...

• Federal PKI and PKI Bridge Certification Authority: http://www.idmanagement.gov/
• APEC Privacy Framework, in particular the Cross Border Privacy enforecement Arrangement: www.apec.org/Groups/Committee-on-Trade-andInvestment/Electronic-Commerce-Steering-Group/Cross-border-Privacy-Enforcement-Arrangement.aspx
• An emerging effort is the ISOC initiative 'Moving forward with an Internet Attribute Infrastructure', that spawned from the main gap identified in the 2011 workshop 'Mapping the Identity Ecosystem' ( http://tid.isoc.org/trac/ideco )

Recommendations

Recommendation #1: Defining Contexts

In response to Gap #3, 4, 5, and 6

One of the common themes found throughout the gaps identified in the attribute management space involved context. Everything from the definition of "identify attribute" to defining appropriate trust frameworks depends on the context in which the information is to be used. With a stronger understanding and implementation of the idea of context, the questions of automatically identifying risk and liability may be answered appropriately for all the different constituents involved in the attribute ecosystem. The normalization of language around attributes can be handled more effectively when contexts are defined and identified. Contexts turn out to be the most fundamental organizing principle in the attribute management space.

• Recommendation: Create a Kantara Discussion Group (or subgroup of a Working Group) to describe what contexts might be and how they might be used, characterizing them and registering/exposing them.
  

Recommendation #2: Clarifying the use of attributes

In response to Gaps #2, 9

There needs to be effort around understanding how entity attributes will be used by Relying Parties and the criteria that need to be in place to allow Relying Parties to trust in the entity attributes, or sets of entity attributes, they receive. An understanding of these needs will drive the definition of the mechanisms that will need to exist to provide assurances about an entity attribute or a set of entity attributes

• Recommendation: Creation of a Kantara Attributes Management Working Group or continuation of the existing Discussion Group (but rechartered) to work with industry sectors to recommend a means of expressing relying party needs with respect to a level of confidence in an entity attribute, or a set of entity attributes.
  

Recommendation #3: Definitions and general coordination

In response to Gap #1

A more detailed review of working groups, standards efforts, and general understanding of terms is required. The ideal document would be