D1.2 First Year Report On Scientific Workshop

Page 1 of 40 Version 1.
0
Copyright 2011, the Members of the SESERV Consortium

Socio-Economic Services for
European Research Projects (SESERV)
European Seventh Framework Project FP7-2010-ICT-258138-CSA

DeIiverabIe D1.2
irst Year Report on Scientific Workshop

The SESERV Consortium

University of Zrich, UZH, Switzerland
University of Southampton, T nnovation Centre, U.K.
Athens University of Economics and Business - Research Center, AUEB-RC, Greece
University of Oxford, UOX, U.K.
Alcatel Lucent Bell Labs, ALBLF, France
ATOS Origin, AOSAE, Spain


For more information on this document or the SESERV support action, please contact:

Prof. Dr. Burkhard Stiller
Universitt Zrich, CSG@F
Binzmhlestrasse 14
CH8050 Zrich
Switzerland

Phone: +41 44 635 4355
Fax: +41 44 635 6809
E-mail: info@seserv.org

D1.2 First Year Report Scientific Workshop Oxford Seventh Framework CSA No. 258138
Public

Page 2 of 40 Version 1.0

Document ControI

TitIe: D1.2 First Year Report Scientific Workshop
Type: Public
Editor(s): Anne-Marie Oostveen (UOX)
E-maiI: anne-marie.oostveen@oii.ox.ac.uk
Author(s): Anne-Marie Oostveen, Eric Meyer (UOX), Cristobal Cobo (UOX), sis Hjorth
(UOX), Bianca Reisdorf (UOX), Chrysanthi Papoutsi (UOX), Lucy Power
(UOX), Nesrine Abdel-Sattar (UOX), Scott Hale (UOX), Martin Waldburger
(UZH)
Doc ID: D1.2-v1.0.doc

AMENDMENT HISTORY

Version Date Author Description/Comments
V0.1 Jul 13, 2011 Anne-Marie Oostveen First version, providing template
V0.2 Jul 17, 2011 Anne-Marie Oostveen, Eric Meyer,
Cristobal Cobo
Second version, including figures
V0.3 Jul 20, 2011 Anne-Marie Oostveen, Eric Meyer,
Cristobal Cobo, Brian Pickering
Third version, final draft for feedback from consortium.
V0.4 Aug 11, 2011 Malena Donato Cohen Overall revision of the document as reviewer
V0.5 Aug 16, 2011 Anne-Marie Oostveen, Eric Meyer,
Cristobal Cobo, sis Hjorth, Bianca
Reisdorf, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Lucy
Power, Nesrine Abdel-Sattar and Scott
Hale
Final version after revisions
V0.6 Sep 1, 2011 Anne-Marie Oostveen Final version for submission to the Commission
V1.0 Sep 12, 2011 Martin Waldburger Document finalization

LegaI Notices
The information in this document is subject to change without notice.
The Members of the SESERV Consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this document,
including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The
Members of the SESERV Consortium shall not be held liable for errors contained herein or direct, indirect,
special, incidental or consequential damages in connection with the furnishing, performance, or use of this
material.

Seventh Framework CSA No. 258138 D1.2 First Year Report Scientific Workshop
Public

Version 1.0 Page 3 of 40

Table of Content
1 Executive Summary 5
2 Introduction 6
2.1 Workshop Objectives 6
2.2 Workshop Set-up 7
2.2.1 Keynotes 7
2.2.2 The Future Internet: Pushing the Technology Boundaries 8
2.2.3 'Bridging the Gap' Break-out Sessions 10
2.2.4 Debate 14
2.2.5 Social Event 15
Survey on uture Internet Socio-Economic Topics 17
3.1 dentification of Key Social & Economic ssues 17
3.2 The Survey as Distributed to F Projects 18
3.3 Break-out Session Topics 21
Interview Aims & Questions 22
5 Workshop Participants 2
5.1 Participants List 24
5.2 Participants Feedback 26
6 Dissemination of Workshop Outcomes 28
7 ConcIusions 29
Abbreviations 0
AcknowIedgements 1
Appendix 2

Public


(This page is left blank intentionally.)
Public


1 Executive Summary

On the 28
th
of June 2011 the SESERV consortium organised the first scientific workshop
'The Future nternet: The Social Nature of Technical Choices' at St. Anne's College,
University of Oxford, UK.
The workshop aimed to bridge the gap between those who study and those who build the
Internet by supporting discussion and debate within the multidisciplinary community of
researchers and professionals working on various aspects of the Future nternet. The
main objective of the workshop was to explore and discuss with a community of experts
the socio-economic aspects that affect the Future nternet, and conversely the way that
the Future nternet will affect society, government, and business.
The event was a combination of a seminar and a workshop with short project
presentations in the morning, 2 keynote speeches and break-out sessions in the afternoon
which involved representatives from FP7 projects developing technology, social scientists,
and other project participants. The discussions in the break-out sessions revolved around
6 topics (cloud computing, privacy, online communities, internet of things, online identity,
or security) which were identified as most significant for the Challenge 1 project members
with the use of an online survey (see chapter 3). The 'Bridging the Gap' sessions were
guided by invited facilitators. At the end of the day there was a debate on 'Will the Design
of the Future nternet be Driven by Technology or Societal Concerns?' with three eminent
debaters and an engaged audience. A total of 69 participants attended the workshop and
debate.
The first SESERV scientific workshop was a success in attracting both representatives
from Future nternet projects and specialists with socio-economic expertise who were not
previously engaged with the F community. By making it a working meeting, with break-out
sessions designed to support the central SESERV goal of getting those who build the
nternet and those who study the nternet talking to one another, we were able to engage
all the participants in the conversation. The evidence from the day indicates that
participants found the mix of activities very useful in terms of thinking about the socio-
economic challenges of the Future nternet at a higher level.
The data collected during the workshop about the priorities and challenges for Future
nternet projects will be analyzed in WP3 as described in D3.1. Furthermore, the lessons
from this workshop will shape the activities of SESERV going forward, as the consortium
plans for future workshops and FA sessions.

Public


2 Introduction
This document provides the FSE community and the European Commission (EC) with
information about SESERV's coordination of the first scientific workshop in Oxford. This
document is deliverable "D1.2 First Year Report on Scientific Workshops and is a
deliverable of "WP1 FA Session and Scientific Workshops as part of the CT SESERV
Project 258138. This document covers all SESERV activities related to the workshop in
Oxford on the 28
th
of June 2011. Section 2 describes the Workshop objectives and set-up.
Section 3 describes the SESERV Survey which was distributed among Future nternet
project members to identify key social and economic issues. Section 4 describes short
interviews conducted with Challenge 1 project members and other workshop participants,
while Section 5 provide identifies the workshop participants and their feedback on the
workshop. Section 6 explains the dissemination of the workshop outcomes while Section 7
provides conclusions.
n brief, the report explains the workshop objectives, its participants and how it was
organised. This report does not intend to perform an analysis of the result or draw any
conclusions about the workshop. These workshop findings will be discussed in Deliverable
3.1 "First Report on Social Future nternet Coordination Activities, forming the basis for
shaping the activities of WP3 for the upcoming year.
Workshop Objectives
The future of networked knowledge, economic development, and societal engagement is
increasingly and inextricably tied to the nternet. The communities, relationships, and
exchanges that take place in the socio-economic sphere rely on the necessary technology
being developed to extend and enhance the underlying structure of the nternet. The
European Commission has funded over a hundred technical projects which are
developing aspects of the Future nternet
1
(F) among other initiatives that foster
innovation and knowledge transfer. However, for these projects to move from the
laboratory into the real world, they must take into account broader socio-economic
realities.
During the SESERV workshop and seminar, experts in F technology engaged with
researchers such as social scientists and economists, with policy experts, and with other
stakeholders to discuss how the latest technology developments are encountering socio-
economic realities. Particular attention was given to the methods and approaches that
facilitate the creation of multidisciplinary networks of collaboration and knowledge
exchange. The specific topics were based on the results of a survey circulated to F
projects about socio-economic issues relevant to the realities on-the-ground in the F
community.
The event offered an opportunity to analyze how to understand the future of the nternet
as a platform that can foster innovation, collaboration and knowledge transfer. The
information collected during this event is included in D3.1, and considered for possible
publication.

1
Full list at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/research/fiaprojects/index_en.htm
Public


Workshop Set-up
The event was a combination of a seminar and a workshop with short project
presentations in the morning (SAL, N4C, PERSST, SOCETES, FAME and F3P), 2
keynote speeches and break-out sessions in the afternoon which involved representatives
from FP7 projects developing technology, social scientists, and other project participants.
The discussions in the break-out sessions revolved around 6 topics (cloud computing,
privacy, online communities, internet of things, online identity, or security) which were
identified as among the most significant for the Challenge 1 project members with the use
of an online survey (see chapter 3). The 'Bridging the Gap' sessions were guided by
invited facilitators. At the end of the day there was a debate on 'Will the Design of the
Future nternet be Driven by Technology or Societal Concerns?' with three eminent
debaters and an engaged audience.

Figure 2.1: The SESERV Workshop Flyer
2.2.1 Keynotes
Two 20 minute keynote speeches were given during the workshop. The first keynote
entitled 'Freedom of Connection Freedom of Expression: The Future Internet in the
Larger Legal-Regulatory Ecology' was given by Prof. Bill Dutton form the Oxford nternet
nstitute, University of Oxford.
The full webcast of Prof. Dutton's keynote speech can be viewed online on the SESERV
website: http://www.seserv.org/panel/conferences-webcasts#dutton.

Public


Figure 2.2: Keynote Speech by Prof. Bill Dutton
The second keynote entitled 'Societal interface of the Digital Agenda for Europe: Societal
impact and policymaking' was given by Nicole Dewandre, Adviser to the DG, DG
nformation Society and Media of the European Commission.
The full webcast of Nicole Dewandre's keynote speech can be viewed online on the
SESERV website: http://www.seserv.org/panel/conferences-webcasts#dewandre.
2.2.2 The uture Internet: Pushing the TechnoIogy Boundaries
n the morning five short presentations by Future nternet technology projects were
scheduled. The invited speakers provided a quick overview of issues related to technical
research into the Future nternet. The speakers were also asked to participate in the
exchange of ideas throughout the day.
Project 1. SAIL, speaker Luis Correia
SAL designs technologies for the Networks of the Future and develop techniques to
transition from today's networks to such future concepts. SAL leverages state-of-the-art
architectures and technologies, extends them as needed, and integrates them. SAL uses
experimentally-driven research, building prototypes that will validate the advantages in
concrete use cases.
Project 2. NC, speaker EIwyn Davies
N4C is a research project which has developed solutions for basic nternet access in
remote regions where it is not simple, cheap or, even, feasible to have nternet in any of
the conventional ways that town dwellers have come to expect.
Public


Project . SOCIETIES, speaker Kevin DooIin
SOCETES develops a complete, integrated Community Smart Space (CSS), which
extends pervasive systems beyond the individual to dynamic communities of users. CSSs
embraces on-line community services, such as social networking in order to offer new and
powerful ways of working, communicating and socialising.
Project . AME, speaker Dr. Martin Serrano
The Federated, Autonomic Management of End-to-end communications services (FAME)
Strategic Research Cluster (SRC) develops autonomic management solutions
incorporating new semantic analysis techniques, that can be applied to build federated
network and service management systems that understand changes in the environment
and coordinate their actions to reconfigure network resources and services to effectively
deliver services on an end-to-end basis.
Project 5. IP, speaker Dr. Jonathan Cave
Study in support of a Future nternet Public-Private Partnership is a study funded by the
European Commission, DG nformation Society and Media. The objective of this study is
to identify the potential economic and societal longer-term impacts of the public-private
partnership proposed in the Commission communication "A public-private partnership on
Future nternet."
During the project presentations there was a lively discussion on Twitter about the
statements made by the presenters (see Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3: Example of the tweets written by the workshop participants.
Public


The full webcasts of all 5 project presentations can be viewed online on the SESERV
website: http://www.seserv.org/panel/conferences-webcasts.
2.2. 'Bridging the Gap' Break-out Sessions
Since the SESERV workshop aimed to create a forum to bridge the gap between those
that study the internet (social scientists) and those that build the internet (engineers and
computer scientists), it was important to give the participants from different backgrounds
the opportunity to really talk to each other and learn from each other, instead of just
listening to presentations and keynotes. To accomplish this we organised 'Bridging the
Gap' break-out sessions.
The idea behind the break-out sessions was to get the technical experts who are building
the Future nternet to talk to social scientists in a more focused way. As organisers we
relied on the expertise of invited facilitators to guide the discussions. We provided the
facilitators, the note takers, and the participants with general guidelines (as will be
explained in more detail below).
The group discussions were recorded with handheld video flip cams and students acted
as note-takers. After the discussion the facilitators each had 10 minutes to present a
summary of the main results to the entire audience. The results of the break-out sessions
are published in SESERV Deliverable 3.1, and in more modular form on the SESERV
website. Excerpts of the videos will also be uploaded onto the website.
http://www.seserv.org/panel/videos-interviews.
Based on the survey results (see section 3) six Key Social & Economic ssues were
identified that were of most interest to Challenge 1 project members. These issues were:
CIoud Computing, including the risks and benefits of virtual access to information,
etc.
Privacy and Data Protection, including user data, file-sharing control, selling of
personal information, etc.
OnIine Identity, including anonymity, digital presence, rights to delete information,
etc.
Internet of Things, and the connections between people and devices.
OnIine Communities, including social networks, virtual relationships, etc.
Security of Communications, including legal implications.

Topic aciIitator Student
1: CIoud Computing Prof. Christopher Millard Scott Hale
2: Privacy Dr. an Brown Chrysanthi Papoutsi
: Communities Dr. Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon Bianca Reisdorf
: Internet of Things Ben Bashford Lucy Power
5: Identity Tony Fish sis Hjorth
6: Security Dr. Mike Surridge Nesrine Abdel-Sattar
Figure 2.4: Break-out session facilitators and note takers
Several weeks before the actual workshop, participants were asked to let the organisers
know which break-out session they wanted to take part in (indicating their first, second and
Public


third preference). This resulted in break-out groups of on average 10 to 12 people. A
couple of days before the workshop attendees were told which session they would
participate in (usually their first preference) and were sent additional information about the
procedure. t was made clear to them that no formal presentation (neither PowerPoint)
was needed.
Organisation of the Sessions
The organisers explained that the idea was to have a lively discussion and exchange of
experiences. The participants were asked to think in advance about the topics to be
discussed within their session. t was explained to them that the activity would be
organized in four phases:
Phase One: (10-15 min.) Participants briefly identified the key new technoIogies within
the topic area about which they have direct experience (e.g., that they are developing,
studying, regulating, or trading). The idea was to develop a non-exhaustive list of the types
of technologies that are emerging.
Phase Two: (30-40 min.) Each group then chose 2-3 of the key areas of technology
development and identify important chaIIenges facing those trying to impIement such
technology. The challenges focused not on technical barriers, but on those arising from
social structures, individual and group psychology, social and environmental impacts,
competition with existing infrastructures, policy frameworks, legal implications, business
models, and markets which developers and their organizations face in trying to implement
those technologies.
Phase Three: (15 minutes) dentification of those sources of expertise (which can be
either people or institutions) who would be best suited to providing assistance in finding
sound solutions to some of the problems described in Phase two. n other words, where
should those building the Future nternet turn for help in overcoming these challenges?
Suggestions can be specific (such as the name of an expert or a source of data) or
general (such as recommendations for fields of people with appropriate expertise, but who
haven't yet been consulted).
Phase our: (15 minutes) Description of current actions or strategies that the
participants follow when faced with socio-economic challenges, and if whether there are
additional strategies that can followed to bridge the gap between the types of probIems
previously identified and the types of expertise already discussed. How can the
participants bridge that gap?
The minutes of all 6 break-out session can be found online as PDF files:
http://www.seserv.org/panel/SESERV_nternet_of_things.pdf
http://www.seserv.org/panel/SESERV_Security.pdf
http://www.seserv.org/panel/SESERV_cloud_computing.pdf
http://www.seserv.org/panel/SESERV_identity.pdf
http://www.seserv.org/panel/SESERV_online_communities.pdf
http://www.seserv.org/panel/SESERV_privacy.pdf
Several cross-thematic themes came out of the break-out sessions, which are
summarized below. A more graphic representation of these cross-thematic trends can be
seen online at: http://www.seserv.org/panel.
Public


Cross-thematic Trends of Break-out Sessions:
i CaII for Increased Transparency (Systems and Data Use)
A dominant trend across discussions in all six break-out sessions is a call for increased
transparency on all levels for end-users of networked CTs. Systems and applications
should offer end-users tools that allow for filtering of information and sharing of content in
order to ensure that end-users know exactly who has access to, for example, their online
social network content. Advanced transparent filtering options are becoming increasingly
important as more and more online networks are being synchronized, thus creating an
even greater need for tools that can assist users in managing their online communities.
Transparency also relates to SPs and data storage, particularly with the move towards
more cloud-based services. Many companies for example run services on 3
rd
parties'
infrastructure, which is not sufficiently transparent to end-users. To make security risks
more transparent for end-users, providers could e.g. publish monthly statistics on attacks.
End-users should also be able to easily identify where and how their data is stored. How
data is used/will be used could also be disclosed.
ii. CaII for More User-Centricity and ControI
All six break-out sessions to some extend expressed a call for more user-centricity and
control. A prominent theme here was the need for increased user-centricity in the design
of applications. n extension to this, users could be allowed means of influencing
applications/systems on an ongoing basis; creative uses could feed back into systems to
improve and innovate them.
A common argument put forward is the latent scope for much more user control. Control is
particularly addressed in the context of opt-out options: users should be able, in a more
granular manner, to opt out of services or elements of services. Additionally, a range of
different choices for how users' data is stored could be offered (e.g. servers' geographical
location). Finally, users should have better ways of assessing and controlling their security
risks and risk management.
iii. Continuing Need for urther MuIti-discipIinary Bridging
Without exceptions the break-out discussions address the need for further multi-
disciplinary bridging. This trend unambiguously calls for knowledge-exchange, dialogue
and collaboration across and beyond academic fields, industry, developers, designers and
users. Several of the discussions addressed existing gaps, for example, between privacy
researchers and oT engineers, and between eHealth practitioners and T suppliers.
Potential ways of ensuring further multi-disciplinary bridging are initiating frameworks for
knowledge exchange between users, developers, regulators and researchers. Other ways
to avoid silozation is facilitating connections between technical and legal analysts to
develop a better understanding of risks. t is important to acknowledge different
communities' expertise, and bring a range of diverse human resources into all, including
early, stages of technology development and design. There is a need for examining the
frequency of multi-disciplinary conferences, and possibly fund larger numbers of multi-
disciplinary research centres.
iv. Addressed Need for Striking BaIances Between Outer-poIes in Debates and
Design
A meta cross-theme that emerged from 4 break-out discussions (identity; online
communities; oT; privacy) was a call for more balanced approaches in discussions and in
Public


design, avoiding dichotomies and outer-pole positions. For identity discussions, for
example, it was argued that there is a need to balance viewpoints of identity as either
singular and stable (e.g. passport) or multiplex and absolute dynamic. How identity is
perceived and defined bears consequences for system design, and more nuanced views
and further multi-disciplinary research are arguably needed. t is important to allow for
understandings and discussions of identity that acknowledge it as existing on a continuum
ranging from stable to dynamic.
With respect to design, there is a need for more balanced approaches including both
bottom-up and bottom-down innovation. t is for example possible that new forms of
communities or structures might emerge in the social world, and that these are potential
drivers of technology development.
Other balances to strike can be exemplified through eHealth privacy practices and
discussions. As far as e.g. patient records goes, it might be beneficial to seek a middle
solution that allows proportionate access, rather than relying on either lassez-faire
approaches or access over-formalisation (extreme regulation) as is arguably currently the
case.
Discourses on privacy issues tend to lack balance. t is necessary to balance privacy
concerns with the affordances of given technologies; in particular nternet of Things
technologies, that are often perceived as 'big brother' enforcement.
v. Need for aciIitating urther DigitaI Literacy DeveIopment
Directly and indirectly the need for providing more digital and media literacy education was
addressed in the sessions on Security, Privacy, dentity and Online Communities. The
core concerns related to users' ability to critically manage privacy and identity concerns.
Arguably, digital literacy skills can equip users with more sophisticated tools for managing
and understanding identity in online and hybrid contexts, and might solve some of the
problems that emerges from privacy concerns. Security risks could be better understood if
best practice guidelines were available, and more awareness was raised. This theme
points to some of the non-technical social barriers and challenges that need to be
addressed alongside the design and development of socio-technical systems of the future
internet.
vi. Addressing Lack of Common VocabuIaries and Definitions
Several of the break-out sessions address an explicit need for developments of common
vocabularies and better definitions (dentity; oT; Online Communities; Cloud Computing).
n cloud computing, for example, current definitions are diverging: some refer exclusively
to infrastructure, while others include social uses and online activities. For definitions of
nternet of Things the problem is that they currently are too academic, lack focus on
design, and therefore are difficult to apply in technology development. For identity, there is
a need for definitions that acknowledges that identity is closely related to questions of
privacy, data and rights in digital contexts.
The emergence of new technologies, and new uses, require the development of
vocabularies enabling discussions on such interactions/technologies. At present, there are
no applicable vocabularies for describing multi-device nternet of Things interactions.
Likewise, it seems that there is a need for more advanced vocabulary to describe online
communities' and networks' health (e.g. related to growth, maintainable, structure, size).
Public


Seen in the light of the pronounced call for multi-disciplinary bridging and collaboration, it
seems urgent to take action on initiatives that can help facilitate the development of
adequate vocabulary and definitions that can be applied across sectors/contexts.
vii. Need for CIarifying DigitaI Rights (IncIuding DigitaI Choice)
The discussions facilitated in the break-out sessions on Privacy, nternet of Things and on
Online Communities addressed issues that relates to the need for clarifying digital rights
and digital choices. One of the central questions raised here was which levels of
anonymity should be granted; and to whom and in which contexts. n eHealth, for
example, one of the challenges is to balance the individual's right to anonymity, while still
ensuring access to enough identifiers so that emerging health issues can be detected.
Another central issue addressed, was to which extend digital rights should include the
right to be forgotten; to have information deleted. n the discussion, it was suggested that
this right might not apply to information in the pubic sphere, and that there might be
content that had too historic or humanitarian value. An example could be holocaust-
related information.
Digital choice formed part of the discussions. For nternet of Things technologies, it was
underlined that off-line alternatives should be available. Digital choice relates to the right
to not make use of technologies, without being penalized.
viii. Inviting GIobaI ReguIatory rameworks
The final cross-theme emerging from the break-out sessions has to do with a call for more
global regulatory frameworks. n discussions on Security, Online Communities and Cloud
Computing, this need was addressed. Some of the areas that were suggested focused on
consistency in laws across jurisdictions for data breach and notification, and anonymity
(conditional / dependent on domain, e.g. politically sensitive topics). ncreased
transnational legislation could also ensure that providers are not discouraged from
operating in certain countries (for example if this country holds providers liable for P
infringement by users).
2.2. Debate
t is clear that the nternet has become an essential part of the infrastructure of modern
life. Relationships are managed using online social media tools, commerce takes place
increasingly online, governments use the nternet to communicate and consult, media
content has all moved online, television and entertainment are increasingly being
delivered via the nternet, and the policy makers are engaged in making sure that citizens
are engaged in the public space online via programmes such as Digital Britain, the
European Digital Agenda, and many others around Europe and the world.
At the same time, the nternet is evolving, both as a technical piece of engineering and as
a social and economic platform. However, it is not clear how to balance competing
interests when technical, societal, economic and regulatory concerns come into conflict.
One point of view is that technology developers should be allowed to develop innovative
technologies with little oversight and regulation so as not to stifle creativity; in this view,
social and regulatory concerns can be dealt with as they arise as a result of use. A
conflicting argument, however, is that any future internet must be designed with social and
economic concerns at the centre, so that technology supports shared values, enhances
inclusion, protects privacy, and supports democratic goals.
Public


