The 13th annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) runs from 12-14 November 2018 in Paris. The RIPE NCC staff at the event will be liveblogging key moments and session take-aways. Check back on this page for regular updates on the issues, arguments and ideas from RIPE NCC staff and RIPE community members.
14 November 2018, 18:15 CET
Day 3: Farewell and See You in Berlin!
The closing ceremony of the IGF 2018 reflected many of the messages voiced over the past three days. Recalling President Macron’s speech, French Minister of State for the Digital Sector Mounir Mahjoubi reiterated how important the multi-stakeholder Internet governance process is for inspiring trust in citizens. At the same time, he acknowledged that inaction on the part of governments is not an option given what our societies face today. France supports an innovative take on regulation, which is not about control or limitations, but based on clear goals and values.
According to Minister Mahjoubi, France supports an innovative take on regulation, which is not about control or limitations, but based on clear goals and values.
Several speakers from the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) shared their views on what went well and not so well at this IGF. They expressed concern about the low number and poor attendance of workshops dedicated to the participation and inclusion of women, young people, the disabled and other vulnerable groups. They expressed their hope that the views of marginalised groups would be thoroughly considered when building the program for the IGF 2019.
Some recommendations from the MAG are to:
- Ensure all ICT systems are interoperable and seamless, and that infrastructure, applications and services offer full support for user engagement.
- Create holistic policy approaches, which consider the full range of policy issues - economic, societal, cultural, technical and governance.
- Encourage the participation of all relevant stakeholders in policy-making processes, so they can have a better understanding of one anothers' needs and ideas.
Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Coordination of the UN, closed the meeting by posing some questions for the future. How do we ensure that data fuels innovation and economic development, while protecting both public and individual interests? How do we prevent data being abused, whether for commercial interests or for the violation of human rights? Can we program machines to be ethical? If yes, what should the rules and principles be? These questions and more will form the agenda for IGF 2019 in Berlin. See you then!
14 November 2018, 15:00 CET
Day 3: What is SEEDIG?
SEEDIG, the South East Europe Dialogue on Internet Governance, updated members from the community on their activities. SEEDIG had its first annual meeting in the summer of 2015 in Bulgaria. It has since held successful meetings in Serbia, Macedonia and Slovenia, the last two of which I had the pleasure to attend. The fifth meeting will take place in 7-8 May 2019 in Bucharest to coincide with Romania’s Presidency of the EU Council. The call for issues for that meeting is open for two more weeks, until 30 November.
SEEDIG stands out with its vibrant and engaged community and its enthusiastic board, which is, by the way, the only elected board of any IG meeting. In addition, they are making truly commendable efforts to bring young people or people from disadvantaged backgrounds to the meeting, sponsoring nearly 25% of the attendees and creating a special capacity development program for them, which includes multiple online sessions the months before the meeting and a dedicated in-person event the day before the meeting.
SEEDIG has kept pretty busy for the last 4 years
In addition to their annual meeting, SEEDIG keeps busy all year round. They provide monthly summaries on Internet governance and digital policy issues in SEE and conduct yearly surveys covering topics such as digitalization, IDNs, and IG in SEE.
If this sounds interesting and you want to get involved, subscribe to the SEEDIG mailing list.
14 November 2018, 13:30 CET
Day 3: Artificial Intelligence for Human Rights and SDGs
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is expected to profoundly change societies – anything from access to knowledge to the way we communicate and how we work. It can promote openness, education, cultural diversity, contribute to democracy, peace and the achievement of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). But there are a number of concerns surrounding its rapid deployment.
- It might increase inequalities and the digital divide, if it is built on big data containing the currently existing biases and prejudices around gender, race, ethnicity, educational level and so on. As one of the panelists put it “What you put in, is what you get out”.
- Concerns were also raised around the impact current application of AI has on freedom of expression, in instances where AI is used in content moderation. Due to the intangible nature of freedom of expression, it is impossible to analyse the impact of this trend and how it affects societal discourse.
- It is feared that as AI replaces labour forces, it might further widen the economic divide between developed and developing countries, as well as the rich and poor within countries by replacing low-paying manufacturing jobs. One panelist jumped in to say that it could also be an opportunity for developing countries to jumpstart their economies and mark quick advances.
- Concerns about AI’s impact on privacy were also raised. One of the panelists posed the question: “Do you prefer to be naked in front of this audience for one minute, or your search history to be forever available online?”. It got a lot of the audience thinking.
The ten principles on personal data protection and privacy recently adopted by the UN
The session was not all about pointing out fears and concerns. Some concrete action points and recommendations were offered, such as:
- Think about the legitimate purpose of AI. Why are we using AI in the first place? It is better to delay deployment to make sure AI works better and is more inclusive.
- Regulation needs to catch up and do it quickly. Policy makers should make sure they keep up with the times, and, for example, make sure systems are in place to avoid building in prejudices in AI. At the same time they should keep in mind that delaying deployment unnecessarily holds up economic development.
- Research the effects of AI. Investigate data collection and work on digital inclusion, otherwise AI will simply reinforce historical biases.
- Be careful about applying AI in contexts such as content regulation as the technology is still poor in understanding cultural nuances.
- Create synergies between governments, civil society and business and take full advantage of the multistakeholder process. Increase transparency and accountability of companies.
For those of you who might want to delve on the issue further take a look at Building Ethics into Privacy Frameworks for Big Data and AI, a report with some practical steps and recommendations to follow when deploying AI.
14 November 2018, 12:50 CET
Day 3: To be or not to be - that is the question
This year’s IGF took place in Paris and has had a considerable focus on Internet regulations in response to security fears. The French president initiated these discussions in his unexpected opening speech, where he called for more regulation on the Internet.
As the discourse on “the need for more regulation” advanced, multistakeholderism has became subject to power struggles. Stakeholders are not equal, and the viability of multistakeholderism in regulation is not determined by its inclusiveness alone, but arguably by the level of authority. Given the massive security and privacy risks on the table, regulation might be inevitable and could be the equivalent of fire safety standards. Suitable regulations would take time to develop, and compliance costs could disproportionately apply. Additionally, the majority of people here at IGF feel that regulation would damage innovation.
The question remains: will the rise of multistakeholder participation in Internet governance help to empower other stakeholders? The discussions at this IGF confirm that the governance of the Internet at the national level remains firmly under the control of governments. Insinuating that political power has become diffused and that government is no longer the principal actor is simply unfounded. Yet, non-governmental stakeholders perform varied and important roles in the Internet’s governance, offering technical expertise where governments cannot.
The Internet is a public sphere. However, it is almost entirely owned and operated by private companies that operate internationally. This poses interesting challenges and contrasting views on regulation and governance. This discourse on Internet governance reflects longstanding international tensions about administrative control of the Internet and they have all failed to agree on one common definition.
The best approach to tackle most of the pressing issues in the Internet ecosystem is collaboration among key stakeholders. Manufacturers, standardisation organisations, regulators and service providers may need to focus more on working together. They need to standardise security, safety and privacy best practices, while competing with one another in the marketplace.
Established open communities from “traditional” Internet organisations that have been working on these issues for decades, including RIRs, ISOC and ICANN. Working within these open communities can be very beneficial. We can share knowledge, develop best practices and take part in open debates around norms and expected behaviour of the Internet and its supporting industries.
Day 3: IPv6 and Gaming
Yesterday a session looked at IPv6 and the online gaming industry. The session kicked off with a speaker from NIC.br who talked about the difficulties Brazilian network operators were having. Brazil has a highly diffuse Internet industry, with over 7,000 ISPs, 70% of which have fewer than 1,000 subscribers. ISPs in the country have been reporting that online games are not working over CGNAT or IPv6. In a survey of ISPs later conducted by NIC.br, 90% of respondents indicated that this was an important issue that affected them.
In response, one major game company published a statement in Brazil that was troubling for ISPs. Framed in language that deposited all of the blame at the ISP’s door, the company said a public IPv4 address was required to access its services. This is an issue for ISPs that rely on CGNATs. At the same time, it stated that since IPv6 deployment in Brazil is currently at 8%, there is no clear reason to enable IPv6 on its services. This means that ISPs that have done their best under the circumstances – with IPv6 deployed and CGNATs to handle IPv4 – find themselves unable to supply their customers with access to gaming services. Since gaming networks and ISPs both share the same customers and experience the same set of issues, why can’t they look for a solution together?
Another speaker covered the measurements they had conducted, which indicated that IPv6 really does provide faster Internet access for subscribers. In some cases, where latency affects players’ ability to do battle in a game, IPv6 users can be seen as having a distinct advantage over their opponents who are only wielding IPv4.
A participant from the Communications Regulatory Authority in Finland stated their belief that IPv6 enables a better Internet for regular users. A lack of a shared public IP address space harms the interests of End Users by reducing their ability to access or offer services. They also said that while IPv6 today is mainstream, there remains a distinct lack of market pressure to encourage its uptake – perhaps gaming could be a source of this pressure.
A speaker from Microsoft’s Xbox services noted that they were acutely aware of the issues created by CGNATs, especially where you had incompatibility issues between two separate CGNATs. This has gone from primarily an issue with small-to-medium operators to something they are increasingly seeing with larger ISPs that are now starting to deploy CGNATs. Xbox is taking steps to show gamers (via their applications) when incompatible NATs are the cause of their issues.
The speaker from Microsoft also noted that the pain points associated with IPv4 exhaustion are usually viewed in terms of how the network operator is affected… but perhaps gaming is one of the first cases where customers can directly see the benefit of IPv6 for themselves.
14 November 2018, 11:10 CET
Day 3: Last Chance to Win a Surface Pro 5 or an Apple Watch
Come meet us at the RIR booth in the exhibition hall.
Pick up one of these cards, scratch out the grey area, look up the IP address on it and answer two questions for a chance to win a Surface Pro 5 or one of three Apple watches!
We are waiting for you!
13 November 2018, 18:10 CET
Day 2: The Role of Regulators in IPv6 Deployment
At the start of Day 2, a session discussed the role of regulators in encouraging IPv6 deployment. In many places, it seemed like we were revisiting familiar territory, especially to those who take an interest in this topic.
Chafic Chaya, from our External Relations Department, started the session by arguing there’s no longer much of a case to be made that IPv6 is “too hard” – not when we see so many organisations of all stripes, big and small, successfully running IPv6 today. Even for those who haven’t deployed IPv6, “awareness” is no longer the key issue. 75% of our members have IPv6 addresses and we find that most have taken at least some initial steps towards a coming up with a deployment plan or pilot. When we see good examples of regulators supporting IPv6, it really seems to be a case of supporting the industry to ensure it has the tools it needs to do the job.
There were some interesting comments from the audience.
- An audience member from a Telco in Asia noted that they had turned on IPv6 back in February, and already they saw 75% of the traffic on their cable running over IPv6. In their case they had a clear rationale – IPv4 addresses in their region are trading from upwards of $15 USD each. On the other hand, IPv6 is practically free, so for their country there was no choice. He also noted that originally their technical team had told him a separate team would be needed to do IPv6, but they quickly discovered this was not the case.
- ARCEP, the French regulator, began promoting IPv6 two years ago, identifying six key actions it could take: training, developing a roadmap, improved coordination, providing information, and finally – preparing for the end of IPv4. A key part of ARCEP’s approach was establishing an observatory that collects information from many different links in the technical chain – transit providers, ISPs, mobile operators, hosting providers, etc. It was also noted that statistics should be at the appropriate level – national or regional statistics can quickly settle on a percentage that masks the real differences that exist between networks. In its “Annual Barometer” report that ARCEP has been handing out at this IGF, they have published statistics that look at individual ISPs. This is helpful for giving a more accurate picture of IPv6 adoption, though it really shines a light on those players who are lagging behind.
There was some discussion about whether the long-promised “killer app” for IPv6 had or would soon reveal itself. One participant suggested that IoT filled this role, with the expected number of devices set to vastly outstrip IPv4. Another pointed out that IoT devices will likely sit behind some kind of gateway, so the need for need public addresses may not be so great. Another participant argued that mobile was the killer app – it had an immediate and much larger impact on growing IPv6 traffic levels than regular ISP traffic.
13 November 2018, 15:20 CET
Day 2: IGF 2018 Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy
This morning at the IGF, I joined a panel discussion on cybersecurity, privacy and approaches that both enable and erode our sense of trust in the Internet. The panel was comprised of representatives among others from the US, Chinese, and French government, the private sector, civil society, all there to express what they see as key developments and obstacles in this domain.
The session opened with a clear statement of the gravity of the topic from the moderator. Cyber security is of critical importance: threats and vulnerabilities are ubiquitous and attacks are commonplace. And these phenomena overlap in unexpected and worrying ways, such as when attacks are used as a justification for the subsequent collection of data.
David Martinon, speaking for the French government, emphasised the need for stability in cyberspace. Echoing President Macron’s speech from the day before, he cautioned that although there is of course great value in the ideal of openness that formed part of the promise of the Internet in its origin, we should be wary of such concepts being employed in support of practices we don’t want to see – e.g. cyberattacks, hate speech, etc. States need to be in control to ensure that all democratic values are safeguarded, in close cooperation with the private sector.
The representative for China agreed with the general concerns over the challenges in Internet security, pressing the message that, although there is a need to prioritise policy and practice and legislations to limit online crime, these efforts should not be allowed to undermine freedom of expression and privacy. In focusing on cybersecurity, we should always keep in mind that he threats are about people, so people should be placed at the centre of the discussion.
The speaker from the USA added that we cannot sacrifice the benefits of the Internet (human rights, innovation, etc.), but must keep these in mind when we try to confront the problems. Concrete measures are needed to reduce risks in the online world, but ought not create issues in the offline world. International cooperation is needed around increasing capacity, human rights, freedoms, interoperable economic practices.
Representing the private sector, a panelist from Telefonica pointed to the fact that cyber security is as good as its weakest link, and that as the Internet grows, money alone won’t buy us security. Also not all countries are equally prepared, so we need a horizontal approach. And yet the infrastructure is owned by private sector, so states cannot do much by themselves. National efforts are not sufficient. We can only tackle this by self-regulation and the adoption of best practices.
The session continued, with panelists sharing their views on the potential for cooperation in the future, on the need for shared innovation, and on the crucial question of the need for regulation. The session highlighted different conceptions of the way cooperation between nations and between the public and private spheres might look in the interaction between nations and between the public and private spheres in tackling the challenges of Internet security.
13 November 2018, 18:40 CET
Day 2: Net Neutrality and 5G
Net neutrality is a fundamental principle that all traffic should be treated equality - without discrimination and regardless of its content. It guarantees the openness, accessibility and equality of the entire Internet, which in turn promotes innovation, competition and the realisation of human rights online. Since Chile’s pioneer law in 2010, more than 50 countries have enacted laws guaranteeing the net neutrality principle.
The approaching implementation of 5G, many wonder if the technology is compatible with these laws. They fear that features such as network slicing - which is used to create a number of virtual networks on top of a common shared physical infrastructure, which can support the numerous and varied services – might be in breach of the neutrality law.
Connected health, automated driving and smart farming are just some of the examples, which 5G will help scale.
Some argued that network neutrality laws do not prohibit all differentiation of traffic, only that based on content or users. It is a principle that impedes the abuse of discrimination. This means that traffic differentiation is allowed, so long as it is necessary for the efficient work of the application. For example, it’s ok to say that all video demand needs special treatment.
With the exponential growth of traffic on networks, reasonable network management is essential for network operators. Vodafone for example does not think there need to be changes to the net neutrality regulation as a result of 5G, but urges policy makers to keep updating the regulations so that they keep up with the times and the way networks develop.
13 November 2018, 12:20 CET
Day 2: A Meeting with MEPs
Back in 2000, three Members of the European Parliament founded the European Internet Forum in an effort to connect politicians with the public to discuss issues concerning the network society. At a session organised by the EIF today I met three MEPs - Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Julie Ward and Jonathan Bullock – who shared their views on current regulations on issues such as copyright, 5G and online bullying.
The future of IGF was discussed as well. In particular, concern was raised about the decreasing participation of business, which is detrimental for the maintenance of a truly miltistakeholder debate. With limited financial resources, businesses try to attend events that will bring the most value for their money and time. Since the IGF does not result in any statements, resolutions or concrete actions, evaluating the benefit of the event is difficult for businesses. Several participants cautioned against changing the nature of the IGF, however. If the IGF becomes a negotiation venue, the atmosphere of the event will change dramatically. Instead of open and free exchange of ideas, where coming to learn is encouraged and changing your mind is ok, it would turn into a political venue, where people have to be careful about their every word.
