[KI-LC] Cross-Group Participation

Colin Wallis Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz
Wed Jan 20 17:09:12 EST 2010


Many thanks Brett, I think this is a substantial start.

It's one of those complex areas that only time and practical deployment will tell us whether all the issues are covered.

Cheers
Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Brett McDowell
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2010 5:04 a.m.
To: Colin Wallis
Cc: Kantara Leadership Council
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Cross-Group Participation

Here is a proposed Cross-Group FAQ to address this still open issue
with Kantara's process.  The discussion to-date has been assigned to a
subcommittee though we've kept our work on the LC list.  The
discussion died down/out over the holidays but here we are picking it
back up and hoping to reach closure very soon.  I hope the LC meeting
today will be productive in that end.

PROPOSED FAQ as guidance for Cross-Group Coordination & Cross-Group
Participation:

Q1: How does my WG stay informed of the work items in other WG's?
Note that this is very important because we may wish to coordinate or
even collaborate at times, but it starts with awareness.

A1: Kantara takes the following actions to ensure cross-group
information sharing:
- reserve time in every LC call when verbal status reports are given
- require all charters be accurate to the work underway and publicly
viewable on the web site
- require all group minutes to be published on the public web site
- provide a community at kantarainitiative.org mailing list as a tool for
cross-group discussion
- require all groups provide a representative to the LC
- provide a public podcast of all verbal reports given in LC meetings
- make a best effort attempt to have all milestones such as new work
items, charter updates, approved WG Reports, approved Draft
Recommendations, etc. receive attention through a dedicated blog post
on the official KI blog


Q2: After we become aware of a work item in another WG that is of
interest to us, how does my WG discuss, explore, and evaluate a work
item in another WG for the sake of better understanding either the
work item itself or more importantly, if there is any impact on the
work we are doing in our WG?

A2: As a matter of policy, the LC recommends that WG Chairs invite
representatives from external WG's to an Open Forum conference call or
face-to-face meeting for the sake of facilitating information
exchange.  These Open Fora can be held most simply at the end of an
official WG meeting which has been properly adjourned.  These Open
Fora do not have any GPA requirements and shall be deemed
comparability to people gathering for a BOF at a conference.  The
Kantara staff shall make KI infrastructure available for such meetings
(conference call facilities, etc.).

Q3: Once we have explored an external WG's work item and we have
decided that we truly wish to make a substantive contribution to their
work item, how do we go about doing that?

A3: Substantive contributions are and must always be governed by the
GPA or some other form of legally binding IPR commitment acceptable to
the Board of Trustees (such as the Liberty contributions to Kantara in
late 2009).  We recommend a WG take time to discuss the kind of
contribution they wish to make to an external WG but that such a
contribution only come to that external WG by a person who has signed
the GPA of that external group.  In each instance the receiving WG
should take a reasonable good faith effort to evaluate whether IP has
been contributed from a source not bound to the IPR terms of the
receiving WG and act to reject the contribution if that is the case.
But to a great extent, this is always a risk with any contribution and
no exhaustive audit or equivalent level of investigation is expected
or even recommended.

Q4: What if two WG's want to co-publish a single Report for marketing
or other reasons not satisfied by a single group producing the
document? How could we do this?

A4: Each WG would follow its normal process for developing the output.
 Informational coordination and cross-group contributions would be
made back-and-forth per A2 and A3 above resulting in a common text
publication from each WG that is identical.  But this is not
recommended as it's redundant and no WG Report carries the branding of
Kantara Initiative anyway so the recommended path for showing broad
industry support for a given piece of output would be focus the work
in one WG and accelerate it through the full Kantara Initiative
Recommendation process.

Q5: What if my Work Group has finished our work but another WG wants
to pick up where we left off and evolve the work forward?  How do we
contribute work into another WG?

A5: Each WG is its own siloed IPR regime, even if two WG's are using
the same IPR Policy.  Therefore the process governing the contribution
of output from one WG into another WG is the same as the process for
contributing WG output from Kantara into an external organization.
The process differs by means of the IPR policy being used by the WG
making the contribution.  For the RF with Opt-Out to RAND IPR Policy,
such a contribution would require the approval of the Board of
Trustees.

...whew!  I hope that gives us something to discuss on the LC call
today (note I likely won't be attending).


|| Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com | http://kantarainitiative.org



On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz> wrote:
> eGov potentially has use cases to give to ID-WSF, is supposedly working on a cross group common (life event type) use case that would raise gaps that multiple groups could potentially fulfil requirements from.  In the absence of eGov having got that off the ground, Info Sharing's use case is becoming the very useful default there. So I see no problems arising out of this kind of contribution.
>
> Then we come to actually contributing something that will end up being published.  I know Bob particularly, was concerned that when it comes to publishing things together, we need to look at the specific set of IPR policies of the groups.  If they don't 'match' what do we do?
>
> So two problems:
>
> 1) IPR - contributing real knowledge to the solution that is to be published
> 2) Copyright - we have the precedent of giving it to 'Kantara Communications' to publish, in essence under a RF/RAND approach if I recall correctly, gives us guidance
>
> Cheers
> Colin
>
> ...................................................................................
>
> Adding Iain's response so we keep one thread..
>
> Hi Brett, the Information Sharing WG would wish to continue to work with Eve and the UMA group to explore the clear synergies between the two.
>
> Likewise we continue to tune into the P3 group and would expect the synergies there to develop over time.
>
> Our experience to date would suggest that this works well enough without a formal process.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Iain
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Robin Wilton
> Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 6:40 a.m.
> To: Brett McDowell
> Cc: Kantara Leadership Council
> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Cross-Group Participation
>
> I have two things which are likely to need collaboration between P3WG and the eGov WG...
>
> 1 - Help requested by DIFI (Norway) on "use of electronic identifiers in public sector e-procurement" (as currently being raised by Colin); his group doesn't see that as a core topic for them... so one option is for
> P3 to do it, but with some liaison from eGov.
>
> 2 - The ISO editorial work on Privacy Capability Maturity Model.
>
> Yrs.,
> Robin
>
> Brett McDowell wrote:
>> This email is to initiate the formal work of the subcommittee tasked to find a way to facilitate cross-group participation.
>>
>> My hypothesis is that we do not need a formal process.  We simply need to draft a FAQ that interprets existing policies.
>>
>> To test that assertion, can we start to collect the "use cases" that test that assertion?  What do any of you want to (or wanted to) achieve through cross-group collaboration?
>>
>>
>> Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |
>> http://KantaraInitiative.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>
> --
> Robin Wilton
> Director - Future Identity Ltd
>
> +44 (0)705 005 2931
> mail at futureidentity.eu
>
> ====
> CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
> ====
>
_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
====
CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
====


More information about the LC mailing list