Ian,
In my opinion this looks good other than for one small point. That point is the use of "we" in the first sentence: "First and foremost, we, on behalf of the entire IDPro community, want to thank Kantara for its generosity and its willingness to believe in this effort."
I'm not clear who the "we" refers to. In my opinion it should not refer to the IDProSC as it's my understanding that this is a subcommittee of the Kantara Board that has been charged with acting as a "liaison" from the Board to IDPro. It could refer to the IDProDG as this is the group of participants that, through infrastructure provided by Kantara, has been defining IDPro. However, this group, in my opinion, does not represent the "entire IDPro community as membership in the DG was restricted to only those who signed the original pledge. I'd be happier if you would change the we to "the leadership of IDPro".
Part of my reason for bringing this up is that I, as a member of the SC, would not be comfortable signing this letter to the Kantara Board as I see it as a conflict of interest in representing both groups.
Thanks,
Ken
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:17 AM Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org> wrote:
Nearly there IMHO Ian..I think the SC needs to raise the IPR transfer issue in the Legal and Financial Separation section. While it is in the checklist, I think the Board will be asking themselves the question about why is IPR missing, when they read that section.I think the SC needs to add a final brief section 'Recommendation'.This should say, what exactly what the SC wants the Board to do.I think that Recommendation asks the Board to accept and approve the paper at its May 2017 Board meeting, and ask that they provide any comments to assist the SC in actioning the checklist.Now they may reject the paper, and provide substantial comments to underpin that rationale. It is unlikely, but the SC cannot discount it.Could you be available to present the paper at the Board meeting? It is 5pm ET Thursday 18th May.This paper needs to be confirmed by the SC in the next 24 hours or so, so it can be sent in the Board package at the end of the week.CheersColin_______________________________________________On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Sarah Squire <sarah@engageidentity.com> wrote:Looks good. Ship it!On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Ian Glazer <iglazer@salesforce.com> wrote:_______________________________________________All -Attached is my second pass at a Board response. I believe this is ready to send onwards.
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