2023-03-30 Minutes

Attendees:

Voting Participants: Richard Wilsher [Zygma], Andrew Hughes [Ping], Denny Prvu [RBC], Mark Hapner, Maria Vachino [Calvert Consulting], Martin Smith, Michael Magrath [Kuma]
Other Participants: Eric Thompson [Experian], Angela Rey
Staff: Kay Chopard, Lynzie Adams

Proposed Agenda

1.  Discussion: 

   • Revision 4 comment review - Draft Comments, Responses to NIST Questions to be reviewed

2. Any Other Business

Meeting Notes 

IAWG Chair Andrew Hughes opened the meeting.

Discussion:

Revision 4

Andrew passed the meeting over to Richard to continue leading the review of our comments. Those who submitted comments explained the rationale and engaged in discussion where warranted. Comments that had a similar theme or point were discussed and compiled for conciseness. As comments were accepted they are denoted in green as ones that will be included in the final Kantara comment package. As comments came up through discussion they were added to the list and noted as a Kantara comment for record keeping purposes.

There was a long discussion about the changes to Trusted Referees - whether requiring Trusted Referees was a good move. Maria argues it’s necessary for federal government though it’s understood the private sector uses these standards too. Eric and others argued it may not need to be mandated if there are solutions are out there that can meet the standards without trusted referees. Andrew inserted language into a new comment to sum up the discussion.

There was agreement among the group that it would be helpful if they used the term Supervisor opposed to operator and the variety of other terms used to watch over a proofing session.

A lengthy discussion around a risk model occurred. Eric asked to put a pin in it until next week and he will rework and revisit next week. Experian responded to the Note to Reviewers question: How might emerging methods such as fraud analytics and risk scoring be further researched, standardized, measured, and integrated into the guidance in the future? That explanation will help further explain the risk model. Responses to the Note to Reviewers can be found here.

Comments with ranges for line numbers were not sorted in order. That will be adjusted for next week where we will continue reviewing the comments. We have two review sessions left and need to complete IAL and hopefully spend some time reviewing the base volume comments. IAWG participants are encouraged to review the comments and mark any that they believe need to be addressed by the group prior to submitting on Kantara’s behalf. This is the only way to ensure nothing gets by since our time will not allow comment by comment reviews of everything.