[KI-LC] [DG-NSTIC] An eGov comment:: (RE: REVIEW DRAFT: Kantara Initiative Position Paper - NSTIC Steering Group Formation v0.2)
stollman.j at gmail.com
Mon Jun 11 17:01:14 EDT 2012
Given that P3 stands for Privacy and *Public Policy*, I believe that P3
should be referenced as aligning with both US Federal and US State and
Local NSTIC groups.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Joni Brennan <joni at ieee-isto.org> wrote:
>> 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
> Perhaps this is a discussion best taken with more input from the wider
> Do others agree here and any thoughts on alternate approaches?
>> Any views on these points?
>> 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 . 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.
>>  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 Brennan
>> Kantara Initiative | Executive Director
>> voice:+1 732-226-4223
>> email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
>> Slideshare - Building Trusted Identity Ecosystems - It takes a village!
>> _______________________________________________ LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> DG-NSTIC mailing list
> DG-NSTIC at kantarainitiative.org
stollman.j at gmail.com
Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC