbeds. The

importance in relation to FI-PP is to ensure that domain-independent software components developed in FI-

WARE generic enables) can be made accessible through connectivity infrastructure. Interconnection is a

key issue which is dependent on the different infrastructure types e.g. connection enabled by backbone

networks between sensor networks on one place and other networks on other locations. In relation to this

connectivity, standards are key important as the infrastructure should support the necessary standards.

Infrastructure is also of importance to other issues of high relevance such as support provided to advanced

SMEs such as web entrepreneurs in testing new products and services. One of the issues is also the

governance of infrastructure e.g. issues of PPP and sustainability. The current thinking is that government

support of such facilities will remain crucial for viability.

Up to now use case projects have been asked what kind of infrastructures would be used. In the phase 2,

real trials will take place and key requirements on infrastructure must be in place to be ensured by the

capacity building project.

Issues

Key issues related to policy and regulation emerging in INFINITY include infrastructure interoperability and

standards, usability and user adoption, sustainability, and SME support. The INFINITY Future Internet

Roadmap and Proposals for Sustainability identifies the following challenges relevant in our context of policy

and regulation.


56

• Increasing user adoption of infrastructure. For this, increasing the visibility of infrastructure and identifying the value added is important implying open access to detailed infrastructure information. Also, users of infrastructures including service providers and also end user companies should be involved through matching supply and demand. Relevant data should be made transparent to stakeholders and users.

• Sustainability of infrastructures. This is a policy challenge related to viability of infrastructures that would not sustain if dependent on private funding alone. Combining different funding mechanisms may be required for sustainability (national, regional and EU level). There may also a need to exploit the infrastructures in terms of attractive private sources of funding.

• Protection against misuse of infrastructure. Infrastructures may be vulnerable and need protection. This includes maintaining the quality of infrastructure, protecting against misuse of third parties, and protection against attacks.

• Interoperability of infrastructure. Standards should be available that enable access to and interconnection of infrastructures. There may be a need for regulation in order to facilitate or enable the provision of services on top of distributed infrastructures based on competition. Users should not be locked in to particular service providers and should be able to migrate between providers (portability). In particular in cloud computing services this mechanism is absent. There would be a responsibility for regulators at the national and EU level to ensure that the needs of users in this respect are addressed.

4. FI-CONTENT: MEDIA AND CONTENT Author: Pierre-Yves Danet, France Telecom – Orange Labs. The case uses materials from FI-CONTENT.

FI-CONTENT proposes a number of novel and inventive scenarios for new forms of content. The project

addresses 5 key areas where today’s Internet can be improved: better QoS and experience, direct Internet

connectivity (a serverless world), usage beyond a purely static text/plugin/browser based approach, better

tracking of content, and the ability to provide support, failover and resilience across different providers (e.g.

mobile devices, crossing between countries, or moving between different access points (e.g. home to

library).

Issues

For FI-CONTENT there are five key issue/gap areas to be addressed through policy and regulatory action.

They are as follows:

• Access to open data. Current policy and regulatory regimes do not have clear rules on how to access open data. In addition, access to data in public administrations are not clearly regulated today, which makes it difficult to know what needs to be done doe Phases 2 and 3 of FI-PPP.

• Content protection. There is no effective regulation on content protection in areas such as professional content and games. There is a patchwork of national regulatory regimes but no EU regulatory framework.

• Personal information. Content services are more and more personalized according to user situation. This personalization is based on personal information that is spread across many service providers without any consistency. There is a need to regulate this information storage and flow in order to get a single profile managed by the user himself and accessible by any service provider. There are still silos on which personal information is accumulated and these are owned by companies like Google etc. and not managed by the users themselves. Policy and regulatory change is required in order to allow users control their information].

• Authentication. Most of the content services need authentication by the providers as well as the users. Technical solutions exist but there is a need to make a choice. There is a need for a single EU-level authentication mechanism.

• Privacy. User generated content is more and more used by people with the cloud storage services but no security/privacy service exists. There is a need to have a standardized mandatory security/privacy function.


57

Relevance

Along this dimension the case addresses the following issues: Why are these issues requiring policy or

regulatory action / What are the concrete implications for the domain the project focuses on / What happens

if no action is taken (e.g. hindering innovation, increasing the market dominance of actors, loss of

competitive position, loss of customer value etc.) / Will the success of the F-PPP be affected if the issues

are not resolved / What are the “market failures”. Should EU or governments intervene? Cannot this be

done by market actors themselves / What is the value and importance (societal, business) of removing

(policy, regulatory) bottlenecks or creating better (policy, regulatory) conditions.

• Should there be state or market-led reform? State must take the initiative to establish incentives for market reform.

• Regarding ‘access to open data’ FI-CONTENT needs to access data currently stored in public administrations. These data are not clearly regulated today. For instance, there are no standardized interfaces to access, pricing mechanisms, and so on. This is something that prevents FI-CONTENT from developing a clear idea of what the project could access during the experiments of Phases 2 and 3.

• Regarding ‘content protection’, some of the use cases of FI-CONTENT are producing content, for instance professional content and games. There is no regulation on content protection. As a result, partners in the project do not know how to protect the content they are providing, say from copying. There are some regulations but they are fragmented along national regulations, which are inconsistent. There is no European common policy and regulatory framework on content protection.

• Regarding ‘personal information’, most of the services FI-CONTENT is developing rely on personal information in order to personalize the content according to specific contexts and devices used. Currently, such personal information is owned by individual service providers (Google, Facebook, etc.). Importantly, such personal information is not managed by the users themselves. In this context, there is need for policy and regulation in order to define the service in ways that allow people to manage their own information. Content and service providers should have access to this information, but they should not be in a position to modify such information. The users should have this ability. And this is a policy and regulation issue: user-centricity.

• Regarding ‘authentication’: authentication is a basic condition to allow access to content. Authentication is a horizontal issue that affects all other FI-PPP projects and it is necessary to think with all other use case projects of ways of putting into place a single mechanism of authentication, helping people to have a rigorous and reliable authentication service which is able to provide authentication across different project domains and services, not only content. Currently there are several kinds of technical possibilities. However, there is a need for policy and regulatory support to decide which options are to be exercised and implemented.

• Regarding ‘privacy’, one of the FI-CONTENT use cases is the Smart City Guide, which is a service that takes into account all information generated by users and stores it into a database and every user that visits a city in the database can use this information for their needs. There are some issues related to privacy in this context because content is provided by users that is used by other users. This is a grey area and FI-CONTENT would like to have more information regarding the role policy or regulation can play in addressing any privacy issues.

Issue Solutions

Along this dimension the case addresses the following issues: What are the policy /regulatory actions or

measures that can be envisaged. Along this dimension the case tries to address the following issues: What

are the regulatory measures, policy initiatives needed to create favorable conditions / Who is/are the central

actor(s) responsible (e.g., EC, national, regional, cities, EP etc.) / Who could elaborate the identified issues

and prepare actions and their impacts (OECD etc.) / What can be the role of CONCORD to support the

finding of solutions. What direction to take for recommendations.

• Policy and regulatory reform is necessary in order to effect change in the domain of FI-CONTENT. It is unlikely that the EU and the Member States can act in concert in this. Therefore, an external agent, like


58

a large US firm or the OECD much be the appropriate agents of change in this respect. However, this issue is complex and CONCORD can play a key role in organizing a study in collaboration with FI-CONTENT on this subject.

• Can policy or market solve these issues? Regarding FI-PPP Phases 2 and 3 the market would not be sufficiently mature to make decisions at the level required to address the issues confronted by FI-CONTENT. There is clearly a gap that needs to be addressed by policy and regulation. It is possible that in the future the market will address them. But at the moment it seems that only a US market actor, not a European actor. But Europe has to have its presence in this because if Europe leaves international regulation develop in this way it might not be to the benefit of European industry and competitiveness.

• What should be the action of the EU? Liberalize? It is difficult to answer this question at the moment. For instance, liberalizing ‘personal information’ and giving users full control of their information profiles might have unintended consequences we do not know yet. This subject needs deeper study. CONCORD could play a key role in this (the impact of liberalization) in collaboration with FI-CONTENT.

• Actors? Who should take a lead in this? Agencies like the OECD would be the best profile. We need a vision – and this could only come from a higher level.

Impact of the FI-PPP

Along this dimension the case addresses the following issues: Does the project have specific knowledge or

expertise on this area / Can CONCORD help creating wider awareness among policy actors.

• For FI-CONTENT the issues identified above cannot be treated individually. Instead, they form a puzzle and they need to be addressed as a policy and regulatory problem in a holistic manner. CONCORD, in collaboration with FI-CONTENT can play an important role in identifying and defining the issues, and laying out the areas that require further analysis in order to develop areas that are targets for policy and regulatory action.

• No prioritization of issues. They are all part of the same puzzle. What would be the role of CONCORD in this? CONCORD should play a role in identifying areas that affect all FI-PPP projects that need further and work with all projects on ‘framework conditions’ – and exchange knowledge across projects.

Priority policy issues at over-arching FI-PPP level

Along this dimension the case addresses the following issues: Mention 2-3 issues that should be resolved at

program level, to increase the success condition of the programme / What is the relation with Digital Agenda

issues etc.

• All projects have common policy issues. If there are a few that concern all of them these would be the issues of access to open data, authentication, personal information.

• Common Program issues: Authentication, Personal Information.

As a final remark, CONCORD should pay attention to ‘framework conditions’ that affect all projects and

establish mechanisms of communicating such knowledge across projects.

5. FINEST: TRANSPORT AND LOGISTICS Author: Rod Franklin, Kuehne und Nagel. The case is based on materials from FINEST.

Transport and logistics is concerned with the planning and execution of the world-wide shipment of goods

and people. In this highly competitive, distributed, and agile industry, novel ICT solutions for optimizing the

collaboration and information exchange in cooperative business networks are highly desirable. Future

Internet technologies can facilitate radical improvements in business efficiency in this industry with positive

impacts for society and the environment. The ultimate aim of the FINEST project is to develop a Future


59

Internet enabled ICT platform to support optimizing the collaboration and integration within international

transport and logistics business networks.

Introduction

Logistics and supply chain activities, fundamental to international trade, face several types of restrictions

due to government regulations. Such government regulations are characterized by considerable differences

across nations. Even in the EU, approaches to regulation related to privacy, access rights and data security

differ. Government restrictions related to logistics services can affect price, reliability and quality of services,

as well as competitiveness in the sector. Restrictions may also hinder newcomer enterprises from entry in

logistics service markets. Restrictions are very diverse and include documentation at customs, electronic

data interfaces, employment requirements, movement of cargo by foreign service suppliers, foreign direct

investment and many more12. In the context of FI-PPP and the FINEST project we focus on restrictions

related to the utilization of Internet-based data and networks.

Issues

• Access to business data. Key conditions of international trade are related to data. Regulatory approaches related to data (access, privacy, security) are different across countries, which affects companies doing business in such countries. For example, in some countries (US, China) access to possibly sensitive business data is mandated by governments. It should be explored whether WTO or EU have a role to initiate regulatory regimes harmonized across countries.

• Data and privacy breach. Data stored in could-based systems are vulnerable for privacy breach e.g. tracking down individuals. This is something companies are concerned about, in particular for reasons of due process. There is a concern that electronic or physical data are not treated equally.

• Cloud-based systems generally confront several challenges at the interface of ICT and policy. These include proprietarity of services and programming interfaces causing lock-in; problems with trust, security and privacy (which has legal as well as technical aspects); lack of interoperation interfaces between CLOUD (resources and services) offerings and between CLOUDs and other infrastructures and many more. Overcoming them provides Europe with an opportunity to exploit the market. (Advances in Clouds, 2011).

• Data quality. Quality of data is an issue, especially when data is generated by sensors and people are acting upon this data. For example in food supply chains, an issue is the responsibility if such information is not reliable and still being used and liability for failures in case of data of insufficient quality and reliability. For example, cities build transportation systems using information to enable scheduling of deliveries. Third party operators of logistics services are using these data.

• Entrepreneurial innovation and innovation policy. FINEST, in phase 2, will concentrate more on the entrepreneurial ecosystem needed to develop innovative applications for logistics and supply chains. In Europe the situation regarding tax incentives for innovators is less favorable, which distorts competition.

6. SMARTAGRIFOOD: AGRI-FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS Author: Leena Norrios, VTT. The case is based on materials from SmartAgriFood.

The SmartAgriFood (SAF) project addresses the food and agribusiness as a use case for the Future

Internet. The intelligence, efficiency, sustainability and performance of the agri-food sector can be radically

enhanced by using information & decision support systems that are tightly integrated with advanced internet-

based networks & services. Concurrently, the sector provides extremely demanding use cases for Future

Internet design from physical layer all the way up to the service layer.

12

C. Hollweg, M.-H. Wong: Measuring Regulatory restrictions in Logistics Services. ERIA Discussion paper Series (2009).


60

This project focuses on three sub systems of the sector – smart farming, focusing on sensors and

traceability; smart agri-logistics, focusing on real-time virtualization, connectivity and logistics intelligence;

and smart food awareness, focusing on transparency of data and knowledge representation. Using a user-

centred methodology, the use case specification will be developed with a particular focus on transparency

and interoperability of data and knowledge across the food supply chain.

There seem to be three areas of policy and regulatory challenges: 1. Access to data in the supply chain, 2,

ecosystem development, 3. Ownership of data in relation to farmer financing and farms’ business models.

Issues

In preparing the work of the FI-PPP Working Group on Policy, Regulation and Governance in 2011-2012, we

developed a grid-form template in order to identify the most important policy issues of the FI implementation.

According to the approach adopted in the development there must be a dialogue between the development

of Future Internet from the technological and societal point of view. Therefore, two separate templates are

provided to describe issues that are relevant from these two perspectives. A tentative list of PRG issues is

provided for both templates (included in Tables 7 and 8 below). The aim thereafter is to study each of the

listed issues, and judge where we are, where we need to go, when actions should be taken and what are

the available means.

While considering the above described template from the SmartAgriFood point of view a following extension

to the approach was proposed. It was agreed that those items listed as having technological or societal

relevance in developing FI are generally well focused and relevant. It was propose however, that it would be

necessary to analyze how each of these issues actually relates to the specific domain of each use case, in

our case the food chain. Hence, a second version of the original technology and societal perspective

matrixes is presented. These two tables are provided in the following:


61

Table 1: Framework for reviewing societal Policy and Regulatory issues for Agrifood global challenges to

the food chain.

In Table 1 and 2 the general Internet-related policy and regulatory issues are put in relation to the SAF

context. The proposal included in the table is that there are three major areas, with regard to which SAF

challenges relevant to Future Internet implementation should be discussed. The framework allows a

systematic consideration of each of the content-oriented challenges to be discussed with generic Future

Internet policy and regulatory issues. The framework is mainly based on the work and discussions within the

SAF work that deals with agricultural production. Possible extensions could be made based on the work

accomplished with regard to logistics (WP300) and end-user product awareness (WP400).

SAF FOCUS

SOCIETAL PRG ISSUES

GLOBAL CHALLENGES

Critical information content

- Food safety

- Environment

- Ethics

- Cultural preferences

OF THE FOOD CHAIN

Availability of ecosystem

- Technical capability

- Data management/

traceability

- Information openness

- Security / privacy

Ownership and

business priciples

Online Identity, including anonymity, digital presence, rights to delete

information, etc.Important basic assumption by all

stakeholders

Business constraint

Security of communications, including legal implications

Cloud computing, including the risks and benefits of virtual access to

information, etc.

Green Internet issues, including reducing the carbon footprint of the ICT

sector, e-waste, etc.Tailored functionalities based on

specific knowledge models;

Content regulation, including copyright, licenses, open access, etc. Traceability a key issue for all

main values: food safety,

environment, e thics and cultural

preferences

Same data utilized for different

puproses > separation of data

from application;

Data traceability and security;

Management of agreements

Innovative data sharing

and new arrangements

of ownership

E-democracy, including transparency, open government data,

empowered citizenship, services to citizens, etc.FI comprehended as a possibility

to develop work and empower

citizens

Digital citizenship, including individual and corporate rights and

responsibilities, etc.

Digital inclusion, including access and use of Internet by vulnerable

populations, etc.FI in rural areas

important for equal and

stable development of

the nations

Trust, including risk drivers, actors at risk, risk management, etc. Acknowledged by

farmers as constraint

for developing new

business models

Online communities, including social networks, virtual relationships, etc. Development of farmer

communities to devcelop work

and consumers for food

awareness

Internet of things, and the connections between people and devices Acknowledged/implemented in

piltos in production, logistics,

retail and consumer domains

Relationships between consumers and suppliers online Acknowledged need and

possibility by production,

logistics, retail and consumers

Distributed knowledge production, including e-science, e-learning, etc. New needs and possibilties for e-

learning identified by farmers

Cybercrime and Cyber law, including phishing, cracking, cyber terrorism,

etc.


62

Table 2. Framework for technological Policy and regulatory issues in the context of Smart Agrifood

Included challenges are, first, information content. The idea is that information content should be structured

according to the main global value challenges of the Food Chain i.e., food safety, environment, ethical

issues and socio-cultural preferences. We see that each of these global value challenges involve different

information contents and may set different constraints on the generally identified societal PRG issues of

Future Internet implementation.

The second global challenge included is the availability of ecosystem. This challenge deals with four

different technological constraints that the food chain context necessarily assumes to be tackled when the

Future Internet is implemented. The first constraint to be tackled in policy and regulatory considerations

relates to necessary technical capability of the FI service. Beyond this, data management has been named

SAF FOCUS

TECHNOLOGICAL PRG ISSUES

GLOBAL CHALLENGES OF

Information content

- Food safety

- Environment

- Ethical

- Socio-cultural

THE FOOD-CHAIN

Availability of ecosysem

- Technical capability

- Data management

- Information openness

- Security / privacy

Ownership and

business principles

Socio-political dynamics: unification vs. fragmentation of the Internet

Tendencies of reassertion of national sovereignty in the Internet

‘space’

Trends toward commercial ‘territorialization’ of the Internet

Trends toward protection and challenges to ‘net neutrality’

Sets of political, legal, social and security reasons that act as drivers

of potential fragmentation

Future Internet and the role of cities and regions FI a possibility for rural

development

Trends in the regulation of network operators (specifically regulatory

variance regarding ‘open access’)

Regulation of open access

identified as a key issue

Internet of Things and Internet of Doing Things Technical challenge identified in

production, logistics, retail, and

comsumer domains

Just sharing of cost

and benefits within

the foodchain

identifies a key issue

FI PPP environment, energy and sustainability

Internet-driven social impacts (social networks, fraud, piracy etc.) Mainly positive expectations

identified by stakeholders

FI PPP trust, privacy and security Highly important for

consumers

Traceability of data quality

Licensing, certification, regulations, policies

Standardization and interoperability: Policy /regulation vs. market

dynamics

Lack of standards with regard to

data handled by composite

services, i.e. data from expert

services;

Information of data sensitivity

to different input variables.

Information of application

capabilities with regard to

sensitivity.

Operational: trends in the design and delivery of clustered services


63

as one of the major constraints for FI. Information openness is another frequently mentioned constraint that

needs to be tackled in the implementation of IP, and equally pressing constraint is the security / privacy of

information.

The third global challenge included in the policy and regulatory issue review framework relates to ownership

and cost sharing within the networked activity systems enabled by the Future Internet. In the frame of the

food chain these issues have turned out to be one of the major concerns and constraints that the end-users

have brought up. It has become clear in the end-user feedback that innovations are necessary in improving

cost sharing in the food chain. It has been proposed that much better integration between technical,

operational and economical structures are needed. The new structures could support better than the present

ones the networked activities and diverse technological ecologies.

The intention in proposing the above described policy and regulatory issue framework for dealing with food

chain related challenges is that a systematic review of each the listed PRG issue in relation to the food chain

constraints would be accomplished. On the basis of this exercise the relevance of the generic PRG

challenges provided by the working group for the particular domain could be judged. As a result further

understanding could be developed of the generic PRG issues and also of those issues that relate

particularly to the food chain domain.

7. OUTSMART: SMART CITIES AND INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS Author: Mirko Presser, Alexandra. The case is based on OUTSMART materials.

OUTSMART contributes to the Future Internet by aiming at the development of five innovation eco-systems.

These eco-systems facilitate the creation of a large variety of pilot services and technologies that contribute

to optimised supply and access to services and resources in urban areas. This will contribute to more

sustainable utility provision and, through increased efficiency, lower strain on resources and on the

environment. Reaching this goal requires the whole value chain, namely city authorities, utilities operators,

ICT companies as well as knowledge institutions in order to have an industry driven approach when

developing advanced services and technologies. OUTSMART services and technologies will be based on

an open and standardised infrastructure as envisioned by the FI Private Public Partnership (FI-PPP) and

provided by a service framework designed to facilitate provisioning, development and access.

Introduction

Despite their potential, open-government and open-data initiatives are still far from delivering demonstrable

benefit in terms of greater efficiency and better customer value13. Fully exploiting the potential of open-data

requires to i) involve all the Smart Cities actors (public administration, but also private companies and

citizens) considering the multitude of roles they might play in the delivery and consumption of data and

services, ii) move toward an Open-service strategy, through the development of a territorial ecosystem of

interoperable Open-Services14.

From a technological perspective, the increasing uptake of Web Services and Service-Oriented Architecture

(SOA) has created an ideal platform to create Open-services. An Open-Service would be an elementary

Web Service with a well-defined API that allows a third party (citizen, private business or another

13

The National Audit Office, Report by the Comptroller and Audit General, ”Cross-government review: Implementing transparency”, HC 1833, 18 April 2012. 14 Government Open Services Are the Next Step for Government Open Data – Gartner, August 2012.


64

government entity) to access, aggregate, and orchestrate different Open-Services to deliver new, more

complex and value added services towards citizens and government itself.

However, technology is not the most crucial component of an Open-Service strategy. Moving toward Open-

Services will require a comprehensive rethinking of e-government architectures and delivery/consumption

models15, and advanced methodologies and tools supporting all the phases of this complex transformation

process16.

The de-facto European standard for open data platforms emerges from the Comprehensive Knowledge

Archive Network (CKAN) community17. CKAN has been widely adopted by European governments and

cities as well as a number of international organisations as a first starting point to understand and

experimenting with Open Data. Other International initiatives are based around wider Open Government

Platforms such as the Open Government Platform (OGPL) - http://www.opengovplatform.org/, which is a

US/India open source product. It is clear that there are global activities creating several platforms for open

data. Europe currently has the edge with CKAN and several European and International bodies using the

package18.

Instances of any of the open source platforms vary and few include advanced features: linked Data support

including semantic integration; advanced storage and support for dynamic data sets; data sets storage

versus provisioning of APIs. But what varies significantly is not based on the technology, but the uptake and

the ecosystem around the platforms:

• What types of data are exposed, featuring static and dynamic and in what form, i.e. as APIs or data dumps;

• What licenses are provided and the overall stability and availability of data;

• How well is the ecosystem around the open data initiative supported, e.g. creation of support, competition, citizen engagement, etc.

A comprehensive survey of Open Data platform is presented in an article published by Karin Braunschweig

in 201219.

It is clear that the European Directive on PSI (Directive 2003/98/EC) has given a starting point but we are far

from living and benefitting from a more transparent and information rich society.

Issues

The table 3 has been developed within OUTSMART to identify policy and regulatory issues that need to be

addressed in a Future Internet context to achieve a significant impact for society with respect to open data

and the Internet of Things.

15

HM Government, Open Public Services 2012, March 2012. 16 Presidential Memorandum : Building a 21st Century Digital Government, May 2012. 17 http://ckan.org/ 18 http://ckan.org/instances/ 19 http://www2012.wwwconference.org/proceedings/nocompanion/wwwwebsci2012_braunschweig.pdf


65

Issue Description Path

Privacy • It is not always clear who owns the data or what data is used for.

• People are getting more and more used to giving up data, but also are getting more and more aware of giving up data.

• The types of data sources are becoming more direct in terms of physically senses data, e.g. presence.

• Give control back to the owners of data.

• Duality and balance.

• Poper anonymisation and averaging of data (hardware preprocessing).

Public security • Smart Cities drive new ways of living and acting that can imply new hazards to the public security (e.g. vandalism against new ICT infrastructure, hacking if critical infrastructure, falsifying information, etc)

• Education

• Trust

• Law

Integrity • Being sure that data is not tempered and the sent information is not misused.

• Legislation and technology

Transparency • Citizens would make a big fuss if water leakage data is made available – “Why is it not fixed already?”. Public offices fear the

• pressure of having to react faster with the same budgets in the future.

• Need for none-biased bulk data (open and big data).

• Education, new technology solutions, process innovation.

• Political pressure to change the system.

• Provide additional resources to the most affected stakeholders.

• Open cloud repository that has standard data formats and measurements types.

Meaning of

data • Is the data that is available the correct

data? What are the units, the measurement type, … etc.

• Standards for measuring, collecting, aggregating, processing and exposing data, e.g. semantics, meta data, processes, etc.

Governance • Who will manage and on the data? • Data traceability in a standardised way.

Stability of

data sources • Organisations do not get the expected

impacts from their open data releases and take sources offline again.

• Create legally licensing commitments at launch.

Political will

and support • Political agendas do not always align

with technological progress. • Make people aware of the benefits of

the technologies directly.

Regulation • Regulation is out of date and too fragmented.

• Bring ICT strategy and regulation hand in hand.

Table 3: Policy and Regulatory Issues Identified in OUTSMART


66

8. SAFECITY: PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY IN CITIES Author: Roberto Giménez, HI-Iberia. The case is based on SafeCity materials.

Safecity deals with smart Public safety and security in cities. The main objective is to enhance the role of

Future Internet in ensuring people feel safe in their surroundings at time that their surroundings are

protected. Safecity is the result of the elaboration of a vertical Use Case Scenario based on Public Safety in

European cities. The main goal of this project is to collect specific requirements driven by relevant users on

the Future of Internet versus to the generic ones that will be collected through other objectives. To this end,

specific scenarios have been elaborated with the finality to negotiate with available infrastructures to support

Safecity functionality, considering the involvement of main cities in Europe as Madrid, Helsinki, Athens,

Bucharest, Stockholm etc along others. Safecity prototypes will be elaborated and early trials conducted in

order to study the feasibility of this initiative.

Issues

There are several issues that will require policy and regulatory action in the domain addressed by SafeCity

project. The main issues are the following ones.

• Acquisition of sensitive data. SafeCity makes use of sensitive personal data to identify and/or exclude an individual; and the acquisition and handling of sensitive data needs to be realized with extra care, acknowledging the underlying regulations and justifying their necessity. For example, in the context of a Smartphone application, as the citizen acts as a prosumer, i.e. generating content to improve the SafeCity system performance and safety objectives, it is important that there are some policies regulating the acquisition and use of such content by the authorities. The citizens generating and sending data (metadata, photos, videos, etc.) have to be registered in the Safecity system and mechanisms for authorising its data use have to be provided. Furthermore, the City Hall or Public Authorities should inform that such system has been installed, so that citizens are aware that images in public places can be captured by registered citizens and sent to SafeCity system.

• Data storage, access and distribution, management and control. SafeCity examines the temporary storage of sensitive data in order to allow their processing to take place. However, the data being acquired and stored under the context of SafeCity, as well as future developments expected to take place upon Public Safety, needs to be protected by clear policies regarding the bodies being responsible for their storage and distribution. Sensitive data needs to be stored in secure places, specially selected to serve this purpose, posing access control and clear back-up policies. This is a vital concern to take under consideration both during the handling of test data in the project’s trial cases, as well as when designing complete communication networks between mobile/fixed sensors in the city region and command and control area operations.

• Data retention and secure expel. SafeCity stores personal data during some time, but this time cannot be unlimited since the personal data cannot be retained according to legal constrains further than a determined time. This issue usually differs nationwide; in addition, the acquired data needs to be completely erased from the system according to the underlying regulations after a maximum determined time.

• Citizens’ awareness and informed consent. SafeCity proposes a complete framework for Public Safety and thereby, policy and regulatory actions that should be carried out with the aim of respecting the citizen’s rights to lawfully being informed of when, where, upon what and from whom the citizen is being monitored. This includes the awareness on any application or any other kind of system empowering citizens to act as prosumers, generating content that can include information about other citizens or their belongings.

Issue Relevance

The above-mentioned issues involve concrete implications in the SafeCity domain. Below, these implications

are summarized in terms of required addressable domains:


67

• Validation and explanation of the type of personal data acquired; why the specific types of data need to be acquired and the places from where such data are acquired.

• Validation and enforcement of the definition of the parties, authorities and personnel who should have access to the acquired data, the design of clear policies for handling data amongst different organizations and different countries, and the accountable parties for the data management across all stages.

• Validation and exploration of the maximum allowed timeframe upon the retention of data and the frequent and automatic check upon the data stored.

• Validation and ensurance that citizens become aware of the surveillance technology applied in the respective places, and that the informed consent should be acquired from the respective authorities of the area.

• These implications needs to be properly addressed so that Future Public Safety respects the right to privacy established in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the European Legal Framework for Data Protection and Privacy.

• Other important consequences related to the lack of adequate attention would be:

• Lower developed safety level of EU cities throughout EU territory.

• Lower opportunities for European Industry.

• Loss of competitive position.

• Loss of citizens' confidence.

• Presented issues raise a warning light for the success of the FI-PPP, and not only Future Public Safety. The protection of private life on the public is a priority for political and ethical authorities and it must be guaranteed people feel the safest possible in cities whenever their rights continue unchangeable. But the implications raised from the technological possibilities involved in this protection are also applicable to a larger number of vertical domains. In order to solve and overcome these concerns only political and coordinated regulation both at EU and national levels can succeed. This will also have a large impact on the actually fragmented European Security market.

• Due to this, it is mandatory for the success of the FI-PPP that EU and national governments intervene, since it is only them acting as regulatory bodies entitled to play a key role in validating the technologies in environments such as smart urban areas and regions, and controlling that the EU legal framework is respected.

• Accordingly, the impact and importance of removing bottlenecks or creating better policy and regulatory conditions is very simple: guarantee people feel the safest possible in cities applying the technologies whenever their rights continue unchangeable. This will allow to derive possible innovative business models in this area, strengthening the competitive position of European industry.

Issue Solutions

• It has been demonstrated that policy and regulatory actions are necessary in order to ensure the success of FI-PPP, and overall, of the Future Public Safety. In this sense, the most important policy initiative to be envisaged should be the establishment of a unique European policy framework which guarantees a high level of protection for the privacy of individuals at the same time the free movement of personal data within the European Union (EU) is regulated. This initiative should be regulated from European Commission by means of a Directive. So, the central actor responsible is the EC.

• It is also advisable that an external agent like OECD collaborates in elaborating the identified issues and preparing actions and their impacts, since its main mission is to promote policies that improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world. In addition, European DPAs (Data Protection Authorities) could also contribute to this aim since the Art. 28 of the EU Data Protection Directive proposes it in this way. Thereby, CONCORD could also play a key role acting as advisory group for the OECD and European DPAs.


68

Due to the importance of making policy and regulatory actions, SafeCity project have also addressed a set

of ethical, social and legal implications, elaborated a guidance for solving them, and then, analyzed them in-

depth concerned with the Public Safety, being this work the most important support to the FI-PPP Project

regarding policy, regulation and governance issues.

Whilst a unique European policy framework is created, at programme level, it would be necessary to solve

the issues related to the acquisition of sensitive data and the data storage, its access and distribution and its

management and control, with the aim of increasing the success of FI-PPP and the programme impact. Both

issues are highly related to the Digital Agenda for Europe, through the Action 12 - Review the EU data

protection rules belongs to Pillar I - Digital Single Market.

9. ENVIROFI: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Author: José Lorenzo, ATOS. The case makes use of ENVIROFI materials. EU-relevant information was

provided by Carlos Granell, JRC-EC.

Large European communities generate significant amounts of valuable environmental observations at local

and regional scales using mobile communication devices, computers and sensors which are mostly

connected to the internet. These communities’ environmental observations represent a wealth of information

which is currently unused and therefore in need for integration with other fragmented data and information

sources, traditionally managed by research and educational institutions and industries. ENVIROFI will

address such important issues by specifying the requirements, and building conceptual prototypes, of the

specific enablers of the environmental usage area in the Future Internet. It will bring these diverse

stakeholder communities together to understand environmentally observed processes with higher spatial

resolutions and contextual situation awareness at an unprecedented scale. This achievement alone could

have a profound socio-economic impact in Europe and contribute towards meeting the global challenges of

industrial competitiveness and smart living in this decade.

Environmental management represents a complex policy environment, requiring several DGs to act upon

(CONNECT, ENTERPRISE) to enhance standardization. Common issues are privacy-related and

environment remains a crucial area for location-bound perceptions. The Internet of Things will play a central

role for Future Internet in environment areas (lack of standards and the role of large companies and their

IPR are key issues). A key challenge is the cross-border data transfer. A longer-term strategy is required to

support EU market creation.

Concerning the wider policy environment, regarding environment, INSPIRE and EU Location Framework (EULF) are

relevant. INSPIRE directive is establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in Europe to support

Community environmental policies, and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment.

INSPIRE is based on the infrastructures for spatial information established and operated by the 27 Member

States of the European Union. The Directive addresses 34 spatial data themes needed for environmental

applications, with key components specified through technical implementing rules. This makes INSPIRE a

unique example of a legislative “regional” approach. EULF targets the objective that location data and

services created by public administrations across Europe will be accessible by users inside and outside of

government for individual, cross-sector and cross-border applications and will play a vital part in the drive

towards effective e-government. EULF will help remove barriers to re-use and interoperability and realise the

potential of these valuable assets.


69

From a marine policy perspective, nationally there is a renewed focus on the development of the marine

economy and increased contribution to GDP and the internet of things is likely to be a key enabler for that

growth. From a European perspective this is closely aligned to the delivery of a Blue Growth agenda20. We

also have instruments like the Atlantic Strategy which is looking specifically at what Ireland’s has done in

SmartBay and the SmartOcean Cluster as exemplars for the use of internet and related technology to drive

smart, sustainable and inclusive growth21. From a marine policy perspective future internet functionality will

also be of increasing importance to deliver more cost effective implementation of instruments including the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive22 and the IMP23.

10. FINSENY: ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURES AND SERVICES Author: Roger Duck, EUTC. The case uses materials from FINSENY.

The FINSENY project addresses Future Internet technologies playing a critical role in the development of

Smart Energy infrastructures, enabling new functionality while reducing costs. It defines new solutions and

standards to be verified in a large-scale pan-European Smart Energy trial, contributing to the emergence of

sustainable Smart Energy infrastructure, based on new products and services.

Introduction

FINSENY included a study of how regulation in both energy and telecommunications is moving in Europe,

and how the FINSENY use cases might be impeded or encouraged by regulatory developments. The work

had a significant focus on the energy regulatory environment because the use of Future Internet enablers for

Smart Energy is intimately bound up with regulatory issues in the energy industry. FINSENY sought to

identify issues, and not to design or explicitly influence policy or regulatory development.

FINSENY has studied smart energy use cases in five different scenarios:

• Distribution Networks

• Microgrids

• Smart Buildings

• Electric Mobility

• Electronic Marketplace for Energy

There are specific regulatory issues for each of these scenarios, but the issues discussed below are relevant

to all. A key issue is the fact that the smart energy future across all scenarios is underpinned by ICT

enablement of Distribution Networks to create “smart grids”: these networks are monopoly businesses and,

as such, are strongly regulated.

