Hi, As I'm listening to this discussion, I see two layers: (1) Code of Conduct independent of the profession. Pretty much any profession would have something about (avoiding) discrimination in their Code of Conduct - and so should we. Adding a bit about bias would make sense if we are drafting a code of conduct for a new profession and want to go one step further. (2) I see as more interesting the part about the tools we built having influence on how (1) is handled in and with the systems we build. So besides a "standard boilerplate" line (1) in our code of conduct (which I fully support having), we might also add something along the lines that "through the work of our profession, we will not assist those practising discrimination - and will help on the path to remove bias from many areas where it's still present." Just my NZ$0.02. Cheers, Vlad On 9/12/16 06:19, Kaliya Identity Woman wrote:

Thanks for this.

There is also another aspect it isn't "just" about how we work do design our systems.

It isn't just about proactive discrimination.

How do we as people who are identity management professionals work to engage with our own bias'?

How do we learn about what our own unintentional behaviors that can be micro-aggressive without consious intention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

To be blunt How do we support women and people of color or LGBTQ individuals working in our industry to actually have their experiences within our community be positive and inclusive?

How do we educate our selves to be able to navigate the emerging gender non-binary identified peoples who will be working in the industry and for whom the systems we are designing need to work. If we are the "identity pros" in our comanies/networks we need to have some literacy and knowledge.

It may be worth putting a survey out to learn about people's experiences. I know that myself and other women in the industry have had bad experiences within our industry - we don't talk about it publically because there is no appropriate forum or place to do so.

I believe that every major industry has these problems and only once in a while to the very worst things come to light in the most extreme circumstances (Roger Ails).

It is hard to navigate all this and we are not really equipped culturally to address the small things that happen but I am being daring and actually naming that there are issues that I have experienced and I know other women have.

I've been following this excellent thread and have a few comments: First, thanks to Scott and Heather for such a solid effort on this. Second, I will note the trickiness with enumerated lists. As an organization that will have inclusion as its starting point, it isn't simple to include everything we want in lists. I highly recommend both for this effort as well as others throughout this planning process that we consider language to indicate that a list isn't meant to be definitive. I would recommend that we use language like "IDPro believes in principles such as X, Y, and Z" versus "IDPro believe in principles X, Y, and Z." Third, we need a more explicit "do no harm" statement in the code of ethics. Fourth, there's a meta-point in this thread that Giles/Andi need to take note of for the Services planning and that is IDPro should point to and (eventually) offer a variety of service such as diversity and anti-bias training along with other forms of professional training. To start we can point to resources and go from there. WISP, for example, organizes different kinds of training which members still have to pay for and I think we can replicate that model. Keep up the awesome conversations everyone! On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:07 AM, J. E. Bush wrote:

I have not been participating as much as i would like:

I agree with Kaliya that as professionals we have the obligation to the profession to ensure that our profession is active in creating a community of practice that welcomes and works with all. That includes awareness of how the majority culture treats as normal only a subset of the population, relegating other sets as different.

I agree with Vlad that we also have a special responsibility to ensure that our tools and techniques do not enforce existing bias and inequities. The ACM Communications had an article recently about how an attempt to build a system for an Indian state to make statements of land ownership more just actually ended up disempowering the very people the system was meant to empower. PrivacyCon had a number of presentations about how big data analytics is only as unbiased as the training set: it can easily make biased decisions using proxy factors.

I would encourage a statement that not only called out addressing bias in the community of practice but also a responsibility to examine bias in the tools we build, configure, and administrate.

Finally, the December issue of the Communications of the ACM has a report about that organization's re-vamping of the code of ethics. I haven't studied it yet, either, but it may be helpful to read as part of our effort. http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/12/210367-making-a- positive-impact/fulltext

Johnson, Jeffrey. “The Question of Information Justice.” Accessed December 9, 2016. http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/3/198869-the-question-of- information-justice/abstract.

“PrivacyCon.” Webcast presented at the PrivacyCon, CONSTITUTION CENTER, 400 7th St SW, Washington, DC 20024, January 14, 2016. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/privacycon.

Cheers, Judith Bush

Vladimir Mencl wrote:

Hi,

As I'm listening to this discussion, I see two layers:

(1) Code of Conduct independent of the profession. Pretty much any profession would have something about (avoiding) discrimination in their Code of Conduct - and so should we. Adding a bit about bias would make sense if we are drafting a code of conduct for a new profession and want to go one step further.

(2) I see as more interesting the part about the tools we built having influence on how (1) is handled in and with the systems we build.

So besides a "standard boilerplate" line (1) in our code of conduct (which I fully support having), we might also add something along the lines that "through the work of our profession, we will not assist those practising discrimination - and will help on the path to remove bias from many areas where it's still present."

Just my NZ$0.02.

Cheers, Vlad

On 9/12/16 06:19, Kaliya Identity Woman wrote:

Thanks for this.

There is also another aspect it isn't "just" about how we work do design our systems.

It isn't just about proactive discrimination.

How do we as people who are identity management professionals work to engage with our own bias'?

How do we learn about what our own unintentional behaviors that can be micro-aggressive without consious intention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

To be blunt How do we support women and people of color or LGBTQ individuals working in our industry to actually have their experiences within our community be positive and inclusive?

How do we educate our selves to be able to navigate the emerging gender non-binary identified peoples who will be working in the industry and for whom the systems we are designing need to work. If we are the "identity pros" in our comanies/networks we need to have some literacy and knowledge.

It may be worth putting a survey out to learn about people's experiences. I know that myself and other women in the industry have had bad experiences within our industry - we don't talk about it publically because there is no appropriate forum or place to do so.

I believe that every major industry has these problems and only once in a while to the very worst things come to light in the most extreme circumstances (Roger Ails).

It is hard to navigate all this and we are not really equipped culturally to address the small things that happen but I am being daring and actually naming that there are issues that I have experienced and I know other women have.

_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro

_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro

-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 @iglazer https://twitter.com/iglazer

I've been lurking for a bit and I too have not been participating as much as I would like. I'm aligning with Judith's comments below though.. My VERY quick take was to glance at another 'code' and then contrast it to what's being discussed here. Take a glance at the CISSP code of ethics: https://www.isc2.org/ethics/default.aspx And then contemplate what's being discussed here. It feels quite different and yet (to me) it's a lot of the same territory ‹ isn't it? If it's not, why not? What's unique to the identity professional space and would find it's way into a 'code' for identity Professionals? Vlad calls this out in his item (1). What's intriguing about the CISSP statement is the brevity of it. Thoughts? C ____________________________________________________________________________ _______________ Chris Phillips Technical Architect, Canadian Access Federation | CANARIE| chris.phillips@canarie.ca | W: 613.943.5370 |GPG: 0x0380811D LinkedIn: http://bit.ly/CPhillipsLinkedIn From: on behalf of "J. E. Bush" Date: Friday, December 9, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Vladimir Mencl Cc: "dg-idpro@kantarainitiative.org" Subject: Re: [DG-IDPro] Code of Conduct I have not been participating as much as i would like: I agree with Kaliya that as professionals we have the obligation to the profession to ensure that our profession is active in creating a community of practice that welcomes and works with all. That includes awareness of how the majority culture treats as normal only a subset of the population, relegating other sets as different. I agree with Vlad that we also have a special responsibility to ensure that our tools and techniques do not enforce existing bias and inequities. The ACM Communications had an article recently about how an attempt to build a system for an Indian state to make statements of land ownership more just actually ended up disempowering the very people the system was meant to empower. PrivacyCon had a number of presentations about how big data analytics is only as unbiased as the training set: it can easily make biased decisions using proxy factors. I would encourage a statement that not only called out addressing bias in the community of practice but also a responsibility to examine bias in the tools we build, configure, and administrate. Finally, the December issue of the Communications of the ACM has a report about that organization's re-vamping of the code of ethics. I haven't studied it yet, either, but it may be helpful to read as part of our effort. http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/12/210367-making-a-positive-impact/fullte xt Johnson, Jeffrey. ³The Question of Information Justice.² Accessed December 9, 2016. http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/3/198869-the-question-of-information-just ice/abstract. ³PrivacyCon.² Webcast presented at the PrivacyCon, CONSTITUTION CENTER, 400 7th St SW, Washington, DC 20024, January 14, 2016. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/privacycon. Cheers, Judith Bush Vladimir Mencl wrote:

Hi,

As I'm listening to this discussion, I see two layers:

(1) Code of Conduct independent of the profession. Pretty much any profession would have something about (avoiding) discrimination in their Code of Conduct - and so should we. Adding a bit about bias would make sense if we are drafting a code of conduct for a new profession and want to go one step further.

(2) I see as more interesting the part about the tools we built having influence on how (1) is handled in and with the systems we build.

So besides a "standard boilerplate" line (1) in our code of conduct (which I fully support having), we might also add something along the lines that "through the work of our profession, we will not assist those practising discrimination - and will help on the path to remove bias from many areas where it's still present."

Just my NZ$0.02.

Cheers, Vlad

On 9/12/16 06:19, Kaliya Identity Woman wrote:

...

Thanks for this.

There is also another aspect it isn't "just" about how we work do design our systems.

It isn't just about proactive discrimination.

How do we as people who are identity management professionals work to engage with our own bias'?

How do we learn about what our own unintentional behaviors that can be micro-aggressive without consious intention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

To be blunt How do we support women and people of color or LGBTQ individuals working in our industry to actually have their experiences within our community be positive and inclusive?

How do we educate our selves to be able to navigate the emerging gender non-binary identified peoples who will be working in the industry and for whom the systems we are designing need to work. If we are the "identity pros" in our comanies/networks we need to have some literacy and knowledge.

It may be worth putting a survey out to learn about people's experiences. I know that myself and other women in the industry have had bad experiences within our industry - we don't talk about it publically because there is no appropriate forum or place to do so.

I believe that every major industry has these problems and only once in a while to the very worst things come to light in the most extreme circumstances (Roger Ails).

It is hard to navigate all this and we are not really equipped culturally to address the small things that happen but I am being daring and actually naming that there are issues that I have experienced and I know other women have.

_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro