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

Colin Wallis colin_wallis at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 27 23:35:08 EDT 2010


Thanks Joni

As I mentioned on the call, I think it is one of the most critical things to come out of the Paris meeting.

As I also said, I favour *not* calling them a WG or DG,a s I think having closed and open versions of those will confuse.

Internationally, national body groups that review ISO drafts and the like are called 'Mirror Groups' (MGs) or 'International Review Groups' (IRGs).

Given our international membership, I think we can capitalise on the latter term, (perhaps not in a way its creators intended, which was of course restricted to the notion that the documents were international, not that the review group was international!) .

We can have some standing ones, e.g. IRG for ISO SC27 WG5, IRG for ITU-T SG17/Q10 and some we wuld have to stand up as the need arose like 'IRG for US NSTIC'.

Thoughts anyone?  

Cheers

Colin


From: joni at ieee-isto.org
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:06:18 +0200
To: LC at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: [KI-LC] 'Standing' Liaison WG/DGs to allow for confidential review of 3rd party materials

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 @ ieee-isto.org


gtalk: jonibrennan
skype: upon request

Join the conversation on the community@ list - 
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community












_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20101028/57138438/attachment.html 


More information about the LC mailing list