[KI-LC] 'Standing' Liaison WG/DGs to allow for confidential review of 3rd party materials

Joni Brennan joni at ieee-isto.org
Wed Oct 27 09:40:22 EDT 2010


The common use case I am thinking of is our liaison with ISO sg27 wg5 where
ISO has confidential drafts that we provide feedback into.  Thus the
confidentiality is not a KI requirement but rather a requirement of the end
point who we provide review and feedback to.

I hope that helps.

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:20 PM, John Fraser <john.fraser at mednetworld.com>wrote:

> I am in support of this, but several more use cases would be helpful.  What
> is the outcome of these reviews of these "draft Xs"?  Why are these orgs
> reviewing materials with Kantara?
>
> JF
>
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 6:06 AM, "Joni Brennan" <joni at ieee-isto.org> wrote:
>
> Hello LC,
>
> In the Paris F2F meeting the Board of Trustees discussed the need to have a
> clear mechanisim by which Kantara can liaise 'privately' with outside
> organizations.  Private is used not to create a 'closed' environment in
> Kantara but rather because there is a need to comply with the
> confidentiality requirements of the liaising organizations.  The use case is
> - Kantara is asked by org X to review draft X.  Draft X is private to org X
> so Kantara must provide comment and feedback in compliance with org X's
> confidentiality rules.
>
> Today we take these discussions off list and treat them as ad-hoc.
> However, the Board of Trustees would support an LC action to create standing
> liaison WGs or DGs which would would provide a clear place and mechanisim
> for KI members to comment on review docs but also provide visibility (via
> front wiki page only) to our liaison activities.  These groups could become
> 'active' when Kantara is asked to provide input and then become dormant when
> there are no review requests.  Another advantage to having this special type
> of liaison group is that we will have a place where the liaising activity
> for orgX is archived.  Each private Liaising WG/DG would also have a private
> list - again to comply with orgX's confidentiality rules.
>
> I believe that the LC / KI have been seeking such a clear mechanism for a
> while now - I'm hopeful that the LC can take this email as a proposal to
> move forward with an eventual Operating Procedure update to define and
> qualify this new type of group.  Comments and thoughts are welcomed!
>
> Thank you,
>
> Joni
>
> --
> Joni Brennan
> IEEE-ISTO
> Kantara Initiative | Managing Director
> voice:+1 732-226-4223
> email: joni @ <http://ieee-isto.org>ieee-isto.org
> gtalk: jonibrennan
> skype: upon request
>
> Join the conversation on the community@ list -
> <http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community>
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ATT00001..txt>
>
>


-- 
Joni Brennan
IEEE-ISTO
Kantara Initiative | Managing Director
voice:+1 732-226-4223
email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
gtalk: jonibrennan
skype: upon request

Join the conversation on the community@ list -
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20101027/5721cf4c/attachment.html 


More information about the LC mailing list