[KI-LC] Proposal for KI to have an observer for the NASPO ID-V Project

Colin Wallis colin_wallis at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 15 14:25:49 EDT 2010

Sorry I had to drop off this mornming's call unannounced as I had another at the top of the hour.

Discussion was in 'full flight' re this so I will look forward to the minutes to catch up on where it took us.

When I left, P3WG was going to submit a formal proposal to join using the template Trent will circulate.  All good.

For what it's worth, my view is that there is much more at stake than funding to join/IPR and the like.

KI needs to be sure that the effort is 'correct' from various perspectives - Privacy, id proofing and assurance etc. Abbie pointed this out.

But it also has to have a view on the likelihood of adoption of the resulting standard - not least of which, is it something KI would take into its own Frameworks when those are deployed in the US? 

Notwithstanding the potential interest from the UK govt or anywhere else, the thing that makes the US stand out in this regard is that it appears to have no authoritative sources of government information. It is not alone in that, but this characteristic is not the case for the majority of governments. The UK for instance, does have authoritative sources of government information.  

Whichever KI group/s get interested in this need to research the work that is to be used as input, and understand how comfortable it is with the processes that might be being standardized there at NASPO.

So looking at one aspect of that input discussion for example, my personal view is that my government would run a mile rather than have an 'independent assessor' certified to look over all my claimed id docs and make a call that they seem bona fide and give me a big tick (or otherwise) id-proofing-wise.  Because that introduces a major risk of compromise/bribing into the process. So that might be an acceptable risk in the US where that solution might be more pragmatic than to tackle the nub of the problem - no authoritative sources of information (government or otherwise) - but it's a long way from an ideal solution.  And as for widespread adoption of this standard? - how many of these assessors would you need for a whole nation? And keep them honest? Hmmm.

So if KI wants to jump in both feet into this, it is kind of buying into outcome - guilty by association if you will.  That means that if KI doesn't agree with the direction, it has to evaluate the chances of success to get that direction changed, or know when exit the process and disassociate itself if it feels NASPO is too far off track.  
On the other hand, maybe the stuff I've Googled is all history and NASPO has in mind a totally new approach, which is all fine and you can disregard anything I've said so far.  
My support of Bob's original proposal still stands - don't get me wrong.  From my own personal perspective, even if I don't like what I've seen in the run up to this, it doesn't mean you ignore it. Quite the opposite. You have to know what's going down before you can make a judgement.

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:51:47 -0400
From: kantara at bobpinheiro.com
To: lc at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Proposal for KI to have an observer for the NASPO ID-V Project


    Message body
    WRT to the NASPO item on today's LC meeting agenda, I just wanted to
    make sure the LC recalls this email (below) that Colin sent to the
    LC list on Aug 24.  Essentially there is already a proposal on the
    table, which is to provide some financial support (perhaps partial
    reimbursement of travel expenses) to Dan Combs in return for him
    keeping KI and the LC informed about the NASPO effort going
    forward.  Since Dan is a KI member and is participating in NASPO as
    an independent, the thought was that he could keep KI/LC up to date
    on NASPO activities without KI actually making a commitment to
    formally join and participate.   





    On 8/24/2010 6:42 PM, Colin Wallis wrote:
            was a NASPO ID-V
            action in the 4th August meeting: "LC members interested in
            moving this work forward are asked to formalize a proposal
            and bring it to the
            LC for consideration".
            that in mind, and taking
            a suggestion Bob made on the call that Dan Combs could
            possibly serve as a
            liaison, since he is an individual Kantara member already
            participating in
            ID-V, I contacted Dan to explore that possibility. 
            explained the
            background and context to Dan to see if he might be
            interested, and in return
            he gave positive signals that he wanted to help.
            that and on Trent's
            suggestion, I pulled in Bob to help formulate an approach.
            and I propose that
            Dan be 'KI's eyes and ears at NASPO' acting in an observer
            role and reporting
            back to the LC on the ID-V project.  For this he will be
            reimbursed some
            percentage for his travel expenses to attend ID-V meetings.
            We have explored a
            model with Dan and it met no resistance.  So without getting
            ahead of ourselves
            we will leave it at that for the moment. 
            proposal is as simple
            and straight forward as that really.. 
        If the
            LC agrees in
            principle, then we will go back to Dan to make sure he is
            agreeable, and
            confirm the conditions of the reimbursement.  For instance
            this might
            capture the fact that Dan has already attended a meeting in
            Kansas City, and
            apparently most of the upcoming meetings will be in the DC
            area local to Dan,
            so there may not be much travel involved.  Should KI
            reimburse him some
            percentage for his travel to KC, if he writes a report on
            the activity
            there?  What if there is no subsequent travel involved?.
            agreement with Dan
            is reached, we draft it in writing (a paragraph or two or
            three) for the LC to
            formally vote on.  If approved, it goes to BoT, should the
            LC deem
            some stage in the
            future, following various reports from Dan, the LC may want
            to revisit the
            current arrangement and re-consider the notion of becoming a
            participant. But that is for the future and hypothetical at
            this stage, so
            again there is no need to get ahead of ourselves.
        We ask
            that agenda time
            be reserved on the next call to share comments on this
            proposal and agree next
            and Colin  

      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



LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20100916/b2eb46c7/attachment.html 

More information about the LC mailing list