On 16 Dec 2016, at 17:26, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com> wrote:My understanding has been that the future ID Pro organization would have some kind of relationship with Kantara Initiative Inc.And that the relationship would be discussed and agreed in advance of announcements or launches (as we are doing in this thread)And that over time, the relationship probably would change as required.The relationship might be of completely separate non-profit orgs; or separate orgs with services agreements; or separate orgs under an umbrella corp; or ID Pro as a "Program" of Kantara; or ???I don't think ID Pro should be or wants to be a standards body - but also I know that Kantara Initiative Inc. is not simply a standards body. At least half of Kantara exists to support communities of practice. It's one of the oddities of Kantara - it appears to be many different things, depending on what you happen to be working on or interested in.Fair comment… and Kantara continues to evolve (if 2016 tells us nothing else*, it tells us that ;^) ).I do think Kantara’s work on trust frameworks is something that can be generalised, so that we take what we have learned from the identity assurance programme, and apply it in other domains (attributes, professional competence, etc.).Also, I don't think ID Pro will end up being purely a membership org - especially once training and certification are put into the mix - certifications will possibly not have membership in ID Pro as a requirement (TBD of course). For example, ISACA certs do not require membership - they give newly-certified people a free 1 year trial membership in the hopes that they renew.It's a central question for any practitioner/professional association - is membership in the community the primary thing? or is it the ability to demonstrate competence? Because they kinda need to be supported by different types of internal structures & in my mind its the reason we are starting by building the 'network of ID Professionals' instead of focusing hard on certification.My instinct is that that is the right approach, because the strength of this community is that it is just that… folks many of whom know each other and feel common cause. I know that’s something that’s really hard to scale,which *may* be why orgs like IAPP and ISACA have such a pay-to-play business model… but my goal would be for Kantara to do all it can to make such scalability possible without having to resort to an unabashed pay-to-play model.Membership: I think that membership in ID Pro is distinct from Kantara membership. There might be incentives offered to be a member of both, but they would be separate memberships.+1 I don’t see any need to intertwine the two at the individual member level. It would only complicate things, and we’d end up (as IBM used to put it) “performing unnatural acts for funny-money”.andrew.______________________________Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP
Independent Consultant
In Turn Information Management Consultingo +1 650.209.7542
m +1 250.888.9474
1249 Palmer Road,
Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com
ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
Identity Management | IT Governance | Information SecurityOn Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Ian Glazer <iglazer@salesforce.com> wrote:Thanks for the update Colin.I think participation in the DG is no reflection of membership in a potential org. There is a huge difference between a standards body and a membership org and if the Kantara Board was expecting something else then the fault lies with us for not making this clearer.On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org> wrote:______________________________Greetings folksAs some of you on this list are aware, ID Pro was on the Board's agenda last evening. Virtual had prepared a slide deck with some metrics around recent participation, and I augmented that with a heads-up on the SC discussions on a March launch, with some implications on the parties about what that means. I commented that at the outset of this activity in Munich, the Kantara Board had anticipated a significantly enduring relationship and it is appropriate that we now debate what that looks like.There were two comments: one from a recent Board member seeking to understand the original rationale, and another comment observing that perhaps we had not been clear on the range of options to structure the Association, and in the absence of that, perhaps it had been assumed that a fully standalone org along the lines of the IAPP, ISC2 etc was the only option.We resolved to double down on our discussions in the SC before the next Board meeting January 19th, to try to reach a consensus on a proforma structure that underpins 'the launch' and an associated launch plan.Virtual is preparing some figures based on their extensive experience in the space to help folks better understand the costs of establishing non profit associations (as well as a sense of the actual direct costs of pre-formation since the announcement last May in Munich) so we may have a first look at those before we break for festivities.Till next week..CheersColin--_________________
IDProSC mailing list
IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
--
_______________________________________________
IDProSC mailing list
IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
_________________
IDProSC mailing list
IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
_______________________________________________
IDProSC mailing list
IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc