Next Generation Internet — The European Commission’s call for Tech Revolution…

I recently had the pleasure to attend a ‘salon’ hosted by the Next Generation Internet (NGI) Initiative, the latest from the European Commission concerning the future of the Internet. This article outlines a concise interpretation from a newcomer to EC funding, with a background in entrepreneurship, a multi-disciplinary profile (full stack development, biz dev, strategy) and a keen consultancy interest to solve real-world problems.

Tom Collins is Co-founder of PLEQ.io an Industrial Predictive Maintenance SME and Consultant Analyst at C4IOT focusing with Cloud, IoT and Emergent technologies.

This is not a sponsored promotion, nor is this endorsed by the European Commission or the NGI Initiative team.

You can find out more on the NGI Initiative via the HUB4NGI, consultation platform or many events they are hosting across Europe in the coming months.

The NGI Salon: Blockchain & Public Agency

22 November 2017 - Brussels, Belgium

In a bright informal afternoon panel in the heart of Brussels, an assortment of people took a look into the hazy dream of the EC’s future Internet intentions.

Students, ‘hackers’, entrepreneurs, managers, professors, and the usual faces of research organisations and politerati were all in attendance, and of course a unique bunch of “Present Generation Internet” leaders on hand to discuss the latest trends in Internet affairs.

The purpose of the ‘salon’:

• Present and discuss the EC’s future internet vision
• Prioritise where new legislation must pay attention
• Refine the scope of the EC’s NGI vision
• Gain feedback for the NGI Initiatives remaining Research Centres
• Layout funding areas for Research & Innovation (R&I) projects concerning three initial domains of Privacy, Governance and ‘Data Perception’, applied with two technological notions, Internet of Things and Distributed Ledger Technology

With a goal list like that you’d have been surprised to hear the dynamic discussions and mood far exceeding expectations for many. If you’re a concerned citizen, or company building future internet tech’, get involved and say your piece through the future NGI Events.

Perceived EC Game plan

To attempt explain the EC Ecosystem’s approach simply, and as an avid practitioner of ‘Agile’ and ‘Lean startup’ principles, a breakdown akin to the ‘Business Model Canvas’ helps to describe the component parts.

The Proposition

What’s being offered as a solution?

Problem(s) worth solving:

• The reliability issues and interplay between trust and identification of people, things and organisations within our society — hinting that trust is too expensive to build and maintain, and it would be better if it were cheaper…
• The ‘friction’ and lost time in inefficient practices in business — One emphasised example discussed: the billions in costs banking services demand
• Keeping track of the fast moving, disruptive environments we live and do business in

Proposed Solution(s):

• An all encompassing Distributed Ledger Technology Infrastructure, Platform, and maybe a Bitcoin like currency, to make all elements of work and life much more efficient through faceless machine automation, but it will be highly human-centric for social good
• Legislation for supporting DLT Infrastructures and outline how organisations can interact and invest in this new opportunity
• A new approach to how funding and companies can get involved (In contrast to the notorious FIWARE)

These three ‘solutions’ were dependants for any other proposals and ideas voiced in the ‘salon’, such as universal identification, enhanced web privacy, cheaper transactions, replacing client/server paradigm!? — these won’t even be considered without outlining the precursors value cases to build upon.

Consumer Segments

Who is the solution aimed at?

• Citizens who care about a “Human Internet” — What’s not a human-internet to the layman?
• Financial services
• Biopharma
• Industry 4.0 organisations

Key Channels

What methods of interaction will be used between provider and audience?

• Online NGI consultation forum for all stakeholders to provide expert input
• Meetups and Salons
• Legislation framework — a means for consumers to interact and invest in the infrastructure, without this no channel exists on how to operate with the EU on NGI technologies

Consumer Relationship management

How does the provider maintain interactions with the consumer?

• An ongoing consultancy process for continually receiving expert feedback to steer development
• Partnerships with the NGI initiative/EC

Key Resources

What is required to deliver the solution to the consumer?

• €56 mio in funding to be used between 2018–2020, and a much longer road map of future investment
• An EC group of around 10(?) ‘supporting MEP’s’ behind the legislation file
• The NGI Initiative team — A distributed team of researchers across Europe
• Some 25000(?) partner companies of the EC
• The Research Centres and joint-collaboration organisations which gain first round funding
• ‘Individual teams of researchers’ and SME’s who gain access to the ‘cascading funding’ opportunities

The details listed here may differ, these figures were discussed or found on the web.

Key Activities

What will the provider do to reach, deliver and maintain the solution?

• Marketing and promotion of the NGI initiative to new audience members
• Compiling and passing legislation
• Management of R&I activities and projects
• Build DLT solutions, or evaluate existing (non-European) technologies, to support a European Infrastructure

It should be noted, maintenance of such a solutions was barely discussed, so nothing to add on this.

Key Partners

Who does the solution provider rely on to operate?

• Experts in the Internet technology fields — who will provide advice without incentive?
• Existing consumers of EC funding already in the cycles
• Research Institutes & Universities
• SME’s with the will and energy to carry out research projects

Critique of the EC NGI Game Plan

At the request of the NGI Initiative’s call-to-action (Let’s talk!), this is a constructive attempt to provide feedback on the intentions of the EC’s lofty ambitions, not to harp-on about political intention or issues we have seen in the past from similar initiatives.

A first note, the managing team of the NGI initiative have paid great attention to previous funding R&I initiatives issues. The new approach seems to have taken reflection to NGI’s sibling FIWARE in an attempt to create true bottom-up innovation and deliver tangible results by responsible SME’s. Kudos.

Self-acknowledged issues on the approach

Throughout the panel presentations and opinionated discussions, a number of potential issues were flagged as known by the NGI rep’s, some of which include:

• The extremely broad scope and potential is huge — a hazy vision of solving life’s problems are the current goal
• The banking industry will be impacted dramatically by any new financial services built upon DLT — Perhaps banking should be a core target
• Implementing new financial service solutions is naturally more difficult in established nations
• Legal certainty is key, however the foundational studies still do not provide the common language, terminologies and definitions required
• Standardisation is going to be incredibly difficult

Perceived issues with the approach

This is a shortlist of issues personally perceived throughout the proceedings.

These issues may either be due to generally poor communication, lack of knowledge from those discussing topics at level of analysis beyond their understanding, or simple misinterpretation on a personal level from myself.

The goal: Identify genuine issues which are not being discussed.

1. Lack of incentives for new stakeholders and long-term maintainers of the NGI solutions and infrastructure

No clear incentives are outlined for the ‘bottom-up stakeholders’ and experts interacting with the NGI initiative, only for committing serious time to join/initiate research projects.

With a vision of longevity for a ‘European infrastructure’, the implications and ultimately incentives for maintenance and professional services supporting an infrastructure do not seem to be in the discussion either.

FIWARE claim(s/ed) to deliver an open platform for the Internet of Things. As an entrepreneur dealing with such technologies, there are no vibrant open-source communities (Look at the quality of GitHub repositories and social network discussions) or obvious warranty guarantees for it’s functionality. The marketplace and offering of professional services by ‘FIWARE consultants’ is either poorly marketed or not updated.

For an independent company not involved with the direct research initiatives, the results should be compelling, presented as a major opportunity to invest to create new business, or to really change how current business is executed.

One clear incentive is the funding of course — However you (as an organisation, not an individual) must make the mark and compete against big business and existing players well versed in politics of EC funding. Some good news, for NGI application process has apparently been streamlined…

Ponder points

• What is the incentive for an existing organisation to support a ‘new’ and ill-defined infrastructure?
• Do new business(es/ units) need to be conceptualised to provide maintenance and support scaling of the EC’s solution?
• How would such supporting companies be governed to ensure good working practices to maintain privacy and security?
• Will legislation support and protect consumers from organisations (public or private) responsible for the infrastructures in the future?
• Will the European Commission invest serious money in making this infrastructure a worthwhile opportunity for non-research savvy organisations?

2. A definitional issue and incorrect use of terms for DLT, Blockchain and Bitcoin.

Between multiple representatives a number of terms were at times used interchangeably. I can only compare this with an automotive themed analogy:

Imagine for a second, that you refer to a motor as an engine, easily done by the layman, almost permissible nowadays. But to refer to an engine as an entire car, or equating fuel to direct momentum, and the rubber production process as the actual tyres sounds ludicrous.

New technology is understandably difficult to master — the issues we face require the basics to be correct to even start a proper conversations about legal filings and inspirational visions.

A quick sketch helps map DLT infrastructure to this automotive analogous engine, motor, process, and fuel example.

An example of DLT, platforms and cryptocurrencies

Although the NGI website has a lot of presentation resources, they’re not easy to digest, and they’re not in a format for someone else to pick up and understand without the author presenting them.

A common impression when talking about ‘The Cloud’ and ‘Decentralised systems’ is the lack of architecture, these fluid, self-operating, resource-abundant invisible infrastructures do not come cheap, in energy or organisational actions so to speak.

The distributed decentralised nature of DLT is not a silver bullet. These technologies put emphasis on the users being in control, owning, contributing and maintaining part of a global architecture. However it must be stressed any quick win to deploy some sort of virtual infrastructure via DLT software will have immense costs.

Ponder points

• Should those responsible for legislation at least have some material/physical connection to the topic they are discussing? — Do they all have a bitcoin wallet which they have purchased with for example?

3. Disconnection between the EC’s overall NGI Vision, and the actual NGI Initiative’s 2018–2020 results.

The 2018–2020 call is focused on building blocks to support a NGI, however attempting to deliver ‘tangible results’ requires an idea of the structure and protocols to operate within a larger infrastructure.

Longevity is key for the current vision and building blocks seem to be a sensible approach, the first three initial topics are succinct and key domains for this — To those that understand all the terms that is.

Perhaps R&I efforts in this call may also concern the actual scoping of such an infrastructure, service oriented architecture and standard for integration.

A succinct short-, mid-, and long-term vision would also be a helpful addition to connect the dots between the broader NGI vision and this latest call.

4. A stronger marketing story with prioritised industries, beyond the nice-human-centric-social drive

Although admirable ‘the greater good’ does not make it easy for entrepreneurs and participants to find inspiration or to react and do something tangible.

Focused aim at something, not everything, otherwise nothing will be the result.

This scope, IMHO, ultimately seems like the simplest one to gain consensus from all managing parties involved. This doesn’t mean it’s the best unfortunately.

For every actor contributing to the overall vision, it seems a different projection of needs, and a different perception of the solution can be found in this omnipresent-super-blockchain-thingy.

Ponder points

• If we’re aiming for a human-centric internet, what’s the opposite? — What does this non-human-internet look like?
• What does a human-internet mean to the average citizen? — Asking my highly-non-technical mother this question reveals a lot!…
• Social-good is incredibly subjective. Technology is incredibly objective, how does one reconcile and mediate these issues?
• Individuals make decisions based on gain rewards and pain avoidance. Conversely companies use a similar process on decisions with profit and loss. How can you market to both parties effectively with one marketing campaign?
• What is the cost of acquisition for ‘experts’ into the NGI consultation platform?
• Can offline activities be associated with online NGI consultation engagement?
• Is there a “sales funnel” structure to help qualify the best experts that you wish to interact with via the NGI initiative?

5. Are the right stakeholders at the table yet?

A comment from an EC representative made about the unanticipated philosophical nature of the dialogue seemed the most peculiar of all comments in the whole ‘salon’. Especially considering the goal and societal impact which the entire initiative is aimed at.

Attempting to write legislation potentially affecting generations to come must rely on different sources, blending technology expertise, philosophical wisdom and historical reference must be accounted for in all levels of analysis.

Ponder points

• Do stakeholders understand the Total Cost of Ownership concerning the development and maintenance of infrastructure that societies and nations are built upon?
• Is there real-input from everyday people to help structure this vision and inspire participants? — If so where are they published within the NGI domain?
• How can people be reached directly via local councils on a personal level to ask for their opinions?— In a way which does not discuss high-tech research and internet lingo?

6. Branding and design communication

Finally, and more of a pet peeve, but perception of communication material and narrative is everything, regardless of whether it’s online, offline, printed, oral or other.

The NGI house style is actually relatively clean and the content presents very well in the materials which have had some attention. But here’s a few issues:

• Seven out of eight presentations selected at random on the NGI website have entirely different themes giving a feeling of disconnected material and differing levels of quality
• The slogan “Human internet for better future” used in many of the publications seems to be missing an ‘a’, and really isn’t personal, perhaps ‘Our human internet for a better future’ — Fixing the ‘a’ would help those with linguistic OCD’s
• A postcard-like flyer was handed out at the event with a call to action to join the community. Although practical, we spent the debate discussing the initiative, and it contained no inspiration or anything tangible to talk about with others, and again lack of incentive to react to the call to action — perhaps an upgrade to pamphlet with FAQ’s, and talking points for friends, families and colleagues would be nice.

Conclusion

Listening to the propositions from different camps in the EC R&I Ecosystem, the common theme was clear — There is no clear vision, the only thing in agreement is it should be socially good, whatever that means to an objective world of technology research.

A concise understanding of what the future internet means is lacking. This can only be based on a layered foundation of what ‘pre-generation internet’, ‘past-generation internet’ and ‘current-generation internet’ means for society and commerce. An inspirational vision of what our internet is may be all it needs to usher in the Next Generation Internet.

Personally, I see hungry energetic minds looking for a cause to unite behind, there are common problems that need to be solved out of necessity, not just niceties for unbounded ‘good’.

It’s true, we constantly react to new technologies, as part of a survival-technique it’s how our world has developed. The rate of societal adaption cannot exceed the speed of technological influence. Only the pace of catch-up can be improved and this limitation must be acknowledged.

Arguably the ever growing power of technology has surpassed our sleepy moral understanding of what it actually means. Hence the reactive calls for “human-internets”, “digital & social manifestos of conduct” and the plethora of calls to rein in internet technologies. Philosophically speaking, a search for meaning is at the roots of each of these initiatives — a discussion for another day…

The smallest spark could change everything, but it takes the perfect conditions for it to ignite. Like evolution itself, the next generation will come when the conditions are ready, through the best possible environment and the right amount of necessity.

Invention is not about creating new things out of the ether, we rebuild, remix and repurpose the best we can for the changing necessities of life — the only new things are the narratives on how they are told and perceived.

So what’s missing to ignite change?

Perhaps, a focused inspirational aim that can be answered in the same way, with a true call to action to unite and organise environments to validate innovative ideas, disseminate worthy tools as quickly as possible and adapt to known limitations.

We can’t change much in a two year cycle, but we might be able to lay some foundations for the best environment to spark the Next Generation Internet.

Would you like to read the follow-up vision for the future Internet? Subscribe for more or get in touch tom@c4iot.org.