Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Kantara Initiative Identity Assurance WG Teleconference

Table of Contents
maxLevel3
minLevel3
typeflat
separatorpipe

...

Info

Approved by IAWG 2014-09-25

 

Date and Time

Agenda

  1. Administration:
    1. Roll Call
    2. Agenda Confirmation
    3. Minutes approval: IAWG Meeting Minutes 2014-07-24
    4. Action Item Review
    5. Staff reports and updates
    6. LC reports and updates
    7. Call for Tweet-worthy items to feed (@KantaraNews or #kantara)
  2. Discussion
    1.  Assessment of Service Components - costs, feedback, business models, tactics 
  3. AOB
    1.  
  4. Adjourn

 Attendees

Link to IAWG Roster

As of 2014 May 6, quorum is 7 of 11

...

Info

Meeting achieved quorum

Voting

  • Rich Furr ( C)
  • Paul Calatayud (V-C)
  • Andrew Hughes (S)
  • Scott Shorter
  • Devin Kusek
  • Bill Braithwaite
  • Richard Wilsher

Non-Voting

  • Ken Dagg
  • Björn Sjöholm

Staff

  •  none present

Regrets

  • Cathy Tilton

Notes & Minutes

Administration 

Minutes Approval

IAWG Meeting Minutes 2014-07-24

Motion to approve minutes of 2014-09-04: Bill Braithwaite
Seconded: Rich Furr
Discussion: None
Motion Carried

Staff Updates 

Discussion

Rich Furr started a discussion on Component Services Assessment

  • A few years ago IAWG went through the exercise of splitting into component-based 
  • As of today, Kantara has only one approved component service - Experian
  • It would be interesting to learn the order of magnitude costs to be assessed
    • They would have to go through the common core SAC plus a number of other depending on their offered service
  • If the full CSP decides to use a component service provider, they negotiate prices down to offer end-user services at competitive prices
    • Is the cost of annual conformance assessment making it non-competitive to become approved?
  • Are there other models that would be more sustainable?
  • Comment: Remember that the SAC states that the CSP is accountable for all SACs no matter which entities deliver the services
    • So, to use an Approved Service Component the CSP must either use an Approved SC or include that SC in the overall assessment scope
  • This addresses the issue of cost model 
  • Outstanding questions: 
    • Why is there only one approved SC? 
    • Rich to reach out to contacts at possible SC as to why they are choosing to not go through the process at this time.
    • This could be a Kantara Marketing topic for discussion
    • Overall cost - it all depends on LOA and the state of readiness of the SC provider prior to being assessed
  • Surescripts - the idea of reuse of certifications across target customer bases is very interesting
  • IDESG - is looking at approaches to functioning as a conduit between different trust frameworks
    • The general idea is to work on the vocabulary and syntax to express a fine-grained componentization of the underlying requirements, so that where a requirement is satisfied by one certification program, it can be used/recognized by other certification programs
    • Take a look at http://trustmark.gtri.gatech.edu for descriptions of Georgia Tech's approach. They are currently an NSTIC Pilot and should have some results for sharing in late 2014.
  • Motion: To get volunteers to reach out to known service component providers to discover their views on the SC approach and approval process through participation: Furr; 
  • Seconded: Scott; 
  • Discussion none. 
  • Motion carried
    • Equifax - Rich
    • Experian - Richard Wilsher
    • LexisNexis - Rich
    • Axicom - Rich
    • SecureKey - Paul C
    • Symantec - Adam M
    • id.me - Matt T
    • Verizon - Rich F
    • 2keys - Andrew H
    • Daon - Cathy T
  • Rich to draft pro-forma

AOB

None

 

Next Meeting

...