I am not a voting member so I won't cast a vote ;-) but -- I do think that something like this will need to be reinstantiated in the near future. Consider the case for a completely separate entity that verifies aspects of an individual's identity. It does not issue "credentials" (although it might as a separate activity) but follows procedures for verifying, updating, correcting, protecting, releasing only with consent of the Subject, etc. whatever attributes are considered by some community measure to be useful in some way for a set of relying parties. Grist for later. David On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Heather Flanagan wrote:
Hello Attribute Management Discussion Group members,
The AMDG is conducting an e-vote to close the Attribute Management Discussion Group, as the deliverables from our charter have been met. Please submit your vote of YES or NO to staff@kantarainitiative.org.
___ YES
___ NO (provide comment on rationale to assist please)
Please include in your SUBJECT line "AMDG closure." The voting will be open until 17:00 PT Tuesday, 02 October 2012.
If you have any questions on this process, please do not hesitate to contact staff (at) kantarainitiative (dot) org.
Heather Flanagan Secretary, AMDG _______________________________________________ DG-AM mailing list DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am