Status of Minutes

Draft proposals for new business

Approved at: 





Discussion Items





 10 mins
  • Roll call
  • Agenda bashing

Thank you for joining the call today. 
This Work Group operates under the Non-Assertion Covenant IPR option found as an appendix to IPR Policies V2.0 that Kantara operates.
The Group Participation Agreement memorializes your acknowledgment of the terms under which you participate in this Work Group. Every person who has acknowledged the GPA is listed in the Participant Roster, as a voting or non-voting participant.
However, there are circumstances, such as in-person workshops or calls where non-participant guests may be present who have not acknowledged the GPA for this Work Group.

Every person on this call is strongly encouraged to acknowledge the GPA for this Work Group prior to any form of participation.
If you have not, or do not wish to, please Note Well the following before you participate in any form.

1) in accordance with the Kantara Initiative IPR Policies V2.0, all contributions by voice are valid contributions alongside the much more preferred written contributions and while you still retain your IP, you grant Kantara copyright equivalent to the terms of the Non-Assertion Covenant without further condition or reservation.

2) it is your own IP and not another party's IP

3) such contributions are not confidential or otherwise subject to the limitation in its distribution, including pricing or other competitively sensitive information.

Again, if you are uncertain about any matters, please remain silent and do not contribute anything in writing.



Intentcasting Background and Review

What i’d like to cover in our call is ‘Updating the definition of Intentcasting' from that used in 'The Intention Economy. See below.

'In technical terms, your personal RFP is an event that triggers rules that are written in KRL and executed by a rules engine that’s under your control, in this case, at your fourth party (though it could be anywhere). The rules are ones you or your fourth party write. They say what kinds of information can be released, to whom, and under what conditions. They also say what other information might be brought in to help move things along, such as banking and credit information, general or specific locations, time frames, and other data that can be released securely, at the right time, on a need-to-know basis, and auditable later.

All the retailers in your current area are also on the Live Web and ready to receive notice of intents to buy (what used to be called “leads”) from potential customers. Your fourth party sends out your RFP to qualified sellers, and in a few minutes, you have serious responses from stores with strollers to offer. After a couple of conversations with stores that have the most attractive offers, you decide that a place about two miles from the airport has the stroller you want. You tell them you’ll pick it up after you get your rental car. The store’s systems and yours both record the same intention in their respective databases. The same shows up in your smartphone’s calendar, along with directions to the store on your phone’s map.'

It might help to remind of this draft intentcasting schema built for VRM Day Demo in Oct 2018.

Discussion on Call

We had a wide ranging discussion, key points that are emerging for work going forward include as below.

We need to retain a clear of of the Context around an intentcast; what is the nature of the two end points:

  • consumer to retailer
  • B2B
  • Peer to peer
  • Requirement is for products or services or content

To better define intentcasting we need to recognise that it is likely a broad category with then specific sub-sets. For example, sub-sets might be looked at as:

  • There are preceding phases in which needs/ wants/ requirements emerge and are articulated (window shopping is part of this).
  • Considered/ significant purchases versus tactical/ in-significant purchases (significance/ scale of requirement)
  • Planned purchases versus purchases made in pressured situations (context of requirement)
  • Different stages in the requirement cycle (requests for information, requests for proposals) (stage of requirement)
  • Whether the purchase is a one off, repeats with some regularity or is an 'always on' requirement (uniqueness of requirement)
  • Geographic factors; is the requirement localised or broader? And how is this managed.
  • Timing factors; how will relevant dates/ times be managed.

Also discussed:

  • Intentcasting should be seen as an 'and' not an 'or' versus current models. That is to say, intentcasting can run alongside current models.
  • We should move forward by working up a range of 'user stories' to illustrate the above points.

Next meetingAll

*** Next call 2020-05-22 10:30 am Eastern DAYLIGHT Time