Issues

The key emergent issues relating to all FINSENY scenarios, deemed to require regulatory action, are as

follows:

20

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth/index_en.htm 21 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/sea_basins/atlantic_ocean/index_en.htm 22

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/index_en.htm 23

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/about_us/mission_statement/index_en.htm


70

• Investment and Innovation. Incentivising investment and innovation in the energy industry, particularly in regulated energy networks, and in electric mobility. Allowing alternative regulatory frameworks to be tested in live trials.

• Enabling new activities, and participation of existing and new actors. Designing a regulatory framework to enable the full range of activities and behaviours envisaged for the smart energy future, informed by a model of the “activity structure” of the whole system.

• User-Centricity. Enabling consumers to actively participate in energy markets, becoming responsible participants in energy management.

• Maximising synergies between energy and telecoms markets. Ensuring collaboration between energy and communications regulators to address, head on, likely tensions that arise between highly regulated industries (energy in this case) and more lightly regulated industries (communications).

• Interworking between different organisations, industries, and across borders. Encouraging or requiring data sharing and constructive collaboration through standards and protocols. Defining roles and responsibilities of different types of actor

• ICT infrastructure sharing. Enforcing open access ICT infrastructures. Encouraging use of public ICT infrastructures by electricity network operators in all countries. Enabling utilities to become telecoms businesses in all countries. Encouraging industry collaboration between energy and ICT players.

• Spectrum. Considering allocation of harmonised spectrum for smart grids across Europe, recognising the existence of conflicting interests in such spectrum between utilities and telecoms operators, in particular.

• Standardisation for interoperability. Encouraging the development and adoption of open standards

• Privacy. Data protection legislation and regulations.

• Security of critical national infrastructure for energy. Ensuring that appropriate security controls, for the enabling ICT in particular, are in place to protect the energy system.

Relevance

The desired impacts, which motivate the need for regulatory intervention, are summarised below:

• Investment and Innovation. Without smart grid investment at DSO (distribution system operator) level, EU energy policy targets would not be achieved and the benefits of all FINSENY use cases would be compromised.

• Enabling new activities, and participation of existing and new actors. Maximising value for consumers and society, business opportunities, competitiveness, innovation and environmental benefit. Ensuring the ongoing dynamic stability and adaptability of the whole system in the face of predictable and unknowable future uncertainties.

• User-Centricity. Stimulating market innovation leading to business opportunity. Maximising user and societal value.

• Maximising synergies between energy and telecoms markets. Ensuring that Europe is able to lead, rather than lag, in developing opportunities at the nexus between the Future Internet and Smart Energy, to avoid the “catch up” scenario experienced, for example, in mobile banking (which arose in part due to regulatory tensions between banking and communications)

• Interworking between different organisations, industries, and across borders. Essential for the effective functioning of the whole electricity system and supply chain across Europe, as information flows play an increasing part in control and market activity, and cross-border interactions rise.

• ICT infrastructure sharing. Maximising opportunities for innovation and competitive activity in telecoms and IT. Reducing wastage from infrastructure duplication. Potentially contributing to European digital agenda.

• Spectrum. Reducing smart grid costs. Reducing cross-border radio-frequency interference.


71

• Standardisation for interoperability. Maximising competitiveness, innovation, and delivery of value to stakeholders.

• Privacy. Consumer protection.

• Security of critical national infrastructure for energy. Minimising the chance of accidental or malicious disruption to energy services, which could have potentially enormous impact on economic and societal stability of member states.

Solutions and Recommendations

The following actions are recommended with respect to regulating the Smart Energy future in Europe,

recognising the part to be played by the Future Internet:

• Investment and Innovation: Encourage and accelerate the current shift in regulation of Distribution System Operators (led by the UK) from cost-effectiveness regulation to performance-based regulation, designed to incentivise investment and innovation, in order to maximise development and deployment of smart grids across Europe.

• Enabling new activities, and participation of existing and new actors – Whole System Regulation: Initiate research to develop models of the “activity structure” of the energy system as a whole that transcends, but maps to, existing organisational boundaries, in order to guide the evolution of regulatory frameworks that could enable the stable transition from the current system of centralised control to a system of distributed control which is able to capitalise on the full capabilities and promise of the smart energy future.

• User-Centricity: Encourage the regulatory trend in both energy and telecommunications to enable consumers to become active participants, developing regulatory strategies to ensure that consumers are not only well-informed but are also engaged in learning loops with suppliers and governments.

• Regulatory Collaboration: Formalise and strengthen dialogue between policy-makers and regulators in communications and energy to ensure that Europe is able to lead the development of opportunities at the nexus between the Future Internet and Smart Energy.

• Interworking: Encourage and extend the current focus on data sharing, to encourage interworking between different organisations, industries (energy and ICT), and across national borders.

• ICT Infrastructure Sharing: Align energy regulation with the EU open access agenda for public telecommunications infrastructure by removing any barriers to sharing ICT infrastructure created by energy regulation, in countries where this is the case, both by ensuring that commercial ICT services are not discouraged with respect to self-build, and removing inconsistencies from country to country in the extent to which utilities are allowed to use assets to sell telecoms services to third parties.

• Spectrum: Consider the allocation of harmonised spectrum for smart grid use across Europe, including frequencies below 1 GHz for resilience and coverage, plus spectrum in the range 1-3 GHz for capacity.

• Standardisation: Continue to encourage the development and adoption of open standards in ICT across the EU as an effective strategy for maximising interoperability, competitiveness, innovation, and delivery of value to all stakeholders, with a general principle of technology-neutral regulation but retaining the option for mandating standards if essential.

• Privacy: Continue with the strong development of data protection and privacy legislation and regulation, with an increasing focus on the specific requirements of smart energy.

• Security of Critical National Infrastructure: Encourage, and continue to focus on ensuring, appropriate security controls, for the enabling ICT in particular, to protect the energy systems of member states, strengthening an understanding of potential vulnerabilities arising from the current lack of a whole system regulation model.


72

ANNEX 3: WORKSHOP 13 MARCH 2013

Report of the 1st

FI-PPP workshop on “The Future Internet: Policy Challenges in Creating European-

Scale Markets”, Brussels, 13th

March 2013

1. Introduction and background On 13 March 2013 a workshop of the FI-PPP programme took place in Brussels to discuss policy and

regulatory challenges in relation to the Future Internet and their implications for the Future Internet PPP

programme. The workshop was organised by the FI-PPP Working Group on Policy, Regulation and

Governance. There were 32 registrations and 20 participants. The detailed agenda and participant list is

included in the Annex to this report. In three sessions, the workshop covered three major policy-related

themes:

1. Markets for smart infrastructures: emerging frameworks for policy and regulatory conditions such as interoperability, openness, standards, security and privacy;

2. Policy and regulatory issues affecting the success of Future Internet enabled networked applications; 3. Ensuring the impact of FI-PPP: shaping SME involvement, entrepreneurship and incubation activities.

Invited experts Jonathan Cave (Rand Europe and Warwick University), Frank Gielen (iMINDS) and Aljosa

Pasic (ATOS) presented their expert views and discussed the main themes. Additionally, a number of FI-

PPP project representatives were invited to present the policy and regulatory issues that have emerged in

their projects.

