Page Comparison

...

1. Roll call (roster)
2. Approval of LC telecon 2010-12-08 minutes
3. Action item review (AI roundup)
4. Upcoming Federation Operator Guidelines review/vote reminder
5. Consider meeting time revision
   1. Proposed new time for meeting (same every two weeks): 2pm PT, 5pm ET, 11pm CET, 7am Tokyo (next day) etc. (sample time chart)
6. BoT matters
   1. BoT status report
   2. Staff restructuring status
7. WG/DG matters
8. 2011 budget planning
9. Discussion of privacy of review-period comments
10. AOB

Attendees

Quorum is 7 of 12 as of 10 Nov 2010.

Voting:

1. Consumer ID WG: represented by Bob Pinheiro
2. ID Assurance WG: represented by Myisha Frazier-McElveen
3. Privacy and Public Policy WG: represented by Jeff Stollman
4. User-Managed Access WG: represented by Eve Maler
5. Healthcare ID Assurance WG: represented by Pete Palmer
6. ULX WG: represented by Paul Trevithick
7. Federation Interoperability WG: represented by John Bradley

Others:

• Lucy Lynch (treasurer)
• Joni Brennan (managing director)
• Dervla O'Reilly (staff)

Regrets:

• Jonas Hogberg

Minutes

New AI summary

Roll call (roster)

Quorum was achieved.

Approval of LC telecon 2010-12-08 minutes

MOTION: Moved by Jeff, seconded by Eve:

Carried by unanimous consent.

Action item review (AI roundup)

We selectively reviewed the following:

• 2010-10-19-5 Eve Now OBE Lead an effort to set up a reasonable test of a virtualized meeting for an active group.
• 2010-10-1 Now OBE Needs assignment Propose a solution for liaison groups that allow confidentiality of shared material. See email thread for context. Note that the wording of this AI was changed. Joni reports that this is on the BoT agenda for 2011-Q1. The idea is that it would be a subcommittee of the board, with a generic NDA.
• 2010-11-2 Eve Now closed Propose changes to OP wording on "Reports".

Upcoming Federation Operator Guidelines review/vote reminder

The intent is to take this up at the first quorate meeting of 2011, but we can do this as an electronic ballot if we don't immediately achieve quorum is TBS):

1. TBS

Minutes

...

.

Consider meeting time revision

• Proposed new time for meeting (same every two weeks): 2pm PT, 5pm ET, 11pm CET, 7am Tokyo (next day) etc. (sample time chart)

It was noted that this will appear to be variable for some participants at the equinoxes, but it appears to marginally improve the meeting time's palatability for those who (a) don't like having an alternating meeting time vs. a steady one or (b) have to attend the meeting at the extremes of the day or even in the middle of the night.

MOTION: Moved by Jeff and seconded by Eve:

Carried by unanimous consent.

2011 budget planning

Lucy reports: The BoT approved a 2011 budget at its last meeting. The budget carries a 10% increase in membership fees (with a corresponding first-year discount for new signups) and a new non-zero membership fee for nonprofits. The budget includes a .25 FTE staff cut. There are new incentives for allowing some Level-2 and Level-3 members to have a trustee role. Funded marketing efforts have been reduced, so the membership drive may require some creativity. The intent is to engage in a substantial membership drive, to limit the impact of the spending out of reserves that is planned.

$55,550 has been approved for WG/DG requests. It's understood the LC may want to transfer items between groups, working within this total amount. $20,500 of this requires external matching funds. If the membership drive efforts go well, more funds may be available for additional group activities.

Question: Is the ratio of "overhead spending" vs. spending on projects appropriate? Answer: Staffing for the initiative as a whole does directly benefit groups in large part. It was observed that in many organizations, volunteers generally are sponsored by their employer, such that their time spent is an in-kind contribution of a sort. And some standards-type work is done by such volunteers in totally un-managed fashion, e.g. using Google Groups and other free tools. Marketing efforts could stress Kantara's benefits over and above this latter style of working. Feedback on Kantara's unique value: The opportunity for group project funding and a built-in stable community of support, "luxuries" that self-service environments can't offer.

Lucy offers to join a quarterly call to review membership recruitment and budget activity.

Other BoT matters

Joni is developing some materials to assist with membership recruitment. This may also be useful in group-specific efforts to seek external (e.g. matching) funds and other sorts of independent support. The LC can also serve as a sounding board for sharpening up groups' "value propositions" in approaching potential contributors.

Regarding staff restructuring status, Joni reports: As noted above, there will be slightly less staff support in 2011. The greater emphasis will be on groups linked to certification, interoperability, and conformance. Group launches will still be staff-assisted. New marketing tools will be created, and the website will undergo some cleanup.

WG/DG matters

Pete reports, regarding promotion of the IAF in various industries: Until recently, drugs had to be prescribed using paper, but there is now an electronic standard for this, and it leverages the NIST 800-63 levels of assurance. His employer, SureScripts, facilitates "e-prescribing", involving strongly authenticated parties sending e-prescriptions over their network to pharmacies. It's looking to provide guidance on how to implement the new rules. Pete would like to see Kantara IAF and not just NIST 800-63 referenced for use in this industry (e.g. by the DEA) and in other industries (e.g. financial). The idmanagement.gov drill-down page does have a reference to IAF and other partners, but a clearer indication of certification equivalency would be helpful in convincing various parties, particularly people in government agencies, of the important role IAF can play in assessment. It would be helpful for Kantara to work with Deb Gallagher at FICAM on a clearer messaging strategy, and it would be helpful to gather Pete's strong indication of interest in creating forward momentum.

Discussion of privacy of review-period comments

Comments sent in response to all-Member reviews are currently proactively kept private (staffers know who has made the comment, but remove identifying information before forwarding them to the document authors). In all cases where commenters have been asked if comments can be shared publicly, they have given their authorization, and some have also suggested that comments should have names attached. The original motivation may have been related to avoiding potential intimidating effects when comments from large industry players are received. A motivation to include the commenter's name would potentially avoid intellectual property concerns (such as the introduction of dependencies on submarine patents); another is that the comment could be weighted appropriately by the group based on the commenter's reputation in the relevant area. The current process includes creating a formal comment disposition, but does not include communication back with the commenter.

The suggestion is to include a check box on the online comment form to allow commenters to control their anonymity as far as the receiving group is concerned. We will prepare a resolution for the next LC call on this matter.

Next meeting

• Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2010
• *Time: (possibly to be revised?) 15new time!) 14:00 PST PT | 1817:00 EST ET | 2322:00 UTC (time chart)
  • Skype +9900827043671716
  • US Dial-In +1-201-793-9022 | Room Code: 3671716367-1716
  • International numbers