[WG-Consumer-Identity] Next Consumer Identity WG Meeting, May 25

[Bob Pinheiro]

Tuesday, May 25, 2010
9AM PDT / 10 AM MDT / 11 AM CDT / 12 Noon EDT / 5 PM UK / 1600 UTC
Skype: ++9900827044630912
US/Canada Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022 | Room Code: 4630912
UK  +44 (0) 8454018081


As a result of the discussion in the last two WG meetings, I've produced a final (I hope) Project Plan (v3), and I've also adjusted the modifications to the WG's Charter accordingly. 

The Project Plan (v3) is here:  http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/23035910/CIWG+Proposed+Project+Plan+v3.pdf

and the modifications to the WG's Charter is here: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/23035910/CIWG+Proposed+Charter+Modifications+May+2010.pdf

The agenda for this meeting will be to review this material, and schedule a vote on the Project Plan and the modifications to the WG's Charter.  

As I've discussed during the WG meetings, but will repeat here in the interests of full disclosure, I'm proposing to hire myself as Project Manager to oversee and complete this work, provided that funds can be secured.  For that reason, I'm recusing myself from voting on the acceptance of the Project Plan. 

Please try to attend this meeting, or email me with any questions you have. 

---------------------------
Bob Pinheiro
Chair, Consumer Identity WG
908-654-1939
consu...@bobpinheiro.com
www.bobpinheiro.com

[j stollman]

Bob,

Three comments on the project plan:  2 specific, 1  general.

First, on slide 3, I would suggest that sub-bullet 1 (on bullet 3) should read:

"service providers an economical and consumer-friendly method to know who they are dealing with ..."

I emphasize this because service providers are trying to balance security against both the cost of any solution and the potential for turning off customers if the process is cumbersome or intrusive.  That is why credit card issuers are currently accepting a certain level of losses rather than raising authentication requirements.

Second, I am concerned that the project plan doesn't identify potential sources of funding.  There seems to be an implicit assumption that once we approve the plan, funding will materialize.  But I think that obtaining funding for such a generic plan is likely to be as challenging as solving the problem.  Who would be targeted for funding?  Who would approach these targets?  What is the value proposition for them?  Would soliciting contributions require more manpower than doing the work?

Third, I view the project plan more as a charter than a project plan.  It seems to be awfully broad.  It tackles a difficult problem that others have been working on for some time without obvious success.  I am not sure what is unique about a CIWG-driven attempt to solve this problem versus the work of others that would provide a compelling value to a funding organization.  I fear that we could approve the plan as is and fritter away valuable energy trying to drum up funding without success.  I don't see the business proposition.  Perhaps we need to add a slide, "Why CIWG?  Why now?".

Jeff

_______________________________________________
WG-Consumer-Identity mailing list
WG-Consume...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-consumer-identity

--
Jeff Stollman
stoll...@gmail.com
1 202.683.8699

[Bob Pinheiro]

Jeff,

Thanks for your comments.  In general, I agree that this is a tough problem, and it can be questioned why CIWG should be addressing it.  On the other hand, why is any other organization somehow better qualified to address this?  If you look at the stated purpose of Kantara, this fits right in.  Perhaps the biggest challenge for CIWG right now is the sparsity of active participants willing to contribute their labor.

I don't think it's necessary for the Project Plan, at this time, to specify sources of funding.  The purpose of a Project Plan is to say what you plan to do, not necessarily how you plan to do it.  In fact, what the project winds up actually doing may itself be a function of who might be interested in participating further, and in making funding contributions.  So I think you should start with a big idea, and maybe scale it down depending on available resources to do the job, rather than starting out with a small idea.

By the way, I'd also point out that some of this funding might go towards some form of consumer research, or interactions with other research organizations that might have something to contribute.

I had always envisioned that it would be up to me, as Chair, to hit the pavement and try to solicit funding.  Whether I will be successful remains to be seen, and if you (or anyone on the list) have ideas for who might be potential funders, please let me know.  Of course I would welcome help (or actual $$) from other participant organizations interesting in contributing.  Whether this effort will be perceived to be of value to a funding organization is something I'll just have to find out.  But I don't think we just assume that there is no interest, and therefore throw up our hands and quit at this point.  We have to make some effort to discover how much interest there is,  and that involves "shopping around" this Project Pan to potentially interested parties.

I'll be away for the rest of today, but I can pick up this thread again tomorrow. 

Bob

[Antoine Mason]

add Cost Issues to "The Problem" :
High levels of authentication should be free to consumers.

[antoine mason]

add Cost Issues to "The Problem" :

high levels of authentication should be free to consumers.