The workshop discussed policy and regulatory issues emerging in the current FI-PPP programme based on

project cases. Invited experts presented their insights, provided inputs and discussed with FI-PPP project

representatives. Background of the workshop was that the FI-PPP programme aims to contribute to the

ongoing policy debates at European and national levels by bringing together stakeholders involved in the

emerging Future Internet Ecosystem to identify the policy challenges and discuss short to mid-term

strategies for exploiting the opportunities of the Future Internet envisaged by FI-PPP. As input to the

workshop, a draft FI-PPP Working Paper has been developed identifying policy and regulatory issues of the

Future Internet and outlining policy and regulatory challenges identified within FI-PPP projects. This Working

Paper also presents a general agenda for policy and regulatory issues during phase 2 and 3 of the FI-PPP.

The Future Internet ecosystem sustains the networked, connected society of tomorrow. It brings radically

new opportunities and improvements to our businesses, institutions and social structures, for resolving

tomorrow’s key business and societal challenges. The FI-PPP programme takes on this challenge, and

constitutes an industry-driven, pan-European partnership for research, development and innovation which

brings together over 150 European private and public sector organizations. FI-PPP’s mission is to enhance

the future competitiveness of Europe’s scientific and technology base on ICT, establishing its global

leadership, and being a catalyser for the evolution of the EU and other key economies towards the

innovation and integration of advanced Internet-based smart services and networked applications that meet

societal and industry challenges. The FI-PPP advances the long term competitiveness of Europe through

European-scale implementation and uptake of smart infrastructures, accelerating technological development

for the Future Internet and in parallel accelerating the adoption of smart infrastructures. The ultimate

ambition of FI-PPP is to make public service infrastructures and business processes significantly smarter -

more intelligent, more sustainable and more efficient - through tighter integration with Internet networking


73

and computing capabilities. This way the FI-PPP aims to rapidly transform ICT progress into tangible and

sustainable benefits for Europe's citizens, businesses, industry and governments.

Realising this ambition of the FI-PPP requires a comprehensive view of the globally evolving Internet

Ecosystem and its emerging value networks at local, regional and national levels, in order to address, on top

of and complementary with the R&D challenges within FI-PPP, a range of innovation, policy and regulatory

oriented challenges in order to achieve the targeted programme impacts. These challenges include topics

such as convergence, interoperability, openness, standards, data security and privacy. As the FI-PPP aims

realise a range of business and societal impacts it is also considered a priority to address Digital Agenda

issues such as Internet entrepreneurship, market development and involvement of SMEs.

2. Summary of Workshop presentations and findings The workshop was introduced shortly by chair Hans Schaffers (Aalto University) who leads the Policy and

Regulation activities within CONCORD. CONCORD is the programme facilitation and support action of the

FI-PPP. He mentioned that the WG-PRG is looking at policy and regulatory challenges emerging in the

current FI-PPP projects, which affect the success of the FI-PPP programme. The goals is to create

awareness among the stakeholders and policy / regulatory entities and contribute to policy debates, in order

to address these challenges. To that end the WG-PRG identifies and analyses the challenges, organises

workshops and develops Working Papers and resulting in recommendations. The work strongly relates to

initiatives such as the Digital Agenda, Cloud Computing Strategy and other. Ilkka Lakaniemi (Aalto

University) project coordinator of CONCORD, introduced the FI-PPP and stressed the importance of

resolving regulatory and policy issues for the success of FI-PPP. He also brought forward that the point of

departure could be “the less regulations the better”: from the perspective of the private sector it is important

to establish the enabling conditions for innovation and market creation. Moving FI-PPP from phase 1 to

phase 2 will make the policy environment even more complex and requires a holistic understanding and

increasing dialogue with the European Commission directorates as well as with other stakeholders.

Jonathan Cave (Rand Europe and Warwick University) discussed the emergence of new markets in relation

to policy and regulation, stressing the interaction between market development and regulatory environment,

requiring smart approaches. He addressed the new forms of market structure triggered

by infrastructure/network geometries (e.g. cloud-related matters as in the Nebula vision of the FI,

governance of indirect market relationships (where interacting parties may not know each other),

competition between and over facilities-based infrastructures (and the implications for the old regulation vs.

competition debate) and the emerging tension between business communication, coordination and

interoperation on one side and competition (in services as well as IPR) on the other. The objectives will

include classical ones (technical and allocational efficiency) but also the 'new' ones linked to these such as

security, privacy, innovation, competitiveness. Jonathan considered the prospects for infrastructure and

'platform' (key enablers, core architecture), the FI3P analysis especially as regards where Europe comes up

short and the problems caused by rigidities and incumbency, and what we learn from the 'new economic

thinking'. In that respect it was addressed competition issues such as 2- or n-sided market competition,

competitive effects and dangers to competition coming from other places than structure change (mergers

and acquisitions, predation, entry/exit barriers) or conduct (e.g. collusion).

The policy and regulatory challenges related to Future Internet service infrastructure platform were

discussed by Juan Bareño (ATOS), working in the FI-WARE project. A key observation is that platforms,

where convergence between IT, internet, telecommunications and media services and technologies occurs,


74

have deeply restructured how hi-tech industries operate. Most hi-tech industries have become platform

battlegrounds and Platform strategy is essential to compete. From 2013 through 2020, 90% of IT industry

growth will be driven by 3rd Platform technologies. Therefore, a lot of competitive energy should be focused

on strengthening 3rd Platform offerings and capabilities. Platforms require a non-traditional business model.

Juan explained that new services will be developed in a new value chain and therefore the interaction

between a variety of ICT organisations, regulators and sector specific organizations is required. Platform

regulation has to overcome a wide number of barriers such as dominance of incumbents, protectionism and

entry or interoperation barriers. Main regulatory concerns from FI-WARE include on-line identity and privacy,

business data integrity in relation to cloud computing, data protection, net neutrality. The message is that

traditional regulatory analysis seems not to be sufficiently equipped to deal with platforms as different

aspects of openness has to be dealt with (who can use it; who can offer compatible app; who can bundle it

with larger platform; who can change the design etc.) and a number of issues have to be dealt with such as

customer lock-in, lock in of service providers, through open standards, prize squeeze of services/content

providers and cross subsidization. The current situation at EU level is that Europe seems to move towards

platform regulation in general.

The view from the Infinity project (Infrastructures for the Future Internet community) were presented by Mike

Surridge (IT Innovation).The four main policy and regulatory issues from infrastructure perspective are

related to user adoption of infrastructures, the sustainability of infrastructure, protection against misuse of

infrastructure, and interoperability of infrastructures. For example user adoption requires that user adoption

occurs, data retained in the infrastructure must be made transparent to stakeholders and users. Content

regulation across political boundaries must be looked at. Interoperability requires the support and

implementation of various standards. Mike presented an interesting matrix which relates infrastructure

characteristics (location-centric, user centric, cloud-based) to the four types of policy and regulatory

concerns to identify the different policy and regulatory issues more specifically for infrastructure types.

The focus of the presentation of Aljosa Pasic (ATOS) was on cloud security, and more in particular how to

build the “chain of trust” using standards, certification and contract terms, which is the subject of the

CIRRUS project. Cloud computing is an example of a not fully matured market on all offerings. A main

challenge for organizations is in building trust and confidence in Cloud Computing services,

including concern over maintaining data privacy and security. Concerns are being voiced about

compliance issues as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of traditional security governance and

protection mechanisms. The relative (in) security of cloud computing services is a contentious issue

that may be delaying its adoption. A wide range of security standards exist that are applicable to cloud

computing which makes the over-all situation from business perspective (SLA, contract terms) quite

complicated. Therefore it is urgently needed to speed up and to support a convergence of several ongoing

efforts. In addition to standardization, Cloud Computing market needs solution for global certification

schemes.

