Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Status and next steps

 

Current Status: MoU under IDESG Board consideration and legal review. 

Updated docs.

Meetings 

 

2017-05-18 Draft Meeting Notes

2017-04-26 Draft Meeting Notes


Previous considerations:

-Include Kantara onboarding in the Statement of Work for the next version of the IDEF Registry web site.
-The form that recognition of Kantara-approved CSPs during the IDEF registration process still needs to be decided. If it can’t be an interactive experience (due to site-development budget issues), it could at least be a static presentation in HTML or PDF.
-Once we get the above going, part of the process would be that Kantara-approved CSPs initiate registration and get a “pass” on the “Fully Compliant” items, then they will attest to the remaining IDEF Baseline criteria. Finally, they will need to accept the standard terms and conditions and submit a complete package (attestation form).
-In relation to the HTML/Static representation, KI suggested following the example of our Trust Registry: https://kantarainitiative.org/trust-registry/ktr-status-list/


April 3rd Meeting Notes:  

  •  We discussed that once a CSP is approved at Kantara, in essence they will be offered the opportunity to self attest at IDESG.
  • They will choose one of 2 URLs. One URL is pre-filled with boxes ticked if they have done Kantara's 1400 SACs approval.
  • The other URL is pre-filled with boxes ticked if they have done Kantara's 1400 SACs approval AND the FICAM Privacy Profile.
  • IDESG will queue up the URL/web work on its upcoming work order.
  • The URLs will be hosted by IDESG. If required by IDESG, they will ask Kantara to validate that a CSP has been approved.

 Action items:

  •  Ben will fill in the last remaining empty boxes on the compare tool to complete the mapping.
  • Colin will use a Kantara MOU template to strawman up the broad approach.


IDESG and KI call to discuss the IDEF-SAC mapping March 10th.

 Meeting Notes:

  • Andrew and David recounted the approaches used by each team to analyse, review and comment on the mapping
  • We looked at each item that TFTM had further questions about, notes on each one follow: 
    1) INTEROP-2 - Kantara should indicate in the S3A that if the CSP intends to apply for IDEF Registry listing that they include an answer to INTEROP-2 in their S3A 
    2) INTEROP-3 - this is a trigger on IDESG side - if an applicant to the Registry is using a non-listed standard this should trigger IDESG to put the standard through the normal evaluation process 
    3) PRIVACY-3 - Kantara should review data minimization criteria to see where this is handled - “Partial” might be possible instead of N/A 
    4) PRIVACY-15 - The IDEF requirements is relevant to the transaction. David explained the context that he expects -> Data Minimization. Andrew requested that IDESG review and update their requirement and supplemental guidance for P15. David noted that there is no supplemental guidance for the Privacy requirements. 
  • ACH asked David to send info to Kantara about how other CSPs have done this and Kantara can recommend to CSPs.



  • No labels