This leads to the question "WiII the Design of the uture Internet be Driven by
TechnoIogy or SocietaI Concerns? The aim of the debate was to have a provocative
discussion about whether the technologists of the world should be driving the future, or
whether social concerns should be placed in the foreground. We invited three speakers to
discuss this question and to argue with each other and members of the public.
Speakers' profiIes
The first speaker was Prof. SaIIy Wyatt. Sally Wyatt is Professor of 'digital cultures in
development', Maastricht University, and Director of the eHumanities Group at the Royal
Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). Her background is in Economics
(BA McGill, 1976; MA Sussex, 1979) and Science and Technology Studies (PhD
Maastricht, 1998). She has more than 25 years experience in teaching and research
about technology policy and about the relationship between technological and social
change, focusing particularly on issues of social exclusion and inequality. She has worked
at the Universities of Sussex, Brighton, East London and Amsterdam as well as at the
British Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). More information:
http://virtualknowledgestudio.nl/sally-wyatt/.
The second speaker was Prof. Robin WiIIiams. Prof. Williams is co-director of nnogen
and Director of the Research Centre, nstitute for Study of Science, Technology and
nnovation (SST), University of Edinburgh. He has a strong research focus on the
interplay between social and technical factors in shaping technological artifacts and
practices and their societal outcomes. He has accumulated over 20 years of
interdisciplinary research into 'the social shaping of technology' in the development and
implementation of a range of technologies, including ED, Banking systems and
Multimedia, information and communication technologies, and 'cleaner' technologies.
More information: www.issti.ed.ac.uk/people/person/11.
The third and final speaker was Prof. Jonathan Cave as senior tutor at the Department of
Economics at the University of Warwick. Prof. Cave studied the economics and strategies
of innovation and growth, as well as the impacts of new technologies. He is frequently
involved in analysing European Union (EU) regulatory policy and its impact upon a range
of issues from healthcare to new communication technologies. He has worked on network
evolution (helping draft the Declaration of Limelette); governance and security; the
governance of the nformation Society; patent, copyright, and trademark issues (including
economic and regulatory issues related to naming, knowledge exchange, software
patenting, and trade over the nternet); information security and assurance; cybertrust;
and the economic, sociopolitical, and environmental sustainability of the global networked
knowledge society. He is a founding member of the Brussels-EU Chapter of the Club of
Rome., Cave held positions at the Bank of England; the U.S. Federal Trade Commission;
RAND Europe; and the universities of California, and llinois. More information:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/cave/.
The debate was moderated by Dr. an Brown from the Oxford nternet nstitute. The full
webcast of the debate can be viewed online on the SESERV website:
http://www.seserv.org/panel/conferences-webcasts#debate.
2.2.5 SociaI Event
Since we know how important informal networking opportunities are, we organized a
dinner at Oriel College for all invited participants of the workshop and speakers at the
Public


debate. 55 people joined us for a couple of hours of mingling and a lot of the discussions
initiated during the day continued over dinner.
Public


Survey on uture Internet Socio-Economic Topics
Identification of Key Social & Economic Issues
n order to ensure that the workshop was addressing salient issues for the Future nternet
community, we engaged in an exercise to collect data that could be used to shape the
themes of the workshop (as well as to inform the work of WP2 and WP3, which are also
using these data). n order to gain a better understanding of the social and economic
issues that may arise from the technologies being developed by Future nternet projects
and to better shape this first SESERV workshop, representatives of Future nternet
Assembly EU funded projects were contacted and asked to fill out a survey (see 3.2). The
full list of ongoing FA projects was obtained from the following website:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/research/fiaprojects/index_en.htm.
To design the survey a list of key social and economic issues were identified from the
following two reports:
Towards a Future nternet: nterrelation between Technological, Social and
Economic Trends. Final Report. European Commission DG NFSO Project SMART.
2010. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/docs/tafi-final-report_en.pdf.
An Approach to nvestigating Socio-economic Tussles Arising from Building the
Future nternet. 2010. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22369/.
The most prevalent social & economic issues are the following:
Regulation
Privacy
Online dentity
Security of communications
Cloud computing
Green issues
Content regulation
E-democracy
Digital citizenship
Digital inclusion
Trust
Online communities
nternet of things
Consumers and suppliers
Distributed knowledge
Cybercrime and cyberlaw
Public


A total of 98 representatives from FP7 Challenge 1 projects rated the importance of the
above listed socio-economic topics for their projects on a subjective scale from "Not
Relevant through to "Absolutely relevant, a key issue. Respondents were also asked to
rank the five most important topics in the survey. Both cases the relevance
questionnaire and the ranking provided useful input for the coverage of the workshop.
The 6 most important topics turned out to be: Privacy and data protection, Online dentity,
Security of Communications, Cloud Computing, Online Communities and nternet of
Things. Some topics - like Green nternet and Cybercrime, as well as the Digital Agenda -
seemed to be ignored by all projects. Others, like Content Regulation, are regarded as
important to only a few. All in all, responses to the survey highlighted opportunities to
engage and encourage discussion, raising awareness and underlining potential.

Figure 3.1: Responses by Challenge 1 Objectives (1 = Not Relevant, 5 = Absolutely
Relevant)
The Survey as Distributed to FI Projects
The following shows the survey as distributed:
This survey is targeted at projects funded by the European Commission to develop aspects of the
Future Internet. The SESERV project (www.seserv.org) is surveying these Future Internet / FIA
projects in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the social and economic issues that have
arisen, or may arise, from the sorts of technologies being developed.
This survey is not anonymous, since as part of our role with the Commission, we will be inviting
representatives of some of the projects to attend workshops and FIA sessions. However, any
report or publication of these data will be aggregated and anonymized so your responses will not
be individually identifiable.
This is a short survey, and should only take 10 minutes of your time. If you have trouble with the
survey, please contact ict@oii.ox.ac.uk
Public


1. Which uture Internet project have you been primariIy invoIved with? If you have been invoIved in
more than one project, pIease indicate the project in which you have had the most invoIvement.

2. The foIIowing sociaI and economic topics have been identified by severaI reports as key issues for
the uture Internet.

or each item, pIease indicate how reIevant this issue is to the project you Iisted above. In other
words, how reIevant is each issue for the technoIogy you are deveIoping or research you are
undertaking?
Please choose the appropriate response for each item:
Not
relevant
Only
somewhat
relevant
Moderately
relevant,
but not key
Relevant
and
important
Absolutely
relevant, a
key issue

Regulation of the internet

Privacy and data protection, including user data, file-sharing
control, selling of personal information, etc.

Online dentity, including anonymity, digital presence, rights
to delete information, etc.

Security of communications, including legal implications

Cloud computing, including the risks and benefits of virtual
access to information, etc.

Green nternet issues, including reducing the carbon
footprint of the CT sector, e-waste, etc.

Content regulation, including copyright, licenses, open
access, etc.

E-democracy, including transparency, open government
data, empowered citizenship, services to citizens, etc.

Digital citizenship, including individual and corporate rights
and responsibilities, etc.

Digital inclusion, including access and use of nternet by
vulnerable populations, etc.

Trust, including risk drivers, actors at risk, risk management,
etc.

Online communities, including social networks, virtual
relationships, etc.

nternet of things, and the connections between people and
devices

Relationships between consumers and suppliers online

Distributed knowledge production, including e-science, e-
learning, etc.

Cybercrime and Cyberlaw, including phishing, cracking,
cyberterrorism, etc.

Public


As part of SESERV's work, a workshop is being pIanned for 28 June 2011 to be heId in Oxford, UK.
This workshop wiII bring together high-profiIe experts in technoIogy, poIicy, sociaI science and
economics to discuss a seIection of issues from competing perspectives.

The goaI of this workshop wiII be to discuss the sociaI impact of the Internet and to expIore joint
initiatives to foster research, innovation and inter-institutionaI coIIaboration. The questions that
foIIow pertain to this workshop.

rom the foIIowing Iist, pIease indicate which topics wouId make you most IikeIy to want to
participate in the workshop, ranking them with the topic of most interest first.

Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 16

Regulation
Privacy
Online dentity
Security of communications
Cloud computing
Green issues
Content regulation
E-democracy
Digital citizenship
Digital inclusion
Trust
Online communities
nternet of things
Consumers and suppliers
Distributed knowledge
Cybercrime and cyberlaw

. What other topics other than those included above wouId be IikeIy to make you want to attend the
workshop?

5. Do you know any experts (such as poIicy makers, schoIars or entrepreneurs) that you wouId Iike to
see invited to this workshop? We are particuIarIy interested in names of peopIe whose incIusion
wouId make you more IikeIy to attend. PIease provide their name(s) and fieId of expertise. If possibIe,
pIease aIso provide their contact information such as emaiI, institution, or phone.

6. Provided the topics and speakers interest you, how IikeIy wouId you be to attend the uture
Internet workshop in Oxford, UK on 28 June, 2011?
Please choose the appropriate response for each item:

Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely
Likelihood of
attending

Background information
This survey is not anonymous, since we will use this information to contact you about potential involvement
Public


with SESERV activities.

However, in reports made of the data collected by this survey, the data will be aggregated and your individual
responses will not be reported or identified with you.

7. PIease write your fuII name

8. PIease provide a contact emaiI address

9. What is your institution / empIoyer?

10. PIease Iist what you consider to be your primary areas of expertise

Break-out Session Topics
The full results of this survey will be reported in other deliverables, but in the context of the
workshop, based on the survey results six key social & economic issues were identified
that were of most interest to Challenge 1 project members. We thus focused the breakout
sessions on these topics. As we already saw in section 3.1, these issues were:
CIoud Computing, including the risks and benefits of virtual access to information,
etc;
Privacy and Data Protection, including user data, file-sharing control, selling of
personal information, etc;
OnIine Identity, including anonymity, digital presence, rights to delete information,
etc;
Internet of Things, and the connections between people and devices;
OnIine Communities, including social networks, virtual relationships, etc;
Security of Communications, including legal implications.
Public


Interview Aims & Questions
During the workshop (at the registration process) several participants were invited to
engage in a short interview (5-10 minutes approx. each). The aims of the interviews were
to:
Identify gaps: The principal goal of the interviews was to identify extra gaps
between the regulatory frameworks defined on a regional level by the European
Commission and the practical implementation of these guidelines by different
research communities that work in the Future of the nternet.
Bring the voice of the stakehoIders: t was considered relevant to bring visibility
to different social-economic research that is studying or implementing innovative
practices to develop the future of the nternet. This was considered relevant for the
internal FA community but also for other sectors of the society.
aciIitate the comparabiIity of perspectives: n order to provide a 'panoptic view'
of different perspectives and experiences all the interviewees answered the same
questions (see below). By no means are there right or wrong answers but the
diversity of viewpoints was considered important to be disseminated.
Identify the reIevance of the DigitaI Agenda: Given the relevance of these
participants and its proximity to several themes included in the EU Digital Agenda it
was considered important to learn more about their familiarity with this EU
instrument and also to understand the value that it provides to their current
activities.
Furthermore, the answers of the interviewees could provide themes for future SESERV
workshops.
Six DPhil students were provided with webcams and were asked to conduct short
interviews during the day. They coordinated with their respective interviewee the
appropriate time and place to do that. The interviewees were given the questions in
advance (handed out on a sheet at registration in the morning) and signed a consent form
allowing the use of this content for academic proposes. The set of interview questions
provided comparability of views based on the different expertise and backgrounds of the
interviewees.
The questions were as follows:
1. How do you think your project benefits from a broader European drive to increase
innovation?
2. What are the main social and economic problems, constraints or barriers that you
face when developing your work?
3. Who are the stakeholders of your project? Why are they important for your project?
4. What do you know of the EU Digital Agenda? How is the Digital Agenda relevant for
your project?
5. What mechanisms or strategies do you think are needed to foster your work (either
from the public sector or from other entities)?
The following participants kindly gave an interview:
Martin Serrano SOCETES
Public


Peter Ljungstrand TA2
Daniel Sebastiao SAL
Magnus Eriksson TA2
Nick Wainwright EFFECTSPLUS
Elwyn Brian Davies N4C
Kevin Doolin PERSST/SOCETES
an Graham MyFRE
Mike Surridge GENES-DEC
Ben Bashford Council
The raw footage from these interviews has been edited and the resulting short videos are
being made available on YouTube and via the SESERV website:
http://www.seserv.org/panel/videos-interviews.
Public


5 Workshop Participants
Attendance to the event during the day was mainly by invitation to everyone who filled out
a survey and expressed an interest in attending, but there were also places available on
request from interested parties. People wishing to be considered for participation in the
event, could email events@oii.ox.ac.uk. The debate was open to all, but did require
registration.
To broaden participation, the event was advertised on the SESERV website, the O
website, via flyers distributed at FA Budapest, via Twitter and Linkedn, and on a number
of relevant e-mail lists.
Participants List
Below is the list of the 69 attendees during the workshop and debate:
The uture Internet: SociaI Nature of TechnicaI Choices
Name Surname AffiIiation
Nesrine Abdel-Sattar Oxford nternet nstitute
Mafalda Ascensao CEGER
Braulio Perez Astray Fundacin Universidade da Corua
Ben Bashford Council
Andreas Birkbak Oxford nternet nstitute
Clive Blackwell Royal Holloway, University of London
Michael Boniface T nnovation Centre, University of Southampton
Lydie Bordese Universit de Toulouse
Didier Bourse Alcatel Lucent
an Brown Oxford nternet nstitute
Jonathan Cave University of Warwick
Cristobal Cobo Oxford nternet nstitute
Luis Correia Technical University of Lisbon
Pablo Coto University of Cantebria
Alissa Cooper University of Oxford
Jeremy Crump Cisco Systems Ltd
Elwyn Davies Folly Consulting
Pablo de Castro University of Cantebria
Nicole Dewandre European Commission
Malena Donato Atos Origin
Kevin Doolin Telecommunications Software & Systems Group (TSSG)
Bill Dutton Oxford nternet nstitute
Magnus Eriksson T-University of Gteborg
Emmanuele Eveno Universit de Toulouse
Sue Fenley OUCS, University of Oxford
Tony Fish AMF Ventures
Shakeel Gavioli-Alrilagun Secondary School
Joao Goncalves Technical University of Lisbon
an Graham University of Edinburgh
Public


Scott Hale Oxford nternet nstitute
Jamie Hartmann-Boyce Oxford University Press
Adrian Healy Cardiff University
Robin Hill OUCS, University of Oxford
sis Hjorth Oxford nternet nstitute
Philip nglesant University of Edinburgh
Maria Jose Hernndez Serrano University of Salamanca
Costas Kalogiros Athens University of Economics and Business
Young Mie Kim University of Wisconsin-Madison
Thomas Kirkham University of Nottingham
Peter Ljungstrand T-University of Gteborg
Gordon Lowe

Eric Meyer Oxford nternet nstitute
Christopher Millard Oxford nternet nstitute
Selyf Morgan Cardiff University
Anne-Marie Oostveen Oxford nternet nstitute
Didem Ozkul Westminster University
Harding Pak Secondary School
Chrysanthi Papoutsi Oxford nternet nstitute
Miguel Angel Pesquera University of Cantebria
Brian Pickering T nnovation Centre, University of Southampton
Wojciech Piotrowicz Said Business School
Patrick Poullie University of Zurich
Lucy Power Oxford nternet nstitute
Bibi Reisdorf Oxford nternet nstitute
Marie-Laure Rousseau Universit de Toulouse
Daniel Sebastiao Technical University of Lisbon
Martin Serrano Telecommunications Software & Systems Group (TSSG)
George Stamoulis Athens University of Economics and Business
Burkhard Stiller University of Zurich
Mike Surridge T nnovation Centre, University of Southampton
Mathieu Vidal Universit de Toulouse
Sergio Viegas CEGER
Nick Wainwright HP Labs Bristol
Martin Waldburger University of Zurich
Robin Williams University of Edinburgh
Joss Wright Oxford nternet nstitute
Sally Wyatt eHumanities: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Jin Xuelian University of Sheffield
Guy Yeomans Futures & Strategic Foresight

Public


Participants Feedback
After the workshop all participants were emailed with the request to give feedback to
assist the SESERV consortium in improving future workshops. 16 people got back to us.
The respondents answered 4 questions. Representative responses are shown below.
1. Was the time aIIocated to project presentations, keynotes and interactive break-
out sessions appropriate and satisfactory?
All respondents thought that the time allocated to the different parts of the day were
appropriate.
It was good not to have too much time for the project presentations-
everyone had to be concise, and it maintained a momentum. Keynote
speeches were similarly not too long. The workshops were about the right
length, although feedback was variable".

2. Which aspects of the workshop did you find most usefuI? Why?
Overall the break-out sessions were rated highest by the respondents. People enjoyed
being able to share ideas, have interaction and discussion. The project presentations and
the debate were also well received.
I found the working group sessions best - it was very useful to get a view on
how others view the types of system my projects are aiming to implement".
The break-out sessions, nice talking and way of sharing ideas together,
good interaction".
The workshop was a valuable opportunity to network with other researchers
addressing future internet issues from different perspectives. The final debate
was a well-taken opportunity to justify the relevance of the social sciences for
internet research".
Small group discussion, as it provides a rare opportunity to meet and
discuss with people not from academics but also from policy, law, technology
sectors".

. What aspects of the workshop, if any, wouId you change in future? Why?
One of the main changes people would have liked to see is the structure of the project
presentations. nstead of having rather disconnected talks, the project presentations
should be more in line with each other. This could be accomplished by having the
presenters give an answer to a particular question or problem.
I would definitely organize the presentation of projects in a more cohesive
way, so all can follow a certain path/trend/topic".
Two of the project presentations were pretty much the standard boilerplate
descriptions and could have addressed the social/economic issues in the
projects more directly".
From talking to other participants, the break-out groups were generally
useful. However the Internet of Things group that I was in was a bit of a
shambles because it did not follow the circulated structure and was pretty
much a rambling discussion between three of the participants".
Avoid pure project presentations, or in other words, ensure that all parts of
the workshop address its theme".

Public


. AdditionaI comments
n general the comments we received (both face-to-face after the workshop, and via the
feedback form) show that respondents enjoyed the workshop and found it both informative
and valuable.
Thanks for the invitation to the Future Internet workshop. It was an
interesting event full of lively and informative discussion. Regards".
I suggest future working groups would be best to work on more specific
milestones now that the general challenges and solutions are outlined
digging deeper on how different scenarios would be tackled and the key
players to take part...etc. Overall a very engaging and well organised
workshop. Well done!"
Very interesting and unique conference. Thank you for organizing it and
having us for discussion!"
High quality of keynote speakers and variety".
Really enjoyed the debate in the evening and the dinner was great."
We were only able to scratch the surface on the discussion on cloud
computing. Many issues such as complexity, failure and liability were hardly
discussed."

Public


6 Dissemination of Workshop Outcomes
The results of the workshop were disseminated via different channels and in different
forms (text, videos).
1. During the workshop 110 tweets were written about the ongoing discussions and
presentations with the hash tag #SESERV.
2. After the workshop a whitepaper will be written and published on the SESRV website.
3. Shorter excerpts of the results of the break-out sessions are also published online.
http://www.seserv.org/panel
4. The keynote speeches, project presentations and the debate were filmed and put
online on the SESERV website. http://www.seserv.org/panel/conferences-webcasts
5. The slides of the project power point presentations were published online for those
presentations where the presenters agree. http://www.slideshare.net/ictseserv &
http://www.seserv.org/panel/conferences-webcasts
6. The videos of the short interviews are posted on the SESERV website and YouTube.
http://www.seserv.org/panel/videos-interviews
7. All the material placed on the SESERV website will also be advertised on Linkedn.
8. The findings from the workshop will be written-up in Deliverable 3.1, and will shape the
activities of WP3 for the upcoming year.
All participants of the workshop and everybody signed up to the Linkedn group will be
notified when the material is published online.

Figure 6.1: The #SESERV Tweets Word Cloud after the Workshop.
Public


7 ConcIusions
The first SESERV scientific workshop was a success in attracting both representatives
from Future nternet projects and specialists with socio-economic expertise who were not
previously engaged with the F community. By making it a working meeting, with break-out
sessions designed to support the central SESERV goal of getting those who build the
nternet and those who study the nternet talking to one another, we were able to engage
all the participants in the conversation. This avoided the potential risk that this would have
been "just another socio-economic workshop. Quite the contrary, the evidence from the
day indicates that participants found the mix of activities very useful in terms of thinking
about the socio-economic challenges of the Future nternet at a higher level.
The lessons from this workshop will shape the activities of SESERV going forward, as the
consortium plans for future workshops and FA sessions.

Public


Abbreviations
EC European Commission
EU European Union
F Future nternet
FA Future nternet Assembly
FSE Future nternet Socio-Economics
CT nformation and Communication Technology
T nformation Technology
oT nternet of Things
SP nternet Service Provider
WP Work Package
Public


AcknowIedgements
This deliverable was made possible due to the large and open help of the SESERV
consortium, members of Challenge 1 projects and all other participants to the scientific
workshop.
The authors would like to thank:
SESERV partners Burkhard Stiller, (UZH), Brian Pickering (T nnovation) and
Malena Donato Cohen (ATOS) for their comments and contributions.
DPhil students sis Hjorth, Scott Hale, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Bianca Reisdorf, Lucy
Power, and Nesrine Abdel-Sattar (O) for helping out with the organization of this
event, as well as conducting the video interviews and composing the summaries of
the break-out sessions.

Public


Appendix
Screen shots of the SESERV website related to the Oxford workshop.

Public


Public


Public


Public


Public


Public


Public


Public


D1.2 First Year Report On Scientific Workshop

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

D1.2 First Year Report On Scientific Workshop

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Page 1 of 40 Version 1.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai