You can get a feel for their focus from the following:

<< A potential obstacle for the achievement of a single market for the IoT has to do with issues linked to the capacity to handle a large diversity and very large volumes of connected devices, and the need to securely identify them and be able to discover them so that they can be plugged into IoT systems. In this context it is important to promote an interoperable IoT numbering space for a universal object identification that transcends geographical limits, and an open system for object identification and authentication. Some aspects of numbering are already addressed in the 2016 review of the EU telecoms rules. >>

I am not sure to what extent the Internet naming and numbering folk are involved.

Or maybe some people just take it for granted that a “thing” ought to have a “sim”? And maybe also 5G connectivity? ;-)

See also the IERC (European IoT Research Cluster):

http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu

Gordon

On 7 Aug 2017, at 22:33, Richard Lamb <richard.lamb@icann.org> wrote:

Love this discussion. Similar discussions going on on IEEE policy lists and at recent DEFCON/Blackhat. Id be the last one to say govt should get too involved (having worked inside before) but I have seen some encouraging efforts like those out of US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the form of funded contests for upgradeable IoT devices. ..and NIST/FISMA/OMB guidance on government procurement. Although the later seems a bit less effective that one may think given a continued lack of awareness re: DNSSEC (a requirement for USG procurement) with comments like …”hey I thought we didn’t need dnssec anymore…” Sigh… Thank you for this discussion. -Rick