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

Colin Soutar email at colinsoutar.com
Fri Jun 15 15:01:26 EDT 2012


Hi -

 

In response to Bob's observations on the Membership structure, it would seem
likely that the NSTIC Steering Group structure would follow some of the
models previously used by similar organizations , for example the INCITS
organization that generally provides the Technical Advisory Groups for ANSI
to the ISO sub-committees.   

 

The INCITS structure typically has a plenary group that has final approval
on all work coming out of the working groups, so this would facilitate what
Bob is suggesting (and is mostly aligned with the Kantara structure).   An
organization has a lead participant who advocates the overall position at
the plenary session and works with working group members to receive input
and to harmonize the overall presented viewpoint.   For large organizations,
such as Kantara, there would also be lead participants in each of the
working groups.    A possibility would be that the Kantara WG Chairs are
lead delegates to the respective NSTIC working group and that the LC
appoints an overall Head of Delegation to represent Kantara at the Plenary
sessions.    

 

I very much doubt that is NSTIC's intent to limit an organization's
participation to only one working group, and would imagine that it is more a
case of ensuring that an organization is limited to one vote at the Plenary
session.     To do otherwise would likely limit the transparent
competitiveness implicit in the process, as well as the resources available
for any particular task - which would seem somewhat silly in light of the
limited number of such resources.

 

Best regards,

 

Colin

 

Colin Soutar, Ph.D.

 <mailto:email at colinsoutar.com> email at colinsoutar.com

416 358 1431

 

From: dg-nstic-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:dg-nstic-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Colin Wallis
Sent: June-11-12 8:31 PM
To: 'j stollman'; 'Joni Brennan'
Cc: 'Kantara Leadership Council Kantara'; 'dg-nstic at kantarainitiative.org'
Subject: [DG-NSTIC] Ignore last: Use This!! (RE: [KI-LC] An eGov comment::
(RE: REVIEW DRAFT: Kantara Initiative Position Paper - NSTIC Steering Group
Formation v0.2))
Importance: High

 

Sorry folks.

 

I missed Bob's response last time.

 

From: Colin Wallis 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2012 12:26 p.m.
To: 'j stollman'; Joni Brennan
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)

 

Just combining the two parallel threads on this to make it easier to capture
the actions...

 

Cheers

Colin  (who will craft some input for the eGov Policy piece) 

 

From: dg-nstic-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:dg-nstic-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of j stollman
Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2012 9:01 a.m.
To: Joni Brennan
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)

 

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.

 

Jeff

............................................................................
...........................

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.")


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.

............................................................................
.......................................................................

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.

 

[Sal]

............................................................

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 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
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 <tel:%2B1%20732-226-4223> 
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



 

====
CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that
may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the
intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message
in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
and attachments. Thank you.
==== 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20120615/4d1b970b/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the LC mailing list