[Wg-p3] Kantara Privacy & Public Policy telecon
email at brettmcdowell.com
Thu Sep 3 06:39:59 PDT 2009
Here is some guidance in writing about process. I'll walk us through this
on the call today.
(1) What do the Bylaws have to say about WG output?
Here is the most applicable section in my read of the Bylaws:
5.4 Member Ballots of Work Group Recommendations
Upon a Simple Majority vote, a Work Group may declare a Draft Recommendation
complete and submit the Draft Recommendation to the Leadership Council with
that it be submitted to an All Member Ballot.
The criteria established in the Operating Procedures shall be used by the
Council in determining to certify the Work Group output for an All Member
A Simple Majority of those Voting of the Leadership Council is required to
Work Group Draft Recommendation for an All Member Ballot. A Supermajority
Voting in the All Member Ballot, with at least 15% of all Members voting,
required to approve a Recommendation.
In the case where an approved Recommendation is a Technical Specification,
the Board of
Trustees will prepare, in a timely manner, a license facilitating the
submission of the
Technical Specification to a Standard Setting Organization as specified in
the All Member
2) What do the Operating Procedures have to say about WG output?
- I note that Draft Recommendation is defined in the OP's as
*“Draft Recommendation”* shall mean a document reported out of a Work Group
for All Member Ballot.
- And Report is defined, as:
* “Report*” shall mean any Work Group or Discussion Group output that is not
Technical Specification that is approved by a Majority of the Group and
to the Leadership Council. A Report is not a branded product of the
(i.e. it is not submitted for an All Member Ballot).
- And here are two sections very applicable
*3.9** **Development of WG Reports*
In addition to development of the Draft Recommendation(s) authorized in the
Group Charter the WG may find it appropriate to develop additional Reports.
Reports shall meet any requirements established by the LC.
Submission of a report to the LC requires a Simple Majority approval of the
*3.10** **Procedural Issues*
WG procedural issues shall be resolved by the WG chair. When an issue
resolved within the WG, the Chair may escalate it to the Leadership Council
3) Brett's Conclusions/Advice
I conclude that the P3WG should be fully briefed on these procedural issues
and then decide if their letter is a "Report" or a "Draft Recommendation".
They should especially note that "A Report is not a branded output of the
And, if this does not answer their procedural questions they need to come
before the LC to get their "procedural issue" answered, per section 3.10.
Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com |
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Susan Landau <Susan.Landau at sun.com> wrote:
> j stollman wrote:
>> 3. GSA feedback letter (Susan Landau) ( RW note)
>> I've attached the most recent copy of the letter. It is essentially the
> same as the one I sent out last week; the three minor changes are:
> o Added NIST 800-63 to describe the Levels of Assurance (per Paul Madsen);
> o Changed users "determine their privacy policies" to users "determine
> their privacy settings' to make it sound less geeky (per Ian Glazer);
> o Removed Brett's signature (per Brett).
> The latter is something that needs to be discussed, as in, exactly what
> process P3WG will use for getting the letter out. Brett will be on the call
> and I suspect he will explain the various options (we also need to decide if
> we are happy with the draft or if there are further changes needed).
> Wg-p3 mailing list
> Wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Wg-p3