Dear colleagues, As some of you have asked, we do still owe you a report of our session in Madrid. Apologies for the delay in that, as it turns out some of our records are still hiding in one of the flight cases. We’ll try and provide a more detailed record of the proceedings as soon as those files become available to us. Meanwhile, recapping the discussion the discussion at a very high level, one of the things flagged was the need for more information exchange and discussion. We hope that with the creation of this list, we have catered for this need. Another main item was the security threat and more important vendor behaviour towards providing adequate security on the individual devices and gadgets that make up the IoT. As several articles and documents posted to this list show, we seem not alone and those concerns play a role with many stakeholders. Now I don’t think or even expect we would have an immediate solution to this. Mentioned during the session was the need for more transparency or education of the end users. Again it seems we are not alone in this thinking and the idea of some “IoT trust label” have also been floated in other forums such as the AIOTI alliance. Finally I recall some comments being made towards the actual impact on “the Internet as we know it” and the infrastructure we collectively operate. Something that I also felt a bit coming back at some of the discussion at IETF last week and to which there does not seem a single overall view. Most seem to agree that the fundamental design of the Internet will not change dramatically, but as soon as it comes down to details it appears there could be changes on the horizon because of different demand for resources, concerns around scalability and of course security of both participating devices as well as the network itself. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC