Just a quick response to Ken's..+1 to a peer review process, which we should factor in on the Governance project stream. It might be a sub-committee of the main Board...I was trying to unpack this 'internally conflicted' statement from you Ken..<<I also agree fully with others concerning the need for brevity and simplicity in stating the Code of Conduct. Those features, as evidenced by the longevity of the ACM code, lead to a lasting solution that stands the test of time>>...after which Scott posted the link to ACM.There's nothing brief about the ACM!4 main principle areas (sections) with 24 'imperatives' .. well written and worthy for sure... but brief they are not..:-).CheersColinOn Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Scott Shorter <scott.shorter@kuma.pro> wrote:Thanks Ken and Chris,
A couple of observations:
1.
For Chris and others without access to the wiki, if I’m not mistaken the Group Participation Agreement that got you onto this email list should also grant you rights to access
the IDPro space on the wiki. Let me know if I should share a draft of the CoC with the email list, but I’m trying to avoid having stale static copies of the draft on the list if we can collaborate on the wiki.2.
To Ken’s point, here’s the
ACM Code for reference.-
Scott
From:
<dg-idpro-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Ken Dagg <kendaggtbs@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 9:03 PM
To: Chris Phillips <Chris.Phillips@canarie.ca>, "dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org" <dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [DG-IDPro] Reminder: Kantara ID Pro Code of Conduct Meeting today 2pm ET
I, like many others, have been lurking on this conversation. I debated whether or not to say what follows and finally decided that I needed to express my opinion.
To set some context, I have always tried to live my life in a manner that treats all people, regardless of race, creed, colour, gender, ethnicity, etc, as equals with the right to express their opinion and have it heard. In addition I have
also tried to proactively expose bias and discrimination for what they are.
This being said, I have had concerns with the conversation in some of the email threads associated with the Code of Conduct. I strongly believe that the problems of non inclusion as evidenced by biased or discriminatory actions MUST not
be condoned by ID professionals either in their actions or in the solutions they develop. However, I do not believe that the ID profession can, or should, set the bar on basic human rights. Rather, I believe ID professionals should affirm their belief in basic
human rights.
To me, the email threads have seemed like participants wanted the Code of Conduct to have specifics to address challenges like these that, in my opinion, go beyond the specifics of a professional in the Identity Space. To that point, I
agree with Chris concerning focus or, as a corollary, not trying to solve all the world's issues in the Code of Conduct. I would suggest rather that, as part of implementing of the Code of Conduct, a peer review process needs to be established to deal with
violations. That is the mechanism, in my opinion, that should address unethical behaviours such as bias and discrimination. It is also important to establish oversight of this peer review process, and of those involved in conducting it, in order to ensure
that the process does not overlook, ignore, or even condone unethical behaviour.
I also agree fully with others concerning the need for brevity and simplicity in stating the Code of Conduct. Those features, as evidenced by the longevity of the ACM code, lead to a lasting solution that stands the test of time.
Ken
Normally I'm silent on saying I won't make the call but I'm the one that brought up the CISSP Code and won't be there and welcome dialogue on this in order for it to 'be considered'.
In a nutshell, my perception is there's a lot of 'be a good human being and be professional to each other' in the IDPro code and to me that's a given. (if it isn't, that's
a problem in a bigger context, not just in this one)
If that’s a given, what is *SPECIFIC* to an Identity expert that is distinguishing and something that people can rally around? Will we resonate
with people and hear them say 'Yeah, I support that' or 'Yeah, that's what I do around identity!' and 'I want to associate myself with this group because I subscribe to their approach/doctrine/techniques/mission/vision/values/goals/etc'.
To me things can distill down to focus. CISSP is a/has a broad surface of security and associated principles which can include identity and best practices
topics whereas an identity expert is that but as applied in the identity space with more focus on principles around identity and their application. An IDPro can be at least minimally a capable CISSP, but more specialized in the identity space.
I hope these thoughts make sense — let me know if I'm off the mark as I currently don't have access to the wiki
As always, thoughts welcome..
Chris.
From:
<dg-idpro-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Scott Shorter <scott.shorter@kuma.pro>
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 12:09 PM
To: Megan Cannon <megan@kantarainitiative.org>, "dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org" <dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [DG-IDPro] Reminder: Kantara ID Pro Code of Conduct Meeting today 2pm ET
Thank you Megan.
Agenda:
1.
Review the draft in light of the comments on the discussion list.
Questions raised on the list:
Will the organization be providing training on what it means to achieve the objectives in the code? (A: seems to be an emerging consensus towards yes)
Are there any responsibilities to maintain compliance metrics such as David C's experience with the Athena Swan award process? (A: haven't heard anyone
say yes to this)
Have we considered the
CISSP / ISC2 Code of Ethics? (A: at least one reviewer did look at that one yes)
Suggestions to the code of conduct from the list
Be more vague about the completeness of enumerated lists.
Be more explicit about "do no harm"
Q: What does harm mean?
Looking forward to the call!
-
Scott
From:
<dg-idpro-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Megan Cannon <megan@kantarainitiative.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:32 AM
To: "dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org" <dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: [DG-IDPro] Reminder: Kantara ID Pro Code of Conduct Meeting today 2pm ET
Please join us for today's Code of Conduct Meeting:
Code of Conduct
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
2:00pm to 3:00pm Eastern
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/493642077
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States +1 (312) 757-3129
Access Code: 493-642-077
More phone numbers
Australia +61 2 8355 1040
Austria +43 7 2088 0034
Belgium +32 (0) 28 93 7018
Canada +1 (647) 497-9391
Denmark +45 69 91 89 28
Finland +358 (0) 923 17 0568
France +33 (0) 170 950 594
Germany +49 (0) 692 5736 7211
Ireland +353 (0) 15 360 728
Italy +39 0 247 92 13 01
Netherlands +31 (0) 208 080 219
New Zealand +64 9 280 6302
Norway +47 75 80 32 07
Spain +34 955 32 0845
Sweden +46 (0) 853 527 836
Switzerland +41 (0) 435 0167 13
United Kingdom +44 (0) 330 221 0088
First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready
_______________________________________________
DG-IDPro mailing list
DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro--
Kenneth Dagg Independent Consultant Identification and Authentication 613-825-2091
kendaggtbs@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
DG-IDPro mailing list
DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro--