Kantara Initiative Health Identity Assurance WG Teleconference

DRAFT Meeting Notes 2013 October 24

Date and Time

Date: Thursday, 24 October 2013
Time: 10:00 PT | 12:00 CT | 13:00 ET
Dial in: TurboBridge Conferencing

- Skype: +99051000000481
- North American Dial-In: +1-805-309-2350
- Room Code: 613-2898
- For more dial-in information, see: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/GI/Telco+Bridge+Info

As of September 26, 2013, quorum is 7 out of 12 voting participants.

Quorum status goes here

No minutes ready for approval

Initial Draft Scope and Outline of Feasibility Study for input and revision:

Agreed to expand Summary to include examples of challenge, outcome and benefit. This will perhaps gain more participation in the contribution from stakeholders as they look toward this doc to decide if they will make the time an priority in doing so.
General Grammar, expansion and clarity
Should the scope be focused on the few accreditation programs as they exist today (comparing, etc) or should we be building a master criteria to which all could be compared decreasing work for additional ones?
Considerations discussed:
- Building a master criteria would require more work in the study but save work later on if we revisit upon adding other programs to the scope (future phases, etc)
- Concern over having to make assumptions in building a master criteria list – is this appropriately our role?

Concerns from group members:

Lack of commitment from sponsors and key stakeholders to have defined outcomes they are willing to accept/adopt (either by way of more specific language in the MOU’s or otherwise) limits their ability to gain permission from their employers to spend time on the effort. They want assurances that such time spent will be productive or fear they will not get support to effectively contribute.

Action Items:

Pete: Bring forth to the Kantara board to ask their perspective if the workgroup should be building a tool to compare current and future programs or just consider/compare a limited scope that reflects the current market. If the latter, which ones specifically?
Pete: Discuss with the Board concerns from the group around commitment of outcomes that seem to be preventing meaningful contributions and participation.
Terry: continue to revise Scope Doc based on input from group members and start working on Feasibility Doc sections that are not impacted by the current concerns of the group.

Consensus:

There are areas of the Feasibility Doc that are not impacted by the concerns of the group (see action items assigned ot Pete). Those are higher level areas such as summary, background, defining initial sets of stakeholders, etc. Terry proposed that since we all agree this study should go forward regardless of concerns, we should still be working on those areas for the sake of forward progress.
- Terry will solicit contributions from the group. Progress will depend on participation.

Goals for next call:

Have revised Scope and Outline document significantly revised , distributed ahead of call and vote to ratify in quorum
Make progress on Feasibility Document in basic sections
Have Pete present and discuss with group responses from Board and come to consensus that removes barriers to participation that will enable foreseeable contributions.
Set some goals as to progress and milestones and gain commit from some group members ofr initial contribution.

Item #	Description	Assigned to	Est. Completion	Status

Date: Thursday, 7 November 2013
Time: 10:00 PT | 12:00 CT | 13:00 ET
Dial in: TurboBridge Conferencing

- Skype: +99051000000481
- North American Dial-In: +1-805-309-2350
- Room Code: 613-2898
- For more dial-in information, see: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/GI/Telco+Bridge+Info