[WG-ISI] Signing gpr

Jim Pasquale jim at digi.me
Fri Feb 28 13:47:02 UTC 2020


So noted Mark.

On Feb 27, 2020, at 4:57 PM, Mark @ OC <mark at openconsent.com<mailto:mark at openconsent.com>> wrote:

Jim,

To clarify, my objection is not really about the dashboard or shoebox,

I am really referring to the dynamics of collaboration in the WG, and how to create and plan for  success. (Something I have been learning about through volunteering at Kantara, learning from my mistakes)

What I found is that balancing efforts in a WG at Kantara is more of an art form  - especially with little to no paid resources for doing some of the work.   And the aim is to curate the good will and support of the passionate people involved.  And successs =  create works that are greater than the whole.

The shoebox or dashboard project is a great example, because its not really a spec.  It should be looked at more of an open source project proposal for code, and likely be under RAND, to support the open source wallet movement and to draw those experts.   So -to think that through and do the IPR work for it before the project starts is really important process to have in the WG>. It would mean - working out the license the ISI Gihub, and the resources (or plan) to support the work, once the project is finished.

The trick is for the leaderhs  include thinking about what the right structure and processes are for the project and wether or not the ISI structure needs to be further evolved.

To me, success for a project like that would result in  making people (like Tom)  comfortable for contributing to this works.   This is how a community grows. And also how open source code community can be created.  Where a project (with little resources) has a chance.

Asking people to contribute before the purpose is known, or what the scope / ip of the project we are contributing to is, makes it really difficult.  (Which is what I found when trying to contribute the work for the consent receipt, while also inviting contributions of time, energy, and concepts etc.   ).

The wiki is looking good now, the projects are looking good, the discussion was starting to get good on the list today.   I think overall, its looking pretty good so far.

- Mark

[insert baseball metaphor here] Bull Durham ( Field of Dreams) - build it and they will come-   :-)

Interop and multi-state governance tech - is super hot and many are looking at ISI to see if this is a place they can contribute too


On 27 Feb 2020, at 12:58, Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me<mailto:jim at digi.me>> wrote:

Your objection is noted Mark.  What I find interesting is the fact your objecting to something hasn’t been memorialized in a project proposal, and only talked about from a speculation perspective as to what this framework might be.



On Feb 27, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Mark @ OC <mark at openconsent.com<mailto:mark at openconsent.com>> wrote:

Hi Tom ,
I think we are suffering for volunteeritus - in which a bunch of people with little time and resource are fumbling around with these IPR tools/Frameworks as the group gets organised.

The IPR is to cover a specific work output - that MUST - be clearly identified and scope specified up front, so that you will be able to see if and how your IP Might conflict.

Then, at any time, when a conflict might arise, you can Brin this up, or clarify, that a piece of work or content is not a contribution (and under another IPR)

I think this does need to be more clearly explained and described, but - the volunteereitus..  is a limitation.

Also, Jim, I would like to also raise a concern, that a shoe-box and a dashboard - are products that many of the orgs compete on.  OpenConsent has both of those as a  product or open source, so do many of the orgs participating on the V2.

These are not good projects for the ISI - because they are competitive products and services that might needs standards and policy — - not Kantara ISI to be a competitor - this can likely end up stopping work.  It creates a lot of IP issues, like the one that Tom raises here.

So I would like to raise the issue - that products are not suitable for ISI WG -and not the right type of interop.

Best Regards,

Mark




On 27 Feb 2020, at 12:23, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com<mailto:thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>> wrote:

Based on Colin's advice, i will not be joining isi.
Peace ..tom


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Colin Wallis Kantara <colin at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:colin at kantarainitiative.org>>
Date: Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Signing gpr
To: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com<mailto:thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>>
Cc: Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me<mailto:jim at digi.me>>, Salvatore D'Agostino <sal at idmachines.com<mailto:sal at idmachines.com>>, Ken Klingenstein <kjk at internet2.edu<mailto:kjk at internet2.edu>>


Hi Tom

Regarding 1) please see the screen shot from the ISI WG.. it's the same for any... where the IPR heading is shown. Clicking on it opens it to reveal the text of the option.

Regarding 2) it seems that you are referring to this page; https://kantarainitiative.org/about/ipr/<https://kantarainitiative.org/about/ipr/> which only refers to/applies to the option Patent and Copyright opt out to RAND.

The ISI WG does not use P&C opt out to RAND as CIS did. It uses non assertion covenant.

As I've recommended before, seek legal advice before proceeding, and if you have any concerns whatsoever, do not proceed to join the group.

Kind regards
Colin

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:50 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com<mailto:thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>> wrote:
I have two problems with ipr.
1. The group participation agreement sign up page says you must agree to the group's IPA, but even after you select a group, it is not possible to figure out which IPA applies.
2. As I read the opt out clause, I must exercise it within 45 days of the publication of the first draft. It seems to me that when I joined the cis at the beginning there was no issue for me, but later discussion moved imo into my ipr. If that's later incorporated into the spec, I seem to have no recourse.

If I were to join the isi I would need to protect my ipr, so apparently I need to send a letter to to leadership council at that time? Or prior to signing?

thx ..Tom (mobile)
<ISIS GPA Signup page.png>





Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and advise the sender.

.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and advise the sender.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-isi/attachments/20200228/73c3604e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Wg-isi mailing list