Informal, In-process 

Feedback to the IoTAB

from Recent Draft Reports

September 26, 2023 – IoT Advisory Board Meeting 7
Overarching

• Readers advocate for big vision but realistic, actionable expectations

• Practical and actionable recommendations will be best received

• For each, be sure to share what the significant and meaningful benefits to be 

provided by improved IoT adoption will be

• Bolster discussion of the benefits likely to flow from IoT so that the full 

potential of IoT can more highlighted more explicitly

• Connect the dots between findings and Internet of Things

• In many cases, we understand the connections but need to ensure they are 

clearly conveyed (some of that may already be in backgrounds provided)

• Readers literally asked, “How is this relevant to IoT?”

• An example of this was about drones – we know that Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) can be helpful for items like environmental monitoring and 

precision agriculture, but we need to show that work
Overarching (continued)

• Debate about voluntary vs mandatory

• Some said, “What’s the Point?” re: voluntary measures, while others recognized 

the benefits of industry-led federally-incentivized approaches

• CTIA called for “A voluntary, flexible approach, without unnecessary regulatory 

barriers or overly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all standards”

• The Board may need to recommend that the Working Group determine where 

mandates are needed

• IoT AB can better clarify how to harmonize standards in a meaningful 

way while retaining independence (not choosing winners or losers)

• Several felt that recommendations have already occurred

• E.g., National broadband initiatives, spectrum legislation

• We may want to point out what is different, if anything

• It may be beneficial to have some topics where we can point to success
Topic specific – “Framework”

• The Secretariat did not provide sufficient clarity regarding the 

proposed “framework” for data usage and protection

• Framework is an overloaded term in the current environment

• Need to gain consensus on what we mean, what it looks like, how it would 

be used

• In draft reports, we have used unclear terms like taxonomy and schema 

but those may not be describing what is really needed or recommended

• Board members may benefit from reading the following letter from 2019, 

which we will post to the meeting artifacts

https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/2-7-19_multiassociation_wh_letter_iot_cybersecurity_final.pdf
Topic specific – Standardization & Supply Chain

• Are there thoughts on how standards should be promoted? 

• Can you provide examples of how we could promote standards or protocols? 

• Are there existing standards useful? 

• Interoperability is often driven by a market need to collaborate ...

• Would this be better driven by industry members?

• Are there instances where that is insufficient or not happening?

• Similar questions regarding promotion and advocacy for supply chain 

logistics

• Can the Board be more specific about how the augmented logistics 

recommendations will bring significant benefits?
Topic specific – EmT & SRMA recommendations

• There was not broad agreement that a specific office is needed, 

either in agencies nor at senior levels

• It may be more successful to speak to the outcome desired rather than 

prescribing the solution

• Possible considerations:

• have a government lead that would be responsible for ... 

• have them develop a strategy that addresses the following areas ... 

• hold them accountable with report metrics and progress tracking ... 

• use the markets identified as important situations to monitor.
Topic specific – Public Private Partnership

• Do consortia or other types of stakeholder groups exist where 

this might already exist? 

• What is the purpose of this partnership?

• Is the intent to describe sustainability in the sense that they are 

smart cities that do not deplete natural resources and that address 

challenges of climate change and equity in cities?

• Can we better draw the connection among IoT devices and improved 

sustainability in these areas?
Topic Specific – Sustainable Infrastructure

• Supporting Recommendation 6.6: The federal government should 

consider the specification and utilization of IoT and “smart” 

technologies into infrastructure and other projects that are funded in 

full, or partially, with federal funding.

• Could the group better describe the type of projects envisioned?

• Are they suggesting projects on water systems? Or the infrastructure 

bill? If they have something in mind it would be good to call it out.
Topic Specific – Sustainable Infrastructure

• The current recommendations link supply chain logistics with 

sustainability

• Is this tied to the overarching use case that the US is facing challenges in 

logistics and that IoT enabled logistics is the answer. Why is it not happening?

• Is it only cost that is the barrier? What risks are there that also need to be 

addressed. How does money make these risks go away?
Topic Specific – Sustainable Infrastructure

• Reference Models (former #6.8) - can you please define what’s meant?

• Would existing smart city consortia be better suited to take this on? 

• Should the Board recommend that government reach out to educational 

institutions

• https://www.ctg.albany.edu/projects/smartcitiesconsortium

• https://www.ogc.org/ogc-topics/idbe/

• https://www.smartcitiescouncil.com