[DG-NSTIC] Report as voted and accepted 2011-07-18

[Richard G. WILSHER @Zygma]

Please find attached the DG’s final response document, as finalised 2011-07-18.  Other than the removal of two names as requested by the individuals concerned, this document is as reviewed and edited at that meeting.  I attach as PDF simply to try to limit and re-formatting applied by different versions / installations of Word.

 

We expect to formally submit on Thursday, 21^st.

 

Thanks again for all your help.
R

Richard G. WILSHER
CEO, Zygma LLC
O:  +1 714 965 99 42
M: +1 714 797 99 42

www.Zygma.biz

 

[Salvatore D'Agostino]

Great job, nice document.

 

Sal

[Seccombe Adrian]

Certainly looks like a solid document with a number of key answers to the questions posed.

As I read through the document, a number of thoughts struck me... they can be encapsulated in the following questions.

Are we looking to create an Identity Governance Structure for Identity on the Internet out-with the Internet Governance Structures ?

As it is highly likely that the current Internet Identity related solutions will be a part of the Identity should we not be engaging, there is clearly a place

for our thinking as the IGF has apparently not focussed on the Identity challenge since it was set up by the UN in 2006.

Which leads me to the Global Questions, which felt like the Elephant in the room, that was very delicately referred to throughout the document.

This IS a global problem that will need a comprehensive Global Solution that will need to address a series of dangerous  (for the individuals concerned)

Privacy Minefields vis-a-vis less enlightened Governments or Agencies.

Personally, I do not want to be a part of an initiative that leads to the worlds worst ever Pogrom.

So determining the Global Questions and addressing them will be key...

Are we architecting the Kantara Initiative to operate in an environment that is NOT made up of benign governments?

The Jericho Forum Identity Principles were developed with these challenges well in mind. I am confident that Paul will have commended them to you.

Though I notice his affiliation to the Jericho Forum was not recorded, nor were the principles mentioned.

Perhaps these are topics for the next phase?

Adrian Seccombe

On 19 Jul 2011, at 06:41, Richard G. WILSHER @Zygma wrote:

<NSTIC Governance NOI - KI response V1.0.0bis.pdf>

[Joni Brennan]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks and some responses in line.

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Seccombe Adrian <Kan...@e-trust.org.uk> wrote:

Certainly looks like a solid document with a number of key answers to the questions posed.

As I read through the document, a number of thoughts struck me... they can be encapsulated in the following questions.

Are we looking to create an Identity Governance Structure for Identity on the Internet out-with the Internet Governance Structures ?

Please pardon my ignorance but I'm not sure I understand the question.  But I do think the answer is yes... the US Gov NSTIC seeks to form a governance body which would help steer the formation and development of mainly the US Identity Ecosystem but with an eye toward international constraints.  Kantara has stakeholders on both of those fronts and we see our organization a a KEY player voicing international concerns, comments and constraints as we have many highly active organizations and government agencies which are global and non-US in nature.
 

As it is highly likely that the current Internet Identity related solutions will be a part of the Identity should we not be engaging, there is clearly a place

for our thinking as the IGF has apparently not focussed on the Identity challenge since it was set up by the UN in 2006.

I would argue with you that we (Kantara) should be (and are) engaging and one of our primary foci is to keep the international constraints high on the agenda.  Our document stopped short of offering Kantara as a 'home' for the formation of the Steering Committee as (I believe it's fair to assert that) we felt such a position might endanger our multi-national neutrality. I see Kantara as a key voice for international concerns and as such should absolutely be part of the steering committee but not necessarily the 'home' for the development of a solely US strategy.  Others can feel free to argue me on this point but that's my understanding of the Kantara position.

Which leads me to the Global Questions, which felt like the Elephant in the room, that was very delicately referred to throughout the document.

You are perceptive! In our discussions, at one point, we went so far as to assert that the proposed Steering Committee should include representatives from US Gov along side of representatives from non-US govs.  We pulled back because we were not quite sure of the desire for a US based initiative to be perceived as steered by non-US gov agencies.  We felt the better approach at this juncture was a light touch in terms of our recommended guidance. 

This IS a global problem that will need a comprehensive Global Solution that will need to address a series of dangerous  (for the individuals concerned)

Privacy Minefields vis-a-vis less enlightened Governments or Agencies.

Personally, I do not want to be a part of an initiative that leads to the worlds worst ever Pogrom.

+1!! I am a firm believer that our Privacy WG should next move in to a Privacy Assessment profile of Article 29 which could be compared to US constraints to identify the gap between US and EU Privacy culture and regulation.  I see Kantara as the optimal place to provide that bridge with our international members, partners and SDO liaisons.

So determining the Global Questions and addressing them will be key...

Are we architecting the Kantara Initiative to operate in an environment that is NOT made up of benign governments?

We're architecting  Kantara as a bridge between governments, industries and communities of trust. 
 

The Jericho Forum Identity Principles were developed with these challenges well in mind. I am confident that Paul will have commended them to you.

Though I notice his affiliation to the Jericho Forum was not recorded, nor were the principles mentioned.

Likely because Paul signed up to input to the document as himself and not as Jericho Forum.  I would not characterize non-mention of the forum as an implicit hand wave at its existence. 

Perhaps these are topics for the next phase?

Yes these are topics for the next and current phase... and, as always, champions are sought to help drive that phase.  Note well that I'll also be seeing Jeremy Grant this week and talk with him typically on a monthly basis as we progress. 

I believe firmly that with / or with out NSTIC Kantara has a job to do in helping to raise up works of relevance and bridge them to other communities for mutual benefit for the development of a highly trusted internet.  In that frame, KI has a strong role for input and strong positioning both in and out of NSTIC context.  I welcome your further input and would be happy to talk to you further off list about how Kantara can benefit the UK communities and gov agencies and, just as if not more importantly, how Kantara can learn from the UK (and e-Trust) experience.  We have zero desire to work as a silo but rather as a bridge for trusted federation across contexts and at high value.

Thanks,
=Joni

Adrian Seccombe

On 19 Jul 2011, at 06:41, Richard G. WILSHER @Zygma wrote:

<NSTIC Governance NOI - KI response V1.0.0bis.pdf>

_______________________________________________
DG-NSTIC mailing list
DG-N...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-nstic