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

Bob Pinheiro kantara at bobpinheiro.com
Mon Jun 11 11:09:44 EDT 2012


According to the Steering Group Bylaws Discussion Draft, every entity 
that participates in the Steering Group is either a Member, or a Member 
Associate.

Members must sign a membership agreement, and can be either 
organizations or individuals.  Member Associates are persons who do not 
sign membership agreements, but are in some way affiliated with a 
Member.  So Member Associates can be employees of companies that are 
Members, or (in the case of Kantara) "members" or participants in the 
Member organization.   Member Associates must be listed in the 
membership agreement that the Member signs.

So Kantara must decide if the organization itself will sign a membership 
agreement, and if so, whether it will designate certain individuals 
(WG/DG Chairs, others) as Member Associates.

The draft Bylaws also states that "each Member shall self-select into 
the Stakeholder Group that they consider best represents its roles or 
interests in the Identity Ecosystem." So this would seem to mean that 
Kantara itself (if it chooses to become a Member) would have to 
self-select into one of the 14 Stakeholder groups.  However, this also 
seems to mean that each person designated as a Kantara Member Associate 
would also be affiliated with that same Stakeholder Group (see Bylaws 
section a.3, Stakeholder Group Affiliation: " Member Representatives and 
Member Associates shall be affiliated with the Stakeholder Group 
selected by their respective Member Organization.")

However, in the Governance Recommendations document, Recommendation 25 
says that each "Stakeholder" must self-select into one of the 
stakeholder groups.  It's not clear if a Stakeholder is the same as a 
Member, or whether Stakeholder can refer to anyone (including Member 
Associates).  The term Stakeholder is not defined.

So given the governance rules as currently written, it may be reasonable 
for Kantara to become a Member, and to be represented by Joni or another 
staffer.  Anyone else associated with Kantara (WG/DG chairs, etc), 
unless they want to be associated with the same stakeholder group that 
Kantara chooses, should probably consider becoming individual Members, 
or Member Associates of some other Member organization.

It might be reasonable for Kantara to consider petitioning NSTIC to 
modify these rules so that Kantara members/participants can still 
participate as Kantara Affiliates, without having to sign separate 
Member agreements, while still being able to join other stakeholder 
groups.  Or for an organizational Member such as Kantara to be able to 
self-select into several stakeholder groups...provided Kantara can only 
vote in one such group.

  - Bob P.

On 6/11/2012 7:56 AM, Salvatore D'Agostino wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:joni at ieee-isto.org>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:32:33 -0700
> To:LC at kantarainitiative.org 
> <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>;dg-nstic at kantarainitiative.org 
> <mailto: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 
> listLC at kantarainitiative.org 
> <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DG-NSTIC mailing list
> DG-NSTIC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-nstic
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20120611/db845571/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the LC mailing list