IAWG Meeting Minutes 2014-09-04
Kantara Initiative Identity Assurance WG Teleconference
Approved by IAWG 2014-09-25
Date and Time
Date: Thursday, 2014-09-04
Time: 09:00 PDT | 12:00 EDT | 16:00 UTC (Time chart - US Daylight Saving Time )
United States Toll +1 (805) 309-2350
Alternate Toll +1 (714) 551-9842
Skype: +99051000000481Conference ID: 613-2898
Agenda
Administration:
Roll Call
Agenda Confirmation
Minutes approval: IAWG Meeting Minutes 2014-07-24
Action Item Review
Staff reports and updates
LC reports and updates
Call for Tweet-worthy items to feed (@KantaraNews or #kantara)
Discussion
Assessment of Service Components - costs, feedback, business models, tactics
AOB
Adjourn
Attendees
Link to IAWG Roster
As of 2014 May 6, quorum is 7 of 11
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
Date: Thursday, 2014-09-11
Time: 09:00 PDT | 12:00 EDT | 16:00 UTC (Time chart - US Daylight Saving Time )
United States Toll +1 (805) 309-2350
Alternate Toll +1 (714) 551-9842
Skype: +99051000000481Conference ID: 613-2898