DRAFT 2016-10-19 Meeting Notes
Date
2016-10-19
Attendees
- The list of attendees as extracted from the google doc here: https://tinyurl.com/h55ajhz
Andi Hindle | andrew at hindleconsulting.com |
Andrew Hughes | andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com |
Catherine Schulten | catherine.schulten at lifemedid.com |
Chris Adriaensen | chris.adriaensen at forgerock.com |
Colin Wallis | colin at kantarainitiative.org |
Dave Coxe | dcoxe at iddataweb.com |
David Treece | dtreece at costco.com |
Gustavo J Gallardo | ggallard at identicum.com |
Giles Watkin | giles at pridium.com |
Ian Glazer | iglazer at salesforce.com |
jim willeke | jim at willeke.com |
Kenneth Dagg | kendaggtbs at gmail.com |
Mehmet Yaliman | mehmetyaliman at gmail.com |
Naohiro Fujie | naohiro.fujie at eidentity.jp |
Paul Heaney | pheaney at proofid.co.uk |
Sarah Squire | sarah at engageidentity.com |
Scott Shorter | scott.shorter at kuma.pro |
Steve “Hutch” Hutchinson | sehutchinson at gmail.com |
Stuart Lincoln | stu at stulincoln.com |
Agenda
- Administrative Business
- ID Pro Timeline reminder
- Survey Results Overview
- Open Discussion of Survey Results
Discussion Items
- Administrative
- Note that once there is an elected secretary for the DG, we will stop recording the DG calls and rely on meeting notes
- Nominations period still open until 5pm Eastern today
- Timeline
- 18 weeks to go until RSA and goal of announcement
- Survey results review
- Ian gives a high level overview of the survey methodology
- Presented brief outline of Q1-4 and the essence of the response & pie chart breakdown
Discussion of survey results
- Question 2: Vision statement
- "Value" - many interpret this as only 'commercial' - perhaps use the term "utility" or similar instead.
- Need to test if 'utility' translates well into other languages
- "Digital" services - is it redundant? or should this be for all types of services?
- General comments - strike 'digital' from 'services' but leave "digital identities" alone
- "High Value" - might be self-limiting. Who decides the value level?
- Suggestion to use a different kind of metric "trusted identities" or "low-risk" identities - to allow for differentiation considerations
- Note that the value statement is about the 'future state of digital identity' - should be about the future association
- ACTION: Andrew Hughes to post a revised vision statement to the mailing list
- "Value" - many interpret this as only 'commercial' - perhaps use the term "utility" or similar instead.
- Question 3: Mission statement
- The statement is a better statement of 'organization' focus rather than 'industry' descriptive
- The statement is a reasonable encapsulation of the "why" of the organization
- Consider using "confidence" instead of "trust" to avoid a term that is hard to measure
- Relatively balanced opinion on the chat between "trust" and "confidence"
- "Confidence is typically associated with ID proofing while trust tends to aggregate several processes."
- "i suggest "trusted identity" should be a thing, confidence is a metric in how well the identity might be performing."
- "to me trust implies yes/no (100% or not) while confidence implies a level (possibly 95%)"
- "Now that I think about it, trust is usually used to refer to a relationship. Assurance, maybe?"
- "I think assurance is even more overloaded. Especially if you bring in the 'high-assurance' identity crowd.... which we will...."
- Relatively balanced opinion on the chat between "trust" and "confidence"
- "Digital Services" - maybe say "services enabled by digital identity"
- Or "delivery of services" not just "services"
- Or "services and products that are enabled by digital identity"
- Need to consider generation of 'identity information' as well
- Enumerated list issue again: this could cause a limitation and constraint on our scope
- We will need a living definition of "digital identity"
- "maybe we need a living definition of 'digital identity'; maybe this is an output from the group, and helps to educate both the profession and our adjacent/relying industries about what this is."
- We will need a living definition of "digital identity"
- Q: what's the audience for the Mission Statement? ourselves?
- The Mission should be of the Organization to ourselves as direct constituents - "I recognize myself in the statement - I'm one of those"
- Q: Are we deliberately leaning to "access management" vs IAM?
- A: No, and this is an issue with the enumerated list approach
- If we say that the Organization "defines" the Profession, does this mean that we prescribe it or should the org be reactive to what's already going on
- Q: "Do we assume that the Profession the same thing as the Organization?"
- Depends on who the audience is
- "Define" is problematic - because there will always be practitioners/professionals that are not part of the Organization
- Will probably have to refine this relative to future Certifications offered
- Suggested Mission for discussion on list: "To advance the practice and profession of digital identity to enhance the delivery of services and products enabled by identity"
- Question 2: Vision statement
Next meeting
Wednesday October 26, 2016 at 12:00 noon Eastern Daylight Time (UTC -4h)
*** NOTE: US Daylight Saving Time ENDS November 6 2016 - for other regions, the meeting time will appear to shift on your calendars - please make the adjustment as needed
Action Items
- Former user (Deleted) Start threads on the mail list for each Question
- All: look into how other professional associations define their mission and feed back into the list
- Former user (Deleted) Propose a reworked Vision statement that is for the Organization (not the industry) at a time horizon of ~7 years