A sequence of presentations addressed policy and regulatory challenges in the FI-PPP use case projets.

Leena Norros (VTT) presented an overview of policy and regulatory issues in the SmartAgriFood project,

addressing security, privacy, traceability and interoperability issues. Pilar Campos Lopez (ISDEFE)

presented the SAFECITY project on public security, where the main policy and regulatory issues that require

policy an regulatory actions are related to acquisition of sensitive, personal data; storage, access and

distribution, management and control of sensitive data which need to be protected by clear policies; data

retention and secure expel, and citizens awareness and informed consent regarding the use of monitoring


75

data. The project proposes the establishment of a unique European policy framework by European

Commission which guarantees a high level of protection for the privacy of individuals at the same time the

free movement of personal data within the European Union (EU) is regulated.

Roger Duck (EUTC) addressed regulatory and policy issues in relation to energy management. These

issues include ICT infrastructure sharing, privacy, spectrum, stimulation of investment and innovation,

maximizing synergy between the energy and ICT Telecoms markets, and interworking between

organizations, industries and across borders. A number of actions were considered, for example in relation

to ICT infrastructure sharing it is proposed to remove barriers to ICT infrastructure sharing created by energy

regulation by ensuring commercial ICT services are not discouraged and by allowing utilities to use assets to

sell telecoms services to third parties.

Rod Franklin (Kühne & Nagel) presented conclusions from the FINEST project on future transport and

logistics. The FINEST collaboration platform is a general purpose collaboration service. There exist several

policy and regulatory issues. Logistics has a strongly international character; however there is a lack of

harmonization of regulatory regimes. Data capture and storage generally occur in different locations.

International standards are not available. Legal regimes differ by country. At the same time all players will

expect seamless, transparent, uniform cross border regulation, data flow and service if the service is to be

used. Collaboration partners need to be confident that they can conduct business without security, privacy,

regulatory, etc. risks and generate revenue. In this situation it is important to reflect on what we need: more

regulation, better regulation, or harmonized regulation? Also, uptake of the platform requires a clear

functioning business model. How do current policies and regulations influence or encourage this fact?

The final presentation was from Frank Gielen (iMinds) and addressed the stimulation of entrepreneurship,

incubation and acceleration, drawing from experience within iMINDS.

The final discussion session confirmed the importance and relevance of identified policy and regulatory

issues for FI-PPP’s success. It was agreed that a classification of policies and regulations would be helpful

as a basis for systematic analysis of approaches to policy and regulation. It was also emphasized that

“smart” forms of policy and regulatory change would be necessary to address the sometimes complicated

interactions between regulatory environment and markets. It was recommended to establish relations with

external stakeholders in the fields of policy and regulation (European Parliament, ITU, OECD and other) and

with relevant Commission Directorates, the Digital Agenda initiatives, and the Futurium activity. It was also

recommended to continue the organsiation of policy workshops.


76

Workshop programme

08.30 – 09.00 Welcome and coffee

09.00 – 09.45 Introductory session

• Opening and introduction: Hans Schaffers, Aalto University (workshop chair)

• European Commission introduction • Future Internet PPP: Ilkka Lakaniemi, Aalto University, CONCORD

coordinator 09.45 – 11.15 Session 1: New Markets for Smart Infrastructure: Policy and Regulatory

Challenges and Conditions

• Keynote: Jonathan Cave, Rand Europe & University of Warwick • Future Internet Service Infrastructure Platforms : Juan Bareño, ATOS,

FI-WARE • Infrastructures for the Future Internet: Mike Surridge, IT Innovation,

INFINITY 11.15 – 13.00 Session 2: Policy and regulatory issues related to Future Internet-

enabled applications

• Keynote: Aljosa Pasic, ATOS • Content and media innovations and industry change: Pierre-Yves Danet,

FI-CONTENT • Sustainability, intelligence, efficiency and performance of the Food and

Agribusiness: Leena Norros, VTT, SMARTAGRIFOOD • Safety and security in cities: Pilar Campos Lopez, ISDEFE, SAFECITY • Smart energy infrastructures and applications: Roger Duck, EUTC,

FINSENY • Transport and Logistics chains enabled by the Future Internet: Rod

Franklin, Kühne & Nagel, FINEST 13.00 – 14.00 Networking Lunch

14.00 – 15.00 Session 3: Enhancing the Impact of the FI-PPP for SMEs, stimulating

entrepreneurship and incubation

• Keynote: Frank Gielen, iMINDS • Discussion on SMEs engagement, entrepreneurship stimulation and

Digital Agenda actions in the Future Internet PPP programme 15.00 – 16.00 Session 4: Policy and Regulatory priorities in the Future Internet PPP .

Identifying the key themes and policies to realize and enhance impact of

FI-PPP

• Discussion on priority activities for the FI-PPP and in particular the WG on Policy, Regulation and Governance regarding Policy and Regulation

• Closing of the workshop

Invited keynote speakers:

• Frank Gielen, Director of Entrepreneurship and Incubation, iMINDS

• Jonathan Cave, Senior Research Fellow, Rand Europe

• Aljosa Pasic, Business Development Director, ATOS, and coordinator of CIRRUS.


77

Workshop registrations

1 Hans Schaffers Aalto CONCORD

2 Pilar Campos Lopez ISDEFE SAFECITY

3 Leena Norros VTT SMARTAGRIFOOD

4 Pierre-Yves Danet France Telecom FI-CONTENT

5 Benjamin Chevallier Orange Labs OUTSMART

6 Joao Schwarz Univ. Luxembourg

7 Toon Poppe Heart Link On-Line

8 Hugo Kerschot IS-Practice

9 Mike Surridge IT Innovation INFINITY

10 Jonathan Cave Rand Europe

11 Sergio Gusmeroli TXT e-Solutions FITMAN

12 Juan Bareño ATOS FIWARE

13 Dai Davies DANTE

14 Ilkka Lakaniemi Aalto CONCORD

15 Andrea Glorioso European Commission

16 Emma Pivetta Consultant

17 Donald Morris RedZinc

18 Michael Niebel European Commission

19 Petra Turkama Aalto CONCORD

20 Aljosa Pasic ATOS

21 Frank Gielen iMINDS CONCORD

22 Roger Duck EUTC FINSENY

23 Chris Foley WIT – TSSG INFINITY

24 Rod Franklin Kühne & Nagel FINEST

25 Ilja Vuckov EMKICE

26 Susana Mendoza European Commission

27 Alexandra Rosen NESSI

28 Sven Lindmark iMINDS CONCORD

29 David Kennedy Eurescom CONCORD, FI-STAR

30 Milon Gupta Eurescom CONCORD, FI-STAR

31 Manuel Schaeffer European Commission

32 Ellen Legziel Platte Consult NESSI Office

FUTURE INTERNET PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP · Introduction ... FI-WARE: Core Platform ..... 51 3....

Documents

Transcript of FUTURE INTERNET PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP · Introduction ... FI-WARE: Core Platform ..... 51 3....