Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Former user

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Former user

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migration of unmigrated content due to installation of a new plugin

LC telecon 2010-12-08

Table of Contents
minLevelmaxLevel3
maxLevelminLevel3
typeflat
separatorpipe

Date and Time

  • Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2010
  • Time: 9am PST | 12pm EST | 17:00 UTC (time chart)

Agenda

  1. Roll call for quorum determination (roster)
  2. Approval of previous minutes
    1. Approve LC telecon 2010-11-10 minutes
    2. Considering Consider reading notes of LC telecon 2010-11-22 into today's minutes by reference
  3. Action item review (AI roundup)
    1. Find volunteers for unassigned AIs
  4. BoT matters
    1. BoT status report
    2. Consider filling open BoT liaison role with John B.
    3. Staff restructuring status
  5. WG/DG matters
    1. Status on launching of Business Cases for Trusted Federations DG
    2. Status on charter acceptance of EUM-DG (European Use Case and Market Discussion Group)
    3. Status on UMA WG validation bounty program
    4. InfoSharing WG request for LC to review two reports approved by the WG: Information Sharing Report and Personal RFP Engagement Model
    5. Telco WG presentation on cookbook for massively scalable architecture (see video)
  6. 2011 budget planning
  7. Discussion of privacy of review-period comments
  8. AOB

Attendees

Voting (quorum is 7 of 12 as of 10 Nov 2010):

  1. Board of Trustees liaison: Vadim Lander
  2. Consumer ID WG: represented by Bob Pinheiro
  3. eGov WG: represented by Colin Wallis or Fulup Ar Foll
  4. Federation Interoperability WG:

...

  1. TBS

Minutes

...

  1. John Bradley
  2. Healthcare ID Assurance WG: represented by John Fraser or Pete Palmer or Richard Moore
  3. ID Assurance WG: represented by Frank Villavicencio or Myisha Frazier-McElveen
  4. Privacy and Public Policy WG: represented by Jeff Stollman or Anna Slomovic
  5. Telecommunications Identity WG: represented by Jonas Hogberg
  6. User-Managed Access WG: represented by Eve Maler

Non-voting:

  • Business Cases for Trusted Federations DG: represented by Rainer Hoerbe

Guests:

  • Fulup Ar Foll (from Telecommunications Identity WG)

Staff:

  • Dervla O'Reilly

Regrets:

  • Toshihiro Suzuki (for Japan WG)
  • Paul Trevithick (for ULX WG)

Minutes

Roll call for quorum determination (roster)

Quorum was achieved.

Approval of previous minutes

Motion: Moved by Colin, seconded by Eve: Approve LC telecon 2010-11-10 minutes. Carried by unanimous consent.

Motion: Moved by Eve, seconded by Colin: Approve LC telecon 2010-11-22 notes by reading them into the current minutes by reference. Carried by unanimous consent.

Action item review (AI roundup)

  • 2010-10-19-1 TBD Needs assignment Spearhead the creation of a "Budget and Funding" guideline. Bob P. is willing to take this if it's meant to document the whole "funding of participants vs. non" issue; Pete will follow up with Trent to clarify what the AI was supposed to be about.
  • 2010-10-19-5 TBD Needs assignment Lead an effort to set up a reasonable test of a virtualized meeting for an active group. Eve is willing to take this one.
  • 2010-10-1 TBD Needs assignment Propose a solution for "standing" liaison groups. This relates to liaising successfully with groups that have tighter confidentiality than Kantara does, such as ITU-T. The specific issue is how to circulate early-form documents from such groups without compromising confidentiality. The BoT would have to officially create any new form of Kantara group, but it would be useful for the LC to state a preference for how to do that. Vadim will ask the BoT tomorrow what the status of this discussion is.
  • 2010-11-10-2 Eve OBE Put together an electronic ballet for Bridging IMS and Internet paper, to be started no later than Monday. Report pulled back for more editing, so this is OBE.
  • 2010-11-1 Eve, Dervla Closed Chase down quarterly reports from group chairs. This is about 80% done, and the responsibility now goes to the chairs and secretary to finish this.
  • 2010-11-2 Eve Open Propose changes to OP wording on "Reports". Eve plans to do this by the next meeting.

BoT matters

Colin reports: As noted at the Nov 22 LC call, the current financial situation is okay, but the board is doing necessary preparation for potential rocky financial times in the 18-month timeframe as we dip into reserves. Matching funding is a technique likely to be heavily used. An increase in membership revenue rates of 10% has been agreed to. The board would like to see wider member representation on that body; a measure related to this will be voted on during the next meeting.

Motion: Moved by Eve, seconded by Pete: Install John Bradley in the "second BoT liaison from the LC" position. Carried by unanimous consent.

Staff restructuring status: deferred until Joni can join.

WG/DG matters

  • Status on launching of Business Cases for Trusted Federations DG
  • Status on charter acceptance of EUM-DG (European Use Case and Market Discussion Group)

The BCTF DG is about to be formally launched and announced next week. Rainer is on the call today representing it, and Fulup has been involved in the formation of the EUM-DG. Do the groups know about each other? There are some common members to both, and the EUM group had a need to quickly create a group in response to a specific call for activity. Cross-DG liaison discussions commenced during the meeting.

  • Status on UMA WG validation bounty program

Eve reports: Two parties, Cordny Nederkoorn and Project hData (MITRE folks), indicated interest in submitting deliverables to the bounty program, and the work of both is well under way. MITRE wouldn't be able to accept bounty money itself, but could donate it somewhere. The final deadline is Dec 13, and the WG will vote on Dec 16 on disbursement of the bounty funds. The material is anticipated to materially improve UMA and its viability.

Motion: Moved by Eve, seconded by Myisha: The LC accepts the Information Sharing Report and Personal RFP Engagement Model. Carried by unanimous consent.

  • Telco WG presentation on cookbook for massively scalable architecture (see video)

This work came out of the Telco group, but it has many cross-WG implications, and is not just telco-specific. The Telco group would like the group chairs to propagate the news about this work and invite people to join, since the anticipated work product is going to be quite large and involved. It was suggested that the group develop an email that can be distributed to the LC for dissemination to the individual groups, to talk up involvement in the work.

2011 budget planning

The LC had completed its recommendations on the lion's share of allocation requests. What remains are:

  • IAWG activities: Though Kantara itself has already allocated some budget for marketing and for the director's travel to related meetings on IAWG-related work, requests A through D are still "live". Discussion: The requests are in priority order. It was suggested that requests A and B could seek funding from the specific communities of interest for profiling, and that NIST 800-63 hasn't been changing fast enough to warrant a lot of edits on the SAC document. Kantara would need to do 40 paid certifications to pay for the entire cost of the requests being made.

Motion: Moved by John B. and seconded by Eve: For 2011 IAWG budget allocation requests: Recommend up to $33,000 for SAC work (towards request A), with the exact amount to be determined by the BoT, with proper oversight that the money is well spent. Recommend up to 7K (towards request B) for dollar-for-dollar matching funds on profile work. Recommend no amount towards requests C and D.

Discussion: But if an assessment against some new profile would itself cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, does it make sense to offer any funds for (B) at all? The question is the overall community value of a profile, whether or not it generates even a single assessment. We discussed reducing (A) to 20K but decided against it. We discussed whether (B) should be fully paid for by the community of interest that wants the profile. One theory for paying for half of profile development (up to 7K), vs. having it developed entirely externally is that Kantara retains IP in its development.

Carried by unanimous consent.

  • Japan WG activities: We've gotten new input on this. But no time to discuss further today. Eve will see if Matthew Gardiner has an update on total 2011 allocations for us to work with.

Discussion of privacy of review-period comments

Deferred due to lack of time.

Next meeting

  • Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010
  • Time: 15:00 PST | 18:00 EST | 23:00 UTC (time chart)