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

Joni Brennan joni at ieee-isto.org
Mon Jun 11 11:43:20 EDT 2012


>
> It's great to see the strong support for international representation!
> Thank you:-)
>

Of course! =)

>
> 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?
>

I believe this could work Colin.  Even though eGov is international there
still are ties to Fed, State and local gov.   Is it possible for eGov to
craft some input?

>
> 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.
>

I had this point much clearer in an earlier version and pulled it back a
bit.  I think it's a big problem and will be for other groups as well.
This was also a flash point at the NSTIC day event in March (around IDTrust
timing).  I believe that we should strengthen this and your point supports
my thought.  Now, I think it's easy enough to say thisTHING is a problem
but I'd prefer if we had some input on approaches to solve.  We don't need
to propose a solve or direction toward a solve but I do think it's good
manners.

Perhaps this is a discussion best taken with more input from the wider
group.

Do others agree here and any thoughts on alternate approaches?

>
> 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
>
> Slideshare - Building Trusted Identity Ecosystems - It takes a village!
> http://www.slideshare.net/kantarainitiative/kantara-may-2012
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org http://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/20120611/1145bfd7/attachment.html 


More information about the LC mailing list