Digital Strategy Advisory Panel - Meeting # 12
Agenda and Meeting Book
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2019 FROM 1:00 PM TO 5:00 PM
WATERFRONT TORONTO
13TH FLOOR, WATERPARK PLACE
20 BAY STREET
TORONTO, ON, M5J 2N8 WATERFRONT TORONTO DIGITAL STRATEGY ADVISORY PANEL MEETING 12 - AGENDA November 7, 2019 - 1:00pm - 5:00pm Waterfront Toronto Boardroom 20 Bay Street, Suite 1310 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2N8
1:00 - 1:05 1. Opening Session
a. Call to Order M. Geist b. Approval of Agenda Approval All c. Declarations of Conflict of Interest All d. Approval of Previous Minutes Approval All i. September 12, 2019
1:05 - 1:10 2. Chair’s Remarks M. Geist
1:10 – 1:40 3. CEO’s Remarks Information G. Zegarac
a. Threshold Issues b. Next Steps
1:40 - 1:45 4. Management Report Information K. Verner
1:45 – 1:55 5. Discussion of Next Phase of Consultation Information C. Webb
1:55 – 2:45 6. Waterfront Toronto Digital Principles & K. Verner Intelligent Community Guidelines a. Principles Recommendation b. Guidelines & Consultation Process Information & c. DSAP’s Engagement Discussion
2:45 – 3:00 BREAK
3:00 – 3:45 7. Discussion of Responses to DSAP Preliminary Information & Commentary Discussion
a. Waterfront Toronto V. Lockton b. Sidewalk Labs A. Harvey-Dawson; J. Lu; J. Shapins
3:45 – 4:15 8. Discussion of SWL Digital Innovation Appendix Information & J. Lu; J. Shapins Discussion
4:15 – 4:45 9. Discussion of Process for DSAP Review of MIDP Discussion
a. Overview V. Lockton b. Discussion All
4:45 – 4:50 10. Refresh of DSAP Working Group Membership Discussion All
4:50 – 5:00 11. Other Business Discussion All
5:00 12. Adjournment Approval All
Page 2 of 190 WATERFRONT TORONTO DIGITAL STRATEGY ADVISORY PANEL MEETING #11 - MINUTES September 12, 2019 - 1:00pm – 5:00pm Video Archive of Meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZcOHcHr2YY
PANELISTS: Michael Geist (chair) Charles Finley (co-chair) Alaina Alston Andrew Clement (remote) Jutta Treviranus Kurtis McBride Khaled El-Emam Karen Gomez Mark Wilson Pamela Robinson Teresa Scassa (remote) Kevin Tuer REGRETS: Carlo Ratti Diane Reynolds Dave Dame
WATERFRONT TORONTO MANAGEMENT & EXTERNAL LEGAL: Kristina Verner Chantal Bernier (remote) Vance Lockton George Takach George Zegerac Timothy M. Banks (remote) Meg Davis
GUESTS: Nicole Swerhun Swerhun Facilitation Alyssa Harvey Dawson Sidewalk Labs Jesse Shapins Sidewalk Labs Jacqueline Lu Sidewalk Labs Prem Ramaswami Sidewalk Labs
1a. CALL TO ORDER Being a quorum of Panelists present, the meeting was called to order at 1:03 p.m. Michael Geist, Chairman of the Panel, presided as Chairman of the meeting.
1b. APPROVAL OF AGENDA On a motion made by Mark Wilson, seconded by Kevin Tuer, it was resolved to approve the agenda as amended for the meeting. Motion Carried.
1c. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Page 3 of 190 No new conflicts of interest were registered.
1d. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES It was decided that, in future, DSAP meeting minutes should be limited to decisions, actions and issues.
On a motion made by Mark Wilson, seconded by Alaina Aston, it was resolved to approve the minutes from the meeting on July 22, 2019. Motion Carried.
2. CHAIR’S REMARKS
Michael Geist provided opening remarks, recognizing the work of the Report Writing Working Group in drafting the DSAP Preliminary Commentary. Waterfront Toronto CEO George Zegerac also expressed appreciation for the work of the Panel.
3. MANAGEMENT REPORT
Kristina Verner provided an update on developments since July 22, 2019, with a particular focus on amendments to the Plan Development Agreement for Quayside. She also thanked Panelists for their contributions to the DSAP Preliminary Commentary.
4. UPDATE ON MIDP CONSULTATION
Nicole Swerhun (Swerhun Facilitation) provided a summary of findings from the first round of consultation on the draft MIDP and answered Panelist questions about the process.
During these discussions, one recommendation made by a Panelist was that an economic spillover analysis be undertaken on the digital elements of the proposal.
5. REPORT WRITING WORKING GROUP
Charles Finley provided an overview of the DSAP Preliminary Commentary, including both its development process and content.
6. POTENTIAL WATERFRONT TORONTO ACTIVITIES
Kristina Verner highlighted that the DSAP is not exclusive to Sidewalk/Quayside-related issues, but has a broad advisory role to play. To that end, two proposals were brought forward to Waterfront Toronto’s attention (with Panelists encouraging to identify other potential opportunities to Waterfront Toronto management).
Page 4 of 190 First, Jutta Treviranus described the ISO Personal Data preferences standard, and the potential for Waterfront Toronto to serve as an early adopter for the standard. After discussion, the Panel expressed their general support for the standard, and Waterfront Toronto agreed to take the matter aside for further consideration.
Second, Andy Best described the Open City Network, and the potential for Waterfront Toronto to join. Panelists had a mixed reaction to this opportunity (including uneasiness about a perceived lack of openness in the organization’s funding). This opportunity will be put on hold.
7. DISCUSSION WITH SIDEWALK LABS
Sidewalk Labs opened the discussion with an overview of their upcoming Digital Innovation Appendix, intended to expand upon the digital innovations presented in the MIDP and to address concerns raised by the DSAP’s Preliminary Commentary.
After discussion of this Appendix, an initial discussion was held on what further information the Panel might be seeking from SWL. Though SWL provided certain initial questions, it was ultimately determined that DSAP’s efforts at this time were best directed to advising out to them by Waterfront Toronto
9. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Andrew Clement, seconded by Mark Wilson, and carried unanimously, it was agreed that there was no further business of the Panel to transact, the meeting was closed at 4:58 p.m.
Page 5 of 190
DSAP Meeting – November 7, 2019 Item 4 – Management Report
Agenda Item 4 – Management Report
Purpose Information
Key Message Since the prior DSAP meeting (September 12), Waterfront Toronto has: (i) received a letter on Quayside from the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner; (ii) published its consultation report on the MIDP; and, (iii) been in discussion with Sidewalk Labs on a number of threshold issues.
This update will focus on the latter of those three matters; the former two will be taken as read.
Areas of note/ Key issues
Expected Outcome The Panel will have an understanding of key Waterfront Toronto activities which have occurred since the September 12, 2019 DSAP meeting, including the resolution of threshold issues for the Quayside project.
Key Takeaways/ Next Steps
Page 6 of 190 November 7, 2019 Management Report Kristina Verner, Vice President, Innovation, Sustainability & Prosperity
Page 7 of 190 Developments since September 12, 2019
Public Consultation Report (included in package) • The full report on our first round of public consultations was released (https://quaysideto.ca/get-involved/midp-consultations/ • The first round of public consultation on the MIDP gave voice to three positions, including: • those that are supportive of the project, usually based on the opportunity associated with individual innovations and/or the value of innovation in general; • those that hold a cautious “maybe” position, who see both great opportunity and great risk, and who have said in the broadest of terms “if the MIDP moves forward, it has to be on terms that work for Toronto”; and, • those that are against the project, with major issues raised related to (but not limited to) lack of trust in Sidewalk Labs, Google, and Alphabet.
Letter from the Information & Privacy Commissioner (included in package) • On September 24, 2019 a letter was received by Waterfront Toronto outlining the Commissioners concerns with the project as framed in the MIDP.
Threshold Issues Resolution (included in package) • On October 31, 2019, Waterfront Toronto’s Board approved directing management to proceed to the evaluation of the MIDP on the basis of a series of amendments as outlined in the correspondence from George Zegarac dated October 29, 2019.
Intelligent Community Guidelines (to be discussed during Item 6) • Building on the Digital Principles and based on the information we gathered through the first round of consultation, a preliminary draft of Intelligent Community Guidelines (similar to our MGBRs but for digital technologies) have been developed. These are subject to public consultation and industry market sounding. Page 8 of 1902 Thank you.
Waterfront Toronto 20 Bay Street, Suite 1310 Toronto, ON M5J 2N8 www.waterfrontoronto.ca
Join Waterfront Toronto on social media
Page 9 of 190 Page 10 of 190
Waterfront Toronto’s Public Consultation on the draft MIDP Round One Feedback Report
September 19, 2019
Page 11 of 190 Table of Contents
Overview of the Process ...... 1
What is covered in this Report ...... 3
Overall Observations ...... 6
Feedback from the Four Public Meetings...... 7
Feedback from the Online Consultation ...... 11
Feedback from the Written Submissions...... 17
Feedback from the Library Drop-In Program ...... 19
Next Steps ...... 19
Appendices (Under separate cover due to their length)
Appendix 1. Public Meeting Summaries (100 pages) Appendix 2. Online Consultation Summary (114 pages) Appendix 3. Written Submissions (134 pages) Appendix 4. Library Drop-In Feedback (7 pages)
The raw feedback from the online consultation is also available.
Round One Public Consultation Summary
Page 12 of 190 Overview of the Process
On June 17, 2019 Sidewalk Labs submitted their Draft Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP) to Waterfront Toronto for review and evaluation. One week later, on June 24, 2019, it was released by Waterfront Toronto to the public along with a commitment to hold two rounds of public consultation to seek feedback on the MIDP.
Feedback from the public is critical to informing Waterfront Toronto’s thinking about Quayside and Sidewalk Labs’ proposal. It is Waterfront Toronto’s responsibility – informed by consultation with the public, technical experts, and all three orders of government – to determine if the ideas in the MIDP are in the public interest and respond to the objectives established for Quayside. Waterfront Toronto’s formal evaluation, reflected in the process overview graphic below, will take place following the second round of consultation. The full Waterfront Toronto Board will then decide whether to pursue all, some, or no aspects of the proposed MIDP further with the three orders of government. The MIDP is ultimately subject to the approval of Waterfront Toronto’s Board of Directors and Sidewalk Labs.
If Waterfront Toronto decides not to move forward with the MIDP, efforts to build a next generation community at Quayside will continue. If the MIDP does move forward, it would be subject to review by relevant regulatory authorities at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels. All existing legislation and regulations will apply. The City of Toronto has also made a commitment to conduct its own public consultation as part of their MIDP review.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 1
Page 13 of 190 The first round of public consultation ran from June 24, 2019 through to July 31, 2019. The purpose was to orient the public to the MIDP from the perspective of Waterfront Toronto as a public steward working with the support of all three levels of government. Very early feedback on the MIDP was also sought, recognizing that the length of the MIDP and the volume of material within it would require much more time for Waterfront Toronto and the public to become familiar with the document.
The MIDP submitted by Sidewalk Labs
The MIDP is organized into three Volumes. In the broadest terms, Volumes 1 and 2 propose plans for development and innovation (mostly things that we can see and touch). In Volume 3, Sidewalk Labs describes what they think is required to make those plans happen. There is also a fourth Overview document.
Volumes 1 and 2 describe Sidewalk Labs’ proposals for Quayside, as well as a much larger portion of the waterfront. The proposals include plans for: development of Quayside (12 acres); development of a larger area that Sidewalk Labs calls “The River District” (153 acres); social infrastructure and community facilities; economic development; urban innovations that focus on mobility, public realm, buildings and housing, sustainability, and digital innovation; and, new governance models and regulatory frameworks to support implementation of the innovations.
Volume 3 of the MIDP focuses on how Sidewalk Labs proposes that the plans be implemented. Their proposals include: creating a special district called the “Innovative Design and Economic Acceleration District” (IDEA District, which is 190 acres in size and includes Quayside and The River District) that would be governed by a new Public Administrator and other entities; roles for Sidewalk Labs (developer, advisor, tech deliverer, and provider of optional financing); and, financial streams for the public sector related to real estate, infrastructure, and Intellectual Property. The proposal also describes commitments required from governments (including potential future investments) and areas of necessary public policy and regulatory reform.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 2
Page 14 of 190 Materials from Waterfront Toronto
To support the process of seeking public feedback during the first round of public consultation, Waterfront Toronto produced the following public materials:
• An Open Letter from Board Chair Stephen Diamond on June 24, 2019, which confirmed that there a number of exciting ideas in the MIDP that respond to challenges that Toronto faces (particularly related to environmental sustainability and economic development), and also identified examples of proposals where it is clear that Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs have different perspectives on what is required for success; • A Discussion Guide with an overview of the public consultation process; • A Note to Reader that was based on an initial, high level review of the MIDP and provided a synthesis of what Waterfront Toronto asked for from its Innovation and Funding Partner, the response from Sidewalk Labs, where and how the MIDP aligns with existing industry practices and what is new, where the privatization of public assets is being proposed (if at all), and financial impacts and risks; • Display boards that condensed the material from the Note to Reader; and • Slide presentations shared at the public meetings.
All of these materials are available on Waterfront Toronto’s Quayside project website.
What is covered in this Report
This Round One consultation Feedback Report was written by the facilitation team from Swerhun Inc., the firm retained by Waterfront Toronto to support its public consultation process on this project. Swerhun works exclusively for governments, public agencies, and non-profits working to support public policy. The Swerhun team’s role is not to advocate for any particular project outcome, but rather to support the delivery of transparent, constructive, and meaningful consultation processes.
This Round One consultation Feedback Report does not assess the merit or accuracy of any of the perspectives shared, nor does this documentation indicate an endorsement of any of these perspectives on the part of Waterfront Toronto.
Round One Public Consultation Activities
The design of the first round of public consultation was informed by feedback from Waterfront Toronto’s Board or Directors, staff responsible for the Quayside project, and the Quayside Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). Sidewalk Labs did not participate in the design or delivery of the consultation process. Representatives from Sidewalk Labs did attend the public meetings as observers in order to hear public feedback first-hand.
There were four ways to participate in this first round of public consultation, including:
• Seven (7) identical drop-in information sessions held at different branches of the Toronto Public Library; • Four (4) identical public meetings held in four different locations;
Round One Public Consultation Summary 3
Page 15 of 190 • An online survey that began on July 10, 2019 (this report is based on responses received by midnight on July 31, 2019 - the survey remains open); and • Written submissions provided to Waterfront Toronto by July 31, 2019
Approximately 1,034 people participated in all consultation activities for Round One. The table that follows below provides details on the dates, times, and locations of these activities.
Summary of Round One Public Consultation activities:
Number of Activity Date / Location / Time participants*
Mon, July 8: North York Central Library, 2:30-4pm Tues, July 9: Scarborough Civic Centre, 4:30-6:00pm Toronto Public Wed, July 10: Fort York Public Library, 6:30-8pm Library Program Thurs, July 11: Brentwood Library, 2:30-4pm 200 (Drop-In Thurs, July 11: Queen/Saulter Branch, 6:30-8pm Sessions) Thurs, July 18: St. Lawrence Branch, 6:30-8pm Thurs, July 25: Toronto Reference Library, 6:30-8:00pm
Mon, July 15: North York Civic Centre, 6-9pm Four identical Wed, July 17: Radisson Admiral Hotel, 6-9m 600 public meetings Sat, July 20: George Brown Waterfront, 9am-12pm** Tuesday, July 23: Chestnut Conference Centre, 6-9pm
Online survey July 10 – July 31 at www.QuaysideTO.ca 200
Delivered by July 31, 2019 to Waterfront Toronto (at Written [email protected]) or shared directly with the 34 submissions Swerhun Inc. facilitation team.
Total 1,034
* The number of participants in the process is necessarily an estimate, since it is based on the number of people who chose to sign-in at the drop-in sessions and public meetings. The number of online survey respondents is also an estimate, with exactly 172 people completing the “quick” quantitative survey, and anywhere from 5 to 76 people providing responses to at least one of the 16 sub-sections of the of the more detailed online consultation. Written submissions were received from 24 individuals and 10 organizations, many of which represent a much larger constituency or membership.
** A video recording of the third public meeting (held at George Brown’s Waterfront Campus on Saturday, July 20, 2019) is available on the Waterfront Toronto YouTube channel and on the Quayside project website.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 4
Page 16 of 190 Map of Quayside, and the River District and the IDEA District as proposed by Sidewalk Labs
Round One Public Consultation Summary 5
Page 17 of 190 Overall Observations
In the broadest of strokes, this first round of public consultation on the MIDP gave voice to three positions, including:
• those that are supportive of the project, usually based on the opportunity associated with individual innovations and/or the value of innovation in general; • those that hold a cautious “maybe” position, who see both great opportunity and great risk, and who have said in the broadest of terms “if the MIDP moves forward, it has to be on terms that work for Toronto”; and, • those that are against the project, with major issues raised related to (but not limited to) lack of trust in Sidewalk Labs, Google, and Alphabet.
These positions were thoughtful, well-articulated, and emerged consistently through all the consultation activities completed, with varying strengths depending on the activity. For example, those with concerns about the project brought a strong voice to the public meetings. At the same time, at every public meeting there were some participants who expressed support for the MIDP, and many who focused on the additional information they need to better understand the consequences of the proposal, along with the additional analysis they would like to see Waterfront Toronto undertake and bring back to the second round of public consultation.
Most of those participating in the online “quick survey” expressed support for much of the MIDP, while analysis of the more detailed online survey responses revealed significant polarization of opinion. A sizeable number of these responses were in favour of virtually every aspect of the MIDP and a sizeable number were opposed to virtually every aspect of the MIDP. On many aspects, however, respondents identified conditions that, if fulfilled, might allow a revised proposal to proceed.
Many participants throughout all consultation activities identified conditions that they would like to see met if Waterfront Toronto chooses to move forward, including (but not limited to):
• Limiting the geography of the project to Quayside (12 acres); • Ensuring strong public control and oversight; • Ensuring strong controls on all things digital (including data collection and governance); and, • Making it fair financially for Toronto, and fair economically for the Canadian economy and supportive of Canadian businesses.
There were a number of suggestions about how Waterfront Toronto can support responsible public reflection on the MIDP, with many participants emphasizing the importance of reviewing the proposal from a position of strength, given the great value of this public asset. Examples of specific suggestions made include (but are not limited to):
• Sidewalk Labs demonstrating if/how the RFP objectives can be met at Quayside and, if not, explain why not (which would also help the public understand the intentions behind the IDEA District); • Waterfront Toronto completing a risk assessment; and • Considering this proposal in the broader Canadian context (including impacts and opportunities of Canadian business sectors and the Canadian economy) and the global context (i.e. demonstrating how experiences in other cities can inform evaluation of the MIDP).
Round One Public Consultation Summary 6
Page 18 of 190 Feedback from the Four Public Meetings
All of the public meetings were characterized by rich discussions, thoughtful questions and comments, and a wide range of perspectives and interests. An individual summary was written for each meeting (see Appendix 1). The overall themes that emerged from all four meetings are based directly on these individual summaries and are reflected below.
Participants and format
Each public meeting had between 100 and 200 participants, with about 600 participants in total across the four public meetings. The representation was diverse, with about 10-15% of people at each meeting indicating that it was their first meeting related to Quayside, while others had been watching (and participating in) previous Quayside-related discussions. There were interested residents, community organizers, tech experts, leaders of organizations from the non- profit and private sectors, students, academics, representatives of labour, public servants, and many others with a range of perspectives on the project.
The meetings were three (3) hours in length and organized to include less than one hour of presentation time and over two (2) hours for questions, feedback and discussion by participants. Four breakout rooms were hosted at each public meeting, one focusing on each of the three volumes of the MIDP, and a separate (fourth) room for Digital Innovation, Digital Governance, and Intellectual Property. Each breakout room had between three and five smaller table discussions, and each table had a representative from Waterfront Toronto and one facilitator. There were fifteen (15) small table discussions at each public meeting, or sixty (60) in total.
Note that the intent of the public meeting summaries was to capture the range of perspectives that were shared at the meetings. There are references to “few”, “some”, and “many” participants expressing a certain point of view, but it’s important to note that not all participants were asked to confirm whether they did (or did not) agree with any particular point raised by the other participants. As a result, the summaries are necessarily qualitative in nature.
Consistent themes from the public meetings
Throughout all four public meetings, the following feedback themes emerged:
1. The Draft MIDP is difficult to get through and contains both too much, and too little, information. Many considered the 1,500 page document to be inaccessible, characterized as either a poorly conceived communications plan or an effort to overwhelm. Many said that a shorter, simplified version is required, while at the same time saying that more information is needed in key areas.
2. “There is huge potential, but also huge risk”.
a. There were participants in every meeting who said that they were conditionally receptive to some of the ideas in the Draft MIDP. These participants said that they recognized and/or saw merit in:
• the need for new thinking to address urban challenges and receptivity to some of the innovations, smart city technologies, and city-building techniques (accompanied by questions/concerns about financing, implementation, and mitigating failure);
Round One Public Consultation Summary 7
Page 19 of 190 • climate positivity and sustainability, with a push to see even more; • the potential for the partnership to speed up our ability to implement new ideas and transfer lessons, including the potential to expedite transit and other development; • the economic development potential and the potential for new jobs and tax revenue; • affordable housing and the social infrastructure (but more information required); • the proposed governance structures (accompanied by concern of how they would be funded, operationalized, and integrated with current structures); and • the opportunity to create a world-leading digital governance framework (centred on citizens and privacy, with a de-centralized Urban Data Trust).
b. Many concerns and questions about the MIDP were expressed, including (but not limited to):
• concern about the overreach of the Draft MIDP in terms of both land and governance (in relation to what was asked in the March 2017 RFP); • concern about data collection, surveillance, and inability to get informed consent from citizens; • concern that we should not be contemplating a proposal like this until all levels of government have the policies and regulations in place to manage it (such as stronger protections against data breaches and frameworks informing how we want to use technology in our cities); • questions and concerns about the Intellectual Property (IP) proposals, including concern about the risk that public actors (including governments) would have an incentive to turn its residents into units for financial gain, concern that the 10% profit- sharing for IP proposed is not enough, and that the patent pledge imposed by Sidewalk Labs could hinder Canadian companies from competing globally; • concern about the governance proposals, including lack of clarity around the proposed governance structures and effort by Sidewalk Labs to isolate itself from democratic processes; • a lack of information about public benefits and public harms of the proposals; • concerns that development of a tech sector, especially by Google and Sidewalk Labs, could result in the area becoming unaffordable; • safety and accessibility concerns related to curb-less street designs; • questions about the development process and land ownership; • a need for more economic development detail (e.g. number and type of jobs); and • the risk that Quayside will not be able to integrate with the rest of the city.
Many of the innovative solutions to complex urban issues related (for example) to mobility, affordable housing, public realm and sustainability were presented separately from their governance, financial and data context making an assessment of consequences or trade- offs difficult.
3. There were several suggestions about how Waterfront Toronto can support responsible public reflection on the Draft MIDP. Many participants emphasized the importance of reviewing the proposal from a position of strength given the great value of this public asset. The feedback included very specific suggestions on the types of research and analysis that many participants would like to see completed and shared publicly in order to inform a rigorous consideration of the Draft MIDP.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 8
Page 20 of 190 Specific requests included (but were not limited to):
• Sidewalk Labs demonstrating if/how the RFP objectives can be met at Quayside, and if not, explain why not (this explanation would also help the public understand the intentions behind the IDEA District). • Waterfront Toronto completing a risk assessment, including (but not limited to): - where this type of project has worked and where it has failed, including: a strong understanding of the track record of proposed innovations, what happens if/when they fail (i.e. contingency plans), and transparency regarding trade-offs in partnering with Sidewalk Labs; - an analysis of the opportunity cost, for example recognize that “it’s not Google or nothing,” need to compare this proposal to what else could be done; - identifying and seriously considering all potential consequences and outcomes, including those that are unintended; - considering the risk of not moving forward with the opportunity (i.e. figure out what Waterfront Toronto is/isn’t willing to budge on, and think about how to move forward while addressing risks); and - needing an analysis of potential issues if Quayside is insular and separate from the rest of Toronto. • Considering this proposal in a broader Canadian and global context, including: - comparing benefits to the Canadian economy if this was run by Canadian company(ies) rather than a US tech giant; and - completing research that puts the proposal in a global context (e.g. through comparisons with other partnerships). • Needing more information about a number of aspects of the proposals, including (but not limited to): - why the proposed governance structures are needed, how they would be staffed, and how they would be integrated with existing structures; - mechanisms to help achieve affordable housing targets; and - whether technology is the right solution to the challenges we’re considering.
Notwithstanding the need for additional analysis, many participants identified conditions they feel must be considered/met if the proposal is to move forward, including (but not limited to):
• start with the 12-acre pilot before considering whether to expand the partnership; • identify strong limits and maintain strong public oversight and control, including a failsafe “out” clause that can be used to end the partnership, and consequences for breaches; • avoid “situation dependency”; • need data collection to be undertaken by a public actor (or many smaller, private actors) with strong public oversight; some said there were no conditions under which they were willing to consider data collection at all; and • need updated policies and regulations from governments related to technology before any decision is made about Sidewalk Labs.
Specifically related to technology and data, many participants said that data governance needs to be strong and protect the public. Waterfront Toronto has the opportunity to be a leader in creating a strong digital governance framework that:
• disincentivizes the stockpiling of data; • ensures there are severe penalties for data breaches;
Round One Public Consultation Summary 9
Page 21 of 190 • creates clear conditions under which researchers could access data; and • makes sure there are strategies to address indirect data collection.
Waterfront Toronto was urged to avoid “boutique deals” on data governance with Sidewalk Labs, and instead work with the City of Toronto to do something that applies across the whole city. It was suggested that the Urban Data Trust(s) be citizen-owned or user-owned, act as an advocate, protect citizens and their data, and act as a data fiduciary.
Related to the second round of consultation, there were participants who urged Waterfront Toronto to scope back the discussion to what is reasonably feasible and structuring the discussion at the second round of consultation around Waterfront Toronto’s objectives, rather than following the structure of Sidewalk Labs’ proposal. Discussion of all digital topics also needs to be integrated into (and not separate from) other aspects of the proposal.
4. There is a lack of trust in Sidewalk Labs (and their sister-company Google and their parent company Alphabet). Concerns included (but were not limited to):
• the overreach of the proposal and questions about their true objectives/ambitions – noting that they act like “bullies” and are not accountable to any nation state; • a lack of transparency around the track record of these companies in other cities; • an asymmetry of power and influence, risk of privatization, and potential threat to our democratic processes, sovereignty, and institutions; • a conflict of interest with Sidewalk Labs as both Advisor and Tech Provider; • their business models’ focus on monetizing people’s data; and • Google potentially “swallowing up” smaller companies.
Some participants were clear that they were not supportive of moving forward with Sidewalk Labs and expressed concern that Waterfront Toronto is even considering the proposal. Others said that while there are many issues in the Draft MIDP, these should not stop the evaluation/reflection on the potential good that could come from it; Waterfront Toronto needs to judge the project based on the merits of the proposal, not just the company itself. There was also interest in better understanding what Waterfront Toronto’s obligations are to Sidewalk Labs and what elements of the MIDP can move forward without Sidewalk Labs.
5. There was a mix of appreciation and concern regarding Waterfront Toronto’s role. Some participants expressed appreciation for the consultation process and Waterfront Toronto’s leadership, including the past 20 years of work that Waterfront Toronto has done to successfully coordinate the work of all three levels of government. Others raised questions about why Waterfront Toronto was consulting the public on things that are outside of what it asked for in its RFP and raised concerns that Waterfront Toronto couldn’t be objective given their close working relationships with Sidewalk Labs.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 10
Page 22 of 190 Feedback from the Online Consultation
As with all public consultation activities in round one, the online consultation was based on the MIDP and Waterfront Toronto’s Note to Reader. It consisted of two separate but related surveys:
• a short, quantitative survey designed for providing a quick response; and • a detailed, qualitative survey for those interested in providing more detailed feedback.
The survey was not designed or intended to be statistically significant; it was designed to supplement the public consultation to help Waterfront Toronto assess the diversity of opinions and understand the rationale behind the various positions on the Draft MIDP.
Online consultation statistics
The Quayside online consultation launched on July 15, 2019 at www.QuaysideTOSurvey.com. Squarespace, the platform on which the online consultation was hosted, collected Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to inform reporting on how many people visited the website, how many people submitted responses, and a general location of website visitors (at the level of country, region, or city). IP addresses were not connected to the survey responses. The online consultation website was not geofenced, and as a result did not limit responses from any place on the planet.
Between July 15, 2019 and July 31, 2019, the survey logged 1,382 Unique Visitors and 1,081 Visits 1. The following list details the geography of Visits by IP:
• 805 of 1,081 were from Canada (75%); • 276 of 1081 were not from Canada (25%) (209 from USA, and 67 from other countries); • 740 of 1081 were from Ontario (68%); • 662 of 1081 were from Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (61%); and • 591 of 1081 were from Toronto (54%).
1 Excerpt of definitions from Squarespace, the platform hosting the survey:
Unique Visitors. Unique Visitors is an estimate of the total number of actual visitors that reach your site in the selected time period. Unique Visitors is a good measure of your loyal audience and readership. Every time a visitor clears their cookies or opens your site from a different browser, Analytics counts their first new visit toward Unique Visitors.
Visits: A visit is a single browsing session and can encompass multiple pageviews. [Squarespace tracks] visits with a browser cookie that expires after 30 minutes. Any hits from a single user within that 30- minute browsing session count as one visit. This means that one person can register multiple visits a day if they close their browser and return to your site at least 30 minutes later. Visits are a good measure of attention on your site because they correlate with a single browsing session and are frequently used in marketing applications.
Discrepancies between Unique Visitors and Visits: In rare cases, Unique Visitors, which is typically lower than Visits, might be greater than Visits when viewing shorter date ranges. This could happen because only the first pageview of a new browsing session counts toward a visit. So, a visit that straddles the midnight boundary might contribute to the next day’s Unique Visitors, but not Visits.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 11
Page 23 of 190 The Quick Survey
The quick survey included 15 quantitative questions asking participants to rank how receptive they were to Sidewalk Labs’ proposals and gave respondents a way to indicate where they needed more information. 172 responses to the Quick Survey were received. The table on the following page summarizes the results of their feedback to each question in the survey. See Appendix 2 for a more detailed summary.
Generally, Quick Survey respondents were more receptive to ideas presented in Volumes 1 and 2 of the Draft MIDP, with the exception of Privacy and Digital Governance, where a greater number of respondents were receptive to some or not receptive at all. Relative to Volumes 1 and 2, a greater number of respondents were somewhat receptive or not receptive to the ideas presented in Volume 3.
Screenshot from Quayside Quick Survey
Round One Public Consultation Summary 12
Page 24 of 190
Round One Public Consultation Summary 13
Page 25 of 190 The Detailed Survey
The detailed survey included 89 qualitative questions across 16 sections corresponding to different sub-sections of the MIDP as described through the lens of Waterfront Toronto’s Note to Reader. The number of questions per sub-section ranged from 5 to 11. Given the volume of information and the number of questions, the detailed survey allowed respondents to navigate and share feedback about whichever sections were relevant to their interests.
For the detailed survey, the greatest number of responses to any set of questions was 76, which related to the Quayside and River District Plans sections. All other sections range from 5 responses to upwards of 65 responses. An organized summary of all responses is included in Appendix 2 (under separate cover), and the raw data is available at www.QuaysideTO.ca.
Observations on the feedback received through the Detailed Survey:
• Overall, respondents commented on their receptivity to the various proposals outlined in the MIDP, the perceived the risks and benefits of the various proposals, conditions for Waterfront Toronto proceeding with the project, and also provided advice to Waterfront Toronto. Some of this advice was very detailed, and included references to other projects, plans and reports.
• The number of respondents decreased between sections on Volume 1 through to sections on Volume 3: - Volume 1. The greatest number of responses overall was 76 and were received to the first set of questions relating to the Quayside and River District Plans. - Volume 2. The greatest number of responses was 48 and related to the section on mobility. - Volume 3. The greatest number of responses was 14 and related to the section on the IDEA District (Public Administrator). The fewest number of responses overall was 5 and related to questions in Volume 3 relating to Transaction Economics (Infrastructure).
• In many places, respondents stated that they needed more information to answer questions. This was particularly true with the questions relating to Volume 3.
• Although there was polarization of opinion, there was also some middle ground. Analysis of responses shows significant polarization of opinion, with a sizeable number in favour of virtually every aspect of the MIDP and a sizeable number opposed to virtually every aspect of the proposal. On many aspects, however, respondents identified conditions that, if fulfilled, might allow a revised proposal to proceed.
Those in favour of the proposal identified many benefits
These included (but were not limited to):
• it is innovative and forward thinking; • it will provide social and economic benefits to the city; • we will learn from it, especially with respect to new technologies; • an urban tech cluster will facilitate economic growth; • it will spur development of the waterfront; • it will have positive environmental impact and contribute to sustainability;
Round One Public Consultation Summary 14
Page 26 of 190 • we need to explore new ways to develop; • it addresses social needs through the inclusion of affordable housing, connectivity, amenities and public realm proposals; and • seed funding will help to get development occurring.
Those in opposition to the proposal identified many drawbacks
These included (but were not limited to):
• the increased geographic scope of the proposal beyond Quayside; • discrepancy between existing precinct plans and the MIDP, especially reductions in density; • data collection and privacy issues; • lack of affordability and inclusivity; • increased income inequality; • lack of support for Toronto tech firms; • over-reliance on technology, especially with regard to the public realm; • the bureaucratization of public space; • governance issues including duplication of effort and the creation of new bodies (Waterfront Administrator, Open Space Alliance, Waterfront Transportation Management Association, Waterfront Sustainability Association, Urban Data Trust, Waterfront Housing Trust) to take on functions that are currently provided by government; • adverse financial impacts on the City of Toronto and taxpayers; • the role of Sidewalk Labs including lack of experience as a developer and potential data use; and • lack of trust in Sidewalk Labs.
Respondents identified key conditions for proceeding with the proposal
These included (but were not limited to):
• restricting development and testing of technology to Quayside; • incorporating additional affordable housing and parks; • addressing data use and privacy concerns; • providing additional community amenities, such as a library; • addressing parking and circulation issues including funding of transit; • ensuring public governance is retained for housing, transportation, recreation and other functions; and • ensuring the City will not bear undue financial costs and will accrue appropriate financial benefits.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 15
Page 27 of 190 Feedback from Written Submissions
In total, 34 written submissions were received up to and including July 31, 2019. These submissions ranged in length, contributing to a total of 125 pages. Ten submissions were received from organizations and 24 were received from individuals, of which 11 provided permission to share their name with their submission.
Submissions from organizations
Ten organizations submitted written submissions as part of the first round of public consultation. The table below identifies the organization and summarizes some of the highlights of their submission. The original submission letters are included in Appendix 3 (under separate cover).
Organization Highlights of submission Federation of Support for including wood as a major component of the MIDP and its Northern Ontario potential to reduce carbon, drive northern industry, and create a Municipalities stronger link between northern and southern Ontario. Coalition Against Concern that technology is creating economic decline and consuming Technological more resources than it protects; preference to see low-tech solutions Development to addressing environmental challenges. Good Jobs For All Concerns about public land grab, power grab, surveillance, and privatization; want to see public interest and public jobs protected in planning waterfront development and innovation. Institute for Support for the idea of a Data Trust but needs more information than Advancing Prosperity what is in MIDP, including: how the Trust would support itself; how it would be funded; and how the public derives value. Opportunity through this proposal to see control of Trust given to residents and operate more like a labour union stewarding collective data for public good. Council of Canadian This project is a missed chance to provide opportunities for Canada’s Innovators existing, world-class smart city innovators; desire to get more information about what is proposed, including (but not limited to): why open data by default is in the public interest, how the proposal would be bound by existing privacy laws; how the proposed patent pledge would enable Canadian companies to compete globally. Swedish Consulate Concern about additional land in proposal; desire to see municipalities responsible for development and installation of infrastructure; support for the idea of testbeds, which have been done successfully in Sweden. Unifor Concern about scope creep and the additional land asked for in the proposal; concern about increase in property values and accelerated development harming existing residents and businesses. Waterfront BIA Support for Waterfront Toronto’s engagement process; see opportunities for housing, jobs, recreation, and mobility in the proposal; desire for future consultation to focus on LRT and expanded role for Waterfront Toronto as Public Administrator. #BlockSidewalk Concern about procurement process, Sidewalk Labs’ lobbying, use of non-disclosure agreements, and assertion of its right to buy lands without competitive procurement. Waterfront Toronto should not consult on things beyond what it asked for; this process should end.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 16
Page 28 of 190 Members of the West Detailed feedback identifying benefits, questions, and concerns about Don Lands many different sections of the MIDP. Committee/Waterfront For All Study Group
Submissions from Individuals
24 individuals shared written submissions with Waterfront Toronto during the first round of consultation. Of those 24 individuals, 11 gave permission to include their name with their submission:
Paul Beck Donald James Tim Warner Julie Beddoes William Lim Bianca Wylie Melissa Goldstein Jane Rucchetto John Yu Blayne Haggart Natasha Tusikov
Key themes from the written submissions include:
1. Some interest and willingness to continue exploring the proposed ideas. A few of those preparing written submissions were supportive of some of the ideas in the MIDP. Examples of ideas some were willing to further explore included: • Some interest in and support for the idea of the Urban Data Trust but need more information about how a Trust would support itself (i.e. how is it funded, how can the public receive value from what it generates, how is it publicly accountable). • Interest in a smaller proposal. Some said they would be willing to further consider the ideas in the MIDP if Sidewalk Labs submitted that was limited to the geography of Quayside. • Conditions under which some kind of data collection might be acceptable, including: data is not given away for free to large firms (which can leverage its existing large data sets to derive more value from it), data collection begins only after we’ve debated what kinds of data collection are acceptable or socially desirable (if at all). There is a need to first think more broadly about what kind of city we want and if/how technology fits in. Some support for the idea that the digital proposals can help achieve Waterfront Toronto’s objectives and serve as a catalyst for change. Would want to see neutrality for wired and wireless connectivity infrastructure, legislative oversight of digital infrastructure. • A better deal for Waterfront Toronto: we should be an equal partner in any profit / revenue generated from this project. • Interested in seeing a balance between affordable housing and housing affordability. For example, the resale fee should be capped over a period of time or capped in terms of an amount.
2. Concerns about the proposal. Many of the people that responded shared concerns about ideas in the MIDP. These concerns included (but are not limited to):
• Governance proposals: including concern that a foreign, big tech company could have a hand in shaping Canadian democratic structures (whether proposing new governance structures or asking for changes to existing by-laws and regulations). Specific concerns about the new governance structures included that they create a “heavy bureaucratic burden” that’s top down and reliant on on-going public funding and that it is unclear how these new structures would interface with existing ones. For the proposed “Urban Data
Round One Public Consultation Summary 17
Page 29 of 190 Trust, concerns included: the term “urban data” has no legal meaning in Canada; proposed Trust is “ill-defined;” it is unclear how the proposed Trust would operate, what its structure and regulatory powers would be, what its funding sources would be, how it would relate to other regulatory bodies, and how it would be bounded by existing privacy laws. • Data collection: the potential for surveillance and personal data collection by a foreign, big tech company and the potential for there to be no opportunity to opt out of data collection. Concerned that: data collected could be shared with Google / Alphabet; Toronto should not be part of a Google “research experiment”; and that data collection should only be undertaken by a democratically elected Canadian government. Another concern shared was that it is easy for de-identified data to be re-identified. • Concerns about the proposed partnership: including worry that Sidewalk Labs’ proposed funding of the LRT could be used to give the company leverage in future negotiations; the proposed patent pledge does not give Canadian innovators opportunity to compete at a global scale. • Economic development: including that it’s unclear how many of the proposed new jobs will be in Ontario; concern that this proposal represents a missed opportunity to leverage Canada’s own smart city innovators. • Other issues: including that self-driving cars are in the distant future, creating a tall timber industry is outside of both parties’ control, the smaller units are too small, the proposal does not include a cost-benefit analysis and others.
3. Lack of trust in Sidewalk Labs and the process to date. Concerns about Sidewalk Labs and the process to date were common in the responses, including: • Lack of trust in Sidewalk Labs, Google, and Alphabet (including their potential connections to state-run Intelligence communities) • Concern that this project is a land and power grab that exceeds what was asked for in Waterfront Toronto’s RFP. • Frustration that the MIDP is too big and too difficult to digest, containing “too many buzzwords” and not enough substance. • Concerns that the MIDP is an “omnibus plan offering a corporation the power to define organizing principles and governance changes.” • Precinct planning and regulations should come first, such as regulations around data collection and use, before considering this proposal. • Other process concerns, including concerns with the RFP process that led to Sidewalk Labs’ selection, interest in understanding if Indigenous people have been engaged as part of this process, concern this project is diverting attention from other work. • Range of opinions about Waterfront Toronto’s engagement: some glad to see Waterfront Toronto lead the consultation and attempt to make the MIDP accessible; others frustrated about the lack of time to review the MIDP for the initial consultations; concerns about the online survey being “gamed”; and, the opacity around timelines for the next round of public consultation.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 18
Page 30 of 190 Feedback from the Library Drop-In Program
Waterfront Toronto worked with the Toronto Public Library to offer a Drop-In Program at seven library branches across the city, including a number of waterfront library branches, the Toronto Reference Library, and branches in North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough. These drop-in sessions were 1.5 hours in length and attracted anywhere from 10 to 15 participants to upwards of 40 or 50.
The format of the drop-ins was informal, with a series of information boards based upon the Note to Reader and several Waterfront Toronto staff on-hand to answer questions and share information with participants. Hard copies of the Draft MIDP were also available during and outside of the drop-in sessions.
Overall, the vast majority of discussion at the drop-ins focused on answering questions raised by participants. As with all the other consultation activities, there were some participants who were very concerned about the proposal, some who were very supportive, and a number who did not share their position and/or identified conditions under which this proposal could work for Toronto. Many participants in the drop-in sessions also participated in at least one public meeting.
The feedback collected at the Library Drop-In Program (through comments on post-it notes attached to the various display boards, completed feedback forms, and discussions with staff) is included in Appendix 4. The feedback received at the libraries is generally consistent with feedback received through the public meetings, the online consultation, and the written submissions.
Next Steps
All feedback received during round one of the public consultations, including this report and all of its appendices, is a critical input to Waterfront Toronto’s preparation for the next round of public consultation and to its review of the MIDP.
Since July 31, 2019, a few important updates have been provided by Waterfront Toronto and their advisors, including:
• On July 31, 2019 Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs agreed to extend the Plan Development Agreement (PDA) by six months in order to allow Waterfront Toronto more time to receive public feedback on the MIDP and to undertake an expert evaluation of it prior to making a recommendation to its Board of Directors. The Amending Agreement also includes a new termination provision should certain threshold issues outlined by Waterfront Toronto’s Board Chair not be resolved. If the parties cannot reach an understanding on these issues, the PDA will terminate as of October 31, 2019; and • On September 10, 2019 Waterfront Toronto’s Digital Strategy Advisory Panel released its Preliminary Commentary and Questions on the Draft MIDP.
Plans for the second round of consultations are being made for late November 2019, with confirmation of details to be provided after October 31, 2019.
For the latest information about Waterfront Toronto’s work at Quayside, see www.QuaysideTO.ca.
Round One Public Consultation Summary 19
Page 31 of 190
20 BAY STREET, SUITE 1310 TORONTO, ON M5J 2N8 Tel: 416.214.1344 Fax: 416.214.4591 www.waterfrontoronto.ca
October 29, 2019
Mr. Josh Sirefman Sidewalk Labs LLC 307 Lakeshore Blvd. East Toronto, On M5A 1C1
Dear Mr. Sirefman,
Re: Plan Development Agreement Threshold Issues
Reference is made to the Plan Development Agreement dated as of July 31, 2018 between Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (“WT” or “Waterfront Toronto”) and Sidewalk Labs LLC (“SWL” or “Sidewalk Labs”), as amended July 31, 2019 (collectively the “PDA”).
As you know, the PDA will terminate on October 31, 2019 if a set of threshold issues arising from your Master Innovation Development Plan (MIDP) is not resolved to the satisfaction of our Board of Directors and Sidewalk Labs. In preparation for our Board of Directors’ meeting on October 31, 2019, we are writing to confirm Sidewalk Labs’ agreement on the following resolution to the threshold issues informed by the substantial feedback received to date from public consultation and our stakeholders.
Consistent with our governance practices, we presented these MIDP amendments to our Investment, Real Estate and Quayside Committee and to our Board of Directors on October 24, 2019, in advance of the Board of Directors’ decision on October 31, 2019.
With alignment on the amendments tabled in this letter, and after a decision from our Board on October 31, 2019, Waterfront Toronto will proceed with a formal comprehensive evaluation along with further public consultation in order to obtain a final decision from our Board by March 31, 2020.
Waterfront’s evaluation and public consultation activities will finalize terms to guide the implementation agreements (should Waterfront Toronto’s Board come to final approval by March 31, 2020).
The term “MIDP” will mean the MIDP released to the public on June 24, 2019, as amended by the provisions set out below. To be clear, this in no way is intended to pre-judge or prejudice in any manner the outcome of the further evaluation and consultation relating to the MIDP. Waterfront Toronto reserves its right to request further amendments to the MIDP.
Timing for the implementation of the MIDP to any parts of the Project will be governed by the issuance and approvals of any amendments to precinct plans and Business Implementation
1
Page 32 of 190 Plans (BIPs) with the City of Toronto, which will be subject to further public consultation and will be voted on by council.
Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs also must remain committed to working together and continuing discussions with Indigenous Peoples with respect to their involvement in the advancement of the Quayside Project.
1. Project Boundaries
The geographic scope of the project will be the area encompassing the Quayside properties as an initial stage of the project (See Schedule A) (the “Project”). Based on the performance at Quayside, WT recognizes that there could be substantial public benefits by providing for an area of future expansion of the initial phase beyond Quayside to an area such as Villiers West to further Waterfront Toronto’s objectives particularly in relation to economic development These public benefits could include the Google Canada Headquarters, the Urban Innovation Institute and related development.
Any expansion beyond Quayside will be subject to;
(i) demonstrating the amount of development area(s) of Villiers West properties or other lands needed to achieve the economic development and innovation priorities shared by Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs, including commercial viability (ii) any process required by relevant landowners (City of Toronto/CreateTO and Ports Toronto) (iii) future Waterfront Toronto and government approvals (including any performance conditions) (iv) proceeding in a manner that is supportive of the objectives of Waterfront Toronto and its stakeholders
The PDA will be amended, as required, to reflect the revised geography of the Project, including sections 11.01(a) and 6.02(a).
(a) Procurement – Villiers West Land Acquisition
● Waterfront Toronto does not own land on Villiers West. Any acquisition of these lands by Sidewalk Labs will be subject to the processes as determined by their landowners (City of Toronto/CreateTO and Ports Toronto). including as set out in Schedule B.
2. Innovation Plan
Waterfront Toronto is prepared to support and advocate for an “Innovation Plan”, as is consistent with the Waterfront Toronto mandate of pursuing innovation to realize ambitious public policy objectives and which will be applicable to the Project, as defined below. There will be no further reference made to the IDEA district.
(a) Objectives, Approvals and Governance
Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs will develop an “Innovation Plan” to advance and achieve Waterfront Toronto’s priority outcomes, namely to enable job creation and
2
Page 33 of 190 economic development; sustainable and climate-positive development with a commitment to design excellence; housing affordability; new mobility; and urban innovation (including robust data privacy and digital governance). The Innovation Plan would apply to the Project. Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs will continue to work together in good faith to identify and agree on a priority list of innovations, together with any regulatory modifications required to implement them, as part of the MIDP to be considered by March 31, 2020. The Innovation Plan could also include innovative financing or funding mechanisms for infrastructure. The Innovation Plan will be subject to the results of Waterfront Toronto’s evaluation and further public consultation and will be dynamic, and capable of adapting to new technologies, as well as technical and regulatory challenges that emerge during the development process.
● Objectives:
○ The objective of the Innovation Plan is to advance the approval and implementation of core innovations. Implementation of the Innovation Plan will take place, to the extent possible, through existing and established legislative and regulatory processes.
● Regulatory Approvals:
○ Waterfront Toronto understands that numerous proposals in the MIDP will require regulatory reform or modernization in order for them to be implemented. It is beyond the jurisdiction of Waterfront Toronto to grant regulatory or statutory approvals; Waterfront Toronto will help facilitate approvals, where appropriate and possible.
○ Waterfront Toronto will advocate for the creation of new government task force(s) (described in more detail, below) focused on timely decision making as part of the Innovation Plan.
○ Waterfront Toronto will support a due diligence period to December 2020 for Sidewalk Labs to satisfy itself as to the likelihood of achieving those regulatory approvals.
● Governance:
Waterfront Toronto will oversee the development of the Innovation Plan, consistent with its current mandate, in coordination with existing public sector entities.
Given the role of Waterfront Toronto and its government partners, there is no need to establish a new entity such as the Public Administrator, as originally contemplated in the MIDP. Instead, Waterfront Toronto will advocate for the creation of government task force(s) to support implementation of the Innovation Plan. The task force(s) and the basis on which they will operate will be determined by March 31, 2020. Such task forces shall, among other things:
○ Establish appropriate governance of the Innovation Plan to be in operation, including management strategies required to realize the Innovation Plan, and
3
Page 34 of 190 ○ Throughout the course of the project, manage and facilitate approvals required to implement the Innovation Plan.
3. Implementation – Roles and Responsibilities
Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs will work together to achieve new standards for architecture and the public realm. Waterfront Toronto’s Design Review Panel and Digital Strategy Advisory Panel will continue to provide peer review and advice to Waterfront Toronto on design and digital proposals.
As the Innovation and Funding Partner, Sidewalk Labs will provide Waterfront Toronto with recommendations on the standards and guidelines for possible inclusion in the Waterfront Toronto Resilience and Innovation Framework.
Through the process of advancing the Innovation Plan and developing Quayside, Sidewalk Labs will also develop innovation and design standards and guidelines reflective of the Innovation Plan, taking into account Waterfront Toronto’s Minimum Green Building Requirements and Intelligent Community Guidelines. Waterfront Toronto may choose to apply the standards and guidelines to other projects in order to advance the Innovation Plan.
(a) Municipal Infrastructure – Roles and Responsibilities
Waterfront Toronto will lead planning, design and delivery of municipal infrastructure, such as parks, waterfront promenades, streets and sidewalks, water and sewer, subject to further discussion on an enhanced role for Sidewalk Labs where significant innovations will be employed. Waterfront Toronto will engage Sidewalk Labs in a collaborative effort to integrate municipal and advanced infrastructure innovations, where appropriate.
Waterfront Toronto will be responsible for funding of all municipal infrastructure, up to typical unit costs.
To the extent Sidewalk Labs proposes to move forward with municipal infrastructure that exceeds current Waterfront Toronto standards, if approved by Waterfront Toronto, Sidewalk Labs will arrange for funding of any additional costs for such municipal infrastructure that exceed current Waterfront Toronto standards.
(b) Advanced Infrastructure – Roles and Responsibilities
Sidewalk Labs will lead implementation of advanced infrastructure systems in accordance with the Innovation Plan, subject to Waterfront Toronto’s review and approval. “Advanced infrastructure” includes the thermal grid, pneumatic waste systems, and other non-traditional systems as proposed in the MIDP.
To the extent Sidewalk Labs proposes to move forward with advanced infrastructure, with Waterfront Toronto’s approval, Waterfront Toronto will not be held responsible for delivery or operation of such advanced infrastructure.
Appropriate financial security, acceptable to both parties, will be required from Sidewalk Labs to backstop and address the risk associated with any unproven advanced infrastructure systems within the public right-of-way.
4
Page 35 of 190 4. Waterfront LRT
While Waterfront Toronto does not have jurisdiction over the approval of capital funding for public transit, Waterfront Toronto will continue to support and advocate for a higher-order transit solution, which sufficiently services the Project, without accepting any liability in respect thereof.
Sidewalk Labs must satisfy itself by December 2020 on the adequacy of the funding commitments and arrangements for higher-order transit concurrent with the execution of the implementation agreements.
5. Procurement - Quayside Vertical Development Partner Selection Process
Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs agree that Sidewalk Labs will partner with one or more real estate developers to carry out the vertical development of Quayside. Waterfront Toronto, with Sidewalk Labs’ support, will lead a competitive public procurement process for vertical development team(s) to partner with Sidewalk Labs.
● Sidewalk Labs would play an integral role in an RFP for a vertical development partner(s). Specifically, it would contribute to the development of a scope of work, specifications, evaluation criteria and sit on an Evaluation Committee for the selection of a vertical development partner(s).
● Sidewalk Labs would then negotiate and enter into a partnership with the preferred partner(s) based on reasonable terms, within the provisions of a project agreement, and subject to anti-windfall provisions.
● Sidewalk Labs and the preferred partner(s) will enter into a development agreement with Waterfront Toronto.
There may be staged releases of development parcels, and evolution of requirements as development partner(s) suggest within the Quayside lands. Any requirement for staged releases, if based on performance, would have to be commercially reasonable.
There will be a requirement for appropriate financial security from Sidewalk Labs and/or the development partner(s) (including guarantees from affiliates) acceptable to both parties to ensure delivery of various aspects of the proposed development.
6. Methodology for Pricing Lands
(a) Quayside:
Waterfront Toronto’s traditional approach to land valuation begins with fair market value at the time of sale or lease (current appraised value, including Waterfront Toronto and City-owned land, is approximately $590M for as-of-right zoning), subject to the investments as noted in Section 10 of this document.
7. Digital Governance and Privacy
The parties acknowledge that Waterfront Toronto will lead all privacy and digital governance matters related to the Project. The parties are committed to ethically responsible innovation that reflects public values and preserves or enhances the public good. The parties are committed to
5
Page 36 of 190 Waterfront Toronto’s Digital Principles (found on Waterfront Toronto’s website – www.waterfrontoronto.ca), which have been developed through consultation with industry, academia, government stakeholders, and the broader community.
Sidewalk Labs has agreed that there will be further documented, facilitated consultation with community stakeholders, with an emphasis on ensuring engagement with groups most impacted by a particular technology, during the development process. Digital proposals may be required to go through a public meeting process and approval by governments. a) Interactions with Government:
Waterfront Toronto will act as the lead on discussions with the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Government of Canada and the relevant Privacy Commissioners (“Applicable Government Authorities”) on any data governance and privacy discussions directly relating to the Project. Recognizing the governance structure of Waterfront Toronto and its overall responsibility for the Project, Sidewalk Labs agrees that it will not, without Waterfront Toronto’s prior consent, which may be conditioned on Waterfront Toronto’s participation: (a) initiate discussions with Applicable Government Authorities focused on data governance and privacy issues directly relating to the Project or (b) use the Project as an example, case study, or basis for lobbying in communications with Applicable Government Authorities with respect to legislative or regulatory changes with respect to data governance and privacy directly affecting the Project.
This commitment does not preclude Sidewalk Labs from responding to routine industry consultation requests from Applicable Government Authorities, provided that Sidewalk Labs does not directly or indirectly argue for or promote legislative or regulatory change in the area of data governance and privacy as it relates to the Project, unless Sidewalk Labs is specifically requested by Applicable Government Authorities to offer Sidewalk Labs’ view. In addition, this commitment does not preclude Sidewalk Labs from discussing data governance and privacy issues related to the Project in response to Applicable Government Authorities during briefings or other discussions with those Applicable Government Authorities. b) Methodology:
● Sidewalk Labs reaffirms its commitment to comply with all existing and future privacy legislation, regulations and policy frameworks (e.g., Canada’s Digital Charter and Ontario Digital Principles). This includes an understanding that data governance, in particular, personal information, varies for public and private activities and actors.
● Data governance will be determined by the municipal, provincial and federal laws applicable to access and protection of data in the Project. These laws apply to Sidewalk Labs as they do to any private sector organization, either under the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) in the course of Sidewalk Labs’ commercial activities, or under the public sector privacy laws applicable to government where Sidewalk Labs would act on behalf of government under contract.
● Sidewalk Labs has agreed to respect Waterfront Toronto’s Digital Principles and comply with emerging Intelligent Community Guidelines, to be developed with input from government stakeholders, industry and the broader community. These will be similar to
6
Page 37 of 190 Waterfront Toronto’s existing Minimum Green Building Standards (being an increase from the baseline requirements for sustainability). These Intelligent Community Guidelines will be similarly enforced through contract.
● With respect to the operations of digitally enabled solutions in Quayside, Sidewalk Labs agrees (i) that personal information will be stored and processed in Canada; and (ii) to use commercially reasonable efforts to store and process non-personal data in Canada. Should exceptions be required, they will be determined on a case-by-case basis through a review process.
● Sidewalk Labs will not condition implementation agreements on the requirement for new or amended privacy laws or other new laws or regulations in order to achieve a digital governance structure. This includes removing the expectation for the creation of the proposed “Urban Data Trust”.
● Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs share a commitment to the pursuit of innovative models for responsible data use and trusted data-sharing. Sidewalk Labs is committed to contributing data, technological expertise and resources to this effort, and to leveraging the strengths of existing models where applicable.
● Sidewalk Labs will not use “Urban Data” as a term, and instead will rely upon existing terminology and Canadian legal constructs for this Project.
● Sidewalk Labs will issue a Digital Innovation Appendix (“DIA”) that will supplement Volume 2, Chapter 5 of the MIDP (“Digital Innovation”) by November 7, 2019. The DIA will form the core content that is to be formally evaluated by Waterfront Toronto regarding these matters.
● Sidewalk Labs agrees to work with Waterfront Toronto and its government stakeholders in good faith to ensure each digitally enabled solution will not impede (and where feasible, will foster) accessibility in Quayside, freedom of association, freedom of expression, equitable treatment of marginalized groups, public engagement and participation and other fundamental rights and freedoms, as applicable.
8. Ecosystem Development
(a) Urban Innovation Institute
Recognizing the importance of early actions to engage academia and the innovation ecosystem in the development of the Urban Innovation Institute, Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs will develop a business plan for distributing, upon entering into implementation agreements, $10 million in seed capital, per the MIDP. The resulting business plan will not create a financial burden for governments or the broader public sector, nor will it preclude government investment or future investment by Sidewalk Labs.
(b) Venture Capital Fund
● To foster the urban innovation ecosystem in Canada, Sidewalk Labs is committed to ensuring that (i) the initial venture capital fund shall raise at least 50% of its funds from
7
Page 38 of 190 Canadian investors; (ii) that there is substantive Canadian representation on its board; and (iii) that Waterfront Toronto will be provided visibility into the investment program.
● Sidewalk Labs will work with a local partner to manage the fund, with the two parties acting jointly to secure additional fund participation from third parties for inclusion alongside Sidewalk Labs’ $10 million committed in the MIDP for a new venture capital fund, which Sidewalk Labs would fund upon entering into implementation agreements. The fund will be consistent with venture capital fund structuring in the Canadian market. Recognizing the importance of early actions to support the local innovation and investment ecosystem, Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs will continue to collaborate on a business plan for standing up the fund.
● Consistent with standard fund strategies, assuming a successful deployment of the initial fund, Sidewalk Labs anticipates raising additional funds that can further support the scale of the Canadian urban tech ecosystem as it matures.
9. Intellectual Property/Data Ownership
Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs are committed to working in good faith to design an intellectual property framework that not only recognizes the value of Waterfront Toronto’s contribution to catalyzing innovation but also creates a foundation for Canadian-based companies to innovate in Canada and compete on a global scale. This includes but is not limited to:
● A revenue stream on products and services piloted in Waterfront Toronto-facilitated testbed area, based on global net revenues, where net revenue will mean all consideration received by Sidewalk Labs less agreed upon deductions. This net revenue will be for a defined period of time to be determined.
● Sidewalk Labs agrees to work with Waterfront Toronto in good faith to resolve issues relating to the role and obligations of Sidewalk Labs’ affiliates that Sidewalk Labs has working in a Waterfront Toronto-facilitated testbed area on their associated products and services, including without limitation, in relation to revenue share arrangements and remedies in the event of default.
● An expanded patent pledge that allows innovators to leverage Sidewalk Labs’ hardware and software digital innovation patents. The patent pledge will provide Canadian innovators operating globally with the right to use all Sidewalk Labs’ Canadian and foreign patents covering hardware and software digital innovations.
● Whether or not there is approval or implementation of the MIDP, Sidewalk Labs will provide Waterfront Toronto with an irrevocable, perpetual license to use the Site-Specific IP.
● A mechanism that will provide appropriate recognition for Waterfront Toronto’s contributions to co-created IP.
● A reporting and audit structure which is transparent and manageable.
Waterfront Toronto will work with Sidewalk Labs and other innovators to provide meaningful support and enable the testing, piloting, and development of products and services that serve the Innovation Plan.
8
Page 39 of 190
The parties acknowledge that there remain outstanding issues regarding Intellectual Property that will require substantial efforts to resolve. The parties also recognize that data ownership is an issue that will be resolved through implementation agreements and that prevailing ownership and partnership models will serve as baseline expectations for the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, and Government of Canada.
10. Waterfront Toronto Investments
As is typical in other Waterfront Toronto projects, Waterfront Toronto will make investments in its public policy objectives, specifically addressing additional affordable housing, sustainability, and other innovations that achieve Waterfront Toronto’s project objectives. Waterfront Toronto will continue to work with all three levels of government and other sources to secure additional funds in support of the priority outcomes and Innovation Plan. To the extent the value of the Quayside lands exceeds at the time of sale the Fair Market Value as at the time of this letter ($590M) a proportional share of such excess may be used by WT as a source of funds for such priority outcomes and innovations.
It is recognized that in moving forward, the parties must satisfy themselves that the economics of the development and Waterfront Toronto’s objectives can be met on Quayside and as a result, the mechanism and timing for the investments will be agreed upon between Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs by March 31, 2020, subject to the outcome of Waterfront Toronto’s evaluation and public engagement process.
(a) Affordable Housing
Waterfront Toronto will work with Sidewalk Labs and all relevant government parties to identify, by December 2020, an affordable housing program and funding sources that achieve Waterfront Toronto’s objectives, including achieving affordable housing in perpetuity.
In addition, Waterfront Toronto will work with Sidewalk Labs to explore additional funding opportunities to provide deeper affordability levels and/or an increased number of units.
● All affordable housing will meet or exceed the City of Toronto’s Affordable Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of construction, subject to any adjustment agreed to by the City of Toronto.
● All Affordable Rental Housing as defined in the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan will be owned by a public body or a non-profit organization.
(b) Sustainability and Other Innovations
Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs will continue to discuss the remaining investments to be made to meet Waterfront Toronto’s policy objectives as described above.
9
Page 40 of 190
I look forward to receipt of confirmation of Sidewalk Approval to this letter, so that Waterfront Toronto can move forward to seek the approval of our Board.
Yours truly,
George Zegarac President and CEO Waterfront Toronto
10
Page 41 of 190
SCHEDULE A
11
Page 42 of 190
SCHEDULE B
12
Page 43 of 190
13
Page 44 of 190
10 Hudson Yards sidewalklabs.com New York, NY 10001 212-373-0800
October 30, 2019 Dear Mr. Zegarac,
Mr. George Zegarac Waterfront Toronto Thank you for your letter dated October 29th regarding alignment on 20 Bay Street, Suite 1310 threshold issues. Sidewalk Labs is in alignment with Waterfront Toronto that Toronto, ON M5J 2N8 this content should be utilized to inform Waterfront Toronto's consultation and evaluation process. Sidewalk Labs has also obtained all approvals required to give "Sidewalk Approval" for these threshold issues as the basis for our continued work together, pursuant to section 9.01(a)(v)(i) of the amended Plan Development Agreement.
We note, however, that the City of Toronto’s letter of October 21st to Waterfront Toronto (Schedule B) proposes a significantly different timing for the evaluation and potential disposition process of the land within Villiers West than had previously been assumed would be possible. That timing change has an impact on the innovation agenda and economic underpinnings of our proposal. We therefore note the importance, as stated in the Threshold Issues document, of agreeing on the economics and innovation program to achieve Waterfront Toronto’s objectives at Quayside.
We look forward to continuing our collaboration as we work toward defining a successful, highly innovative project on Toronto’s waterfront.
Sincerely,
Joshua J. Sirefman President Sidewalk Labs
Page 45 of 190
October 31, 2019
OPEN LETTER FROM WATERFRONT TORONTO BOARD CHAIR
When Waterfront Toronto released the Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP) to the public this past June, I wrote an open letter outlining the Board’s early impressions of Sidewalk Labs’ proposal. The letter acknowledged that there were some exciting ideas that respond to challenges we face, particularly related to environmental sustainability and economic development. The letter also clearly outlined several areas of concern Waterfront Toronto would need to see resolved before proceeding to an evaluation of the proposal.
We are pleased to report that we have reached alignment on the critical issues raised in my letter, as well as other issues and concerns raised by the public during consultations this summer.
Based on the progress made to date, the Board of Waterfront Toronto has decided unanimously to direct management to proceed with the formal evaluation of the MIDP and further public consultation.
Let me be clear: this is not a done deal. There is still much work to do before a final decision. While a final Board decision whether or not to proceed has yet to be made, we are pleased that we are now able to move to the evaluation stage on a project that has the potential to create new jobs and economic development opportunities, a create carbon-neutral neighbourhood, and more affordable housing units.
Waterfront Toronto’s initial concerns were rooted in our public interest mandate, including our responsibility to protect, innovate, and revitalize Toronto’s waterfront. Sidewalk Labs listened to our concerns, and those of the public, and has confirmed that it will make significant changes to its proposal, including:
• The amount of land in the proposal has been reduced, from 190 acres (IDEA district) to the 12 acres of Quayside as an initial stage of the project. If Quayside proves successful, the approval of any additional public lands outside of Quayside in will be subject to competitive procurement processes. • Sidewalk Labs agreed that all personal information will be stored in Canada, and it has eliminated the Urban Data Trust proposal, as well as the term “urban data.” It will comply with all existing and future legislative and regulatory frameworks. • Proposals for new public administrators. Any future innovations in Quayside will remain subject to the regulation, evaluation, and approval of existing governing bodies. • For vertical development, Sidewalk Labs has confirmed that it will partner with one or more real estate developers, rather than act as “lead developer” as originally proposed. As is customary, Waterfront Toronto would lead a competitive public procurement process.
Page 46 of 190 In addition, Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs have had productive discussions on other aspects of the MIDP:
• Waterfront Toronto will receive fair market value for the Quayside lands at the time of sale. The current appraisal is approximately $590 million. Waterfront Toronto will make investments to support project priorities such as affordable housing and climate change. • Sidewalk Labs has acknowledged that Waterfront Toronto does not have jurisdiction over the approval of capital funding for public transit. That said, Waterfront Toronto has always supported and advocated for waterfront transit and will continue to do so. Sidewalk Labs will review the status of public transit commitments and will make its decision to proceed prior to the completion of implementation agreements. • Sidewalk Labs will expand its patent pledge from Canadian-only to global, allowing Canadian innovators to have the right to use Sidewalk Labs’ Canadian and foreign patents covering hardware and software digital innovations. • Waterfront Toronto will be entitled to a revenue share on intellectual property based on percentage of revenues, rather than profits.
The details of the realignment agreed to are here and a summary of the threshold issues is here.
Later this fall, Waterfront Toronto will meet with the public on the resolution of these key issues, provide clarity on what is being evaluated, and discuss the decision-making process going forward.
The public have my assurance that there will be more opportunities to have its say and inform the evaluation and any subsequent decisions by Waterfront Toronto and its Board. Early in 2020 there will be another round of public consultation to share and seek feedback on the status of the evaluation.
A decision about whether to move forward with the MIDP will be made by March 31, 2020 by Waterfront Toronto’s Board.
On behalf of the Board and staff of Waterfront Toronto, I thank the public for showing up, for participating in consultations and for sharing important feedback. I want you to know that you have made a real difference. The discussion on Quayside has demonstrated that the people of Toronto are passionate, engaged, and determined to see the waterfront remains a thriving place for everyone to enjoy.
Sincerely,
Stephen Diamond Chair, Waterfront Toronto Board of Directors
Page 47 of 190
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
September 24, 2019
Stephen Diamond Chairman of the Board of Directors Waterfront Toronto
Dear Mr. Diamond:
Re: Sidewalk Labs’ Proposal
I am writing to comment on the privacy and access to information issues that arise in Sidewalk Labs’ draft Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP) for the Quayside project. The purpose of this letter is to help guide Waterfront Toronto’s consideration of the MIDP’s digital governance proposals. Note that a number of our recommendations are directed to the government of Ontario and directly implicate the interests of the City of Toronto. For that reason, I have copied the provincial government and the City. As there is limited detail on the proposed digital innovations, our comments will focus on the digital governance proposals.
As discussed in greater detail below, I have the following key concerns about the proposals in the MIDP:
• The City must have a clearer role in the project and a voice in identifying what is in the public interest. Cities are at the core of smart city innovations such as transit optimization, or enhancement of public spaces, and they have experience in the delivery of municipal services.
• When a city or other public sector organization contracts with a private sector organization to carry out municipal services, it is essential that any related collection, use or disclosure of personal information complies with MFIPPA.
• The provincial government must modernize our laws to ensure that privacy protective, transparent, accountable and ethical data practices are at the forefront of all smart city projects.
• The proposed Urban Data Trust is problematic for a number of reasons, including: a concerning overlap with the mandate of the Trust and that of existing privacy regulators; a lack of independent oversight of the Trust’s decisions; and an expectation that public sector organizations seek approval from the Trust.
Page 48 of 190 • If new public sector organizations are created as a result of Sidewalk Labs’ proposals, the provincial government must ensure that Ontario’s public sector privacy and access legislation applies to those bodies.
Our office oversees Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which apply to provincial and municipal institutions respectively (also referred to as “organizations”). FIPPA and MFIPPA establish the rules for collection, use and disclosure of personal information and provide a right of access to information held by public institutions. These laws help ensure that governments are open, accountable and transparent – central features of any democratic government. The privacy protections recognize the fundamental right of individuals to have control over their own personal information. An important part of my office’s role is to comment on proposed government programs and to work with provincial and municipal government institutions to ensure compliance with the laws.
My office has been closely following the Quayside consultations carried out by Waterfront Toronto. I was pleased to see that Waterfront Toronto set up an advisory panel with participation from some of the leading privacy voices to provide independent guidance on these challenging issues. Earlier in the year, we also met with Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto and provided some preliminary comments on the possible application of MFIPPA to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in some of the scenarios described in the MIDP. We have also had discussions with the City and provincial government staff about the project where we expressed our commitment to support a thorough review of the privacy implications of the proposals in the MIDP.
I believe that some smart city technologies and the data they generate have the potential to help cities better manage urban environments and deliver services in a more effective and efficient way. Privacy does not have to be a barrier to these technologies. However, the increasing reliance on data – in some cases personal information – requires more robust protections.
OVERVIEW OF PRIVACY LAWS IN THE MUNICIPAL CONTEXT
Before commenting on the digital governance proposal, it is important to consider how municipal institutions are currently expected to protect privacy when collecting personal information.
Under MFIPPA, municipalities are only permitted to collect personal information if it is:
• expressly authorized by statute, • used for law enforcement, or • necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity.
In many cases, municipalities rely on the last condition – that is, they collect personal information because it is necessary to do so to deliver a service. This is an important principle as it builds in data minimization requirements, a foundation of privacy laws worldwide. MFIPPA also limits how
2
Page 49 of 190 municipalities may use and disclose personal information, and includes requirements for retention, storage and destruction.
Government organizations are increasingly working with the private sector to help them deliver effective and cost efficient public services. This is reflected in many smart city initiatives where public-private partnerships are formed to deliver services. In Ontario, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act – a federal law overseen by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada – applies to the private sector when engaged in commercial activity.
The complex nature of smart city partnerships can make it challenging to determine the applicable privacy laws. Depending on the circumstances of the public-private partnership, it is possible that the collection, use or disclosure of personal information would be governed by MFIPPA, PIPEDA, or both. In our view, municipalities should be leading smart city initiatives involving the collection of data within public spaces, to solve urban challenges and improve the delivery of municipal services. When municipalities contract with private sector organizations to carry out activities that involve the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, compliance with MFIPPA is of the utmost importance. Unlike PIPEDA, MFIPPA does not allow the collection of personal information on the basis of consent. This has been an ongoing point of confusion in the Quayside discussion.
COMMENTS ON THE MIDP PROPOSAL
Proposal to create new organizations
Sidewalk Labs proposes the establishment of a number of organizations, including:
• Public Administrator – a public entity serving as revitalization lead in the project area.
• Waterfront Transportation Management Association (WTMA) – a unit of the Public Administrator that would oversee the mobility infrastructure and systems, such as the streets, sidewalks and transportation services within the project area.
Sidewalk Labs envisions the role of the Public Administrator to include overseeing the innovation, real estate, infrastructure and technology in the geographic area covered by the MIDP. Notably, Sidewalk Labs proposes that the Public Administrator would work closely with the City and others to lead planning efforts, and supplement the City’s existing public approval process.
If any new public sector organizations are created as a result of Sidewalk Labs’ proposals, the provincial government must ensure that Ontario’s public sector privacy and access legislation applies to those bodies. It appears that the new organizations described above may deliver some key services that are within the legislative mandate of the City (as set out in the City of Toronto Act, 2006), and the TTC. If carried out in the more traditional manner by these institutions, these activities would clearly be governed by MFIPPA. However, the new public sector organizations would not necessarily fall under Ontario’s public sector privacy and access legislation, unless they are designated as institutions. Clear statutory rights of access and privacy are key components to
3
Page 50 of 190 democratic and accountable government.
Digital governance proposals
Sidewalk Labs’ main digital governance proposals are:
• Urban Data – includes personal, non-personal, aggregate or de-identified data collected in a physical space in the City, where it is difficult to get meaningful consent prior to collection and use. Sidewalk Labs has proposed new rules and processes for the collection and use of Urban Data, intended to supplement existing rules set out in Ontario’s public sector privacy laws and PIPEDA.
• Transactional Data – information that individuals provide through direct interaction with commercial or government-operated services, such as apps, websites, and product or service delivery. In contrast to Urban Data, Sidewalk Labs has not proposed any new rules or processes for the collection or use of Transactional Data; it is excluded from the Trust’s oversight.
• Urban Data Trust (the Trust) – a data steward that oversees both public and private sector organizations collecting and using Urban Data in the project area. The Trust would have the authority to approve or reject any proposed collection or use of Urban Data.
• Responsible Data Use Assessment (RDUA) – organizations would be required to submit an RDUA to the Trust that evaluates the purpose of the proposal, the type of data it would collect, its potential impact on the community, and its risks and benefits.
Sidewalk Labs proposes a two-staged implementation of the Trust:
• Phase 1 – establish a non-profit organization overseen by a five-member board comprised of a data governance, privacy, or intellectual property expert; a community representative; a public-sector representative; an academic representative; and a Canadian business representative.
• Phase 2 – the Trust becomes a public-sector agency or quasi-public agency requiring enabling legislation.
Sidewalk Labs acknowledges that the Trust is just one digital governance model. I echo that statement. While there is value in open engagement with a diverse range of parties, ultimately the provincial and municipal governments, led by democratically elected officials, are best-placed to define the digital governance framework for this project and all other smart city initiatives in the province. We encourage the relevant governments to consult with our office to design an appropriate framework to ensure that privacy, accountability and ethical practices are at the forefront of these types of complex personal information practices.
With that in mind, the following comments should not be interpreted as implicit support of the digital governance proposals outlined in the MIDP. At this time, I remain unconvinced that the
4
Page 51 of 190 proposal to create an Urban Data Trust as outlined in the MIDP is the most effective way to protect privacy rights. However, I am providing feedback on the digital governance proposals so they can be improved upon in the event that they are approved.
i. Urban and Transactional Data
Urban Data reflects a marked departure from the scope of current federal and provincial privacy legislation, which applies to personal information. If Waterfront Toronto supports the creation of a digital governance model that is based on Urban Data, it will be important not to lose sight of the need to comply with existing access and privacy laws that apply to personal information collected, used and disclosed by public and private sector organizations.
If pursued, there is also a need for clarity regarding the scope of Urban Data versus Transactional Data. In my view, it is difficult to determine whether some of the data activities described in the MIDP would be considered Urban Data, and therefore subject to the oversight of the Trust, or Transactional Data, which is not.
It is important to consider whether Urban Data and Transactional Data are meaningful distinctions – both types of data raise privacy concerns. For instance, consider a mobility app proposed in the MIDP that provides information about public and private sector transit options and allows users to pay using the same app. If the data collected via this app were to be classified as Transactional Data (which seems likely given that Transactional Data includes information individuals provide for service delivery through a direct interaction, such as apps) it would be considered outside of the scope of the Trust’s review. This is concerning given that such an app, while beneficial for users, could enable a complete portrait of a user’s movements in the area.
If one of the key purposes of the Trust is to add an extra layer of protection where there are increased privacy risks, such as surveillance, the omission of Transactional Data from the Trust’s mandate is troubling. The privacy risks associated with Transactional Data are further amplified in the event that one organization, such as Sidewalk Labs, is engaged to support the delivery of multiple services in Quayside (such as offering mobile apps or delivering freight management and storage as suggested in the MIDP). If Sidewalk Labs (or another organization) provides multiple services, it could amass a great deal of information on individuals that could be linked to create detailed profiles of individuals’ lives. Where an organization is providing multiple services to an individual who lives and/or works in Quayside (such as transit, mail delivery and hydro), consent may not offer strong privacy protection, as the individual may not have a viable alternative for those services.
For the reasons described above, it is important to consider whether both Urban Data and Transactional Data are deserving of an extra layer of review and protection, whether it be through a Trust or other legislative protections. I am pleased that Sidewalk Labs has committed to applying the Responsible Data Use Guidelines to any of its own commercially launched products and services that involve Transactional Data. I see this as an important role for Sidewalk Labs – that is, if they want to see a more robust framework in place for transparent, privacy-enhancing and ethical information practices, they should lead by example.
5
Page 52 of 190 ii. The Urban Data Trust
One of the purposes of the Trust is to provide enhanced privacy and ethical protections that surpass the current privacy laws. Sidewalk Labs states that it wants the Trust to build a robust process that stakeholders can trust, can help advance the priority outcomes for the project, provides additional protections for individual privacy and groups, and makes publicly accessible the data that could reasonably be considered a public asset.
Sidewalk Labs’ Trust proposal establishes a common approach for information handling and encourages best practices that go beyond the current legislative requirements. I believe that this is a laudable objective. For instance, the establishment of guiding principles around responsible artificial intelligence, or de-identification by default would enhance privacy protection for individuals whose information is collected, used and disclosed in a smart city initiative. While guidelines and best practices can be useful tools, in my view they are not adequate to ensure that these goals are met. The government needs to put in place a legislative framework to ensure that the highest protections are upheld and enforceable by an independent oversight agency. Below are further comments on the proposed Trust.
Overlap with existing privacy and access regulators
There is a distinct overlap between the roles of the Trust and the roles of my office and the federal Privacy Commissioner. For instance, it is possible that the Trust could approve a project, the parties would reasonably assume the project is legally sound, and my office could later find that the project violated MFIPPA. In other areas, such as auditing and enforcement, the Trust’s authority may even reach beyond that of my office. This problem of overlapping jurisdictions and oversight is further complicated in public-private partnerships where it may be unclear whether public or private sector privacy laws apply. As I expand on below, the notion of a non-profit Trust having the ability to govern the information practices of public institutions that are already governed by privacy legislation and other statutes is problematic.
Composition of the board
As previously noted, Sidewalk Labs has suggested that the composition of the board could include a data governance, privacy, or intellectual property expert; a community representative; a public- sector representative; an academic representative; and a Canadian business representative. As well, they have recommended best practices to ensure the independence of the board. The representation of a diverse range of experience and interests is very important to the extent that the board will make decisions about all information practices in the scope of this project. While I understand why a sectoral approach was proposed, it may be beneficial to instead focus on the areas of expertise required to make such decisions; for example, ethics, risks to marginalized populations, data science and effective de-identification. Also, measures will need to be put in place to ensure that the board is independent, including defining processes for the selection of board members.
6
Page 53 of 190 Limited oversight and redress
As described above, Sidewalk Labs proposes that the Trust be established as a non-profit with a chief data officer tasked with setting the guidelines and governance for digital practices in Quayside. If the Trust is established as proposed, our office would continue to have oversight over privacy and access laws applicable to Ontario’s public institutions operating in the project area. However, under the MIDP proposal, in phase one there would be no independent oversight of the decisions made by the Trust. Nor would it be subject to Ontario’s access and privacy laws. It appears that the only remedy for parties subject to the Trust would be to seek redress before the courts – a costly and time consuming process. It is also not clear that the public, particularly individuals affected by the Trust’s decision to approve or disallow projects, would have any recourse during phase one, given that they would not be a party to the contractual agreements between the Trust and the organizations seeking approval of their collection practices.
For the above reasons, I do not recommend that Waterfront Toronto approve a two-phase approach to implementation of the Trust. Absent a legislative framework to protect privacy and access rights, ensure best practices and provide independent oversight, the Trust model is not adequate. Instead, I recommend that the provincial government conduct an open review of the Trust model and determine whether it or some other legislative scheme should be enacted to govern privacy in all smart city projects. If the government decides to pursue this Trust model, it must be supported by a clear regulatory framework that sets out the Trust’s authority, mandate, criteria for evaluating the full lifecycle of data (not just collection and use), as well as a mechanism for independent oversight. Ontario has a number of good examples of entities that are entrusted with the management of large amounts of personal information, such as the prescribed entities model under Ontario’s health privacy law.
Public interest must be clearly defined
Sidewalk Labs proposes that the mandate of the Trust include balancing the public interest and the need for innovation. There are many interests that will need to be considered in such an evaluation, such as privacy, human rights, security, intellectual property, potential benefits to future society, data monopolies and many others. It is not clear how the Trust would balance these diverse interests unless the public interest is clearly defined. The government should ensure that public interest objectives are defined in legislation.
Clearer role for the City
It is unclear from our review what role the City will play in the implementation of the proposal as a whole. This is unfortunate, as the City is at the core of smart city innovations such as transit optimization, or enhancement of public spaces, and it has obvious experience in the delivery of municipal services. The City also has broad legislative authority to pass bylaws regulating the economic, social and environmental well-being of the City, as well as the health, safety and well- being of persons within the City. As a democratically elected government, the City must have a clearer role in the project and ultimately a voice in identifying what is in the public interest. If the provincial government pursues the Trust model proposed, there must an integral role for cities clearly articulated in the legislative framework.
7
Page 54 of 190 Public sector reporting to the Trust
As noted above, I also find it problematic that, as proposed, the City and other public sector organizations would be expected to apply to the Trust in order to collect or use any Urban Data in the geographical area of the project. The City has statutory authority to carry out various activities that will require the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in order to properly administer its lawfully authorized activities. In some cases, the City may be statutorily required to collect, use or disclose personal information. The City also has extensive experience in determining what is in the public interest, a democratic mandate, and has also developed a framework for the protection of privacy. To then expect the City to apply to a non-profit Trust, go through the evaluation process, and commit to contractual undertakings would be inappropriate given the experience, mandate and statutory authority of the City.
Need for law reform
As described above, part of the aim of the Trust is to build upon the foundation of privacy laws and create a higher standard of protection. We encourage organizations to surpass the bare minimums set out in legislation, and recognize Sidewalk Labs’ effort to improve upon an imperfect legislative framework in the Trust proposal. Our privacy and access laws are out-dated and the IPC has long called for a comprehensive review and modernization of our public sector privacy laws.
Rather than relying on Sidewalk Labs to develop an appropriate solution, this is an opportunity for the provincial government to take the lead and modernize the laws to address the legislative shortcomings. Amendments could include mandatory requirements for data minimization, additional protections for individual and group privacy, ethical safeguards, and greater enforcement tools for my office, including additional investigation, order making and audit powers.
With regard to private sector privacy laws, reports of the federal Privacy Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, among others, demonstrate that PIPEDA is inadequate. As the process unfolding at the federal level to bring PIPEDA up to date is proceeding slowly, this may also be the time for the government to consider advancing made-in-Ontario private sector privacy legislation. An Ontario private sector privacy law would help ensure public and private sector laws are cohesive, and help to minimize the risks of regulatory uncertainty. Simplifying oversight would lead to efficiencies, particularly in the context of smart city initiatives that involve partnerships between the private and public sectors.
An alternative option for the government to consider is stand alone smart city legislation. Legislative reform could ensure that there are clearly defined and consistent rules in Ontario to address the unique risks arising from public-private sector partnerships in all urban settings, not just Quayside. This includes a need for clarity on which law applies to these types of complex information practices within our cities.
8
Page 55 of 190 iii. Responsible Data Use Assessment and Guidelines
Sidewalk Labs sets out its views on what should be included in the Responsible Data Use Guidelines, though ultimately they suggest that the Trust should establish the Guidelines. The principles included in the Guidelines (including transparency, de-identification by default, data minimization and making data publicly accessible) are important principles and I agree that all of these factors should be considered when carrying out data activities.
Full lifecycle
The MIDP proposes the Trust be tasked with “implementing and managing a four-step process for approving the responsible collection and use of Urban Data.” Disclosure is a notable absence in this mandate. Some references in the MIDP suggest that the full lifecycle of information will be considered – however, most seem to only consider collection and use. Whatever the approach, the full lifecycle of information handling must be considered.
PIAs
The RDUA is a tool developed by Sidewalk Labs to evaluate any proposed activities involving Urban Data. While the proposed RDUA process clearly incorporates some elements of a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), it is unclear if the completion of an RDUA would satisfy all of the components typically considered in a PIA (such as identifying the data flows, confirming legal authority for each data activity, and considering the full information lifecycle from collection/creation to destruction/return). PIAs are widely recognized as important tools to help ensure that privacy risks are identified and adequately addressed in the design of new technologies and programs. The City completes PIAs regularly when considering new technologies or programs. In this project, there must be a requirement for all organizations processing personal information to conduct a full PIA, or to include PIA requirements in the RDUA.
Net impact
The RDUA developed by Sidewalk Labs proposes that the Trust base decisions on a net impact of an initiative, balancing benefit and risk. This may be problematic. For instance, an initiative that is high risk yet yields a higher benefit would arguably be allowed to proceed with this approach. Some privacy risks will not be acceptable, no matter how beneficial the outcome may be.
CONCLUSION
I appreciate the valuable public discussion encouraged by Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs and furthered by governments, academics, civil society actors and special interest groups around new digital governance models. I also want to commend Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs for the number of open consultations that have taken place over the last year.
The digital governance proposals set out in the MIDP raise several concerns, including: a lack of independent public oversight, a cumbersome mandate that overlaps with that of my office and the federal Privacy Commissioner, and an insufficient role for the City given its experience delivering
9
Page 56 of 190 municipal services in the public interest. If Waterfront Toronto decides to pursue the Trust proposal advanced by Sidewalk Labs, it must be supported by the provincial government with a clear regulatory framework that sets out the mandate, criteria for evaluating the full lifecycle of data, as well as a mechanism for independent oversight. In addition, if new public organizations are created, such as the proposed Public Administrator, they must be designated as institutions under MFIPPA or FIPPA.
Most importantly, the digital governance proposals proposed by Sidewalk Labs highlight the legislative shortcomings in our privacy laws. I appreciate the efforts of Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs to explore interim measures to address these deficiencies; however, the provincial government needs to modernize our laws to ensure that privacy protective, transparent, accountable and ethical data practices are at the forefront of all of these complex data projects. My office is available to consult with the government on the design of a legislative framework that meets these requirements.
Sincerely,
Brian Beamish Commissioner cc: Hillary Hartley Chief Digital and Data Officer, Deputy Minister Cabinet Office
John Roberts Chief Privacy Officer and Archivist of Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services
John Tory Mayor City of Toronto
Honorable Laurie Scott Ontario Infrastructure Minister Ministry of Infrastructure
10
Page 57 of 190
DSAP Meeting – November 7, 2019 Item 5 – Next Phase of Consultation
Agenda Item 5 – Next Phase of Consultation
Purpose Information
Key Message As part of our evaluation process for the MIDP (as amended through the threshold issues negotiations), Waterfront Toronto is planning two rounds of public consultation – an information session in November, and a full consultation in January.
Areas of note/ Key issues
Expected Outcome
Key Takeaways/ DSAP members will be provided additional information about Next Steps consultations once they have been scheduled.
Page 58 of 190 November 7, 2019 Quayside Public Engagement – Next Steps Waterfront Toronto
Page 59 of 190 2 Page 60 of 190 Rationale for change: • October 31 was a key moment • Demonstrate Waterfront Toronto’s commitment to transparency on resolution of threshold issues • Public briefing is also important opportunity to explain what will be evaluated, given how threshold issues have been addressed • Round Two of the consultation will take place in January, when Waterfront Toronto will share and seek feedback on how the proposals from Sidewalk Labs align with Waterfront Toronto Objectives (a priority identified by the public in July consultations) 3 Page 61 of 190 Context & timing
JUNE 24 OCTOBER 31 JANUARY DEC 31, 2020 RT4 • MIDP released • Resolution of • Round Two Public • Implementation • Open letter Threshold Issues Consultation Agreements deadline
JUNE JULY OCT NOV JAN MARCH DEC
JULY - AUGUST NOVEMBER MARCH 31, 2020 • Round One Public • Public update • Evaluation complete Consultation • Board Decision JULY 31 ETHI • PDA amended: Committee Oct 31 deadline Page 62 of 190 Public Engagement
Public Update: November • Brief the public on the resolution of the threshold issues • Explain how resolution of threshold issues influences what Waterfront Toronto will be reviewing during the formal evaluation • Answer questions • Livestreamed and recorded
Round Two Public Consultation: December 2019-January 2020 • Seeks feedback on priority areas to inform evaluation • Public Meetings (2-3 meetings – TBD) • Online consultation • Discussion Guide mirroring in person consultation • Opportunity for written submissions
5 Page 63 of 190 City of Toronto Consultations on Digital Infrastructure Governance and Framework
JUNE
Page 64 of 190
DSAP Meeting – November 7, 2019 Item 6 – Waterfront Toronto Digital Principles and Intelligent Community Guidelines
Agenda Item 6 – Waterfront Toronto Digital Principles and Intelligent Community Guidelines
Purpose Digital Principles: Recommendation Intelligent Community Guidelines: Information & Discussion
Key Message Waterfront Toronto has developed a set of Digital Principles which – complementary to existing legislation – establish that in evaluating any project proposal must represent ethically responsible innovation that reflects public values and preserves or enhances the public good. These Principles are complementary to, and do not replace, existing legislation. We have held a public consultation process on the Digital Principles, and are seeking DSAP’s final comments and recommendation that the Principles be sent to Waterfront’s Board of Directors for approval.
Expanding on this, we are also in the process of creating a set of Intelligent Community Guidelines the “how” to the Principles’ “what” and “why”. The development and consultation process – and DSAP’s role in it – will be put forward at this meeting.
Areas of note/ Key issues
Expected Outcome 1. DSAP will recommend the Digital Principles for approval. 2. DSAP will be aware of the Intelligent Community Guidelines and the intended consultation process on them.
Key Takeaways/ Next Steps
Page 65 of 190
Draft Digital Principles
Digital solutions are being proposed to advance objectives for improving quality of life in waterfront neighbourhoods. When considering and evaluating solutions, Waterfront Toronto is focused on:
• Ensuring that personal privacy, civil liberties and human dignity are protected; • Providing shared benefits, including an economic catalyst for open innovation; • Informing the broader public policy dialogue on digital technology and data; • Determining whether technology is the right answer to the challenge or opportunity; and • Future-proofing emerging neighbourhoods, ensuring resiliency and adaptability. These draft principles have been developed through our recent Civic Labs and are informed by the work of cities around the world, including the efforts of the Cities Coalition for Digital Rights. They also incorporate feedback from a public consultation on a prior version. We will next engage our Digital Strategy Advisory Panel for their expertise and guidance, in late July. It is important to note that any projects or proposals made for the waterfront would need to fully comply with all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements, including:
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms • Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) (Canada) • Privacy Act (Canada) • Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) • Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) • Any new legal/regulatory requirements which may be introduced or amended.
The core foundation of these draft Principles is that any project proposed to Waterfront Toronto must represent ethically responsible innovation that reflects public values and preserves or enhances the public good.
Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Digital Principles – July 10, 2019 Page 66 of 190
Principle #1: Everyone will have access to, and benefit equally from, digital solutions This includes:
• Universal access to affordable internet, inclusive design of digital solutions on equitable terms, and the digital literacy efforts to promote the skills to use these resources. • Creating opportunities for individuals and groups to engage with their community through open, participatory and transparent digital processes. • Identifying and, to the extent possible, mitigating any potential bias against or marginalization of an individual or group. • Sharing, as appropriate, non-personal and de-identified data collected with government- provided open data portals, the research community or other third-party organizations who are contributing to the advancement of the public good. • Designing digital solutions and accompanying commercial terms to minimize the impacts of information asymmetry.
Principle #2: Digital solutions will be open, ethical, and resilient This includes:
• Use of protocols, standards and operating agreements that do not foster monopolies, barriers to entry, vendor lock-in, or dependency on a sole vendor to provide related products or services. • Providing digital solutions through open and ethical digital service standards. • Ensuring digital solutions are developed and operate using only ethically sourced data. • Requiring that solutions – particularly those related to infrastructure – be secure and resilient, including the implementation of measures allowing for safe failure.
Principle #3: Everyone will be able to understand how their data is being collected and used, and how organizations can and will be held accountable for their practices This includes:
• Specific measures to ensure transparency of collection, use, retention and disclosure of personal data. • Mechanisms to proactively address concerns about the potential misuse of data by fulfilling individuals’ rights to access, review and correct their data. • Access to understandable and accurate information about the digital solutions (including underlying algorithms or artificial intelligence) that are proposed or adopted, and the ability to question and change unfair, biased or discriminatory systems. • Ability to override automated decisions that are inconsistent with the public good. • Review of any proposed project that could have a significant impact on a person or group by the Waterfront Toronto Digital Strategy Advisory Panel prior to implementation. • Active monitoring of compliance with these principles to ensure the objectives are achieved and maintained, and public access to the results of these compliance reviews. • Requiring that the organization responsible for any proposed project must demonstrate knowledge of, and adherence to, any applicable guidance published by a relevant regulator (such as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada or the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario).
Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Digital Principles – July 10, 2019 Page 67 of 190
• Requiring that organizations be willing to comply with any investigation, audit or other compliance action by an applicable regulator, including where such cooperation is "voluntary" under the regulation.
Principle #4: Strong privacy protections will be in place at all times This includes:
• All initiatives and products that use personal data will be the subject of a published Privacy Impact Assessment to identify privacy risks and corresponding mitigation strategies before implementation. • Embedding privacy in any initiative or product development through Privacy by Design. • Collection of personal data by, or on behalf of, government agencies must be accompanied by a demonstration of necessity and appropriate notice to individuals. Collection of personal data by businesses requires informed consent, full identification of purposes (in a contextually appropriate form), and clear options to not provide, and to later withdraw, consent. • Minimization of collection, use, retention and disclosure to what is necessary for the provision of identified and approved services that demonstrate benefit to individuals. This includes limiting collection through, among other measures, the use of non- identifying technology (e.g. motion sensors rather than cameras) and automatic deletion of identifiable data when no longer required. • De-identification of personal data at source, unless the collecting organization has obtained consent – or, in the case of government, demonstrated necessity – to store the data in identifiable form. • Prohibiting profiling, without demonstrated necessity or informed consent by government or without informed consent by business, for any purpose. • Prohibiting data collected within waterfront projects from being used for advertising purposes without express positive consent. • Protecting data through appropriate security measures, mandatory breach notification, and prohibitions against disclosure without consent (except where explicitly permitted by law).
Principle #5: Data and systems will remain under local control and be subject to local laws This includes:
• Granular policies regarding data residency and routing that are informed by legislative requirements, global best practices and project objectives (e.g., potential research and development exemptions, support escalation requirements, etc.), which policies would be adopted and made public. • As a first principle, data collected in waterfront neighbourhoods will remain in Canada. • Decision-makers (including individuals) have the freedom to use the technologies of their choice, and expect the same level of interoperability, inclusion and opportunity in their digital services. • Adaptability of solutions to new legislative or regulatory conditions that may emerge.
Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Digital Principles – July 10, 2019 Page 68 of 190 November 7, 2019 Waterfront Toronto Digital Principles & Intelligent Community Guidelines
Kristina Verner, Vice President, Innovation, Sustainability & Prosperity
Page 69 of 190 Digital Principles
• Principle #1: Everyone will have access to, and benefit equally from, digital solutions • Principle #2: Digital solutions will be open, ethical, and resilient • Principle #3: Everyone will be able to understand how their data is being collected and used, and how organizations can and will be held accountable for their practices • Principle #4: Strong privacy protections will be in place at all times
Waterfront Toronto Digital Principles • Principle #5: Data and systems will remain under local control and be The core foundation of these draft Principles is that any project proposed to Waterfront Toronto must represent subject to local laws. ethically responsible innovation that reflects public values and preserves or enhances the public good. Page 70 of 1902 Intelligent Community Guidelines Overview 1. Context & Purpose 2. Proposed Structure 3. Timeline & Process 4. Example of Draft Guidelines 5. DSAP Role & Participation
Page 71 of 1903 Context & Purpose
• Modelled after the process Waterfront Toronto has established for Minimum Green building requirements, the Intelligent Community Guidelines will provide a framework for digital projects that builds on the baseline protections provided by applicable laws. • Grounded in the Digital Principles, the Intelligent Community Guidelines will apply to all proponents doing projects with Waterfront Toronto. • The guidelines are informed by the input received during the Civic Labs and public consultation sessions. • Due to the objective of responsible data use and the desire to be a leading example of Intelligent Community design, the Intelligent Community Guidelines may commonly require a proponent to exceed the requirements of existing and laws and emerging ethical guidelines and standards based on the nature of the proposed solution.
Page 72 of 1904 Proposed Structure
1. Introduction 4. Intellectual Property a) Background a) Purpose b) Approach b) Patent Pledge 2. Jurisdictional Context c) Project Specific IP a) Applicable Legislation d) Co-created IP b) Regulatory Approvals e) Data-enabled IP f) Revenue Sharing Methodologies 3. Digital Governance g) Licensing a) Purpose h) Remedies b) Transparency c) Consent & User Control 5. Review Process d) Privacy & Security Measures a) Process Overview e) Data Rights & Ownership b) Submission Requirements f) Data Residency c) Role of DSAP g) Transfer, Sale & Outsourcing 6. Definitions h) Open Data, Data Exchanges & Cooperatives Page 73 of 1905 Timeline & Process
Page 74 of 1906 Example of Draft Guidelines
Privacy Protection Measures • Proponents will adhere to and incorporate Privacy by Design principles and design, implement, maintain and follow privacy and security risk mitigation measures that exceed the minimum standards required by applicable Privacy Laws. • Proponents will use best practices to de-identify Personal Information at source, at the moment of capture. • Personal Data must be encrypted in transit and at rest. • Proponents will use technical and organizational measures (including contractual prohibitions and remedies) to mitigate the potential for re-identification. Proponents must take into account and declare whether they have a practical inability to monitor and enforce contractual commitments prohibiting re- identification. • Proponents will not use facial recognition technology in a solution. In the event facial detection technology is used, there will be a higher standard of review of the solution and the Proponent must propose clear notices to affected individuals. • In the event that biometric technology is used, there will be a higher standard of review of the solution and the Proponent must propose clear notices to affected individuals and obtain express consent. Proponents will be prohibited form secondary uses of biometrics without separate consent.
Page 75 of 1907 DSAP Role & Participation in Guideline Development
• Propose that the Architecture & Standards Subcommittee work with Waterfront Toronto Management to advance draft guidelines.
• Key presentations to full DSAP as follows: • January – Consolidated first draft informed by first round of guidelines presented for discussion and comment • Informed by the first round of market sounding in preparation for public consultation. • March – Second draft informed by first round of public consultation and ongoing market sounding processes. • May – Summary of overall feedback though consultation and • September – Final Draft
• Open DSAP review and comment period: January – June 2020.
Page 76 of 1908 Page 77 of 190
DSAP Meeting – November 7, 2019 Item 7 – Discussion of WT and SWL Responses to DSAP Preliminary Commentary
Agenda Item 7 – Discussion of Responses to DSAP Preliminary Commentary
Purpose Information & Discussion
Key Message The DSAP Preliminary Commentary included an Appendix with 164 comments from Panelists. After an exercise to identify the most appropriate responder to each comment, Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs have each independently developed a set of responses. Here, both parties will respond to any Panelists questions or feedback about the response documents.
Areas of note/ Key issues
Expected Outcome Panelists will have had the opportunity to raise any clarifying questions about WT and SWL’s responses to the Preliminary Commentary’s appendix question.
Key Takeaways/ Next Steps
Page 78 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
Waterfront Toronto Response to Digital Strategy Advisory Panel Commentary Waterfront Toronto (“WT”)’s management again thanks the Digital Strategy Advisory Panel (“DSAP”) for your efforts in developing a thoughtful and informative Preliminary Commentary on Sidewalk Labs (“SWL”)’s Master Innovation and Development Plan (“MIDP”).
With the assistance of the Report Writing Working Group, each of the 164 comments received were assigned to either SWL, WT (and its government partners), or both. Below, we have provided WT’s response to the latter two categories, and where appropriate provided comment on the former.
Before addressing individual comments, we felt that it would be worthwhile to provide an overview of the process we have undertaken related to digital issues leading up to the October 31, 2019 deadline to agree on “threshold issues.”1
Both the DSAP Preliminary Commentary and the feedback received through our public consultations have made clear that there is an expectation that WT (and/or its government partners) must take a leadership role in defining governance for the Quayside project, and we have endeavoured to do so.
First, we established a clear expectation that SWL will not condition any of its solutions of the existence of an Urban Data Trust or modifications to existing legislation. While certain of its underlying principles (promoting responsible data sharing, for example) may be re-purposed and included within other mechanisms, an Urban Data Trust as envisioned in the MIDP will not move forward.
Second, WT engaged in detailed discussions with SWL which set out expectations and requirements for each of Privacy and Digital Governance, Intellectual Property, and Ecosystem Development. For instance, discussions on Privacy and Digital Governance covered issues including (but not limited to) transparency, consent and user control, security measures, a review process for Digitally-Enabled Solutions, data subject rights, data ownership, data residency, and the open sharing of data. WT and SWL agreed on the intention that the concepts, rights, and obligations set out during these discussions would be integrated into legally binding commitments, such as implementation agreements.
WT is also working to develop a set of Intelligent Community Guidelines, which expand upon our Digital Principles. These Guidelines would, among other things:
• Have as their foundation the laws and regulations enacted by governments, and not establish additional requirements which would in any way conflict with or contradict those laws and regulations; • Commit all current and future proponents to leading privacy and data governance measures; • Foster open data and set out WT and its government partners’ expectations for mandatory open data sharing; and, • Take into account the strong community concerns with respect to cross-border transfers of data.
1 To be clear, for digital issues, agreement to proceed past October 31st would not suggest that WT has performed a full evaluation of the MIDP and given a passing grade. Rather, it would mean that we are of the opinion that there is sufficient likelihood that a passing grade is possible to make a full evaluation worthwhile. No final agreement has been reached. [October 31 update: WT’s Board of Directors has voted to move to evaluation of the MIDP. See Stephen Diamond’s open letter for details.]
1
Page 79 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
The discussions with SWL, draft Guidelines and the responses that follow in this document also acknowledge the concerns raised by Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Brian Beamish in a letter to Stephen Diamond dated September 24, 2019, and will recognize and accommodate the fact that the relevant regulatory structure will vary depending on whether a Proponent is acting independently or as part of a P3 service delivery relationship. In the latter instance, the relevant government body or institution will have ultimate authority and responsibility for determining the appropriate data governance considerations. That said, it is intended that the data governance structure developed by WT could be used, at the discretion of a government body, as a preliminary review process, similar to WT’s existing Design Review Panel process.
For clarity, it should also be noted that neither the Intelligent Community Guidelines nor any contractual obligations would supersede any future legislative or regulatory development. Should any future legislative development set a requirement that is higher than something described in the Guidelines or a contractual obligation, that higher legislative requirement would apply.
A first draft of the Intelligent Community Guidelines will be included in the materials for the November 7, 2019 DSAP Meeting, with the understanding that they will need to undergo significant consultation with the DSAP, members of the public, and government stakeholders, as well as undergoing a market sounding exercise with industry. Thus, these Guidelines are subject to change (as are any responses below which refer to content in the Guidelines).
2
Page 80 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
Response to DSAP Comments
DSAP Comment #4: [P]lease make public a comprehensive inventory of the kinds of information SWL would provide to the UDT for approval about its purposeful solutions and core services, e.g. where would sensors of what kinds be located and with what data outputs? Where would the data from these sensors flow, how processed, for whom and for what purposes?
Waterfront Toronto response: Moving forward, the MIDP’s envisioned Urban Data Trust will not be included in a proposal for Quayside.
However, WT’s Intelligent Community Guidelines (which would apply to any proponent) have set out a review process for Digitally-Enabled Solutions (DES) proposed for the project area. While these Guidelines must undergo a consultation process, initial proposals include a requirement for proponents to (among other things) prepare and deliver:
• A demonstration that the DES is designed to implement the principles of Privacy by Design and to conform to Waterfront Toronto’s Digital Principles and Intelligent Community Guidelines; • A report on the content of feedback and advice received from community consultations, particularly from groups most impacted by a particular technology; • For non-P3 proponents, a demonstration of the method by which express consent will be obtained, or (recognizing that express consent is the default condition) a justification of the use of implied consent; • An assessment of the business case for the DES, including how the DES supports the public interest, how its implementation and maintenance costs compare with comparative services, and what incentives will be created or provided to encourage interoperability with other technologies; • A Privacy Impact Assessment and Algorithmic Impact Assessment (as applicable), including an examination of whether there is a possibility that personal information will be collected from minors or will be used for surveillance by law enforcement; • A threat and risk assessment and a resilience assessment including the proposed allocation of responsibilities for sustaining, maintaining and upgrading the technology over time; • An assessment of the impact of the collection, use or disclosure on groups, with particular attention to the impacts on marginalized or over-surveilled groups (and mitigation measures to minimize risks of harm to these groups); • Service-level commitments, uptime commitments, and other key performance indicators; • A dataflow schematic which includes: o (i) the technical and organizational measures taken by proponents and sub- processors to protect privacy, confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data; o (ii) the sub-processors or third parties that will have access to the data; o (iii) the measures taken to de-identify or anonymize personal information; o (iv) the physical location of the data at different points in the data flow schematic; o (v) identification of ownership/supplier of major portions of the DES; o (vi) measures to ensure fairness, transparency, explainability, non-discrimination, and auditing with respect to the application of AI to make decisions affecting individuals; and, o (vii) other such information as requested; • Draft notices and privacy statements;
3
Page 81 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
• An open data assessment, including proposals for sharing tools and resources such as data stories, an evaluation of how these proposals will meet open data objectives, and the risks of re-identification of releasing de-identified data. • Information about the ownership and procurement of any material elements of the DES; and, • An assessment of the projected ability of the DES to be scaled up or applied in other cities.
It is intended that, for each DES, proponents will provide the above information to WT and to DSAP for review and comment (except where the proponent is in a P3 relationship, and its government partner has waived this requirement).
DSAP Comment #5: Foundational to governing the wide range of digital assets mentioned in the Plan are questions of who would own them, what jurisdiction(s) would they be governed under and which parties would be responsible for developing, testing, operating, maintaining, funding and disposing of them. Please provide a comprehensive inventory of its various proposed digital assets (including all physical infrastructure, software systems and databases) that makes clear the relevant jurisdictions and responsibilities.
Waterfront Toronto response:
As noted in the response to Comment 4, proponents will be required to provide information about proposed ownership and procurement of any material elements of a DES. However, we have opted not to place specific requirements on ownership and operation of these technologies, except to require that proponents acting within a P3 relationship will acknowledge that their government partner is in control of personal information (unless the government partner agrees otherwise).
With respect to jurisdiction, proponents for DES’ which collect or use personal information are required to acknowledge and submit to the jurisdiction of the appropriate privacy commissioner (OIPC-Ontario for P3 relationships with the City of Toronto or Province of Ontario; OPC-Canada for independent proponents and P3 relationships with federal agencies or bodies).
Ownership is an issue that will be resolved through the implementation agreements and prevailing ownership and partnership models will serve as baseline expectations for WT’s government stakeholders.
DSAP Comment #6: Obsolescence, currency, and refresh are all considerations that need to be dealt with in depth in the implementation and operating agreements. In addition, technology replacement provisions are required should the implementation fail to operate reliably or meet its targets in contributing to the RFP goals.
Waterfront Toronto response:
As noted in the response to Comment 4, proponents will be required to submit a proposed allocation of responsibilities for sustaining, maintaining and upgrading a technology over time. WT will evaluate on a case-by-case basis the appropriateness of the proposed allocation, with advice from DSAP.
With respect to failure, WT is examining appropriate remedies. Should the project move forward, these will be included and defined in implementation agreements.
4
Page 82 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
DSAP Comment #7: The plans should not just outline the new technologies being proposed, but also more detail on how those technologies will be sourced, evaluated, maintained and secured. The sustaining, maintenance and upgrading of urban technologies are the largest expense over the lifetime of any asset. I would like to see more here on how this will be addressed and by whom.
Waterfront Toronto response:
As noted in the response to Comment 4, proponents will be required to submit: • Information about the ownership and procurement of any material elements of the DES; and, • A proposed allocation of responsibilities for sustaining, maintaining and upgrading the technology over time.
WT has opted not to define specific, site-wide requirements at this time, but will review each proposal on its own merits, with the assistance of DSAP and other third-party experts as appropriate.
DSAP Comment #8: The MIDP gives the strong impression that it was developed with little direct involvement with the range of relevant Toronto community actors or with attention to inter-operability with existing (digital) infrastructures. This raises the prospect of Quayside becoming a ‘digital island’ within Toronto. Please provide a comprehensive inventory of the status of its relationships with relevant actors, how its proposed digital innovations will benefit the various stakeholders and work with existing infrastructures?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Waterfront Toronto has maintained frequent contact with a wide variety of stakeholders throughout this project, including but not limited to: • Representatives from all three levels of government through regular ADM meetings and the convening of an Intergovernmental Data Governance Working Group • The City of Toronto’s Waterfront Secretariat • MaRS, Communitech and similar incubators
We have also sought to engage critical voices, such as BlockSidewalk, in conversation, to ensure they have access to accurate information and that we fully understand the concerns they raise.
We also consider our public consultations to be an important mechanism by which we have been able to engage the community in these discussions. Waterfront Toronto published its report on the first round of consultation on September 19, 2019. The report can be downloaded at: https://quaysideto.ca/get-involved/midp-consultations/
DSAP Comment #9: How much consideration is being given to extending the innovations in the IDEA district to the rest of the City?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Waterfront Toronto is prepared to support an Innovation Plan to advance and achieve our priority outcomes, but there will be no further reference to an “IDEA District.” However, as has always been our mandate, we are committed to sharing lessons learned and outcomes beyond the Designated Waterfront Area.
5
Page 83 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
No commitments have been made by the City of Toronto to broadly adopt an innovation proposed for the Quayside project. Of course, we have been in frequent contact with multiple agencies throughout the City of Toronto to ensure they are aware of developments in the project.
As well, we have established an expectation that DES proponents will provide information about how their solution could be adopted on a broader scale. Waterfront Toronto will also remain in frequent discussion with the City about its experiences with innovations deployed in Quayside, with the goal of allowing our learnings (and, if desired, the innovations piloted in Quayside) to be applied more broadly.
DSAP Comment #10: SWL makes numerous “commitments” in the Digital Innovations chapter and throughout the MIDP more generally (e.g. on open standards, patents, desisting from facial recognition, etc.). What contractual language would SL propose to give these commitments the force of law?
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT uses implementation agreements to create legally binding commitments, and will do so with respect to the concepts, rights, obligations and responsibilities set out in detailed discussions with SWL and Intelligent Community Guidelines. For example, we have used this strategy with respect to our Minimum Green Building Requirements.
Of course, all applicable legislations and regulations will continue to apply.
DSAP Comment #11: How will SWL ensure that WT and the City will be well protected (in terms of infrastructure, investments, system integration, etc) if it or its subcontractors, affiliates, etc. pull out of the project? See Google Fibre pull out in Louisville KY.
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT is keenly aware of the need to establish strong remedies for the various elements of this project and will do so through implementation agreements. Where appropriate, parental guarantees may be pursued in a manner consistent with Waterfront Toronto’s existing business practices.
The precise form/scale of any remedies are still to be determined.
DSAP Comment #12: Interoperability is inadequately addressed. Without interoperability with personal alternative access systems, the data innovations proposed for individuals with disabilities will not function. How will interoperability be planned and assured?
Waterfront Toronto response:
The first of Waterfront Toronto’s Digital Principles establishes that everyone will have access to, and benefit equally from, digital solutions. This includes a requirement for inclusive design of digital solutions on equitable terms.
That said, we appreciate this note, and will look to specifically incorporate a requirement for interoperability with personal alternative access systems into our Intelligent Community Guidelines.
6
Page 84 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
Once draft language has been developed, we will reach out to the author of this comment to discuss whether it is adequate/appropriate and share it more broadly in the course of the DSAP materials related to the guideline development process.
DSAP Comment #13: Frustrated by how over-sold this proposal on digital innovation is at times. For example, the MIDP states: “But digital innovation raises a number of challenges that cities like Toronto are just starting to address. These include making sure basic digital infrastructure is affordable and open to everyone, making sure data is standardized and publicly accessible, and making sure there is a transparent process for protecting privacy and the good of the city.” How does this proposal achieve that? How does a slice of the Waterfront make basic digital infrastructure available to everyone? How does this improve our existing privacy laws at the provincial level or PIPEDA?
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT believes that the establishment of a testbed area for matters such as improved data governance can have an important and broad impact on cities, by creating an evidence base for further change.
DSAP Comment #32: Why do we need Quayside or this project for more innovative mounts [i.e. Koala mounts]? If a good idea, could be pilot project anywhere in the city.
Waterfront Toronto response:
You are likely correct, that an innovative mount could be tested in a multitude of locations – it doesn’t need to be in Quayside. However, to the extent that the mount (or any other technology) supports WT’s objectives, we may want it to be tested here.
DSAP Comment #34: Given the understandable sensitivities around the management of personal credentials, it will be vital for maintaining public trust that agency for overseeing distributed digital credentials be publicly accountable and independent of other infrastructure or service providers. How heavily is SWL willing to invest in making distributed digital credentials work, while staying entirely at arms-length from any such independent, accountable credentialing agency?
Waterfront Toronto response:
This is an interesting thought.
In theory, a decentralized credential system could be overseen by a relatively focused body which provides review and/or certification of the legitimacy of credential issuers (i.e. “What credentials can Organization A legitimately issue?”). The body would not need to be involved in the actual issuance of credentials (which could be negotiated between the individual and the issuing organization).
As well, the necessity for this body to be independent will be highly dependent on whether this decentralized credential system is truly optional for individuals. If it is simply one service offering among many (and traditional means of establishing credentials – such as government-issued ID – remain accepted), public trust in the system will impact its adoption as opposed to causing issues within Quayside. Of course, if one or more services are exclusively (or more easily) accessed via the proposed credential system, independent oversight becomes much more important.
7
Page 85 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
That said, WT will need further information about the proposed decentralized credential system and its intended use within Quayside to be able to evaluate the need for, and appropriate structure of, an independent credentialing agency. In addition, this is an area that will be brought forward for discussion with our government stakeholders.
DSAP Comment #47: Why does WT need to incentivize [SeedSpace]? Why don’t they just go partner with Oxford or another large property owner/manager and do it among themselves?
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT will consider deployment of this innovation but will not incentivize it.
We will need further information from SWL on whether it is envisioned that this system will receive special status of some sort, or if it will be competitively procured. We will also reach out to other jurisdictions to understand their approaches to similar initiatives.
DSAP Comment #49: Bringing speed and scale to these observations has pros and cons. We can build better public spaces if we know more but gathering too much data that is readily joined to data lakes of other information presents challenges. The ACLU has a model ordinance for proposals for technology that include surveillance elements (see https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/20141112- model_ordinance.pdf for example). The driver behind this ordinance is that when we bring new technologies to public spaces there are big implications.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Thank you for bringing this ordinance to our attention. Certain of the elements (such as public consultation) are present in our existing approach, but we will examine whether/how they can be more explicitly incorporated into the Intelligent Community Guidelines.
Of course, WT cannot require that the City of Toronto adopt such an ordinance, nor impose it for law enforcement activities in the project area. However, we can advocate for its key principles to be followed (and require it for non-P3 proponents, as appropriate).
We will also begin to collect documents such as this as resources which may help to inform DSAP’s review of any future DES.
DSAP Comment #51: SWL makes part of the case for digital infrastructure [public realm maintenance map] claiming that public space service operators can’t keep up with maintenance. I would argue back the problem isn’t that they lack the data they need (e.g. check out the 311 calls on Toronto Open Data portal and any See Click Fix list), when things need to be fixed, the City knows. The problem is the City doesn’t have the money it needs to hire the people and do the work. Yes, some efficiencies could be gained (e.g. plan garbage pick up differently in parks because on sensored garbage cans) but gaps in data/tech aren’t the biggest barriers. There is a sentence that talks about budget but it reads like a throwaway.
In a world of competing resources, I think we need to make sure we’re not throwing public money (or private money that comes with a significant public give/return later) around at technology that is $$ and comes with risk before first sorting if we spent that money on actual maintenance first could we have better outcomes.
8
Page 86 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
Waterfront Toronto response:
Through the evaluation process, WT will be assessing proposals in the context of the existing baseline solutions to determine what incremental benefits might be achieved. In addition, WT’s evaluation of the proposal will factor in costs to WT or its government stakeholders throughout the product lifecycle.
However, we appreciate the feedback that the benefits of this system may be minimal and will ensure we frame the baseline conditions appropriately.
DSAP Comment #60: An issue that I see is that the Urban Data Trust (UDT) will be charged with determining who can collect data in the IDEA District and under what terms and conditions. This will expressly apply to government as well (I asked the question and the answer was that it would). This creates a scenario in which the City of Toronto might decide to collect a certain type of data throughout the City - this could go through its own approval processes -- but it would have to ask separate permission from the UDT to collect the same data in the IDEA District. Conceivably, the UDT could decide against this collection (or it could impose certain terms and conditions), producing a strange (and I would suggest, unacceptable) result. Why should an appointed body trump an elected body when it comes to determining whether data should be collected to serve a public policy goal? I realize that one response to this hypothetical is “that will never happen”, but it could. And I think the issue gets at the problem of the legitimacy of the UDT. SWL indicates that it will not be a public body at the outset but that it could evolve into one. Would it not be simpler if it were a public body, established by legislation or regulation, with a specific mandate? MFIPPA or FIPPA’s transparency rules could then apply to the entity and whatever authority was needed to make decisions around collection and use of data could be delegated to it within this legislative frame. It might be possible in the same way also to bring those private sector companies that want to collect data in the IDEA district under the same governance body.
Waterfront Toronto response:
As discussed in the introduction in these comments, moving forward, the MIDP’s envisioned Urban Data Trust will not be included in a proposal for Quayside.
Instead, Waterfront Toronto will develop (with the input of DSAP and other stakeholders) a set of Intelligent Community Guidelines that will commit proponents to leading privacy and data governance measures. Waterfront Toronto has successfully used this strategy in the past in the area of sustainability, through our Minimum Green Building Requirements.
Data collection by government (or by private sector organizations operating in a P3 relationship) would not be required to abide by these guidelines or any associated data governance structure. However, our intention is to design the process in such a way that it could be have value for by government bodies or institutions as a preliminary form of review (at their sole discretion), and will encourage this use.
DSAP Comment #61: In one of the scenarios provided in the MIDP to illustrate the functioning of the MIDP, the example was given of a garage operator leasing space in the development area who has a misconceived idea about collecting and using data from security cameras in the garage. The example is meant to show how by being required to apply for permission to collect the data, and to complete an RDUA, the garage owner will be stopped from engaging in this improper collection and use of data. The
9
Page 87 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
garage owner would, of course, be subject to PIPEDA, and the proposed collection and use of the data would clearly violate PIPEDA, but we are told throughout that the UDT provides a separate and possibly higher level of protection than PIPEDA.
I have two difficulties with this example and its implications. The first is with the definition of ‘urban data’. If it includes security camera data from small businesses, then in my view it is overinclusive. Part of the rationale for the UDT was to facilitate data sharing for innovation purposes. In my view, security camera data is just that - security camera data. It should not be considered for further sharing. Its collection, use and disclosure can be governed by PIPEDA.
This overbreadth issue leads into my second concern with this scenario, which is the duplicative nature of some of the functions of the UDT. The federal Privacy Commissioner has provided some pretty clear guidance on the collection of data through security cameras. PIPEDA covers this situation. If there is no data sharing dimension, why should the UDT play a role? One of the classic reasons for not amending PIPEDA to strengthen it is that to do so would impose a stifling compliance burden on small businesses. But the approach proposed in the MIDP would require the garage owner to comply with both PIPEDA and with the UDT. We’re also told that there would be a fee imposed for the collection of data under a RDUA -- and so the additional compliance burden comes with a cost as well. This seems to me to be fundamentally duplicative and creating a problematic burden.
SWL has suggested that the value-added of the UDT is that it helps small businesses comply because many don’t understand PIPEDA. The OPC provides all kinds of guidance and information for small businesses and even opened an office in Toronto to have more of a presence for businesses that needed to seek advice. I’m not convinced that there is a justification for increasing the compliance burden and creating duplicative privacy obligations.
Waterfront Toronto response:
On the question of scope, WT’s Intelligent Community Guidelines are aimed at the deployment of “digitally-enabled services (DES).” We acknowledge your concern that routine practices such as video surveillance in a parking garage are adequately covered by PIPEDA, and that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to apply additional requirements on such a deployment. As such, we will have to cautiously define what is captured by the term “DES.” Currently, the definition refers to digital innovations which are proposed to improve sustainability, affordability, mobility, or other public policy objectives set by Waterfront Toronto or its government partners (meaning that a simple video surveillance system would likely not be covered, though it would still be subject to all applicable legal and regulatory requirements). Of course, it is possible that this definition can be further refined through the consultation process.
On the potentially burdensome nature of the initially proposed UDT (or as may be translated into the Intelligent Community Guidelines) – we are very cognizant of the risk of establishing burdens that will prevent Canadian innovators and/or small businesses from operating in the project area. For the former group, our goal is to promote the public good – which includes both heightened privacy compliance obligations and the development of an ecosystem that supports innovation. We have, for instance, considered the possibility of tiered expectations / requirements for part of the Guidelines. As part of our market-sounding for the Guidelines, we will seek to determine whether the Guidelines have struck the appropriate balance between the two. For the latter group, our Guidelines generally would not impact the day-to-day functioning of a small business operating in the project area.
10
Page 88 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
DSAP Comment #62: Here’s another issue that relates to the relationship of the data governance regime to civil liberties issues. PIPEDA simply does not apply to certain types of actors or certain types of data collection (eg data collection for journalistic purposes, non-commercial activity, purely personal purposes, etc.) While the commercial activity limitation has more to do with jurisdictional issues, even in Alberta, for example, PIPA only applies to non-profits with respect to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information in the course of commercial activity. One reason for these exclusions is to carve out a space for freedom of expression - which includes not just the right to speak, but the right to inform oneself. I am really concerned about the view of SWL that non-profits, civil society groups -- basically anyone who collects data within the boundaries of the development -- will have to apply to the UDT for permission to collect. I don’t care how routine or simple the application process is made for non-profits, academics, civil society groups, etc. - there should not have to be an application. To place a burden on someone to identify themselves and to ask permission to engage in an activity that they should be perfectly free to engage in is not appropriate. Everyone should be free to walk down to the waterfront and collect a test tube full of water to send to a lab to find out if there are contaminants in it. This doesn’t change if it’s organized through a public participatory data collection program. The UDT and the RDUA process as conceived of is over-inclusive in a number of ways and this is one of them. There has to be an explicit carve out for non-commercial activity (or however it is framed).
Waterfront Toronto response:
In general, Waterfront Toronto’s Intelligent Community Guidelines would not apply to the regular activities of non-commercial actors (though, as with government actors, we would promote the voluntary adoption of the principles and processes set out therein), nor prevent them from collecting data in the project area.
On the other hand, if a not-for-profit organization were (for example) selected by Waterfront Toronto to provide a digitally-enabled service, the Intelligent Community Guidelines would generally apply. However, WT has reserved the option to waive some or all of the Intelligent Community Guidelines (to the extent that they exceed legal or regulatory requirements) for a project, which may allow for the relaxing of certain provisions for not-for-profit proponents.
DSAP Comment #63: The composition of the UDT is going to be a point of contention, it seems to me. I am not sure how SWL arrived at 5 as the magic number. The 5 are meant to represent different stakeholders in the data: one is an IP/privacy expert (so not really a stakeholder - which is a bit anomalous); the remaining 4 represent: academia, the public sector, the private sector, and the community. This seems to presume that these are each constituencies that speak with a single voice. 3 levels of government have an interest in the lands at issue, so there is no single “public sector” voice. As for academia - are we talking comp sci prof, sociologist, data scientist, law prof? Or is it meant to be someone who uses data for research? the competencies vary as do the interests. Is the academic member meant to represent the interests of academic researchers? How will one community rep be able to speak for such a complex and diverse city? There’s a lot of diversity within the private sector as well. Bottom line, representativeness on this proposed trust seems fraught with problems. Beyond this, what does it mean if the trust is meant to address, in part, concerns over the use of human behavioural data when 3 of 4 “stakeholders” who form part of the trust are users of data and only one ‘represents’ data subjects?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Moving forward, the MIDP’s envisioned Urban Data Trust will not be included in a proposal for Quayside.
11
Page 89 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
A primary role of the proposed 5-person panel was to develop Responsible Data Use Guidelines, against which proposals would be measured. By replacing this with the development of Intelligent Community Guidelines by Waterfront Toronto, we will be able to engage a much broader group of stakeholders in the process. A full, public consultation will be held for these Guidelines.
For the subsequent review of proposals, the Digital Strategy Advisory Panel will also play a key role in reviewing proposals; it is our intention that that Panel remain a body of experts across a broad range of fields which will conduct its activities openly (allowing for scrutiny by other voices).
Lastly, we have established an expectation further documented, facilitated consultation with community stakeholders will occur during the development process, with an emphasis on ensuring engagement with groups most impacted by a particular technology.
We believe that this trio of actions – Guidelines developed in consultation with the community; an open review panel with a broad range of expertise; and an expectation for public engagement on a solution before it is proposed – will allow for significant and meaningful opportunities for individuals to provide inputs to the process.
DSAP Comment #64: Enforcement of the UDT decisions a significant concern for me. Under privacy law, the commissioner has some enforcement powers with recent promises that those will be extended in new reforms to come. Order making power, penalties, audit powers, ability to apply to the federal courts are all part of an enforcement toolkit that is essential to compliance. The UDT enforcement is very sketchy - largely just enforcement of contract. Canada does not even have an FTC (like in the US) that might be able to take action on failure to meet obligations. Without real enforcement mechanisms, there is reason to doubt the UDT effectiveness.
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT will introduce two complementary mechanisms which will support enforcement of our Intelligent Community Guidelines.
First, the expectations set out in the Guidelines will be incorporated into binding contracts with proponents, which will be backstopped by meaningful remedies.
Second, proponents (including SWL) will be required to grant WT or government bodies a right to audit or require additional information during an on-site review regarding security safeguards and compliance with privacy requirements.
We believe that these provisions – the ability to audit to check for compliance, and meaningful remedies established via contract – create the potential for effective enforcement.
Again, for clarity, Waterfront Toronto is not proposing a regulatory structure that would in any way contradict or supplant regulatory bodies.
DSAP Comment #65: Struggling to understand how the UDT would align with the privacy commissioner(s). The law must surely trump anything the UDT rules. Yet it gets confusing when aspects of a proposal may involve PII and other aspects do not. This speaks to the broader issue of privacy laws vs. private governance. The proposal envisions considerable private governance - the UDT,
12
Page 90 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
contract binding users of data - but the lines are not clear and raise concerns about attempts to override or sideline the law.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Moving forward, the MIDP’s envisioned Urban Data Trust will not be included in a proposal for Quayside.
With respect to the Intelligent Community Guidelines, nothing they contain (or that is contained in any other data governance structure) will override existing law; proponents will be required to comply with all existing and future regulatory obligations, and to acknowledge and submit to the jurisdiction of the appropriate privacy commissioner.
In some instances, in order to address concerns raised during the consultation process on a project, Waterfront Toronto may impose additional requirements, as set out in our Intelligent Community Guidelines. These will be enforced by contract.
DSAP Comment #66: Urban Data into an Urban Data Trust that would or could evolve into a public sector or quasi-public agency over time. On this topic it was ambiguous what SWL considered, after all consultations, was a Day One construct that would then evolve alongside the ‘known’ and already changing Data landscape within Canada - here they even cited the Federal Digital Charter and Provincial and local consultations regarding data governance but made no Day One model suggestions for operation. (Digital Twin should be built here).
In the execution of this project there will be required Data Use reviews from Day One.
The recommendation of a licence fee cost structure that would/could ultimately be used to fund the Urban Data Trust operation and the key CDO role within it was suggested with no model or example to exemplify how such an operating model would exist. Even with nominal fees modelled against one technology deployment (see comments in general impressions regarding Koala mounts) a fee structure, operating model and ROI proposal could have shown how Government funding would be required to stand up such a Trust initially with the Horizon 2 model of a quasi public agency as a transitory state to proceed towards.
The MIDP discusses an innovative Urban Data Trust model without example of Day 1 operations nor any reference to Day 2 possibility apart from Public or quasi Public suggestions.
One example of Data Collection to Usage Admin fee would be beneficial to review the cost and operating model - not just the decision tree and suggested responsible data use questionnaires.
The digital credentials technology and partnerships discussed to protect privacy would also be a good example of a Data arrangement to flow through the Urban Data Trust. It is not just about the collection of Data that the Trust would have Decision Authority over but in stewardship on behalf of the urban residents/dwellers. Here, in order to manage and govern appropriately ‘Actors’ who Authenticate would be a unique opportunity to show the Value and Data for Good that the Urban Data Trust would have over the Quayside project. Also an opportunity to have Corporate players pay licencing fees to become licenced authenticators that also comply with the responsible data use principles upheld by the Urban Data Trust.
Waterfront Toronto response:
13
Page 91 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
WT’s Intelligent Community Guidelines will apply from Day One in the project area.
With respect to the funding of an eventual responsible data sharing mechanism – you are correct that this is an area that needs to be explored, and we will consider your comments as we move forward and engage a broader group of stakeholders in discussion on this topic.
DSAP Comment #67: Will the trust have a feedback loop to determine whether the expected / anticipated benefits that were articulated in the original submissions have materialized? For example, a regular review of projects to evaluate outcomes (not just compliance)?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Moving forward, the MIDP’s envisioned Urban Data Trust will not be included in a proposal for Quayside.
That said, WT will establish key performance indicator (KPI) requirements for all project outcomes. We will examine the appropriate mechanisms by which we can keep advisory bodies such as the DSAP can be kept updated on whether and to what extent anticipated benefits have materialized.
DSAP Comment #68: Wouldn’t having a public registry of all sensors also create a security risk and make matters easier for malicious actors who would want to sabotage a commercial entity’s prospects, or to damage the reputation of the district? The idea of having a public registry of devices should be reconsidered or at least heavily qualified.
Waterfront Toronto response:
We are of the opinion that a publicly accessible register of sensors and devices is an important transparency mechanism. That said, we take your point, and will consider both what security risks are posed by such a register and how they can be mitigated, while still meeting the overall objective.
DSAP Comment #69: Oversight and accountability of the UDT itself are missing from the MIDP. What does SWL propose to address this lack?
DSAP Comment #70: Explain how the proposed “Urban Data Trust” would be bound by PIPEDA and (M)FIPPA laws.
Waterfront Toronto response:
As noted, the Urban Data Trust proposal will not move forward. However, in any future process in which a responsible data sharing mechanism is developed, accountability and oversight will be clearly established.
DSAP Comment #71: The UDT appears mainly intended to benefit prospective data users, and less so the data subjects. Why is this?
Waterfront Toronto response:
14
Page 92 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
Moving forward, the MIDP’s envisioned Urban Data Trust will not be included in a proposal for Quayside.
We believe that splitting the data governance and responsible data sharing mechanisms into separate processes will help to show the benefit to data subjects. In particular, this allows for strong data governance rules to be developed independently of data sharing initiatives, and for the benefits of each to be evaluated separately.
That said, we are of the opinion that both improved data governance and responsible data sharing can be beneficial to users, if properly constructed.
DSAP Comment #72: The trust’s role seems to evolve into creating a market for data (e.g. page 435) to manage data licensing. That is an interesting idea but seems to diverge from the initial principles of the trust.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Though the “Urban Data Trust” as an entity has been removed, WT’s commitment to the promotion and enabling of responsible data sharing remains. WT will share further information about specific data sharing strategies, protections, mechanisms, etc., as they are developed.
DSAP Comment #73: In contrast to the claims in the sidebar on p. 423, SWL appears to have mis- understood the Open Data Institutes definition of ‘data trust’. Why is there no mention in the MIDP of legal responsibility to beneficiaries, as the ODI promotes?
DSAP Comment #74: Given this absence of legal responsibility to serve the interests of its intended beneficiaries, why is it not misleading to use the word “trust” in the name?
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT is sensitive to the expectations individuals would have from a data “trust”, and will be cautious should we opt to use the term in developing any responsible data sharing mechanisms or schema.
DSAP Comment #75: The urban data trust appears linked to the creation of the IDEA District. There is a need for a proposal that specifically addresses these issues if the project is limited to Quayside.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Both the Intelligent Community Guidelines and the responsible data sharing schema / mechanisms developed for the project will apply at the scope of Quayside. However, it is also recognized that specifically with respect to data sharing, an expanded scope will be more likely to promote urban innovation. As such, our general intention would be to explore mechanisms by which we can expand it and/or integrate it into existing open data portals.
DSAP Comment #76: Have the efforts of the Province (Ontario Data Strategy), the Feds (Canada’s Digital Charter) and the City of Toronto (e.g. open data) been taken into account when designing the UDT/data strategy?
15
Page 93 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
Waterfront Toronto response:
Yes – WT has been careful to ensure alignment between our Digital Principles (and subsequent Intelligent Community Guidelines) and government efforts in this area. We also regularly provide updated information to a tri-government data governance working group and reporting to the Intergovermental Steering Committee (IGSC). Both of these structures enable us to have ongoing discussions with our government stakeholders about our digital strategy work.
DSAP Comment #77: For the trust, would a solely commercial purpose be acceptable? For example, if there is a proposal to collect data whose main outcome would be bringing more traffic into a private parking lot or to sell more tickets to a private amusement park – would these be deemed acceptable? Approving projects only if they have a public good will limit commercial innovations and possible the ability of companies and startups to thrive in this environment.
DSAP Comment #78: (Volume 2, Page 424) Re: Beneficial Purpose, does this mean that a company cannot use urban data to create a product that benefits them? That is, can they use the data to create their product/service for the sole purpose of driving revenue and profit?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Moving forward, the MIDP’s envisioned Urban Data Trust will not be included in a proposal for Quayside.
To the broader point, it is unlikely that a Digitally-Enabled Solution (those technologies to which the Intelligent Community Guidelines would apply) would have a solely commercial purpose, though it would not be unusual for revenue and profit to be among the proposed purposes for deployment of a DES. For example, development of a better traffic management system might serve both the purpose of meeting a WT objective around mobility and create a product that benefits an organization. Similarly, the promotion of Canadian innovation is one of the objectives for Quayside – so, to the extent that a commercial technology supports that innovation goal, it would not be “solely commercial.”
That said, a DES with a non-innovative and solely commercial purpose would not explicitly be disqualifying; for instance, if it were in some way argued that the net impact of the DES on the public interest is highly positive, it might be acceptable. However, this would be a difficult argument to make.
DSAP Comment #79: The role of public security agencies and their access to data needs elaboration. What process would be followed for access to data if requested by a public security agency?
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT recognizes the importance of highlighting potential access to data by law enforcement agencies. For example, we have established a requirement that PIAs provided to the DSAP include, as a standing item, an examination of the potential for personal information from the DES to be used for surveillance by law enforcement (and/or otherwise be subject to lawful access requests), and for proponents to maintain and publish quarterly information about the number and type of requests
16
Page 94 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019 and orders for information received from law enforcement or other government agencies, and how they were handled.
DSAP Comment #80: The CDO is a critical role, and a very operational one. I think it would be useful to define job description more precisely. It is a combination of a COO with a legal background who understands data. This is definitely not a person with a purely policy background.
Waterfront Toronto response:
In absence of the Urban Data Trust, the CDO role is no longer immediately contemplated. However, should a similar role emerge as part of the discussion regarding a potential responsible data sharing mechanism, we will take this comment into account.
DSAP Comment #82: SWL is proposing a new category of data - “urban data”. ...
SWL has agreed not to use the term “urban data”, and will instead use recognized, Canadian terminology.
DSAP Comment #84: Given that information collected in public spaces is effectively ‘owned’ by the City, on what basis would the UDT have any authority over it?
Waterfront Toronto response:
In the new approach to data governance, authority over the data isn’t contemplated so much as authority over project proponents. The source of this authority will vary depending on the service delivery model.
Where a proponent is acting independently, WT will establish the requirement for organizations to abide by Intelligent Community Guidelines via contract.
Where a proponent is acting as part of a P3 relationship, the proponent will be required to acknowledge the jurisdiction of their government partner to determine its operational needs and policies (in accordance with applicable legislation), as to agree that in general the government partner will control and own any personal information or environmental data collected through the DES (unless otherwise agreed to by the government partner).
DSAP Comment #86: Explain how a policy of “open by default” is always in the public interest. In particular, explain how “open data” policies won’t disproportionately help the large social media and tech companies, given the structural asymmetries in the data-driven economy.
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT acknowledges this challenge. Our objective is to design an efficient open data distribution system with incentives for data sharing, for the purposes of fostering an innovation ecosystem. However, we are also aware of the potential that a fully-open data sharing mechanism could exacerbate existing asymmetries.
17
Page 95 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
As we work towards the development of such a system, we will continue to explore ways in which we can maximize our objectives while mitigating against negative externalities. We are open to DSAP input on strategies and/or mechanisms that would support this effort to create an innovative ecosystem which benefits a wide variety of stakeholders. This will also be an area of exploration in our upcoming market soundings with industry.
DSAP Comment #87: Due to the nature of the project there is an obvious interest in maximizing economic elements to open data, but to echo previous feedback it is essential to democratize benefits of data widely, not just those who are able to reap those benefits or those who are charitable enough to use their skills to develop this. It is a sticking point for me that the MIDP include a commitment to sharing tools like data stories with the wider public, particularly with the people who chose to make this neighbourhood of the future their home. From a public benefit perspective this requires minimal effort and provides large public benefit. It could be a suggested feature or role of the Urban Innovation Institute, but something I would like to see in the final draft.
Note: SWL may also wish to comment about its own practices.
Waterfront Toronto response:
As part of the materials to be submitted to WT when proposing a Digitally-Enabled Solution, proponents must include an “open data assessment” that includes: (i) proposals for sharing tools and resources (such as data stories), (ii) an evaluation of how the data will meet open data objectives agreed upon with WT or required by P3 governmental partners; (iii) the risks of re-identification of de- identified data.
Specific requirements to share data (and/or tools such as data stories) will likely not be put in place – but measures that strongly encourage this sharing (potentially with costs associated with not sharing) will be established.
DSAP Comment #88: Given the existing US Department of Justice and European Union Competition Bureau investigations into the anticompetitive practices of large social media and tech companies, how should the Urban Data Trust place specific restrictions on the access to data by those types of companies to ensure competitive markets for innovators in the Toronto ecosystem?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Moving forward, the MIDP’s envisioned Urban Data Trust will not be included in a proposal for Quayside.
As noted in the response to Comments 86 and 87, as WT and its partners seek to develop a data sharing system, we will be very cognizant of the challenge we face in creating an ecosystem that supports Canadian innovators (and in particular, SMEs). However, at this time we can’t commit to any particular measure without further study of its impacts.
DSAP Comment #89: Urban data will be made publicly accessible. As open data? For a fee? How will the model be financially sustainable?
DSAP Comment #91: (Volume 2, Page 383) What does “shared publicly” mean in this context? As open data? What is the governance model behind sharing data publicly?
18
Page 96 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
DSAP Comment #92: (Volume 2, Page 402) I assume that “anyone else” mean large corporates too? Is equal access for everyone the right way to go? Does asymmetry need to be taken into consideration?
Waterfront Toronto response:
As noted in the prior responses, each of these are decisions that will need to be taken into account in the design of a responsible data sharing system.
DSAP Comment #93: (Volume 2, Page 403) I think all data needs to have an owner to ensure quality, context, etc. It’s the requirement to share data that should be up for discussion Waterfront Toronto response:
We agree. Data ownership in general is a matter that will require further discussion (with the note that it will be expected that where a service is provided on behalf of a government agency, that agency will be the data owner unless it decides otherwise), but will be clearly set out for each Digitally-Enabled Service.
DSAP Comment #94: We had a discussion about data localization and SWL’s commitment to it. I note that in the discussion of the UDT in the MIDP (page 434) SWL does not necessarily contemplate the UDT having control over all of the data it governs. It states, “Facilitating access could be accomplished in a variety of ways from having the Urban Data Trust actually hold the data to having it set rules that require collectors to publish de-identified, aggregate or non-personal data in real time.” What does this approach mean for data localization? Could the UDT impose local storage as a condition? I did not find this in the RDUA or principles, but I might have missed it somewhere in the documents.
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT acknowledges the strong sentiment from both DSAP and the public that personal information from Quayside remain in Canada. As such, with very limited, defined exceptions, we have established an expectation that such information be both stored in and (where technically feasible) routed through Canada. Where proponents (or their affiliates) are leading cloud service providers, a lack of technical capacity or trained staff will not be acceptable reasons not to store data within Canada.
Whether data localization will be operationalized in part by allowing a data sharing system to maintain custody of data (as opposed to acting as a conduit to it) is yet to be determined but will be a consideration in the development process.
DSAP Comment #95: If SWL cannot guarantee that data remains exclusively within Canadian jurisdiction, in light of the (foreign) surveillance provisions contained in the U.S Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act and Executive Order 12333, how can it give assurance that the privacy and security of Torontonians will be protected in any cases where their data may reside in or transit via the United States?
DSAP Comment #96: The public has spoken loudly in favour of data residency. While there is reason to debate whether data residency provides iron clad safeguards (it doesn’t), the public clearly feels more comfortable with data resident in Canada. Best effort isn’t good enough. A clear commitment is needed.
19
Page 97 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
Waterfront Toronto response:
As noted in the above comment, WT’s Intelligent Community Guidelines (and any potential implementation agreements) will include a strong requirement for data residency, except in very limited, defined circumstances, which will be considered in a very granular context.
DSAP Comment #101: When entities are making claims about de-identification, there should be a mechanism to certify that they have implemented good practices. There are many cases where entities make claims about de-identification but under further examination the practices are not very robust. Given the role of de-identification in maintaining public trust in the data ecosystem, this should be accompanied by a certification mechanism (say, by third parties) as part of the requirements. The same would be for the creation of synthetic data.
Waterfront Toronto response:
This is a valuable point. As a general rule, WT will be sensitive to the provability / auditability of any claims or assertions made related to a privacy practice, including de-identification.
DSAP Comment #106: Assuming the security by design results in a system that is different than the City’s systems of today, will this tax city staff to maintain? Will it make the rest of the City’s systems more vulnerable? How will the two systems be integrated given that legacy systems are likely proprietary?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Each of these factors – costs to City staff, and integration with and impact on legacy systems – will be important points that we consider during our evaluation of each element of the proposal and, if appropriate, our development of implementation agreements.
It is unclear that we have sufficient information (before the Digital Innovation Appendix) to comment on the impacts of current proposals.
DSAP Comment #107: This strikes me as a weak offer. It’s not the percentage that’s the problem, it’s the term. City building takes time and innovations that involve city development play out over decades, not years. Ten years is too short a time frame to fully benefit. Moreover, as others have noted, there is reason to doubt the utility of the patent pledge given its jurisdictional limitations.
Waterfront Toronto response:
We agree. On your first point, we have required the SWL agree that the long deployment cycles for cities will necessitate a longer revenue sharing arrangement than what has been proposed. Specific details will be negotiated as part of the broader commercial negotiations and resolved through appropriate implementation agreements, should the project progress to that point.
On your second point, we have required that the patent pledge be extended to a global scope and Sidewalk Labs has agreed to this.
DSAP Comment #108: As the movie business learned long ago % of net profit is hard to measure and easily manipulated particularly when a product’s profits needed to be extracted from overall corporate
20
Page 98 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
accounts with relatively arbitrary allocation of overhead costs. This is very hard to value in the overall business case for the public sector. Should Waterfront Toronto wish to pursue this it necessarily needs to be a % of gross including associated services. This does not feel like a priority to me. A more tangible commitment to fostering Canadian, Ontario, Toronto companies would be more impactful.
Waterfront Toronto response:
While specifics remain to be negotiated, we have required that any value share be based on revenue, not profit. In addition, we have requested additional information be included in the Digital Innovation Appendix regarding SWL’s approach to working with Canadian companies.
DSAP Comment #109: Overall, I think there are a number of highly questionable financial arrangements in the proposal. Providing anything software-related at cost is not a concession, it is an imposition. The 10% for 10 years is also unlikely to be appropriate as (1) most profits are likely to be beyond the 10 year horizon given the timelines of development and (2) it is easy to manipulate the profitability of complex/custom software by dividing the contract into provision of the technology license and provision of the services to support its roll-out.
Waterfront Toronto response:
As noted in prior comments, we have required changes to both the 10-year horizon and the share of profit.
With respect to your first note, on provision of software at cost, we appreciate that you’ve raised this and this is a matter that we have been discussing in the broader context of the proposal.
DSAP Comment #111: Has the feeling of university tech transfer strategies that have largely failed. Those strategies envision universities benefiting with a percentage of revenues from patents. But the data suggests that few do. A better public-interest strategy may be open science that emphasizes public availability of new technologies. In other words, is there a better public interest option to benefit from new innovation and commercialization?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Thank you for providing this context. WT will continue discussions on intellectual property matters – which require significant effort – in parallel with the evaluation process.
DSAP Comment #112: Testbed Enabled Technology also applies to the entire project of Quayside and the extended proposal by SWL in response to the RFP. There is no other Urban Testbed that will utilize technology to enable an urban development like this project. To that end my view is that this entire MIDP is candidate for being described as Testbed Enabled Technology.
With this it is stated that all IP associated will be shared at 10 percent upon the sale of the solution to the Second customer. SWL will generate enormous shared IP in the execution of the MIDP at scale and overall in the design, plan and execution of the many component parts of this initiative, but the most valuable will become the overall IP gain in the process of being selected as a partner.
WT cannot execute a second program at scale in the same manner as SWL will be able to as a global company with niche experience and resources and IP experienced on the testbed of Quayside. It is here that I would suggest that the share of Program/Project IP in the overall execution of this process
21
Page 99 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
to a second city should be considered for WT. As a minimum this would fund an Urban Data Trust in Quayside and truly create the opportunity for Data to serve as Good for Canada.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Thank you for providing this context. Intellectual Property matters – including any value-share for the Plan itself – will continue to require significant effort to resolve in parallel with the evaluation process. DSAP Comment #113: I share the concerns of panelists, but I also want to take a moment to mention that it really cannot be underscored enough how unique this commitment is for Sidewalk to recognize the role of the public sector in value creation and that it should translate to financial benefits. At the same time, since this type of arrangement is unique, for Waterfront Toronto to decide whether or not this is appropriate given the concessions Sidewalk’s MIDP requests there needs to be a greater understanding of the organization’s business model, its resources and strategy for scale of innovations past Toronto.
This is not your regular technology or product; much of what has been proposed potentially shifts how cities operate, are planned and are built. It is not something cities will be eager to adopt immediately, and with this type of technology it is not the first or the second customer that will be challenging, it is achieving scale, which will take a long time. My recommendation would be to extend the timeline for benefits and thoroughly understand their future ambition and the resources that will be allocated in the midst of undertaking the massive development of Quayside/the IDEA district and navigating growing pains of Sidewalk Labs as an organization. Given the limited information on Sidewalk’s future, it is puzzling to know whether or not this will be a deal whose benefits justify the concessions that need to be made by our institutions to achieve Sidewalk’s vision of the IDEA district.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Thank you for this comment – we agree, and have discussed an extension to the timeline for benefits as recommended as noted above.
DSAP Comment #114: There was a lack of any form of a valuation model for data collected. Pg. 221 - 10 percent of profits shared when product was sold to second city post WT. This valuation is based on product models only - there was no mention of how any data valuation would be monetized. For example - not selling the actual product or data from that specific product - but the vaster data collected for the overall execution of this project, stage by stage and gate by gate. Here could be the most valuable data set available for valuation - the actual run book and insights from the execution of the MIDP. Would this also become profit shared when SWL advises the next city on such a program based off the initiation and early success of this MIDP.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Thank you for providing this context. Data ownership and Intellectual Property matters will require significant effort in parallel with the evaluation process, including valuation models.
DSAP Comment #115: I worry that agreeing to this could partially tie the success of Waterfront Toronto as an organization to the financial returns of Sidewalk Labs. How valuable would a testimonial from Waterfront Toronto or the City of Toronto be about a Sidewalk Labs product or technology be when the world knows any purchase may result in % gain? Cities have an open policy of communication despite borders largely because of the shared mission to public interest. This point should not be underemphasized, particularly when you consider Sidewalk Labs has limited experience with
22
Page 100 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
developments. There are talented people on staff, but their collective track record will be built alongside this project. All important pieces to consider when thinking about the value vs concessions being made, particularly if any commitment is made to the desired IDEA district.
Waterfront Toronto response:
This is a very valid point, and one that we will have to keep front of mind as we move forward in any revenue sharing arrangement. At minimum, WT can commit to ensuring full disclosure of any financial interest it may have in the adoption of a technology should we be asked to comment on our experiences with it.
DSAP Comment #118: (Vol 3, Page 113): “With respect to advanced systems, SWL would notify the relevant administrative unit within the public administrator if it intends to utilize a product or service in which it holds a financial interest within Quayside or Villiers West.” In this case does the Public Administrator have unilateral veto rights or is it just about providing notice of an intended action?
Waterfront Toronto response:
As noted in the threshold issues response, there will be no public administrator. However, this is a good suggestion for inclusion as to the type of information that should be brought to WT/DSAP when a DES is being reviewed.
DSAP Comment #119: “The only condition is that those taking advantage of the pledge not assert their Canadian patents against Sidewalk Labs or its affiliated companies.” — This condition, emphasized in the presentation, is not nearly as equitable as it sounds. It effectively means that in order to use SWL tech, you have to give them all of yours — it basically removes the ability of small firms to exercise or patent anything. This is a higher imposition on the small firm than the large.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Thank you for this context. As noted in prior responses, matters related to Intellectual Property continue to require discussion moving forward, and we will raise this issue.
DSAP Comment #120: I also struggle with the patent pledge. The pledge is: “Sidewalk Labs would pledge not to assert Sidewalk Labs’ digital-innovation-related hardware or software patents issued in Canada (“Canadian Patents”) against third parties who develop and sell innovations that utilize such patents”. The pledge is for SWL not to assert its Canadian patents -- presumably it would be free to assert its US or European (etc.) patents for the same technologies if those developers try to patent, sell and/or use their technology in other jurisdictions. So how valuable is this patent pledge? Anyone who is limited to the Canadian market is going to be pretty limited. And how does this patent pledge work if the technology involves the routing of data that might cross international borders? (I’m thinking here of the patent infringement litigation that was launched against RIM all those years ago - it might be possible that technology used in Canada could be subject to claims of infringement of US patents simply because of the way the invention functions and the way in which information is routed). Anyhow, this is not really my area of specialty - but I do wonder whether these are issues.
Waterfront Toronto response:
23
Page 101 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
We agree, and come to agreement with SWL on an expanded patent pledge that will provide Canadian innovators operating globally with the right to use all Sidewalk Labs’ Canadian and foreign patents covering hardware and software digital innovations.
DSAP Comment #122: Their “General approach: Buy rather than build, wherever possible” raises a few flags in my view. Why is Sidewalk Labs purchasing the technology? While I don’t expect all details to be ironed out just yet, and there will be scenarios in the MIDP where Sidewalk Labs will purchase technology to fulfill its role in the project, this section reads as if Sidewalk Labs will be procuring a large amount of technology and “give priority to technology that is local to Toronto, Ontario, or Canada”.
Will this be at odds with Ontario Broader Public Sector Procurement Directive that Waterfront Toronto must follow? I recognize the value of acting as a catalyst to the innovation ecosystem, but the Public Sector Procurement Directive has stipulations like “contracting and purchasing activities must be fair, transparent and conducted with a view to obtaining the best value for public money” - which would limit the ability to prioritize local firms. Will this mean that to follow this commitment Sidewalk Labs would need to do most of the procurement? Sidewalk Labs would be free from this Directive, but I would expect, given the nature of the project, that there be a clear commitment of full transparency in its decision-making. In the final draft I expect such a commitment be explicit - how else will Sidewalk Labs be held accountable that there are (or aren’t) giving priority to technology that is local to Toronto, Ontario, or Canada?
Waterfront Toronto response:
Waterfront Toronto remains committed to our procurement policies (see: https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/portal/waterfront/Home/waterfronthome/procurement). We have asked Sidewalk Labs to provide additional information regarding their procurement approach both in the DIA as well as more broadly for the project.
DSAP Comment #131: This document got the attention of a grand unveiling, and over the last few months, I have heard again and again about how “hard” Sidewalk’s job was to balance detail required, but the level of detail that was expected of them was laid out entirely in the Plan Development Agreement. Based on the PDA never in the wildest of scenarios could anyone have predicted this document would be 1500+ pages.
They made the choice to go way beyond that, often in completely inappropriate ways, partially justified as feedback heard over the course of their consultation. They heard a variety of concerns and felt they should acknowledge those concerns and address them in the proposal. Except, no one asked them to do so - they were right to acknowledge those concerns, but they should have known their role and directed those concerns to the correct institutions, or used this as an opportunity to grow public sector capacity and expedite conversations that are desperately needed in cities across the world. They had the opportunity to build sustainability into the project, to contribute to the challenging work of navigating “smart cities” and prove critics wrong from the start and have instead chosen to prioritize their interests. I understand they have worked with various stakeholders and circulated elements of the plan prior to its release, but this issue persists.
Take the Data Trust - until well into the project the discourse did not point to this being a key part of the MIDP. Under the plan development agreement a data trust is mentioned a total of once in Schedule I with the caveat that it will “Explore novel forms of data governance”. Based on Schedule B I get how it could fit under the digital platform, but again, no one asked for anything past an exploration. Government adapts based on public feedback, successful proponents don’t. Schedule B, also lays out in 1.04 that “the plan may require revisions of, or other approvals under, such existing applicable laws
24
Page 102 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
and existing policy framework, in which case the implementation of any such plans will be subject to the relevant Governmental Authorities making or granting such revision or approval. The MIDP will be developed through a process of co-creation and collaboration between the Parties, informed by a robust public engagement process and close collaboration with the City of Toronto and other governmental agencies and stakeholders.” Feedback from other panelists on their proposed Urban Data Trust shows how their proposal falls short in several regards and would have benefited from proper collaboration with existing entities already working in the space.
DSAP Comment #132: Overall their work so far shows the PDA wasn’t followed as intended. Unfortunately they have opened up Waterfront Toronto, their organization, and the entire project to criticism that a private entity is driving public policy in the City of Toronto. The public draft should not have anything other than recommendations on what elements are required or essential to the development of Quayside. The fact that Waterfront Toronto had to release a “note to the reader” outlining their concerns over 66 pages is baffling. At the scope of the IDEA District, with the concessions being requested, I guarantee a number of actors would be willing to come to the table. It is a serious concern to me that with hindsight this RFP will be seen as a “backdoor” for Sidewalk Labs.
Waterfront Toronto response:
WT takes these points, and are hopeful that the significant re-scaling of the proposal (including the removal of governance mechanisms such as the urban data trust) that has occurred will address many of these concerns. As well, it is worth noting that WT will be evaluating the proposal based on how it meets the priorities and objectives established in the RFP.
DSAP Comment #137: Shadow City and Civic Governance Infrastructure: the MIDP has lots of calls for new organizations to be invented. They seem like parallel inventions to institutions we already have in part/full (e.g. public administrator for the IDEA district - economic and development and planning departments; Open Space Alliance - Park People / parks and rec departments. I think a fundamental principle moving forward is that we don’t invent new organizations / institutions until we first invest the government/NGO ones to see if we can grow them first. Page 71 of the V 3 states: “The innovative solutions needed to achieve Waterfront Toronto’s priority outcomes require management and oversight by dedicated, accountable, and financially self-sustaining, community-based governance structures.” I would argue that given the complexity of data-governance elements of this plan, it will be expensive and technically difficult to build the right capacity inside discrete organizations, especially for a 12-acre site. Every new organization that is set up has operations costs. The capacity to innovate needs to be focused inside government organizations first so that the lessons learned can be scaled and so that innovation emerges from democratically accountable processes. Similarly, why invent new NFP orgs what will require funding when perhaps some/the better part of what is proposed could be integrated, more economically, into existing ones with proper funding.
Waterfront Toronto response:
Proposed new governance mechanisms have been removed from the proposal.
DSAP Comment #141: How does this project affect the rest of the City’s operations - infrastructure, inclusion, mobility, etc.? Are we creating a siloed Utopia that could be the target of disdain by the rest of the City?
Waterfront Toronto response:
25
Page 103 of 190 WT Response to DSAP Preliminary Commentary 11/4/2019
While there will be new projects and technologies tested and deployed in the project area, Quayside will not operate in a fundamentally different way than most of the City (with the exception of certain additional requirements – such as abiding by Intelligent Community Guidelines – and certain economic development and innovation measures).
The nature of a testbed is such that certain advances may first occur in the area – but if they are successful, they can be deployed more broadly. It is essential that should we move forward on Quayside with SWL, the project must stitch into the fabric of the broader City.
DSAP Comment #148: … Substance aside, how comfortable is WT feeling about choosing a development partner who behaves like this? I know WT staff have tried to corral the effort but feels like you have been usurped on many fronts. The Board Chair’s letter and the recent amendment to the PDA are curious developments.
WT is keenly aware of the issues raised. We are hopeful that the resolutions put forward to the threshold issues show that WT has the ability manage the process. We are also optimistic that we will be able to put the appropriate conditions in place to ensure a productive and accountable relationship moving forward – though this will be an element of our overall evaluation of the MIDP and any potential implementation agreements, should the project progress to implementation.
DSAP Comment #149: Tied to the aspirations set out in the PDA that the project would set new standards in urban technologies and city-building, if the plan is serious about public engagement and literacy it should be more forward about creating an engagement model with the public. This includes helping the public frame the discussion with a civic digital literacy onramp into the issues and to assist the public in contributing to the design and implementation of the plan. This should be enabled and delivered by a trusted, and preferably public-sector or non-profit entity that can partner with citizens/residents in an inclusive and empowering way.
Waterfront Toronto response:
We agree, and as part of our discussions WT has committed to taking a strong role in civic education on digital issues, which it may execute in partnership with other stakeholders.
26
Page 104 of 190
Sidewalk Labs Response to Digital Strategy Advisory Panel Preliminary Commentary and Questions
Dear Wate ront Toronto Digital Strategy Advisory Panel,
As Sidewalk Labs, we wanted to thank you again for the Preliminary Commentary and Questions that you provided to Wate ront Toronto in August. Your insights have signi cantly shaped our thinking, and we hope you see this in the evolution of the proposal since the release of the dra MIDP in June. In this document, we have provided responses to the questions you raised in your Preliminary Commentary and Questions. Under Wate ront Toronto’s guidance, we have only answered the questions appropriate for us to answer. These responses re ect Sidewalk Labs’ current thinking and are in no way meant to represent nal viewpoints which will be developed through fu her consultation with Wate ront Toronto along with other stakeholders. The responses we have provided re ect both changes to the proposal that have resulted from the resolution of Threshold Issues process, as well as additional information.
In addition to these questions, we will be providing you with the Digital Innovation Appendix (DIA) on November 7th. This new document will form the core content on Digital Innovation that will be formally evaluated by Wate ront Toronto, and thus is the primary document for your review going forward. The questions provided here are based upon the work we have done for the DIA, which has been shaped by a number of inputs: the DSAP Preliminary Commentary and Questions; Wate ront Toronto Board Chair Steve Diamond’s open le er on June 24th; Wate ront Toronto’s “A Note to Reader” for the dra MIDP on June 28th; Wate ront Toronto’s Feedback Repo summarizing the rst round of public consultation on September 19th; and the materials voted upon by Wate ront Toronto’s board on October 31st that address the resolution of the Threshold Issues raised by Steve Diamond in his June open le er.
Thank you again for all of your work on behalf of Wate ront Toronto, and we look forward to engaging with you and reading the nal review you provide to Wate ront Toronto.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Harvey Dawson, Eugene Kim, Jacqueline Lu, Jesse Shapins and the Sidewalk Labs team
Page 1 o f 6 9
Page 105 of 190
Response t o D SAP C omments
DIGITAL INNOVATIONS – Chapter 5, Volume 2
Digital Innovations – General
DSAP Comment #1: (SWL) I n c ontrast t o t he s peci city o f t he U rban D ata T rust p roposal, t he MIDP i s r elatively t hin i n i ts d etails a bout t he p roposed d igital i nfrastructures, s o ware and databases. Please p rovide c omprehensive d ata ow a nd s ystems a rchitecture o verviews. U se l ayered or stack models, w here a ppropriate.
DSAP Comment #2: (SWL) T he d igital i nnovations n eed t o b e u pdated t o i nclude a ll d igital innovations n ot j ust t hose t hat S idewalk p lans t o i mplement i tself. S ca ered t hroughout the documents a re d igital s ystems, s ome o f w hich S idewalk p roposes t o R FP, s ome o f w hich it will ‘pa ner’ t o i mplement. F or e xample, s ystems a re p roposed f or D igital F abrication f or t he wood buildings, a ordable h ousing, r obot d elivery, o site p arking, e nergy m anagement ( Pe orm), new utility b ills, t hermal g rid a nd p ower g rid. I n o rder t o g et a c omprehensive v iew o f t he e conomic oppo unity a nd t he s cope o f d ata g overnance a c omprehensive m ap i s r equired o f a ll digital systems.
DSAP Comment #3: (SWL) T otally a gree. N eed a m ore c omprehensive a pproach t o b ringing together t he v arious i nnovations a cross c hapters. T he c urrent a pproach m eans t he “ digital innovation” chapter i s t oo n arrowly d e ned a nd m isses m any o f t he i nnovations a nd t heir p olicy i mplications.
DSAP Comment #5: (Both) F oundational t o g overning t he w ide r ange o f d igital a ssets m entioned in t he P lan a re q uestions o f w ho w ould o wn t hem, w hat j urisdiction(s) w ould t hey b e g overned under and w hich p a ies w ould b e r esponsible f or d eveloping, t esting, o perating, m aintaining, funding and disposing o f t hem. P lease p rovide a c omprehensive i nventory o f i ts v arious p roposed d igital assets (including a ll p hysical i nfrastructure, s o ware s ystems a nd d atabases) t hat m akes c lear the relevant jurisdictions a nd r esponsibilities.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #1, #2, #3 and #5 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
We h ave s ynthesized a r esponse b elow t hat rst a ddresses p roviding a c omprehensive listing of the digitally-enabled i nnovations a nd a n i nitial s et o f d etails, a nd s econd, a p rocess f or p roviding fu her details a round d igital a rchitecture.
Listing Digitally-Enabled Innovations The M aster I nnovation a nd D evelopment P lan ( MIDP) p roposes a w ide s et o f u rban i nnovations designed t o p ositively i mpact q uality o f l ife i n Q uayside f rom d ay o ne. T he D igital I nnovation chapter in M IDP V olume 2 p rovided a n i nitial l ist o f d igitally e nabled L aunch S ervices t o s uppo achieving Wate ront T oronto’s P riority O utcomes. R ecognizing t hat t his l ist w as n ot e xhaustive, Sidewalk Labs has c ompiled a u ni ed l ist o f d igitally e nabled i nnovation s ervices p roposed f or Q uayside, and referenced t hroughout t he M IDP. T his l ist w ill b e p ublished w ith t he f o hcoming D igital Innovation Appendix.
This l ist r epresents t he rst s tep i n t he d evelopment o f a c omprehensive s et o f d igital i nnovation materials f or t he p roject, a nd p rovides a b ase f or i terative d esign, d evelopment, a nd r eviews by
Page 2 o f 6 9
Page 106 of 190
Wate ront T oronto, t he C ity a nd o ther s takeholders m oving f orward. T he l ist a ims t o i dentify not only the w hat a nd t he w hy o f p roposed d igital i nnovations, b ut a lso t he h ow a nd t he w ho. A mong o ther things, t his i ncludes: w hich W ate ront T oronto P riority O utcome(s) i t a dvances; m unicipal precedents; w hat d ata w ould b e g enerated; h ow t he d ata w ould p hysically b e g enerated; whether the innovation w ould b e b ought, b uilt, o r a c ombination o f t he t wo; t he p roposed l ead f or procurement; who h as t ypical o perational o versight; w ho i s s uggested f or o perational o versight; e tc. Notably, suggested o perational o versight f or t he g reat m ajority o f d istrict-wide i nfrastructure s ervices proposed f or Q uayside i s s ame a s t oday: g overnment, n on-pro ts, o r o ther r egulated bodies such as private u tilities. T he l ist a lso h elps p rovide a c lear, s ingle s ource f or w hat d ata c ollection activities are proposed — a nd w hat a ctivities a re n ot. F or e xample, t he l ist m akes i t c lear t hat n o f acial recognition is i ncluded i n S idewalk L abs’ p roposal, n or i s t here a nything t hat t racks t he i ndividual m ovements of people.
A process for providing digital architecture details It s hould b e n oted t hat t he M IDP i s a d ocument t hat i ncorporates a b uild p rogram, s ite plan, and development s trategy a t a c onceptual l evel. I t d oes n ot r e ect t he d etailed l evel o f d esign that would be r equired f or t he c ity’s f ormal d evelopment a pplication p rocess. S imilarly, V olume 2 o f the MIDP provides c onceptual d esigns f or t he d igital a rchitecture n eeded t o a chieve W ate ront Toronto’s Priority O utcomes. I t d oes n ot r e ect t he d etailed d esign o f t he f ull d igital a rchitecture that is proposed - t his w ould b e f u her d etailed a nd d esigned i n p arallel w ith t he d evelopment of the Quayside b uild p rogram.
Subject t o t he a pproval o f t he M IDP, S idewalk L abs w ould w ork w ith a f ull d esign a nd e ngineering consultant t eam t o p repare a d etailed d evelopment p lan a nd a ccompanying i nfrastructure and transpo ation m aster p lan f or Q uayside, a s c urrently r equired b y t he d evelopment a pplication process. T he d etailed d evelopment p lan w ould a dvance t he p lans a s c onceptualized i n the MIDP to the l evel o f d etail n eeded t o p roceed w ith t he a pprovals p rocess, w hich i ncludes t he c ompletion of development a pplications s ubject t o f ormal r eview b y v arious g overnment s ta a nd a gencies, public consultation, a nd nal a pproval b y t he C ity of T oronto C ouncil.
Fu her t o d irection f rom W ate ront T oronto a nd t he C ity o f T oronto, t he d igital a rchitecture materials that S idewalk L abs c ould p rovide w ould i dentify, c lassify, a nd m ap p hysical l ocations o f the digital infrastructure t hat i s e ncompassed w ithin t he Q uayside D evelopment P lan, a nd i nclude a list of associated d ata t hat c ould b e c ollected. A ll p roposals t o c ollect o r u se d ata w ould p roceed through existing p rocesses, s uch a s a ny p rocesses r equired b y W ate ront T oronto’s I ntelligent Communities Guidelines, a nd o ther a ssessments a s r equired b y C ity o r P rovincial r egulators, t o e nsure that the digital s ervices a chieve r esponsible d ata u se a nd a bide b y r egulatory r equirements. S ection 1.2 of the fo hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix s ets o ut f u her d etails.
Among o ther t hings, S idewalk L abs w ould p repare a s eries o f d rawings a nd i llustrations that a iculate the i ntegration o f d igital a rchitecture i n t he p hysical b uilding a nd s ystems d esign, a s p a of the detailed d evelopment p lan. S idewalk L abs s ees t hese d igital a rchitecture s tudies a s n ecessary for fully understanding t he i ntegration o f p hysical a nd d igital s ystems, a nd t o e nsure t hese s ystems are responsibly i mplemented a nd h ave a ppropriate e valuation a nd c onsultation. S ection 1 .3.2 of the fo hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix p rovides d etail a nd i ncludes a n i nitial s et o f c onceptual site diagrams ( including a xonometric d iagrams a nd s ection d iagrams) t hat i llustrate t he i ntegrated digital and p hysical l ayers o f t he s ystems p roposed f or t he p roject, a nd w hich i ntend t o p rovide an early understanding o f t he s patial l ocation o f s ensors a nd r elated t echnology i n t he n eighbourhood.
Subject t o p roject a pprovals, S idewalk L abs l ooks f orward t o w orking w ith W ate ront T oronto and the City t o r e ne a n a ppropriate a pproach t o t he s cope a nd t iming o f d igital a rchitecture s ubmi als during t he d evelopment a pplication p rocess, a nd a ny o ther r equirements.
Page 3 o f 6 9
Page 107 of 190
DSAP Comment #4: (Both) R elated t o t his, p lease m ake p ublic a c omprehensive i nventory o f t he kinds o f i nformation S WL w ould p rovide t o the U DT f or a pproval a bout i ts p urposeful s olutions and core s ervices, e .g. w here w ould s ensors o f w hat k inds b e l ocated a nd w ith w hat d ata o utputs? Where would t he d ata f rom t hese s ensors ow, h ow p rocessed, f or w hom a nd f or w hat p urposes?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
A c onsistent t heme o f f eedback h as b een e ncouragement f or e xisting, g overnment-established entities t o t ake t he l ead o n d ata g overnance. T he i ntent f or S idewalk L abs’ U rban D ata T rust proposal was t o e nsure r esponsible d ata u se a nd s uppo t rusted d ata s haring, b ut t he c lear f eedback was that creating a n ew s tandalone e ntity f or b oth t hese f unctions w as n ot a p referred p ath. T he agreed-upon approach f rom t he T hreshold I ssues r esolution p rocess i s r esponsive t o t his f eedback and recognizes that W ate ront T oronto a nd i ts g overnment s takeholders l ead o n d ata g overnance. I t a lso rea rms Sidewalk L abs’ c ommitment t o c omply w ith a ll a pplicable C anadian l aws, W ate ront T oronto’s Digital Principles a nd f o hcoming I ntelligent C ommunity G uidelines, a nd a pplicable p olicy f rameworks.
As n oted a bove, f u her t o d irection f rom W ate ront T oronto a nd t he C ity o f T oronto, S idewalk Labs would p rovide d igital a rchitecture m aterials t hat i dentify, c lassify, a nd m ap p hysical l ocations of the digital i nfrastructure a nd i nclude a l ist o f a ssociated d ata t hat c ould b e c ollected. A n i nitial set of conceptual s ite d iagrams t hat i llustrate t he integrated d igital a nd p hysical l ayers o f t he systems proposed f or t he p roject i s i ncluded i n s ection 1 .3.2 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation Appendix, with t he i ntent o f p roviding a n e arly u nderstanding o f t he s patial l ocation o f s ensors a nd related technology i n t he n eighbourhood, t he t ypes o f d ata g enerated, t he p urpose, a nd o ther details.
DSAP Comment #6: (Both) O bsolescence, c urrency, a nd r efresh a re a ll c onsiderations t hat n eed to b e d ealt w ith i n d epth i n t he i mplementation a nd o perating a greements. I n a ddition, technology replacement p rovisions a re r equired s hould t he i mplementation f ail t o o perate r eliably or meet its targets i n c ontributing t o t he R FP g oals.
DSAP Comment #11: (Both) H ow w ill S WL e nsure t hat W T a nd t he C ity w ill b e w ell p rotected ( in terms o f i nfrastructure, i nvestments, s ystem i ntegration, e tc) i f i t o r i ts s ubcontractors, a liates, etc. pull o ut o f t he p roject? S ee G oogle F ibre p ull o ut i n L ouisville K Y.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #6 and #11 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
If t he p roject i s a pproved t o m ove f orward, W ate ront T oronto a nd S idewalk L abs w ould enter into a set o f a greements ( “Principal I mplementation A greements”) t o i mplement t he p roject. Future implementation a greements m ight a lso b e n eeded f or t he p roject. A mong o ther t hings, these implementation a greements w ould i nclude commercial t erms a greed u pon b y t he p a ies regarding ma ers s uch a s i ntellectual p rope y, l iability f or i nfrastructure s ystems, s ystems i ntegration, obsolescence, c urrency, r efresh, e tc.
DSAP Comment #7: (Both) T he p lans s hould n ot j ust o utline t he n ew t echnologies b eing proposed, b ut a lso m ore d etail o n h ow t hose t echnologies w ill b e s ourced, e valuated, maintained and secured. T he s ustaining, m aintenance a nd u pgrading o f u rban t echnologies a re t he l argest expense over t he l ifetime o f a ny a sset. I w ould l ike t o s ee m ore h ere o n h ow t his w ill b e a ddressed and by whom.
Page 4 o f 6 9
Page 108 of 190
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The rst p a o f t he r esponse b elow r esponds t o t he p rocurement-related a spects o f t he question, and t he s econd p rovides a dditional d etail a round S idewalk L abs’ a pproach t o s ecuring technologies.
Procurement The L ist o f D igitally E nabled S ervices f or Q uayside, w hich w ill b e p ublished w ith t he f o hcoming Digital I nnovation A ppendix, p rovides d etails o n t ypical o perational o versight, s uggested operational oversight, a nd p roposed p rocurement l ead f or e ach o f D igitally-Enabled S ervices. A ccountabilities regarding s ustaining, m aintenance a nd u pgrading t hese t echnologies w ould b e d etailed in legally binding a greements. T he f orm o f a greement w ill d epend o n t he t echnology b eing s ourced. Depending o n t he s ystem b eing p urchased, i t i s a nticipated t hat s ome p rocurements m ay be led by Wate ront T oronto o n i ts o wn b ehalf o r o n b ehalf o f g overnments, w hile o ther p rocurements may be led b y S idewalk L abs.
These p rocurements w ould b e g overned b y v arious p rinciples, d epending o n t he o rganization conducting t he p rocurement, s ince p ublic-sector o rganizations, b roader-public-sector organizations, and p rivate-sector o rganizations e ach h ave a d i erent s et o f d efault r ules f rom v arious sources that apply t o t hem.
Should t he M IDP r eceive t he r equired a pprovals, S idewalk L abs w ould n eed t o p rocure third-pa y goods a nd s ervices i n o rder t o e xecute i ts c ommitments i n t he P lan D evelopment A greement and subsequent P rincipal I mplementation A greements. S ome o f t hese p rocurements w ould include procurement o f t echnology. A s a p rivately h eld c ompany, o nly t he c ommon l aw o f t endering applies to p rocurements b y S idewalk L abs e xcept t o t he e xtent t hat i t a grees o therwise b y c ontract. When entering i nto t he P lan D evelopment A greement, S idewalk L abs a greed t o a bide b y c e ain additional standards a er e xecution o f t he P rincipal I mplementation A greements, n amely, f air a nd arm’s-length procurement s tandards, w hich “ will s eek t o b alance — i n t he p ublic i nterest — t he u se of market-based s ourcing, o n t he o ne h and, a nd t he d irect f acilitation o f P urposeful S olutions for innovation, o n t he o ther h and.” F or e very t echnology t hat S idewalk L abs p rocures t hrough market-based s ourcing ( which i ncludes a ll t echnologies n ot p roduced b y S idewalk L abs), Sidewalk Labs w ould a bide b y f air a nd a rm’s-length p rocurement s tandards i nformed b y t he p rinciples enumerated i n S chedule D o f t he P lan D evelopment A greement, n amely, c onsultation, exibility, value, fairness, a nd c ompliance.
Sidewalk L abs c ould b e p rocuring t echnologies i n i ts r ole a s l ead v e ical d eveloper. F or example, Sidewalk L abs m ay p rocure a t echnology f or u se i n t all t imber b uildings, w hich w ould b e physically integrated i nto b uildings b y v e ical d evelopment p a ner(s) f or Q uayside. A dditionally, Sidewalk Labs would l ead i mplementation o f a dvanced i nfrastructure s ystems i n a ccordance w ith t he Innovation Plan, s ubject t o W ate ront T oronto’s r eview a nd a pproval. “ Advanced i nfrastructure” i ncludes the thermal g rid, p neumatic w aste s ystems, a nd o ther n on-traditional s ystems a s p roposed in the MIDP. To t he e xtent S idewalk L abs w ould p ropose t o m ove f orward w ith a dvanced i nfrastructure, with Wate ront T oronto’s a pproval, W ate ront T oronto w ould n ot b e h eld r esponsible f or d elivery or operation o f s uch a dvanced i nfrastructure.
As o ne p otential e xample o f h ow o verall p rocurement a nd o perational o versight w ould work for advanced s ystems: i n t he c ase o f t he w aste m anagement s ystems, S idewalk L abs w ould manage the design a nd e ngineering, s ubject t o r eviews a nd a pprovals b y t he C ity. S idewalk L abs w ould procure and m anage c onstruction b ased o n t he a pproved p lans, a nd a s p ermi ed b y t he C ity. I n operation, waste w ould b e p icked u p b y a h auler a t a c onsolidation c enter o n Q uayside.
Page 5 o f 6 9
Page 109 of 190
In t hese p rocurements, S idewalk L abs w ould s eek t o e nsure t he C anadian e cosystem i s aware of all procurements a nd p rioritize C anadian c ompanies b y b reaking t ies i n t heir f avour. T he s peci c mechanisms t o a chieve t his, w hile e nsuring b est-in-class a nd f air v alue, w ill b e f u her clari ed through e ngagement w ith t he i ndustry.
Securing technology and ensuring reliability Sidewalk L abs l everages b est p ractices a s w ell a s p ublic a nd o pen s tandards t o e nsure that digital systems a re n ot o nly s ecure a nd p rotected f rom d eliberate c yber-security t hreats b ut also function reliably i n t he f ace o f u nusual e vents.
Sidewalk L abs’ a pproach t o d igital r eliability e mphasizes t hree d esign g oals: ● Prevent d isruption a nd l oss o f f unctionality. ● Enable r apid d etection o f a ctual l oss o r i ncreased r isk o f l oss o f f unctionality. ● Prepare t o r apidly r estore f unctionality t o s ervices t hat a re d isrupted.
Wherever p ossible, S idewalk L abs u ses p ublic s tandards a nd o pen s ource s o ware w ith strong institutional a nd c ommunity s uppo , e nabling c ollaboration w ith p ractitioners a round the world to address p roblems a s t hey a rise. S idewalk L abs w ould a lso u se t he C ommon V ulnerabilities and Exposures s ystem t o s tay a breast o f p otential p roblems.
Additionally, S idewalk L abs w ill g ive p reference t o m odularity o f s ystems w henever p ossible, enabled by i ts c ommitments t o o pen s tandards a nd i nteroperability d etailed i n t he p revious s ection. Modularity a nd r eliance o n o pen-source h ardware a nd s o ware m akes i t e asier t o i solate, replace, or upgrade i ndividual c omponents.
Given t he r apid e volution o f b est p ractices a s n ew t echnologies e merge, S idewalk L abs’ strategy is to follow g eneral b est p ractices a s e stablished b y t he s ecurity c ommunity f or a ll t he t echnologies it develops o r m aintains, s uch a s t he b enchmark s ecurity s tandards, S OC 2 c ompliance a nd ISO27001 for a pplicable p roducts a nd s ervices.
DSAP Comment #8: (Both) T he M IDP g ives t he s trong i mpression t hat i t w as d eveloped w ith l i le direct i nvolvement w ith t he r ange o f r elevant T oronto c ommunity a ctors o r w ith a ention to inter-operability w ith e xisting ( digital) i nfrastructures. T his r aises t he p rospect o f Q uayside becoming a ‘ digital i sland’ w ithin T oronto. P lease p rovide a c omprehensive i nventory o f t he s tatus of its relationships w ith r elevant a ctors, h ow i ts p roposed d igital i nnovations w ill b ene t t he various stakeholders a nd w ork w ith e xisting i nfrastructures?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The M IDP i ncorporates a b uild p rogram, s ite p lan, a nd d evelopment s trategy a t a c onceptual level, and does n ot r e ect t he d etailed l evel o f d esign r equired f or t he C ity’s f ormal d evelopment application process. L ikewise, i t p rovides c onceptual d esigns f or t he d igital a rchitecture n eeded t o achieve Wate ront T oronto’s P riority O utcomes. I t d oes n ot r e ect t he d etailed d esign o f t he f ull digital architecture t hat i s p roposed. T his w ould b e f u her d etailed a nd d esigned i n p arallel w ith the development o f t he Q uayside b uild p rogram.
The e xisting r egulatory d evelopment p rocess d oes n ot r equire s peci c s tudies o r r epo s focused on the d igital a nd d ata-collecting c omponents o f t he p roposed d evelopment. T hus u nderlying digital architecture o f d evelopments i s t ypically n ot c omprehensively u nderstood e ither d uring or a er the development a pplication p rocess o r a er a pprovals a re g ranted.
Page 6 o f 6 9
Page 110 of 190
In a n e o t o p rovide c larity a nd t ransparency o n t he d igital a rchitecture p roposed f or Quayside, Sidewalk L abs i s p lanning t o p repare m aterials a s p a o f t he d evelopment a pplication p rocess. These materials w ill d etail t he u nderlying d igital a rchitecture a nd d ata s ystems a s t he o verall Q uayside project i s d esigned a nd u ndergoes m unicipal a pprovals. T his c onsolidated d igital a rchitecture package w ould s trive t o p rovide a s trong u nderstanding o f t he d igitally-enabled s ervices proposed in the d evelopment, a nd e nable a ppropriate c onsideration o f i nteroperability w ith e xisting digital infrastructure.
Fu her t o d irection f rom W ate ront T oronto a nd t he C ity o f T oronto, d igital a rchitecture materials provided b y S idewalk L abs c ould i dentify, c lassify, a nd m ap p hysical l ocations o f t he d igital infrastructure i ntegrated i n t he Q uayside D evelopment P lan, a nd i nclude a l ist o f a ssociated data that could b e c ollected. A ll p roposals t o c ollect o r u se d ata w ould p roceed t hrough p rocesses as required by W ate ront T oronto, t he C ity, P rovincial r egulators, a nd o ther a uthorities.
The p rogression o f t hese m aterials i s i nitially e nvisioned a s: ● Level 1 - D igital d esign g oals d e ned w ith b asic a rchitecture l ayouts ( as p rovided i n t he MIDP and i n t he f o hcoming D IA) ● Level 2 - G eneral a rchitecture d e ned a llowing d esign exibility f or e ach e lement ● Level 3 - S peci c l ocation, p urpose, t ype, a nd c ommunication p rotocol f or e ach a rchitectural element c omplete ● Level 4 - S peci cations a nd c onstruction d rawings
Fu her d etails a re a vailable i n s ection 1 .2 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix.
Additionally, S idewalk L abs i ntends t o f u her e ngage w ork u nderway b y g roups s uch a s the CIO Strategy C ouncil a nd t he O pen C ity N etwork t o e stablish s tandards t hat v alue i nclusiveness, openness, p ublic i nterest, a nd r espect f or i ndividual r ights a nd p rivacy. T hese s tandards include the ethical d esign a nd u se o f a utomated d ecision s ystems a nd t hird-pa y a ccess t o d ata. The CIO Strategy C ouncil i s a ccredited b y t he S tandards C ouncil o f C anada ( SCC) t o d evelop a nd submit standards t o S CC f or a cceptance a s N ational S tandards o f C anada.
Finally, S idewalk L abs w ould c omply w ith W ate ront T oronto’s D igital P rinciples a nd f o hcoming Intelligent C ommunity G uidelines, a s w ell a s a pplicable p olicy f rameworks.
DSAP Comment #9: (Both) H ow m uch c onsideration i s b eing g iven t o extending t he i nnovations i n the I DEA d istrict t o t he r est o f t he C ity?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Our c urrent f ocus i s o n t he Q uayside p roject a s i ndicated i n t he r esolution o f T hreshold Issues released O ctober 3 1.
DSAP Comment #12: (Both) I nteroperability i s i nadequately a ddressed. W ithout i nteroperability with p ersonal a lternative a ccess s ystems, t he d ata i nnovations p roposed f or i ndividuals with disabilities w ill n ot f unction. H ow will interoperability be planned and assured?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Thank y ou f or t his c omment. W ith r espect t o i nteroperability f or t he p roject, S idewalk L abs has commi ed t o:
Page 7 o f 6 9
Page 111 of 190
● Open architecture: p roviding d ata i n s tandard f ormats a nd v ia w ell-de ned, p ublic a pplication programming i nte aces. W here r elevant s tandards d o n ot e xist, i t w ould w ork w ith o ther companies, r esearchers, a nd s tandards b odies t o c reate t hose s tandards. ● Open source: t he s o ware s ource c ode r equired f or o thers t o i ntegrate w ith e ach o f t hese systems w ould b e m ade p ublicly a vailable u nder a f ree s o ware l icence.
These a pproaches s uppo a spects o f W ate ront T oronto’s D igital Principle #1: Everyone will have access to, and bene t equally from, digital solutions b y e nabling p a icipation i n d igital a ctivities through o pen d igital p rocesses a nd t he s haring o f d ata a s a ppropriate. T hey a lso s uppo D igital Principle #2: Digital solutions will be open, ethical, and resilient b y a dvancing o pen s tandards, interoperability, a nd p rotocols t hat d o n ot f oster v endor l ock-in a nd d ependency.
Additionally, w e a re c ommi ed t o a pplying the 2 2 a ccessibility p rinciples o utlined i n t he MIDP, including t he p rinciple “ use t he b est d igital a ccessibility s tandards a vailable a nd s et n ew, higher standards w herever p ossible.” W hen t he n ext p hase o f m aster p lanning c ommences, i f the MIDP is approved, S idewalk L abs a nticipates c reating a w orking g roup c onsisting o f p eople w ith disabilities who h as s tewardship o f t hese p rinciples a nd d irect i nput i nto t he d esign p rocess.
DSAP Comment #13: (Both) F rustrated b y h ow o ver-sold t his p roposal o n d igital i nnovation i s a t times. F or e xample, t he M IDP s tates: “ But d igital i nnovation r aises a n umber o f c hallenges that cities like T oronto a re j ust s ta ing t o a ddress. T hese i nclude m aking s ure b asic d igital i nfrastructure is a ordable a nd o pen t o e veryone, m aking s ure d ata i s s tandardized a nd p ublicly a ccessible, and making s ure t here i s a t ransparent p rocess for p rotecting p rivacy a nd t he g ood o f t he city.” How does this p roposal a chieve t hat? H ow d oes a s lice o f t he W ate ront m ake b asic d igital i nfrastructure available t o e veryone? H ow d oes t his i mprove o ur e xisting p rivacy l aws a t t he p rovincial level or PIPEDA?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
While t he M IDP a cknowledges t he c hallenge t hat c ities l ike T oronto f ace i n m aking b asic digital infrastructure a ordable a nd o pen t o e veryone, t he s cope o f t he p roject i s f ocused o n addressing these c hallenges w ith t he p roject g eography, r ather t han a ll o f T oronto. T his i s c onsistent with Wate ront T oronto’s a spirations a nd w ork o ver t he c ourse o f a d ecade t o b ridge t he d igital divide in its n ew c ommunities. T he o ppo unity t hat W ate ront T oronto o utlined i n t heir o riginal RFP was to explore h ow t o u se t his s lice o f t he w ate ront t o t ry s ome n ew a pproaches t o a chieving public bene ts, t hat i f s uccessful, c ould h opefully b e e xpanded u pon. W e h ope t hat t he e volution of the proposal b ased o n t he r esolution o f t he T hreshold I ssues f u her m akes c lear t hat S idewalk Labs is commi ed t o w orking t o e nsure t he p roject s uppo s t hese p ublic b ene ts.
With r espect t o p rivacy l aws - S idewalk L abs b elieves t hat i ts r ole i s t o c omply w ith a ll a pplicable privacy l aws. A nd t hrough t he r esolution o f T hreshold I ssues, W ate ront T oronto i s n ow taking the lead o n d ata g overnance. B uilding o n t heir D igital P rinciples, t his w ill i nclude I ntelligent Community Guidelines t hat w ill a dvance a h igher s tandard f or r esponsible d ata u se i n c ities, s imilar to how their Minimum G reen B uildings S tandards h ave r aised t he b ar f or s ustainable d evelopment.
Digital Innovations – Infrastructure – General
DSAP Comment #14: (SWL) V olume 3 s tates t hat w ithout t he p roposed D igital N etwork ‘ standard broadband s ervices a vailable i n T oronto’ w ould b e t he B usiness a s U sual r esult. T his i s b oth incorrect and s eriously m isleading. E ast B ayfront a lready h as t he a dvanced c apabilities o f t he B ean eld network w hich s urpasses s tandard T oronto b roadband s ervices a nd i ncludes p ublic W iFi. It also
Page 8 o f 6 9
Page 112 of 190
includes T V a nd p hone s ervices w hich d espite t he r apid g rowth o f o ver-the-top s ervices are still required. T he c omparison o f t he p roposed Digital N etwork n eeds t o b e u pdated t o t he correct BAU case f or e valuation p urposes. T his v olume d oes l ater a cknowledge t hat t he d igital n etwork ‘would be implemented d irectly b y W ate ront T oronto’s b roadband i nternet p a ner’.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
We a cknowledge t hat T oronto’s w ate ront c urrently i ncorporates w orld-leading i nternet speeds, thanks t o t he w ork o f W ate ront T oronto w ith i ts t elecommunications p a ner B ean eld Metroconnect.
Sidewalk L abs’ v ision o f u biquitous c onnectivity f or Q uayside b uilds o n t his f oundation, proposing abundant, s ecure, a nd s eamless c onnectivity b oth i ndoors a nd o utdoors f or p eople a nd infrastructure systems. T he n etwork t o s uppo t his m ust be s tate-of-the-a w hen d eployed, b ut a lso built to be future-proof a nd exible s o i t c an b e u pgraded b oth i n t erms o f s peed a nd a daptability to new technologies. S idewalk L abs h as h ad p reliminary d iscussions w ith B ean eld M etroconnect, which has expressed i nterest i n S uper-PON - a n ovel t echnology t hat c ould b e u sed t o b uild o ut t he ubiquitous network a t Q uayside b y m ultiplying t he c apacity o f a ccess bres a nd e xtending t he p assive footprint of bre a ccess n etwork f or i mproved r eliability a nd l ower o perational c ost.
DSAP Comment #15: (SWL) T he l ack o f d iscussion o f t he e volution o f m obile n etwork technologies t o s uppo I OT i s s urprising. L TE-M a nd N B-IoT a re a lready i n w ide g lobal d eployment. Additionally t here i s 5 G – t his t echnology h as w idespread i ndustry a nd g overnment s uppo and is already i n t rial i n v arious l ocations. I OT D evice m anufacturers w ill l ikely i nvest i n t hese t echnologies ahead o f K oala. W hat r ole w ould t hese n ew m obile t echnologies p lay i n t he v ision f or Q uayside given?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The c ost a nd e ase o f i mplementation f or n ew c ommunication t echnologies c an b e i mpacted by Koala. Koala w ould a llow exibility i n a llowing t he n ewest s ystems t o b e u sed, b y p roviding e ase of mounting, power, a nd c onnectivity i n t he p ublic r ealm, w hich c an b e b ene cial f or t hese n ew t echnologies, especially 5 G. W e a re e xcited t o s ee t he g rowth o f L TE-M, N B-IoT a nd t he p romise o f 5 G, and note that i t w ill r equire a d ense a rray o f m odems t hat w ith c urrent a pproaches t o m ounting make deployments a nd u pgrades s low a nd c ostly. S idewalk L abs h as h ad d iscussions w ith telecommunications c ompanies a bout K oala a nd t here i s i nterest i n e xploring t he s olution to suppo the t esting a nd r oll-out o f 5 G n etworks.
DSAP Comment #16: (SWL) A s o ne o f t he p anelists c orrectly s tated a t the l ast m eeting ( July 2 2), there i s v ery l i le i n t his d igital i nnovation c hapter t hat d oes n ot h ave a n e xisting t echnology solution/alternative, a nd y et S idewalk L abs states t hat u biquitous c onnectivity “ would only become nancially s ustainable a t a l arger s ervice a rea, g iven t he n umber o f r esidents o r b usinesses needed to recoup t he i nitial i nvestment.” T his s eems u nlikely g iven W ate ront T oronto’s e xisting c ontract with Bean eld.
Metroconnect a ccomplishes t his s cale u sing t raditional bre-based t echnologies. I b elieve the nal MIDP w ould b ene t g reatly f rom e laborating o n t he i ssue o f e conomy o f s cale. F or i nstance, what is the m inimum v iable p roduct a ssuming o nly Q uayside a nd n ot t he l arger I DEA D istrict? Does anything fall a pa i f w e d on’t h ire S WL t o d evelop n ew t echnology? S WL p a ially a nswered t his question on July 2 2nd, s aying: “ The p lan c an s till b e a chieved s uccessfully, b ut w ith l ess g ains,” a nd “It is challenging t o a chieve m arket r ate r eturns w hen o nly c onsidering Q uayside, b ut m ore reasonable when a dding V illiers.” H owever, I r ecommend t hat t he nal M IDP d ig i nto t his i ssue f u her.
Page 9 o f 6 9
Page 113 of 190
DSAP Comment #40: (SWL) T he o verall p rocess r ightly s ets o ut t hat S idewalk w ould n eed t o achieve s peci c p e ormance g oals i n Q uayside i n o rder t o e arn t he r ight t o p roceed t o Villiers West. Solutions t hat a re n ot i n t he d igital i nnovations c hapter a re o en q uite c lear w hat t hose goals are. For a ordable h ousing, g reenhouse g as e missions a nd e lectricity c onsumption S idewalk h as analysed the impact o f i ts p roposals. T his q uanti cation and a nalysis i s n otably l acking f or t he p roposed launch services i n t he d igital i nnovation c hapter w ith t he e xception o f S chedulers a nd K oala.
For e xample t he m obility m anagement s ystem c laims t hat i t w ill ‘ reduce c ongestion a nd improve safety’. S peci c o utcomes r equiring a c omplex a nd s ophisticated s et o f s ensors, s o ware and policies a t a n ot i nconsiderable c apital a nd operating e xpense a re a bsent. W ithout s ome quanti cation o f c urrent s tate a nd g oals i t w ill n ot b e p ossible t o e valuate t his p otential digital service. For e xample, w hen c onsidering s afety, h ow w ill t his b e c ompared w ith o ther a pproaches typically included i n V ision Z ero p rograms? I t c ould a lso b e a rgued t hat a c e ain l evel ‘ congestion’ is a symptom o f u rban s uccess a nd n ot a p roblem t o b e s olved. S idewalk h as r ecognised t hat at the Quayside s cale t he i mpact o f t his s ystem w ill b e ‘ meaningful b ut m odest’ ( page 8 5) a nd then provides some t argets a t t he s cale o f t he I DEA d istrict o nly.
Each o f t he p roposed l aunch s ervices r equires s peci c t argets a t t he Q uayside s cale, a nd where the impact i s l imited a t t hat s cale, a t t he Q uayside p lus V illiers s cale.
DSAP Comment #142: (SWL) I w ould e ncourage S idewalk t o p repare a “ Minimum V iable P lan”. There i s a l ot b eing p roposed, b ut h ard t o k now w hat t he i nterdependencies a re, w hat is prioritized, and w hat a re t he m inimum n umber o f p roposals t hat w ould m ake f or a v iable p lan. A lso, and was asked i n t he p revious s et o f q uestions o n t he d igital c hapter s peci cally, i t w ould a lso h elp to outline interim s olutions o r a pproaches t hat m ight allow t he p roject t o m ove f orward w here t he time frame for e ither g overnance o r t echnology d ependencies t o b e r esolved m ight b e p rolonged.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #16, #40 and #142 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Underlying t his g roup o f q uestions i s h ow t he p roject’s g eographic s cale i mpacts t he o utcomes that can b e a chieved, a nd t he v iability o f t he d igital i nnovations p roposed.
Sidewalk L abs i s f ocused a t t he m oment o n Q uayside, w here t his p roject w ould s ta i f the pa ies are able t o a gree o n t he o pen i ssues n ecessary t o r each d e nitive a greements. O ur a lignment with Wate ront T oronto r ecognizes t he p otential f or e xpansion, i ncluding t o V illiers W est, t o meet our shared e conomic g oals. W e k now t hat i n o rder f or o ur r ole t o e xpand b eyond Q uayside, we need to prove o urselves rst.
We n ote t hat t he C ity o f T oronto’s l e er o f O ctober 2 1st t o W ate ront T oronto p roposes a signi cantly d i erent t iming f or t he e valuation a nd p otential d isposition p rocess o f t he land within Villiers W est t han h ad p reviously b een a ssumed w ould b e p ossible. T hat t iming c hange has an impact on t he i nnovation a genda a nd e conomic u nderpinnings o f o ur p roposal. W e t herefore note the impo ance, a s s tated i n t he T hreshold I ssues d ocument, o f a greeing o n t he e conomics and innovation p rogram t o a chieve W ate ront T oronto’s o bjectives a t Q uayside. W e l ook f orward to continuing o ur c ollaboration a s w e w ork t oward d e ning a s uccessful, h ighly i nnovative project on Toronto’s w ate ront.
Page 1 0 o f 6 9
Page 114 of 190
DSAP Comment #17: (SWL) I s Q uayside b ig e nough t o s ta t o d eploy d igital i nfrastructure i n a nancially s ustainable f ashion?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Some a spects o f t he d igital i nfrastructure p roposals a re l ikely v iable a t t he Q uayside s cale. Others may n ot b e. T he M IDP c ontemplated b oth Q uayside a nd V illiers W est. A s s tated i n o ur s tatement regarding t he T hreshold I ssues r esolution, i n l ight o f t he C ity’s r ecent l e er t o W T r egarding Villers West, w e n eed t o e valuate w hat i s f easible a t Q uayside a nd w hat i s n ot.
Digital Innovations – Infrastructure – Super-PON
DSAP Comment #18: (SWL) T he p otential v alue o f t his s eems t o b e p urely e conomic f or t he carrier i n i mplementing a bre n etwork. I t d oes n ot s eem i n a ny w ay e ssential f or a ny o f the proposed digital i nnovations a nd c ould e ven p otentially b e r etro- ed i n t ime o ver e xisting bre.
DSAP Comment #19: (SWL) T he S uper-PON t echnology p romises i mpressive c apabilities, b ut w ho will b ene t? G iven t he d i culties G oogle F ibre h as e ncountered i n d eploying i ts a dvanced bre services i n t he U S ( cited ( inadve ently?) i n endnote # 10) i t i s c lear h ow S WL's c orporate sibling will pro t f rom a Q uayside d eployment. W hat i s m uch l ess c lear i s w hether Q uaysiders w ill enjoy any advantage o ver t he g igabit b andwidth s ervice a lready o ered b y W ate ront T oronto's contracted provider, B ean eld M etroconnect.
DSAP Comment #20: (SWL) H ow w ill t he r esidents o f Q uayside b ene t f rom t he S uper-PON network i n c omparison w ith t he n etwork i nfrastructure B ean eld a lready p rovides? P lease provide a systematic c omparison o f t he v arious c osts a nd b ene ts o f S uper-PON v ersus B ean eld service in the Q uayside c ontext.
DSAP Comment #23: (SWL) T his a spect o f t he p roposal s eems i rrelevant t o t he o verall p lan. U se Bean eld f or n etworking a nd u nde ake t o d evelop c ommunity W iFi n etworks. T hat’s a ll.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #18, #19, #20 and #23 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Thank y ou f or y our q uestions.
Super-PON i s n ot s trictly a n ecessity f or t he p roposed i nnovations. W hile a s ystematic comparison of the v arious c osts a nd b ene ts o f S uper-PON v ersus B ean eld’s e xisting s ervice i n t he Quayside context i s n ot a vailable a t t his t ime, t he b ene ts o f S uper-PON a re d escribed i n b rief b elow and fu her d etail i s a vailable i n s ection 1 .4.4 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix.
Super-PON bre a ccess a rchitecture m ultiplies t he c apacity o f a ccess bres, i mproving the passive footprint o f bre a ccess n etworks, b andwidth, n umber o f e ndpoints, r eliability, a nd o perational costs. For c omparison, c onventional bre-optic n etworks a re c onstructed w ith a s tranded bre-optic cable running f rom t he n etwork p rovider’s c entral o ce t o t he u ser’s s ite, t ypically a s ingle b uilding. This 1 type o f s ystem c an r each 3 2 o r 6 4 u sers p er bre s trand, w ith 2 0km o f t ransmission r each. I n
1 G PON, “ H ow G PON W orks. ”
Page 1 1 o f 6 9
Page 115 of 190
contrast, S uper-PON t echnology i s c apable o f s uppo ing 7 68 u sers p er s trand a nd e xtending the reach t o 5 0 k ilometres, t hus a s ingle c able c ould p rovide c onnectivity t o m ultiple b uildings across a neighbourhood o r d istrict.
It a lso r educes t he q uantity o f m aterial r equired, e quipment s pace r equirements i n b uildings, and energy r equirements. R eal e state o wners n eed t o g ive l ess s pace t o t elco e quipment - previously at that d istance t here w ould h ave h ad t o b e a dditional r ooms a long t he w ay t o a dd m ore power to the ber o ptic c ables. I mproved p e ormance a nd d ecreased c osts s uppo s m ore c ost e ective implementation o f d igital i nfrastructure t hat s uppo s W ate ront P riority O utcomes s uch as ubiquitous i nternet c onnectivity, a nd r esults i n s hared b ene ts f or s ervice p roviders a nd users alike.
For e xample, t he d eployment o f 5 G w ill s uppo a h igher d ensity o f e ndpoints, h igher b andwidth, and lower l atency, w hich a re i mpo ant f actors f or I oT o perations a nd d eployment. H owever, 5G wireless networks r equire s ubstantial bre b ackbone i nfrastructure t o s uppo t he r equirements for large numbers o f a ntennas w ith d i erent f requencies, a nd b ase s tations o f m uch h igher b andwidths and densities. B y m ultiplying t he c apacity o f t he t ypes o f a ccess bres t hat a re b eing i nstalled already today, S uper-PON e nables t he a bility t o b uild n etworks t hat c an s cale t o m eet t he i ncreased demands of t echnologies s uch a s 5 G.
Super-PON i s b eing s tudied b y t he I EEE a s a n ew s tandard a nd d eploying i t o n T oronto’s wate ront would p ut i t a t t he f orefront o f t his t echnology. T he i ntent i s t o c ontinue t o b uild o n t he world-leading work W ate ront T oronto h as d one i n t his a rea, w hich g arnered t hem t he a ward o f I ntelligent Community o f t he Y ear i n 2 014.
Note S idewalk L abs d oes n ot w ish t o b e t he I SP o f r ecord, n or d oes t he i ndependent A lphabet entity Google F iber.
DSAP Comment #21: (SWL) A n S WL r epresentative s tated t hat o ne p ossible a dvantage o f SuperPON i s “ future p roo ng.” W hat i s t he basis f or t his c laim g iven t hat S uper-PON a ppears not to have u ndergone e xtensive eld t esting a nd h as y et t o b e a pproved b y t he r elevant I EEE standards body? W ould n ot a m ore r eliable a nd c ost-e ective f orm o f f uture-proo ng b e t o s pecify generous conduit d iameters a nd a bundant a ccess p oints?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
This S uper-PON s peci cation i s n ow b eing studied b y t he I EEE S tandards A ssociation, t he w orld’s largest t echnical p rofessional o rganization, f or p ossible i nclusion i n i ts 8 02.3 i nternational standards for t elecommunications. T he u nderlying p roposal f or S uper-PON i s i ndeed d riven b y s ta ing from how t o a chieve a c ost-e ective, f uture-proof s ystem. I f a pplied i n Q uayside, S uper-PON would make Toronto t he rst C anadian c ity w ith t his t echnology ( it c urrently e xists i n S an A ntonio, T exas), and would h elp e nsure f ast c onnectivity t hroughout t he p roject a rea.
We a re o pen t o a lternatives t o S uper-PON. I f t he p rocess o f d etailing t he n etwork s ervices in the next stage o f t he p roject, i ncluding c onversations w ith B ean eld M etroconnect, r esults i n a lternative solutions t hat a chieve t he o bjectives o f u biquitous, r eliable, a nd a ordable c onnectivity, we would strongly c onsider t hem.
DSAP Comment #22: (SWL) W hat i s t he s tatus o f S WL’s d iscussions w ith B ean eld? I s B ean eld suppo ive o f S uper-PON d eployment. I f S uper-PON i s n ot d eployed a nd B ean eld t echnologies used instead, w hat e ect w ould t his h ave o n f ul lling o ther a spects o f t he P lan?
Page 1 2 o f 6 9
Page 116 of 190
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs d oes n ot w ish t o b e t he I SP o f r ecord i n t he g eography n or d oes t he i ndependent Alphabet e ntity G oogle F iber, W ate ront T oronto h as w orked w ith B ean eld M etroconnect to provide high-speed bre t o r esidents a nd b usinesses w ithin t he T oronto w ate ront.
Over t he p ast y ear, S idewalk L abs h as m et w ith B ean eld M etroconnect a nd o ther l eading telecom companies t hat o perate i n T oronto t o d iscuss t echnologies i ncluding S uper-PON, S o ware-De ned Networks, a nd K oala. B ean eld M etroconnect h as e xpressed i nterest i n p ossibly u sing a technology like S uper-PON t o a dvance t heir s ervice o ering. S idewalk L abs w ill r espect a ny e xisting contracts between W ate ront T oronto a nd B ean eld M etroconnect, a nd i s e xcited t o c ollaborate with local operators t o i nnovate i n a n a lready e xcellent n etworking e nvironment.
Super-PON c ould r educe t he n eed f or h ardware r epeaters, s ignal b oosters, a nd b uilding space to hold those i tems o ver l arge n eighbourhoods t hat e xisting t echnologies c annot c over. S uper-PON’s upper bandwidth l imit i s e qual t o G PON, t he c urrent s tandard.
As n oted a bove, S uper-PON i s n ot a s trictl n ecessity f or t he p roposed i nnovations i n t he MIDP, but includes m any b ene ts i ncluding: i mproved p assive f ootprint, i ncreased b andwidth, a greater number of e ndpoints, i mproved r eliability, l ower o perational c osts, r educed e quipment s pace r equirements in buildings, a nd r educed e nergy r equirements.
Super-PON i s c urrently p rogressing t hrough t he I EEE S tandards p rocesses. S idewalk L abs believes that a s d enser bre n etwork b uild-outs o ccur i n u rban a reas g lobally, S uper-PON w ill e merge as the preferred t echnology, a nd i s e xcited t o i ntroduce a nd e nable l ocal I SPs w ith t his t echnology.
Digital Innovations – Infrastructure – So ware-De ned Networking
DSAP Comment #24: (SWL) V ol 2 . I t s tates t hat “ at t he c ore o f S WL p roposed n etwork i s t he b elief that r esidents, w orkers a nd v isitors s hould h ave c ontinuous a ccess t o t heir o wn s ecure Wi Fi connection w herever t hey g o…”. T his a ssumption n eeds t o b e v alidated. I a m u nder t he impression that t his d id n ot c ome u p i n p ublic c onsultations.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Wate ront T oronto h as b een e ndeavouring t o d eploy f ree p ublic W i-Fi f or y ears, a s r elated to its innovation m andate. T here h ave b een c hallenges i n c oordinating v endors a nd t he a mount of space within l ight p oles f or r unning p ower a nd d ata f or W i-Fi e quipment.
The d esire f or f ree W i-Fi w as a lso e xpressed b y r esidents a t p ublic c onsultation e vents and through feedback c ards a t S idewalk L abs’ T oronto o ce a nd e xperimental w orkspace, a nd p ublic pavillion at 307 L ake S hore B lvd. E ast. P rovided b elow a re s ome e xamples. ● The rst i nstance r ecorded c an b e f ound o n p age 9 o f t he T own H all S ummary R epo , h eld o n November 1 , 2 017, w here i t s tates “ ...while o thers w anted t o s ee c ity-wide f ree W i-Fi t o increase d igital c onnectivity.” M ore t han 5 30 p eople a ended, w ith a nother 5 ,700 m ore pa icipating v ia l ivestream. T he o bjective o f t his e vent w as t o i ntroduce S idewalk L abs to the community, o utline p rocess o n t he p roject, a nd g et a n e arly i ndication o f c ommunity expectations, a spirations, a nd c oncerns t o i nform t he d evelopment o f t he p ublic e ngagement plan. ● Sidewalk L abs s pent o ver 7 5 h ours c o-designing p ublic a menities w ith o ver 2 00 m embers of the d isability a nd a ccessibility c ommunities i n T oronto, i ncluding p rofessional d esigners,
Page 1 3 o f 6 9
Page 117 of 190
advocates, a nd e specially p eople w ho s elf-identify a s h aving l ived e xperience o f d isability. The c o-design p rogram, D esigning I nclusive C ities, w as t he r esult o f a p a nership w ith the Ontario C ollege o f A a nd D esign U niversity’s I nclusive D esign R esearch C entre. A t t he PARC (Parkdale A ctivity a nd R ecreation C entre) C o-design S ession h eld o n S eptember 2 6, 2 018 pa icipants n oted t hat “ Free W i-Fi e verywhere w as a nother t hing t hat c ould h elp i ndividuals thrive i n t heir c ommunity.”
DSAP Comment #25: (SWL) M inor p oint b ut i t s eems t hat t he f eatures d escribed i n t he t able a re for S uper P ON a nd S DN. M y i mpression i s t hat S uper P ON i s a bout s pli ing l ight i nto i ts components to e nable m ore u sers o n t he s ame bre.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The t able d oes c ombine f eatures f or b oth S uper-PON a nd S DN.
Super-PON d oes a chieve s ubstantial i mprovements o ver c onventional bre o ptic n etworks by spli ing l ight i nto m any d i erent c olours ( or w avelengths) o ver a s ingle s trand o f bre-optic cable, with e ach c olour s erving a s i ts o wn s ignal.
DSAP Comment #26: (SWL) F or s ome r eason t his i s b undled w ith S uper-PON. I t w ould s eem t hat this c ould b e i mplemented o n a ny bre n etwork a nd d oes n ot r equire S uper-PON. T here may be some value i n a c entrally m anaged n etwork b ut t his s hould b e s eparately a ssessed f or t he b usiness case and v ulnerabilities. T here a re c osts c urrently b orne b y u sers t o m anage t heir o wn n etworks which would b e a ssumed i n a c entrally m anaged s ystem t hat w ould n eed t o b e r ecovered. A gain it does not seem i n a ny w ay e ssential f or a ny o f t he p roposed d igital i nnovations.
DSAP Comment #27: (SWL) A n i nteresting p roposal, b ut s imilarly u nnecessary f or t he p lan. T he networking a spects o f t he M IDP a re n ot i ntegral t o t he p lan.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #26 and #27 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Yes, S DNs d o n ot r equire t he d eployment o f S uper-PON. S trictly s peaking, S DNs a re n ot a necessity for t he p roposed d igital i nnovations. W e d o b elieve b oth t echnologies s hould b e d eployed in the geography t o i mprove s ecurity.
Sidewalk L abs’ p roposal f or d igital i nclusion i n u rban i nnovation b uilds o n W ate ront T oronto’s track record o f p ublic W i-Fi a nd a ordable b roadband t owards a v ision o f u biquitous c onnectivity that is highly s ecure a nd e asier t o u se w hile i ncreasing p e ormance a nd r educing h ardware n eeds. In high-density n eighbourhoods, c lu ered W i-Fi b ands r educe i nternet p e ormance. T he proliferation of e nd-user-managed h ome r outers p ose b oth s ecurity r isks a nd o perational b urdens for Internet Service P roviders ( ISPs), a nd i nternet rewalls a re t ypically t oo c omplicated f or m ost t o con gure leaving t hem o pen t o s ecurity v ulnerabilities.
SDNs p rovide a n ew a pproach t o r outing o n t he i nternet t hat e nables b e er m anagement and control over a n etwork, a s w ell a s m ore s ecurity. A s p a o f a s et o f d igital i nfrastructure p roposals for Quayside, S DNs s uppo W ate ront T oronto’s u rban i nnovation p riority o utcome f or Q uayside, with a pa icular f ocus o n i nclusive c ommunities. S DNs s uppo a spects o f W ate ront Toronto Digital
Page 1 4 o f 6 9
Page 118 of 190
Principle #1: Everyone will have access to, and bene t equally from, digital solutions b y m aking i t e asier for r esidents a nd c onsumers t o a ccess s ecure, h igh-pe ormance i nternet c onnections throughout the d evelopment a nd Digital Principle #4: Strong privacy protections will be in place at all times b y providing g reater c ontrol o ver c onnected d evices, a nd b y e nabling g reater v isibility o f a nd control over a ny p otential s ecurity b reaches.
A k ey f eature o f S DNs t hat i s c ritical i n t he c ontext o f t he M IDP i s e nhanced s ecurity f or Internet of Things ( IoT) d evices, w hether t hey a re p ublic o r c ommercial s ystems o r p ersonal d evices. Ensuring the security o f I oT d evices i s p aramount, b ut c hallenging t hrough a t raditional n etwork. C urrently, these devices a re o nly r eachable w hile o n t he s ame l ocal n etwork, o r t hrough a t hird-pa y A PI that connects t hem t o t he c loud.
For e xample, i n a r esident’s a pa ment, a ll t he d evices s hould b ehave a s t hey d o t oday: as if they are on a s ingle, p rivate l ocal-area n etwork ( LAN). F or b uilding i nfrastructure e quipment, l ike Building Management S ystems ( BMS) a nd t heir a ached d evices, t hose d evices s hould b e a llowed to communicate w ith e ach o ther a nd w ith t he r elevant c loud-based i nfrastructure m anagement system, but n ot t hird-pa y v endors o r o ther, n on-authorized e quipment o n t he n etwork.
Because t he s o ware n etwork c ould b e c on gured t o m onitor t he a ggregate s tats o f d ata each device i s s upposed t o b e t ransmi ing, i t w ould b e a ble t o d etect i f a ny o f t hem h ave b een compromised. F or e xample, i f a t hermostat t hat n ormally s ends a f ew b ytes e very m inute sta s streaming m egabytes p er s econd, t he s o ware-de ned n etwork c ould q uickly d isconnect the device from t he n etwork — p u ing i t i n a k ind o f q uarantine.
This a bility c ould h elp a void “ distributed d enial o f s ervice” a acks a nd o ther e xploits a imed at vulnerabilities i n c onnected d evices. A dditionally, d evices o f t he s ame t ype c ould b e g rouped into Vi ual L ocal-Area N etworks ( VLANs), i solating t hem f rom o ther n etwork d evices. C ity and personal IoT d evices w ould a lso b ene t f rom b e er s ecurity a nd m ore t ightly i ntegrated m anagement. A detailed t reatment o f t his t opic c an b e f ound i n s ection 1 .4.3.2 o f t he f o hcoming D igital Innovation Appendix.
Digital Innovations – Infrastructure – Koala
DSAP Comment #28: (SWL) K oala m ay o r m ay n ot b e a c ost s aving a s i t d epends o n w hat assumptions a re m ade a bout u biquitous o r on-demand d eployment. I f u biquitous t hen there is a signi cant i nitial c apital c ost w hich m ay b e r ecovered o ver t ime f rom a d i erent a ctor who is deploying d evices. I f o n-demand t hen t here i s l ikely n o i nitial s avings. T he b usiness m odel and business c ase f or d eployment n eeds t o b e clear a nd v iable. A gain i t d oes n ot s eem i n a ny way essential f or a ny o f t he p roposed d igital i nnovations.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
While i t i s n ot s trictly r equired, K oala i s a k ey e nabling i nfrastructure f or a chieving t he o riginal RFP’s objective t o c reate a g lobally s igni cant d emonstration p roject t hat i ncorporates t echnology advancements t hat e nhance e ciencies a nd i mprove o verall q uality o f l ife. K oala s tandardizes access to p ower, c onnectivity, a nd m ounts t o r educe t he c osts o f d eploying a nd m aintaining t echnology in the u rban e nvironment, a nd t o i mprove a daptability.
It s peci cally s uppo s a spects o f W ate ront T oronto’s D igital Principle #2: Digital solutions will be open, ethical and resilient b y m aking i t p ossible f or i nfrastructure m anagers t o e asily d eploy a nd u se a wide r ange o f d evices i n t he p ublic r ealm. I t a lso s uppo s D igital Principle #4: Strong privacy
Page 1 5 o f 6 9
Page 119 of 190
protections will be in place at all times b y e nabling g reater v isibility a nd c ontrol o ver d ata c ollection e o s a nd s ecurity b reaches, b y a llowing i nfrastructure m anagers t o p ermit p ower a nd connectivity to d evices.
In l ocations l ike Q uayside, w here S idewalk L abs h as p roposed h igh-quality, r eliable w ireless connectivity, m ost d evices m ight n ot n eed hard-wired d ata c onnections, b ut f or h igher bandwidth tasks o r p otentially c ritical i tems, a w ired c onnection i s o en p referred. K oala c an s ecurely send data, as p ermi ed b y p rivacy r egulations a nd a ny o ther a pplicable d ata g overnance r ules, b ack to the cloud or a c entral s erver a s d etermined b y t he d evice m anufacturer. K oala a lso p rovides p hysical device authentication a nd d ata e ncryption. S ecurity f eatures w ould a llow f or i nfrastructure m anagers to permit w ho c an t urn o n d evices i n t he p ublic r ealm b y a llowing o r d enying p ower a nd c onnectivity.
Cost savings Sidewalk L abs e xpects s igni cant c apital c ost s avings d erived f rom t he f act t hat d evices can be installed i n a n h our, p lus a nother h our f or a pprovals — d own f rom 3 0 h ours t oday, w ith associated costs t o c lose d own a s treet f or h ours, i nstall n ew w ires f or p ower a nd c onnectivity w ithin the pole, and p ossibly i n a n ew e xcavated t rench t o t he n earest p oint-of-service c onnection w ithin the street right-of-way. A ssuming l abour c osts o f $ 75 a n h our, i nstalling a d evice o n a p roposed m ount would cost $ 150, c ompared w ith $ 1,980 f or a s tandard t ra c i nstallation2 .
Ownership and operator roles There a re s everal o perating m odels K oala c ould a dopt, a nd t he d eployment w ould b e s ubject to fu her n egotiations w ith W ate ront T oronto a nd t he C ity. T hese m odels w ould i mpact the nancial arrangements a nd c osts f or K oala. A n i mpo ant f actor w ill b e t he w illingness f or r isk a nd need for control t aken o n b y e ach p a y.
Below, a c ouple o f m odels a re p rovided a s e xamples o f h ow K oala c ould b e d eployed, which are similar t o h ow t he C ity h as d eployed e xisting p roducts i n t he p ublic r ealm, s uch a s c ameras from Miovision f or t ra c m anagement, A xis C ommunications f or r oad e mergency s ervices, and the Toronto P olice S ervice’s C CTV f or p ublic s afety:
Model 1: Owned and operated by the local governing entity In o ne m odel, S idewalk L abs w ould p rovide t he K oala h ardware a nd a n a ssociated s o ware suite to the p ublic i nfrastructure m anager o r b uilding m anager i n a ccordance w ith t he d ata g overnance rules dictating p rocesses f or p ermi ing, a pprovals, a nd m onitoring o f a ached c lient d evices.
In t his m odel, t he l ocal g overning e ntity w ould p ay a xed p ayment p er K oala d evice a t cost, where cost i s d e ned a s t he c ost p er h ardware u nit. T he s o ware s uite i s s old a t a t o-be-negotiated annual fee. I n t his m odel, t he p ublic i nfrastructure m anager o r b uilding m anager w ould b e r esponsible for identifying, m anaging, a nd o perating t he K oala d evices, w hich i ncludes s ustaining t he costs for their installation a nd m aintenance o ver t ime. I deally, m aintenance c ontracts w ould b e n egotiated at the time o f p urchase a s a r easonable p ercentage o f c ost p er d evice. A ll c lient d evices, s uch as 5G antennas, l ights, o r s ensors, w ould n egotiate d irectly w ith t he p ublic i nfrastructure m anager or building m anager f or p lacement o n K oala a nd a ny a ssociated f ees.
Model 2: Owned and operated by Sidewalk Labs In a n a lternate m odel, S idewalk L abs w ould pay f or t he i nitial o utlay, i nstallation, a nd o ngoing maintenance o f K oala h osts.
Client d evices t hat w ish t o a ach t o K oala d evices w ould s till n eed t o g ain a pproval t hrough the mandated d ata p rocesses a nd a ny o ther r elevant r egulatory a uthorities. I n a ddition, i t i s likely that the
2 Master Innovation and Development Plan, Volume 2, page 395.
Page 1 6 o f 6 9
Page 120 of 190
local i nfrastructure m anager w ould s till n eed t o p ay f or t he s o ware s uite t o h elp m anage and monitor t he d eployed d evices.
In t his m odel, S idewalk L abs w ould b e r esponsible f or n egotiating f ees f or c lient d evices. In other words, S idewalk L abs c ould s ublease t he s pace o n t he K oala t o t hird-pa y d evices w ith details to be worked o ut w ith t he C ity. H owever, t he f ees w ould i nherently n eed t o b e l ower t han a business-as-usual i nstallation ( described a bove) t o a ract c lients, m arking a b ene t i n the deployment o f t he v arious d evices.
If K oala d oes n ot s ucceed a s a p roduct, o r i s n ot a dopted a s a s tandard, t he e quipment would still be maintained i n Q uayside, a ccording t o t he a greement b etween t he e ntity m anaging t he light poles and street f urniture. A lternatively, i t c ould b e r eplaced w ith c urrent m ounting t echniques — a simple xed, physical m ount a nd p ermanent p ower a nd n etwork c onnections.
The C ity w ould h ave t he a bility t hrough b oth c ontractual a rrangements a nd t he f ormal development application p rocess t o d etermine t he c onditions u pon w hich K oala w ill b e d eployed a nd any conditions r elated t o r eplacement s hould t he p roduct n ot s ucceed.
DSAP Comment #29: (SWL) T he i nitial U SB s tandard w as c reated b y a c onso ium o f d ominant hardware c ompanies w ho h ad a s trong i ncentive f or i nter-operability a nd t he m arket p ower to make the s tandard u niversal ( Compaq, D EC, I BM, I ntel, M icroso , N EC, a nd N o el). S idewalk does not seem to h ave f ormed a ny s uch c onso ium n or i s i t c lear t hat s uch a c onso ium i s p ossible g iven the wide variety o f d evices t hat m ay b e a ached. I n its a bsence i t i s u nclear t hat t here i s a ny i ncentive for hardware p roviders t o m ake t he i nvestment r equired t o s uppo K oala. S idewalk w ill l ikely need to subsidise t hat i nvestment.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The U SB s tandard b egan a s a c oncept a t I ntel i n 1 992 a nd t ook u ntil 1 998 t o b egin g aining widespread adoption. T here w as n ot i nitially t he i ncentive f or i nteroperability b ut r ather a c ost s avings and ease of use t hat m ade U SB a w inning s tandard.
Koala w ould m ake i t m uch e asier a nd l ess e xpensive t o d eploy a nd m aintain t echnology in the service of i mproving a n eighbourhood. B ut, a s i mplied i n t he c omment, n ew h ardware s tandards require signi cant g eographic d istribution t o g ain t he w ide a doption n eeded f or d evice m anufacturers to incorporate t he s tandard i nto t heir o wn d esigns; f or e xample, a W i-Fi a ntenna p roducer would not change i ts d esign f or a s mall h andful o f c ases.
Sidewalk L abs e xpects t hat K oala’s o ering o f c ost s avings i n d evice c ost, r epair, a nd r eplacement at scale w ill d rive m arket a doption. W e a gree t hat i t w ill a lso b e i ncumbent o n K oala t o c reate a conso ium o f p a ners w ho s ee v alue i n t he s tandard. F or e xample, a 5 G r ollout m ay b e an interesting sta ing p a nership. T here i s a m ajor i ncentive f or t he 5 G h ardware p roviders a nd t elecommunication providers t o r educe c osts o f i nstallation a nd m aintenance. S idewalk L abs h as e ngaged in preliminary conversations w ith p roviders, w ho h ave a cknowledged t his b ene t a nd a re i nterested in Koala for this reason. I n t his w ay, w e b elieve i t i s t he r oll-out o f 5 G g lobally t hat w ould b e t he v ehicle through which the s tandardization o ered b y K oala w ould t ake p lace.
DSAP Comment #30: (SWL) A rchitects h ave b een u sing s tandardized k it-of-pa s s chemes f or decades ( example: H abraken i n t he 1 970s) b ut o en r un i nto i ssues i mplementing i f o ther players don’t f ollow s uit. W hile t he s uccessful p roliferation o f t he U SB p o p rovides a u seful p recedent in the
Page 1 7 o f 6 9
Page 121 of 190
IT eld, c an w e t hink o f a ny p recedence i n t he b uilt e nvironment s pace? H ow c an t he l ife span of these s tandardized m ounts b e e xtended t o a void e arly o bsolescence?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Koala i s d esigned f or e nhanced d urability t hat e xceeds e xisting o ptions. Q uick-connecting Cat6e cable a nd p ower c onnections a re n ot s ealed — t hese c onnectors c an g et w ater, d ust, a nd other elements t hat c reate i nte erence a t b est, a nd a t w orst p revent f unctioning o f d evices (and while there a re s ome C at6e c ables t hat a re s ealed, a b ucket t ruck i s s till n eeded t o a ccess a nd connect devices). W hile s ome e xisting l ampposts h ave t hree-po p ower p lugs, o en t hey a re n ot protected from t he e lements w hile i n u se. T he K oala m ount i s r obust t o w ind, d ust, p recipitation, temperature, and o ther e nvironmental c hallenges.
Sidewalk L abs i s s till i n t he p rototype s tage a nd h as n ot d one r uggedized eld t esting, w hich will begin before t he e nd o f 2 019. W e a re t argeting a s mall-scale d eployment i n e arly 2 020 ( outside of Toronto) to b egin t esting t hese d evices. W e h ave i denti ed a n i nitial, n on-exhaustive l ist o f p roposed tests and ce i cations t hat w ould b e c ompleted p rior t o l arge-scale d eployment. T his l ist, a vailable in section 1.4.2.5 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix, s hows t he c urrent t est p lan f or the device, and includes t esting s tandards r elated t o: e lectromagnetic e missions, e lectromagnetic s usceptibility, safety, a nd e nvironmental t esting.
Over t he n ext y ear, S idewalk L abs w ill b e l ooking f or p a ners t o t est a nd c o-design K oala with: ● Locations t o t est K oala i n, w ith a r ange o f w eather, a nd i n d i erent u rban d esign c ontexts. ● Manufacturers o f l ight p oles, t ra c l ight p oles a nd s treet f urniture t o t est t he i ntegration of the m ount, p ower, a nd n etworking. ● Manufacturers o f d evices s uch a s W i-Fi a ccess p oints, c ellular a ccess p oints, l ights, a nd sensors.
Initially, S idewalk L abs w ill h ave t o p a ner w ith d evice m anufacturers i nterested i n e xploring this idea in o rder t o h ave c ompatible d evices t o u se. I n a ddition, S idewalk L abs w ill b uild a daptors for existing devices. F or e xample, f or d evices t hat u se P ower o ver E thernet ( PoE) a nd s imple s crews for mounting, Sidewalk L abs w ill c reate a P oE t o K oala a daptor m ade o f a m aterial t hat c an b e s crewed into. This can bootstrap t he e cosystem i n o rder t o p rove o ut t he t echnology a nd t he e conomics.
If K oala d oes n ot s ucceed a s a p roduct, o r i s n ot a dopted a s a s tandard, t he e quipment would still be maintained i n Q uayside, a ccording t o t he a greement b etween t he e ntity m anaging t he light poles and street f urniture. A lternatively, i t c ould b e r eplaced w ith c urrent m ounting t echniques — a simple xed, physical m ount a nd p ermanent p ower a nd n etwork c onnections.
DSAP Comment #31: (SWL) D eliver 5 G a t l ower c osts w ith d igital m ounts? I s t his r ealistic g iven timing o f d eployment o f 5 G? W ill i t m ake a ny d i erence t o t he b roader w ireless i nfrastructure in Toronto?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Yes. W e t hink i t i s r ealistic.
Sidewalk L abs c urrently p lans t o h ave a f ully t ested s ystem r eady f or w ide r elease b y t he end of 2022. At a h igh l evel, t he d evelopment r oadmap a nticipates c ompleting P roofs o f C oncept ( PoC) for both the c onnection h ardware a s w ell a s t he m anagement s ystem b y t he e nd o f 2 020 ( System 1). By the
Page 1 8 o f 6 9
Page 122 of 190
end o f 2 021, S idewalk L abs p lans t o h ave i ncorporated i nstallation s ystems a nd i terated on both the connection h ardware a nd t he m anagement S ystem ( System 2 ). S idewalk L abs w ill t hen conduct additional t ests a nd c ontinue t o r e ne t he i ntegrated s ystems u ntil r eady f or r elease b y the end of 2022. I f t here i s i nterest f rom t he m arket t o u se K oala i n o ther p a s o f T oronto, t hat d iscussion would unfold t hrough s tandard c ommercial c onversations.
DSAP Comment #32: (Both) W hy d o w e n eed Q uayside o r t his p roject f or m ore i nnovative mounts? I f a g ood i dea, c ould b e p ilot p roject a nywhere i n t he c ity.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
It i s t rue t hat K oala c ould b e p iloted b efore the c onstruction o f Q uayside, a nd t o d e-risk the technology, t his i s s omething w e a re c onsidering. T he b ene t a t Q uayside w ould b e t hat it becomes a foundational p a o f t he i nfrastructure t o s uppo t he m any o ther i nnovations p roposed.
Digital Innovations – Infrastructure – Distributed Credentials
DSAP Comment #33: (SWL) T he p roposal t o e xperiment w ith d istributed d igital c redentials ( DDC) and r elated m inimally d isclosing I D t echnologies i s a w elcome o ne s ince i f a dopted i t o ers a promising a pproach t o g reatly r educing p rivacy r isks a nd g iving i ndividuals m ore c ontrol over their personal i nformation. T here h ave b een s everal s imilar a empts a t t his a pproach t o a uthentication in the p ast d ecade ( e.g. b y I BM a nd M icroso ). H ow w ill t his p a icular a pproach a ddress the pi alls these e arlier a empts e ncountered?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
While i nvestigating h ow t o e nable t his v ision f or a n ew t ype o f n eighbourhood a nd c ommunity, Sidewalk L abs e xplored s everal e xisting a pproaches t o u ser d ata a nd i dentity m anagement. Leading technology c ompanies a nd g overnments a re i nnovating i n t his s pace, b ut o er o nly p a ial solutions. As i t s tands, p resent-day d igital a uthentication a nd a uthorization s ystems a re i nsu cient and risky for enabling n ew i nnovation i n c ity-focused d igital s ervices.
OAuth and other common systems OAuth, s ho f or “ open a uthorization,” i s a p rotocol t hat a llows a u ser’s a ccount i nformation to be used b y t hird-pa y s ervices w ithout e xposing a u ser’s p assword. T he p romise t hese f ederated systems o er i s h aving o ne a ccount, b ut a ccess t o m any s ervices. T his m eans o nly r emembering one password a nd l ogin m ethod. T his s ubset i ncludes n ow-ubiquitous a pproaches l ike F acebook Connect and G oogle S ign-In. I n e nterprise c ontexts t here h as b een a r ise i n s ingle s ign-on s ystems, such as Okta o r O neLogin. C anadians h ave h ad a s ingle s ign-on p rocess t o le t axes v ia S ecureKey for years. In g eneral, t hese s ystems w ork w ell, a nd r elieve s ervice d evelopers o f t he n eed t o m anage a database of u sernames a nd p asswords, w ith i ts a ssociated s ecurity a nd p rivacy r isks.
However, t hese s ystems a lso r ely o n m anagement b y a s ingle a uthority t hat p rovides a ll identity veri cation f or t he e cosystem. I f t hat a uthority i s b reached, t hey m ight l eak d ata. I f t hat authority loses c onnectivity t o t he r est o f t he e cosystem, n o o ne c an a uthenticate o r p rove a ributes about themselves. A lso, e very s ingle a uthentication t ransaction i n t he e cosystem m ust i nvolve that authority, w hich c an m ake u sers v ulnerable t o b reaches t o t hat s ingle a uthority. F or e xample, in the context o f a s ma l ock f or b uilding a ccess, u sing a n a uthentication s ystem l ike t his m ight involve ale ing / l ogging / r ecording w ith t he c ity o r t he c entral m anagement a uthority e very t ime you open
Page 1 9 o f 6 9
Page 123 of 190
your f ront d oor. S idewalk L abs d oes n ot v iew t his a s a v iable, p rivacy-safe e nvironment for managing a s ystem o f s ervice c ontrols.
Government-level authentication systems Few n ational g overnments h ave f ully e mbraced d igital I Ds, b ut E stonia i s a n otable e xception. Over the past d ecade, t he c ountry h as i ssued I D c ards t hat a llow r esidents t o a uthenticate t o g overnment services o ver t he i nternet a nd i n p erson.
Sidewalk L abs a pplauds E stonia’s a pproach t o I D a nd h opes t o s ee m any o f i ts i nnovations adopted globally, n otably f raud-proof t ransactions, u biquitous d igital s ervice d elivery, a nd i ntegrations with physical e xperiences. H owever, S idewalk L abs i ntends t o i mprove o n t he E stonian m odel in several ways, m ost n otably w ith m ore o pen s tandards a nd a s et o f i ssuers l arger t han j ust t he g overnment.
Other a ribute-based credential systems A ribute-based c redential i ssuance a nd v eri cation s ystems l ike U -Prove a nd I demix h ave many useful p rope ies, i ncluding s elective d isclosure a nd z ero-knowledge p roofs o f a ributes. However, they a re s o f ar o nly c redential-issuance a nd v eri cation p rotocols, a nd m uch a dditional infrastructure is r equired t o m ake t hem w ork i n a c ity c ontext: r ecovery, s chema m anagement, b ackup tools, and veri cation a nd i ssuance i nfrastructure.
Distributed, v eri able c redentials m ay p ossess a r ange o f p rope ies t hat a ddress t he above challenges, i ncluding: v eri ability, o ptional a nonymity, o n-device s torage, u ser-controlled selective disclosure, e nabling p roofs o ver a ributes u sing z ero k nowledge p roofs, m achine r eadability, accessible a nd o ine u se, P ublic K ey I nfrastructure a nd t ransparency. A d etailed t reatment of this topic i s a vailable i n s ection 1 .4.5 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix, a nd s ection 1.4.5.4 contains a t echnical d etails w hich m ay b e p a icularly r elevant t o t his d iscussion.
With t hat c ontext, s peci cally r egarding t he p i alls t o d ate, d istributed d igital c redentials have largely struggled f or a doption b ecause i t i s a n e cosystem p roblem t hat r equires a n etwork o f trustwo hy organizations t o a dopt, a er w hich n etwork e ects c an b e a chieved f or t he s ystem t o become widely valuable. E arlier a empts a re e ither c entralized ( SecureKey), o r t oo t echnically c omplex to be of value to t he a verage p erson ( Blockchain), o r r equire a n ational I D w hich m any c ountries a ren't willing to adopt. T hrough S idewalk L abs’ r esearch a nd e ngagement w ith t he g rowing e cosystem, we are con dent t hat t his t echnology w ill r each a doption b y t he e cosystem i n t ime f or Q uayside.
DSAP Comment #34: (Both) G iven t he u nderstandable s ensitivities a round t he m anagement o f personal c redentials, i t w ill b e v ital f or m aintaining p ublic t rust t hat a gency f or o verseeing distributed digital c redentials b e p ublicly a ccountable a nd i ndependent o f o ther i nfrastructure o r s ervice providers. H ow h eavily i s S WL w illing t o i nvest i n m aking d istributed d igital c redentials work, while staying e ntirely a t a rms-length f rom a ny s uch i ndependent, a ccountable c redentialing agency?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Thank y ou f or y our c omment. W e a gree t hat t rusted i nstitutions a lready r esponsible f or managing personal i nfo a re e ssential. R egulated i nstitutions l ike b anks, g overnments, a nd t elecom companies are r equired t o s tore v alidated i nformation a bout t heir c ustomers. B anks, f or e xample, have Know Your C ustomer ( KYC) c ompliance p rograms w ith c omprehensive p rocesses t o v erify a person’s identity. T hey d emand e xtensive d ocumentation a nd u ndergo r igorous c hecks o f c lients in order to estimate r isk, w hether i t i s i n l ending m oney o r t o a void b eing u sed f or m oney l aundering or other illegal a ctivities. T hey a re s tewards o f d ata a nd p ersonal i nformation, a ccountable t o a nd trusted by both s ervice p roviders a nd i ndividuals. H owever, t here i s p resently n o e asy a nd e ective way for
Page 2 0 o f 6 9
Page 124 of 190
consumers t o c reate, m anage, a nd u se t heir t rusted i dentity p roles o nline a nd i n-person for services, which c ould b e a n o ppo unity f or t hese t rusted i nstitutions, i f a d ata s tandard a nd t ransaction format can b e d eveloped a nd c an b e w idely a dopted.
Based o n o ur i nvestigation o f t he u se c ases a nd n eeds f or d igital c redentials i n c ities, S idewalk Labs would n ot b uild t his t echnology, b ut i nstead w ould f ocus o n u nderstanding t he s pace a nd what a desired s olution s hould l ook l ike. A d esired a rchitecture m ight i nclude p rivacy-preserving veri able credentials, c onnected b y a n a uditable a nd r esilient p ublic k ey i nfrastructure, a nd a n o pen standard for m anaging c redential s chemas. C redentials w ould n ot b e m anaged b y a s ingle a uthority or stored in a c entral r epository, r ather, t hey w ould r eside i n a u ser’s d evice — a s ma phone, s ma card, or key fob, f or e xample — a nd w ould b e s hared w ith a r elying p a y a t t he u ser’s d iscretion. S ection 1.4.5 of the f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix i ncludes a d etailed d iscussion o f d istributed veri able credentials, i ts b ene ts, i mplementation s cenarios f or Q uayside, a nd t echnical d escription and design speci cations, a nd o verview o f e xisting s ystems.
DSAP Comment #35: (SWL) N otwithstanding i ts v i ues, i t a ppears t hat l ike t he o ther e lements o f proposed d igital i nfrastructure, i t i s n ot c lear w hat s ervices w ill a ctually d epend o n i t. P lease specify which c ore a nd o ther s ervices w ill r ely o n a d istributed d igital c redential i nfrastructure, and what bene ts i t w ill o er o ver m ore c onventional i denti cation a nd a uthentication a pproaches.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
These t ypes o f d igital i dentity c redentials w ould a llow a ny t ype o f t ransaction w here o ne had to prove their i dentity/authority/a ributes i n a p rivacy-preserving w ay. D istributed c redentials a re a critical technical c omponent o n S idewalk L abs’ p rivacy i nnovation r oadmap. V eri able c redentials, data minimization, a nd z ero-knowledge p roofs w ill b e c rucial c omponents o f h ow S idewalk Labs could enable t he p rotection o f p ersonal d ata w ithin c ities a nd p rovide p eople w ith s ecure a nd convenient access t o s ervices w ith r eliable d ata p rivacy c ontrols.
While n ot a n e xhaustive l ist o f p otential u ses, S idewalk L abs h as e xplored s everal e xamples of using distributed v eri able c redentials, i ncluding h ousing a pplications, r eserving a p ick-up o r drop-o space a t a d ynamic c urb, a nd r epo ing a nonymous h ousehold e nergy c onsumption. T hese use cases are i llustrative o f h ow a d istributed v eri able c redentials s olution w ould b e b ene cial f or residents.
● Housing a pplications a re o en o nerous p rocesses t hat r equires t he e xchange o f h ighly sensitive nancial i nformation, l ike e mployment p ay s tubs a nd b ank s tatements. E specially in the c ompetitive h ousing m arkets o f c ities, p eople a re i ncentivized t o d isclose e ven m ore personal i nformation i n o rder t o a ppear a s a ractive t enants t o a p rope y m anagement leasing o ce. U ser r esearch p e ormed b y S idewalk L abs c oncluded t hat p eople p refer to share l ess p ersonal nancial d ata, i n f ear o f f raud a nd i dentity t he , a nd t hat t hey f eel especially v ulnerable i f t here a re m any d isparate l easing o ces h olding c opies o f t heir data.
An i dentity m anagement s ystem t hat l everages v eri able c redentials g ives p eople g reater control o ver t heir nancial p rivacy d uring t he l easing p rocess b y a llowing u sers t o p rove that information i s t rue, l ike t heir a bility t o a ord t he l ease, w ithout d isclosing t he a ctual d ata behind i t, l ike n et w o h a nd s alary. I n s uch a s ystem, b anks c ould i ssue a d igitally s igned ce i cate a esting t o t he nancial s olvency o f t he p rospective t enant w ithout s haring the dollar a mount o f t heir s avings a ccount o r b iweekly d irect d eposit — t his w ould b e i nstead of the p rospective t enant s haring c opies o f t heir b ank s tatements t o t he l easing o ce.
Page 2 1 o f 6 9
Page 125 of 190
● With a d ynamic c urb t hat g overns a ccess t o s carce c urb s pace, p eople s eeking t o u se the curb ( for p arking, p ick-ups, o r d rop-o s) c ould b e i ssued a r eservation w ithout l inking the reservation t o a p ersonal p arking a ccount. A b lind c urb r eservation s ystem w ould b e j ust as e ective a t m anaging s pace w ithout r equiring u sers t o s ign u p f or a p ersonal p arking a ccount (that m ight t rack t he l ocation o f e very r eservation).
● In t he h ome, p eople m ight b e i ncentivized t o r epo t heir h ousehold e nergy c onsumption in order t o h elp o ptimize t he d emand-response p ro le o f t he g rid, a nd c ould d o s o w ith m inimal personal d ata e xposure. W ith d istributed v eri able c redentials, a u ser c ould p rove t hat their household e nergy c onsumption c ontributed t o t he n et e nergy c onsumption o f a p a icular geography ( such a s a b lock, w ard, o r n eighbourhood) w ithout d isclosing t heir e xact a ddress or f u her i nformation a bout h ow t he e nergy w as u sed.
Digital Innovations – Open Standards
DSAP Comment #36: (SWL) T he s peci c l icense u nder w hich s ource m aterial i s p rovided m a ers. For e xample t he A pache L icense ( Version 2 .0) e xplicitly g rants p atent l icenses i n a ddition to copyright licenses. T he M IT L icense d oes n ot. M aking p atents a vailable i s g enerally w hat a llows o thers to create equivalent s ource c ode t o i mplement s tandards s uch a s t he W orld W ide W eb e xamples cited.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs i s c ommi ed n ot o nly t o s uppo ing t he d evelopment o f C anadian i ntellectual prope y, but i n f act i nvesting i ts o wn i ntellectual p rope y t o s uppo t he g rowth o f t he C anadian innovation ecosystem. I n t he M IDP, S idewalk L abs o ered a p atent p ledge t hat d eclared i t w ould a llow Canadian-resident i nnovators t o b uild o n t op o f a ny d igital i nnovation p atents c overing so ware or hardware t hat S idewalk L abs les i n C anada. W hile m any i n t he e cosystem a ppreciated a patent pledge, t here w as c oncern t hat r estricting t he p ledge e xclusively t o C anada w ould i n f act limit the potential g rowth o f C anadian c ompanies t hat t ook a dvantage o f t he p ledge. I t i s w ell-known that one of t he m ost s igni cant c hallenges f acing C anadian i nnovators i s r eaching s ubstantial s cale and expanding b eyond t he C anadian m arket; t hus, i f t he p ledge w as o nly a pplicable t o C anadian patents, promising i nnovations t hat w ould r easonably s eek t o s cale m ight b e i nhibited. B ased o n this feedback, rather t han l imiting t he p ledge t o C anadian p atents, S idewalk L abs h as d ecided t o a lso include all of its d igital i nnovation s o ware a nd h ardware p atents a cross t he g lobe, e nsuring t hat t he pledge aligns with t he f oundational o bjectives o f s uppo ing C anadian-resident i nnovators. S idewalk Labs proposes to m ake i ts p atented d igital u rban i nnovations a vailable t o C anadian-resident i nnovators without fear of p atent i nfringement, e nabling t hem t o i ndependently l everage i ts p roprietary t echnologies and thereby a ccelerating t he d evelopment o f c ity-enhancing i nitiatives. T his p ledge w ould go into e ect immediately a er t he s igning o f P rincipal I mplementation A greements w ith W ate ront Toronto, and would b e s ubject t o d efensive t ermination a s f u her d escribed i n S ection 3 .2.1.3 o f t he fo hcoming Digital I nnovation A ppendix.
DSAP Comment #37: (SWL) F or t he c ommitments t o o pen s tandards t hrough e stablished standard-se ing b odies, w ill S WL p rovide a ssurances t hat a ny s tandard-se ing b ody i t utilizes be accredited t hrough t he S tandards C ouncil o f C anada? T his i ncludes s tandard-se ing f or open-data APIs a nd d ata f ormats.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Page 2 2 o f 6 9
Page 126 of 190
Sidewalk L abs h as c ommi ed t o w orking w ith s tandard-se ing b odies i n C anada t o s uppo their work f or a g lobal r esponsible t echnology s tandard. T his e ngagement d emonstrates a g enuine commitment t o f ollowing C anadian-set s tandards a nd a c ollaborative a pproach t o t he fu her development o f s tandards w ith C anadian p a ners.
This s tandard s e ing i s a lready u nderway, a nd u sing t he p roject a s a v ehicle c an h elp a dvance this work. S idewalk L abs i ntends t o f u her e ngage w ith t he w ork u nderway b y g roups s uch as the CIO Strategy C ouncil a nd O pen C ity N etwork t o b uild o n t heir e xisting e o s t o e stablish s tandards that value i nclusiveness, o penness, p ublic i nterest, a nd r espect f or i ndividual r ights a nd p rivacy.
The C IO S trategy C ouncil i s a ccredited b y t he S tandards C ouncil o f C anada ( SCC) t o d evelop and submit s tandards t o S CC f or a cceptance a s N ational S tandards o f C anada. T he rst s et of these standards – C AN/CIOSC 1 01 o n t he E thical design a nd u se o f a utomated d ecision s ystems was recently a pproved a nd p ublished. E o s t o d evelop s everal o ther s tandards a re u nderway, and the dra s tandard f or p rivacy a nd t hird p a y a ccess t o d ata i s c urrently a vailable f or p ublic review.
Our e ngagement i s i ntended t o f ocus o n t he r ole t hat S idewalk L abs c an p lay i n s purring standards (where n ecessary), a nd o therwise s uppo ing t he d evelopment o f r elated s tandards, a nd in addition on t he w ays i n w hich t his p rocess c an f eed i nto t he w ork S idewalk L abs i s a lready u nde aking in engaging t he w ider C anadian i nnovation e cosystem.
DSAP Comment #38: (SWL) T he M IDP t alks a bout G ehl I nstitute’s P ublic L ife D ata P rotocol a s a guide t o t heir w ork. I t a ll s ounds g ood b ut s ome f ood f or t hought: A pril 1 , 2 019 G ehl I nstitute reorganized t o f ocus s ingularly o n t he P rotocol b ut t here h as b een n othing r eleased o n it since the 2017 b eta v ersion. I f y ou l ook i nto t he P rotocol a nd i ts d etails i t i s g oing t o b e a c hallenge to implement here ( e.g. h ere’s t he l ink, h ps://gehlinstitute.org/tool/public-life-data-protocol/ d ownload and read, for e xample, t he d irections f or “ Perceived G ender” d ocumentation o r a ny o ther e lement of the evaluation i n t he t ool). I ag t his n ot t o n it-pick b ut t o h ighlight f or e very i dea i n t he M IDP the potential for c hallenging t hings t o b e u nder t he h ood e xists.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs i s c ommi ed t o t he u se o f w idely-used o pen i ndustry s tandards a nd p rotocols. This is what l ed u s t o u se t he G ehl I nstitute’s P ublic L ife D ata P rotocol. W e w ere n ot i nvolved i n developing the p rotocol. T he c omment, i n i dentifying a c hallenge a round t he d irections f or “ Perceived Gender”, rightly h ighlights c hallenges t hat m ay e xist with t his l ong-used m ethodology f or s tudying public spaces. I n t he p ublic s pace a nd d ata e thics community t hese c hallenges a re b eing a ctively discussed. The u nderlying r ationale f or t rying t o h ave s ome f orm o f i nformation a bout g ender, r ecognizing the many c hallenges, s tems f rom a n i ntersectional f eminist p erspective o n u rban s paces a nd trying to understand h ow w ell-used s paces a re b y p eople o ther t han m en.
DSAP Comment #39: (SWL) S WL s ays c urrent u rban d ata i s o utdated o r s tored i n “ messy le formats”? E vidence?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
See, f or e xample, t he M ISA O ntario a nd O penNo h’s 2 018 O pen D ata S tandards P ilot f or Municipalities, w hich w as i nitiated i n r esponse t o t he o bservation t hat: “ Many m unicipalities a cross
Page 2 3 o f 6 9
Page 127 of 190
Canada h ave e xperienced i ssues a nd c hallenges w ith o pen d ata s tandards. D ata t hat i s not standardized i n t erms o f c ontent, s tructure, a nd m etadata, c reates m ore o verhead f or application developers a nd a nalysts w ho w ish t o c reate v alue. F or e xample, r oad n etwork d ata s ets that do not join u p b etween j urisdictions m ake i t d i cult t o p e orm n etwork a nd r outing a nalyses.” The F inal Repo n otes: “ There w ere s igni cant d i erences a mong t he m unicipal p a icipants i n t he u se of names, c ategories, t ags, a nd a ributes. S ome m unicipalities d id n ot h ave c ategories o r tags for their open d ata”
Digital Innovations – Launch Services – General
DSAP Comment #41: (SWL) ( Volume 2 , p age 3 80) A re t he S WL p a icipation b locks i n t he c ha exclusive t o S WL? I t i s u nclear h ow m uch i nput o ther s takeholders w ill h ave i n t he d evelopment of these c apabilities.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
No. S idewalk L abs p lans t o w ork w ith t hird p a ies t o b uild o ut m any o f t hese c apabilities, as noted at Page 3 81 o f t he M IDP ( see e mphasis):
Digital infrastructure role [...]
For o ther i nfrastructure c omponents, S idewalk L abs e xpects t o p lay a l arger r ole t hat s till involves o thers. T hese i nclude s tandardized m ounts t hat w ould r educe t he c ost o f d eploying digital i nnovations [ ...] W hile S idewalk L abs d oes n ot e xpect o thers t o h ave s u cient incentives t o c reate t his i nfrastructure a lone, i t b elieves t hese c omponents w ould p lay a critical r ole i n b oosting t he s uccess o f d igital i nnovations t hat a ddress u rban c hallenges.
Sidewalk L abs a lso e xpects t hird p a ies a lone t o p rovide o ther a spects o f d igital infrastructure t hat i nclude 5 G c ellular c onnectivity, o ther a dvanced c ommunications networks, a nd a dditional p rivacy-enhancing i nfrastructure.
Digital Services Role To a chieve f undamental q uality-of-life g oals t hrough i nnovations t he m arket h as n ot p ursued, Sidewalk L abs p lans t o o er a l imited s et o f c ore d igital s ervices r elated t o i ts e ssential programs f or t ranspo ation, a ordability, h ousing, e nergy, o r p ublic s pace. T hese s ervices would r ely o n a pplication-speci c h ardware d evices c reated p rimarily b y t hird p a ies b ut adapted o r e xtended b y S idewalk L abs, w orking c losely w ith t hese d evice m anufacturers.
These l aunch s ervices c ould s till i nvolve w orking w ith p a ners a nd b uying e xisting technology. F or e xample, t he p roposed m obility m anagement s ystem ( see P age 4 52) c ould require c omputer-vision t echnology t hat p e orms d e-identi cation a t s ource, r etaining an aggregate c ount o f t ravellers b ut d eleting a ny f ootage o r i mages. L ocal c ompanies a re working o n s uch t echnology, a nd S idewalk L abs w ould e xplore o ptions f or p urchasing t hose devices a s t his m obility s ystem ( or o ther p roposed s ervices) m ay r equire t hem.
Sidewalk L abs b elieves t he d ata g enerated by t hese s ervices w ould c atalyze t hird p a ies to create c ountless o ther a pplications t o i mprove q uality o f l ife, a long w ith t he application-speci c h ardware d esigned t o suppo t hem.
Page 2 4 o f 6 9
Page 128 of 190
For t hat t o o ccur, t his d ata m ust b e s hared publicly, a nd t here a re m any c ompanies a nd organizations i n T oronto a nd b eyond t hat s pecialize i n m aking d ata a vailable, s uch a s ThinkData W orks, t he C ity o f T oronto’s O pen D ata P o al, a nd o thers d etailed i n s ection 3.2.3.2 of t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix. S idewalk L abs h opes t o w ork w ith t hem to help p rovide t he s ervices n ecessary f or t he S idewalk T oronto p roject.
DSAP Comment #42: (SWL) S idewalk s o ware d evelopment i s p rimarily l ocated i n N ew Y ork a t this t ime. S idewalk s hould c ommit t hat t he majority o f t he s o ware d evelopment m issions for the Launch S ervices w ill b e l ocated i n T oronto.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs a grees t hat i t w ill b e e ssential t o h ave a ppropriate r esources i n T oronto t o successfully manage t he p roject. I t i s i mpo ant t o n ote t hat S idewalk L abs w ill n ot b e b uilding t he v ast majority of digital s ystems d eployed a t Q uayside, w hich w ill a lso h ave a n i mpact o n w here t he m ajor service providers a re b ased. A k ey p rinciple i n o ur a pproach t o d igital s ervices i s b uy r ather t han build, including p rioritizing C anadian c ompanies w herever p ossible. O f t he 5 2 s ubsystems p roposed for the project, 7 5% w ould b e s ubstantially p urchased f rom t hird p a ies, w hich i s a nticipated to be largely Canadian rms.
DSAP Comment #43: (SWL) T he M IDP s uggests t hat i t w ill c atalyze s ervices n ot c urrently p ursued by t he m arket. B ut s ome o f t he e xamples - next g eneration b ike-sharing o r p op-up s tores surely are being p ursued b y t he m arket. W hat m akes this s o s pecial t hat w ould l ead t o s omething di erent?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
It i s t rue t hat m any o f t hese s ervices a re c urrently b eing p ursued b y t he m arket. A k ey d i erence at Quayside i s t hat t he n eighbourhood w ould be d esigned t o s uppo e arly t rials a nd t he deployment of new s ervices. T his w as o ne o f t he f undamental g oals o f t he o riginal R FP. T his t estbed a pproach is relevant f or S idewalk L abs, b ut e specially t o t he b roader e cosystem. A s a p rinciple, w e buy rather than build, w hich m eans l ooking t o t he m arket rst f or s olutions t hat m ight a chieve t he p riority outcomes.
Digital Innovations – Launch Services – Pe orm
DSAP Comment #44: (SWL) T he r eal-time m odelling t ool ‘ Pe orm’ i s l isted a s a p urposeful solution i n V olume 3 p age 1 24. H owever, i t i s n ot i ncluded i n t he p roposed l ist o f l aunch services 444-447 o f V olume 2 . S chedulers a re l isted t here. C an S idewalk p lease c larify w hat i ts p lan is for Pe orm?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Pe orm i s a d igital t ool t o c ompare r eal-time b uilding e nergy u sage a gainst a n e nergy budget, based on T oronto G reen S tandard p e ormance t argets, t hat a djusts d ynamically b ased o n o ccupancy, the weather, a nd o ther f actors. I t i s a s ubsystem o f t he B uilding E nergy M anagement S ystem. The objective i s t o e nable b uilding o perator t o v alidate t hat b uildings m eet p e ormance o bjectives in operation a nd n ot j ust d esign, a nd p rovide r epo ing t o r egulators. T his s uppo s a chieving Wate ront Toronto’s S ustainability a nd C limate-Positive D evelopment P riority O utcomes. T he s ystem would use data i nputs f rom t he m arket o n e nergy s upply, d ata v oluntarily p rovided b y b uilding o perators, public
Page 2 5 o f 6 9
Page 129 of 190
data r equired b y g overnment p olicy, a nd d ata f rom o ther s ub-systems m entioned u nder Building - Energy M anagement m entioned a bove.
Digital Innovations – Launch Services – Seedspace
DSAP Comment #45: (SWL) F oot t ra c i s a n i nteresting m etric t o c onsider w hen d esigning t he exible r etail p la orm. F or i nstance, f oot t ra c d ata c ould b e u sed t o d evelop a d ynamic billing system o r t o i dentify r etail a reas s u ering f rom l ow f oot t ra c t hat c ould b e r emedied by recon guring t he s pace o r s electing a s tronger a nchor t enant.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Thank y ou f or y our s uggestion. W e a re e xploring p rivacy-preserving m eans f or i mplementing this and other i deas f or h ow t o m ake s mall b usinesses m ost s uccessful i n b rick a nd m o ar.
DSAP Comment #46: (SWL) T here a re l aunch s ervices t hat d uplicate ( so o f) t hings w e a lready have b ut w ith t echnology p la orms. S EEDSPACE - i t s eems t o p ull t ogether w hat l andlords and BIAs do. C ity o f H amilton i s a lready p iloting t emporary b usiness l icenses. P op u p s hop m anagement is occurring e verywhere. M y c oncern h ere i s S WL i s p roposing a t echnology s olution ( which they want reward f or) t o p roblems/issues f or w hich n on-tech s olutions a re a lready i n p lay. A nd t hey are inventing tech s olutions f or t hings t hat a ren’t t op p riorities. A s w ith K oala, i f S WL w ants t o g o o and do this stu o n t heir o wn o r w ith p rivate s ector p a ners, o k ne. B ut w hen t his s tu i s b undled in here as pa o f a t oo a ggressive a sk f or l and ( e.g. w e c an’t d o t hese t hings a t t he s cale o f Q uayside, we need more l and) a nd a r eturn o n t heir i nvestment ( e.g. a p iece o f p rope y t ax), w e’re s pending public money/resources o n t hings t hat a ren’t t op p riorities o r s olving p roblems t hat d istract a ention/dive resources f rom b igger i ssues ( e.g. a ctual a ordable h ousing). I n t he P a nership d ocument (volume 3), objective 3 i s “ not t ech f or t ech’s s ake” ( p. 2 2) - I t hink t here i s a l ot o f t ech f or t ech’s s ake in here.
DSAP Comment #53: (SWL) T his i s o ne e xample o f m any i n t he M IDP w here S WL h as a p roposed a complex t echnology i nnovation f or a p roblem: a ) t hat i sn’t n ecessarily r eally a p roblem; b) a thing that may n ot n eed a t echnology s olution; c ) d oesn’t n ecessarily n eed t o b e i n a p lan t hat r equires signi cant g overnment i nvestment. I s r adical m ixed u se a t op d rawer p ublic p riority i n t his neighbourhood / c ity / r egion / p rovince / c ountry / t he w orld?
It’s c ool a nd i mpo ant t o t hink a bout n ew w ays t o h elp s mall b usinesses a nd e ntrepreneurs get going. City o f H amilton h as a t emporary b usiness license p rogram. L ots o f B IAs h ave p op u p p rogramming. The D ownsview F lea i s a h appening p lace. A ll o f t hese t hings a re h appening r ight n ow with a combination o f h uman i ngenuity, a w illing m unicipal p a ner, c reative p rivate s ector t hinking/doing, and p eople w illing t o s pend t heir d isposable i ncome.
These c omments a re n ot i ntended t o s uggest p lanning c an’t c hange o r e volve. T he f uture of Toronto requires a n i nnovative p lanning r egime. B ut w hat w e i nvent n eeds t o f ocus o n t he b ig i ssues that ma er. T here a re l ots o f e xamples o f h ow z oning i s t oo a ggressive a nd w e’ve o ver-regulated. So, in spirit I ’m k een o n t he t hinking b ehind t he o utcomes-based c ode. I t hink t he b uilding t echnology innovations a round nding n ew w ays t o m ove w alls a nd t he w ater/wiring i nside a re r eally interesting - but S WL p robably w on’t w ait u ntil Q uayside i s b uilt t o t ry t hese. T hey a re g ood i deas n ow that could be p iloted r ight a way.
I t hink t hey h ave p roposed a c omplex t echnology s olution t o a s ituation t hat m ostly d oesn’t need it. People c an h elp m ake a b unch o f t hese t hings h appen t hrough a c ombination o f i nitiative and just not zealously e nforcing r ules. I f ully u nderstand w hy a c ommercial l andlord w ould w ant t hese data and as
Page 2 6 o f 6 9
Page 130 of 190
commercial l andowners m ove m ore a nd m ore t oward o ering b uilding s ervices t o t heir tenants, the data t hey c ould g ather i s o f h igh v alue t o t hem. B ut a gain, w hat’s t he s igni cant p ublic good outcome for u s t o w arrant o ur o verall i nvestment/risk m anagement m itigation i n t his p roject.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #46 and #53 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Thanks f or y our c omment. W e a re s ensitive t o e nsuring t hat d igital t echnologies a re n ot proposed for situations w here t hey o nly a dd c omplexity a nd d on’t a chieve r eal b ene t. S idewalk L abs recognizes that t echnology a lone c annot s olve u rban c hallenges, a nd t hat d igital t echnology s hould only be proposed w hen i t t ruly c an m ake a m eaningful i mpact o n k ey p ublic p olicy o utcomes a nd risks can be managed. O ur a pproach i s g rounded i n “ digital r estraint.” E ach d igitally e nabled s ervice proposed for Quayside m aps b ack d irectly t o o ne o f W ate ront T oronto’s P riority O utcomes, a nd t he “objectives” (bene cial p urpose) o f e ach s ystem a nd s ubsystem h ave b een f u her r e ned t o s how how these components w ork t o a chieve t hese q uality-of-life g oals. S idewalk L abs i s f ocused o n t he outcomes that t hese s ystems c an h elp t o a chieve, n ot i mplementing t ech f or t ech’s s ake.
DSAP Comment #47: (Both) W hy d oes W T n eed t o i ncentivize t his? W hy d on’t t hey j ust g o pa ner w ith O xford o r a nother l arge p rope y o wner/manager a nd d o i t a mong t hemselves?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
One o f W ate ront T oronto’s l ong-standing o bjectives h as b een t o s uppo a ctive g round oor spaces on t he w ate ront. A ctive g round oors h ave m any p ublic b ene ts, f rom s afer, m ore v ibrant streets to greater e conomic o ppo unities. W ith t he r ise o f e commerce a nd c hanging r etail l andscape, how to achieve t his s treet a ctivation i s a c hallenge f acing c ities a nd d evelopers t oday. I t i s i n r esponse to this challenge t hat S idewalk L abs h as d evised t he S toa c oncept, w hich c ombines p hysical d esign, programming a nd t echnology t o s uppo m ore d iverse a nd exible u ses o f g round oors. One of the reasons w hy a pproaches l ike S toa a re n ot c ommonplace t oday i s t hat h aving s ho er t erm leases and many t enants c an c ause h igher o verheads a nd c reate r isk f or p rope y m anagers a nd r eal estate investors. A n a pplication l ike S eed S pace c an h elp a ddress t his b y u sing t echnology t o h elp be er manage t he c omplexity o f t hese l eases a nd r ange o f u sers f rom r estaurants t o r etailers. There are applications a lready i n d evelopment i n t he m arket t hat h ave m any f eatures w e i magine, and it is likely that t his i s a p roduct t hat S idewalk L abs d oes n ot b uild i tself, b ut r ather p rocures a nd i ntegrates into a single t enant s olution.
Digital Innovations – Launch Services – Commonspace
DSAP Comment #48: (SWL) C ommonspace i s a t echnology u pdate o f a nalog t echnology planners u se a ll t he t ime ( e.g. c lipboard, p aper, p encils). W e’ve b een o bserving h ow p eople use public space f or a l ong t ime g uided b y t he w ork o f p eople l ike W illiam W hyte, K evin L ynch, J ane Jacobs and more r ecently G ehl. W hen w e m ake t hese o bservations a t t he s peed o f h uman r ecording they are labour i ntensive, t ime l imited a nd s ubject t o h uman d iscretion. W e h ave l ots o f q uick a nd good tools for s eeing h ow p eople u se p ublic s paces ( e.g. n ot s ure w here t o p ut a p ath i n a n ew p ark? plant grass and g ive i t 2 m onths, g o b ack, s ee w here p eople t ramped t he g rass d own - c alled d esire lines - and
Page 2 7 o f 6 9
Page 131 of 190
o y ou g o, b uild y our p ath t here). C an w e g et b e er? S ure, o f c ourse. B ut l et’s t read c arefully about what k inds o f t ech w e u se.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
We s trongly a gree t hat i t i s i mpo ant t o t read c arefully i n t his d omain. N ot o nly i s i t i mpo ant to be cognizant o f e xisting t ools w e h ave, n on-digital a nd d igital. B ut a lso t o b e a ware o f e nsuring multiple forms o f k nowledge c ontribute t o a ny e valuation o f p ublic s pace, a nd n ot o nly r elying o n quanti able insights. T he u nderlying m otivation f or e xploring C ommonSpace w as a r ecognition t hat many community g roups e xperimenting i n p ublic s pace p rogramming d on’t h ave t he r esources to run traditional s tudies, b ut i t m ight b e p ossible to r educe t he b arriers b y m aking t he p rocess more e cient. C ommonSpace s till r equires l abour i nvestment a nd t he s ame a mount o f t ime spent observing p ublic l ife. B ut i t m akes i t f aster t o d erive i nsights b y e liminating d ata e ntry s teps. The outcome i s t hat m ore c ommunity g roups h ave q uality d ata a bout t heir w ork, a nd t his c an inform be er p rogramming, a s w ell a s t heir a dvocacy f or t heir w ork.
DSAP Comment #49: (Both) B ringing s peed a nd s cale t o t hese o bservations h as p ros a nd c ons. We c an b uild b e er p ublic s paces i f w e k now m ore, b ut g athering t oo m uch d ata t hat i s readily joined to d ata l akes o f o ther i nformation p resents challenges. T he A CLU h as a m odel o rdinance for proposals for t echnology t hat i nclude s urveillance e lements ( see h ps://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/ les/20141112-model_ordinance.pdf f or e xample). The driver behind t his o rdinance i s t hat w hen w e b ring n ew t echnologies t o p ublic s paces t here a re big implications.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
In t he r esolution o f t he “ Threshold I ssues, S idewalk L abs h as r ea rmed i ts c ommitment to compliance w ith a ll a pplicable l aws, i ncluding m unicipal o rdinances, W ate ront T oronto’s Digital Principles a nd f o hcoming I ntelligent C ommunity G uidelines, a nd a pplicable p olicy f rameworks.
Moreover, S idewalk L abs b elieves t hat p eople a nd c ities d eserve t he h ighest s tandard of ethical and responsible d ata u se. W e p ut t hat b elief i nto a ction b y i nternally a pplying o ur R esponsible Data Use Guidelines a nd R esponsible D ata U se A ssessments t o o ur p rojects a nd p ilots - w hether or not they include p ersonal i nformation. A d etailed d escription o f o ur G uidelines a nd R esponsible Data Use Assessment t ool c an b e f ound i n s ection 2 .2 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix.
Additionally, w e h ave w orked w ith m ore t han 1 00 p a icipants a cross s everal c ities t o c o-create a visual l anguage d esigned t o i ncrease p ublic a wareness a nd u nderstanding o f d igital t echnologies in the p ublic r ealm. T his D igital T ransparency i n t he P ublic R ealm p roject i ncludes i cons, a s ignage system, a nd a d igital c hannel f or c ommunication, t hat c ollectively h elp v isualize a nd c onvey a taxonomy o f k ey c oncepts.
Digital Innovations – Launch Services – Scheduler
DSAP Comment #50: (SWL) I n a ddition t o a utomating e nergy u se t o o ptimize h eating, c ooling, and e lectricity s ystems, t enant c omfo c ould b e f u her i ncreasing b y a llowing t hem t o regulate light and t emperature s e ings v ia t heir s ma phones. T hese s e ings c ould t hen b e s aved a nd used to calibrate a ll t he s paces t hey o ccupy. B ringing e nergy m anagement d own t o t he u ser l evel also helps promote b ehavioral c hange a s u sers s ee h ow t heir d aily r outine a nd p ersonal p references impact energy c onsumption.
Page 2 8 o f 6 9
Page 132 of 190
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Thank y ou f or t he h elpful s uggestion. W e a re e xcited t o i mplement s ustainable e nergy management solutions, a nd a re c onsidering w ays t o e mpower i ndividuals t o b e er u nderstand a nd m anage their own e nergy c onsumption.
Digital Innovations – Launch Services – Real-time Maintenance Map
DSAP Comment #51: (Both) S WL m akes p a o f t he c ase f or d igital i nfrastructure c laiming t hat public s pace s ervice o perators c an’t k eep u p w ith m aintenance. I w ould a rgue b ack t he problem isn’t that t hey l ack t he d ata t hey n eed ( e.g. c heck o ut t he 3 11 c alls o n T oronto O pen D ata p o al and any See C lick F ix l ist), w hen t hings n eed t o b e xed, t he C ity k nows. T he p roblem i s t he C ity doesn’t have the m oney i t n eeds t o h ire t he p eople a nd d o t he w ork. Y es, s ome e ciencies c ould b e gained (e.g. plan g arbage p ick u p d i erently i n p arks b ecause o n s ensored g arbage c ans) b ut g aps in data/tech aren’t t he b iggest b arriers. T here i s a s entence t hat t alks a bout b udget b ut i t r eads l ike a throwaway.
In a w orld o f c ompeting r esources, I t hink w e n eed t o m ake s ure w e’re n ot t hrowing p ublic money (or private m oney t hat c omes w ith a s igni cant p ublic g ive/return l ater) a round a t t echnology that is $$ and c omes w ith r isk b efore rst s o ing i f w e s pent t hat m oney o n a ctual m aintenance rst could we have b e er o utcomes.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs i s s ta ed w ith m any i ndividuals w ho h ave s pent t heir c areer w orking i n, o r with, municipal g overnments; w e s trongly b elieve t hat c ities n eed t o b e p roperly r esourced to operate e ectively, s uppo a v ibrant p ublic r ealm, a nd m aintain h ealthy c ommunities. A f undamental goal is to enable b e er m aintenance. A n o ppo unity i s h ow a ppropriate u se o f d ata a nd t echnology can help anticipate p roblems, b e er t arget p reventative m aintenance a nd i ntegrate w ith m aintenance operations. S ome o f t he c hallenges i nvolved i n a ctioning 3 11 d ata i s h aving t hat i nput t urned directly into t ools t hat h elp w orkers o n t he g round.
Digital Innovations – Launch Services – Outcomes-based Building Code
DSAP Comment #52: (SWL) I n a ddition t o n oise, n uisances a nd s tructural i ntegrity, I r ecommend adding f oot t ra c t o t he p arameters m onitored b y t he o utcome-based b uilding c ode. For instance, one o f t he c ommon d eterrents t o l ive-work s cenarios i s t he a dded f oot t ra c t hat w ork environments bring. T his c an b e p ositive a s w ell a s n egative ( for i nstance m ore f oot t ra c m ay h elp t o improve safety), b ut i s w o h m onitoring n onetheless.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Thank y ou v ery m uch f or y our s uggestion — w e a re c onsidering i t.
Digital Innovations – Launch Services – Collab
DSAP Comment #54: (SWL) C ollab i s a nother e xample o f a s hadow/parallel p rocess d esigned t o mirror t he w ork t hat p ublic o cials a nd d elegated a uthority b odies o f t he C ity a lready do. Also, who is accountable w hen t heir p ublic p rogramming g oes s ideways? I r eally d on’t u nderstand the drive to
Page 2 9 o f 6 9
Page 133 of 190
move t hese t hings o ut o f r egular p ublic g overnance i f t he d esire i s t o w ork o n b ehalf o f the public good.
It’s a lso s imilar t o o ther e lements o f t his p lan - i t g athers p rocesses a lready t aking p lace in other communities, s ometimes p a ially o r f ully e nabled w ith t ech, a nd p resents a n ew S WL s olution to them without a ctually r eally: a ) m aking t he c ase f or w hy m ore t ech i s n eeded; b ) w hy t heir t ech is needed; c) w hat p ublic g ood v oid t his t ool lls. I f t he b usiness m odel f or t his e ntire a dventure d idn’t ask for signi cant p ublic c oncessions I w ouldn’t c are s o m uch. B ut t hey w ant a l ot, s o I c are m ore and have higher e xpectations.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Collab d oes n ot c hange p ublic g overnance. I t i s a s o ware p roduct l ike a ny o ther p roduct a city, non-pro t o r o ther f orm o f o rganization m ight u se. F or Q uayside, t he c hoice t o u se a ny civic tools like Collab w ould b e a t t he c omplete d iscretion o f g overnment a nd l ocal c ommunity o rganizations. As they a re t oday, t hese o rganizations w ould b e a ccountable f or p ublic p rogramming o utcomes.
The r ationale f or C ollab i s t hat t here a re m any w ays t hat d igital t ools — i n c oordination with strong in-person a nd m ore t raditional a pproaches — can u nlock g reater c ivic p a icipation. W ork in cities like Barcelona a nd e lsewhere h ave d emonstrated t his. O ne p romising a pproach i s l everaging technology to b ring t ransparency i nto p rocesses a nd d ecision p oints t hat c ould a llow c ommunity m embers to be er u nderstand t he i ssues a t h and, p rovide i nput, a nd, h opefully, f eel s atis ed t hat t heir voices have been h eard. S idewalk L abs b elieves t hat b y p roviding c ommunity m embers w ith a n i nformed, nuanced u nderstanding o f t he r equired t rade-o s o f a d ecision, d igital t ools c ould e ven encourage more d ecisions t hat p ut c ollective g ood a head o f i ndividual i nterests.
In s canning t he l andscape o f t echnologies t hat s uppo l ocal d ecision-making, S idewalk Labs was unable t o i dentify a t ool f ocused e xplicitly o n m aking t rade-o s t ransparent. I nformed by this oppo unity, S idewalk L abs d ecided t o c reate a p rototype — o ne s mall c ontribution t owards a more civically e ngaged u rban f uture — t hrough a d igital t ool t hat c ould s uppo c ommunities hoping to increase p a icipation a nd m ake m ore i nclusive, c ollaborative d ecisions.
Digital Innovations – Within Pillars
Digital Innovations – Within Pillars - Mobility
DSAP Comment #55: (SWL) O n m obility s ubscription, n ot a t a ll c lear w hat i nnovation i s b eing established h ere n or w hy t his i s n eeded f or t he p lan. A m obility s ubscription m ight b e a good idea, but we d on’t n eed Q uayside f or i t. D on’t w e a lready h ave a n o pen e co-system f or r ide h ailing services? What i s n ew h ere? S everal n ew m obility r elated i nnovations – b ike c ounting, a daptive s ignals, green waves. N eed s tronger a ssurances o n p rivacy s afeguards a nd a nonymization. I s t he n o c ars estimate (30% h ave c ars) r eally r ealistic? W hat d oes t his m ean f or s ensing t ra c p a erns? H ow do we bene t from d ata o n s treets i n a c ommunity t hat i s v ery d i erent f rom o thers? E mphasis o n s elf-driving technology b ut f ew s treets a nd f ew c ars?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
We a cknowledge t hat t here a re p recedents f or a spects o f t he i nnovations w e’ve p roposed, including MaaS, a nd n ote t hem i n t he l ist o f D igitally-Enabled S ervices c ontained i n S ection 1 .3 o f the fo hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix. T he r eason t his i s i ncluded f or Q uayside i s t o try to pilot
Page 3 0 o f 6 9
Page 134 of 190
approaches t hat a ddress t he k ey p ublic p olicy o bjectives e stablished b y W ate ront T oronto to test new m obility s olutions t hat e nhance d iversity o f m odes a nd r esult i n g reater s ustainability outcomes.
The m obility s ubscription i s e xpected t o l ower t he c ost o f m obility s ervices f or p eople, since the bundled c ost o f m ulti-modal m obility s ervices w ould b e c heaper t han w hat p eople w ould have to pay, had t hey p urchased t he s ame a mount o f s ervices o n t heir o wn w ith t he i ndividual p roviders for respective m odes. T his i s b ecause t he m obility s ubscription p rovider w ould p urchase i n bulk on behalf of a ll s ubscribers, a nd w ould h ence r eceive v olume p urchasing d iscounts. T his i s s imilar to the TTC's former V olume I ncentive P ass P rogram, o r T oronto B ike S hare's C orporate M embership discounts. However, u nlike t hese p rograms t hat o nly b ene t e mployees o f c e ain o rganizations, all residents and e mployees i n Q uayside w ould b e e ligible f or t he m obility s ubscription s ervice a nd hence the cost savings.
Moreover o ur t ranspo ation m odelling r esults c on rm t he c ommon w isdom t hat, w hen people pay for s ervices v ia a s ubscription, r ather t han o n a p er-use b asis, t hey a re m uch m ore l ikely to consume a service. F or e xample, c ar o wners a re m uch more l ikely t o u se t heir c ar f or a t rip b ecause their per-trip out-of-pocket c ost i s v ery l ow. W ith a m obility s ubscription, i t i s a nticipated t hat u sers would perceive the c ost o f u sing t ransit, b ike-share, a nd o ther a lternatives t o d riving a p rivate c ar a s f ree / very low for e ach t rip. T his h ence r esults i n l ower p ropensity a nd d ependence o n d riving a nd h igher use of more s ustainable m odes o f t ravel.
Details o n t he t ypes o f d ata c ollection t hat suppo s f unctionality l ike a daptive t ra c s ignals and bicycle g reen w ave a re d escribed i n s ection 1 .3.2 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation Appendix. Detection o f b icycles, v ehicles o r p edestrians i s s ubject t o t he a pplication o f W ate ront Toronto’s Digital P rinciples a nd f o hcoming I ntelligent C ommunity G uidelines, S idewalk L abs’ R esponsible Data Use G uidelines ( which i ncorporates P rivacy b y D esign p rinciples) a nd s ubject t o a R esponsible Data Use A ssessment. T he d etection o f b icycles w ould b e u sed a s a n i nput t o t he b icycle g reen wave pacing s ystem - n o p ersonal i nformation i s necessary. L ikewise, n o p ersonal i nformation is required to dynamically a llocate c rossing t ime t o t he m ore v ulnerable m odes - p edestrians a nd b ikes - when necessary.
We a re n ot a ware o f a ny z ero c ar e stimate o r z ero c ar p resence o n t he s treets o f Q uayside.3 T hough we d o e xpect t o s ee a l ower v olume o f v ehicles, t his s hould n ot a ect t he a bility o f v ehicle detectors to s ense t he p resence o r n umber o f v ehicles. I f t his c omment i s r elated t o c oordination with nearby tra c s ignals, w e h ave n ot p roposed t o l ink t he o peration o f t he t ra c s ignals a t t hese intersections with a djacent i ntersections a s t his i s o utside o f t he a rea - t hough t here i s a p otential b ene t of greater coordination o f t ra c i n d oing s o.
We a re n ot p roposing s elf-driving v ehicles o r i nfrastructure f or t he Q uayside s ite. T he designs and the technology p roposed f or Q uayside w ill d eliver u ser f eedback o n t he e cacy o f n ew m obility systems, as w ell a s p e ormance ( reliability, l ead/lag time, m aintenance a nd/or r eplacement r equired). While the s treet d esigns o f Q uayside a re p roposed t o b e d i erent t han t he s urrounding a reas, the learnings from t he d emonstration o f t hese t echnologies c ould b e u seful i n m ultiple a pplications throughout the City o f T oronto a nd o ther c ities.
DSAP Comment #56: (SWL) I w ant t o u se t he e xample o f e -scooters a s a n e xample o f a p ersistent tension i n t his d ocument f or m e. I f ound t he d iscussion o f e -scooter t echnology u nderdeveloped and siloed.
3 For more information on the modelling for Quayside, please see M obility Technical Appendix G: Modelling and Traffic Analysis.
Page 3 1 o f 6 9
Page 135 of 190
In t he m obility s ection ( p. 5 0) e -scooters a re agged t o s ay t hey a ren’t a llowed y et a nd if they aren’t by t he t ime t he p roject i s b uilt, w e’ll t ry t o b ring t hem. O k, f air e nough. I k now t hat t rying to write a document t hat k eeps u p w ith e merging t rends i s h ard ( e.g. h ello p ractice o f u rban p lanning) but then on t he p age b eside t he d iscussion f ocuses on “ how m uch s pace s hould b e d evoted t o bike lanes?”. Well, w hat a bout h ow m uch s pace s hould b e i magined/planned/designed f or m obility a nd logistics innovations w e c an’t y et s ee?
Sidewalks, r ight n ow, a re d esigned f or m ovement t hat i s h uman p owered. [ The o ne b ig exception would b e p eople w ho u se p owered m obility d evices ( e.g. w heel c hairs, s cooters) a nd s idewalks and other p ublic r ealm e lements n eed t o b e b e er d esigned f or t hese p eople. F ull s top]. B ike lanes are already c hallenged b y e -bikes. T he s peed, s ilence a nd r hythm o f t hat r idership c reates a tension in already v ery c rowded s pace. I n T oronto w e n ow a nticipate e -scooters h ere b y f all. W here do they go? Sidewalks c urrent s truggle w ith s mall h umans o n t heir h uman p owered s cooters. T he a rrival of e-scooters i s g oing t o b e a r eal c hallenge i n t he p ublic r ealm.
And t hen w hat h appens w ith r obots d oing l ast m ile d elivery? W here a re t hey g oing t o g o? Sidewalk? Bike l ane? R oad? T he M IDP h as t hem u nderground i n t unnels ( p. 8 3) b ut i f y ou t hink a bout SWL’s need to s cale u p i nnovations h ere e lsewhere, I ’m g oing t o g uess t here w ill b e s u ace d elivery options needed t oo [ aside: w ho c ontrols h ow d eliveries h appen? d o a ll d elivery o perators h ave to use their tunnels? w ho p ays f or t he s ystem? m aybe i t’s i n t he M IDP b ut I d idn’t s ee i t y et.
I t hink t he M IDP n eeds t o w ork h arder t o p resent s olutions t hat a nticipate m anaging a n increasingly complex p ublic r ealm. I s a “ bike l ane” a t hing i n t he p ublic r ealm o f t he f uture? O r d o w e have su aces for f eet, h uman p owered w heels, l ow s peed e lectric p owered w heels ( for s mall s tu a nd 1-2 humans), and b igger p assenger/stu w ith m ore p ower w heels? I t s o o f c omes u p i n p age 9 6 w ith their 4 street t ypes a nd o n p age 1 28 w here t hey t alk a bout m ore s pace f or p eople i nstead o f v ehicles. But they t alk a bout p edestrians a nd c yclists ( the m obility o f t he f uture h as m ore u ser t ypes I think, how do you c ategorize a n e -bike o r e -scooter r ider?).
This e -scooter d iscussion i s s hared t o s ay t hat i n t he m obility s ection t here i s a c urious mix of new so -of-future t hinking b ut n ot p a icularly i nnovative r esponses.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
In t erms o f “ space” i n t he r ight-of-way, o ur S treet D esign P rinciples a nd t he M IDP d o n ot a llocate space i n t he r ight-of-way b y t echnology, n or m ode, b ut r ather b y s peed. S o t here w ould be a space for t ransit v ehicles m oving a t s top-and-go s peeds; a s pace f or a utos, m oving a round 4 0 kph; space for p edestrians, m oving a round 4 k ph; a nd space f or m icro-mobility m oving b etween 1 0 kph and 25 kph. T raditionally t his s pace h as b een u sed by b icycles, b ut a s i nnovation i n t his r ealm p roceeds, it may a lso b e u sed b y s cooters o r w hatever t he f uture h olds. A f undamental p rinciple f or Sidewalk Labs is h ow t echnology c an e nable exibility i n s pace d esign t o c reate t he p otential t o a dapt to new models.
In t erms o f " space” i n t he p ublic r ealm f or p arking m icro-mobility d evices, t his w ill d epend on how the physical r equirements f or m icro-mobility e volve. I f t he m icro-mobility d evices r equire docks, we can allocate m ore s pace i n t he p ublic r ealm; w e c an r eallocate s ho -term b ike p arking, o f w hich we are currently p lanning t o p rovide 1 70% o f w hat i s r equired; o r w e c an r eplace s cooter d ocks with docks for w hatever t he f uture h olds. T he c urrent e xcitement i n t he s pace i s f or d ockless m icro-mobility devices, u ltimately t o b e r eplaced b y a utonomous m icro-mobility d evices t hat y ou h ail by app, come to y ou a utonomously, a nd r eturn t o a c harging s tation a utonomously, i n w hich c ase s pace in the public realm m ay b e r eallocated a ppropriately. I n t hese c ases, t he a ppropriate a llocation o f p ublic space
Page 3 2 o f 6 9
Page 136 of 190
depends o n h ow t hese t echnologies a re r egulated, b ut i t s eems r easonable t o s uppose that current space f or t raditional b ikes a nd s cooters m ay b e r eassigned a s n ecessary t o a ccommodate future trends.
With r espect t o l ast-mile d elivery, w hile i t i s t rue t hat t unnels ( or c onnected b asements) are not replicable e verywhere, t he M IDP p roposes connected b asements. I n o ne s cenario, c arriers would schedule d eliveries t o t he U rban C onsolidation C entre ( UCC) a nd a nything c onsidered a "direct delivery" w ould b e r equired t o p urchase a s pecial p ermit t o u se b uilding l oading d ocks, since they will be b ypassing t he U CC. S ince t his w ould p ut m ore v ehicles o n t he r oad, t hey w ould b e held accountable f or t heir i mpact. N o d elivery o perator w ould u se t he t unnels. I nstead, a ll c arriers would deliver t o t he U CC a nd t he f reight s ystem w ould h andle t he r est o f t he j ourney ( the l ast-mile). Like other U CCs, c arriers n o l onger h ave t o d eal w ith t he b urdens a ssociated w ith t he l ast m ile, such as congestion, p arking, f ailed rst a empts a t d elivery, e tc. I nstead, t hey w ould b e a ble t o use delivery vehicles m ore e ciently a nd d eliver g oods to a s ingle l ocation. O ne m odel f or f unding the entire freight s ystem w ould b e r evenue f rom i ts m any v alue a dded s ervices, i ncluding p ersonal storage, retail i nventory a nd f ul llment a nd m ore.
While s u ace d elivery o ptions a re n ot a p a o f t he M IDP, a g reat d eal o f i nnovation i s b eing made in cargo b icycles a nd A utonomous D elivery V ehicles t hat t ravel i n b ike l anes o r s treets.
DSAP Comment #57: (SWL) T he b rief h istory o f s elf-driving v ehicle t echnology i s p otentially misleading i n s uggesting t hat b y 2 035 “ Self-driving t axis b ecome u biquitous i n T oronto.” This estimate is h ighly s peculative a nd c ontingent o n m any u n-known f actors. T he r epo t his e stimate was based on, M aRS’ F raming t he A utomated V ehicle L andscape, p resents n o s ubstantive b asis f or this time estimate. P repared o ver a 6 -week p eriod i n l ate 2 018, i t w as f unded b y S WL t o i nvestigate the problem of “ How m ight w e c reate m arket a nd p olicy c onditions t hat e nable a utomated v ehicles to suppo safe, e quitable, a nd e cient t ranspo ation m odels f or T oronto a nd O ntario?” R ather t han critically examine w hether A Vs w as t he b est a pproach t o a ddressing u rban m obility i ssues i n c omparison to alternatives, t his s tudy a ssumed t he i nevitability o f A Vs a nd f ocused o n h ow t o f acilitate this outcome.
In l ight o f t he w eak b asis f or S WL’s f oundational “ assumption t hat s elf-driving v ehicles can form the backbone o f t he r ide-hail s ystem b y r oughly 2 035,” w hy i s i t p rudent f or T oronto t o a lready begin reducing v ehicular s treet s pace a s c ontemplated i n t he M IDP?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The T oronto C ity C ouncil h as r ecently a pproved i ts A utonomous V ehicle T actical P lan, w hich a ims t o ensure “ that T oronto i s w ell-placed t o b oth maximize o ppo unities a nd m itigate i mpacts arising from the a rrival o f A Vs i n t he C ity”. W e a re a ligned w ith C ity o f T oronto’s p rioritization o f e nhancing t he city’s A V-readiness, a nd e mbrace t he c ity’s l eadership i n t his a rea. T his a lignment w as t he motivation for o ur f unding s uppo t o M aRS’ A V s tudy, recognizing M aRS’ d istinct s trength a t c onvening and facilitating d ialogue a mong d iverse s takeholders.
We c larify t hat t he a sse ion t hat t he p roposed s treet d esign - w hich f eatures m ore p edestrian and cyclist s pace a nd l ess v ehicular s pace t han the c urrent n orm - i s n ot t ied t o a ssumptions about self-driving v ehicles. T he p roposed m obility s ystem, i ncluding t he s treets, i s d esigned t o work on Day One, w ithout A Vs.
DSAP Comment #58: (SWL) D o w e n eed t he W TMA? I w ould a rgue, a gain, I ’m n ot c onvinced, y et - especially i f y ou l ook a t i ts f unctions ( Implement o bjectives; O versee p lanning, o perations, and maintenance; M anage d aily m ovement p a erns) a nd r emember Q uayside i s 1 2 a cres t hat needs to
Page 3 3 o f 6 9
Page 137 of 190
connect t o a m assive u rban r egion t ranspo ation s ystem. T he s ite n eeds t o b e i ntegrated, the people inside t he p ublic i nstitutions ( e.g. T TC, M etrolinx) t hat m anage t he o ther b ig s ystem n eed to be in charge h ere. T hey n eed t he d ata. T he c ulture o f i nnovation a nd e xperimentation n eeds to in ltrate the orgs w e h ave a nd b e s hared. T hat’s h ow w e t ake i nnovation t o s cale.
What r oles w ill o ther A lphabet rms/technologies l ike R eplica a nd C oord p lay h ere? I t’s really time we dig i nto b oth a s t he D SAP i f t hey a re i n p lay.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
We a gree t hat t he Q uayside p roject p resents a s igni cant o ppo unity f or b uilding i nnovation capacity within p ublic i nstitutions. T his w as a n o riginal o bjective o f W ate ront T oronto’s R FP. T his has been fu her a rmed i n t he r esolution o f t he T hreshold I ssues p rocess, t hrough w hich W ate ront Toronto has c ommi ed t o a dvocating f or g overnment T ask F orces t hat b ring t ogether t he r elevant pa ies to establish a ppropriate g overnance o f t he I nnovation P lan. S idewalk L abs i s c ommi ed t o working with Wate ront T oronto, a nd i ts g overnment s takeholders, a nd t hrough t his p rocess d etermining what (if any) n ew m anagement c apacities m ight b e a ppropriate.
There a re n o A lphabet c ompanies o r S idewalk a liate t echnologies n oted a s p a o f o ur proposal. To the e xtent t hat t hose c ompanies o er s olutions c apable o f a chieving t he d esired o utcomes, they would h ave t o b e e valuated a nd p rocured l ike a ny o ther s olution.
Digital Innovations – Within Pillars - Public Realm
DSAP Comment #59: (SWL) C reate m ore o pen s pace p . 1 26 – W hy i sn’t i t c alled p ublic s pace? Words m a er h ere ( e.g. s ee t he c omments o n t he “ urban d ata” v s. p ublic d ata). I s o pen space really a privately o wned p ublic s pace ( POPS - w e u se t hat l anguage h ere i n T oronto)? T he o wnership and control o f t hese s paces a re i mpo ant i ssues t o c larify.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Open s pace i n t he M IDP d oes n ot m ean p rivately o wned p ublic s pace. T here a re n o p lans to privatize public s pace i n t he p roposal. P er t he r esolution o f T hreshold I ssues, W ate ront T oronto will lead planning, d esign a nd d elivery o f m unicipal i nfrastructure, s uch a s p arks a nd w ate ront promenades. Any p arks b uilt i n Q uayside w ould b e o wned b y t he C ity o f T oronto’s P arks, F orestry a nd Recreation (PF&R) d epa ment. T he p roposal a lso i ncludes c onve ing e xisting r ight-of-way s paces to pedestrian plazas, a nd f or t hese s paces, i t w ould b e c onsidered w hether a n on-pro t p rogramming, operations and m anagement e ntity w ould m ake s ense, a s h as d one f or s paces l ike T he B entway o r Evergreen Brick W orks. T his r ight-of-way s pace w ould r emain p ublicly-owned. A nyone i n Q uayside would have the s ame r ights i n t hese p ublic s paces a s t hey w ould i n a ny o ther p ublic s pace i n t he C ity of Toronto, including f reedom o f a ssociation, f reedom of e xpression, e quitable t reatment o f m arginalized groups, public e ngagement a nd p a icipation a nd o ther f undamental r ights a nd f reedoms, a s a pplicable.
Urban Data Trust / Responsible Data Use Assessment / Data Governance
UDT/RDUA/Data Governance – Urban Data Trust
DSAP Comment #61: (Both) I n o ne o f t he s cenarios p rovided i n t he M IDP t o i llustrate t he functioning o f t he M IDP, t he e xample w as g iven o f a g arage o perator l easing s pace i n t he development a rea w ho h as a m isconceived i dea a bout c ollecting a nd u sing d ata f rom security
Page 3 4 o f 6 9
Page 138 of 190
cameras i n t he g arage. T he e xample i s m eant t o s how h ow b y b eing r equired t o a pply f or permission to c ollect t he d ata, a nd t o c omplete a n R DUA, t he g arage o wner w ill b e s topped f rom e ngaging in this improper c ollection a nd u se o f d ata. T he g arage o wner w ould, o f c ourse, b e s ubject t o PIPEDA, and the p roposed c ollection a nd u se o f t he d ata w ould c learly v iolate P IPEDA, b ut w e a re t old throughout that t he U DT p rovides a s eparate a nd p ossibly h igher l evel o f p rotection t han P IPEDA.
I h ave t wo d i culties w ith t his e xample a nd i ts i mplications. T he rst i s w ith t he d e nition of ‘urban data’. I f i t i ncludes s ecurity c amera d ata f rom s mall b usinesses, t hen i n m y v iew i t i s o verinclusive. Pa of t he r ationale f or t he U DT w as t o f acilitate d ata s haring f or i nnovation p urposes. I n m y view, security camera d ata i s j ust t hat - s ecurity c amera d ata. I t s hould n ot b e c onsidered f or f u her sharing. Its collection, u se a nd d isclosure c an b e g overned b y P IPEDA.
This o verbreadth i ssue l eads i nto m y s econd c oncern w ith t his s cenario, w hich i s t he d uplicative nature o f s ome o f t he f unctions o f t he U DT. T he f ederal P rivacy C ommissioner h as p rovided some pre y c lear g uidance o n t he c ollection o f d ata t hrough s ecurity c ameras. P IPEDA c overs this situation. If t here i s n o d ata s haring d imension, w hy s hould t he U DT p lay a r ole? O ne o f t he c lassic reasons for not a mending P IPEDA t o s trengthen i t i s t hat t o d o s o w ould i mpose a s ti ing c ompliance burden on small b usinesses. B ut t he a pproach p roposed i n t he M IDP w ould r equire t he g arage o wner to comply with b oth P IPEDA a nd w ith t he U DT. W e’re a lso t old t hat t here w ould b e a f ee i mposed for the collection o f d ata u nder a R DUA - - a nd s o t he a dditional c ompliance b urden c omes w ith a cost as well. This s eems t o m e t o b e f undamentally d uplicative a nd c reating a p roblematic b urden.
SWL h as s uggested t hat t he v alue-added o f t he U DT i s t hat i t h elps s mall b usinesses c omply because many d on’t u nderstand P IPEDA. T he O PC p rovides a ll k inds o f g uidance a nd i nformation for small businesses a nd e ven o pened a n o ce i n T oronto t o h ave m ore o f a p resence f or b usinesses that needed t o s eek a dvice. I ’m n ot c onvinced t hat t here i s a j usti cation f or i ncreasing t he compliance burden a nd c reating d uplicative p rivacy o bligations.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Fu her t o f eedback o n t he d ata g overnance a spects o f t he p roposal, S idewalk L abs a nd Wate ront Toronto h ave a greed, a s a p a o f t he r esolution o f t he T hreshold I ssues t o c ease u sing the term “urban d ata” i n r elation t o t he p roject a nd t o u se e xisting t erminology a nd c oncepts i nstead.
Additionally, t he r esolution o f t he T hreshold I ssues a rms t hat W ate ront T oronto a nd its government s takeholders l ead o n d ata g overnance, a nd r ea rms S idewalk L abs’ c ommitment to comply w ith a ll a pplicable C anadian l aws, W ate ront T oronto’s D igital P rinciples a nd f o hcoming Intelligent C ommunity G uidelines, a nd a pplicable p olicy f rameworks.
DSAP Comment #68: (Both) W ouldn’t h aving a p ublic r egistry o f a ll s ensors a lso c reate a s ecurity risk a nd m ake m a ers e asier f or m alicious a ctors w ho w ould w ant t o s abotage a c ommercial entity’s prospects, o r t o d amage t he r eputation o f t he d istrict? T he i dea o f h aving a p ublic r egistry of devices should b e r econsidered o r a t l east h eavily q uali ed.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs b elieves t he p ublic d eserves e nhanced t ransparency a round t he d igital l ayer in the public r ealm, a s e xempli ed i n o ur w ork a round D igital T ransparency i n t he P ublic R ealm p roject. T he balancing o f a ny r isks a nd b ene ts i n d etermining p olicy a round a p ublic r egistry o f d evices rests with
Page 3 5 o f 6 9
Page 139 of 190
Wate ront T oronto a nd i ts g overnment s takeholders, w hich a re l eading o n d ata g overnance for the project.
DSAP Comment #81: (SWL) A s p a o f t he R esponsible D ata U se A ssessment p rocess, understanding t he d ata ows w ould b e i mpo ant ( data s ources a nd d estinations).
DSAP Comment #85: (SWL) T he U DT a nd R DU A ssessments a ppear t o a pply e xclusively t o ‘ urban data.’ W hat i s l e r elatively u n-speci ed i s t he u se o f d ata f rom a ll o ther s ources. T ermed 'transactional d ata', t his m ay b e a t l east a s v aluable f or u rban p urposes b ut m ay b e m ore problematic from a p rivacy p erspective. F or e xample, l ocation d ata r outinely c aptured b y G oogle f rom Android devices a nd G oogle M aps. W ill S WL c ommit t o a r obust, i ndependent o versight r egime that covers all data, u rban a nd t ransactional, u sed w ithin t he p roject?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #81 and #85 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
As n oted a bove i n t he r esponse t o c omment # 4, t he i ntent f or S idewalk L abs’ U rban D ata Trust proposal w as t o e nsure r esponsible d ata u se a nd s uppo t rusted d ata s haring. H owever, the clear feedback w as t hat c reating a n ew s tandalone e ntity f or b oth o f t hese f unctions w as n ot a preferred path. T he a greed-upon a pproach f rom t he “ Threshold I ssues” r esolution p rocess i s r esponsive to this feedback a nd r ecognizes t hat W ate ront T oronto a nd i ts g overnment s takeholders l ead on data governance. I t a lso r ea rms S idewalk L abs’ c ommitment t o c omply w ith a ll a pplicable Canadian laws, Wate ront T oronto’s D igital P rinciples a nd f o hcoming I ntelligent C ommunity G uidelines, and applicable p olicy f rameworks.
Sidewalk L abs R esponsible D ata U se A ssessment p rocess i ncludes c onsideration o f d ata ows, as detailed i n s ection 2 .2 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix.
UDT/RDUA/Data Governance – Urban Data
DSAP Comment #82: (SWL) S WL i s p roposing a n ew c ategory o f d ata - “ urban d ata”. I t characterizes t his d ata a s d ata t hat n o o ne can o wn. I ’m n ot s ure i f t his i s t he r ight c haracterization - they s eem t o b e s uggesting t here i s a p ublic/communal i nterest i n t he d ata, r ather t han it being data in t he p ublic d omain. I n a ny e vent, o ne o f t he d i culties I s ee w ith t his i s t hat i t r elies o n both public and p rivate s ector a ctors r elinquishing c laims t o u rban d ata. S o o f. F or p rivate s ector actors to be able t o c ollect u rban d ata, t hey h ave t o s eek p ermission, g o t hrough t he R DUA, a nd p resumably manage a ny c ollected d ata a ccording t o t he t erms o f t hat a greement ( which m ay a llow them to keep the d ata a s c on dential a nd p roprietary - t he d oor i s o pen f or t hat). I n t erms o f t he p ublic sector, the suggestion s eems t o b e t hat d ata t hat w ould n ormally s imply b e p ublic s ector d ata w ould no longer be p ublic s ector d ata i f i t f ell w ithin t he d e nition o f u rban d ata. B ut g overnments h ave an obligation under t he l aw t o m anage d ata u nder t heir c ustody o r c ontrol i n a ccordance w ith t he l aw (MFIPPA, if it is t he C ity) a nd a ny r elevant p olicies o r d irectives. I f t he d ata i s c ollected b y t he c ity, t hen it seems to me i t i s p ublic s ector d ata a nd t he C ity c an’t j ust s urrender i t t o g overnance b y t he U DT -- at least not without s ome s o o f l egislative a mendment t hat w ould a llow i t t o d o s o. S o I r eally s truggle with the relationship b etween p ublic s ector d ata a nd u rban d ata. I t i s p ossible t hat n one o f t he data being collected b y t he p roposed s ensors i s b eing c onceived o f a s p ublic s ector d ata b y S WL - if not, then this t oo i s a b it o f a n i ssue, s ince d ata c ollected f or b e er u rban d ecision-making, e tc. should be public s ector d ata ( IMHO). S o m y q uestion h ere i s h ow d o y ou r econcile “ urban d ata” w ith public sector d ata. C an t his o nly b e d one t hrough l egislation?
Page 3 6 o f 6 9
Page 140 of 190
DSAP Comment #83: (SWL) O n t he s ubject o f “ urban d ata” - t he M IDP d istinguishes u rban d ata from t ransaction d ata. I w onder i f t his i s r eally a s traigh orward d istinction. I c ould s ee the distinction between p ayment i nformation, f or e xample, a nd “ urban d ata”. H owever, I h ave m ore d i culty with other s cenarios. F or e xample, i n t he M IDP w e a re t old t hat s ensors o n r ide-sharing v ehicles in the IDEA district w ould b e c ollecting u rban d ata, a nd s o t he r ide-sharing c ompanies w ould h ave to go through the U DT f or p ermission t o c ollect t his d ata. However, d ata a bout t he c ustomer’s i nteraction with the company i s t ransaction d ata. B ut h ow w ould d ata s uch a s t he s ta a nd e nd p oints o f t he trip, route data, h ow l ong t he t rip t ook e tc. b e c haracterized? I s t hat t ransaction d ata? ( It r elates t o the calculation o f t he f ee p aid f or t he s ervice) O r u rban d ata? ( It c ould b e u seful d ata f or u nderstanding tra c p a erns, e tc.) T his i s j ust o ne e xample. I t hink i t m ight b e c hallenging t o d istinguish between urban d ata a nd t ransaction d ata.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #82 and comments #83 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Sidewalk L abs a grees w ith t he c hallenge o f d istinguishing d i erent t ypes o f d ata i n c omplex situations, s uch a s t he e xample p rovided i n t he q uestion 8 3. F u her t o f eedback o n t he data governance a spects o f t he p roposal, S idewalk L abs a nd W ate ront T oronto h ave a greed, as a pa of the r esolution o f t he T hreshold I ssues, t o c ease u sing t he t erm “ urban d ata” i n r elation to the project. Instead, S idewalk L abs a nd W ate ront T oronto w ill u se e xisting t erminology a nd c oncepts.
UDT/RDUA/Data Governance – Open Data
DSAP Comment #86: (Both) E xplain h ow a p olicy o f “ open b y d efault” i s a lways i n t he p ublic interest. I n p a icular, e xplain h ow “ open d ata” p olicies w on’t d ispropo ionately h elp t he large social media a nd t ech c ompanies, g iven t he s tructural a symmetries i n t he d ata-driven e conomy.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Research l ed b y t he G overnance L ab ( GovLab) o utlines ve w ays i n w hich s haring d ata across sectors delivers p ublic v alue, i ncluding: ● Situational a wareness, m eaning a m ore c omplete p icture a nd a bility t o u nderstand c onditions on t he g round, e specially i n e mergency rst r esponse a nd r ecovery, w hich r equires coordination a cross d i erent l evels o f g overnment, n on-pro t s ervice p roviders, a nd p rivate sector c ontractors. ● Public s ervice d esign a nd d elivery, i n w hich s hared d ata c an e nable m ore a ccurate a nd e cient d esign a nd d elivery o f p ublic s ervices. ● Knowledge c reation a nd t ransfer, i ncluding b ringing d i erent d ata t ogether t o ll k nowledge gaps a nd p rovide t he m ost u seful i nformation t o t hose r esponsible f or s olving p roblems. ● Prediction a nd f orecasting t o a ssist i n p roactive, e vidence-based r isk m itigation. ● Impact a ssessment a nd e valuation, w here d ata f rom o ther s ectors e nables m onitoring and evaluation o f p olicies.
Similarly, i n l ooking s peci cally a t g overnment-led s haring i nitiatives, s ome o f t he s ame researchers have o utlined a t axonomy o f o pen d ata i mpact. I n s haring g overnment-held d ata w ith the public, open-data i nitiatives f oster:
Page 3 7 o f 6 9
Page 141 of 190
● Public p roblem-solving t hrough e nabling r esidents a nd p olicy-makers t o e ngage i n n ew ways to a ddress p ublic c hallenges. ● Oppo unity c reation f or r esidents a nd b usiness t o l everage d ata, i nnovate, a nd e conomically prosper. ● Government i mprovement t hrough i ncreased t ransparency a nd a ccountability. ● Citizen e mpowerment, i ncluding m ore i nformed d ecision-making
The i ntent i s t o b uild u pon e xisting p ublic s ector o pen d ata p olicies b y a lso s uppo ing m aking private data o pen - i t's n ot j ust a bout t aking a dvantage o f p ublic d ata b ut u nlocking t he p otential of privately held d ata - w hich i f n ot o pened, d oes r einforce t he a symmetry. W e b elieve t hat t he f uture of sma cities w ill r equire a ccountability f or a chieving p ublic p olicy o bjectives, a nd t rusted d ata sharing is essential t o p roviding c ross-sector c on dence t hat s ma c ities a re l egitimately a chieving public bene ts.
For e xample, i nitiatives l ike t he N ew L ab’s C ircular C ity p rogram a re e xploring h ow “ circular data” — the c ollection, p roduction, a nd e xchange o f d ata a nd b usiness i nsights b etween p ublic- and private- sector s takeholders — c an f acilitate e conomic d evelopment t o b ene t b oth g overnment and businesses. C rucially, b usiness b ene ts e xtend b eyond t he c ompanies g enerating t he 'circular data'. Cross-sector d ata s haring c an g enerate b ene ts a cross a n e ntire e cosystem t hat i ncludes government, b usinesses p roviding d ata, b usinesses o utside t he d irect c ollaboration, a s well as the public a t l arge.
DSAP Comment #87: (Both) D ue t o t he n ature o f t he p roject t here i s a n o bvious i nterest i n maximizing e conomic e lements t o o pen d ata, b ut t o e cho p revious f eedback i t i s e ssential to democratize b ene ts o f d ata w idely, n ot j ust t hose w ho a re a ble t o r eap t hose b ene ts or those who are c haritable e nough t o u se t heir s kills t o d evelop t his. I t i s a s ticking p oint f or m e t hat the MIDP include a c ommitment t o s haring t ools l ike d ata s tories w ith t he w ider p ublic, p a icularly with the people w ho c hose t o m ake t his n eighbourhood o f t he f uture t heir h ome. F rom a p ublic bene t perspective t his r equires m inimal e o a nd p rovides l arge p ublic b ene t. I t c ould b e a suggested feature o r r ole o f t he U rban I nnovation I nstitute, b ut s omething I w ould l ike t o s ee i n t he nal dra .
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs i s c ommi ed t o i ncreasing t ransparency a nd p ublic u nderstanding a round digital infrastructure i n t he p ublic r ealm. A s m entioned e arlier i n t he r esponses, a nd e xplored extensively in the rst s ection o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix, w e a re c ommi ed t o i ncluding increasingly d etailed d rawings a nd s uppo ing i nformation o n d igital s ystems p roposed as pa of the development p lanning p rocess. T hese m aterials w ould b e a vailable f or c onsultation a nd review. We are o pen t o e xploring t he b est f ormat f or t his, a nd d ata s tories c ould b e a u seful p a o f the process.
We f u her d emonstrate t his c ommitment a er i mplementation t hrough w ork s uch a s o ur co-created Digital T ransparency i n t he P ublic R ealm s ystem - a p roject t o e nhance p ublic a wareness and understanding o f t he d igital l ayer i n t he p ublic r ealm, a nd w hich p rovides i cons, a s ignage system, a digital c hannel f or c ommunication, a nd a t axonomy o f c oncepts r elated t o d ata c ollection and use.
Additionally, w e p ublish s ummaries o f R esponsible D ata U se A ssessments, w hich i nclude plain language d escriptions a nd a ccompanying i llustrations t o h elp e xplain h ow d igital s ystems work.
DSAP Comment #89: (Both) U rban d ata w ill b e m ade p ublicly a ccessible. A s o pen d ata? F or a fee? H ow w ill t he m odel b e nancially s ustainable?
Page 3 8 o f 6 9
Page 142 of 190
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Determining t he b usiness m odel f or t rusted d ata s haring w ill b e i mpo ant. I f t he p roject is approved, the U rban I nnovation I nstitute a nd t he c onso ium t hat a dvances i t c ould s erve t o c oalesce emergent local e o s a round t rusted d ata s haring i n a w ay t hat e nables k nowledge s haring a nd learning, and foster f uture t ests a nd p ilots o f t hese i nnovative a pproaches i n c ollaboration w ith l ocal innovation hubs a nd a ccelerators. A p o ion o f t he U rban I nnovation I nstitute s eed f unding c ould suppo exploring b usiness m odels a nd p ossible a pproaches t o e stablishing a d ata c ollaboration hub together with c onso ium p a ners. M ore i nformation o n p ossible a pproaches t o t rusted d ata a re included in section 3 .2.3.2 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix.
DSAP Comment #90: (SWL) ( Volume 2 , P age 4 02) H ow c an o pen d ata b e b oth o pen a nd s ecure?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
To c larify, t his s hould r efer t o o pen s tandards, n ot o pen d ata. T he p urpose o f t his p age is to point out that o pen s tandards a re n ot i n o pposition t o s ecurity. H istorically, m any s ystems h ave t aken a “security t hrough o bscurity” a pproach – t he i dea t hat a p roprietary s ystem h as i nherent security because i t’s h ard t o gure o ut h ow i t w orks. H owever, t his i dea h as b een g enerally d ebunked, and today’s o pen s ystems a re c onsidered s ecure p a ly b ecause t hey a re o pen. O penness allows many more e yes o n t he c ode, p rotocols a nd s ystems, w hich i ncreases s ecurity o ver t ime. F or example, Transpo L ayer S ecurity ( TLS), u sed f or s ecure H TTPS c ommunications b etween w eb browsers and web s ervers, i s a n i mprovement o ver t he p revious a pproach, S ecure S ockets L ayer, i n l arge pa due to t he g lobal s ecurity c ommunity’s c ollective a nalysis.
UDT/RDUA/Data Governance – Data Localization
DSAP Comment #94: (Both) W e h ad a d iscussion a bout d ata l ocalization a nd S WL’s c ommitment to i t. I n ote t hat i n t he d iscussion o f t he U DT i n t he M IDP ( page 4 34) S WL d oes n ot n ecessarily contemplate t he U DT h aving c ontrol o ver a ll o f t he d ata i t g overns. I t s tates, “ Facilitating access could be a ccomplished i n a v ariety o f w ays f rom h aving t he U rban D ata T rust a ctually h old t he data to having i t s et r ules t hat r equire c ollectors t o p ublish d e-identi ed, a ggregate o r n on-personal data in real t ime.” W hat d oes t his a pproach m ean f or d ata l ocalization? C ould t he U DT i mpose local storage as a c ondition? I d id n ot nd t his i n t he R DUA o r p rinciples, b ut I m ight h ave m issed i t s omewhere in the d ocuments.
DSAP Comment #95: (Both) I f S WL c annot g uarantee t hat d ata r emains e xclusively w ithin Canadian j urisdiction, i n l ight o f t he ( foreign) s urveillance p rovisions c ontained i n t he U .S Patriot Act, the F ISA A mendments A ct a nd E xecutive O rder 1 2333, h ow c an i t g ive a ssurance t hat t he privacy and security o f T orontonians w ill b e p rotected i n a ny c ases w here t heir d ata m ay r eside i n o r transit via the United S tates?
DSAP Comment #96: (Both) T he p ublic h as s poken l oudly i n f avour o f d ata r esidency. W hile t here is r eason t o d ebate w hether d ata r esidency p rovides i ron c lad s afeguards ( it d oesn’t), t he public clearly f eels m ore c omfo able w ith d ata r esident i n C anada. B est e o i sn’t g ood e nough. A clear commitment i s n eeded.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Page 3 9 o f 6 9
Page 143 of 190
DSAP Comments #94 through #96 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
The d ecision o n w here t o s tore d ata i s b ased o n m any c onsiderations, i ncluding w hether there is su cient t echnical a nd p hysical a rchitecture t o s tore t he d ata s ecurely, t he c osts o f s toring the data abroad v ersus i n t he o rganization’s h ome c ountry, a nd a pplicable l aws.
In t he r esolution p rocess f or t he T hreshold Issues, w ith r espect t o t he o perations o f d igitally enabled solutions i n Q uayside, S idewalk L abs h as a greed ( i) t hat p ersonal i nformation w ill b e s tored and processed i n C anada; a nd ( ii) t o u se c ommercially r easonable e o s t o s tore a nd p rocess non-personal d ata i n C anada. S hould e xceptions b e r equired, t hey w ill b e d etermined o n a case-by-case b asis t hrough a r eview p rocess.
UDT/RDUA/Data Governance – De-Identi cation/Data Protection
DSAP Comment #97: (SWL) M uch o f t he c laimed p rivacy p rotection f or p ersonal d ata c reated and/or u sed w ithin t he p roposed p roject d epends o n r obust d e-identi cation. H owever, this is problematic i n s everal r espects. D oes S WL r ecognize t hat u nder C anadian l aw d e-identi ed personal information, w hether a t t he i ndividual o r a ggregate l evel, r emains g overned b y t he r elevant privacy laws a nd c ontinues m any o f t he s ame p rotections a s t he o riginal p ersonally i denti able information, e.g. a ccountability, p urpose s peci cation, o penness?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs c omplies w ith a ll a pplicable p rivacy l aws a nd a pplies t he r elevant l egal t erms as de ned in t hose l aws, a nd i nterpreted b y t he c ou s.
Sidewalk L abs v iews r obust d e-identi cation a s o ne p a o f a m ulti-pronged r esponsible data use approach t hat i t a pplies t o i ts p rojects. S idewalk L abs’ R esponsible D ata U se G uidelines push for de-identi cation b y d efault, a nd o ur R esponsible D ata U se A ssessment ( discussed i n d etail in section 2.2.2 o f t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix) m itigates p rivacy r isks b y a sking t he questions to e nsure t he m inimum a mount o f d ata n eeded t o a chieve t he b ene cial p urpose ( i.e. one that bene ts i ndividuals o r t he c ommunity) i s c ollected a nd u sed. T he A ssessment f u her s ystematically identi es p rivacy r isks b y r equiring d ata c ollectors t o a nticipate a nd a iculate t he r isks that could be involved, a nd t hen p roactively d evelop s olutions t o m itigate t he r isk b efore a d ata c ollection or use activity i s i nitiated.
DSAP Comment #98: (SWL) D e-identi cation i s n otoriously d i cult t o a chieve i n m any c ases, notably l ocation t racking d ata. A chieving r eliable d e-identi cation ( i.e. w ith i nsigni cant risk of re-identi cation) d epends o n t he t ype o f d ata c ollected, t he u ses t o w hich i t i s p ut a nd the availability of o ther i nformation s ources. I n p a icular, d e-identi cation a t s ource, a s i s t he p roposed default, does n ot g uarantee i t c an't b e r e-identi ed l ater b y c ombining w ith o ther d ata.
DSAP Comment #99: (SWL) H ow d oes S WL p ropose t o e nsure t hat d e-identi cation i s r obust, esp. i f i t m ay b e m atched a gainst o ther d ata s ources a er t he p oint o f c apture? W hat speci c de-identi cation t echniques d oes S WL i ntend t o u se w ith w hat t ypes o f d ata? W hat h as SWL's experience b een w ith t hese t echniques t o d ate?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Page 4 0 o f 6 9
Page 144 of 190
DSAP Comments #98 and #99 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Sidewalk L abs a cknowledges t he c hallenges a ssociated w ith r obust d e-identi cation. As noted in comment 9 8, a chieving r eliable d e-identi cation i s h ighly c ontextual a nd d epends o n f actors such as the s peci c d ata b eing c ollected a nd t he a vailability o f o ther i nformation s ources.
Accordingly, w e a re c ommi ed t o a pplying best p ractices a nd s tandards ( e.g. I SO/IEC 20899:2018) for selecting a nd a pplying a ppropriate d e-identi cation t echniques, s uch a s d i erential p rivacy and k-anonymity.
As n oted i n t he M IDP, S idewalk L abs w ould o nly b uild s olutions w hen t here a re n o a dequate, existing solutions a vailable f or p urchase. S idewalk L abs h as a lready b egun i dentifying a nd e valuating vendor technologies t hat a pply b est-in-class p rivacy-preserving f eatures, s uch a s o n-device de-identi cation, t hat m ight b e a pplied i n Q uayside. F or e xample, s ection 2 .2.3.2 i ncludes a Responsible D ata U se A ssessment t hat w as c onducted f or a p ilot t o e valuate a s olution that uses on-device d e-identi cation t o m easure t he ows o f p eople a nd d i erentiated t ranspo ation modes through s treets a nd o pen s paces f or p lanners a nd t ranspo ation m anagers.
DSAP Comment #100: (SWL) S idewalk d id n ot i nclude t he u se o f s ynthetic d ata a s p a o f t heir proposals. F or e xample, f or c reating p ublic data s ets, s ynthetic d ata c an p rovide a r easonable solution for p rotecting p rivacy b ut m aintaining t he s tatistical p rope ies o f t he d atasets. W ould synthetic data be a h t ype o f u rban d ata? M ore g enerally, a s I w as r eading t he d ocument t here w ere many instances w here s ynthetic d ata w ould b e a g ood s olution t o t he p roblem i denti ed. I w ould recommend t hat t his b e i ncluded i n t he s cheme t o c reate a t rusted p rocess f or d ata u se and disclosure.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Thank y ou f or t his s uggestion. S idewalk L abs p lans t o s uppo e xploration o f s ynthetic data, in addition t o o ther p rivacy-preserving s olutions s uch a s d i erential p rivacy a nd h omomorphic encryption. O ne a venue m ight b e t hrough t he i nitial w ork o f t he U rban I nnovation I nstitute, especially if a k ey f ocus f or t he U II w ere t o b e a dvancing c apacity f or i nfrastructure a nd p rocesses to suppo trusted d ata s haring. A dditional i nformation o n t hese q uestions i s f u her p rovided i n s ection 3.2.3.2 in the f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix.
DSAP Comment #101: (SWL) W hen e ntities a re m aking c laims a bout d e-identi cation, t here should b e a m echanism t o c e ify t hat t hey h ave i mplemented g ood p ractices. T here a re many cases where e ntities m ake c laims a bout d e-identi cation b ut u nder f u her e xamination t he practices are not v ery r obust. G iven t he r ole o f d e-identi cation i n m aintaining p ublic t rust i n t he d ata ecosystem, this s hould b e a ccompanied b y a c e i cation m echanism ( say, b y t hird p a ies) a s p a of the requirements. T he s ame w ould b e f or t he c reation o f s ynthetic d ata.
Sidewalk Labs Response: Thank y ou f or t he c omment. S idewalk L abs i s m onitoring d evelopments i n t his a rea w ith interest, and would c onsider p a icipating. W e a re a lso m onitoring r elated w ork b y o rganizations s uch as the CIO Strategy C ouncil, w hich i s e stablishing s tandards a round d ata g overnance, i ncluding anonymization/de-identi cation.
Page 4 1 o f 6 9
Page 145 of 190
DSAP Comment #102: (SWL) I n a ddition t o c omments a bove r egarding t he i nadequacy a nd di culty o f d e-identi cation a t s ource, I w ant t o s tress t hat t hese d ata p rotections d o not work for individuals a nd g roups t hat a re t iny m inorities o r o utliers. T hese i ndividuals a re a lso t he most vulnerable t o d ata a buse a nd m isuse. P rivacy w ill b e b reached. T here i s l i le d iscussion of what will happen w hen i t i s i nevitably b reached. O ther t han a ssuming t hat p rivacy m easures w ill be in place, what a re t he p lans f or g overning a nd p rotecting t he d ata o f i ndividuals t hat h ave t he m ost at risk? What w ill h appen w hen p rivacy i s b reached a nd t he d ata i s o pen t o b ad a ctors?
Sidewalk Labs Response: Your c omment h ighlights a c hallenge f or i ndividuals w ho b elong t o m inority a nd o utlier groups, and Sidewalk L abs a cknowledges t he n eed t o e nsure f or e ective d ata p rotections f or t hese individuals. Fu her w ork i s n eeded, a nd m ay i nvolve e ngaging i ndividuals i n a n o ngoing, i terative c o-design process.
Sidewalk L abs d etails i ts a pproach t o R esponsible D ata U se, i ncluding i ts R esponsible D ata Use Assessment T ool ( RDUA), i n s ection 2 .2 o f t he D igital I nnovation A ppendix. T he R DUA w as inspired by Privacy I mpact A ssessments a nd i ncorporates t he p rivacy-related c onsiderations f ound in them. However, S idewalk L abs b elieves t hat R esponsible D ata U se n eeds t o a lso a ddress c oncerns that may relate t o g roups o f p eople o r c ommunities, a nd s o t he R DUA r equires r outine c onsideration of how data-related a ctivity m ay i mpact g roups o f p eople o r c ommunities. F or e xample, t he R DUA requires explanations f or t he b elow q uestions: ● Could t he a nticipated u se o f t he d ata o r t echnology h arm, r esult i n u nforeseen consequences, o r b ene t c e ain i ndividuals, g roups o f p eople, o r c ommunities t o t he detriment o f o thers i n u nintended o r u nexpected w ays? ● Could i t r esult i n a n i ndividual o r g roup b eing t reated d i erently t han o thers, s uch a s t o determine e ligibility f or a s ervice o r b ene t? ● Could t he a nticipated u se o f t he d ata o r t echnology h arm, r esult i n u nforeseen consequences, o r b ene t c e ain i ndividuals, g roups o f p eople, o r c ommunities t o t he detriment o f o thers i n u nintended o r u nexpected w ays? ● Could i t r esult i n a n i ndividual o r g roup b eing t reated d i erently t han o thers, s uch a s t o determine e ligibility f or a s ervice o r b ene t?
Our a pproach t o i nclusive a nd p a icipatory p lanning a nd d esign i s p rovided i n s ection 2.3 of the Digital I nnovation A ppendix. W e b elieve t hat c ommunities t hrive w hen t hey a re e ngaged and there are equitable o ppo unities t o p a icipate i n s haping t he p laces, t echnologies, a nd p olicies around them.
A c o-creative, p a icipatory d esign p rocess m ust s ta w ith i dentifying p roblems, n ot s olutions. It is insu cient t o h ave a lready d eveloped a s olution a nd t hen s olicit f eedback f rom d iverse groups on that s olution. D esign m ust b e “ with” a nd n ot “ for” t he e ventual u sers a nd s takeholders of a solution. Sidewalk L abs u ses a r ange o f m ethodologies t o a chieve a m ore i nclusive a nd p a icipatory approach to p lanning a nd d esign. S idewalk L abs i s n ot p rescriptive i n o nly u sing o ne p rocess, b ut rather combines m ethods, s uch a s d esign r esearch a nd d igital p rototyping, t o u nderstand p eople’s needs and c o-develop s olutions. T his i ncludes a m ix o f a pproaches, p rinciples, c apacity b uilding, and new tools t hat S idewalk L abs h as u sed t o h elp m ake p lanning a nd d esign m ore i nclusive. F or example, Sidewalk L abs h as e ngaged G RIT T oronto t o e nsure a d iversity o f b ackgrounds, l ived e xperiences, and technical s kill l evels i s i ncluded i n u ser t esting.
Co-design i s a n a pproach u sed b y S idewalk t o e nsure i nclusive p a icipation i n d esign. To date, Sidewalk L abs h as s pent o ver 7 5 h ours c o-designing p ublic a menities w ith o ver 2 00 m embers of the disability a nd a ccessibility c ommunities i n T oronto, i ncluding p rofessional d esigners, a dvocates, and especially p eople w ho s elf-identify a s h aving l ived e xperience o f d isability. A s a r esult o f these
Page 4 2 o f 6 9
Page 146 of 190
sessions, S idewalk L abs h as d ra ed 2 2 a ccessibility p rinciples a nd i ncorporated o ver 1 00 recommendations f or i mprovement i n t heir i deas.
DSAP Comment #103: (SWL) T o a dd t o t he p rior c omment, i t i s n ot w hether a b reach w ill h appen, it i s w hen i t w ill h appen a nd w hat y ou p lan t o d o a bout i t. I w ould b e i nterested i n s eeing a commitment t o t he r esidents a nd u sers. N o o ne w ants t o t hink o f a b reach, b ut I t hink moving forward it i s i mpo ant t o m ake t angible c ommitments t o u sers, s omething i n t he l ine o f D esjardins move to o er a ll m embers f ree, l ifelong p rotection a er t heir d ata b reach.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs’ a pproach t o t he r isk o f d ata breaches i s a ddressed i n s ection 1 .5.5 o f t he Digital Innovation A ppendix. S idewalk L abs a pplies b est p ractices t o f ul l i ts r esponsibility t o p revent network and d ata b reaches b efore t hey o ccur, a nd a lso r ecognizes i ts o bligations u nder t he P ersonal Information P rotection a nd E lectronic D ocuments A ct ( PIPEDA) t o m aintain a ppropriate safeguards that i nclude p hysical, o rganizational, a nd t echnical m easures t o e nsure t he s ecurity o f n etworks and data t hat i t c ontrols.
These m easures i nclude: ● Implementing i nternationally r ecognized i nformation s ecurity s tandards, s uch a s t he I SO 27000 s eries o f s tandards. ● Conducting T hreat R isk A ssessments/Vulnerability A ssessments a nd p enetration t esting. ● Developing, i mplementing, a nd m aintaining a n i nformation s ecurity p rogram t o p roactively assess r isks a nd i mplement s afeguards. ● Rigorously u pdating a nd p atching o perating s ystems, rmware, a nd s o ware. ● Continuous m onitoring f or u nusual n etwork a ctivity. ● Physical m easures t o l imit p hysical a ccess t o d igital i nfrastructure. ● Administrative m easures t o l imit s ystem a nd d ata a ccess. ● Security p rocedures a nd r egular t raining. ● End-to-end e ncryption, a s a pplicable. ● Contractual r equirements w ith v endors t hat p rovide a ppropriate s afeguards c onsistent with those a bove, a nd n oti cation o f n etwork o r d ata b reaches.
Additionally, S idewalk L abs b elieves i n a pplying b est p ractices t o a ddress a ny n etwork or data breaches t hat m ay o ccur, i ncluding h aving a c yber-incident r esponse p lan i n p lace, w hich includes: ● Detecting i ncidents a nd e scalating t o t he a ppropriate l evel w ithin t he o rganization. ● Investigating t he c haracteristics o f a n i ncident a nd i ts i mpact. ● Containing t he s cope a nd s everity o f i ncidents. ● Coordinating a nd m anaging r ecovery a ctivities. ● Assessing a nd m anaging r isks. ● Preserving i nformation a ssociated w ith t he i ncident, a s a ppropriate. ● Providing n oti cation t o i nsurers, a ected i ndividuals, a ected t hird p a ies, a nd a uthorities, as a pplicable. ● Analyzing t he i ncident a er t he f act t o p revent f uture i ncidents.
In t he e vent o f a n etwork o r d ata b reach, S idewalk L abs w ill d iligently e xecute r equirements under PIPEDA, o ther a pplicable l egislation, a nd c ontractual o bligations. T his i ncludes: ● Repo ing b reaches o f s ecurity s afeguards i nvolving p ersonal i nformation t hat S idewalk Labs controls t o t he P rivacy C ommissioner o f C anada w hen t he b reach i nvolves p ersonal information a nd i t i s r easonable i n t he c ircumstances t o b elieve t hat t he b reach c reates a real risk o f s igni cant h arm t o i ndividuals.
Page 4 3 o f 6 9
Page 147 of 190
● Notifying a ected i ndividuals a bout s uch b reaches a nd n otifying a ny t hird p a ies t hat may be able t o r educe o r m itigate h arm, s uch a s o ther o rganizations o r g overnment a gencies. ● Maintaining r ecords o f a ll b reaches.
We w ould a lso a ssess t he s peci c s ituation t o d etermine w hether a ny a dditional m easures are needed.
Finally, S idewalk L abs w ill c omply w ith r equirements r elated t o d ata b reaches s et o ut i n Wate ront Toronto’s I ntelligent C ommunity G uidelines.
UDT/RDUA/Data Governance – Security
DSAP Comment #104: (SWL) ( Volume 2 , P age 4 08) S ecurity b y d esign: D o t he t hree d esign g oals include r edundancy?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Redundancy i s o ne o f s everal m eans t hat S idewalk L abs u ses t o r ealize i ts d igital r eliability design goal, which i ncludes p reventing d isruption a nd l oss o f f unctionality. A s d escribed i n s ection 1.5.3.1 of the fo hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix, S idewalk L abs’ s trategy i s t o f ollow g eneral b est practices as established b y t he s ecurity c ommunity f or a ll t he t echnologies i t d evelops o r m aintains, such as SOC 2 a nd I SO 2 7001 f or a pplicable p roducts a nd s ervices, w hich b oth a ddress r edundancy in the context of e nsuring s ystems a vailability.
DSAP Comment #105: (SWL) O ne of the glaring omissions of this proposal is a robust discussion of resilience. E ven t hough i mproved r esilience, b e i t a gainst w eather e ects, t errorism, etc., c an b ene t f rom a s trategic d eployment o f t echnology, i t c an o nly b e a chieved u sing a “resilience by d esign” a pproach. T here w as s ome d iscussion o f t echnological r esilience o n p g. 4 08, Vol 0 but this is i nsu cient.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs a cknowledges t hese c oncerns. K ey t hemes i n o ur a pproach i nclude: t he impo ance of published s tandards a nd o pen a rchitecture, A PIs a nd s ource c ode f or i nteroperability t o enable exibility a nd i nnovation; p reventing d isruption a nd e nabling r esiliency t hrough t he u se of modular components; e nsuring i ntegrity a nd r eliability o f d igital s ystems t hrough d etection a nd auditability; and p roactively p reparing f or i ncidents t hrough t hreat m odelling a nd e nsuring r esponse readiness. Sidewalk L abs l ooks f orward t o f u her f eedback a nd a grees t hat r esilience-by-design should be fundamental t o t echnologies d eployed i n u rban e nvironments. S ection 1 .5 o f t he f o hcoming Digital Innovation A ppendix d escribes S idewalk L abs’ a pproach t o o pen a nd r esilient t echnology design and implementation i n d etail.
DSAP Comment #106: (Both) A ssuming t he s ecurity b y d esign r esults i n a s ystem t hat i s d i erent than t he C ity’s s ystems o f t oday, w ill t his t ax c ity s ta t o m aintain? W ill i t m ake t he r est of the City’s systems m ore v ulnerable? H ow w ill t he t wo s ystems b e i ntegrated g iven t hat l egacy s ystems are likely proprietary?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Page 4 4 o f 6 9
Page 148 of 190
In a ddition t o a dherence t o W ate ront T oronto p olicies a nd I ntelligent C ommunity G uidelines, Sidewalk L abs i s c ommi ed t o e nsuring t hat t he d igitally e nabled s ervices i t a dvances for Quayside meet l ocal g overnment s tandards, i ncluding i nteroperability. T he s peci cs o f h ow t o e nsure security by d esign, a long w ith i nteroperability a nd r easonable m aintenance, w ill b e a ddressed t hrough a collaborative p rocess i n f uture p hases o f d evelopment p lanning, i f t he p roject p roceeds. Standards are a n i mpo ant p a o f i nteroperability, a nd S idewalk L abs i s c ommi ed t o s uppo ing the work of Canadian-led s tandards e o s, i ncluding w ork b y g roups l ike O penCity N etwork a nd t he CIO Strategy C ouncil.
Intellectual Prope y / Patent Pledge / Procurement
IP/Patent Pledge/Procurement – Testbed-Enabled Technology
DSAP Comment #107: (Both) T his s trikes m e a s a w eak o er. I t’s n ot t he p ercentage t hat’s t he problem, i t’s t he t erm. C ity b uilding t akes t ime a nd i nnovations t hat i nvolve c ity d evelopment play out over d ecades, n ot y ears. T en y ears i s t oo s ho a t ime f rame t o f ully b ene t. M oreover, as others have noted, t here i s r eason t o d oubt t he u tility o f t he p atent p ledge g iven i ts j urisdictional l imitations.
DSAP Comment #108: (Both) A s t he m ovie b usiness l earned l ong a go % o f n et p ro t i s h ard t o measure a nd e asily m anipulated p a icularly w hen a p roduct’s p ro ts n eeded t o b e e xtracted from overall c orporate a ccounts w ith r elatively a rbitrary a llocation o f o verhead c osts. T his i s very hard to value i n t he o verall b usiness c ase f or t he p ublic s ector. S hould W ate ront T oronto w ish to pursue this it n ecessarily n eeds t o b e a % o f g ross i ncluding a ssociated s ervices. T his d oes n ot f eel like a priority to m e. A m ore t angible c ommitment t o f ostering C anadian, O ntario, T oronto c ompanies would be more i mpac ul.
Note: Sidewalk to comment on the last sentence in terms of feasibility from their perspective and their business model of including be er commitment to Canadian/ON/TO companies.
DSAP Comment #109: (Both) O verall, I t hink t here a re a n umber o f h ighly q uestionable nancial arrangements i n t he p roposal. P roviding a nything s o ware-related a t c ost i s n ot a c oncession, it is an imposition. T he 1 0% f or 1 0 y ears i s a lso u nlikely t o b e a ppropriate a s ( 1) m ost p ro ts a re likely to be beyond t he 1 0 y ear h orizon g iven t he t imelines o f d evelopment a nd ( 2) i t i s e asy t o m anipulate the pro tability o f c omplex/custom s o ware b y d ividing t he c ontract i nto p rovision o f t he technology license a nd p rovision o f t he s ervices t o s uppo i ts r oll-out.
DSAP Comment #110: (SWL) W ould Q uayside a lone q ualify a s a l arge e nough d eployment t o satisfy t he “ test-bed c onditions” a s a p re-requisite f or p ro t s haring?
DSAP Comment #114: (Both) T here w as a l ack o f a ny f orm o f a v aluation m odel f or d ata c ollected. Pg. 2 21 - 1 0 p ercent o f p ro ts s hared w hen p roduct w as s old t o s econd c ity p ost W T. T his valuation is based o n p roduct m odels o nly - t here w as n o m ention o f h ow a ny d ata v aluation w ould be monetized. For e xample - n ot s elling t he a ctual p roduct o r d ata f rom t hat s peci c p roduct - b ut t he vaster data collected f or t he o verall e xecution o f t his p roject, s tage b y s tage a nd g ate b y g ate. H ere could be the most v aluable d ata s et a vailable f or v aluation - t he a ctual r un b ook a nd i nsights f rom t he execution of the M IDP. W ould t his a lso b ecome p ro t s hared w hen S WL a dvises t he n ext c ity o n s uch a program based o t he i nitiation a nd e arly s uccess o f t his M IDP.
IP/Patent Pledge/Procurement – Patent Pledge
Page 4 5 o f 6 9
Page 149 of 190
DSAP Comment #119: (Both) “ The o nly c ondition i s t hat t hose t aking a dvantage o f t he p ledge n ot asse t heir C anadian p atents a gainst S idewalk L abs o r i ts a liated c ompanies.” — T his condition, emphasized i n t he p resentation, i s n ot n early a s e quitable a s i t s ounds. I t e ectively m eans that in order t o u se S WL t ech, y ou h ave t o g ive t hem a ll o f y ours — i t b asically r emoves t he a bility of small rms t o e xercise o r p atent a nything. T his i s a h igher i mposition o n t he s mall rm t han t he large.
DSAP Comment #121: (SWL) E xplain h ow t he p atent p ledge g ives i nnovators i n t he T oronto ecosystem a n o ppo unity t o s cale g lobally.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #107 through #110, #114, #119 and #121 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
The d iscussions a round s hared v alue w ith t he p ublic s ector a nd t he p atent p ledge h ave evolved, incorporating f eedback r eceived t hrough p ublic c onsultation a nd t he D SAP.
Sidewalk L abs h as a greed t o s hi t o a r evenue s tream o n p roducts a nd s ervices p iloted in Wate ront Toronto-facilitated t estbed a rea, b ased o n g lobal n et r evenues, w here n et r evenue w ill mean all consideration r eceived b y S idewalk L abs l ess a greed u pon d eductions. T he p ercentage and time frame f or t he v alue s hare w ill b e nalized b efore e ntering i nto t he P rincipal I mplementation Agreements. T o t he e xtent t hat d ata i s u sed t o e nhance t he T estbed E nabled T echnologies, and more of t hose t echnologies a re s old a s a r esult, t his e nhanced v alue r e ected i n s ales w ould be caught by the v alue s hare.
Based o n y our f eedback a nd w hat w e’ve h eard i n t he e cosystem, r ather t han l imiting t he pledge to Canadian s o ware a nd h ardware p atents c overing d igital i nnovations, S idewalk L abs i s also including those p atents w orldwide, e nsuring t hat t he p ledge i n f act a ligns w ith t he f oundational objectives of suppo ing C anadian-resident i nnovators. I n p ractice, t his p ledge m eans t hat a C anadian-resident company c ould b uild o n a h ardware o r s o ware p atent c overing d igital i nnovation led by Sidewalk Labs i n a ny c ountry, g reatly e xpanding t he c ompany's p otential f or i nnovation a nd g rowth. Any such granted p atents w ould b e l isted o nline a s a p ledged p atent. T he p roposed p atent p ledge would remain s ubject t o d efensive t ermination.
In t erms o f u nderstanding t he v alue a nd i mpact, p atents c an p lay a k ey r ole i n s purring or suppo ing the i nnovation e cosystem b y e nabling p a ies t o p rotect i nventions d eveloped t hrough rigorous research a nd d evelopment e o s. I n r ecent t imes, h owever, s ome p a ies h ave b ecome concerned that h olders o f p atents m ay h ave a n a dvantage t hat h as t he o pposite e ect. S idewalk L abs heard those c oncerns e xpressed i n c onnection w ith t he Q uayside p lan a nd w anted t o t ake a proactive step in a lleviating t hem.
Also w ith r espect t o c oncerns, t he d eterrent e ect o f l itigation f or p atent i nfringement in No h America a nd o ther c ountries w ith o ther s trong p atent r egimes i s r eal a nd l argely d ue t o very high defence c osts, w hich c an b alloon i nto m illions o f d ollars. T o c ombat t his r eality, s ome c ompanies conduct s earches, a nd/or h ire l egal c ounsel t o d o t he s ame, s eeking t o i dentify w hether an invention could b e i nfringing, i n o rder t o m inimize t heir e xposure t o l awsuits. S ome c ompanies a lso go so far as to o btain a l egal o pinion t hat a p roposed c ourse o f a ctivity w ould n ot i nfringe a t hird p a y’s patent rights, a lso k nown a s a f reedom t o o perate o pinion. I n 2 010, a f reedom t o o perate o pinion over so ware w as e stimated t o c ost a t l east U SD $ 10,000. T his c ost h as p resumably i ncreased over the last d ecade d ue t o i ncreased lings o f s o ware p atents, m arket c rowding, a nd t ypical legal fee increases o ver t ime. T o m any e ntrepreneurs, t his c ost i s p rohibitive, s o t he c hoices l e are to avoid innovating i n a p a icular a rea o r t o i nnovate a nd h ope t o n ot b e d eemed i nfringing a nd sued. Large
Page 4 6 o f 6 9
Page 150 of 190
technology c ompanies i n t he U nited S tates r ecognized t his i nnovation d eterrent a s a s erious enough issue t hat r esolutions w ere s ought. O ne s uch r esolution, n otwithstanding t hat i t a ctually reduces some o f t he v alue o f t he p atent t o t he p atent h older, w as t he i ntroduction o f p atent p ledges by companies s uch a s M icroso , I BM, a nd G oogle, a mong o thers.
The d evelopment o f i ntellectual p rope y w ould c e ainly f orm a p a o f S idewalk L abs’ business strategy. H owever, a sse ing p atents i s n ot a c ornerstone o f S idewalk L abs’ b usiness m odel. Sidewalk Labs i s i n a u nique s ituation i n t hat i t b oth w ishes t o a nd i s a ble t o s hare t he v alue o f c e ain key intellectual p rope y d eveloped f or t he T oronto p roject w ith t he t ech c ommunity i n C anada to stimulate a m uch-desired i nnovative e cosystem. S peci cally, S idewalk L abs’ g oal i s t o b uild next-generation c ommunities t hat c ombat problems i t h as i denti ed i n g lobal c ities t oday. An impo ant p a o f t he a dvancements i n t hese c ommunities w ould b e p atented digital-innovation-enabling t echnologies. R ather t han m onopolizing s uch p atented t echnologies, Sidewalk L abs w ould p refer t o s timulate t he i nnovation e cosystem i n C anada b y a llowing Canadian-resident i nnovators t o l everage i ts w ork t o e nhance t he r ate o f i nnovation t o a level that Sidewalk L abs a lone c ould n ot a chieve. A s g lobal c itizens, w e a re a ll i n a r ace t o m ake c ities more sustainable, a ordable, a nd i nclusive, a mong o ther a mbitious g oals, a nd o ur c ompetitor is the status quo.
This p ledge w ould g o i nto e ect i mmediately a er t he s igning o f P rincipal I mplementation Agreements w ith W ate ront T oronto.
DSAP Comment #116: (SWL) ( Vol. 3 , P age 1 12): W hat d oes “ practical” m ean i n t erms o f t he development o f t he a dvanced s ystems? I f d eveloped b y S WL, w ill S WL o wn t he I P a nd license it to WT? I f s o, w hat a re t he t erms o f t he l icense? D oes S WL s uggest t hey h ave u nilateral r ights over the development o f t he a dvanced s ystems f or Quayside a nd V illiers W est?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
In t he c ontext o f t he d evelopment o f t he a dvanced s ystems, “ practical” m eans w herever it commercially r easonable t o d o s o - i .e., t hat a c apable v endor w ho c an p rovide s ervices to help develop a dvanced s ystems e xists i n a ppropriate p roximity t o t he p roject s ite.
WT i s n ot a nticipated t o b e a l icensee f or a dvanced s ystems s ince i t d oes n ot t ypically have operational o versight o f a ny i nfrastructure i mprovements p ost-development. I t s hould be noted that, with t he e xception o f d ynamic r oads, a dvanced s ystems a re p roposed i n p lace o f t raditional systems that w ould n ormally b e p rivately o perated. T here a re o nly a l imited n umber o f c ases t hat a public agency m ay b e a l icensee o f a S WL-developed t echnology, w hich i n t he c urrent p roposal would apply to d ynamic c urb a nd K oala.
SWL g enerally d oes r etain o wnership t o I P i t d evelops. A ny l icenses r equired i n o rder f or system operations t o b e f unctional w ould b e p rovided o n c ommercially r easonable t erms. H owever, the overwhelming m ajority o f a dvanced s ystems c omponents d o n ot r equire d evelopment by SWL and would b e i mplemented t hrough t hird p a ies.
SWL n eeds t o b e a ble t o e nsure e ach s ystem i s f ully f unctional a nd a ppropriately i ntegrated into the development. W e a nticipate t hat t he d evelopment o f t he a dvanced s ystems w ould r equire procurements, a nd f or t hose c onducted b y S WL, w e w ould s eek t o e nsure t he C anadian ecosystem is aware o f a ll p rocurements, a nd p rioritize C anadian c ompanies b y b reaking t ies i n t heir favour. For fu her d etails o n p rocurement o f C anadian t echnology f or i mplementation i n t he p roject, please see Section 3 .2.2 o f t he D igital I nnovation A ppendix.
Page 4 7 o f 6 9
Page 151 of 190
DSAP Comment #117: (SWL) ( Vol. 3 , P age 1 13): “ SWL w ould t ransfer k nowledge t o t he p ublic administrator t o e nable i t t o t ake o ver t he a dvanced s ystems d evelopment r ole a er Q uayside and Villiers W est.” I s I P a nd s ource c ode, e tc p a o f t he k nowledge t ransfer?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Per t he r esolution o f T hreshold I ssues, W ate ront T oronto i s p repared t o s uppo a nd a dvocate for an “Innovation P lan”, a s i s c onsistent w ith t he W ate ront T oronto m andate o f p ursuing i nnovation to realize a mbitious p ublic p olicy o bjectives a nd w hich w ill b e a pplicable t o t he p roject. T here will be no fu her r eference m ade t o t he I DEA d istrict.
Regarding t he P ublic A dministrator, g iven t he r ole o f W ate ront T oronto a nd i ts g overnment pa ners, there i s n o n eed t o e stablish a n ew e ntity s uch a s t he P ublic A dministrator, a s o riginally contemplated in t he M IDP. I nstead, W ate ront T oronto w ill a dvocate f or t he c reation o f g overnment t ask force(s) to suppo i mplementation o f t he I nnovation P lan.
IP/Patent Pledge/Procurement – Procurement
DSAP Comment #123: (SWL) G iven t hat S WL i s c ommi ed t o c atalyzing a n ew u rban i nnovation ecosystem i n T oronto, p lease d etail t he t erms a nd c onditions o f y our S upplier A greements to ensure local i nnovators a re a ble t o o wn a nd c ontrol, a nd t hus c ommercialize t heir i nnovations.
DSAP Comment #124: (SWL) T he e conomic m odelling s hows t he p otential f or e conomic b ene t, but s peci c a ctions a re r equired t o r ealise t hose b ene ts. P erhaps m ore i mpo ant t han numbers of jobs a re n umbers o f rms s uppo ed. S idewalk p lans t o g ive p riority t o t echnology l ocal to Toronto, Ontario, o r C anada w hen p urchasing t echnology. T hese p lans n eed t o b ecome c ommitments both for Sidewalk d irect p rocurement a nd f or p rocurement f or t hose S idewalk c ontracts w ith. A speci c commitment t hat a t l east 5 0% o f t echnology a nd s ervices w ould b e p rocured f rom rms that are local t o T oronto, O ntario o r C anada w ould m ake t he e conomic b ene ts c redible. A 5 0% level would enable t he u se o f g lobal t echnology a nd s ervices t hat a re n ot a vailable o therwise a nd p erhaps incent those s uppliers t o c reate o r i ncrease t heir l ocal p resence.
DSAP Comment #125: (SWL) T here i s a p otential d isconnect b etween u nde akings t o s ource local t echnology a nd u sing t he b est t echnology. W hile t he b est t echnology m ay b e l ocal, it will not always b e. C hoices w ill o en n eed t o b e m ade, a nd t he p roposal w ould b e m ore c redible with a clearer a cknowledgement t hat l ocal o ptions w ill b e e xplored, b ut n ot a lways u sed.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #123 through #125 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
We h ave s pent e xtensive t ime c onsidering h ow t o s uppo C anadian c ompanies, w hile addressing the potential d isconnect b etween u nde akings t o s ource l ocal t echnology a nd u sing t he b est technology.
There a re 1 8 m ajor s ervices, w ith 5 2 s ubsystems, p roposed f or Q uayside. I t i s a nticipated that 75% of these w ould b e p rocured f rom 3 rd p a ies o ther t han S idewalk L abs. T his p resents a t remendous oppo unity f or C anadian c ompanies t hat a re w ell-positioned t o d eliver t hese s ervices. For technology p rocurements i t c onducts, S idewalk L abs w ill e ngage w ith t he i nnovation e cosystem, including l ocal a ccelerators a nd i ncubators, t o e nsure t he C anadian e cosystem i s a ware of all
Page 4 8 o f 6 9
Page 152 of 190
procurements. I n p rocurements t hat S idewalk L abs l eads, w e a re c ommi ed t o p rioritizing Canadian companies b y b reaking t ies i n t heir f avour.
Canadian c ompanies c annot o nly b ene t t hrough i ntegration o f t heir s olutions i nto Q uayside, but through a chieving g reater g lobal d istribution. Q uayside i s S idewalk L abs’ agship p roject, so we plan to m arket t he i nnovations s uccessfully i mplemented i n T oronto g lobally. T his m eans p romoting the po folio o f t echnologies a nd c ompanies t hat h ave c ontributed t o t he p roject. S idewalk Labs plans to feature t hese p a ners i n a n o nline i nnovations p o folio t o p rovide g lobal v isibility f or o ur pa ners. This p rovides a s ubstantial o ppo unity f or s uppo ing h igh-growth s cale u ps, a k ey a rea to advance Canadian c ompetitiveness.
How S idewalk L abs e ngages w ith s uppliers i s i mpo ant f or s uppo ing C anadian c ompetitiveness. We recognize t hat d eveloping s olutions f or c ontemporary u rban c hallenges w ill r equire c ollaborative inputs f rom m ultiple p a ies. F or e ngagements a nticipated t o r esult i n c reation o f I P, S idewalk Labs would w ork t o n egotiate t erms w ith c ompanies t hat c onsider h ow C anadian c ompanies can continue to b ene t f rom t heir i nnovations.
Canadian c ompanies c an b ene t n ot o nly t hrough i ntegration o f t heir s olutions i nto Q uayside, but through a chieving g reater g lobal d istribution. Q uayside i s S idewalk L abs’ agship p roject, so we plan to m arket t he i nnovations s uccessfully i mplemented i n T oronto g lobally. T his m eans p romoting the po folio o f t echnologies a nd c ompanies t hat h ave c ontributed t o t he p roject. S idewalk Labs plans to feature t hese p a ners i n a n o nline i nnovations p o folio t o p rovide g lobal v isibility f or o ur pa ners. This p rovides a s ubstantial o ppo unity f or s uppo ing h igh-growth s cale u ps, a k ey a rea to advance Canadian c ompetitiveness.
Overall Impressions of the MIDP
Overall Impressions – Size/Scale/Nature of MIDP Overall Impressions – Document Readability/Accessibility
DSAP Comment #126: (SWL) O verall, t he M IDP i s u nwieldy, a nd a g reat d eal o f c ross-referencing is r equired t o nd a ll r elevant d etails o n p a icular i ssues.
DSAP Comment #127: (SWL) O n rst s ight, t he p rint v ersion o f t he d ra M IDP i s v ery i mpressive, visually r ich i n t erms o f i ts p hysical s ize, s cope o f i deas a nd g raphic d azzle. B ut o n c loser inspection, it be er r esembles a c o ee t able b ook t o b e marveled a t b y ipping t hrough p ages t han a planning document t hat e nables t he c ritical s crutiny n ecessary f or p ublic d ecision-making.
DSAP Comment #128: (SWL) I n g eneral, t he M IDP m akes f or a g ood s tory; I w as u nder t he impression i t w ould b e m ore t actical i n n ature.
DSAP Comment #129: (SWL) T here a re s ome v ery p ositive a spects t o t he M IDP. I f eel l ike S WL i s more l ike a n a ggregator o f i nnovation a s t he p roposal i denti es m any i nnovative o r e cient approaches a nd a ggregates i nto a s ingle p roposal. T he S WL-backed i nnovation i s m ore limited, but the a ggregate p roposal p rovides a n i nteresting p ilot p roject t hat b rings t ogether m any common-sense o r i nnovative p roposals t o d evelopment ( it i s d escribed i n t he R iver D istrict chapter as a “ demonstration p roject”.
However, I a lso nd t he p roposal e xtremely r epetitive a nd o en u nconvincing w ith r espect to the unique v alue p roposition i t p rovides. S ome o f t he p roposals s eem u nnecessary o r i rrelevant (e.g. Super-PON o r t he m obility s ubscription). M any o thers a re i nteresting b ut d on’t r equire Quayside in
Page 4 9 o f 6 9
Page 153 of 190
order t o i mplement. I ndeed, m any o f t he c ommunity-based i nnovations ( e.g. K oala, s o ware de ned networks) c ould b e i mplemented w ithout S WL.
I a lso s truggle w ith t he s ize o f t he p roject. I f j ust Q uayside, m any o f t he p lans s eem o verly ambitious. Quayside i s r elatively s mall a nd t he b ene ts f rom t ra c s ensors a nd o ther s ma t echnologies in the community h ave l i le p rospect o f d elivering o ver a s mall f ootprint w ith a h andful o f l arge buildings. That i s n ot t o s ay t hat t he I DEA d istrict i s a m ust. I n f act, p a o f t he p roblem w ith t he p roposal is that it i s n ot a lways c lear w here t he p olicy w ill w ork w ith o nly Q uayside o r r equires a l arger s pace to get o the g round.
I nd s ome o f t he c ommunity d iscussion d ivorced f rom t he r eality o f h ow p eople l ive a nd work. The housing s ection s peaks o f p eople m oving f rom s maller u nits t o l arger f amily u nits a s i f in a major city people n ever l eave a s mall a rea. O ther a spects o f t he p lan t hat e nvision p eople l iving a nd working in the s ame a rea s eem u nlikely – c ommuting i s a f act o f l ife f or m any p eople a nd t he n otion that this will be a n everland i n w hich e verything – h ousing, j obs, s chools, r eligious i nstitutions, g yms, etc. is a block or t wo a way s trikes m e a s f antasy.
So t oo t he b ene ts f rom s ome o f t he d ata c ollection. F or e xample, i f t his i s a c ommunity with signi cantly r educed c ar u sage, w hat d oes t hat m ean f or t he v alue o f t he t ra c d ata? How useful is the p ilot p roject f or o ther p a s o f t he c ity t hat d o n ot h ave s imilar u sage r ates?
DSAP Comment #145: (SWL) C uriously, t his M IDP l acks t he b asic f eatures l arge c omplex documents n ormally i nclude t o e nhance r eadability - a c oncise e xecutive s ummary, a c omplete ne-grained t able o f c ontents a nd a c omprehensive s ubject i ndex. T he i mpression t hat the document has b een d esigned m ore f or p ublic p ersuasion t han s ystematic s crutiny i s r einforced w hen one turns to t he e lectronic v ersion. I t i s e specially p uzzling t hat a n e nterprise r enowned f or i ts d igital prowess doesn't o er a b rowser v iewable a nd s earchable v ersion o f t he d ocument. R equiring t he downloading of P DFs d eprives t he m any w ho a re n ot w ell s et u p f or t his m ode o f a ccess f rom c onvenient reading. The a bsence o f a s ingle v ersion o f t he e ntire d ocument t hwa s c omprehensive s earch. The 2-up double c olumn l ayout a nd t he a bsence o f a ctive l inks i n t he e ndnotes a dd f u her r eading obstacles.
Given t he g reat d eal o f c areful a nd s killful a ention p aid t o t he d esign o f t he M IDP, w hy was not greater p riority g iven t o a ccessibility a nd r eadability?
When s ubmi ing t he nal M IDP ( presumably t he d ra M IDP, p lus a ddenda), p lease p rovide the following t o b e er e nable p ublic s tudy: a . c oncise e xecutive s ummary, b . c omplete ne-grained table of c ontents, c . c omprehensive s ubject i ndex, d . r esponsive, b rowser v iewable, n avigable and searchable v ersion, e . a ctive l inks f or e ndnote U RLs, a nd m ore o f t hem, a nd f . s ingle, s earchable, 1-up PDF v ersion o f t he e ntire P lan, i n a ddition t o t he e xisting P DFs.
DSAP Comment #146: (SWL) D espite c ommitments t o “ prioritize a ccessibility”, t he M IDP w as released i n a n i naccessible f ormat a nd n o a ccessible a lternatives w ere p rovided. S idewalk commi ed to p rovide a ccessible v ersions “ within t he c oming w eeks,” b ut h as y et t o p roduce t hese (h ps://www.sidewalktoronto.ca/accessible-midp/), m ore t han a m onth f rom r elease. The high production d ocument e xcludes a l arge n umber o f T oronto r esidents.
This i s v ery c oncerning. I f t his i s i ndicative o f h ow a ccessibility w ill b e “ prioritized”-- a s an a e hought and a s eparate, s egregated m easure - - a ll t he c ommitments t o i nclusive d esign a nd a ccessibility ring false. T he d ocument i tself c ould h ave b een m ade a ccessible f rom t he s ta . T his w ould have aided all readers i n n avigating t he d ocument, nding r elevant s ections, a nd c reating m ore r eadable views on a variety o f d evices.
Page 5 0 o f 6 9
Page 154 of 190
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #126 through #129 and #145 through #146 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
We h ave t aken t he f eedback i n t hese c omments i nto c onsideration, a nd w e h ope t hat the fo hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix ( DIA) w ill b e m ore s uited t o y our n eeds a s e xpe reviewers focused o n t he d igital i nnovation e lements of t he p roposal. M oreover, i n t he D IA, w e f u her detail the accessibility p rinciples w e c o-created w ith t he c ommunity, i ncluding p lans t o c reate a working group consisting o f p eople w ith d isabilities w ho h as s tewardship o f t hese p rinciples a nd d irect input into the design p rocess i n t he n ext p hase o f p lanning, i f t he p roject i s a pproved.
The D IA i s a ccessible u pon d elivery, d emonstrating o ur c ommitment t o e nsure a ccess for everyone from t he b eginning. T he D IA i s a lso t akes i nto a ccount t hese s uggestions f or e nhanced readability, including:
● Executive s ummary ● Complete ne-grained t able o f c ontents ● Single s earchable P DF ● Active l inks f or e ndnotes a nd o ther U RLs
These r eadability s uggestions w ill a lso b e t aken i nto a ccount f or a ny f uture d ocuments.
DSAP Comment #130: (SWL) I f ound V olume 0 t o b e i nformative. I t p rovides s ome c ontext a round the v ision o f t he p roject. H owever, t he l evel o f d etail i s i nsu cient f or i mplementation a nd full evaluation.
I t oo w as d ispleased b y t he r epetitive n ature o f t he c ontent o r t he t endency t o s pread out the discussion o f a t opic a cross m ultiple v olumes.
It i s d i cult t o b e e verything t o e veryone. I n a empting t o d o s o, y ou e nd u p b eing n othing for anyone. H ow d oes S WL p ropose d istilling a ll o f t he p ublic f eedback t o a chieve t he b est outcome while recognizing t hat s ome o f i t m ay b e c ontradictory?
I c ontinue t o s truggle w ith t he g eographic s cope a nd t he e xpected o utcomes o f t his p roject. I feel that, a t t he s cale o f Q uayside, t he p roject w ill b e m ore o f a l iving l ab t han a f ully f unctional community. If i t i s a l iving l ab, w ill i t t olerate f ailure? W hat i s W T’s e xpectation? C learly, S WL f eels t hat full functionality c annot b e a chieved a t t he s cale o f j ust Q uayside.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs’ a pproach t o p ublic p a icipation i s g uided b y e ngagement p rinciples. O ur goal is to build a n eighbourhood t hat i s w elcoming a nd a ccessible f or a ll, a nd w here e very r esident, worker or visitor c an t hrive. I n o rder t o a chieve o ur g oal w e w ill w ork w ith a b road a rray o f T orontonians with di erent p erspectives a nd e xperiences o f t he c ity. W hat i t m eans t o b e w elcome, t o b e accessible, and t o h ave t he o ppo unity t o t hrive w ill c hange o ver t ime a s T oronto a nd t he n eeds o f its residents, workers, a nd v isitors c hange — w hich m eans o ur a pproach h as t o b e exible a nd a daptive. Working from p rinciples a llows t hat k ind o f exibility w ithout l osing s ight o f w hat’s i mpo ant. We a lso b elieve t hat p ublic e ngagement s hould i nclude o ngoing p rocesses f or i nclusive and pa icipatory p lanning a nd d esign, a s d etailed i n s ection 2 .3 o f t he D igital I nnovation A ppendix. We
Page 5 1 o f 6 9
Page 155 of 190
hope t hat t he r ecent r esolution o f T hreshold I ssues a nd t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation Appendix fu her d emonstrates h ow o ur t hinking a nd p lans c an a nd w ill c hange a er p ublic f eedback
While l istening i s a c rucial s tep i n t he e ngagement p rocess, i t i s j ust t he rst s tep. S idewalk Labs is commi ed t o i ntegrating f eedback t hroughout t he d esign a nd i mplementation p hases of its projects. Feedback i s c ollated i n i ts a nonymized f orm a nd p resented t o t he r elevant d esign, p lanning, and implementation t eams. W e b uild i n o ppo unities t o r epo b ack t o c ommunities a nd s takeholders on how t heir i nvolvement h as s haped t he o utcomes.
As o utlined i n t he a nswer t o q uestion # 159 Sidewalk L abs c onsiders a ll f eedback i t r eceives to inform its p lans. T hrough a nalysis w e a re a ble t o i dentify k ey o r e merging t hemes - v iews t hat are shared by a signi cant n umber. H owever a “ popular” i dea o r v iew i s n ot t he o nly m easure w e u se t o consider a representative v iew. W e a lso c onsider a nd s olicit t ypically u nderrepresented v oices i n t he design and development p rocess, a nd h ow w e m ight “ design f rom t he e dges” t o b ene t a ll. U ltimately, we are guided b y t he p roject g oals, a nd e quitable o utcomes. T here i s n o a lgorithm o r p e ect system for this kind o f d istillation, i t i nvolves i n d epth c onversations w ithin t he p lanning t eams a nd t hough ul approaches t o d esign.
DSAP Comment #133: (SWL) I t i s r eally u nclear t o m e w hat p e ains t o t he I DEA D istrict, w hat pe ains t o Q uayside a lone, w hat i s Q uayside + V illiers W est, a nd w hat i s s ome o ther a rea. It appears to b e f uzzy / j ump a round b etween s ections.
When y ou r ead t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix, w e h ope t hat t he g eography is clear, as it r e ects t he r evised g eographic s cope e stablished t hrough t he T hreshold I ssues r esolution process.
DSAP Comment #134: (SWL) T he M IDP i s a empting t o b e a p lan, a p roposal a nd a ' test-bed" a ll at o nce. O n o ne h and, t here i s a n a empt t o r etain t he o riginal s pirit o f t est-bed, e xperimentation and on t he o ther t o r espond t o r equests f or s peci city b y l aying o ut e lements o f a m ore t raditional urban plan. T here a re i deas t hat a re p roposed u nder w ell-established p rinciples a nd r egulatory frameworks (how b uildings m eet t he s treet, b uilding c odes), n ew p roposals t hat m ay e xist a t t he i ntersection of jurisdictional p olicy f rameworks c urrently u nder r evision ( privacy, d ata g overnance) a nd speci c technology p roposals t hat s eem n either p a icularly n ew, a nd i n s ome c ases a re a lready being done by o thers. T he r each o f t he p lan i s a mbitious ( and b eyond t he s cope o riginally a sked f or) and the gaps lie i n t he i nterstitials, i n h ow t he “ plan”, t he “ testbed” a nd t he “ proposal” t t ogether, o r do not t together. I t i s h ere w here t he g aps c an y awn w ide, w here t he p essimist m ay s ee s ocietal-level dangers, a nd t he o ptimist m ay s ee o ppo unity, t hough n ecessarily t inged w ith c aution.
It i s n ot a n ew d ebate i n t he r ealm o f i nnovation a nd t ransformation, b ut h ow d o w e w ork within what is w ell k nown, a nd y et c reate w hat i s y et t o b e u nderstood? I n t he s pirit o f t estbed, t he MIDP lives in a space ( Quayside, a nd p erhaps b eyond) t hat i s c urrently c onsidered p hysically “ empty”, though it is ce ainly n ot w ithout i ts h istory. G rand p lans u pon w hat i s c onsidered e mpty s pace h ave a problematic h istory, s tretching b ack t o c olonialism, a nd m ore r ecently m id-century u rban renewal and “world-fair” u rban f utures. T he M IDP h as g rand v ision o f s paces t hat e volve a nd r eact t o behavioural and e nvironmental p a erns, o f exible r esidential a nd c ommercial s paces, a nd o f t he s ystems of noti cation a nd m anagement d ependent o n d ata, s ensors a nd n ew t echnologies. A t t he same time, it is a t raditional d evelopment p lan o f b uildings, s treets a nd, i n s ome w ays i s r eminiscent of the grand visions o f p lans n ever r ealized ( The M etro C entre t hat r esulted i n t he C N T ower o n t he wate ront comes t o m ind, o r t he e xtension o f S t. J ames T own.). A s s uch t he M IDP s traddles a s pace of deep regulatory t issue a nd p hysical s peci city ( governed b y e xisting b uilding c odes, p lanning, zoning), and an u ndiscovered c ountry o f n ew t echnologies, d ata, t hough i t i n i tself o perates i n a n e xisting world of standards a nd l egacy t echnologies. A s s uch, t he M IDP m ust nd a w ay f orward n ot o nly within the
Page 5 2 o f 6 9
Page 156 of 190
policy a nd r egulatory e nvironment b ut a lso operationally, h ow n ew t echnologies w ill w ork with the legacy s tack, a nd h ow Q uayside w ill t t ogether w ith t he r est o f t he c ity b oth f rom a g overnance perspective a nd o perationally. I n m any c ases, S idewalk c hooses t o nd t his p ath i n t wo general ways.
First, i t p roposes a s et o f g overnance b odies t hat c urrently d o n ot e xist, u nder t he u mbrella of a “Public A dministrator” w ith i ndeterminate r esponsibilities a nd f unding. T he P ublic A dministrator resembles W ate ront T oronto b ut i s n ot n amed s peci cally a s s uch. A s h as b een m entioned repeatedly e lsewhere, i s n ot c lear h ow t hese n ew b odies a re f unded, o f w ho g ives t hem agency, and how t hey t i nto o ur d emocratic u rban g overnance c urrently i n p lace. A nd i s t here a v ersion of the plan t hat c ould m ove f orward w ithout t hese q uestions a nswered? O r b e er s tated i s t here a version of t he p lan t hat c ould m ove f orward w ithin t he e xisting p ublic g overnance s tructure w e have? We need m ore d etail o n w ho o wns w hat, w ho i s r esponsible f or o perations a nd m aintenance, and how procurement i s t o b e m anaged. T hese a re k ey q uestions t o b e a ddressed b efore w e c ould move forward w ith a n a pproval o f t he p lan a nd I t hink w e w ould n eed t o s ee m ore s peci cs.
Secondly, o n t he t echnology s tack s ide, S idewalk a empts t o r esolve t he t ension, b etween what exists a nd w hat d oes n ot, b y p roposing t o c onduct a udits o f e xisting t echnologies a nd companies and to e ngage w ith t hem, w ith a w elcomed l ocal b ias i n t erms o f p a icipation ( and I P b ut t hat has been dealt w ith e xtensively e lsewhere a s w ell). I n t he M IDP, w hen t here i s a n i denti ed t echnology gap, Sidewalk p roposes t o ll t hat g ap t hemselves. T he o nly e xception i s w here t he g ap s eems pa icularly complex a nd c ontroversial, i n w hich c ase t hey p ropose a t hird-pa y b ody ( such a s t he Urban Data Trust) T hese t wo d efault p ositions a re p roblematic.
In s ummary, i n a empting t o b e a t est b ed o n a n e mpty t ableau, b ut t o d o i t b y p roposing a very speci c d evelopment, c onnected t o a n a rea a lready g overned b y p ublic p olicy a nd r egulations, means that g overnance p roposals, a nd t he d evelopment a nd t echnology d evelopment p rocess, will need to be f ar b e er d e ned, w ith a gency a nd d ecision m aking d efaulting t o t he p ublic b ody, a nd practically, leveraging e xisting p ublic s tructures rst b efore c reating n ew o nes. I a lso s uggest w e s eparate the “test-bed” m uch m ore e xplicitly f rom t he “ proposal”, t o c reate a m ore a gile P lan w ith a ccommodation for uidity, e xperimentation, c ity-building p rocess i nnovation, m ore p rototyping, a nd f or far greater multi-pa y c ollaboration o ver a r ealistic t ime p eriod o f a d ecade. A llow t hings t o f ail, t o be incomplete, a nd t hen t o g raduate t o t he c ity o r s ociety e ntire, i n a n i nclusive a nd d emocratic way.
DSAP Comment #137: (Both) S hadow C ity a nd C ivic G overnance I nfrastructure: t he M IDP h as l ots of c alls f or n ew o rganizations t o b e i nvented. T hey s eem l ike p arallel i nventions t o i nstitutions we already h ave i n p a /full ( e.g. p ublic a dministrator f or t he I DEA d istrict - e conomic a nd development and p lanning d epa ments; O pen S pace A lliance - P ark P eople / p arks a nd r ec d epa ments. I think a fundamental p rinciple m oving f orward i s t hat w e d on’t i nvent n ew o rganizations / i nstitutions until we rst i nvest t he g overnment/NGO o nes t o s ee i f w e c an g row t hem rst. P age 7 1 o f t he V 3 states: “The innovative s olutions n eeded t o a chieve W ate ront T oronto’s p riority o utcomes r equire management and o versight b y d edicated, a ccountable, a nd nancially s elf-sustaining, c ommunity-based governance s tructures.” I w ould a rgue t hat g iven t he c omplexity o f d ata-governance e lements of this plan, i t w ill b e e xpensive a nd t echnically d i cult t o b uild t he r ight c apacity i nside d iscrete organizations, e specially f or a 1 2-acre s ite. E very n ew o rganization t hat i s s et u p h as o perations costs. The c apacity t o i nnovate n eeds t o b e f ocused i nside g overnment o rganizations rst s o that the lessons l earned c an b e s caled a nd s o t hat i nnovation e merges f rom d emocratically a ccountable processes. S imilarly, w hy i nvent n ew N FP o rgs w hat w ill r equire f unding w hen p erhaps s ome/the be er p a o f w hat i s p roposed c ould b e i ntegrated, m ore e conomically, i nto e xisting o nes with proper f unding.
Page 5 3 o f 6 9
Page 157 of 190
DSAP Comment #141: (Both) H ow d oes t his p roject a ect t he r est o f t he C ity’s o perations - infrastructure, i nclusion, m obility, e tc.? A re w e c reating a s iloed U topia t hat c ould b e t he target of disdain b y t he r est o f t he C ity?
DSAP Comment #164: (SWL) C osts o f c reating n ew g overnance m echanisms - T his p roject, a t the s cale o f t he d esired I DEA d istrict, m akes n ot e ven 1 % o f T oronto’s g eography a nd m akes me wonder a bout t he t radeo s f rom a n e quity p erspective o f w hat t he o ppo unity c ost o f creating the new g overnance t he M IDP r equests w ill b e. M unicipal scal b udgets a re v ery t ight r ight now, pa icularly a round s ta ng, t he a ssumption t hat b udgets w ill b e m ade f or w hat a t rst glance seem as redundant i nstitutions c ome o a s o ut o f t ouch w ith t he l ocal c anadian c ontext ( pa icularly from a position o f s ustainability o ver t he l ong t erm). T o e valuate t his p roposal t he C ity o f T oronto had to set aside $ 800,000, w hich I h ighly d oubt t hey e xpected w ould b e s pent a t t he b eginning o f the scal planning p eriod, b ut w hich w as a n ecessary m ove. S ure, i t c ame o ut o f d ebt nancing r eallocated from a c apital p roject n ow o n h old, b ut w hat i f t hat p roject i s f u her p ushed d own b ecause of this decision? T his p roject h as a n o ppo unity c ost f or a ll l evels o f g overnment, a nd t he M IDP should be more t hough ul a bout h ow t o m inimize t his.
New i nstitutions g row a s a r esult o f n eed, o en s pin o f rom e xisting i nstitutions, b ut w on’t do so until it i s c lear e xisting i nstitutions a re u nable t o meet o r h inder t hat e mergent r ole ( e.g. a s enior executive being s pread t oo t hin a s a r esult o f g rowth i n p o folio). N o o ne s hould d iscuss t he d evelopment of these p otential a gencies i n t his l evel o f d etail. I w ould r ecommend i nstead t o f ocus t heir proposal to recommendations o f w hat i s a bsolutely n eeded f or t he p roject a nd h ow S idewalk L abs is positioned to h elp i nstitutions g row i nto t heir p otential r oles.
DSAP Comments #134, #137, #141 and #164 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Questions o f o wnership, r esponsibility f or o perations a nd m aintenance, a nd p rocurement are very impo ant q uestions t o d iscuss. A nd w e a gree t hat m inimizing t he c osts t o g overnment, as well as building i nnovation c apacity i n g overnment, a re i mpo ant a nd m ust b e s trongly c onsidered throughout t his p roject. A s a r esult o f t he T hreshold I ssues r esolution p rocess, W ate ront Toronto and its g overnment s takeholders w ill b e l eading a f ocused e o t o c onsider a ppropriate g overnance mechanisms t ied t o t he I nnovation P lan. F u hermore, p er t he r esolution o f T hreshold I ssues, Wate ront T oronto w ill b e a dvocating f or t he c reation o f T ask F orces t hat b ring t ogether the relevant pa ies t o e stablish a ppropriate g overnance o f t he I nnovation P lan. T hese p resent s ubstantial innovation c apacity-building o ppo unities in g overnment a nd e nsure t hough ul c onsideration of operations f or i nnovations.
Sidewalk L abs p roposes t hat t he g reat m ajority o f d istrict-wide i nfrastructure s ervices proposed for Quayside b e o verseen a nd m anaged b y t he s ame b odies a s t hey w ould b e t oday: g overnment, non-pro ts, o r o ther r egulated b odies s uch a s p rivate u tilities. S igni cantly, t his i s t rue for systems located i n p ublic s paces a nd r ight-of-way s uch a s m obility, o utdoor c omfo , a nd o pen space management s ystems, a nd n otably t his a pproach i s s imilar t o b usiness-as-usual t oday, where an agency s uch a s c ity t ranspo ation m anages t ra c l ights a nd c ollects d ata o n s treet u sage; city parks depa ment o r n on-pro ts s uch a s E vergreen B rick W orks a nd T he B entway C onservancy manage public s pace u sage a nd o perations; a nd a u tility s uch a s T oronto H ydro m onitors e nergy usage to determine b illing. B uildings-related s ervices a nd s ystems a re p rivately o wned a nd o perated today, and depending o n t he nal p roject s tructure, S idewalk L abs m ay a ct a s p rimary o wner o f t hese systems — again, i n l ine w ith c ommon p ractice t oday.
Page 5 4 o f 6 9
Page 158 of 190
The l ist o f d igitally e nabled s ervices i n t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix p rovides a listing of t he s ubsystems t hat m ake u p e ach s ervice, a nd f or e ach s ubsystem: t ypical o perational oversight, the s uggested o perational o versight, a nd p roposed l ead f or p rocurement.
The p roposed a pproach f or p rocurement i s a lso f u her d etailed i n t he D igital I nnovation Appendix. Wate ront T oronto, S idewalk L abs, a nd i ts p a ners w ould p rocure a n a rray o f g oods a nd services for the Q uayside p roject. T hese p rocurements w ill b e g overned b y v arious p rinciples, d epending on whether i t w ould b e S idewalk L abs, a nother p rivate b usiness, o r a p ublic-sector o rganization conducting t he p rocurement. W hen c onducting p rocurement, p ublic-sector o rganizations, broader-public-sector o rganizations, a nd p rivate-sector o rganizations e ach h ave a d i erent set of default r ules t hat a pply t o t hem. F u hermore, a p urchaser m ay a gree t o a dopt m ore r igorous procurement s tandards, a s S idewalk L abs d id w hen e ntering i nto t he P lan D evelopment Agreement, where i n S chedule D i t a greed t o a bide b y s peci c p rinciples t hat w ould g overn a f ramework for procurement a er e xecution o f t he i mplementation a greements, a nd i n a ddition, t o a bide by fair and arm’s-length p rocurement s tandards.
Procurements by Wate ront Toronto Wate ront T oronto i s s ubject t o i ts o wn p rivate-sector p rocurement r ules a nd h as v oluntarily adopted and p osted a p rocurement p olicy o n i ts w ebsite d escribing t he r ules t hat t he o rganization generally follows w hen c onducting p rocurements. W henever W ate ront T oronto i s c onducting a procurement for t echnologies i n c onnection w ith t he Q uayside p roject, S idewalk L abs w ould e xpect Wate ront Toronto’s o rdinary p rocurement p olicy t o a pply, s ubject t o a ny a mendments o r s pecial exceptions that may b e a dopted w ithin t he p olicy.
Procurements conducted by Sidewalk Labs To f ul ll S idewalk L abs’ c ommitments i n t he P lan D evelopment A greement a nd s ubsequent Principal Implementation A greements, S idewalk L abs m ust p rocure g oods a nd s ervices f rom t hird pa ies. Some o f t hese p rocurements w ould i nclude p rocurement o f t echnology. I n t hese p rocurements, Sidewalk L abs w ould s eek t o e nsure t he C anadian e cosystem i s a ware o f a ll p rocurements, and to prioritize C anadian c ompanies b y b reaking t ies i n t heir f avour. T he s peci c m echanisms to achieve this, w hile e nsuring b est-in-class a nd f air v alue, w ill b e f u her c lari ed t hrough e ngagement with the industry.
As a p rivately h eld c ompany, o nly t he c ommon l aw o f t endering a pplies t o p rocurements by Sidewalk Labs e xcept t o t he e xtent t hat i t a grees o therwise b y c ontract. W hen e ntering i nto t he Plan Development A greement, S idewalk L abs a greed t o a bide b y c e ain a dditional s tandards a er execution o f t he P rincipal I mplementation A greements, n amely, f air a nd a rm’s-length p rocurement standards, w hich “ will s eek t o b alance — i n t he p ublic i nterest — t he u se o f m arket-based sourcing, on the o ne h and, a nd t he d irect f acilitation o f P urposeful S olutions f or i nnovation, o n t he o ther hand.”
DSAP Comment #135: (SWL) F or a d ocument t hat r epeatedly e mphasizes h uman-scale experiences a nd p rovides l ush i llustrations o f p rojected s treet l ife, t he l ack o f a n ' experience' perspective r elated t o t he d igital d imension i s s triking. T o e nable T orontonians t o g et a be er sense of this k ey a spect o f t he p roposal i t w ould b e very h elpful f or S WL t o p rovide a v ariety o f 'day in the life' scenarios f or Q uaysiders, e g a r esident, a w orker a nd a v isitor. T hese s cenarios s hould highlight the various w ays t hat d ata a bout t hem w ould b e c aptured b y v arious m eans, n ot j ust p roject installed sensors, b ut o ther d igital d evices, a s t hey t ravel t hrough t he Q uayside d istrict, w hat h appens to that data, w ho a ccesses i t, f or w hat p urposes a nd h ow t he p erson w ould b e a ected i mmediately and in the l onger t erm b y t hese d igital p rocesses.
Page 5 5 o f 6 9
Page 159 of 190
Sidewalk Labs Response:
We h ave c onstructed a d ynamic m odel o f t he p roposed d evelopment a t o ur 3 07 L akeshore Blvd E location t hat p rovides a n e xperience o f t he i nnovations p roposed f or t he p roject. B ased on this comment a nd o ther f eedback, w e a re c onsidering h ow w e m ight p rovide i ndividuals w ith additional ways t o e xperience a nd e ngage w ith t he p roposal.
DSAP Comment #136: (SWL) T he M IDP p rovides c ontext t hat r aises s ome u ncomfo able concerns. A n umber o f v ery s peci c d ecisions a re “ recommended”, a nd S idewalk L abs recognizes that t hose d ecisions a re u p t o d ecision m akers, b ut t he M IDP i s t he d ocument t hat w ill ultimately be put i n f ront o f d ecision m akers, i ncluding T oronto C ity C ouncil. B y l aying o ut b ureaucratic processes, and e ven H R d ecisions, t hose “ recommendations” w ill b ecome t he s ta ing p oint a nd i t should under no c ircumstance g et t o t hat p oint. S idewalk L abs b rings a n i mpo ant a nd v alued p erspective, but they a re n ot t o d ictate w hat g overnance o r r esource a llocation l ooks l ike w hen i t h as s uch impo ant implications t o t he w ork a head w ith a nd a er t his p roject. T his i s p a icularly t rue f or t he Urban Data Trust.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
As n oted a bove i n t he r esponse t o c omments # 4, # 62 t hrough # 67, a nd # 69 t hrough # 81, the intent for S idewalk L abs’ U rban D ata T rust p roposal w as t o e nsure r esponsible d ata u se a nd s uppo trusted data s haring. H owever, t he c lear f eedback w as t hat c reating a n ew s tandalone e ntity f or both of these functions w as n ot a p referred p ath. T he a greed-upon a pproach f rom t he T hreshold I ssues resolution process i s r esponsive t o t his f eedback a nd recognizes t hat W ate ront T oronto a nd i ts g overnment stakeholders l ead o n d ata g overnance. I t a lso r ea rms S idewalk L abs’ c ommitment t o comply with all applicable C anadian l aws, W ate ront T oronto’s D igital P rinciples a nd f o hcoming I ntelligent Community G uidelines, a nd a pplicable p olicy f rameworks.
Overall Impressions – Size/Scale/Nature of MIDP
DSAP Comment #138: (SWL) T here a re a n umber o f e xamples o f “ how” t he M IDP w ould b e implemented, b ut m ost o f t he p lan s eems t o b e f ocused o n t he w hat, b ut a t a f rustratingly abstract level. M uch h as b een m ade o f t he s ize o f t he r epo , b ut a s igni cant a mount o f i t m ight be characterized a s r epetition. T hough u nderstandable t hat t here i s a m atrix o f e lements o verlapping each s ection, a nd t hat s ummaries a nd r oundups a re n ecessary t o s uch a l arge d ocument, it contributes g reatly t o t he b ulk a nd t he d i cult n avigability o f t he d ocument.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The M IDP w as w ri en a s a d ocument i ntended t o s erve m any a udiences. I t w as u nderstood that some audiences w ould r ead t he M IDP i n i ts e ntirety, w hile o thers w ould o nly r ead c e ain p o ions, thus a ce ain a mount o f r epetition w as n ecessary t o e nsure t he d ocument w ould m eet t he n eeds of all readers.
We h ave t aken t his f eedback i nto c onsideration, a nd w e h ope t hat t he D igital I nnovation Appendix will be m ore s uited t o t he n eeds o f e xpe r eviewers f ocused o n t he d igital i nnovation e lements of the proposal.
Overall Impressions – Process Overall Impressions — Civic Engagement
Page 5 6 o f 6 9
Page 160 of 190
DSAP Comment #139: (SWL) M uch o f t he i nnovation h ere i s g oing t o b e i n t he “ how” o f t he design a nd d elivery p rocess. T hrough t here a re m any p roposals f or n ew g overnance b odies, there is not e nough o n t he “ how” o f t he d esign p rocess. G iven t he i nfusion o f t heoretically i nteroperable technologies a nd w ith m uch r hetoric a bout p u ing t he r esident/citizen a t t he c entre o f the process, there i s m uch l e u nsaid a bout h ow t he d esign o f t hese t echnologies w ill u nfold. I f t he true innovation here i s a c ombination o f d esign a nd c onsultation m ethodologies s ourced f rom u rban d esign, architecture, d esign a nd s o ware d evelopment ( in o ther w ords i f t his r eally i s a c ity “ designed from the i nternet u p”), I a m n ot s eeing i t s o f ar i n t he M IDP. I w ould l ike t o s ee m uch m ore a n intersection of design t hinking, a gile d evelopment, h uman-centred d esign a nd t raditional d esign c harre es to make sure t he “ user” i .e. T orontonians a re d irectly i nvolved i n t he d esign p rocess, r ather t han simply numbers t o b e q uoted f rom g eneral p ublic r elations-based p ublic c onsultations. T his i s not easy to do, but b eing m ore t ransparent a bout t he “ how”, a nd b y w hom, r ather t han s imply t he “ what” will accomplish t wo t hings:
Help a ddress t he l ack o f t rust t he p ublic h as s hown i n t he e ntire p rocess t o b egin w ith.
It w ill t ake m any y ears t o r ealize a n ew v ision f or Q uayside ( and b eyond, i f a pproved), a nd the technology i nnovations p roposed h ere m ay b e s uperseded b y o thers. W hat s hould b e truly new, is how c an p ublic, a nd p rivate p a ners, w orking t ogether w ith t he c ommunity, r eimagine city-building that i s b oth e nabled b y t he n ew t echnologies, a nd e nsures p rotection a nd p a icipation by the very public t hat i s s upposed t o b ene t b y t his d evelopment.
To m e, t his w ill b e t he t rue i nnovation - d igital a nd o therwise.
DSAP Comment #147: (SWL) W hile t he t erm c o-design i s u sed f requently t hroughout s ection 0 , and i n s ome o ther s ections, i t a ppears t o r efer t o p ublic c onsultations t o s olicit o pinions, and feedback s essions o nce p lans a re d eveloped. T here i s l i le d escription o f a p rocess t hat would bring the v arious i ndividuals a nd g roups t hat w ill b e i mpacted b y t he p lan i nto t he o ngoing d esign process. There i s n othing t o s uggest t hat t hose t hat w ill b e i mpacted w ill h ave a ny a gency i n m aking the plan ‘our’ p lan. I r ecognize t hat t here i s a t ension b etween p resenting a s peci c p lan a nd l eaving decisions to b e m ade t hrough c o-design. A f ulsome d escription o f t he p rocess f or p a icipation in co-design and p otential r oles f or i ndividuals a nd g roups m ost i mpacted b y t he p lan w ould m ake t he assurance of inclusion, a ccessibility a nd r espect f or d iversity m ore b elievable.
DSAP Comment #149: (Both) T ied t o t he a spirations s et o ut i n t he P DA t hat t he p roject w ould s et new s tandards i n u rban t echnologies a nd c ity-building, i f t he p lan i s s erious a bout p ublic engagement and l iteracy i t s hould b e m ore f orward a bout c reating a n e ngagement m odel w ith t he p ublic. This includes h elping t he p ublic f rame t he d iscussion w ith a c ivic d igital l iteracy o nramp i nto the issues and to a ssist t he p ublic i n c ontributing t o t he d esign a nd i mplementation o f t he p lan. T his s hould be enabled a nd d elivered b y a t rusted, a nd p referably p ublic-sector o r n on-pro t e ntity t hat can pa ner with c itizens/residents i n a n i nclusive a nd e mpowering w ay.
DSAP Comment #150: (SWL) I n p a icular, c itizen a nd r esident p a icipation w ith a gency ( i.e. empowered a nd i n uential) i s m issing f rom t he M IDP. T here a re r eferences t o a C ivic A ssembly, Care Centres, t o t he c ollaboration w ith D igital P ublic S quare a nd C ollab a nd t o t he i nvolvement of residents through G RIT. I w ould p refer t o s ee t hese b rought t ogether m ore f ormally a s a c ivic t echnology layer, that i s o wned a nd e xecuted b y c itizens, a nd t o e nable s takeholders i ncluding c itizens, residents, business o wners a nd o thers t o h ave a d irect i mpact o n t he d esign o f t hese t echnologies, the digital layer, a nd t he p hysical s paces. T his i mpact d oes n ot j ust i nclude c onsultation, b ut s hould include real co-design, i nitiation a nd p rototyping e tc.
Page 5 7 o f 6 9
Page 161 of 190
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #139, #147, #149 and #150 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Thank y ou f or t hese c omments. T his i s a v ery i mpo ant t opic f or u s.
We a re s imilarly e xcited a bout t he p rospect o f a c ivic t echnology, a nd a gree t hat i t s hould be driven by c ommunity m embers. W e w elcome f u her i deas a bout h ow t o b est a chieve t his.
Our a pproach h as b een b ased o n t he p rinciple t hat a c o-creative, p a icipatory d esign process must sta w ith i dentifying p roblems, n ot s olutions. I t i s i nsu cient t o h ave a lready d eveloped a solution and t hen s olicit f eedback f rom d iverse g roups o n t hat s olution. D esign m ust b e “ with” and not “for” the e ventual u sers a nd s takeholders o f a s olution. W e u se a r ange o f m ethodologies t o achieve a more inclusive a nd p a icipatory a pproach t o p lanning a nd d esign. W e a re n ot p rescriptive i n only using one process, b ut r ather c ombines m ethods, s uch a s d esign r esearch a nd d igital p rototyping, to understand p eople’s n eeds a nd c o-develop s olutions.
By u sing a p a icipatory a nd p lanning d esign p rocess u pfront, t he g roundwork i s s et f or a neighbourhood t hat w ill c ontinue t o a dapt t o t he p eople w ho i nhabit i t. W e a re c ommi ed to working with l ocal p a ners a nd c ommunity m embers t o f u her t hese a pproaches s hould t he n ext phases proceed, a nd a lso h elping f oster t he c onditions f or a p lace t hat i s p a icipatory w ith s trong social capital.
We h ave b uilt a t eam w ith d eep e xpe ise i n c ivic t echnology a nd t ech e thics, i ncluding former public servants w ho h ave b uilt c apacity f or s ervice d esign, d ata a nalytics, a nd d igital p roduct development in g overnment, a nd d esigners w ho e mbed h uman-centred m ethods a nd a ccessibility i nto their practice.
Together, o ur t eam i s c ommi ed t o w orking w ith c ommunity m embers, o rganizations, companies, and g overnment t o c reate i nclusive p laces, technologies, a nd p olicies. T his p hilosophy of inclusive, pa icipatory c o-creation — b oth i n t he p lanning a nd d esign p hase a nd, i mpo antly, a s an ongoing way o f w orking — h as i nformed o ur w ork t o d ate a nd i s e xempli ed i n w ork r elated t o c o-designing for a ccessibility, p rototyping a s ystem t o i ncrease d igital t ransparency i n t he p ublic r ealm, and developing d igital t ools a s a s uppo f or i nclusive c ommunity p a icipation.
Section 2 .3 o f t he D igital I nnovation A ppendix p rovides e ven m ore d etails o n s ome e xamples of this work t o d ate, i ncluding:
● Inclusive usability testing. S idewalk L abs h as nancially s uppo ed C ode f or C anada’s G RIT Toronto p rogram, w hich r ecruits T oronto r esidents f rom d iverse b ackgrounds, l ived e xperiences, and t echnical s kill l evels t o t est a nd p a icipate i n t echnology d esign. T his i nitiative s eeks to ensure t hat n ew d igital s olutions i n Q uayside a re b uilt w ith n eighbourhood n eeds i n m ind.
● Co-designing for accessibility. A s a r esult o f o ver 7 5 h ours c o-designing w ith o ver 2 00 members o f t he d isability a nd a ccessibility communities i n T oronto, S idewalk L abs h as dra ed 2 2 accessibility p rinciples a nd i ncorporated o ver 1 00 r ecommendations f or i mprovement i n o ur ideas. T he p rinciples w ill c ontinue t o a dapt a nd e xpand t o i ncorporate i nput a nd a dditions from the c ommunity, i ncluding t hrough a w orking g roup i ntegrated w ith t he n ext p hase o f p lanning and d esign.
Page 5 8 o f 6 9
Page 162 of 190
● Prototyping digital transparency in the public realm (DTPR). D TPR a racted m ore t han 1 00 pa icipants f rom s everal c ities t o c o-create a v isual l anguage ( a s et o f i cons) t o h elp i nform people o n h ow a nd w hy d ata i s b eing c ollected a nd u sed i n t he p ublic r ealm, a nd p rovides a digital c hannel f or l earning m ore a nd p roviding f eedback. W hile t he p roject d oes n ot a ddress all issues a round c onsent i n d ata c ollection, i t seeks t o a dvance a b roader c onversation a round data transparency.
● Prototyping inclusive civic tech tools. O ver t he p ast t wo y ears, S idewalk L abs h as b uilt prototypes t hat a im t o s uppo t he w ork o f c ivic i nnovators. T hese t ools, w hich w ould be available b ut n ot r equired f or u se b y t he c ommunity i n Q uayside, i nclude:
○ Collab, a d igital t ool d eveloped w ith T oronto-based n on-pro t D igital P ublic S quare t hat allows c ommunity m embers t o p ropose c hoices f or e vents i n p ublic s paces a nd e valuate the t rade-o s a ssociated w ith e ach p roposal—in o ther w ords, h ow t heir i ndividual choices c ould i mpact t he c ommunity. C ollab i s d esigned t o i ncrease c ommunity pa icipation a nd f acilitate m ore i nclusive a nd c ollaborative d ecisions.
○ Commonspace, a n o pen-source d igital p rototype d eveloped w ith t he n on-pro t G ehl Institute a nd u sed b y T horncli e P ark W omen’s C ommi ee t hat m akes i t e asier f or community g roups t o c ollect r eliable d ata o n h ow p eople u se p ublic s paces.
Additionally, w e h ave m ade s igni cant c ommitments t o i ntegrating s ocial infrastructure i n p lanning, a c ritical i ngredient f or d esigning t ruly i nclusive, p a icipatory s paces. S idewalk L abs h as engaged in proactive, h olistic p lanning a nd c o-creation w ith l ocal c ommunity, g overnment, a nd b usiness pa ners to i magine w hat t hese s paces m ight l ook l ike. T o i nform i ts i nclusive d esign p rinciples, S idewalk Labs commissioned r esearch f rom T oronto-based p a ners:
● Park P eople, C anada’s l eading p ublic s pace a dvocacy c harity, a nd D oblin, D eloi e’s human-centred d esign a nd i nnovation p ractice, p roduced a s tudy, “ No h o f t he W ater,” o n people- rst p ublic s pace d esign. ● Ryerson U niversity’s S chool o f U rban a nd R egional P lanning c onducted r esearch o n r etail t rends in T oronto f rom 2 007 t o 2 017. ● Toronto rm I dea C outure l ed r esearch w ith c ommunity m embers a nd s ervice p roviders, resulting i n a r epo , “ Living W ell o n t he W ate ront,” o n t he f uture o f w ell-being a nd h ealth.
This c ommunity i nput s haped, a nd w ill c ontinue t o s hape, o ur p lans t o f acilitate e quitable access to services, t echnology, a nd p a icipation i n Q uayside. I nitial p roposals i nclude t he C ivic A ssembly, which would p rovide g athering s paces, a ccess t o d igital t ools a nd e xpe s, a nd s paces f or p e ormance, creation, a nd f abrication; a nd t he C are C ollective, w hich w ould p rovide s paces f or t he delivery of health c are a nd c ommunity s ervices, a h ealth r esource c entre, a nd a q uiet s anctuary s pace dedicated to m ental w ell-being. U pon a pproval o f t he M IDP, w e w ould f orm p lanning r elationships with pa ner organizations t o h elp l ead a p a icipatory p rocess f or d esign, p rogram d evelopment, a nd tenant identi cation.
DSAP Comment #140: (SWL) M y o verall i mpression i s o ne o f a s ummary v ersion o f t he m any discussions w e h ave h ad r egarding t he M IDP a nd D igital a nd D ata T rust p lan p rogress. It feels on reading a s a v ery g ood s ummary o f o ur d ialogues t o d ate.
What s urprised m e w as t he l ack o f a d e nitive p lan t o s uggest i mplementation. F or e xample: The Koala M ounts a nd t he U rban D ata T rust. I t c ould h ave b een u sed a s a n e xample o f j ust how a physical proposal t o D ata c ollection w ould t heoretically i nteract - i n a n i terative e xample w hich would display a type o f d ata c ollection - s ensor u sing p roposed i nfrastructure - t he U rban D ata T rust a nd CDO in
Page 5 9 o f 6 9
Page 163 of 190
decision a uthority - t he R DU c ompletion - t he l icence c osts f or t he D ata T rust t o i ssue - where and how t hose l icence c osts/income w ould h ave b een a pplied b ack t o s uppo t he T rust a nd fund the CDO a s a m icro e xample o f t he m echanism t o s uppo p roposed t echnology, t he m odel to execute it and t he e conomics - t his w ould t hen p rovide o utcomes a nd f u her q uestions b ut a lso provide an example o f h ow t his c ould s cale.
What c oncerns m e i s t he l ack o f t ranslating o ur m any d ialogues a nd c alls f or s peci c e xamples to model t owards a p lan t hat i s e xecutable e ven i n a l ab s imulation.
SWL s hould a nd c ould b e b uilding a d igital t win t o m odel t he p rogram a t s cale - I w as s urprised at the lack o f t his.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The M IDP i s a d ocument t hat r e ects a m aster p lan l evel o f d etail. T he f o hcoming D igital Innovation Appendix w ill p rovide f u her d etails o n t he d igital c omponents o f t he p roposal. S ubject to the approval o f t he M IDP, S idewalk L abs w ould work w ith a f ull d esign a nd e ngineering c onsultant team to prepare a d etailed d evelopment p lan a nd a ccompanying i nfrastructure a nd t ranspo ation master plan f or Q uayside, a s c urrently r equired b y the d evelopment a pplication p rocess. T he d etailed development p lan w ould a dvance t he p lans a s c onceptualized i n t he M IDP t o a s u cient level of detail needed t o p roceed w ith t he a pprovals p rocess, w hich i ncludes t he c ompletion o f d evelopment applications s ubject t o f ormal r eview b y v arious g overnment s ta a nd a gencies. T o s uppo trusted data s haring, S idewalk L abs r ecognizes t he m any e xtraordinary i nitiatives a lready u nderway in Ontario, a nd p lans t o w ork c ollaboratively w ith t hese g roups.
Thank y ou f or y our s uggestion r egarding d eveloping a d igital t win t o m odel t he p roposal at scale. This is s omething w e w ill c onsider i n f uture p hases o f d esign.
Overall Impressions – Minimum Viable Plan
DSAP Comment #143: (SWL) T he s heer n umber o f p roposed i nnovations i s d aunting. T he r isk o f failure g rows p erhaps e xponentially w ith t he n umber o f p roposed i nnovations. I t i s e ssential that a minimum v iable s olution b e i denti ed t o a chieve t he R FP g oals w ith f allback p lans s hould a pa icular solution b e i nfeasible.
DSAP Comment #144: (SWL) T he p roject m anager i n m e w ants t o s ee a detailed p roject p lan complete w ith G an c ha , d ependencies, d eliverables, a nd c ritical p ath t asks. T his i s a massive project a nd, a s s uch, I nd i t d i cult t o u nderstand t he i mplications o f t he e ect o n t he overall project objectives s hould o ne o r m ore o f t he p roposed e lements b e r emoved. F or e xample, w hat happens if the L RT e xpansion i s n ot c onstructed? D oes t he p roject s top b ecause i t w ill i mpact m any other tasks?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #143 and #144 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
While i nnovation p resents a dded r isk, t here a re m any w ays t o m anage t hat r isk t hrough the course of planning, d esign, a nd b uild o ut. E very d ay, n ew a rchitectural a pproaches a nd i nfrastructure innovations a re d eployed a round t he w orld. T hese n ovel d esigns a re b ased o n e nhancements to tried and t rue s tandards a nd a re i mplemented u sing e stablished p roject m anagement p rocesses. Pa ners
Page 6 0 o f 6 9
Page 164 of 190
will b e b rought i n t o d eliver s peci c e lements t hrough c ontractual o bligations w ith s peci c incremental m ilestones a long t he w ay, w hich a llows f or c ourse c orrections t o a chieve t he objective. Where s omething i s a rst t ime i mplementation, i t i s o en p receded b y a v i ual m odel, then a pilot or mockup p rior t o t he f ull s cale i mplementation. M any o f t he i nnovations p roposed a re d esigned with adaptability i n m ind a s a m eans o f f uture-proo ng a nd e nabling e asier m odi cations a s needed. Systems o en u ndergo c alibration a nd i teration m ay b e n ecessary a er c ompletion o f construction to achieve t he o ptimal p e ormance. W hile t here a re m any i nterdependencies, t his i s c ommon in urban development p rojects w hich n ecessarily b ring m any s ystems t ogether. S idewalk L abs c onsiders these interdependencies i n i ts p lanning, d esign a nd e ngineering, a nd p a o f t his p lanning i s c onsidering fallback s olutions f or a ny p roposed s ystem a s t he p rocess p rogresses. A s a n e xample, in response to the q uestion o n p ossible d elay t o t he L RT e xpansion, o ne c ontingency m easures m ight be an interim shu le.
DSAP Comment #148: (SWL) A s t he M IDP p rocess h as u nfolded, m y c oncerns a bout S idewalk’s role a s d eveloper/proponent h ave g rown f or r easons i ncluding: a. R elentlessly p ush f or w hat t hey w ant w hile d emonstrating v ery l i le c apacity o r g ood faith to show they a re l istening ( e.g. h ow m uch o f o ur f eedback o n t he d ra d igital c hapter a ctually m ade a di erence? I s t his a bout a 1 2 a cre s ite o r s omething m uch b igger?) b. T hey h ave u sed t he p ower o f t heir m edia m achine, d epth o f t heir e xperience, a nd p olitical connections i n T oronto t o oat n ew i deas i n p ublic t o b uild s ocial l icense o n t heir o wn t erms while the government p a ners a re h amstrung b y r egular p ublic p rocess. C onsider D SAP’s s igning of an NDA to read t he d ra d igital c hapter i n M arch 2 019. W e w ere a ll b ound t o n ot t alk a bout i t u ntil the MIDP was public. B ut f or a m onth l eading u p t o t he M IDP’s r elease, S WL w as d oing t he f ull c ou p ress showing presentations a bout t he M IDP a nd i ts i deas t o p eople i n p hilanthropy, c ommunity o rganizations and social e nterprises w ithout a sking a ny o f t hem t o s ign a nything b ut a lso a sking t hem t o suppo the project p ublicly. S o t hey g ot t o s ell t heir p lan t o l eading “ city b uilders” w ho h ave l i le b ackground in tech/data a nd t hose o f u s w ith e xpe ise a re m uzzled u ntil t he p roper r elease. T o m e t hat is not good faith p ublic p rocess. c. F or a ll o f t heir t alk a bout a gile p rocesses, t hey h ave n ot d emonstrated t hey c an w ork that way in and w ith g overnment p a ners/the p ublic i n p ublic. T ake t he d ata t rust a s a n e xample. It was a one bullet p oint o n a s lide i n t he f all o f 2 017 a nd then t he n ext t hing, 6 m onths l ater, i t’s a 4 0 slide deck at the D SAP l ate s pring 2 018. W ouldn’t a n a gile m ethod h ave m eant t hey w orked i teratively, in public, gathering i deas, b uilding t hem i n, t esting t hem? W hat a bout a 1 524 p age, g orgeously d esigned boxed set s ays “ dra ”?
Substance a side, h ow c omfo able i s W T f eeling a bout c hoosing a d evelopment p a ner who behaves like t his? I k now W T s ta h ave t ried t o c orral t he e o b ut f eels l ike y ou h ave b een u surped on many fronts. T he B oard C hair’s l e er a nd t he r ecent a mendment t o t he P DA a re c urious d evelopments.
DSAP Comment #156: (SWL) A p rominently e xpressed c oncern a bout A lphabet/Google a s a corporate a ctor i s i ts a lleged t ax a voidance, w ith i t f acing m ultiple i nvestigations a nd nes in the billions. H ow m uch d id A lphabet a nd i t s ubsidiaries e arn i n C anada i n 2 018, a nd h ow m uch corporate tax d id i t p ay?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #148 and #156 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Page 6 1 o f 6 9
Page 165 of 190
We h ope t hat t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix ( DIA) s hows t hat w e h ave t aken the feedback f rom D SAP a nd o ther s takeholders s eriously, a nd w ill c ontinue t o d o s o i n t he future. And we hope t hat t he D IA's d escription o f t he d evelopment o f t he D TPR a nd t he a ccessibility p rinciples show how w e h ave, a nd w ill c ontinue t o, e ngage i n a d ynamic a nd a gile d evelopment p rocess.
Pa o f W ate ront T oronto’s e valuation o f t he M IDP i s t heir a ssessment o f S idewalk L abs as a pa ner and o ur a bility t o d eliver o n i ts s tated o utcomes f or Q uayside. W e w ould d efer t o W ate ront Toronto to p rovide m ore i nformation o n t heir e valuation p rocess.
Contextual Considerations
Contextual Considerations - General
DSAP Comment #151: (SWL) S eeing t he M IDP i n i solation c annot b e d iscussed w ithout rst considering h ow S idewalk L abs, t he s uccessful p roponent, h as b ehaved t hus f ar. I f g iven the license and a pproval o f o ur i nstitutions w ill t his p a ern o f b ehaviour s top o r o nly i ntensify? T he MIDP shows a grand v ision, b ut t heir t rack r ecord p uts s erious d oubt o n h ow t hey w ill w ork m oving f orward as they move t o t he m ost c hallenging e lement - i mplementation.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
We a re f ully c ommi ed t o b eing r esponsive t o c oncerns a nd a ddressing t hem a s a ppropriate. For example, t he D igital I nnovation A ppendix r e ects a s ubstantial e o t o r espond t o f eedback received from t he p ublic, W ate ront T oronto, a nd t he D SAP.
Contextual Considerations – Alphabet, Google, other subsidiaries
DSAP Comment #152: (SWL) S WL's C EO h as a cknowledged t hat a pproval o f t he M IDP d epends on w inning t he p ublic's t rust t hrough b eing t ransparent a nd a ccountable. M any o f t he i ssues relevant to S idewalk L abs' e arning s u cient t rust a nd D SAP's a bility t o a dequately e valuate w hether the Plan well s erves T orontonians i nterests r elate t o c haracteristics o f S idewalk L abs a s a c orporate entity not directly a ddressed i n t he d ra M IDP. C ontroversies a round S idewalk L abs' r elationship with Google and o ther A lphabet s ubsidiaries a re w ell p ublicized a nd c ontribute t o o n-going s kepticism over SWL’s intentions. T wo o f t he m ain a reas o f c ontroversy a re: a ) A lphabet/Google's e normous e conomic and political p ower, a nd b ) A lphabet/Google's d ominant d ata-driven b usiness m odel, b ased on monopolizing a nd m onetizing u ser a ention a nd p ersonal i nformation ows, c haracterized as surveillance c apitalism. H ow d oes S WL a ddress t hese c oncerns?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Regarding y our rst q uestion, p a o f W ate ront T oronto’s e valuation o f t he M IDP i s t heir assessment of S idewalk L abs a s a p a ner a nd o ur a bility t o d eliver o n i ts s tated o utcomes f or Q uayside. We would defer t o W ate ront T oronto t o p rovide m ore i nformation o n t heir e valuation p rocess.
Regarding y our s econd q uestion, a s s tated b y S idewalk L ab’s C EO a nd r e-iterated i n t he MIDP and DIA: ● Sidewalk L abs w ill n ot s ell p ersonal i nformation. ● Sidewalk L abs w ill n ot u se p ersonal i nformation f or a dve ising.
Page 6 2 o f 6 9
Page 166 of 190
● Sidewalk L abs w ill r equire e xplicit c onsent f or c onsented d isclosures o f p ersonal i nformation to t hird p a ies, i ncluding d isclosures t o o ur p arent c ompany, A lphabet, a nd o ur s ister company, G oogle.
DSAP Comment #153: (SWL) S WL h as c learly t aken s teps t o d istance i tself f rom t he r est o f t he Alphabet e nterprise, n otably b y c ommi ing t o n ot s ell p ersonal i nformation n or u se i t f or adve ising. However, t his d oes n ot f ully s e le t he i ssue. A mong o ther c oncerns, w hat a bout t he r ole Alphabet and its o ther s ubsidiaries m ight p lay i n t he Q uayside p roject?
Several A lphabet s ubsidiaries/a liates w ill e vidently h ave a n i nterest i n p a icipating i n the project, eg Google F ibre, W aymo, I ntersection, a nd R eplica a mong o thers i ncluding s ome w ith c ontroversial data driven b usiness m odels. E ven i f S WL i s c ommi ed t o n ot g iving p riority t o t hese c orporate siblings, as is e xplicit i n t he c ase o f W aymo a lone, m ight t hey n ot h ave e xe ed i n uence i n d eveloping the MIDP or t hrough i nvolvement w ith S WL b e b e er p oised t han t heir c ompetitors t o t ake a dvantage of the oppo unity?
DSAP Comment #154: (SWL) W hat A lphabet s ubsidiaries a nd a liates w ere i nvolved i n developing t he M IDP a nd i n w hat w ay? W hat A lphabet s ubsidiaries a nd a liates m ight play a pa in the Q uayside p roject?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
DSAP Comments #153 and #154 have similar underlying questions, and thus are being addressed together.
Neither A lphabet n or i ts s ubsidiaries p layed a s ubstantive r ole i n t he d evelopment o f t he MIDP, beyond b eing c onsulted t o p rovide s ubject m a er e xpe ise, o r o therwise a s a s takeholder impacted by t he p roposal.
With r espect t o p rocurement, p lease s ee t he a nswer t o q uestion 1 55 j ust b elow.
DSAP Comment #155: (SWL) B eyond t he e xpected o versight o f d ata c ollection a nd u se p roposals by t he U DT, h ow w ill S WL e nsure t hat A lphabet's d ata-driven s ubsidiaries a nd a liates will not enjoy an a dvantage t hrough t heir c orporate c onnections o ver p otential c ompetitors?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
As n oted a bove i n t he r esponse t o c omments # 7 a nd # 134, w hen c onducting p rocurements, public-sector o rganizations, b roader-public-sector o rganizations, a nd p rivate-sector o rganizations each h ave a d i erent s et o f d efault r ules t hat a pply t o t hem. A dditional r ules a re s ometimes imposed on t op o f t hose d efault r ules d epending o n v arious f actors. F or e xample, a p rivate s ector entity can contractually a gree t o c omply w ith a h igher s tandard o f p rocurement p rinciples t han w hat is required by d efault. F or t he r easons f u her d escribed b elow, A lphabet c ompanies w ould n ot r eceive any preferential t reatment i n p rocurements.
Procurements by Wate ront Toronto Wate ront T oronto i s s ubject t o i ts o wn p rivate-sector p rocurement r ules a nd h as v oluntarily adopted a nd p osted a p rocurement p olicy o n i ts w ebsite d escribing t he r ules t hat t he organization generally f ollows w hen c onducting p rocurements. W henever W ate ront T oronto i s c onducting a procurement f or t echnologies i n c onnection w ith t he Q uayside p roject, S idewalk L abs would expect
Page 6 3 o f 6 9
Page 167 of 190
Wate ront T oronto’s o rdinary p rocurement p olicy t o a pply, s ubject t o a ny a mendments or special exceptions t hat m ay b e a dopted w ithin t he p olicy.
Procurements conducted by Sidewalk Labs For e very t echnology t hat S idewalk L abs c onducts a p rocurement t o p urchase, S idewalk Labs has already a greed t o a bide b y f air a nd a rm’s-length p rocurement s tandards i nformed b y t he principles enumerated i n S chedule D o f t he P lan D evelopment A greement, n amely, c onsultation, exibility, value, fairness, a nd c ompliance. S idewalk L abs h as a lso c ommi ed t o b uy t echnologies r ather than build them, t o e nsure t he C anadian e cosystem i s a ware o f a ll p rocurements, a nd t o b reak t ies in favour of Canadian c ompanies. I n o rder f or A lphabet’s s ubsidiaries o r a liates t o p a icipate i n a procurement, appropriate a ccommodations w ould n eed t o b e p ut i n p lace t o e nsure a f air a nd a rms’ length procurement i s c onducted.
Contextual Considerations – Lobbying
DSAP Comment #157: (SWL) O ne a rea i n w hich A lphabet i s a lleged t o w ield i ts c orporate p ower, quite l egally b ut t o t he p ossible d etriment o f t he p ublic i nterest, i s i n i ts e xtensive l obbying activities. (Lobbying i n t his c ontext i ncludes f ormal l obbying a s c ommonly u nderstood i n a g overnmental se ing as w ell a s m ore c olloquially a s t argeted p ersuasion.)
Please p rovide a c omprehensive r epo o f S WL's v arious l obbying e o s o ver t he c ourse of this initiative, b eginning i n 2 016. I nclude t he f ollowing i n t his r epo :
List o f i ndividual l obbyists: 1 . n ame, a reas o f s pecialization, r elationship t o S idewalk/Alphabet.
List o f l obbying t argets: 1 . n ame o f o rganization o r i ndividual; 2 . t ype o f o rg ( government, federal/prov city, b usiness, n on-pro t, u niversity); 3 . s ection/ministry/depa ment a nd 4 . a rea o f c ompetence or expe ise.
Lobbying c ontacts: 1 . d ate, 2 . d uration, 3 . l ocation, 4 . m ode ( in p erson, e mail, t elephone/conference), 5. S WL r ep(s), 6 . i ndividual(s) t argeted, 7 . p urpose a nd t opic(s) o f l obbying, a nd 8 . i ncentives, nancial and o therwise, o er i n e xchange f or s uppo ing t he S idewalk T O i nitiative.
Lobbying e xpenditures. B roken d own b y: $ a mounts s pent o n l obbying s ervices, i ncentives o ered, other b udgetary s ources - u nder s ections o f t he P DA B udget ( esp. ( vii) C ommunications, External A airs & E ngagement), S WL, A lphabet, o thers.
In a ddition t o p roviding t he l obbying r epo i n d ocument f orm, p lease a lso s ubmit a n e lectronic (‘so ’) version s uitable f or q uery a nd a nalysis ( e.g. a s s preadsheet(s) o r S QL d atabase).
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Lobbying l aws a re w ri en t o c over a b road r ange o f a ctivities a nd S idewalk L abs s trictly adheres to these l aws a s w ri en. T he v ast m ajority o f t he i ndividuals f rom S idewalk L abs w ho h ave registered meetings w ith g overnment o cials a re i ndividuals w ho a re i nvolved i n s ome t echnical a spect of our planning w ork ( transpo ation, p lanners, e ngineers, a rchitects), a nd h ave h ad a m eeting or meetings to e ither b rief g overnment o cials - i n s ome c ases, a t t heir r equest - o r l earn i n o rder t o ensure our proposals a re n ot i nconsistent w ith t he t ypes o f p ublic o utcomes t hey s eek t o a chieve.
Lobbyist r egistrations a re p ublished a t t he b elow l ocations o nline: ● O ce o f t he C ommissioner o f L obbying o f C anada
Page 6 4 o f 6 9
Page 168 of 190
● Ontario O ce o f t he I ntegrity C ommissioner - L obbyists R egistry ● Toronto O ce o f t he L obbyist R egistrar
DSAP Comment #158: (SWL) P lease p rovide f u her d etails o f S WL’s l obbying c onnections w ith the T oronto R egion B oard o f T rade. P lease e xplain a ll o f S WL's r elationships a nd i nteractions with the Board o f T rade, a nd h ow t his c ontributed t o t heir i nvolvement i n t his p roject, e specially in relation to the B OT’s J anuary 2 019 a dvocacy o f a C ivic D ata H ub a s a m odel f or t he d ata t rust, a nd the BOT’s July 2019 l e er s igned b y 3 0 ‘ civic l eaders.’
For t he p ublic l e er, d id S WL t ake t he i nitiative o r c ontribute i n a ny w ay t o i ts d ra ing o r editing? Which p rospective s ignatories d id S WL l obbyists c ontact, a nd w hat f orms o f e ncouragement or incentives d id S WL o er? ( See S hawn M icallef t weet a nd T orstar o pinion 2 019 J uly 5 ).
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The T oronto R egion B oard o f T rade i nitiated t he l e er a nd a cted a s t he c oordinator s o t hey would be best t o s peak f or m ore c lari cation.
Sidewalk L abs w as a ware o f t heir w ork a nd c onnected t he B oard o f T rade w ith o rganizations that are suppo ive o f t he i deas a nd p rocess o f t he p roject t hus f ar. W e a re g rateful t o s ee s o m any prominent Torontonians s ee t he o ppo unity o f t he p roject i ncluding f ormer m ayors l ike B arbara H all and A Eggleton a nd l ocal c ommunity l eaders l ike C ynthia W ilkey a nd T im K ocur. T his l e er r e ects the broad spectrum o f i nterest f or t he p roject a cross t he c ity w e h ear o n a d aily b asis.
Contextual Considerations – Public Engagement
DSAP Comment #159: (SWL) S WL c onducted a n i mpressive r ange o f “ public e ngagement” activities, b ut t he M IDP d oes n ot p rovide s u cient d etail a bout t hem t o a ssess w hether SWL proposals a re a n a uthentic r e ection o f p ublic c onsultation a s n ormally u nderstood f or policy formulation. I n v arious p laces, t here a re W hat w e h eard s ections, f ollowed b y H ow we responded. While i t i s n ot r easonable f or t he P lan t o i ncorporate a ll t he s uggestions m ade, i t i s i mpo ant to know about t he f ull r ange o f c oncerns p eople e xpressed, i ncluding t hose t hat S WL c hose n ot to respond to.
How c an w e t ell w hether S WL’s p roposals w ere g enuinely i nformed b y p ublic c onsultation or whether SWL s teered t he p rocess i n i ts i nterests, c herry-picked f avourable o pinions o r u sed t he feedback to avoid c riticism w hile c laiming p ublic s uppo ?
Sidewalk Labs Response:
The P ublic P a icipation P lan w as d eveloped i n c ollaboration w ith W ate ront T oronto, w hich i s well-respected y i n t he a rea o f p ublic c onsultation a nd w hose m andate i s t o p e orm i ts work for the public g ood. T he p lan, w hich c ontained 1 3 e lements, w as e ndorsed b y b oth S idewalk L abs and Wate ront T oronto a s t he b asis f or p ublic o utreach a nd e ngagement e o s. T he p lan sought to engage a b road c ross-section o f r esidents and p rovided t argeted o ppo unities f or p eople of di erent a ges a nd w ith d i erent d egrees o f i nterest a nd e xpe ise t o b ecome i nvolved in the creation of t he M IDP. W ate ront T oronto a nd S idewalk L abs t hrough i ts p a nership e ach h eld d i erent responsibilities f or e xecuting t he p lan, w hich w as c learly o utlined a s p a o f t he P lan D evelopment Agreement o f 3 1 J uly, 2 018. T he p lan w as o verseen a nd e xecuted b y i ndependent c onsultancy M ASS LBP, w ith s uppo f rom S idewalk L abs a nd W ate ront T oronto s ta . S ome e lements w ere designed
Page 6 5 o f 6 9
Page 169 of 190
and f acilitated b y o ther i ndependent c onsultancies, w hich w as t rue i n t he c ase o f t he t he Design Jams and t he C ivic L abs.
A er e ach p ublic e vent, a s ummary r epo w as p roduced a nd p osted o nline a t s idewalktoronto.ca, through t he S idewalk T oronto n ewsle er, a nd s ocial m edia c hannels o en g arnering f u her comments a nd i nteraction. E ach r epo o utlined b oth s uppo a nd c oncern f or t he i deas presented that d ay. W here f acilitated d iscussion w as p a o f t he e vent, s uch a s i n p ublic r oundtables, de-identi ed r aw c omments, t ranscribed b y i ndependent f acilitators p rovided b y M ASS LBP, were posted, a llowing a ny p erson t o c ompare t he n otes w ith t he s ummary r epo s hould t hey wish to verify the c haracter o f t he r epo a nd w hether i t f airly r epresented t he v iews o f p a icipants.
● Read t he R oundtable 1 S ummary R epo ● Read t he R oundtable 1 T ranscribed C omments ● Read t he R oundtable 2 S ummary R epo ● Read t he R oundtable 2 T ranscribed C omments ● Read t he R oundtable 3 S ummary R epo ● Read t he R oundtable 3 T ranscribed C omments ● Read t he R oundtable 4 R epo ● Read t he R oundtable 4 T ranscribed C omments
In t he c ase o f t he R esidents R eference P anel, c reated t o h elp e nsure a b roadly r epresentative group of T orontonians w ould h ave t he o ppo unity t o s hape t he p lan f or Q uayside, t he nal r epo included a “minority r epo ” s ection w here i ndividual m embers w ere a ble t o e xpress p erspectives that were not suppo ed o r d iscussed b y a ll p anelists. R ead t he R esidents R eference P anel F inal R epo .
In a ddition, a nyone w ho v isited S idewalk L abs T oronto o ce a nd p ublic p avillion a t 3 07 Lake Shore Blvd E ast i n t he y ear b etween i ts o pening a nd t he s ubmission o f t he M IDP c ould c learly see on display feedback c ards a nd p ost-it n otes t hat o penly e xpressed c oncerns o r c riticism.
The S idewalk L abs p ublic e ngagement t eam s o ed t hrough a ll f eedback — a ll t he r epo s, meeting minutes, s ession n otes, 3 07 “ feedback c ards,” a nd m ore — a nd p resented i t t o t he p lanning teams. This p rocess c ame t o c haracterize t he d eeply, i terative n ature o f t he p roject, l eading f rom an initial, high-level v ision t o a d etailed nal p roposal t hat r e ects t he s hared a spirations o f t housands of Torontonians. S idewalk L abs h as d eeply c onsidered t his f eedback i n d eveloping t he p roposal, helping to f u her f ocus e o s o n h ow b est t o a chieve W ate ront T oronto’s p riority o utcomes and re ect what T orontonians v alue i n c ity-building.
Contextual Considerations
DSAP Comment #160: (SWL) P a nership - T he p roposal c ould h ave d one a b e er j ob o f o utlining how S WL w ill e ngage w ith t he m any i nnovation c entres a cross T oronto, t he p rovince a nd Canada. These e ntities a re i n a n i deal p osition t o a ssist w ith t echnology d evelopment i ncluding a dvanced systems a nd p urposeful s olutions.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
A t hriving i nnovation e cosystem i s, i n p a , w hat d rew S idewalk L abs t o T oronto i n t he rst place. Sidewalk L abs h as b een e ngaging w ith s takeholders w ithin t he C anadian i nnovation s pace, including investors, i nnovation h ubs a nd a ccelerators a nd v entures, t o b e er u nderstand t heir c hallenges, where t hey s ee o ppo unities, a nd h ow t he Q uayside p roject c an s erve a s a c atalyst t o fu her ecosystem g rowth. S idewalk L abs’ e o s c an b est s uppo t he e cosystem.
Page 6 6 o f 6 9
Page 170 of 190
In r esponse t o t he f eedback w e h ave h eard, S idewalk L abs h as p roposed a s et o f i nitiatives to suppo the g rowth o f t he u rban i nnovation e cosystem. T hese i nitiatives a ddress t he k ey c onditions for successful e cosystem d evelopment i ncluding: a ccess t o c apital a nd t alent, a ccess t o s ophisticated buyers a t h ome a nd a broad a nd e nhanced ecosystem i nnovation c apacity.
Sidewalk L abs i ntends t o c ontinue e ngaging w ith t he i nnovation e cosystem i n C anada in order to fu her r e ne i ts p roposals. W e w ill c ontinue t o p roactively e ngage: ● Incubators a nd a ccelerators t o b e er u nderstand h ow w e c an g enerate v alue f or C anadian ventures a nd h ow t o m obilize m ultiple a ctors t o s trengthen t he e cosystem a t l arge, ● Academia t o a dvance w ork o n t he U rban I nnovation I nstitute a nd a pplied r esearch f ocused on urban i nnovation, ● Civil s ociety t o g uide t he e stablishment o f t he U rban I nnovation I nstitute a nd s uppo t he development o f a pproaches t o t rusted d ata s haring a nd s tandard s e ing, ● Canadian c ompanies, s ta ups t hrough t o s cale-ups, a nd b usiness a ssociations t o g et fu her feedback o n t he p roposed i nitiatives.
Innovation h ubs a nd a ccelerators i ncluding M aRS, R yerson D MZ, t he I mpact C entre a t the University of T oronto, C ommunitech, a nd o thers a cross t he r egion t hat u niquely c onnected t o t he sta up community i n C anada a nd i nternationally. B ecause o f t heir s pecialized i nsight i nto t he challenges and oppo unities f acing C anadian v entures, r epresentatives f rom v arious i ncubators a nd a ccelerators will continue t o b e a sked t o p rovide f eedback o n S idewalk L abs’ p roposals r elated t o t he U rban Innovation Institute, t he p rograms t o s cale m anagement e xcellence, t he p rocurement o f C anadian technology, as well a s S idewalk L abs’ a pproach t o m obilizing v enture c apital i n t he s ectors r elated t o u rban technology. S idewalk L abs w ill m eet w ith t hese r epresentatives i n t he i nitial p lanning s tages of the initiatives a nd t hroughout t heir i mplementation.
For e xample, S idewalk L abs h as s hared i ts p roposed i nitiatives w ith M aRS t o g ather f eedback and has incorporated a s m uch f eedback a s p ossible i nto t his d ocument. S idewalk L abs h as a lso been in discussions w ith B rook eld I nstitute f or I nnovation a nd E ntrepreneurship a bout i ndependent research they m ight t ake t he l ead o n f ocusing o n t he g rowth o f t he u rban i nnovation s ector a nd working closely w ith a ccelerators l ike M aRS, D MZ a nd o thers i n t he r egion. T his w ork c ould i nclude near-term initiatives s uch a s c onvening a r ange o f s takeholders a nd p reparing a p osition p aper t o de ne the urban i nnovation s ector a nd t he u nique o ppo unity f or T oronto, i n a ddition t o r ecommendations on how b est t o s uppo t he c ontinued m aturation o f t his s ector. T he o utcomes o f t hese e ngagements will b e a n i mpo ant i nput i nto S idewalk L abs’ t hinking a round h ow b est t o f u her c atalyse the ecosystem, a nd w hat r ole S idewalk L abs c ould p lay.
DSAP Comment #161: (SWL) E nvironmental s can - M uch c an b e l earned f rom t he s uccesses a nd failures o f o thers. I t w ould h ave b een g ood t o s ee a s ection a bout w hat e lse i s g oing o n around the world b eyond a s idebar t reatment o f X R oad ( Vol 2 )
Sidewalk Labs Response:
We a gree t hat a n e nvironmental s can i s b ene cial. W e h ad d one t his t hroughout t he M IDP process, and m any o f t hese s uccesses a nd f ailures f rom o thers i n uenced o ur w ork. N ow, w e h ave put together a c onsolidated e nvironmental s can i n t he f o hcoming D igital I nnovation A ppendix.
The l ast s ection o f t he D IA o ers a s napshot o f a r ange o f p olicy r esponses, a pproaches, and tools being d eveloped r espectively i n C anada a nd a round t he w orld b y t he g overnment, a cademic, civic, and p rivate s ectors. T hese i nclude p rivacy p rinciples; d igital r ights, e thics, a nd t ools; r esponsible data
Page 6 7 o f 6 9
Page 171 of 190
sharing m odels; d ata t rust m odels; a nd i nclusive a nd p a icipatory p ractices, s uch a s d igital literacy initiatives, p a icipatory t ools, o pen s ource standards, a nd m odular p rocurement. T his s ection also includes s ho c ase s tudies t hat d escribe i nspiring p recedents f or r esponsible s ma c ity development: E stonia ( X-Road; D igital I D); M ontreal ( AI e thics; i ntegrated m obility, C ivic Innovation Lab f or R egulatory T esting); N ew Y ork C ity ( Guidelines f or I oT, t he A utomated D ecision Task Force; Open D ata); C hicago ( Tech P lan; A rray o f T hings); A msterdam ( Data S haring; I oT R egistry; Holiday Rental R egistry; D ata E xchange; T ADA M anifesto); B arcelona ( Ethical D igital S tandards; Barcelona Digital C ity; D ecidim).
DSAP Comment #162: (SWL) P ublic s ector c apacity-building - A v ery p ositive c ommitment t o ‘transfer k nowledge t o t he p ublic a dministrator t o e nable i t t o t ake o ver t he a dvanced s ystems development r ole a er Q uayside a nd V illiers W est’. B uilding p ublic s ector c apacity s hould be an explicit g oal o f t he p lanning a nd i mplementation p rocess. C an S idewalk e laborate o n w hat additional oppo unities e xist p a icularly i n t he Q uayside a nd V illiers W est p hases o f t he p roject? Maria Mazzucato ' public - private p a nership a rrangements . .. w ill o nly s ucceed a s d ynamic knowledge-intensive c ollaborations w ith b oth s ides e qually c ommi ed t o i nvesting i n i n-house competencies a nd c apabilities' T he V alue o f E verything.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
We a gree t hat t he Q uayside p roject p resents a s igni cant o ppo unity f or b uilding i nnovation capacity within p ublic i nstitutions. T his w as a n o riginal o bjective o f W ate ront T oronto’s R FP. T his has been fu her a rmed i n t he r esolution o f t he T hreshold I ssues p rocess, t hrough w hich W ate ront Toronto has c ommi ed t o a dvocating f or g overnment T ask F orces t hat b ring t ogether t he r elevant pa ies to establish a ppropriate g overnance o f t he I nnovation P lan. S idewalk L abs i s c ommi ed t o working with Wate ront T oronto, a nd i ts g overnment s takeholders, a nd t hrough t his p rocess d etermining how to suppo c apacity b uilding a nd w hat ( if a ny) new m anagement c apacities m ight b e a ppropriate.
DSAP Comment #163: (SWL) P roject M anagement - M any a spects o f t he p roposal f or Q uayside require i nnovations t hat d o n ot y et e xist o r i ntegrations t hat h ave n ever b een d one b efore. The Program M anagement o f m any i nter-related p rojects a cross m ultiple t echnologies a nd disciplines is unprecedented. I nd t he d iscussion o f t his u nder-developed i n V olume 3 C hapter 2 . T hese systems, skills a nd c ulture a re n ot c apabilities t hat I e xpect S idewalk c an r eadily d evelop i n-house.
Real e state d evelopers h ave s ome o f t hese s kills a nd i n m any c ases h ire c onstruction m anagers to oversee c omplex p rograms a s d oes W ate ront T oronto. T he d igital c ontent o f m any o f the proposed innovations g oes f ar b eyond w hat t hose p a ies w ould t raditionally m anage. I T p rojects o en require system i ntegrators t o m anage c omplex d igital p rograms.
Approving t he M IDP i n a ny f orm w ithout a dditional d etail a nd c larity o n h ow i mplementation would be managed a nd w hat t ypes o f p a ies w ould b e e ngaged b y w hom, w ould b e h igh r isk f or both Sidewalk Labs a nd W ate ront T oronto.
Sidewalk Labs Response:
Sidewalk L abs a cknowledges t he n eed f or i ntegrated p lanning a cross m ultiple d isciplines to successfully e xecute t he M IDP. F rom t he b eginning o f i ts i nception, S idewalk L abs h as been constituted a s a n o rganization d esigned t o b ridge t he u rbanist-technologist d ivide, a nd comprises professionals w ith d eep e xperience a cross t he u rban p lanning, b uilding, i nfrastructure, design,
Page 6 8 o f 6 9
Page 172 of 190
engineering, a nd t echnology d isciplines. I t h as a h ighly c ollaborative c ulture t hat e nables horizontal integration a cross t hese v e icals.
The i ntegration o f d igital t echnology i nto u rban d evelopment r equires d i erent a pproaches to planning a nd d esign. F undamentally, r esponsible d ata u se a nd t he d igital a rchitecture o f a place must be a ddressed a s c ore t o d evelopment p lanning, s imilar t o o ther l ong-standing a reas s uch as program, built f orm, a nd e conomics. I t i s b ecause o f this t hat S idewalk L abs h as s tructured i ts d evelopment planning w ork d i erently t han s tandard a pproaches, w ith p lanning, d esign, a nd d igital i nnovation all integrated a s o ne.
Signi cant c onsideration h as a lso b een g iven t o t he n eed f or i ntegrated p lanning a nd d esign. Subject to t he a pproval o f t he M IDP, S idewalk L abs would w ork w ith a f ull d esign a nd e ngineering consultant team t o p repare a d etailed d evelopment p lan a nd a ccompanying i nfrastructure a nd t ranspo ation master p lan f or Q uayside, a s c urrently r equired b y t he d evelopment a pplication p rocess. In addition to the s tandard m aterials, T he d etailed d evelopment p lan w ould a dvance t he p lans a s c onceptualized in the M IDP t o a s u cient l evel o f d etail n eeded t o p roceed w ith t he a pprovals p rocess, w hich includes the c ompletion o f d evelopment a pplications s ubject t o f ormal r eview b y v arious g overnment sta and agencies, p ublic c onsultation, a nd nal a pproval b y t he C ity o f T oronto C ouncil.
Building o n t he n eed t o i ntegrate p hysical p lanning w ith t he d esign o f d igital a rchitecture, Sidewalk Labs p lans t o p repare a s eries o f d rawings a nd i llustrations t hat a iculate t he i ntegration of digital architecture i n t he p hysical b uilding a nd s ystems d esign, a s p a o f t he d etailed d evelopment plan. Sidewalk L abs s ees t hese d igital a rchitecture s tudies a s n ecessary f or f ully u nderstanding the integration o f p hysical a nd d igital s ystems, a nd t o e nsure t hese s ystems a re r esponsibly implemented and h ave a ppropriate e valuation a nd c onsultation.
Page 6 9 o f 6 9
Page 173 of 190
DSAP Meeting – November 7, 2019 Item 8 – Discussion of SWL Digital Innovation Appendix
Agenda Item 8 – Discussion of SWL Digital Innovation Appendix
Purpose Discussion
Key Message As part of its response to the threshold issues raised by Steve Diamond’s letter of June 24, 2019, Sidewalk Labs has produced a Digital Innovation Appendix which provides additional information about the digital elements of the proposal. This item is an overview of the DIA and its role in the broader MIDP.
Areas of note/ NOTE: As the DIA will be released on November 7, there is no Key issues expectation that Panelists will be familiar with the DIA contents prior to this meeting.
Hard copies of the DIA will be distributed at the meeting.
Expected Outcome Panelists will have a clear understanding of the structure of the DIA and how digital elements of the MIDP can be understood and evaluated.
Key Takeaways/ Next Steps
Page 174 of 190 Digital Strategy Advisory Panel (DSAP)
Digital Innovation Digital Innovation Appendix Overview
Jacqueline Lu and Jesse Shapins November 7th, 2019
Page 175 of 190 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
MIDP: Digital Innovation Appendix
1 Document Provide the latest information on the digital innovation components of the Sidewalk Labs draft proposal, Toronto Purpose Tomorrow — the draft Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP) — including updates that have resulted from discussions with Waterfront Toronto.
2 Address requests from experts and the public for more information and context about the digital innovation components of the proposal.
Page 176 of 1902 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
MIDP: Digital Innovation Appendix
The primary audience for this document are expert reviewers Document of the proposal, including Waterfront Toronto and Waterfront Toronto’s DSAP (an advisory body made up of Canadian leaders Audience across disciplines), as well as interested members of the public. The review that DSAP performs will be based on this document, along with supplemental materials from Waterfront Toronto and references to the original proposal when appropriate.
Waterfront Toronto has confirmed that, as part of the next round of public consultation, they will be generating materials to explain and seek engagement on the digital innovation components of the proposal.
Page 177 of 1903 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Table of Contents
What’s Section 1 Section 3 Integrating Digital Technology into Growing the Canadian Development Planning at Quayside Urban Innovation Ecosystem 1.1. Sidewalk Labs and its role in Toronto 3.1 Conditions of a successful urban innovation ecosystem Inside 1.2 Quayside development planning process 3.2 Sidewalk Labs’ proposed initiatives for growing the Canadian urban innovation ecosystem 1.3 Proposed Digitally Enabled Services for Quayside 3.3 Next steps for engaging the urban technology ecosystem 1.4 Proposal for digital infrastructure that supports digitally- enabled services and enables test bed conditions 1.5 Sidewalk Labs’ approach to open and resilient technology design and implementation Executive Section 4 Overview of Existing Policies Summary Section 2 and Approaches for Smart Cities and Digital Governance The Digital Innovation Appendix Sidewalk Labs’ Approaches 4.1 Introduction begins with an executive summary to Responsible Data Use 4.2 Critical topics in digital governance and technology and Inclusive Design followed by four sections. 4.3 Existing privacy regulations in Canada 2.1 Not having tech for tech’s sake is about having in place processes that guide decision-making and actions 4.4 The Canadian digital policy landscape 2.2 Responsible Data Use 4.5 Opportunities in existing and emerging practices
2.3 Inclusive and participatory planning and design 4.6 Digital innovation precedents from Canada and around the world Page 178 of 1904 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Executive Summary ES
The Executive Summary covers three areas: Executive Summary 1. Document background 2. Updates to the Sidewalk Labs proposal based on Threshold Issues resolution process
3. DIA section summaries
Page 179 of 1905 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Integrating Digital Technology into S1 Development Planning at Quayside
Section 1.1. Sidewalk Labs and its role in Toronto One 1.2 Quayside development planning process 1.3 Proposed Digitally Enabled Services for Quayside
1.4 Proposal for digital infrastructure that supports digitally enabled services and enables testbed conditions
1.5 Sidewalk Labs’ approach to open and resilient technology design and implementation
Page 180 of 1906 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Digital Architecture + Planning S1
Page 181 of 1907 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Digital Architecture + Planning S1
Page 182 of 1908 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Sidewalk Labs’ Approaches to S2 Responsible Data Use and Inclusive Design
2.1 Not having tech for tech’s sake is about having in place Section processes that guide decision-making and actions
Two 2.2 Responsible Data Use
2.3 Inclusive and Participatory Planning and Design
Page 183 of 1909 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Responsible Data Use S2
2.2 Responsible Data Use
Page 184 of 19010 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Inclusive and Participatory Planning and Design S2
2.3 Inclusive and Participatory Planning and Design
Page 185 of 19011 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPENDIX OVERVIEW
Growing the Canadian Innovation Ecosystem S3
Section 3.1 Conditions of a successful urban innovation ecosystem 3.2 Sidewalk Labs’ proposed initiatives for growing the Three Canadian urban innovation ecosystem
3.3 Next steps for engaging the urban technology ecosystem
Page 186 of 19012 Growing the Canadian Innovation Ecosystem S3
Core conditions for a successful Sidewalk Labs’ proposed activities urban innovation ecosystem to support core conditions
Access to Market Investing Procure Capital & Talent Access Locally and Promote ($ and expertise) (sophisticated Invest in local Procure from buyers at home businesses and their Canadian and abroad) talent businesses and promote these partners abroad
Ecosystem Innovation Capacity Contribute (physical and digital infrastructure, Contribute to the development of local policies, research & standards) capacity to innovate and support the growth of the sector
Page 187 of 19013 Overview of Existing Policies and Approaches S4 for Smart Cities and Digital Governance
Section 4.1 Introduction Four 4.2 Critical topics in digital governance and technology 4.3 Existing privacy regulations in Canada
4.4 The Canadian digital policy landscape
4.5 Opportunities in existing and emerging practices
4.6 Digital innovation precedents from Canada and around the world
Page 188 of 19014 Thank you.
Page 189 of 190
DSAP Meeting – November 7, 2019 Item 9 – Discussion of Process for DSAP Review of MIDP
Agenda Item 9 – Discussion of Process for DSAP Review of MIDP
Purpose Discussion
Key Message DSAP’s next step for the Quayside project will be to undertake a review of the MIDP as amended by the Threshold Issues resolution of October 31st, focused on the DIA. It is anticipated that this review will be provided to Waterfront Toronto in late- January, to allow it to be considered within WT’s own review process.
Areas of note/ Key issues
Expected Outcome Panelists will be clear on Waterfront Toronto’s overall evaluation process, the DSAP’s own review process for the MIDP, and how the latter will feed into the former. Panelists will also be in agreement regarding the general process and timelines for the evaluation.
Key Takeaways/ Next Steps
Page 190 of 190