Re: [DG-AM] motion to close the DG

Call the question. --Keith ________ On Sep 25, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Salvatore D'Agostino wrote:

Heather,

I completely agree about not drifting. My understanding is that Joni had some specific ideas about next steps but that doesn't mean we can't end the DG.

So ....

Second.

-----Original Message----- From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Heather Flanagan Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:24 PM To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org Subject: [DG-AM] motion to close the DG

Hi all -

I haven't heard any direct feedback regarding the proposed working group charter, nor feedback on whether this discussion group is ready to close. I would rather we make an active decision to close or not, rather than just sort of drifting away, so I am making a formal motion to that we should set up an e-vote for the group to decide on whether or not to close the DG down.

Motion: The AMDG will move to an e-vote to conclude the Attribute Management Discussion group.

Do we have a second for this motion? Any discussion or disagreement?

Thanks! Heather

----- Original Message ----- From: "Heather Flanagan" To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:32:21 PM Subject: Notes from today's LC call re: the proposed Attribute Management WG

Hello all -

The LC met today and, among other things, discussed the proposed Attribute Management Work Group charter. Below are the notes from that discussion. To summarize: some further wordsmithing is desired and one person has stepped forward to help sponsor the charter through the process, though 3 sponsors, including 2 Members, are required for the formation of a new WG.

Proposed Charter - Attribute Management Work Group

The AMDG has published their report, had a number of next steps discussion, there is work to do beyond what would be in the scope of a DG, so it is likely time to form a WG Two paths identified: an ongoing landscape review; more active component around Framework Definition and Best Practice around an attribute broker model and the certification - not how to exchange or build trust, but how to verify attributes and what is appropriate for those exchanges; basically attributes as a component of compliance; so this group would be reaching out to a broad range of stakeholders to liaise with them (OASIS for the Trust Elevation, OIX for the Exchange, etc) One comment received: better positioned as a Creative Commons IPR policy not a PC and RAND IPR Discussion (ColinW) is this too non specific or should it tie more tightly with some of the other groups working in this space? email response back is that the positioning is right because it is not overlapping and is adjacent enough; note that the verbal explanation is more clear than what is written; there should be an allowance for word-smithing of the charter but otherwise supportive of this moving forward (will have his name on it as a proposer) Call for other proposers? none on this call (no discussion)

At this point, I think the DG group work is pretty much done and we should consider a vote to close the group. Other thoughts?

The proposed charter is available online: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/GAGgAw

-Heather _______________________________________________ DG-AM mailing list DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am _______________________________________________ DG-AM mailing list DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am