[KI-LC] [DG-NSTIC] An eGov comment:: (RE: REVIEW DRAFT: Kantara Initiative Position Paper - NSTIC Steering Group Formation v0.2)

Salvatore D'Agostino sal at idmachines.com
Mon Jun 11 07:56:37 EDT 2012


One way to address this is to have the leadership of each of the DG/WG
participate/liaison in the related working groups.  Individuals can
participate and bring their DG/WG hats along.

 

At the top should be an area of overall organization to organization
cooperation.  

 

Ditto on eGov policy.  

 

The more participation the better the position (more votes) for elections no
matter what category.

 

From: dg-nstic-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:dg-nstic-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:24 AM
To: Colin Wallis
Cc: Kantara Leadership Council Kantara; dg-nstic at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-NSTIC] [KI-LC] An eGov comment:: (RE: REVIEW DRAFT: Kantara
Initiative Position Paper - NSTIC Steering Group Formation v0.2)

 

The NSTIC rules say you need to self-identify for participating in
elections.  What category you run for election in and vote in,  not what
plenary areas you participate in.    This is more a governance issue than an
operational one.   Given that individuals can self select and vote with the
same weight as organizations, the only reason for a organization to self
select is to run for the governing group in an area as far as I can tell.

 

I have know idea if the rules would allow a WG that is not a legal entity to
participate at that level for voting,  I suspect not.   the more important
thing is probably what NSTIC proposed NSTIC committees relate to Kantara WG,
and arranging individual participation.

 

I agree with Colin eGov should be positioned as Policy not standards.

 

John B.

On 2012-06-11, at 5:30 AM, Colin Wallis wrote:





Many thanks for this effort Joni
 
I took a look over the weekend.
 
It's great to see the strong support for international representation! Thank
you:-)
 
The rest of it was great too, and I had just two thoughts..: 
 
1) Do we think that it is appropriate to characterize eGov WG as
'standards', referencing the Implementation profile for SAML 2.0?  It's not
that that is wrong of course, but thinking about our revised positioning
into a more policy/governance/requirements gatherer for an eGov SAC, I'm
wondering if we couldn't future-proof ourselves a bit? IF we did, we could
also self identify into 4) Fed Gov and 5) State Local etc Gov, couldn't we?
 
2) I thought that NSTIC rules said that an entity could only self identify
into one of the Stakeholder Groups. While the issue of undue influence as
raised by NSTIC is reasonable, it is also unreasonable that an entity such
as KI has to do this given the breadth of its activities. Certainly that is
the implication of this reponse paper, but it doesn't seem to come right out
and say it.  
 
Any views on these points? 
 
Cheers
Colin     

  _____  

From: joni at ieee-isto.org
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:32:33 -0700
To: LC at kantarainitiative.org; dg-nstic at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: [KI-LC] REVIEW DRAFT: Kantara Initiative Position Paper - NSTIC
Steering Group Formation v0.2

Hello LC and NSTIC DG,

Please find attached the early draft of Kantara Position Paper - NSTIC
Steering Group Formation

This is a draft - which means - now is the time for you members to submit
your comments and edits - both general and specific.  I will amalgamate
comments received.  A few notes. Please send with in one week for inclusion
in the next draft. 

The following Groups please send in your group representative edits / copy
as appropriate.  If your group does not align or have context then you have
no action to take. 
- AMDG
- BCTF
- Consumer ID WG
- HIAWG
- Telco ID WG
- Japan WG (I'm not sure that Japan will have input as this is a US strategy
but the opportunity is open for this group as well!)
- other KI stakeholders not included above (?)

UMA WG - Eve I got your comments but would like to know which of the
stakeholder groups you see UMA aligning with.  

Once we see which stakeholder groups Kantara groups are aligning with we
will be able to work forward toward final input. Please note that the NSTIC
Governance recommendation calls for organizations / individuals to identify
with ONE stakeholder group [1].  I believe this is a challenge as many
organizations will find overlap.  Our approach should be to either 
- Reach consensus on one stakeholder group to identify with OR
- Provide input regarding how the governance should change to allow for
organizations / individuals to align with multiple stakeholder groups. 

Remember this is our opportunity to help shape the NSTIC steering governance
model and highlight the significant work that Kantara is already progressing
in the space. 

[1] Recommendation 25: Each Stakeholder should be required to
"self-identify" into the stakeholder group which it considers best
represents its primary role or interest in the Identity Ecosystem.
Self-identification into one stakeholder category at a time would prevent
organizations that may play multiple roles in the Identity Ecosystem from
exerting undue influence by gaining more than one vote on the Management
Council. Importantly, individuals that do not wish to self-identify into one
of the other 13 stakeholder groups may choose to participate as an
Unaffiliated Individual.

I look forward to working with you to publish this paper.

=Joni

Joni Brennan
Kantara Initiative | Executive Director
voice:+1 732-226-4223
email: joni @ ieee-isto.org <http://ieee-isto.org/> 

Slideshare - Building Trusted Identity Ecosystems - It takes a village! 
http://www.slideshare.net/kantarainitiative/kantara-may-2012





_______________________________________________ LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

_______________________________________________
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/20120611/0012cf7f/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6085 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20120611/0012cf7f/attachment-0001.bin 


More information about the LC mailing list