Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Minutes approved March 31, 2010

Kantara Leadership Council Teleconference

Date and Time

  • Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010
  • Time: 3pm PDT | 6pm EDT | 22:00 UTC (Time Chart)
  • Teleconference Options:
    • Skype: +9900827043671716
    • US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022 | Room Code: 3671716

NOTES:

Attendees

  • Voting:
    1. ID-WSF Evolution: Paul Madsen
    2. User-Managed Access: Eve Maler
    3. Telecommunications Identity: Jonas Hogberg
    4. Consumer ID: Bob Pinheiro
    5. eGov: Colin Wallis
    6. Privacy and Public Policy: Abbie Barbir
    7. IdP Selection: Philippe Clement
    8. ID Assurance: Frank Villavincencio
  • Non-Voting:
    1. Roger Martin
    2. Joni Brennan
    3. Dervla O'Reilly
    4. Concordia: Paul Madsen
    5. Identity Community Update: J. Trent Adams
    6. Map the Gap: J. Trent Adams

Apologies

  • None

Agenda

  1. Roll Call for Quorum Determination
  2. Approval of prior meeting minutes
    1. Review: Leadership Council Teleconference - 2010-02-17
    2. Unofficial Notes: Leadership Council Teleconference - 2010-03-03
  3. Oregon Meeting Review
    1. Quorum management update
    2. Proposed Liaison Process - Accepted in principle by BoT
    3. Proposed Funding Models - Accepted in principle by BoT
    4. Evangelism & Marketing
      1. BoT formalizing the Marketing Committee (requesting members)
      2. Marketing Committee to update web & create common collateral
      3. WG/DGs to provide overviews & maintain presentations
      4. Logos & representation rules review
    5. Balance between Steering / Oversight / Strategy
    6. Deactivation Process Sub Committee
  4. Request: IAWG asks the LC to run an all-member ballot looking for approval of their specifications.
    1. Review: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/idassurance/WG+Approved+Specifications
      1. Kantara IAF-1000-Overview.pdf
      2. Kantara IAF-1100-Glossary.pdf
      3. Kantara IAF-1200-Levels of Assurance.pdf
      4. Kantara IAF-1300-Assurance Assessment Scheme.pdf
      5. Kantara IAF-1400-Service Assessment Criteria.pdf
      6. Kantara IAF-1600-Assessor Qualifications and Requirements.pdf
  5. Announce: New Draft Recommendation Comments Disposition Template
  6. AOB

Minutes

  1. Roll Call for Quorum Determination
    1. Began the call with 16 voting Members of the LC.
    2. Following a provision in section 2.6 in the Operating Procedure, the Chair reviewed the attendance records and re-classified the following Work Groups to "non-voting status":
      1. Liberty Spec Maintenance
      2. Identity & Access Services
    3. Following the action, the number of voting Members of the LC is 14.
    4. The quorum requirement was adjusted to needing 8 voting Members.
    5. Quorum met: 8 out of 14 voting Members present.
    6. ACTION ITEM: Trent to notify the groups they've been moved to non-voting status (DONE)
  2. Approval of prior meeting minutes:
    1. MOTION: To approve the Leadership Council Teleconference - 2010-02-17 as recorded.
    2. Moved by Colin, motion carried.
  3. Oregon Meeting Review
    1. Quorum management update:
      1. Discussed section 2.6 of the Operating Procedure. The consensus was that it is an effective means for managing quorum.
      2. Discussed the modifications to the WG sign-up process allowing new Members to join as "voting" or "non-voting". The consensus was that the modification was an effective means for managing quorum.
      3. Consensus was that no further action was required to manage quorum.
    2. Proposed Liaison Process
      1. Presented and discussed the proposed process by which the WGs would bring potential external liaisons to the LC to be tracked:
        1. Two types of external liaison relationships were identified: informal & formal.
        2. Informal liaison relationships (which do not require signing agreements) are brought by a WG/DG to the LC who coordinate liaison relationships, and can delegate their handling back to the WG/DG as appropriate.
        3. Formal liaison relationships (ones that do require signing agreements) are also brought by a WG/DG to the LC, who then recommend them to the BoT to execute the agreements.
        4. In both cases, the LC helps to track the relationships.
      2. The consensus was that this model should work for the WGs.
      3. The proposal was subsequently presented to the BoT and was accepted in principle, though they asked for clarifying details.
      4. ACTION ITEM: Trent and Roger Martin to discuss next steps in how to formalize this into practice.
    3. Proposed Funding Models
      1. Presented and discussed the proposal:
        1. Actively chartered Work Groups can seek sources of funding outside Kantara Initiative for their activities. As long as these activities
          remain in line with the WG charter, KI will work with the outside funding source as appropriate to support the WG's activities. Should
          funds be provided directly to KI in support of the WG's activities, the Trustees will ensure that those funds are made available to the
          associated WG. KI will endeavor to support all WG activities equally, regardless of funding method.
      2. The consensus was that this model should work for the WGs.
      3. The proposal was subsequently presented to the BoT and was accepted in principle, though they asked for clarifying details.
      4. ACTION ITEM: Trent and Roger Martin to discuss next steps in how to formalize this into practice.
    4. Evangelism & Marketing
      1. Detailed discussions took place regarding the need for the organization to support two related, but separate marketing efforts:
        1. Evangelism: Promoting the work of specific WG/DGs with a focus toward communicating their efforts and output.
          1. It was noted that the term "evangelism" may not be the right one to use as the term carries undesirable undertones. A better term was not proposed, but is desired.
        2. Marketing: Promoting the work of Kantara as an organization, including clear delineation between Programs and WG/DG activities.
      2. Consensus was that it would be reasonable to ask the WG/DGs to each supply a 3-page description of their work that was tuned to a naive audience that could be used to evangelize their work to be used in various contexts.
      3. ACTION ITEM: Trent to recirculate the RSA presentations as a starting point.
      4. A request was made to the BoT that they take the materials to be provided by the WG/DGs and use them to update the Kantara web site and develop related collateral that help more clearly explain the activities of the group and how they fit into the overall organization mission.
      5. The BoT accepted the request in principle and agreed to forward the request to the Marketing Committee.
      6. ACTION ITEM: The LC was asked by the BoT to help solicit volunteers from their organizations to join the Marketing Committee.
      7. As a case study of Participant involvement in the development of collateral materials, UMA is producing materials in Polish and Italian (by volunteers).
    5. Logos & representation rules review
      1. WGs need ability to use the logo in conjunction with their work
      2. BoT needs to protect the brand by not encouraging improper use of the logo
      3. BoT discussed how to address the situation and suggested the Marketing Committee would be the appropriate body to propose guidelines.
      4. Question: Could WGs modify the KI logo to incorporate the name of the WG?
        1. Discussion in the BoT indicated that WGs should not change the logo without prior approval by the board.
    6. Balance between Steering / Oversight / Strategy
      1. Discussion about the balance between the LC setting strategic goals for all of the groups, and to what extent the LC should guide groups to combine resources.
      2. The consensus was that the balance struck over the past months was the right one. The primary point at which the LC should be involved is during the evaluation of proposed charters. Once chartered, activities that may cross WGs can be raised within the LC, but unless their work deviates from the charter, no LC action should be taken to force cooperation.
    7. Deactivation Process Sub Committee
      1. The current Bylaws and Operating Procedure do not include details regarding how to identify if a WG/DG is a candidate to be closed down, and the process for doing so.
      2. Discussion around how there needs to be a balance between formalized procedures to provide room for a group to shut itself down, as well as to protect the unwarranted closing of an unpopular group.
      3. ACTION ITEM: Eve to spend some time drafting ideas that could be used to develop a process to address this.
  4. Request: IAWG asks the LC to run an all-member ballot looking for approval of their specifications.
    1. The LC was asked to review the materials found at: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/idassurance/WG+Approved+Specifications
    2. Next steps: LC reviews process taken by IAWG, if reasonable it approves the all-member ballot.
    3. Noted that the LC approval for this work to go to an all-member ballot is a procedural one, and not about the content of the documents themselves
    4. According to the OP, the all-member ballot must run for two weeks.
    5. ACTION ITEM: Trent to send announcement to LC list of call for votes on next teleconference, outlining the steps as well as stressing a need for attendance and need for speed.
  5. Announce: New Draft Recommendation Comments Disposition Template
    1. This is a template that can be used to track comments provided in response to the review period of a Draft Recommendation prior to an all-member ballot.
  6. ADDED: Discussion of concern / confusion around ICAM and ARB; specifically what KI is doing
    1. Following a discussion in the eGov list, there appears to be two problems with the ARB
      1. perception issue about how the IAWG and ARB interact with the ICAM
        1. Possibly a case of "apples and oranges" between the OIX and ARB as they focus on different issues (e.g. technologies, LOA, etc.).
        2. Most likely a set of issues that can be addressed by the newly formed Marketing Committee
        3. FAQ would go a long way to solving this
      2. IPR constraints (specifically, concern over need to license IAWG output to develop derivative work)
        1. IAF is a Framework of criteria, so it's possible it may not need to be tightly controlled by IPR
        2. Even if true, that message still needs to get out.
    2. ACTION ITEM: Frank will lead an effort to address a FAQ document that addresses the issues being raised.
    3. ACTION ITEM: Trent to put this back on the LC agenda to make sure it's being addressed

Next Teleconference

  • Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2010
  • Time: 9am PST | 12pm EST | 16:00 UTC (Time Chart)
  • Teleconference Options:
    • Skype: +9900827043671716
    • US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022 | Room Code: 3671716

NOTES:

  • No labels