[KI-LC] New version of Operating Procedures

Andrew Hughes andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 4 08:23:32 UTC 2018


Returning to the rationale for a) Public Comment, b) IPR Review and c)
All-Member Ballot:
a) to improve document quality
b) to receive patent and copyright notifications
c) to get Kantara Member endorsement

The durations of each were set to either align with similar processes at
other standards developing organizations or to allow for our members'
normal business timelines to be able to address the topic presented.

In the case of the SAC updates, the IAWG has determined that there is low
risk of increased risk of bad quality; and low risk of new patent and
copyright issues. This leads me to suggest that elimination of the public
comment and IPR review periods is OK.
Also, the IAWG has determined that the changes are minor and non-material
(meaning that the changes should not break implementations against the
criteria) - so no AMB is needed.

*Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
*In Turn Information Management Consulting*

o  +1 650.209.7542
m +1 250.888.9474
1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
*https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a>*
*Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security *


On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:14 AM Colin Wallis Kantara <
colin at kantarainitiative.org> wrote:

> Thanks both
>
> Trying to parse Andrew's comment...
> I think it is that he suggests the modification to the Ops Procs would be
> that certain 'non material' (here we go again with needing clearly defining
> the terms at the outset) changes would not be subject to an AMB, and just
> voted as a super - majority of the LC.
> If that's the case, it might be better to revise the current wording of
> the Note for the reduction in Public Comment and IPR Review Period, so that
> it captures both PC and IPR RP and AMB consistently.
> Off hand, I can't think of a situation where we might have a need for an
> AMB but zero PC and IPR RP (as the OPs Procs are currently written), so I
> think if the latter is Zero, the AMB is not applicable. If we have a
> reduced PC and IPR RP for whatever reason, we could conceivably have no
> AMB, but I think it is getting marginal. What we cannot have, is a reduced
> AMB.
> So the options we shoud allow are:
> 1) zero PC and IPR RP with no AMB.
> 2) reduced PC and IPR RP with normal AMB
> 3) normal 45 day PC and IPR RP and normal 15 day AMB.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Executive Director
> Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778
> @KantaraColin
> Kantara Consent Receipt and UMA are 2 of the top 5
> <https://identiverse.com/2017/12/18/five-identity-trends-watch-2018/>
> Kantara Initiative <https://kantarainitiative.org/>, Kantara Educational
> Foundation <https://edufoundation.kantarainitiative.org> & Kantara Europe
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ken - I understand the need, but don’t think it serves us well to
>> allow instant turn-around all-member ballots.
>>
>> AMBs are not only to register positive approvals, but also to register
>> objections. It would be a difficult position to defend if a member was
>> unavailable for one day, missed both the call and close of a ballot, then
>> tried to object.
>>
>> A quirk of numbers is that the entire LC could almost make AMB quorum,
>> especially if a couple more groups are created.
>>
>> So it might just be better to allow LC to approve such things directly
>> rather that pretending to increase oversight by AMB.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:54 AM Ken Dagg <kendaggtbs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on IAWG’s attempt to publish the recent revisions it made to the
>>> IAF SAC, I would like to suggest the following modification to Section
>>> 7.7.1.3 (All-Member Ballot for Recommendation Approval) of the Operating
>>> Procedures. This modification will enable the LC to authorize a zero day
>>> All-Member Ballot period for revisions that have no impact on affected
>>> parties (e.g., CSPs or Assessors). The impact of the revision will allow
>>> revisions to be put into place as soon as possible to meet operational
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> ================
>>>
>>>
>>> SECTION 7.7.1.3: All-Member Ballot for Recommendation Approval
>>>
>>>
>>> The LC Secretary shall then initiate the All-Member Ballot. This ballot
>>> shall be conducted electronically and shall be open for a minimum of 15
>>> days.
>>>
>>>
>>> The voting record by the All-Member ballot shall be publicly available
>>> upon completion of the ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>> NOTE: The LC can, by Super Majority vote of the LC, reduce the duration
>>> of the All-Member Ballot period for non-material editorial changes to a
>>> Kantara Initiative Candidate Recommendation. The decision must take into
>>> consideration the impact of changes on affected parties (e.g., CSPs,
>>> Assessors). The decision and rationale shall be reported to the Board of
>>> Directors at the next Board of Directors meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>> A notice describing the All-Member Ballot period reduction shall be
>>> included as part of the voting record for the All-Member ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:44 PM Andrew Hughes <
>>> andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone: Ken Dagg, Colin and I have been working on a new set of
>>>> Operating Procedures that align to the current version of Bylaws and also
>>>> incorporate a bunch of new material on publication processes.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the final draft version - I don't expect you to read the whole
>>>> thing - but please skim through if you have 30 minutes or so sometime - we
>>>> have untangled some difficult text and hopefully clarified how certain
>>>> procedures should be performed.
>>>>
>>>> Once this is through all the approvals, it will be converted to HTML &
>>>> short task-based index pages will be created (for example a page for the
>>>> regular operation of a Work Group could be made - including all the things
>>>> you need to know how to do as a Chair/Vice)
>>>>
>>>> andrew.
>>>>
>>>> *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
>>>> *In Turn Information Management Consulting*
>>>>
>>>> o  +1 650.209.7542
>>>> m +1 250.888.9474
>>>> 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1249+Palmer+Road,%C2%A0Victoria,+BC+V8P+2H8&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>> AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
>>>> *https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a>*
>>>> *Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security *
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LC mailing list
>>>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>>> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>> Kenneth Dagg Independent Consultant Identification and Authentication
>>> 613-825-2091 kendaggtbs at gmail.com
>>>
>> --
>> Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP
>> In Turn Information Management Consulting
>> o  +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474
>> 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
>> AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a
>> Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20181004/1672bda0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the LC mailing list