[Wg-p3] Wg-p3 Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25

Patrick Curry patrick.curry at clarionidentity.com
Thu Sep 24 05:59:13 PDT 2009


Jeff
My apologies.
Ref my action on US vs UK LoA, the matter is with the UK government and we
await an answer.  The USG (Judy Spencer) is aware.  I will update P3WG when
I have an answer.

Re voting.  Please be my proxy for this meeting so my vote is included.

Thanks.


yours sincerely

Patrick

Patrick Curry
Director
Clarion Identity Ltd
M:   +44 786 024 9074
T:   +44 1980 620606
patrick.curry at clarionidentity.com 
Disclaimer
Internet communications are not secure and therefore Clarion
Identity Limited, Rock House, SP3 4JY does not accept legal responsibility
for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Clarion
Identity Limited unless otherwise specifically stated. If this message is
received by anyone other than the addressee, please notify the sender and
then delete the message and any attachments from your computer.



-----Original Message-----
From: wg-p3-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:wg-p3-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of
wg-p3-request at kantarainitiative.org
Sent: 23 September 2009 14:41
To: wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Wg-p3 Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25

Send Wg-p3 mailing list submissions to
	wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-p3_kantarainitiative.org

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	wg-p3-request at kantarainitiative.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	wg-p3-owner at kantarainitiative.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wg-p3 digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: P3wg telecon tomorrow (j stollman)
   2. Re: P3wg telecon tomorrow (Robin Wilton)
   3. Re: A Suggested Policy Demarkation Point: Open Vs. Closed
      Identity Systems (Mark Lizar)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:38:50 -0400
From: j stollman <stollman.j at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wg-p3] P3wg telecon tomorrow
To: Kantara P3WG <wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org>
Message-ID:
	<c0f2bd590909230438p7586604esfc9ea5dec8aadf59 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

My apologies to all.  The time for tomorrow's call is:

08:00 PT / 11:00 ET / 16:00 UTC/GMT / 01:00 +1 day Japan / 04:00 + 1 day New
Zealand

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, j stollman <stollman.j at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Please note the the next telecon for the Kantara Privacy and Public Policy
> group will be held tomorrow.  Here is the call in information:
>
>   US/Canada toll-free number:  1.866.305.1460
>     * Direct dial (toll) number: +1.416.620.1296
>     * Attendee Code: 9247530
>
> Here is the agenda for the call:
>
> 1.      Roll call
>
> 2.      Quorum issue
>
> 3.       ICAM letter status
>
> 4.      US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Privacy Roundtable 07 DEC in
> Washington, DC - Response and Participation  (*See attached draft response
> *)
>
> 5.      Las Vegas Plenary Report (Robin Wilton will post his perspective)
>
> 6.      Creating Kantara Matrix of mandates of different groups (Colin
> Soutar)
>
> a.        Could include charters, call times, IP policy, etc.
>
> 7.      Collaboration site URL (Randy van der Hoof)
>
> 8.      Comparison of US/UK LoA (Patrick Curry)
>
> 10.  SmartCard Alliance meeting (Randy van der Hoof)
>
> 11.  Vice-chair & secretary nominations
>
> 12.  All other business
>
> 13.  Update Roll Call
>
>
> Regarding our response ot the upcoming US Federal Trade Commission Privacy
> Roundtable, I have attached to this note an early draft of a response to
the
> three questions they posed in the announcement of the session.  We will
> discuss this on the call.
>
> If you are unable to attend the call, please let me know in advance.  If
> you do not intend to actively participate in P3wg activities and would
> prefer to be placed on non-voting "Observer" status, please let me know.
> This will help us achieve quorum for voting purposes so that we can move
> ahead on our work.  (You can always re-engage as an active voting member
by
> attending a call.)
>
> Thank you.
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> Jeff Stollman
> stollman.j at gmail.com
> 1 202.683.8699
>



-- 
Jeff Stollman
stollman.j at gmail.com
1 202.683.8699
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-p3_kantarainitiative.org/attachme
nts/20090923/f1f00e30/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:51:44 +0100
From: Robin Wilton <futureidentity at fastmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [Wg-p3] P3wg telecon tomorrow
To: j stollman <stollman.j at gmail.com>
Cc: Kantara P3WG <wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org>
Message-ID: <4ABA19E0.20107 at fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-p3_kantarainitiative.org/attachme
nts/20090923/72ac4ab0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: futureidentity.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-p3_kantarainitiative.org/attachme
nts/20090923/72ac4ab0/attachment-0001.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3388 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL:
<http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-p3_kantarainitiative.org/attachme
nts/20090923/72ac4ab0/attachment-0001.bin>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:41:09 +0100
From: Mark Lizar <info at smartspecies.com>
Subject: Re: [Wg-p3] A Suggested Policy Demarkation Point: Open Vs.
	Closed	Identity Systems
To: wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
Message-ID: <6B407C39-AF8F-41A0-85C6-CD824269ABF5 at smartspecies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
	delsp=yes


Brett et al.

This is more along the lines of what I was getting at, Patrick &  
Stephen responses were very illuminating, and I would venture that an  
open identity system, or closed identity system is perhaps not as  
immediately understandable as I had imagined.  What I was referring to  
was the host of granular control, and trust issues that arise  
depending on how an identity is created, managed, and used.

I agree with the notion of one explicit policy domain for identifiers  
being needed for assurance.  In particular the issues related  
regarding the fooly of  Open PKI this was extremely illuminating.

I will try to develop a bit more of a discussion paper for tomorrow in  
context of the FTC roundtable and see if we can traverse the various  
lexicon, and trust issues involved in discussing or evolving a policy  
context.

Best Regards,

Mark




On 21 Sep 2009, at 13:48, Brett McDowell wrote:

> Mark, I think you need to explicitly define the boundary between what
> you refer to as "open" vs "closed".  After reading this I don't know
> what you are thinking is the clear distinction between the two.
>
> If I were to guess, it looks a bit like:
>
> OPEN = the credential being used to access the resource was not
> provisioned by either the entity managing the resource or a 3rd-party
> under contract with the entity managing the resource.
>
> CLOSED = the credential being used to access the resource was
> provisioned by either the entity managing the resource or a 3rd-party
> under contract with the entity managing the resource.
>
> Is that what you mean?  If it is, I'm not sure that's a popular
> definition for CLOSED.
>
>
> Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com |
http://kantarainitiative.org
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Mark Lizar <info at smartspecies.com>  
> wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I have been pondering the merits of a more explicit policy paradigm  
>> between
>> open vs closed id systems, and a discussion about this for the  
>> working
>> group.
>>
>> The issue being that public policy in closed identity systems or  
>> systems
>> with limited user driven/managed/volunteered access, needs a  
>> different type
>> of policy than open, user controlled systems.  In addition, I  
>> wonder if this
>> type of conversation may actually provide a very useful distinction  
>> for
>> Kantara driven activities?
>>
>> Behind the distinction of open and closed there is a great deal of
>> ideological, philosophical, technical, jurisprudence, and  
>> sociological
>> thought that can be sorted and contributed to both sides of the  
>> open and
>> closed identity paradigm. A discussion in this light might reveal a
>> significant difference in public/privacy policy needed for these very
>> different types of applied identity technologies.  From what I  
>> understand a
>> great deal of the work done in Kantara is for open ID systems?    
>> Does an
>> open identity system need different levels or types of assurance  
>> for privacy
>> than closed identity systems?
>>
>>  Eg. Open Id systems, social networking is user controlled,  
>> adequate tools
>> need to be in place for the user to control the policies and these  
>> policies
>> need to be enforceable by the user.  Even against the owner of the  
>> social
>> networking site.
>>
>>  Eg. Closed ID systems, enterprise, healthcare, id cards, drivers  
>> licenses,
>> phone numbers, direct marketing. A policy explicit example for the  
>> use of a
>> closed id system may be the need to mandate against  function creep  
>> and
>> designed around very specific to purpose etc. (use Uprove  
>> technology etc.)
>> With risk management, different types of public usable  
>> transparency, access,
>> and control is more specific to constitutional rights, rather then  
>> contract
>> rights.
>>
>> Do others think this would be a useful distinction to make and  
>> point to
>> discuss?
>>
>> Overall, it seems current events are pushing the agenda of this  
>> working
>> group, starting with the Open ID/Inforcard initiative, and the  
>> letter this
>> group has worked on for ICAM.  Now the news of this round table,  
>> the FTC
>> roundtable can also be used as an ?agenda driver? to get things  
>> moving, in
>> this sense I think it would be difficult to develop policy with any  
>> force or
>> meaning, if the policy didnt first engage with the wider Kantara
>> community. I propose that we use the roundtable as an opportunity  
>> to take
>> the FTC questions, develop a survey pilot it in our working group,  
>> then vote
>> on passing the survey around the working groups to start a process of
>> developing a common policy platform for this working group.
>>
>> My two cents worth,
>>
>> - Mark Lizar
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wg-p3 mailing list
>> Wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-p3_kantarainitiative.org
>>
>>




------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Wg-p3 mailing list
Wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-p3_kantarainitiative.org


End of Wg-p3 Digest, Vol 3, Issue 25
************************************





More information about the Wg-p3 mailing list