[WG-InfoSharing] Meeting today for User Submitted Terms -- and STANDARDs we can produce

Colin Wallis colin_wallis at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 8 17:12:36 CST 2016


Thanks MaryGreat to bring these similar-but-different themes closer together.Reminding folks that Kantara was the first and is still the only official liaison that IDESG has AFAIK.On so many levels the orgs complement each other, and that was something that was foreseen early on by Joni and others.Onwards!CheersColin

Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 11:32:35 -0800
From: hodder at gmail.com
To: customer-commons-exec at googlegroups.com; wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org; scottdavidg at gmail.com; opennotice at googlegroups.com; sbohan at mozilla.com; joyce at searls.com
Subject: [WG-InfoSharing] Meeting today for User Submitted Terms -- and	STANDARDs we can produce

Hi All,Here is our meeting call-in info:
Skype: +99051000000481 
Conference ID-B: 613-2898 
room code: 613-2898
Also I wanted to share a couple of things to think about as we begin making our spec for User Submitted Terms.
First, one way a group somewhat related to ours is thinking about how to define standards and characterize open standards is IDESG.. the working group for the NSTIC principles. They (we as I'm apart of this) are on the cusp of launching a kind of standard that if met, would mean an entity could self-certify (for now, with 3rd party certification coming in round 2) as meeting the requirements of the certification. It's not a standard like ISO or Kantara makes, or that we would like to standardize for Consent Receipts (the other CISWG meeting that meets just after us -- and is near finishing) and User Submitted Terms.
IDESG is interested in listing standards that support their certification requirements and the below info is from the Standards Adoption Policy.
I would like to see Consent Receipts and User Submitted Terms included in that list, as responding to a UST is currently a requirement, and CRs are a guideline for now, but later will be a requirement.
While IDESG has spent a long time finding out what it wants to be when it grows up, it's now on track to do something constructive. And so having a certification that requires the standards we are working on could be quite powerful.
Anyway.. I wanted to share the language below as we finish up the CR standard and embark on the UST standard.
Mary 

[quote] -- full doc in draft is attached -- it's expected to be adopted by IDESG in May, 2016 and is currently out for comments from the plenary (members of IDESG).
1.2 Standards definition
In the course of its work, IDESG will create and adopt many documents to serve its many purposes and activities.  Some of these documents may be incorporated into or sanctioned as authoritative guidance within IDESG's IDEF.  For purposes of this policy:A standard is a document, established by consensus that provides rules, guidelines, or characteristics for activities or their results (ANSI ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004). Consensus is typically obtained through multi-party discussion, so that the standard does not represent a singular point of view. NOTE: that the term ”standard” herein is not intended to be restrictive to only those documents with the word ”standard” in their titles.
An implementation profile, which is derived from an existing standard to meet the needs of a specific community or use case(s), may also be reviewed and processed by the SCC under this SAP, provided that the underlying standard that the profile elaborated has been reviewed, adopted, and included in the Standards Registry (see Section 1.4).
1.3 Open standards
NSTIC promotes the adoption of existing, open standards to ensure the privacy, security, and interoperability of data interfaces and use in the identity ecosystem.  In addition, where new 
standards may be needed, the NSTIC promotes initiating non-proprietary, international, and 
industry-led standards development efforts. 

Although some identity ecologies may have their own satisfactory proprietary or closed methods, the NSTIC’s concept of an open and scalable ecosystem depends on the ability of large groups of enterprises, institutions, and individuals to use identity information that is standards-based and broadly federated. Such interactions must be voluntary and enable entities to use their own systems and methods within their own environments, and entities must be able to confidently rely on identity data interactions with other entities across organizational boundaries, supported by stable, vendor-neutral methods of identity assertions that are interpreted using standards-based protocols. The use of "voluntary consensus standards" over the adoption of proprietary protocols is preferred as a policy matter because the open, inclusive process of standards development is:Neutral as to vendors, supportive of market competition, and more accessible by do-it yourself identity service providers.Based on transparent and inclusive processes that generally produce a higher quality of standards, with methods less tied to the peculiarities of any one implementation style;Supportive of positive network scale effects by making it easier to federate identities and perform transactions using these identities, while minimizing costs for system adaptation;Enable cost savings through the creation and marketing of common interfaces, tools, and service providers.[end quote]


_______________________________________________
WG-InfoSharing mailing list
WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160309/ab4ea664/attachment.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list