Some suggested that the instances, where the IGF has helped lead discussions to tangible results should be better documented and reported. Julie Ward mentioned how she met the disability community for the first time at the IGF and as a result of this engagement EU regulations for the disabled were implemented.
The session finished with a debate on EU regulation. Part of the room was of the opinion that EU regulation is becoming too heavy and stifles the development of a European Silicon Valley. Others however disagreed, pointing at industries where self-regulation has failed to work for the benefit of the citizens and opining that Europe can be an example for well-working governance with a broad consultation and careful consideration of opinions of technical experts and affected parties.
12 November 2018, 18:20 CET
Day 1: A Speech from Macron at the Opening Ceremony of the IGF
Half of humanity is now online. The pace of change in the growth and operation of the Internet continues to accelerate. 90% of the data ever created was created in just the past few years. Developments in AI, IoT, Internet security and the like are impacting healthcare, education, government, etc., bringing about transformations not only technological but philosophical. This has brought about a host of new challenges.
In his speech at the opening ceremony of the IGF today, President Macron made a call for decisive action in addressing these challenges. He argued that the Internet today is under threat. Despite being taken for granted by so many of us, and playing such a central role in our lives, the Internet faces the risk of fragmentation at various levels. Maintaining the structures required for a working Internet requires a huge collective effort and an underlying trust in the Internet. But that trust is being undermined. Hate speech, terrorism, child pornography and other highly damaging content can no longer be stymied. In fact, not only is the Internet under threat, but it is coming to be seen as a threat itself, even a threat to democracy.
Speaking on net neutrality, although Macron pointed to the importance of the concept in ensuring that specific groups with vested interests don’t dominate the Internet, he went on to emphasise that neutrality must not be thought of as a universal value in itself. He made the argument that all-out neutrality leads to the very real risk of permitting behaviours that are directly opposed to those values. In sum: treating all ideas as equal, and so allowing those who don’t share our values to propagate their own ideas, are exactly the kinds of mistakes we can commit in the name of neutrality.
The answer Macron presented to this involved greater cooperation between various fora (such as the IGF and GovTech forum taking place this week) supported by an initiative for producing more concrete results. He also made a strong, repeated call for regulation, regulation, regulation. He emphasised the need for Europe to invest in innovation and education driven towards a better understanding of challenges from such areas as AI, IoT, and other technological advances that are driving the challenges of our time. It was a potent message that Macron openly linked with the events marking the 100th commemoration of the armistice.
12 November 2018, 17:20 CET
Day 1: Future of the IGF
Earlier this morning I attended a session that asked about the future of the IGF. This is a good question, and a timely one. The first IGF was held in Athens in 2006. Since then there have been many sessions, many discussions – but increasingly there’s a sense that the action has moved elsewhere. The IGF is seeing lower attendance from high-level actors, difficulties finding host countries, and a lack of stable funding. But perhaps a change in the IGF’s approach can help the event live up to its promise of facilitating useful dialogue between stakeholders.
There is a contradiction to the IGF – many stakeholders see it as lacking relevance due to the fact that it doesn’t produce any outcomes. However, the strength of the IGF was always precisely this – because there are no hard outcomes, participants are able to speak more freely and more able to exchange ideas that can be used to inform other processes.
Participants in the session proposed a number of solutions:
- Perhaps a middle ground can be found to address the perceived gap between participation and outcomes. Last year’s IGF in Geneva produced a series of “messages” to come out of the meeting. A first for an IGF, this approach will continue this year as well. Maybe this will go some way towards giving attendees clear points of reference that emerge from their engagement at the IGF.
- Also discussed at the session was the need for greater interaction in the discussions. In some sessions there is more of a sense that everyone is focused on bringing up their own issue rather than having a discussion with their fellow participants. Part of this might involve giving more time to allow for audience comments and discussions.
- And there is also a need for resources and an improvement to the approach by the MAG – a more relevant agenda that is the product of greater outreach with relevant stakeholders. And rather than have the meeting diffused into a bunch of smaller semi-overlapping sessions and topics – the meeting could be arranged around a smaller set of more-focused discussions that are relevant to the official discussions taking place elsewhere. Similarly, the IGF currently only takes place once each year – perhaps more can be done to maintain discussions in the space between meetings.
12 November 2018, 14:40 CET
Day 1: New Blood
As a RIPE NCC staff who is trying to bring young scholars to our events (through RACI), the session on the Youth IGF Movement echoed many of the sentiments that motivate my own work.
Back in 2011, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) recommended that there should be more engagement with young people and the first Youth IGF gathering was organised in France. Since then, multiple initiatives have sprouted at the national, regional and international level, aiming to raise awareness for Internet governance and policy issues, transfer knowledge, and increase participation from youth.
The leaders of Youth IGFs from Ukraine, Haiti, Lebanon, Indonesia and Portugal were at the Global IGF for the first time
The leaders of several IGFs shared the most commonly-discussed issues at their events. Cybersecurity was the most common topic – dominating discussions in Ukraine, Lebanon, Portugal and Haiti. The lack of qualified cybersecurity experts in their countries and beyond is worrying, leaving many issues unresolved and the future uncertain. The Indonesian Youth IGF, held just two weeks ago, focused on cyberbullying, another problem that is on the increase globally. Youth are one of the largest communities on the web, but they are often ill-equipped to deal with malicious actors that occupy the same spaces.
Several members of the European Parliament were also present at the meeting and underscored the importance of dedicating time and effort to educate youth about the Internet and include them in decision-making. They mentioned that even though the European Union can only introduce rules that concern the union itself, the global nature of the Internet means that often regulations transcend national boundaries and have an impact on a global scale.
12 November 2018, 13:30 CET
Day 1: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future of Multistakeholderism
The divergent views and heated discussions taking place in the Plenipotentiary (PP18) in Dubai right now related to Internet are echoed here at the IGF in Paris today.
Until recently, multistakeholder Internet governance has generally been considered to be a prerogative of developed economies such as the United States and the European Union. However, the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) meetings convened in Geneva in December 2003 and in Tunis in November 2005 were a turning point. At the global stage, Russia, China, India and some of the Arab countries are pushing to get the ITU a role in managing the Critical Internet Resources (CIRs). The United States, the European Union and other countries oppose this proposal, stressing that they believe that Internet governance must be multistakeholder-driven and hence Internet policy should not be determined by member states. Nationally, what makes this topic so engaging and controversial is that some countries are pushing to expand the influence of national governments, while others are calling for a multistakeholder model of Internet governance. We can say that the multistakeholder Internet governance is globally and nationally not settled and still a subject of active negotiation among the different stakeholders.
Nevertheless, today history is being challenged with corresponding risks to the Internet. Failure to address some of these challenges could have negative consequences for the future of the Internet and its ability to support sustainable development.
12 November 2018, 13:15 CET
Day 1: Internet Architecture
Having successfully navigated through the labyrinth of the UNESCO headquarters and caught up with a tonne of familiar faces, I attended my first session.
In a room packed to the brim, IGF participants discussed how the Internet’s architecture might change in the future, by analysing a few mega-trends.
The first trend that stood out was consolidation. Even though the Internet started as the ultimate distributed platform, in recent years, it seems to have become concentrated into the hands of a few large, centralised entities. Beyond economic and market forces, consolidation is also driven by developments in networking and new technologies, such as machine learning, where the more data you have the better your technology. However, consolidation leads to power imbalances, which can serve to disenfranchise users. Not enough research is done in understanding the far-reaching consequences of internet consolidation.
Another trend is the increased push for adoption of security and encryption protocols. Tying security improvements to other features in high demand has shown to spur the adoption of such protocols. HTTP2, for example, even though not mandated, is de-facto always used with encryption protocols. The fast deployment of TLS 1.3, the most commonly used security protocol, with Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) as one of its key features further strengthens encryption on the Internet. QUIC, a generic transport layer protocol, whose first version is expected to be published sometime next year, encrypts not only data, but also headers, such as session identifiers, etc. Despite the protocol not being official yet, 30% of Google’s traffic is already running over it. This circles back to the first trend discussed in the session: how consolidation – or the operation of the Internet being concentrated in the hands of a few major players - can tremendously speed up the adoption of certain technologies, such as encryption. Should there be will for it, of course.
The last trend discussed in the session was the change from a device-centric to a service-oriented world and the need for network engineering to adapt to this. This raised a few interesting questions. How should we model cloud and edge computing for massive service-centric applications? How could routing be performed based on services? What will business models based on network service management look like?