[KI-LC] Proposal for Trust Framework Coordination - Input Requested
joni at ieee-isto.org
Thu Mar 3 20:31:59 EST 2011
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, j stollman <stollman.j at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is my impression that the proposed sub-committee will be unable to
> achieve its mission. First, for the sub-committee to be effective, it will
> need to include members actively engaged in each of the work groups creating
> framework components. This will present a new administrative burden for
> people already spread thin to work on their component frameworks.
JB: It is a starting point to collaboratively develop a more strategic plan
- which should result in solving at least some of the first level
> Second, the ultimate trust framework is larger than the scope of the
> current KI efforts. This suggests that no matter how effective the
> sub-committee is in coordinating current KI efforts, there will remain
> large, undefined gaps in the overall model that will keep the components
> from achieving their imagined effectiveness.
> Perhaps there needs to be another member in the constitution directly for
liaising orgs (OIX, ABA, etc). I can work that in. External orgs are also
mentioned in terms of providing one place where external orgs can get
updates and roadmap for these efforts.
> Third, no tools currently exist to support the coordination effort. We
> will be left with only emotional pressure to "manage" the scope and
> approaches of each component framework. We will not have a scientific
> process for prioritizing scope and approaches.
> JB: I will add explicitly as part of the scope - to develop proposal for a
longer term strategic coordination plan. This could be in terms of possible
consolidation of current groups to be "children" under one "parent" group.
This approach should be determined by the chairs (groups) involved with
secretariat needs addressed in the LC. It could also be a proposal for an
Operating Procedures to include an explicit mechanism for cross group
functions. Operating Procedure change management is a role of the LC.
> In my view, the way to achieve the desired coordination requires the
> 1. Develop a draft Trust Framework Meta Model (TFW-MM) that includes
> all trust relationships among all potential parties to a transaction (any
> transaction). This effort, in and of itself will take several months.
> Rainer Horbe and I have been pursuing this already (with consider help from
> Ken Dagg), but we have only been able to touch the tip of the iceberg.
> Look at the TMM WG as an early path solution. If that WG were to form it
would be a part of the LC Sub-Committee to address the best path forward.
> 1. Vet the draft by disseminating it to a wide range of interested
> parties in order to uncover as many issues as possible.
> 2. Revise the model to address issues raised in the review.
> 3. Require each of the work groups developing relevant framework
> components to map their efforts using the TFW-MM.
> 4. Perform a gap and overlap analysis of the various framework
> 5. Work with the framework work groups to resolve gaps and overlaps.
> 1-4 sound like the scope of the TMM Group, with 5 being a report in to the
committee for each Chair to take back to their groups for consideration.
Also, the committee is meant to be a one-stop-shop for KI vetting
coordination - and could be for liaisons too.
Until we complete Step 3 above, I don't know how much a sub-committee will
> be able to accomplish. This is a multiple person-month effort.
JB: There are two distinct issues.
1. How to coordinate all of the KI efforts AND best align with external
With a first approach team (LC-TFC-SC) which communicates current status and
flags - and perhaps more importantly - develops a proposal to the LC for
long term management.
2. What team owns the TMM?
The TMM needs to be cross-organizational. Hence the mention of cross
organizational sponsorship for that Group.
> The only way to expedite Steps 1-3 is to fund the development of the draft
> model. This will move the effort from a "free time" effort to a "full time"
> effort. I recognize the problems inherent in having KI fund this
> development, which is why I have been looking elsewhere for sponsors. If KI
> can help us identify sponsors and obtain funding, we could expedite
> There might be other approaches, but just creating a new sub-committee
> doesn't necessarily accomplish the desired mission.
> JB: It is the first step in accomplishing mission one = coordination.
Mission 2 needs a team. And yes - it needs funding and Kantara can help
with efforts to raise funds and we can manage any directed funds with very
low overhead. We're already doing this in HIAWG. We should discuss the
fund raising further.
> Thank you.
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Joni Brennan <joni at ieee-isto.org> wrote:
>> Dear LC,
>> As discussed on yesterday's LC call, John and I have worked up a proposal
>> for how to better coordinate all of the Trust Framework (TF) touching groups
>> in Kantara. In summary we are proposing a LC Sub-Committee to coordinate
>> these activities with leadership from each contributing group as the
>> constitution of the LC Sub-Committee. Please see the proposal  and send
>> back your thoughts, adds, edits, deletes. I'm hopeful that formation of
>> this SC will lead us to better coordination, collaboration and messaging
>> Thanks for your thoughts,
>> Joni Brennan
>> Kantara Initiative | Executive Director
>> voice:+1 732-226-4223
>> email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
>> gtalk: jonibrennan
>> skype: upon request
>> Join the conversation on the community@ list -
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> Jeff Stollman
> stollman.j at gmail.com
> 1 202.683.8699
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC