[KI-LC] An eGov comment:: (RE: REVIEW DRAFT: Kantara Initiative Position Paper - NSTIC Steering Group Formation v0.2)
colin_wallis at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 11 00:30:13 EDT 2012
Many thanks for this effort Joni
I took a look over the weekend.
It's great to see the strong support for international representation! Thank you:-)
The rest of it was great too, and I had just two thoughts..:
1) Do we think that it is appropriate to characterize eGov WG as 'standards', referencing the Implementation profile for SAML 2.0? It's not that that is wrong of course, but thinking about our revised positioning into a more policy/governance/requirements gatherer for an eGov SAC, I'm wondering if we couldn't future-proof ourselves a bit? IF we did, we could also self identify into 4) Fed Gov and 5) State Local etc Gov, couldn't we?
2) I thought that NSTIC rules said that an entity could only self identify into one of the Stakeholder Groups. While the issue of undue influence as raised by NSTIC is reasonable, it is also unreasonable that an entity such as KI has to do this given the breadth of its activities. Certainly that is the implication of this reponse paper, but it doesn't seem to come right out and say it.
Any views on these points?
From: joni at ieee-isto.org
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:32:33 -0700
To: LC at kantarainitiative.org; dg-nstic at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: [KI-LC] REVIEW DRAFT: Kantara Initiative Position Paper - NSTIC Steering Group Formation v0.2
Hello LC and NSTIC DG,
Please find attached the early draft of Kantara Position Paper - NSTIC Steering Group Formation
This is a draft - which means - now is the time for you members to submit your comments and edits - both general and specific. I will amalgamate comments received. A few notes. Please send with in one week for inclusion in the next draft.
The following Groups please send in your group representative edits / copy as appropriate. If your group does not align or have context then you have no action to take.
- Consumer ID WG
- Telco ID WG
- Japan WG (I'm not sure that Japan will have input as this is a US strategy but the opportunity is open for this group as well!)
- other KI stakeholders not included above (?)
UMA WG - Eve I got your comments but would like to know which of the stakeholder groups you see UMA aligning with.
Once we see which stakeholder groups Kantara groups are aligning with we will be able to work forward toward final input. Please note that the NSTIC Governance recommendation calls for organizations / individuals to identify with ONE stakeholder group . I believe this is a challenge as many organizations will find overlap. Our approach should be to either
- Reach consensus on one stakeholder group to identify with OR
- Provide input regarding how the governance should change to allow for organizations / individuals to align with multiple stakeholder groups.
Remember this is our opportunity to help shape the NSTIC steering governance model and highlight the significant work that Kantara is already progressing in the space.
 Recommendation 25: Each Stakeholder should be required to “self-identify” into the stakeholder group which it considers best represents its primary role or interest in the Identity Ecosystem. Self-identification into one stakeholder category at a time would prevent organizations that may play multiple roles in the Identity Ecosystem from exerting undue influence by gaining more than one vote on the Management Council. Importantly, individuals that do not wish to self-identify into one of the other 13 stakeholder groups may choose to participate as an Unaffiliated Individual.
I look forward to working with you to publish this paper.
Kantara Initiative | Executive Director
email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
Slideshare - Building Trusted Identity Ecosystems - It takes a village!
_______________________________________________ LC mailing list LC at kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC